¦ •

\w

QUESTIONS A

I

f

OF i
THE DAY -/
N

'•'/ give thefe Beote-.
\for, the faitndiiig of a College &tfisj£ofoxyi'.

$

^/usjJ7aJ

¦ft-.<-?i- > ,H,£lj?^fJ$).Q)s7

190.

o? o

QUESTIONS

OF THE DAY.

Rev. JOHN HALL, D.D., LL.D.,
PASTOR OF THE FIFTH AVENUE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, NEW YORK;
AUTHOR OF " GOD'S WORD THROUGH PREACHING,"
" THE CHRISTIAN HOME," ETC.

A. S. BARNES & COMPANY, Publishers,
NEW YORK.
1895.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873 by
DODD & MEAD,
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.

NEW PREFATORY NOTE.
URING all the years of my ministry
it has been my privilege to favor
Bible study among the women of the
Church. Many of them as mothers
have duties to their children ; many of them are
the useful teachers of the children of others, and
all of them are brought more or less into con
tact with various views regarding living ques
tions more or less significant and important. It
has been attempted to bring Scripture light on
topics which not now only, but in one form or
another have been discussed for generations and
will continue (such is human nature) to be dis
cussed. The matters that are concisely presented
in this volume came in this way under examina
tion, and with all the indications of continuous
interest on the part of the Ladies, and with many
happy evidences of spiritual advantage.
Former editions of the book having been ex
hausted, it is now given out without change of
matter and with the hope that it may be a help
to some to clear thought and intelligent convic
tion.

New York, March, 1895.

PREFATORY NOTE.

ERE this book of sufficient value to
warrant a dedication, it should be
offered to the Ladies' Bible Class of
the Church to which the writer minis
ters. During the five years, from 1867 to 1872,
the facts and doctrines of the Scripture had been
under examination, with all the indications of
well-sustained interest, and with many happy
evidences of spiritual advantage. During the
past winter it was sought to bring the principles
of the Holy Word to bear on some of the ques
tions which, in greater or less degree, occupy
attention at the present time ; though, as may
be seen by a glance at the contents, some of
them are, by their very nature, of permanent
and universal interest.
For these Bible Classes preparation has been
always made, not in the same way as for ser
mons, but usually with as much care. The
chapters of this volume consist for the most part

j v PREFA TOR Y NO TE.
of these preparations. The results not being
read to the class, but stated in a conversational
manner, no labor has been bestowed upon style,
and no effort has been made in the direction of
" curious felicity" of expression. Having regard
to the tastes and mental habits of those ad
dressed, the formal statement of arguments,
implying lines of reading on which ladies do not
usually enter, has been avoided, and the results
simply have been stated.
Not only from the experience of these meet
ings, but the author's general observation, he
has become convinced that many well-informed
persons, having some interest in such topics as
those here glanced at, have not time or oppor
tunity to give them lengthened study. As the
next best thing to their own investigation, they
will accept the result of another's honest efforts,
not as conclus ve to them, but as a contribution
towards the formation of their own definite con
victions. If the Scriptures be a perfect religious rule
for the race, we can hardly expect questions
of real significance to arise on which they will
not cast light. Many of the anomalous and
mischievous forms of quasi-religion, over which
some make merry and others are saddened,
never could have had any considerable following,
if the habit of intelligent deference to the Scrip-

PSEFA TOR Y NOTE. v
tures were general. It is hoped that nothing in
these pages is contrary to the Divine Word ,
that no violence is done to its principles ; and
that nothing is here urged of which the effect
would be to diminish reverence for the holy ora
cles. To the author it appears that nothing
so much conduces to the formation of just, can
did, and correct opinion, that nothing so effect
ually checks hasty, one-sided, and partial judg
ing, as reverent familiarity with divine truth.
The writer has sometimes indicated the more
elaborate works on the topics in hand, and of
which use has been made, but not always. He
has been much indebted, in ai least one chapter,
to the greatest work of its kind in these years,
Dr. Hodge's volumes on Theology, and gladly
makes his acknowledgment.
The living voice is often a better interpreter
of an idea than the printed page ; and what is
made clear by colloquial repetition in teaching
will sometimes remain obscure in the less diffuse
writing. So, no doubt, it will often appear in
these chapters ; but, conscious mainly of a de
sire for immediate usefulness, and without any
eye to literary repute, the author yields to the
judgment of others, and sends them forth in
quest of those for whom they are intended and
adapted, believing that whatever is worthless
will fall to the ground, and that what is accord-

vi PREFA TOR Y NO TE.
ing to Scripture will serve in some degree the
high object for which truth is published. To
which end the little book is commended to the
blessing of that Divine Spirit who guides the
disciples into all truth, who sanctifies through
the truth, and who leads to true service through
correct feeling founded on true thinking.
New York, May, 1873.

CONTENTS.

Is the Human Race One? II.
How far has Man fallen? III.

• • •

Should we Pray?

»9
3*

IV.

Is our Saviour a Creature? V.

43

Who can Forgive Sins ?

VI.
How can God be known? .
VII.
What is an Apostolic Church?

. . 55 70
. 8a

viii CONTENTS. VIII.
Is Christianity to be Modernized? . . 97
IX.
What is the Baptism of Fire? . . . 11 1
X.
How shall a Man be Just with God? . 122
XI.
Has Fear a place in Religion? . . .135
XII.
How shall a Man examine himself? . 14.8
XIII.
What is Disorderly Walking? . . . 159
XIV.
What Altar have we? . . . .170
XV.
What is the Value of "The Fathers?" . 178
XVI.
Is the Sabbath for us ? . . . . 192
XVII.
What is the Use of the Book of Reve
lation?  208

CONTENTS. ix
XVIII.
What shall the End be? . . . . 225
XIX.
"How can a Man be Born when he is
Old?"  239
XX.
What is the Use of the Sacraments ? . 254
XXI.
How much Ritual is there in the New
Testament?  271
XXII.
Why do not the Disciples Fast? . . 281
XXIII.
Is Spiritualism in the Bible? . . .292
XXIV.
May the Ministry be Demitted? . . 311
XXV.
What have the "Old Catholics" to do? .32a

IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE?

HY should we care? What is it to
us ? Here we are ; and we are to make
the best of it. How will it affect us
whether the Creator made one paren
tal pair of men as Adam and Eve, to be a com
mon fountain and stock of the race, or made
several pairs — or groups of pairs, red, white,
black, as He made, doubtless, the same kind
of trees in Europe as in America ?
This may appear plausible, but it is no more.
If there were several parental stocks, the often-
quoted " brotherhood of man" is something dif
ferent from what it is on the theory of a com
mon descent from Adam. The " fall " of man
must, if admitted, be explained in some new
way. The whole structure of a covenant falls
to the ground ; or some novel expedient must

8 IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE I
be found to explain how " in Adam all die."
Indeed, the Book of Genesis must be wholly
revised, not only in our reading of it, but in
its very substance, and not only that, but some
corresponding difficulties will start up in the
New Testament. How shall we understand
that God " made of one blood all men ? " And
how shall we comprehend the glorious antithesis
to a fallen first-Adam, in the perfect second-
Adam ? The very mention of these aspects of
the question is sufficient evidence of its interest
and importance.
By whom is the question discussed ? Scien
tific men, but by no means generally irreverent
men. Educated men who received and dis
cussed the inspired history of man's creation
could not avoid meeting obvious objections to
it, founded on diversity of color, speech, and
habits. They were inevitably led to examine
into the history of these divergences. And the
men of highest reputation in science, having
examined these facts, considered they had ade
quate solutions to the difficulties presented,
and held, notwithstanding the difficulties, to
the unity of the race, that is to the truth

IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE? 9
that all men come from one common stock,
such as the original pair. Blumenbach, who
anticipated Cuvier in making natural history
dependent on anatomy, whose researches and
conclusions commanded the respect of Europe,
and who died so lately as 1840, is of this
class. So is Baron Cuvier, who died in
1832, and who reached the highest scientific
position, not in one department only, but in
many. So is Dr. Prichard, who died in 1848,
after raising Ethnology to the rank of a science,
and who made the unity of the race one of his
favorite points. No book in the English tongue
has superseded the " Physical History of Man."
So are Lawrence and Bunsen among its defend
ers. Who are the scientific opponents of this
view ? Denying the immediate creative act of
God, and holding man to be a co-descendant
with other species of pre-existing forms, Dar
win is compelled to deny the unity of the
species. Indeed, according to his view, no spe
cies can be said to have unity, because none is
fixed. All are mutable, and, in course of time,
blending, and making, new combinations. He

IO IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE?
quotes as in sympathy with him (and we may
presume he gives us the strongest names he
knows)— Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt, Lub
bock, Biichner, Rolle, and Hackel. Judging of
those whom we do not know, such as Biichner,
by those whom we do, such as Lubbock, this
array does not terrify us. The Duke of Argyle,
Dr. Bachman of Charleston, and M. Flourens of
the Jardin des Plantes, Paris, may be weighed
against them.
There are two important matters to be con
sidered before we allow our minds to be seri
ously agitated as to there being more than one
human species.
i. There is no agreement among the oppo
nents of the received view as to what constitutes
species. Nor need the diversity surprise any one
who reflects upon the manner in which we come
to the idea of species. (See Whately's Logic,
on " species" as employed by naturalists.) For
our purposes it may be sufficient to settle in our
minds that the " species" dog, as distinguished
from the species of the cat, has many varieties,
or kinds, all originally one, but produced by
domestication ; so the species man has many

IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE? \\
varieties, or races, as the Caucasian, the negro,
all one originally, and produced by climate, food,
habits and mixed marriages.
2. Those who have questioned the unity of
the race have commonly fixed their attention
on the external features and appearances. The
size, color, hair, and aptitudes have been too ex
clusively studied by them. They have carried
their inquiries along one line only. They have
erred as a child might, who in a druggist's store
classified together all the drugs that were
white and soft ; and who would be told that the
real and inner nature of each was peculiar and
quite different from the nature of many similar
in appearance. This distinction will appear as we proceed
to glance at the facts which demonstrate the
oneness of the race.
The anatomists find human bodies the
same everywhere. Bone stands for bone, muscle
for muscle, nerve for nerve, tooth for tooth,
in the white man and the black. The sur
geon who learned his business in the dissecting-
room of Paris or Dublin, has no difficulty in find
ing the glands, valves, arteries, and tendons of

12 IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE?
his patients in Calcutta, or Canton. The blood
reaches the cheek of an Australian savage or a
Digger-Indian precisely as it does that of a Eu
ropean princess. Men who live by the sea are
not found web-footed ; nor are the dwellers
amid Northern snows found with a native coat
of fur or wool. We have many kinds or varieties
of the horse, artificially obtained, for drawing,
or swift running, the object sometimes being
to get great size, sometimes to reduce it to a
minimum ; but we find common characteristics
in all. None of them are obviously meant for
the water, or for flying, or for carnivorous diet.
Hence, all naturalists put them in one species.
On the same principle the anatomist who ex
amines the bodies of men must put them in the
same species.
The physiologist finds all men alike in his
department. The beating of the heart, the flow
of the blood, the action of the lungs, the diges
tion of food, the power of the nerves, and the
common features of life and death are the same
in all tribes and kindreds of men. If we found
men that were plainly intended to do without
air, or heat ; or men that subsisted on indiges-

IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE? n
tible substances, or that had no facilities for
swallowing water, we should place them in
another species. But never finding such, natu
ralists are as much bound as in the case of othes
beings to place all the individuals, red, white
and black, in the same species, as they are the
pigeons, the dogs, or the horses, which differ
immensely in color, form, size, and other super
ficial qualities.
The mental philosophers find all men alike.
The lions of Daniel's time were just the same
as of ours, with the same instincts and principle
of life ; and they are the same all over the
world. So the lions go together as a species.
So with all other creatures. So with man.
Memory, judgment, conscience, joy, sorrow,
hope, fear, love, and hate, have always been the
same, and are everywhere the same among men.
Education, example, and other local and tempo
rary circumstances may modify expression, but
the specific identity remains. Shylock reasons
rightly when he says, " I am a Jew : Hath not a
Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimen
sions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the
same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject

I4 IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE?
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and
summer as a Christian is ? If you prick us, do
we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not
laugh ? If you poison us, do we not die ? And
if you wrong us, shall we not revenge ? " This
is common sense in another connection : but the
argument as put by Shakespeare is precisely
the same, as far as it goes, as that urged with
such precision and conclusiveness by Dr. Hodge.
(Theology, vol. ii. part ii. ch. iv.)
The philologist, as far as he has the materials
for forming an opinion, is carried in the same
direction. Man was made to speak : he did not
strike out the invention from his own brain.
And there is enough of similarity in the nature
and principles of languages to indicate a com
mon root ; there is enough of diversity to require
some such violent splitting-up as the confusion
of tongues would explain. Max Miiller is by
no means an authority on matters affecting
revelation, but he may be heard with respect
on the history of languages. He considers lan
guage the only evidence worth noticing in
periods prior to history ; and we count it indis-

IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE? j.
putable in its proof that Hindoo, Greek, and
German have a common origin. So Bunsen
identifies in blood the ancient Egyptians and
the Aramaic tribes who speak the Semitic
tongues. So he argues for the Asiatic origin of
the North-American Indians ; and so he classes
the Germans, Greeks, Romans and Persians, as
of the family and original tongue of Japhet.
Equally strong is the testimony of Alexander
von Humboldt, who combined the opportunities
of travel enjoyed by Darwin and Agassiz with
an acuteness and a reasoning faculty far beyond
theirs. There is one other class of facts, of which
the evidence is as yet unshaken by the efforts
of the Darwin school. Take the tribes of men
that appear the most unlike, black and white ;
take the Asiatic and European races, which
some have tried to make out as distinct in
origin and species. They can intermarry, and
the offspring will perpetuate itself indefinitely.
But this is not the case, notoriously where dif
ferent species even nearly allied are brought
together. The resulting generation expires, and
leaves no successor of its kind. No such excep

t6 IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE?
tion to this rule has been proved as to put it
in serious doubt.
The religionist finds man the same every
where. The idea of wrong, of danger in the
future, of God, of accountability, is capable of
being evoked alike all over the world. The
story of the cross believed, produces the same
result ; and the hope of a heavenly life has the
same elevating influence. Without this belief,
men are found adopting substantially the same
shifts, descending by the same steps, steeped in
similar delusions, and betrayed into the same
crimes. The natural heart is everywhere the
same ; so is the renewed nature. The word of
God and the Spirit of God have the same adap
tation to every human spirit, as the light of the
sun to the human eye, or cold water to the
parched lips, or bread to the hungry and faint,
or sympathy to the sorrowful, all the world over.
Some of these lines of observation are not
traversed by mere zoologists : they are indepen
dent of each other. If the conclusion founded
on comparative philology should seem weak,
that does not affect the argument for compara
tive anatomy. They are all unneeded by the

IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE? l»
Christian to whom the word of life is the conclu
sion of the whole matter. But to objections
from the side of Science, it is well to know that
there is a scientific answer. The defender of
divine truth against pretentious assailants of the
inspired record is required to look into these
facts, and to deal with them as objections to
a truth that is proved by other evidence are
dealt with. For example, few persons now
doubt that the inoculation of the human system
with the vaccine matter mitigates the violence
of smallpox. This fact accepted among us
might be met — has been met — by a plausible
reasoning. We stand by the fact as proved, and
deal with the opponents as objectors ; and, on
appropriate evidence, we should continue to be
lieve the fact even though unable to reply satis
factorily to each objection. So men say, " How
could the diverse races have begun ? " We
reply that we have no historic materials on the
subject : we have undoubted facts of superficial
diversity and real unity: the differences you
see ; the deeper oneness we see, and so are pro
tected against the force of your objections in
our belief that by one man's disobedience many

r8 IS THE HUMAN RACE ONE t
were made sinners, because God made of one
blood all men that dwell on the face of the
earth, and entered into covenant with the head
for all mankind descended from him by ordinary
generation. On this subject, those who wish to read
further may consult Note in the Speaker's Com
mentary, vol. i., p. 43 ; Dr. Cabell's Unity of
Mankind; Article on Adam, in Brit. Encyclo
pedia; Keil and Delitzsch on the Penta
teuch, vol. i., p. 89 ; and, above all, for fulness
of statement, Dr. Hodge, as quoted above.
4

HOW FAR HAS MAN FALLEN?

HIS question might almost have as an
equivalent— How high was man at the
beginning ? He was not created a
child, in body or mind. The divine
word surely conveys to every reader the idea
that Adam in the garden was a man, that is, in
body and mind he had the maturity we find in
an adult. Nor was he placed in that condition
of barbarism or savagism out of which races of
men have now to be lifted by the aid of their fel
lows. Sir John Lubbock has indeed produced
an array of curious and exceptional items from
ethnological journals and travellers' note-books
in favor of this history of civilization, but he has
not shaken the general conviction. It is the ex.
ceptional character of his facts that secured
their being noticed and recorded, and they do

20 HO W FAR HAS MAN FALLEN?
not outweigh the mass of evidence on the other
side. The world-wide tradition of a " golden
age" that has passed away is in perfect harmony
with the Scripture record, which indeed explains
it, and of which it is the broken memory linger
ing among the race, like the dim recollections a
man might be supposed to have of a happy
home from which he was stolen in childhood.
From Europe, the Pacific Islands are now catch
ing the civilization which the European nations
had from Italy, and Italy from Greece, Greece
from Egypt, and Egypt from the remoter east,
the cradle of the race. Men's tongues testify
to the same fact. Their " speech bewrayeth"
them. It need excite no surprise, therefore, that
savages are falling still — obeying a law of moral
gravitation, to resist and overcome which some
external force must be brought to bear on them,
some impulse from without must be given to
start them on an upward career.
And what was man, as to God, when placed,
healthy, vigorous, intelligent and mature among
the comforts and fitting employments of the
garden ? The early fathers did not always study

HOW FAR HAS MAN FALLEN? 21
Hebrew, or they would hardly have founded,
on the language of Genesis, a distinction which
lasted for ages, that man had God's " image" in
his intellect, and His " likeness" in his feelings ;
or, as we should express it, his head bore the
divine image, and his heart the divine likeness.
But " likeness" and " image" are not two ideas,
or two kinds of resemblance, but one. Man was
an " image," or a copy, " like" God the divine
original. Wherein was the image like the original ? It
was very natural for those who deny any moral
fall to place the likeness wholly in the domin
ion over the creatures. Perhaps ordinary Chris
tians have lost sight of this dominion too much
while confining their attention to considerations
of innocence and holiness. It is certainly a note
worthy fact in human history, that the doing of
God's will, on a large scale, is attended by in
creased power to rule over and subdue the earth.
The Bible-reading people have the greatest
mastery of Nature, wring from her her secrets,
and compel her service in earth, and air, and sea.
Probably it is not in moral qualities only the
likeness lay. That they are included, Scripture

22 HO W FAR HAS MAN FALLEN?
puts beyond doubt. There is no ambiguity
about Col. 3 : IO — " And have put on (i. e. Chris
tians have) the new man, which is renewed in
knowledge after the image of him that created
him ;" nor about Eph. 4 : 24, to which Col. 3 : 10
is the key, and in both of which there is prob
ably allusion to Gen 1 : 27 — " And that ye put
on," says the apostle, " the new man. which after
God (after the likeness of God, ad exempluni
Dei,) is created in righteousness and true holi
ness." (See Ellicott on this passage.) The
Westminster divines, and the latest and most
scholarly of the commentators, are one on this
point. Man had knowledge, righteousness and
holiness — whatever these words were, as part
of " the image of God," by his creation ; he lost
them somehow : he regains them by being " re
newed," or '' created " again.
We may say, then, with the wisest and most
valued of writers and thinkers since the decay of
the scholastic theology, or, in other words, since
the Reformation, or, in yet other words, since the
revival of exact and careful study of Greek and
Hebrew, that man was like God in nature, being
spiritual, able to know right and wrong, free,

HOW FAR HAS MAN FALLEN?

23

and a moral agent ; like God in moral qualities,
righteous and holy ; and like him in relative posi
tion to the lower creatures, having dominion
over them. In his being, he was like God as the
rain-drop is like the water of the river; in his
character, he was like God as a true disciple is
like Christ ; in his position, he was like God as a
viceroy is like his king.
From the Scripture we must certainly gather
that in all these particulars the likeness was
not faint and remote, but very decided. " Right
eousness" and " holiness," when grouped to
gether, as in Eph. 4 : 24, include all good quali
ties. The dominion was more thorough and
complete probably than any mere human expe
rience since the fall would suggest. " In that
he put all things in subjection under his feet, he
left nothing that is not put under him" — (Heb.
2 : 8). There are hints — not obscure — that the
second Adam only realizes this power ; and who
can tell but the mastery over air, and fire, and
sea, and savage beasts, which appeared as mira
cles in the old Testament, and as "mighty
works" in the life of Christ, are feats that would
have been within the power of man had he re-

24 VOW FAR HAS MAN FALLEN?
tained the image of his Maker ? Who can tell
but they may be at once fragments recovered
from the wreck and specimens of the goodly res
toration ?
But whatever may be hoped or guessed on
this point, it is certain to us that man was a
free agent like God, with holy feelings, and the
lordship of the world. Angels who know God,
when they saw man, could recognise the resem
blance. They could call man a son of God.
Could they do so now? Could they have looked
on Jewish men as they entered the garden of
Gethsemane, as on Adam in the garden of Eden,
and said, " These are sons of God ? " Must we
not rather believe that they would say as Christ
did, in no anger or exaggeration, " Ye are of your
father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye
will do " ?— (John 8 : 44).
The difference, then, between what Adam
was in the Garden, and what man is now, is the
measure of man's fall. " But what specimen of
man now," it may be asked, " do you take ? — who
is the typical fallen man ? " Clearly we must
not take a Christian. He is in part renewed.
He is regaining by God's new-creating grace in

HOW FAR HAS MAN FALLEN? 25
Christ, some of what was lost. Nor can we
fairly take any of the men who are directly or
indirectly influenced more or less by the ren
ovating means God has given. Suppose we
wished a fair specimen of Chinese intelligence,
you must not take one who has lived a year in
San Francisco, or the son of a travelled ances
tor, from whom accounts have come down to
him, or the brother of a traveller to whom he
has told as much of his observation as he could
remember. All candid men would say, " Nay,
these men have been affected by a life outside
their own : give us a man whom none but Chi
nese influences have touched." So we must do
here. Not Christians, and not persons whom
all their life it has been sought to make Chris
tians, but the heathen, pure and simple, are the
specimen men for the purposes of our inquiry.
It would not follow from what we have
seen that all that made man an image of God
should be equally lost, or that all trace of like
ness should be destroyed. Break a mirror into
a hundred pieces ; it will no more give the re
flection it did, but each fragment will reflect
and show what its original nature was. There

26 HO W FAR HAS MAN FALLEN ?
is that in man's nature which he could only lose
by annihilation, such as a spiritual existence,
power to think and judge, and immortality.
But there is also that which by the very turning
against God he must lose, such as sympathy
with him, and delight in his will. This distinc
tion is not arbitrary, but rooted in the nature
of things. When a son casts off a father's au
thority, he retains his being, is still a man, with
feelings, needs, passions and powers as before.
But he has lost love for his father, pleasure in
his will, sympathy with him. He is the same
man, but oh how different ! the same son even,
but oh how alienated !
Now look at the average heathen. How is
it with his knowledge? This raises another
question — the nature of knowledge. To know a
horse, a triangle, a ship, is simply an act of the
understanding — the same act in a good man or
a bad. To know a good picture implies some
thing more than that — namely, taste in the
observer. To know what a creature owes to
the Creator implies more than both — namely,
the use of conscience. To know the Creator
implies the use of one's spiritual nature. Adam

HOW FAR HAS MAN FALLEN? 27
knew him, and Christians know him ; " and this
is life eternal that they might know thee, the
only true God" — (John 17: 3).
Does the average heathen know him ? His
unity? He has lords many. His spirituality?
He makes his god of wood or stone. His holi
ness? His god has exaggerated human pas
sions. His dignity ? His god is only a man
of gigantic and mysterious powers. His love,
and goodness ? He fears more than he loves,
and rather deprecates evil than expects good.
This general truth no man can deny. So far, man
has fallen. How is it as regards righteousness
and holiness ? Without drawing any fine distinc
tion between the two, but taking them as a
strong description of goodness of character, has
the average savage that goodness? To whom
is he good? Is he truthful? honest? pure?
Does he love his parents ? cleave to his wife ?
Does his conscience clearly discover between
right and wrong ? Is treacherous murder hate
ful to him ? It is of no use to tell us of love
of children, or tribe, or hunting-ground. The
wolf will defend her young, and the tiger resent
intrusion on his lair. Our question is not re

28 HO W FAR HA S MAN FALLEN?
garding man as a natural being — shall we say
as an animal with instincts of self-preservation ?
— but of man as a moral being, feeling once as
God does. The difference in this respect be
tween Adam in Eden and the true savage, is
the measure of man's fall.
Even as to the dominion over the creatures
the argument is the same, yet with a difference.
A man may undergo a greater moral change
than his position shows. A son may become
thoroughly estranged from his parents, and rad
ically bad, yet retain his manners, education,
and some respect from society which, while it is
let alone, does not concern itself much in do
mestic matters. But how much sway over the
creature has the true savage? On a huge flat-
topped boulder in the Yosemite Valley sat four
women — Digger Indians — each with a heavy
stone held in both hands, pounding acorns into
coarse meal for food. But even they had been
elevated from without. They wore cotton prints,
and had huts of sawed lumber hard by. Yet
were they coarse, animal-like, and, in the truest
sense, poor — used to oppression and hardship.
They rule over nature ! Rather, they gather

HOW FAR HAS MAN FALLEN? 2g
the crumbs that fall from her table. The differ
ence between them and Eve in innocence is in
this respect the measure of man's fall.
What shall we say then of man in this fallen
condition — destitute of knowledge and love of
God ? Shall we say that man having lost origi
nal righteousness, now simply comes into the
world without it, and becomes good or bad as
he uses his free will? That is to say, his state
is nothing one way or other, till his acts show
his character? No. High names, from Pelagius
down, may be quoted for this, but sound men
tal science teaches us that the kind of the act
is determined by the principle out of which it
springs. Our common sense shows us that there
are good dispositions and bad, where neither
have opportunity to act ; and our Bible tells us
that a tree can be good, or worthless in itself,
prior to its fruit, and so they lay down the prin
ciple " make the tree good, and his fruit good "
— (Matt. 12 : 33). The acorn does not make
the oak, but the oak the acorn. It may be it is
humiliating, but it is logical and true, that men
are flesh being born of the flesh ; that they are,
until renewed, children of wrath. We have to

30 HOW FAR HAS MAN FALLEN?
own it — must confess it before God — much as it
shocks Rationalists, that we are conceived in
sin. On this point, though not with equal con
sistency, Lutheran and Reformed, Protestant,
Catholic and Greek Church are one. David did
not calumniate his kind, when he wrote :
" God looked down from heaven upon the
children of men, to see if there were any that
did understand, that did seek God. Every one
of them is gone back ; they are altogether be
come filthy: there is none that doeth good, no
not one. ' — Psalm, 53 : 2, 3.

SHOULD WE PRAY?

OT on the theory of Pantheism. If the
universe be God, I cannot well say
" O Thou." I cannot well begin to
frame a petition to the " sum of things."
Besides, I am part of it, a small part indeed, but
still a part ; and it is useless to pray to myself.
A prayer from a pantheist, however worded, can
not be much more than a poetical address to the
outside world, like William Tell's " Ye crags and
peaks, I'm with you once again," which may re
lieve excited feeling, but is not supposed, or ex
pected, to influence the " crags and peaks."
Nor on the theory of atheism : No God-
no prayer. And the converse of this statement
might be generally maintained : No prayer — no
God. A man who has no sorrow for sin to ut
ter, no thankfulness for mercies to express, no

32 SHOULD WE PRAY?
communication to make to the Lord, is as truly
without a God as the Australian savages were
without gold, when it was lying around them
and underneath their feet, but they did not
know of it.
Not if God be simply law, or force, or the
sum of law and force. No human creature ever
prayed to a law or a force. No sane man ever
begged gravitation to let him down easily, or
implored force to help his brain through a hard
problem. Men feel as naturally that force and
law are impersonal, heartless, and immovable,
as they feel that their children are to be, loved,
or their own bodies preserved.
Men easily bewilder themselves by a phrase,
such as " the reign of law," as if Law were a sort
of supreme arbiter like the heathen " fate" which
controlled the gods no less than men, and which
all beings must obey, God, so called, being only
a steward or general manager of the universe
under this all-governing " law." True, our loose
talkers would hardly put their thought into
words like these ; but it is no thought, if it be
not just this. Take our own city. We have, I
presume, admirable laws. I know nothing

SHOULD WE PRA Y?

33

against them. Then why does not everything
go well ? why does not law take care of us ? why
did we live among so much turmoil all the last
autumn? Because, good as the laws were,
we were in sad need of persons to see them en
forced. The laws are so much writing — on so
much foolscap or parchment, lying in pigeon
holes and official books — of no account to us but
as jurymen, lawyers and judges execute them.
There is no law in the universe, but the mind of
a personal God. He has made arrangements,
and settled orders of things ; but He did not, like
the mythical Lycurgus of Sparta, quit the uni
verse that the laws might be eternal. He stays
with His world, is in it, fills it, and the Per
sonal God is our "judge, law-giver and king,
and will save us" — (Isaiah 33: 22). When our
friends overwhelm us with their high-sounding
talk about the "reign of law," it is usually
enough to ask — Is the Creator a subject?
" There is no such reign of law," says Hodge,
" as makes God a subject."
But if God be outside, and prior to, the world,
independent of it, controlling it all ; and if He be
good and gracious, then He can so order it that

34 Should we pray?
His thinking creatures can apply to Him, and He
can comply with their requests. He can so ar
range the world that it shall be a part of His
government of it that His people cry unto Him
and He hears them. The philosophers indeed
could not so arrange it, because they work in
an extremely limited sphere. But He works
through all time, and all the universe. Because
they could not do it, they conclude too hastily
that He cannot.
All this argument has to do with the Hearer
of prayer. In the Old Testament formal state
ment of the distinction of persons in the Godhead
had not been given, and accordingly Jehovah, God
as God, is addressed. In the New Testament,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are
unfolded to men as subsisting in the ever-blessed
Trinity, and are approached with prayer and
praise. To Christ on earth, and in heaven, such
prayers are found in the New Testament as only
God can answer The Christian Doxology is
the recognition, like the apostolic benediction
and the baptismal formula, of the Deity of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
We do not pray to any other for two reasons,

SHO ULD WE PRA Y? 35
the first of which is sufficient by itself. We have
no Scripture direction so to do ; and we have
abundant exhortation to the contrary. It would
be as easy to make the Bible teach the existence
of twelve or a hundred gods, as to make it teach
praying to angels or departed saints.
The second is that we have no evidence of
creatures' ability to hear, or to help. The mo
ment I say — " O angel of God, to whose holy
care I am committed," as in Roman Catholic
books of devotion,* I invest the angel with at
tributes which God declares His only. The
same applies to all supplication to departed
saints. The matter of prayer is in all the feelings of
a truly devout soul, believing God's word. Here
are His laws, broken by us. Let us tell Him our
regret and sorrow for breaking them. That is
the confession of sin. Here are His gifts en
joyed by us, and traceable to His goodness and
love. Let us tell Him. That is the thanks
giving of prayer. Here are our wants, God
can supply them. Let us ask Him, as He has
ordained asking as the way of receiving the sup-
* " The Path to Paradise," for example.

36 SHOULD WE PRAY?
ply. That is petition. Here are our brethren
of the Church, or the wider circle of our breth
ren of mankind, with wants and sins. Let us
speak to God for them. That is the interces
sion of prayer — a most important and dignified
part of it, in which we are like the Lord Jesus,
the great Intercessor.
Such exercises of soul imply belief or faith in
God ; no man would so speak to a nonentity.
And if we believe in such a God as the hearer
of prayer, we shall be lowly and humble and
reverent before Him. So if we accept His
view of ourselves and of Him, while praying,
as enjoined by Christ, with earnest importunity,
and continuously, we shall pray submissively : our
demand will not be imperative, as though we had
Him under authority and could say, "Do this,
and he doeth it," but submissive, as a good child
before a good father. We shall say, " Thy will
be done." This is the perfection of trust ; such
confidence in God is befitting in us, and greatly
honors Him.
It would not be an answer to the question
with which we set out to urge the use of this
precious means of grace in the closet, the family,

SHOULD WE PRA Y? 37
and in social worship, and to take no note of ob
jections, not yet alluded to, to the entire exer
cise. It is objected that it belittles God to suppose
He will attend to our small affairs. Well, He
surely knows what is becoming for Him to do.
To tell Him what is becoming, and what not, is
an insult. If He marks the sparrows, and the
ravens, and the young lions, and at the same
time the Pharaohs and Caesars, who am I that
I should find fault? But He says He does.
Were /to charge myself with feeding all the city
sparrows during a time of snow, it would take
all my time, and my presbytery or congregation
might remind me that I had the people to feed,
and I could not do both. But, suppose I were
so constituted that, without impairing my pas
toral usefulness, I could see that every sparrow
had his rations regularly, he would be a cavilling
fool who would pronounce it undignified. But
the infinite power of God attends to the greatest
things, and is equally free to attend to what
insolent and unwise men call the little. Their
great difficulty is indeed just here, that they
cannot think of God otherwise than as like them

3g SHOULD WE PRA Y?
selves, and they insist on judging Him by their
standard. But it is objected that all is fore-ordained,
and if I am to get good I shall get it, whether I
pray or not. This, if it prove anything, proves
too much. It would apply to working, watch
ing, sick-nursing, taking medicine, and, in things
spiritual, to believing. He ordains effects. They
speak as if that were all. But they are not
everything. Causes are included in "every
thing." He ordains working as the means of
eating. He ordains believing -as the means of
pardon and acceptance. He could have saved
us doubtless in other ways and without it, tak
ing us all to heaven, as we believe He takes the
infants, but there are adequate wise reasons for
making faith the means of salvation. And so
there are for making prayer the means of receiv
ing blessings from God.
It has been lately proposed to submit prayer
to a scientific test, by having one-half of the
patients in a hospital prayed for, and the other
not. This is the climax of folly, the very per
fection of the ridiculous. It implies the absolute
equality of all physical conditions among the two

SHOULD WE PRAY i 39
sets of patients. It implies the absolute suspen
sion of all prayer for the one set. Imagine a
caution posted round the world against inclu
ding in any petition or intercession the half of
the patients in the Scientific Hospital, in beds
numbered from one to one hundred ! For with
out this, the experiment is valueless.
It implies that science can test everything.
But it cannot, and does not. Imagine a scientific
experiment to try if a man's wife or daughter
loves him ! There are hundreds of points we
settle by quite other tests.
It implies an insult to all Christendom : " You
and your fathers say that you know of your own
knowledge that God hears prayer. Very sorry ;
but I do not believe you, and will not, till you
have satisfied my condition." That is its basis.
It implies an insult to God : " Thou sayest
thou hearest prayer, but I do not believe thee,
and will not, until thou hast proved it by this
thoroughly scientific test." That is its basis to
ward God.
It is an insult to the common sense of man
kind. I do not wonder at a newspaper — ard in
Boston too — describing it as paralleled by a

40 SHOULD WE PRAY?
Southern minister who was persuaded to invest
his savings in the half of a negro who rejoiced
in the name of Pompey ; and who used to pray
for himself, his household and his " half of Pom
pey." No minister, or man of any condition, was
so absurd as to pray thus : but if he did, his
is no more ridiculous than the proposal of Mr.
Tyndal's friend, and which Mr. Tyndal indorsed.
Finally, the proposal showed practical igno
rance of one essential element of prayer : belief
in God. It proposes to try if God is credible.
" Come down from the cross, and we will believe
thee" — (Matt. 27 : 42). No : for enough appro
priate evidence of Christ's credibility had been
given. The proposal was an insult and a mock
ery. And it is no less so to go to the Lord
with, " Restore this set of patients and we shall
oelieve thee." He is to be believed on other,
appropriate, and abundant evidence — (1 John
5: 14). To render easy the conception of divine
providence, as including prayer, and the divine
government being undisturbed thereby, a little
parable may be pardoned. Others than the
children for whom it was written may see the

SHOULD WE PRAY?

41

point of it : it is no fault of ours if the con
troversy have to many a generally childish as
pect. Suppose that, by lurking around one's house,
noting the times when the smell of cookery
is perceived, interviewing the butcher's boy,
and listening for the sound of the dinner-bell,
and then, comparing notes, a few persons be
come satisfied as to the meal-hours. They find
they have not varied ever since they instituted
their watch. They conclude there is a uniform
law for meals in the house.
As they wait around, a gentleman comes to
the street and inquires for the house. They
ask, Is he going there ? Has he dined ? No.
Then he had better go round the corner, and
get a lunch, for he will get no dinner. Dinner-
hour is past — they know the law of the house.
"Ah! it is my brother's house. He knows I
am coming, and the dinner will be delayed for
me." "No, it cannot be; we know the law."
" But any law on the subject was made by
my brother. He is head — not the cook, and he
has only to speak and it is done. His cook will
have directions for my case, and I shall get my

42

SHOULD WE PRAY?

dinner." " But don't you see the disorder into
which it will throw the house if you come to
day and get a change for your convenience ?
An uncle may come to-morrow, and a cousin
the day after, and an aunt the next day, and
the whole house go to confusion." " Oh ! never
fear," he says as he rings the door-bell ; " my
brother is a man of good common sense, and
knows how to manage his house."

IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE ?

UR question mainly contemplates His
nature. Was He human only, or divine
and human ? Or, varying the question
somewhat, was He a creature or not ?
For, plainly, many important statements of
Scripture must be modified by our reply. If
we allege Him to be divine, certain texts and
events that look in another direction must be
explained ; and the fact of His possessing two na
tures is a sufficient explanation. He hungered,
thirsted, wept, groaned, feared, because He was
partaker of our humanity — (Heb. 2 : 14). He
died, as a part of that plan to work out which
He took on Him the form of a servant, and of
which the effect is to " destroy Him that had the
power of death." There is not a difficult text
on the subject of our Lord's person, or experi-

44 IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE?
ence, or words, or works, that does not admit
of explanation on this principle — explanation at
least as obvious as we can give for many of the
mysteries of our own less complex being.
But if we assume that Christ is only a crea
ture, we have left to us a large portion of Scrip
ture that admits of no satisfactory explanation :
that is, no explanation consistent with the au
thority of Scripture. The consequence is that
a denial of Christ's Divinity is always followed at
no great distance by a denial of the equal au
thority of all revelation. The Bible becomes a
mixed composition, part a genuine inspiration of
God, part the sincere, earnest thought of men.
The Old Testament contains much that is re
mote, supernatural, and unlike present human
experiences ; and much of it is set down to the
devout religious sentiment that loves the legen
dary. The New Testament abounds in doctri
nal statements, and technical defences of doc
trine which are called Pauline, or Petrine, or
Johannean, and philosophically described as rep
resenting the particular human conception of
certain matters by these excellent men. In vain
you quote John or Peter, in affirmation of

IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE? 45
Christ's dignity and claims. The reply is suffi
ciently easy: "Yes, that is the individual
idea of Peter or John, and possibly of many
others at that time ; it does not follow it
should be mine." But, unfortunately, the facility
of reply is bought by the surrender of Revela
tion. Thus it has happened that Christ's divinity
of nature, and the divine origin and authority
of Scripture, stand or fall together. They who
degrade the Incarnate Word are compelled, in
part, by the exigencies of their position, and, in
part, by the habit of mind that rejects the
supernatural in one commanding department,
to reject it in another, and to lower the author
ity of the written word. So Socinianism and
Rationalism readily affiliate. When Jesus is
placed among human heroes, inspiration is
placed with genius, and Isaiah and Shakespeare,
John the Divine and John Milton, are set on
the same level.
The usual method o dealing with our ques
tion is to show the names, titles, attributes,
words and works that identify God, and then
to prove by the collation of passages that

46 IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREA 7 UKE?
the same names, titles, attributes, words and
works are ascribed to Jesus Christ. When the
Trinity is under review the argument is ex
tended to the Holy Ghost, and it is shown that
this method of description stops there, and is
never employed in reference to any other be
ing, however dignified or exalted. This is, in
substance, the method of Dwight, Hill, and
Hodge, as it is of Calvin, and the other earlier
theologians. It is complete and satisfactory.
It is impossible to believe that any divine per
son is described in Scripture if Jesus be not a
divine person. There is no proof of the di
vinity of the Father, if there be not proof of
the divinity of the Son of God. If a man
wants to have God and the Bible on the side
of a position he has adopted, he can make
many a plausible argument ; but if a man de
sires his position to be with God and the Bi
ble, it is difficult to see how he can resist this
evidence. This method should not be neglected by any
one who would give a careful study to the sub
ject, and in varying its statement in some de
gree, we neither ignore it nor undervalue it.

IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE?

47

We propose to look at the difficulties of any
theory that makes Christ a creature.
I. And, first, it is hard to think of Christ
as a great and effective teacher, if He be not
Divine. There are two requisites of a thorough
teacher : that he knows truth ; that he is suc
cessful in imparting it. We judge of him by
his pupils. If he has put them in possession of
exact knowledge, and made them know the
truth of things, we applaud him. If he has
failed to do thi<?, and sends forth his scholars
with ideas the very opposite of the truth, we
cannot rate him highly.
Now it is very clear that the disciples of
Christ in the end took up notions of Him that
are not consistent with His being a creature.
These notions they propagated, and, rightly or
wrongly, most Christians have accepted them,
and been willing to die for them. A teacher of
mathematics, most of whose pupils were radi
cally astray on elementary matters, would soon
cease to have pupils ; a teacher of morals, most
of whose disciples held and acted on principles
diametrically opposed to his, would soon be
suspected ; but the fact would be still more

48 IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE?
startling if in both cases it was claimed that the
identical lessons of the instructors were being
followed. Now, the opponents of our Lord's true
Deity, as a rule, insist strongly on His preemi
nent merit as a teacher. This is the staple of
what they have to say regarding Him; and
needing to say something, and rejecting the or
thodox position, they expatiate on this theme
with remarkable persistency. But does it not
occur to them that on their theory they require
to prove His excellence as a teacher. If fruits
be any test, what are we to think of a teacher
of divinity who, in point of fact, misleads men
— the men who come nearest him, and know him
the most — on a vital point ? God only is to be
worshipped, and they worship Christ. God only
hears prayer, and they pray to Christ. God only
is to be gloried in, and they glory in Christ. God
only is the life and light of Heaven, and Christ
becomes all that to them, so that to be present
with Him is perfect bliss, and to depart from
Him is unutterable woe.
Nor can they be excused on the ground
of exceptional stupidity, for the most intelli-

IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE?

49

gent of His hearers understood Him in the
same sense. They called Him a blasphemer,
and carried through a legal process against Him
on this ground, that He made Himself God —
(John 10 : 31-33) — "Then the Jews took up
stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered
them, ' Many good works have I shewed you
from my Father ; for which of those works
do ye stone me?' The Jews answered Him,
saying, ' For a good work we stone thee not ;
but for blasphemy ; and because that thou, be
ing a man, makest thyself God.' " Now how
easy it would have been to say : " You entirely
mistake me," and to set them right by a dis
claimer ! But no ; He defends the position
— -(John 10 : 34-38) — " Jesus answered them,
' Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods ? If he called them gods, unto whom the
word of God came, and the Scripture cannot
be broken ; say ye of him whom the Father
hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou
blasphemest ; because I said, I am the Son of
God ? If I do not the works of my Father, be
lieve me not. But if I do, though ye believe
not me, believe the works ; that ye may know,

JO IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE?
and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in
him.' " One of the first elements in teaching,
is lucidity. Here is a gross misunderstanding
of the teacher's language, according to the
Socinian theory. His attention is called to it
in a very impressive manner. He defends and
explains his ground. But so far is He from
correcting the misapprehension in His hearers'
minds that they sought again to take Him.
Surely, they who assert their Christian charactei
by harping on the one string of the Saviour's
worth as a teacher, while rejecting His divinity,
and denying His atonement, ought to lay out a
little strength in showing how such total, life
long failure to convey a true impression is com
patible with, unprecedented didactic excellence.
It is hard to comprehend the example set by
Christ on the theory that He is a creature. By
common consent humility is becoming in the
creature, and self-consciousness and egotism are
universally reprobated. Even Christ Himself
magnified these virtues, and claimed them for
Himself. But, on the other hand, He is con
stantly magnifying Himself, lifting up Himself.
Egotism is the frequent 'use of " I," ego. How

IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE? t\
constantly He employs it ! " Before Abraham
was, lam;" "I am the way, the truth and the
Ufa ; " "I am the good shepherd ; " "I will
draw all men unto me ; " "I am the resurrec
tion and the life ; " "I and my Father are one."
When a proud Premier said, " Ego et rex meus'"1
(" I and my king"), the egotism was so notice
able as to warrant a proverb. But the line that
lies between a great minister and the king he
serves is nothing to that chasm that must ever
yawn between Creator and creature. Yet this
Jesus ignores that chasm, and in His claims,
again and again asserted, " sits down at the
right hand of the throne." Is this an example
for creatures to imitate ? But the excellence of
His example is being continually enforced by
those who must say something about His sav
ing work and who deny atonement. Surely
they have something yet to do in reconciling all
this exaltation of self — a created self — in pres
ence of the Creator, and all this attempt to
draw men to Him with the modesty becom
ing a creature. Think of a creature saying,
" Come unto me, all ye that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest ! " But it

52 IS OUR SA VIO UR A CREA TURE ?
may be alleged, we misconceive the meaning of
those words, that He did not mean to convey
any such impression. Then we may go back
and demand the evidence of His peculiar ex
cellence as a teacher. But that He did mean all
this, appears to be proved by the effect. His
self-seeking is a success. His disciples follow
Him, love Him, lean on Him, believe Him,
worship Him, glory in Him. They preach
Him. They know nothing else save Him.
They go through the world, found a society
of which He is foundation, centre, crown, life,
power, and whose members sing hymns to
Christ as to a God.
It is no reply to say that he had a commis
sion to do this. Others had a commission as
teachers and examples, — such as Abraham, Mo
ses, David, Isaiah and the Baptist, — but they as
sume no such tone. But when Jesus comes to
speak of them, He makes them all defer to Him.
" Abraham saw my day, and was glad." " Moses
spake of me." David called Him Lord. Isaiah
saw His glory. The Baptist bare witness to
Him, and announced Him ; and, according to his
presentation of the commission under which he

75 OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE? 53
acted, he is something unlike them all. God
" gave his only begotten son," and when He
comes to define His position, it is thus: "As
thou, Father, art in me and I in thee;" "even
as we are one ; " " all mine are thine, and thine
are mine." And as to the final result of His com
mission, His view is, " Father, I will that where I
am, they may be also, that they may behold my
glory," and that glory is no new attainment,
it is " the glory which I had with thee before
the world was" — (See John xvii. throughout).
Surely when the value of the example of Jesus
to us men is enforced, there is some need for
the explanation of this flagrant departure from
the lowliness of mind becoming a creature. It
will be hard to maintain the claims of Jesus to
respect as a man, if we deny His dignity as God.
He is a creature say the Socinians ; some giv
ing Him one degree of dignity, some another.
Now, if being a creature, He had aimed at crea
ting the impression that He was much more, that
He was divine, could He have adopted a more
successful policy? Can any one suggest any
more effective method for a creature to win for
himself a place beside Jehovah than that which

54 IS OUR SAVIOUR A CREATURE?
Jesus adopted? He spoke with the authority
of God. He assumes a divine tone: "Verily,
verily, I say unto you." The people to whom
He addressed himself had a divine law, and or
dinances which they had indeed vitiated and
perverted. But it came to them from the thun
ders and lightnings of Sinai, and was proclaimed
with the voice, and written with the finger, of
God. He enforces its deeper meaning with " I
say unto you," and tells men that persons might
prophesy and cast out demons in His name (this
itself being a wonderful assumption of power),
but have it said to them, " Depart from me, I
never knew you, ye that work iniquity." From
all which we conclude that the authority of
Christ as a teacher, and the moral value of
His example, can only be consistently and con
tinuously maintained by holding that our Savi
our is the same in substance with the Father,
His equal in power and glory.

WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS?

OST Bible Christians would reply to
this question by another from Mark
2 : 7 — " Who can forgive sins but God
only ? " And this judgment of the
Jewish Church our Lord approves, and claims
that, as Son of Man, one with the Father, he has
power on earth to forgive sins — Mark 2 : io.
But this is not the answer given authorita
tively to multitudes of inquirers. The Church
of Rome says of the human priest " that, unlike
the authority given to the priests of the old law,
to declare the leper cleansed from his leprosy,
the power with which the priests of the new law
are invested is not simply to declare that sins
are forgiven, but as the ministers of God really to
absolve from sin" (Catechism of the Council of
Trent.) And that there may be no mistake re-

56 WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS?
garding it, it is further declared that " the priest
represents the character, and discharges the func
tions, of Jesus Christ." He does not " declare and
pronounce," which the English Church does, with
questionable wisdom ; but he absolves : and he
does not declare and pronounce on condition that
men are truly penitent and contrite ; but, accord
ing to the same authority, men must be uncer
tain whether they are truly contrite, and the
sacrament of penance was instituted in order to
calm this solicitude and to give " a well-founded
hope that our sins are forgiven by the absolu
tion of the priest." (Catechism of Council of
Trent, Professor Donovan's Translation, p. 256.)
This doctrine is inculcated upon the Roman
Catholics of the United States to the number,
as it is claimed, of six to eight millions ; and the
practices of the Confessional are being resumed,
it is alleged, in the Episcopal Church — one may
hope without sanction and in some surreptitious
way only — after a protest against them of three
hundred years.
To reach definite and scriptural ideas on this
question, it is necessary to look at sin itself.
What is sin?

WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS? 57
It is not an evil like pain, which may be acute
and terrible, but does not disturb the conscience.
Sin is felt in the conscience as an evil against
God. It is a breach of law — not like exposure
of one's self to cold or hunger, which violates the
laws of Nature ; nor like an act of rudeness which
violates the social law ; but a breach of the law
of God. The importance of the law relatively is
of no account. Any law of God has divine au
thority as its support, and any breach of it is a
revolt against divine authority : and the law of
God reflecting the nature and feelings of God,
any breach of it is a revolt against God himself.
No distinction, therefore, can be admitted
between venial and mortal sins. "The wages
of sin is death" — (Rom. 6 : 23). No sin is so
light as to be overlooked, because no mattei
what the form of it, the spirit of it is opposition
to God's law and nature. " Some sins in them
selves, and by reason of several aggravations, are
more heinous in the sight of God than others,"
but " every sin deserves God's wrath and curse. '
The moment we admit any such distinction, as
is made in the Church of Rome, all practical
morality is thrown into confusion. It is made,

58 WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS?
for example, a mortal sin to work at servile work
two hours and a half on a Sunday or a holiday,
but it is not sin for a music-master to teach all
day and be paid for it. (" What every Christian
must know and do? — A popular Roman Catholic
catechism.) Nor, if we have a true and scriptural idea of
sin, can we admit any works of supererogation.
Then existence is based on the assumption that
God's law is exhausted in a set of specific com
mands ; that, in addition to it, He has given pre
cepts with which the monk, the ascetic, com
plies, and so lays up a store of merit over and
above the demands of law, and which, like a
piece of property in the family, is for the good
of the whole. But to administer this stock of
over-obedience is the function of the Church; and
it is easy to see how arbitrary and irresponsible
she may become in dispensing a benefit so im
palpable, so entirely out of the reach of human
tests, and which, indeed, has no substance and
no reality but in the imaginations of ignorant or
interested men.
The Scripture doctrine of sin is in I John 3 :
4 — " Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth

WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS? eg
also the law ; for sin is the transgression of the
law." Only He who has framed the law there
fore can deal with the sin in the way of forgive
ness. The theory, however, set-up to meet this is in
the power of the keys, to judge of which it is
necessary to examine the passages on which this
claim is rested. They are three in number, and
are found in the Gospel of Matthew, at chapters
16: 19, and 18: 18, and in John 20: 23. We
shall take them in this order and in detail.
In Matt. 16 : 19, our Lord gives to Peter the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, assuring him
that what he " bound on earth should be bound
in heaven." Now what does the Saviour mean by His
"kingdom?" See, in reply, Luke 22: 28, 29 —
" Ye are they which have continued with me in
my temptations. And I appoint unto you a
kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto
me." Whatever that " kingdc m of heaven" is,
it is the same the Father has appointed him.
This is rendered obvious by Matt. 19 : 28 — " And
Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you,
That ye which have followed me, in the regener-

60 WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS?
ation when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribas of Israel." He had
just spoken of the kingdom of heaven and the
kingdom of God as of difficult access to a rich
man in verses 23, 24 preceding. In antithesis to
the rich man kept out of the kingdom by his
riches, they shall be in it and on thrones, the re
ward of being with Christ in his humiliation.
Now we cannot believe that Christ gives up
to Peter the kingdom given Him of the Father, or
surrenders to the apostle the authority He re
ceived. We cannot believe that He strips him
self of the power of opening the door of that
kingdom, and abdicates in Peter's favor. But
the passage must prove this, if it proves any
thing. But if reason would let us believe anything
so monstrous, Scripture itself forbids it. When
the foolish virgins knock at the door, He does
not send them to Peter, but says, " I know you
not." When He defines His own position in
Rev. 1 : 17, 18, it is thus — " Fear not, I am the
first and the last : I am he that liveth and was
dead ; and behold, I am alive for evermore,

WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS? 6l
Amen ; and have the keys of hell and of death."
So in Rev. 3 : 7 — " And to the angel of the
church in Philadelphia write: These things
saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that
hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no
man shutteth ; and shutteth, and no man open
eth." In the face of these passages it is impos
sible to doubt that our Lord admits to heaven,
or shuts out from it, in a sense untrue of any
apostle. The power of the keys must, therefore,
be something different from the Romish sense
of it. But the power of the keys is defined in part
in the passage itself, as binding and loosing, the
identical words employed to all the apostles ;
and this again is the same with the expressions
in John (20: 23) remitting and retaining. Now
the question is, In what sense did Christ em
ploy these words ?
It may be presumed that the apostles sooner
or later knew and used their powers. But they
never used any power such as these words are
supposed to convey of absolving sin, " discharg
ing the functions of Jesus Christ." Were they
remiss ? Had they the power to open the door

62 WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS?
into glory, and did they neglect to use it ? Did
they who, like Peter, Paul, and John, yearned
over perishing souls allow this tremendous power
to lie idle ? Impossible. But we never find
them employ it. We do find them night and
day with tears telling men the terms and condi
tions on which God receives and rejects, and
when men believed their testimony, receiving
them into the Christian Church. And we do
find them when a professor of Christ's religion
has proved himself only a professor, and acted
unworthily of a place in the Church or kingdom
of Jesus Christ, directing his removal with apos
tolic authority, i Cor. 5 : 4, 5—" In the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered
together, and my spirit, with the power of our
Lord Jesus Christ. To deliver such a one
unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
Jesus." That such actual results would be involved in
such a form of command as our Lord employed,
is shown by a corresponding use of language in
the Old Testament. Sending out the meek and
pensive Jeremiah to do prophetic work, the

WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS? 63
Lord said to him (1 : 10) — " See, I have this day
set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms,
to root out and to pull down, and to destroy,
and to throw down, to build and to plant."
Had any commission like this been given to
Peter, his so-called successor might have founded
on it any claim from the scrutiny of the Inqui
sition to the displacement of kings and the do
nation of empires. But no one understands that
any executive power was given to Jeremiah.
He was empowered to proclaim to men the con
ditions on which the Lord would control the
march of events, and shape the history of kings
and nations. He was not a king-maker, but a
preacher. So, in another connection, the chief
butler of Pharoah told his royal master of the
wisdom of the Hebrew lad in the prison. " He
interprets," says he, " our dreams. And it came
to pass, as he interpreted to us, so it was ; me
he restored unto mine office, and him he
hanged" — (Gen. 41 : 13). The logic and exe
gesis which make the apostles actually remit and
retain sins, would make Joseph the actual exe
cutioner of one, and restorer of the other court-
official, while he was still languishing in prison,

64 WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS?
But he made out in his interpretation that thii
would be the issue, and so in the pithy speech
of the chief butler it is said " me he restored to
mine office, and him he hanged."
We are confirmed in the conviction that it is
this power of announcing God's terms, and re
ceiving into His Church, that the Saviour con
ferred, by considering corresponding terms in
Scripture. For example, our Lord denounces
the scribes and Pharisees in Matt. 23: 13 —
" For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against
men." Had they also Peter's power of the keys ?
What did the Lord mean ? " Ye do all you can
to keep men from believing me, and receiving
life on God's terms." So He said to them in ex
planation, " Ye neither go in yourselves, neither
suffer ye them that are entering, to go in." The
opposite of what the scribes and Pharisees did,
is to be the power and privilege of the apostles.
They go in and do all they can to introduce
others to the kingdom of heaven. In the same
sense in which the scribes shut, they open. And
what is this kingdom ? In this same gospel — the
gospel for the Jewish people, and with Jewish
modes of expression — we are not left in doubt.

WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS? 65
In Matt. 3 : 2, the Baptist said, " Repent ye, for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand." In Matt. 4 :
17, our Lord repeated the very same words. He
could only mean his dispensation, or the Chris
tian Church. Heaven was not at hand in any
sense peculiar to that time. When the Lord
chose the twelve and sent them out to preach,
He said — Matt. 10 : 7 — " As ye go, preach, say
ing, the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
The power of the keys, therefore, we take,
with Bellarmine, to be identical with the power
of remitting and retaining, binding and loosing.
All the phrases are figurative, and all mean the
same thing. They do not relate to the future
state of the redeemed on earth, but to the Chris
tian dispensation which after the departure of
the Lord they introduced, and to the Church
which is founded on the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone. They
do not, therefore, imply any such power of ab
solving from sin as has been founded on them.
We hold with Irenaeus, that God only can for
give sins, and argue with him that, since Jesus
Christ forgives sins, He must be divine. We
should say as Basil said to a lady who came to

66 WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS?
him, " Hast thou heard, 0 woman, that none
can forgive sins but God alone ? "
It may not be amiss to show how modern
and how mischievous is the Romish theory on
this momentous subject. One does not need to
revert to Augustine's unanswerable question —
" To what purpose do I confess my sins to men
who cannot heal or wound ? Or that other —
" How shall they who know nothing of my heart,
but by my own confession, know whether I say
true or not ? Nor to the appeal of Gregory the
Great — " Thou who alone forgivest sins : for
who can forgive sins but God alone ? " Nor to
the argument of Cyril — " For indeed it belongeth
to the true God alone to be able to loose men
from their sins ; for who else can free the trans
gressor of the law from sin, but he who is the
Author of the law itself?" It will be more to
the point to quote the Archbishop of Paris in
1 164, Peter Lombard, who says — "In this so
great variety of opinions (on sacerdotal power),
surely this we may say and think, that God alone
doth forgive and retain sins, and yet hath given
power of binding or loosing to the Church ; but
ke bindeth and looseth one way, and the Church •

WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS? Qj
another." A favorite illustration was that em
ployed by Cardinal Hugo — " The priest cannot
bind or loose the sinner with or from the bond
of the fault, or the punishment due to it ; but
only declares men to be bound or loosed ; as
the Levitical priest did not make or cleanse the
leper, but only declared him to be infected or
clean." It was in later times, as the light went out
and the darkness deepened, that the priest arro
gated to himself the keys of the heaven above :
and when the Council of Trent met, and the ranks
had to be closed up against Protestantism, that a
logical, self-consistent, concatenated system was
completed, with the keys in the Pope's hand, and
his power transmitted to every connected priest,
thus established as master of the destinies of all
who owned his prerogatives.
No : not completed. To use any power like
this, nothing short of infallibility is needed.
What if men make mistakes, sending inside the
gates those whom the Lord receives not, or ex
cluding whom He has received? A conscien
tious priest must often have sore mental struggles,
and a fearful sense of crushing responsibility.

68 WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS?
To proclaim papal infallibility became a logical
necessity. If only men can be persuaded — if
only the popular imagination can be impressed
with the idea that no mistakes can possibly be
made, they will be mad if they break with a
power whose permit is invariably indorsed by
the Lord of the Heavenly world, and whose
anathema bars the gates of heaven against its
object. How this modern appliance has worked.
restless Roman Catholics have testified. The
distinction between attrition and contrition, the
latter being very rare and very hard to be sure
about, first bewilders, and then deadens, con
science. Why labor for what I cannot be sure
about, when the Church's sacraments remove all
uncertainty ? Why hold back from indulgence
when an hour's interview with the priest will set
me on my feet again ? And if there should be
difficulties in obtaining absolution, at least it is
not withheld on a deathbed. And if there be
pains after, there are provisions, and means will
go some length in procuring relief. So con
science is seared. The soul is subjugated to sin
in moments of temptation, to the clergy in mo-

WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS? 69
ments of alarm. The atonement of the Saviour
is put out of view. The aid of the Holy Ghost
is dispensed with. The law does not need to be
written on the heart. The kingdom of God is
no longer within. It is not God with whom we
have to do, but a man — a man clothed indeed
with mysterious and awful power, but still a man
— a man whom we join at cards, or a glass of
wine. The elevating contact with God in Christ
is lost to the soul, and it grovels among objects
little greater than itself. Prayer becomes part
of penance, and the cleansing efficacy of the
blood " is superseded by the clearing off of the
enjoined compensations. Under spiritual direc
tion the ultimate ambition of superficial human
nature is reached, and we become every man
his own Saviour." That many souls — not igno
ble — penetrate this hard and barren lava-crust
and reach the living water beneath it, God for
bid that we should doubt. But they drink not
by means of, but in spite of, the system which
has systematized atonement by the creature,
and, in putting a priest in the Confessional, seats
itself in the temple of God as if it were God.

HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN?

HIS question never gives much trouble
to ordinary, unsophisticated minds. It
has been, in late days, only among the
philosophers, and those of the tran
scendental school, that it has awakened inter
est and aroused controversy. Even a cursory
glance into the speculations of these men satis
fies one that much of the discussion is a war of
words. Hegel and Schelling and Cousin, while
not agreeing among themselves, and while in
one form or other identifying God with nature,
or with infinite or absolute reason, are refuted
by Sir William Hamilton ; and he, in turn, is
regarded by sound thinkers as taking a position
in refutation of the German transcendentalists,
and against Pantheism, which is not compatible
with the Christian religion. He did not mean it

HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN? 7 1
so. He thought his philosophy sound, and a
support to religion, while Dr. Hodge, for exam
ple, considers his philosophical views regard
ing God, and those of Dr. Mansel, who was
an excellent Protestant clergyman, inconsistent
with belief in a personal God. Herbert Spencer,
who claims to follow Sir W. Hamilton, is under
stood to deny the being of a personal God.
The consolatory reflection to us is, that we
can have all the solid comfort of Christian belief,
and all the safety of the children of God, with
out even hearing of these disputations. Like
the electric storms of which we know nothing,
until we see a notice of them in the newspapers
next day, these intellectual conflicts rage above
us without disturbing us in the pursuit of use
fulness and the path of Christian obedience. We
may comfort ourselves by the feeling that such
of these disputants as enjoy Christian peace and
hope, discard for the purposes of these graces
their philosophical investigations, and sit, as we
do, as little children at the feet of Jesus.
The point that is of some practical conse
quence to us, is the harmonizing of the language
which the Bible employs, and which we use,

72 HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN?
after it, as to God's nature, with certain other
language which it teaches us to adopt. For
example, we address God as incomprehensible.
There is foundation for it in Job, 37 : 5 — " Great
things doeth he which we cannot comprehend."
We describe Him as " unsearchable." The au
thority for this is in Job, 5 : 8, 9 — " I would seek
unto God, and unto God would I commit my
cause; which doeth great things and unsearch
able ; marvellous things without number." So
in Psalm 145 : 3 — " His greatness is unsearch
able." In Rom. 11: 33 — "His judgments are
unsearchable, and his ways past finding out."
We speak of Him as dwelling in inaccessible light.
The authority for the phrase is in 1. Tim. 6: 16
— " Dwelling in the light which no man can
approach unto," the allusion being apparently
to Ex. 33 : 20 — " Thou canst not see my face,
for there shall no man see me and live." Yet,
in seeming opposition to this, we are enjoined to
acquaint ourselves with God, and be at peace
with him (Job, 22: 21); the apostle John tells
us that " we know that we know him" (1 John,
2 : 3), and the Redeemer has taught us that
" this is life eternal, that they might know thee

HO W CAN GOD BE KNO WN? 73
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou
hast sent" — (John, 17: 3).
Hence, a caviller does not require any special
acuteness to say, " Look at the contradiction
that is here. Your God is unsearchable, inac
cessible, unknowable ; and yet it is essential to
life that you should know Him."
Now we can only make a definite reply to
such an objection by a clear use of language.
When we say of God, " Who can by searching
find out God? — who can find out the Almighty
unto perfection ? " we do not mean that nothing
can be known of Him. We mean He cannot
be perfectly known. He is too vast for perfect
comprehension. This is a distinction familiar
and inevitable to all life. We know the ocean,
can taste it, bathe in it, sail over it, without
knowing it to perfection. We can know space,
move in it, measure portions of it, without know
ing it to perfection. A child can know his
father, love and be loved, without knowing his
plans, his business, his intentions. I can know
a friend who is a painter, without comprehend
ing his art ; or a musician, while his powers are
incomprehensible to me. We can know math-

74 HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN?
ematics, but not necessarily all truth of the
mathematical kind. We can know God as Crea
tor, Father and God of salvation, without per
fectly and fully knowing Him.
Indeed, it would be a very wonderful thing
if men did perfectly know God the Creator, see
ing there is nothing of the creatures they know
perfectly. The race went on till comparatively
lately without knowing even the circulation of
its own blood. The oculist finds out new facts
regarding the eye, the aurist regarding the ear,
the optician regarding light, the zoologist re
garding the animals, the mineralogist regarding
the metals, the astronomer regarding the stars.
It would be an astounding thing if a creature
did not perfectly comprehend itself or any other
creature, but yet comprehended fully and per
fectly the Creator.
There is a class of passages in Scripture
that suggest the middle truth, by and in which
the apparent opposites are reconciled. Christ,
when known to men, so that they are reconciled
and saved by Him, promises in reward of loyal
obedience to manifest Himself unto them, i. e.,
show them more of Himself. They know some-

HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN? 75
thing ; they shall know more. Paul, who knew
Him, desires to know Him and the power of His
resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings
— (Phil. 3: 18). The Ephesians knew the Lord,
but Paul prays (Eph. 1: 17, 18, 19) for further
insight into His ways, particularly in redemption
and His relations to His people. Paul says he
knew as a child (1 Cor. 13 : 11) ; he saw through
a glass darkly (v. 12) ; he knew in part, but he
looks for unobstructed vision, and a more ex
tended knowledge.
In the light of passages like these, all look
of contradiction disappears ; we are seen to be
but learners, only partially informed ; and with a
Being to be constantly studied, without the pos
sibility of exhausting the subject and sinking in
to satiety. A listless child is sometimes directed
to a supposed good book, and more or less truly
replies, " Oh ! I know it all — it has nothing new
to interest me." But the children of God can
never — though they have eternity for the ef
fort — -fathom the depths of this Almighty and
Infinite Creator.
Our ignorance of Him, then, is not the ignor
ance of an idiot, whose mind is blank — absolutely

76 HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN?
destitute of ideas. It is more like the short
sightedness of defective eyes, or like color
blindness. We know what divine attributes are ;
that they exist ; and are exercised ; though not
always able to distinguish the operation of each,
or to follow them in their far-reaching effects.
A man stands by while a cannon is fired. He
cannot see the ball, nor follow its flight ; but he
sees the explosion, hears the sound, knows how
the explosion was produced, can explain it in
part, and estimate roughly the effect of the ball.
So in the ways of God. He has shown us
enough to satisfy us that He acts, and, in part,
how He acts, though it often enough happens that
the mode of His action eludes our observation.
and the influence of His proceedings is far be
yond our reach. Men saw how Jesus Christ was
betrayed, condemned, crucified ; but who saw
the moral bearings of the act, and the far-extend
ing results it produced? They could see that
Christ obeyed the Father, and that He who gave
Him up to death would glorify Himself thereby.
but who of them estimated the consequences ?
We do only in part, angels do only in part ; none,

NOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN? J J
save the Lord himself, comprehended the entire
movement. How, then, in point of fact, do we know God ?
(a) There is an innate knowledge of Him.
We are so made as to feel Him, as it were. It
is one of the intuitions or first truths of the mind.
This knowledge is necessary ; and it is universal,
as proved by history, observation and Scripture.
Conscience works in some way everywhere.
Men have everywhere a sense of dependence
on some higher Being, and of responsibility to
Him. Exceptional cases prove nothing against
this. Occasional idiocy does not disprove that
man is a reasonable being, nor occasional child-
murder that parental affection is natural. But
it is doubtful if the exceptional cases have been
proved, for alleged savages without an idea of
God are usually imperfectly understood ; and
men are apt to think even regarding themselves
that they had no God, when the ignorance is rel
ative, and they mean " no such God as I have
now." Observation may, and does, strengthen
this feeling of God's existence, and reflection
may deepen it. Tradition may give it shape

78 HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN?
and definiteness, but it is prior to reasoning
and learning ; wrought into our constitution, it
makes us capable of dealing with an unseen
world, just as by the intuitive belief in the evi
dence of our senses we are made to realize from
the beginning the existence of a visible and ma
terial world.
(b) God can be known from His works.
" Every effect must have a cause" is an intuitive
truth. The world is an effect, and must have
a cause, and a cause equal to the production of
the effect. This argument is known as the cos-
mological ; is dependent for its force on the just
ideas of causation ; was developed by Plato and
Aristotle ; attacked by Hume, and has been ad
equately defended by men equally scientific and
far more philosophical and devout.
Unless we hold the eternity of man, there
must have been a beginning for him. But his
tory shows a limit to man's existence. Even
" development " does not deny this. Granted, if
you will, that man has improved and grown out
of germ-cells, it is not held that they are " from
everlasting," or self-existent, or self-made. Call
them by any name you will, "protoplasm,"

HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN? jg
" cells," or what not, make them out to be as
many millions of years back as you will, while
a beginning is conceded, there is need for a
Creator, and it will have to be admitted that
the evidence of power, wisdom, and design is
overwhelming if we assume that cells or " pro
toplasm" have been formed in such a way as to
develope into what we call " Creation" in any
era, no matter how distant. This ought to be
remembered in favor of certain scientists who
are loosely described as atheists or materialists
on account of the scientific positions they have
assumed. They put back creation, but do not
deny it. They make its early stages quite dif
ferent from the accepted ideas of it, but they do
not by their theory ignore a Deity, and should
not have railing accusations brought against
them. (e) For moral and spiritual purposes God
can be known from His word, which is meant
to be a permanent, world-wide, infallible, and
intelligible revelation of Himself. This He em
ploys for the awakening of men's consciences
to the need of peace with Him. This He makes
the means of their reconciliation and birth into

80 HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN?
His family. This He employs for their sanctifi-
cation. Here, God is in Christ, reconciling men
to Himself. He who would so know Him as to
be attracted to Him, saved by His grace, assim
ilated to His nature, sanctified, is directed to
" the truth," and His word is truth.
And to the loving study of this word let us
turn our own, and, as far as we can, our neigh
bors', heads and hearts. Let us summon the old
from their cares and troubles to the holy calm
it breathes ; the busy and ambitious from their
struggles to the solid possessions it offers. Let
us arrest the dreamy speculator among his
guesses, and lead him to reverent obedience to
the holy oracles. Let us proclaim man's true
mental freedom to lie in submission to the
Father of lights. Let us — perhaps more than all
— exalt this word in the pulpits, and the schools
of the Christian churches. Let us make the
young conversant with it, not only as a book,
but as God's book. Let us flood the commu
nity with its light. It is the true purifier, and
we have had too many unhealthy exhalations.
It is the one effective, inoffensive check upon
those anomalous growths of human opinion,

HOW CAN GOD BE KNOWN?

81

the existence and extravagance of which are
made the reproach of private judgment, and
which are " religions" only in regard to the
topics they touch, and not at all in the spirit
they inspire, or the temper they exhibit.

WHAT IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
HE two things to which men commonly
look, in forming an estimate of a
church, are doctrine and discipline, or,
more properly, government. What does
she teach ? How does she manage her affairs ?
These two things are not equally important, but
they are both important. Food and clothing
are not equally important. Men can manage to
live with very little of the latter for long periods,
who would inevitably die if deprived of the for
mer. But to our well-being, food and " raiment
fit " are necessary. So, to a church's well-being,
doctrine and government are essential.
It is difficult to see how a church could
maintain a claim to be "apostolic," while fla
grantly contradicting apostolic doctrine. If
the apostles made out justification to be by faith

WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH? 83
alone, and the Church made it by something
else ; if they made Christ the only priest, and the
Church made many human priests ; if they put
the Scriptures in all men's hands, and the Church
only in those of the clergy ; if they sent men
for absolution to Christ, and the Church to the
priest ; if they made the new birth to be by the
word and spirit, and the Church ascribed it to
an ordinance ; if they directed men to the cross
for everything, and the Church calls them to
herself, it is hard to see wherein her claim to
apostolic doctrine lies. She diverges from it at
so many points, and these vital and practical, that
it seems to be of little moment how much other
theoretic truth she holds.
It is not a little remarkable that the Church
of Rome, in her popular presentation of herself,
does not usually put doctrine in the front — not
because of any sense of absolute weakness there,
probably, but from a sense of relative strength
on her side as a corporation. She points to
her infallible head in the chair of Peter, ruling
over so much of Christendom, for so long a time,
and with a sway so mighty and continuous. This
impresses the imagination : seems to furnish

84 WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
a strong presumption in favor of the organiza
tion that claims the keys and serves itself heir
to the promise of protection forever, against the
gates of hell.
Rather much has been made in modern
times of the distinction — itself not very sharp —
between "essentials and non-essentials." By
the " essentials" men mean that which a sinner
must ordinarily know in order to live, such as
the need of forgiveness and the new birth, the
work of Christ for us, and of the spirit within us.
But a single gospel, even a chapter like John iii.,
informs us on these points. We must take care
that we do not stigmatise much of the Bible as
useless and unnecessary, and rule that unimpor
tant, the very giving of which by the God of our
salvation implies its value and importance. A
chapter or a book in the Bible may not be essen
tial to salvation, but it is very certain it is essen
tial to some wise and good object. There are
certain organs of the body loosely called vital,
and essential to life, as distinguished from other
portions of it ; but we do not look lightly on
any injury to any member. And if we have a

WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH? 85
healthy religion, we shall probably feel simi
larly regarding the whole of revelation.
Assuming, then, that substantial agreement in
doctrine with the apostles is necessary to an apos
tolic church, and gladly recognising this agree
ment in the Protestant churches, a further inquiry
is proper as to the government of the Church.
On this subject it would be vain to expect in
structions as ample as we have regarding the
atonement ; for Scripture emphasizes truths ac
cording to their relative importance. It would
also be vain to expect the topic of government
to be treated in a specific and formal manner.
Morality is not so enjoined in Scripture. Great
principles are laid down, and the honoring or
dishonoring of them is exemplified throughout
the Bible. God thus requires diligence in search
ing, and candor in applying, on the part of a
true disciple.
It would also be idle to expect usages to be
formally explained to a community where they
were already accepted, or machinery to be de
scribed to those among whom it was actually at
work. We do not look for definitions on the
Sabbath law, or on public worship to churches

86 WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
that kept the Sabbath and regularly worshipped.
Yet, on all these and many similar themes, we
have hints, references, allusions, directions, by
which the majority of Bible Christians have
been conducted to conclusions on which they
rest confidently.
It is sometimes alleged that the Scripture is
silent regarding forms of government; and this
by those who are strenuous in upholding govern
ment. But it is difficult to see how, as the New
Testament is constructed, government in the
abstract could be enjoined, and absolute silence
be maintained, regarding the form. It will not
do to say that in things civil, government is
recognized, but the form left optional. The par
allel does not hold. The Bible has no respon
sibility touching civil government. But it has,
and it assumes it, touching spiritual. When
Paul exercised authority, he was prepared to
define its source, extent and character. When
he ordained elders, or directed them to be or
dained, he had and conveyed some definite idea
of what they were to be and to do. He never
gave any directions whatever regarding the elec
tion, inauguration, or functions of civil officers.

WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH? %y
But he does all this regarding ecclesiastical. It
is not true, in fact, that the New Testament
leaves the government of the Church exactly
as it leaves the government of the State.
No Christian man believes that a ruler in
the house of God holds his place on the
same precise ground as the mayor of the
city ; or, to bring the matter to a clear issue,
Paul did not mean, in saying " the powers that
be are ordained of God," that the Roman Em
peror and he himself acted under the same kind
of divine ordinance. We cannot, therefore, ad
mit that the New Testament is as indifferent to
modes of government in the Church as in the
State. The New Testament, carried into a com
munity without government, is silent as to their
duty in that respect ; but it has a message to a
Christian people without any government, and
in speaking of "elders," a " presbytery," "obe
dience to them that rule," in defining the char
acter and qualifications of "bishops and dea
cons," it does a great deal more than recom
mend government in the abstract, as ordained
of God. Let us now examine the general character-

88 WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
istics of the government of the apostolic Church.
How did it get its officers ? Our modern history
furnishes a parallel. When rebellion breaks out
in a province, special officers are necessary for
the purpose of subduing the insurgents, and the
general government commissions them. When
the work is done, their commission ends, and
the government of the province passes to other
hands for ordinary administration.
So when the world was to be subdued under
Christian truth, special officers, apostles and
prophets were commissioned for spiritual work,
and with special qualifications. They, like the
miraculous gifts with which they were endowed,
served a temporary purpose, and had no suc
cessors. The proof of that is, that nowhere in
the New Testament is there any suggestion of
the appointment of successors, as for a succes
sion of elders and deacons. To change the figure,
special officers and miraculous gifts were as the
wooden frame under the bridge till the arch is
completed and the mortar has set, when the sup
ports are withdrawn. When the Church became
a fact, an organization, holding fast and holding

WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH? 8q
?brth the truth, the temporary stays were taken
away. I. The permanent officers were chosen by
the Christian people. This right of choice is
not dogmatically or formally stated because it
was in use, and is illustrated in the choice, by the
whole body of the successor to Judas, and of the
seven administrators of the church's bounty —
(Acts 1 : 13-26 and 6:5,6). On this point I
refer with pleasure to Dr. Jacob's Ecclesiastical
Polity of the New Testament, in which this view
is ably maintained, and it is shown that (i) "in
the appointment and removal of the ministers
themselves; (ii) in the general edification and
discipline of the church ; and (iii) in questions
of doctrine and dogmatic teaching, the laity
had a voice and were able to make it heard," —
(p. 147).
2. There was no distinction of rank between
the Bishop and Presbyter in the Apostolic
Church. Phil. (1 : 1) mentions only bishops and
deacons. In so prosperous a church were there
no presbyters? James (5 : 14) directs the sick
to " send for the elders." Does he ignore
bishops ? No. he counts them the same as

90 WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
elders. Proof of this is found in Titus i : 5-7 —
" For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou
shouldst set in order the things that are wanting,
and ordain elders in every city, as I had ap
pointed thee. If any be blameless, the hus
band of one wife, having faithful children not
accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must
be blameless, as the steward of God ; not self-
willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no
striker, not given to filthy lucre."
If you read in a political work that the Pres
ident of the United States must have such and
snch " qualities, for the chief magistrate of the
nation has onerous duties," you would not
doubt that the President and the chief magis
trate were one and the same person. Peter (1
Peter 5 : i,)and John (2 John, 1) call themselves
elders ; they included the office of bisho , or
overseer, in that of the apostle. So General
Grant might write to the scattered officers of the
Army of the Potomac : " The officers who are
among you, I advise, who am also an officer."
So when Paul sent for the elders of Ephesus,
and gave his counsel to them, he said (Acts 20 :
28), " take heed unto yourselves and to all the

WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH? g\
flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers" (episkopous), bishops, as in Phil i : i.
So Gibbon (ch. 15 of the Decline and Fall)
says of " bishops and presbyters ; two appella
tions which, in their first origin, appear to have
distinguished the same office, and the same
order of persons. The name of presbyter was
expressive of their age, or rather of their gravity
and wisdom. The title of bishop denoted their
inspection over the faith and manners of the
Christians who were committed to their pastoral
care. So Dr. Jacobs thinks it supported by as
" strong historical evidence as such a subject can
well demand. 1. The only bishops mentioned
in the New Testament were simple presbyters ;
the same person being a 'bishop' — episkopos,
i.e, a superintendent or overseer, from his ' taking
an oversight,' of his congregation, as is dis
tinctly shown by Acts 20, and other passages ;
and a presbyter — presbuteros, or elder, from the
reverence due to age" — (p. 72, Ecc. Pol. of New
Testament). 3. The apostles provided for several elders
in each church. The proof of this is in Acts 14 :

92 WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
23, where we read that Paul and Barnabas made
a visit to the churches at Derbe, Lystra and
Iconium, " confirming," that is, strengthening,
the souls of the disciples ; " and when they had
ordained them elders in every church," not an
elder in each church, small as the societies
must have been. The Church of Ephesus had
its "elders" (Acts 20: 17). So had the Church
at Philippi — Phil 1 : 1, where they are called
"bishops." On this subject Dr. Jacobs says
" as in the case of the Jewish synagogues, so
in the earliest Christian churches, there was
usually, if not always, a body or 'college' of
presbyters at the head of each society;" and
after alluding to Jerusalem, Ephesus, and
Philippi in proof, he adds, " while on the other
hand, there is no recorded instance of a single
presbyter superintending any congregation."
It is creditable to Dr. Jacobs, as an Episcopalian,
that he accepts the statement that the Bishop's
diocese was the " parish ;" then called paroikia,
whence we have the word. Lord King (Inquiry
into the Constitution of the Primitive Church)
" held that the parish had but one church for

WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH? 93
three centuries. Mission or branch congrega
tions, however, grew up comparatively early."*
4 Ordination was the act of a body of
officers, not of one. The evidence of this is in
Acts 6 : 6 — " They laid their hands on them ;"
r3 : J> 3 — " and laid their hands on them ;" and 1
Tim 4 : 14 — " with the laying on of the hands of
the presbytery." If in any case the command
to ordain is given by an apostle to a single
individual, as in Titus 1 : 5, we are bound to sup
pose he would interpret the order in accordance
with common practice, and understand that he
was to see to it that elders be ordained. On this
subject Dr. Jacobs is clear and explicit. " But
when fresh ministers were ordained in an
already constituted Church, the presbyters
there present took part in an apostle's ordina
tion by laying their hands with him on those
who were ordained; a custom which was pre
served in the later church, and has been retained
even to the present day, in some slight respect,
in our own," i. e., the English Episcopal — (p. 1 1 1
* Sir Peter King, Lord Chancellor of England, brought to
his inquiry great learning and a clear judicial faculty, and his
work deserves more attention than it has received.

94 WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH t
Ecc. Pol. of the New Testament). There is no
case of ordination by an individual presbyter in
the Scriptures.*
5. The last principle embodied in the
apostolic church is the right to refer difficulties
to the assembled deputies of the churches. A
difference of opinion rose at Antioch, and crea
ted trouble. The resident presbyter did not

* On this subject I deem it due to Dr. Jacobs to quote his
deliberate estimate of his own and other churches, in the matter
of ordination : " The churches which, like our own, have re
tained the Episcopate and Episcopal ordination, may reasona
bly prefer this form of government ; and justly consider that it
is one of all but apostolic antiquity, and one which having been
found desirable, or even necessary, after the departure of the
apostles, — and having been well tried by long experience, —
should never lightly be given up. But, on the other hand, the
government and the ordinations of Presbyterian churches are
just as valid, scriptural and apostolic as our own : and when cir
cumstances made it necessary or expedient, it was quite lawful
for them to adopt this form of church polity, and , having found
it effective, to retain it." (Ecc. Pol. of the New Testament, p.
«5.) This is a singular statement in many respects. Dr. Jacobs
establishes every feature of the Presbyterian Church as apostolic,
in this book, and declares his own government to be " of all but
apostolic antiquity" The Presbyterian being of apostolic
antiquity, it might well be " lawful to adopt it ! " Nor is it
saying much to declare it as apostolical as that which is " of all
but apostolical antiquity." But if it is, as described, why re-
ordain a Presbyterian minister ?

WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH? 05
settle it ; but certain of the church went up to
Jerusalem and laid the matter before the apos
tles and elders. And there was deliberation
among them, and a decision reached and em
bodied in letters from the " apostles, elders
and brethren," and these were delivered to the
churches of the Gentiles in the various cities.
(See Acts 15, and 16: 4.) The dispute could
not be settled at Antioch : it was carried up to
an assembly of apostles and elders, debated,
decided on, published, and held to bind all the
parties concerned. An apostolic church will
have this check on local ambition, and guaran
tee for the freedom of the individual believer.*
One thing is evident throughout these ar
rangements, namely, the dependence of the
whole on Christ. He qualifies and sends the
apostles. Under the guidance of His spirit, they
give directions to the churches. Matters of lo
cal detail will be, it is presumed, settled accord-
* Readers who have opportunity to consult " Witherow's
Apostolic Church" will find these principles clearly put, and
their application to existing churches frankly and candidly made.
The book is specially adapted to Great Britain, but it is of in
terest and value anywhere. We cheerfully acknowledge oui
obligation to it.

96 WHA T IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
ing to circumstances, judged of by Christian
wisdom, but the main and leading principles of
government are seen in action, or set in motion,
and the chuich is made a free, self-governing
body, independent of any creature outside, and
dependent on Christ Jesus exalted, king and
head over all things to the church, "which is
his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in
all"— (Eph. 1: 23).

IS CHRISTIANITY TO BE MODERN
IZED?

E ought to be willing to credit science
with any corrections it has effected in
our conceptions, or representations of
religious, or supposed religious, truth.
Science is not the alien rival, but the child of re
ligion ; and she ought not to be " without natu
ral affection." Religion can afford to rejoice in
the real services of science, even while reproving
and regretting the wilfulness of her offspring.
All good men must wish the heart of the child
to be turned to the parent : for their permanent
alienation brings " a curse upon the earth."
With the most cordial desire to yield to sci
ence all the honor she has earned in this field,
we can only find one specific amendment in

98 IS CHRISTIANITY
religious thought,* and that in the field of as
tronomy, curiously enough, the oldest of the
sciences. No one is interested in denying that
the earth was long regarded by Christians as
the centre of the solar system : and that the
Bible was read and understood in harmony with
this view. Even Turretine labors to defend it
from the Scriptures, with arguments that are
now obsolete.
But so soon as the evidence of the Coperni-
can system was made clear, religion accepted it.
Men went to their Bibles, re-examined them ;
found that they had been reading them in the
light of a defective and mistaken science ; that
they were not obliged by anything in their Bi
bles so to read them ; that the Scripture fitted
the true theory, and gave new proof of its fitness
for all ages and lands. But is there any strong
presumption in favor of science as against relig
ion, in this circumstance? It does not so ap
pear to us. For the precise fact is — not that
from their very beginnings science stood clearly
on the truth, and religion in the error, but that
* Strictly speaking, not directly religious, not so much sacra,
as circa sacra

TO BE MODERNIZED? qq
they stood together in the error ; nay, more,
that religion was placed, and gratuitously placed,
in the wrong, by science, and only made the
correction less rapidly than science from its
being — most properly by its very nature — a
more conservative force than science.
We are not aware of any parallel to this in
the history of thought : it is the one, solitary
achievement in this line, and we submit that
more has been made of it than the facts warrant.
Galileo did not stand up as the representative
of Science versus Religion ; he was as much
against the science of his time as against its
religion. But when the times had come up to
him, and his victory was assured, science did
what has been all too often done in the world —
she applauded the winning side, and declared it
had always been her side.
The demands made on the strength of this
single feat we regard as excessive. We think,
moreover, that no considerable part of them is
yet substantiated. Let us run over the princi
pal of these requirements.
(i.) It is urged that the fixed, stable charac-

IOo IS CHRISTIANITY
ter of all physical laws precludes the very idea
of miracles; and Christians are informed that
they must abandon this element in their think
ing. But the claim has not been so established
in behalf of law, as to make it both rule and
executive, both modus operandi and operator.
The philosophers have bewildered themselves
by a phrase — " reign of law," as if Deity had
made the world, framed the laws, and then ab
dicated absolutely in their favor. When it is to
be settled whether or not He has done this, the
examination must run over more than the phys
ical field. We will not permit scientists to as
sume that nothing is known of God, but through
their investigations. We will not admit that
they have exhausted the evidence on this sub
ject : nor that they have made their positions
good on their own narrow field. That the Cre
ator should pass out of the condition of absolute
repose, and frame a world and laws, is as hard
to account for, on their principles, as that He
should modify His modes of operation. At
present, a certain class of scientists appears to
be unconsciously fulfilling prophecy, and taking
a place with the scoffers of Peter, who ques-

TO BE MODERNIZED? TO]
tion the possibility of the Lord's second com
ing, since "all things continue as they were
from the beginning of the creation " — (n. Pet.
3=4). (2.) Prophecy is simply a miracle of knowl
edge, and its abandonment is called for as an
essential of revelation. We are asked to place
the prophecies of Scripture among the happy
hits and ".guesses at truth," or to explain them
by clairvoyance. Good, devout, and intelligent
as was Chevalier Bunsen, he thought the proph
ecies might be accounted for by clairvoyance.
Joseph was a clear-sighted Hebrew boy, and a
good medium. This is a fair illustration of the
exaggerated estimate formed of new and un
tried sciences by their enthusiastic lovers. The
world has had time to test clairvoyance, and to
settle that for all practical purposes a sharp de
tective sees more beneath the surface than all
the Spiritualists of a continent. So far from
resiling from the prophecies — though Eichhorn
tries by destructive criticism to make out what
Porphyry long ago argued, a priori, with equal
success — we regard the volume of evidence fur-

102 *S CHRISTIANITY
nished by them as ever accumulating with the
lapse of time and the march of events.
(3.) Closely connected with prophecy is the
question of inspiration, concerning which we
are invited to reform our ideas. Inspiration of
some sort is not denied ; but it is made out to
be in kind the same to the bards of the Bible
and the bard of Avon, to Isaiah as to Homer.
This idea gained some show of Christian support
from those " mannikin traitors" to Christian
truth, the " Essayists and Reviewers," whose
volume agitated England some ten or twelve
years ago, and gave so much aid and comfort to
multitudes who never read it, and, reading,
could not have understood it, but who had a
general impression that seven or eight learned
English churchmen had gone bodily into the
ranks of infidelity. But no case has been
made out against the Catholic view of inspira
tion ; no proof has been given that it is identical
in kind with the genius of Dante or Burns ; and
it appears to us that, rightly considered, the
very progress of science is supplying argu
ments for supernatural inspiration. It ought

TO BE MODERNIZED ?

103

to strike thoughtful men as remarkable that
while the ancient standard works in philos
ophy, astronomy, chemistry, anatomy, medi
cine, geography, are all obsolete, and of interest
only as literary curiosities, the Pentateuch and
the prophets never had so many devout stu
dents as in this year 1873, and never had so
many corroborative evidences ; Moabite stones,
Palestine explorations, and Assyrian records
rising from the grave of ages to testify to the
inspired truth of Revelation.
(4.) The unity of the race is impugned, and
we are informed that the popular idea of ah
men descending from a single pair cannot stand
the examination of the ethnologists. Well,
Ethnology is a very juvenile science, and its
staunchest friends, like Sir John Lubbock, have
all the juvenile tendencies to swallow remark
able stories on slender evidence. We must say
that this form of scientific assault awakens in us
less respect than almost any other. Anatomy,
physiology, philology, psychology — all combine
in testifying that all men may be of one origin.
There is not a bone, an artery, a faculty, an apti-

io4

IS CHRISTIANITY

tude, a nerve, in the European that has not it's
counterpart all over the earth. Science says all
the races may be one ; theology says they are,
and receives and offers a history of their crea
tion, fall, and decay ; and the ethnologists, hav
ing found the specimens in various stages of de
cay, and been informed by wandering travellers
of odd and curious exceptions, deny the unity.
It would be almost as scientific to deny to the
mother of an Albino that he is her child, on the
ground that he is so unlike the handsome
brunettes, or the dark-skinned stripling, who also
call her mother. Till the evidence on this sub
ject assumes a different form, we shall hold by
the position of a most intelligent traveller of
old, that God " hath made of one blood all na
tions of men for to dwell on all the face of the
earth" — (Acts 17: 2').
(5.) Akin to this, is the antiquity of the race,
on which, also, we are counselled tc shift our
ground. Nowhere, it seems to me, within
one's own memory, has a science had so many
admonitions to be clothed with humility as in
this line of inquiry. Have we not gone over,

TO BE MODERNIZED? 105
and gone past, Sir Charles Lyell's uniformitarian
theory ? Have we not had flint arrow-heads in
profusion — without, however, any human re
mains beside them, or anything to identify man
with them ? But the patient men of science
are doing what they will not let us do — they
are confidently expecting that the man, or, at
least, something human, will " turn up." For it
is incredible that races should have lived, and
died, and spent all their time in chipping flints
into arrow-heads and knives, leaving so many of
them that you can get them in places by the
bushel, and not leaving one other relic of any
kind whatever ! The pre-adamite Mississippian
who left his bone, the os-innominatum, at
Natchez, and with whom, at least, one of his
bones, we are so familiar, was more considerate ;
but the fact that, instead of having lain a hun
dred thousand years at the foot of the cliff, his
bone probably fell from the top of it, destroyed
his value. But we cannot linger among the
delusions of science. Have we not been to the
red Indians at New Orleans ; to the bone-caves
of Aurignac ; to the lake-dwellings of Switzer
land ; to the mud of the Nile, and back to the

I06 IS CHRISTIANITY
shores of the Frith of Forth? and everywhere
there has been lacking some link to prove that
human beings were there for Lyell's 100,000
years, or Dr. Dowler's 50,000, or even Bunsen's
14,000, before Adam. One feels a kind of sym
pathy for the interesting men thus occupied.
Under the town of Leith they find some de
lightfully old human remains ; but they have
hardly settled their probable uses till a " canny
Scot " digs deeper, and brings up Roman pot
tery, for they are liable to all the tricks to
which travellers are proverbially exposed.
Speaking of the law of demand and supply in
the matter of relics, an intelligent writer says :
" The Arabs are notorious sinners in this re
spect ; and if you offered an adequate reward
for the skull of Sesostris, or for a wheel from
Pharaoh's chariot, they would pretend to find
the former in some mummy-pit, or to fish up
the latter from the Red Sea."
We make two observations in concluding
this part of the subject. The first is, that no
adequate evidence yet appears of races of men
before Adam ; and, secondly, if they were

TO BE MODERNIZED? 10y
proved, no more violent change would ensue in
religious thinking than from the adoption of
the Copernican astronomy. The Bible is for
the race of Adam, and had no more to do with
the supposed owners of ape-like crania, than
with the tastes and habits of the Plesiosaurus.
Finally, we are required to modify our views
of Geology. An error having been rectified in
the heavens above, our attention is now turned
to the earth beneath. That geologists' sober
declarations can be held consistently with un
wavering faith in the Bible is proved by the
case of Kurtz and Hugh Miller in Europe, and
Professors Guyot and Dana on this Continent,
who accept one theory; and the case of Buck-
land, Whewell and Chalmers, who accepted an
other. The Bible is to geology as it was to as
tronomy. That some modification of our read
ing of the six days' work should follow, however,
we are not prepared to deny. And this leads
to the notice of an article in the Contemporary
Review for December, 1872, on the Westminster
Confession of Faith, in which a revision is urged
in the interests of broader thinking. Little is

IOS IS CHRISTIANITY
added by the writer to our stock of knowledge
as to the controversial temper of the times ; we
always knew that there were several excellent
men in England who were not in the Assem
bly ; but it is a surprise to be told that the doc
trines of the Confession, as preached by Twisse
or Rutherford, would now be listened to with
execration in England or Scotland. The fact is,
that the most effective and appreciated preach
ers, as Spurgeon in London, Candlish in Edin
burgh, with a large list of less distinguished
men throughout Great Britain, are distinctively
the exponents of the Westminster Theology.
In searching for the specific points on which
this writer rests his opinion, we can find abso
lutely nothing except the doctrine of " reproba
tion," a term never once used in the Confession,
or Catechisms, and the belief — not in the Con
fession, he admits, but in its framers' minds —
regarding the "span-long" infants. How well
the writer is fitted, by nice theological discrim
ination, to direct on the subject of "the de
crees," appears from the fact that he either does
not know, or does not notice, the distinction
made by the Westminster divines between pre

TO BE MODERNIZED? iQg
destination as a positive decree conferring ever
lasting life, and forming the basis of salvation
by grace, and fore ordination, a decree of arrange
ment condemning the guilty to death, and form
ing a basis for judicial procedure founded on
man's character.* He is aware, however, that
Sir William Hamilton and Principal Cunning
ham held that both Calvin and the Westminster
divines considered the human will free in the
philosophic sense ; but on his own authority, and
without assigning reasons, he modestly contra
dicts them both. And, curiously enough, he
entirely omits the point where the confession
of faith is vulnerable to the geologist, namely, in
the statement (which explains words from the
Fourth Commandment) to the effect that God
made all things, out of nothing, in six days.
Now what should be done with this statement ?
In Genesis I : I, the Hebrew uses the word bara,
but for other and subsequent Divine acts it has
other words, till it comes to the making of the
sea-monsters, and of the man. The other words
are " made," pr " formed," or " builded," out of
* See Introductory Essay to " Shaw's Exposition of the Con
fession of Faith," by the late Dr. Hetherington.

HO IS CHRISTIANITY, ETC.
already existing material. Man is created as to
being, formed as to his body, made as to body
and soul in one person, as in Isaiah 43 : 7 — " I
have created him for my glory, I have formed
him, yea, I have made him." Now in the Fourth
Commandment — " for in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth " — it is hasah that is used, not
bara ; so the Scriptures are consistent with them
selves, and not contradicted by Geology. But
this nice accuracy of Scripture, men had no oc
casion to prove two centuries ago. Neither
Science nor Religion had called attention to it ;
and the Westminster divines took the current
language of the times on the point. Whether
to correct it would be an adequate reason for a
Pan-Presbyterian Council, or whether an ex
planatory note like that which some of the
Churches have as to the. civil magistrate, would
suffice, is a fair subject for inquiry, and its set
tlement either way will not materially affect
Christendom ; but this is the only point, so far
as we see, on which a claim is sustained foi
the readjustment, as it has been pretentiously
called, of Christianity.

WHAT IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE?

HE Bible is not only consistent with
itself throughout, but there is a sur
prising continuity of representation in
its successive portions. Divine things
could only be revealed to man in ways that God
prepared and made intelligible to man, and
having once given a symbol, the inspiring spirit
uses it consistently from beginning to end.
There is obvious reason for this in the nature
of things. If Euclid employed the word " tri
angle" to mean one thing in his first book, and
quite another in his third, confusion would be
the result. It could only bewilder the reader of
a book on mental philosophy to have " sensa
tion" or " perception" used in one sense in one
part, and another elsewhere. On the same prin
ciple of utility and adaptation to man's wants

U2 WHAT IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE?
we shall find that the idea of a sign having once
been given, . the sign has a uniform meaning
throughout the word, modified indeed, possibly
by explanatory phrases, precisely as we speak of
an isosceles, or an equilateral triangle. This fea
ture of the Divine word suggests the need of
search and study in the Scriptures. It is not to
him who gives desultory attention to detached
fragments, but to him who patiently compares
part with part, and comprehends it as a whole,
that the Bible yields up its treasures.
In Gen. 15 : 17, the Lord appears to Abraham
and enters into covenant with him. The offer
ings are diviled ; the patriarch watches, and
waits till a deep sleep falls on him, awaking out
of which in " an horror of great darkness," he
sees pass between the sundered portions " a
smoking furnace and a burning lamp." The God
of Abraham reveals himself in fire.
When the men to whom the promises of the
covenant were given have passed away, and the
time of fulfilment approaches, another interview
with the Lord is granted. Now it is at the back
side of the desert, and to Moses. " The angel
of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire,

WHA T IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE ? 113
out of the midst of a bush ; and he looked, and
behold the bush burned with fire, and the bush
was not consumed" — (Exod. 3 : 2). The angel
here is divine ; for " the Lord" is the speaker
in verse four ; His presence made " holy ground"
(v. 5). It is the God of Abraham remembering
and preparing to fulfil the promise. He shows
himself in fire, but with new surroundings ; not
in a word only, which is " as a light shining in a
dark place," but as a God present with a poor,
lowly, and oppressed, but indestructible people —
indestructible because He, the indestructible, is
in and with them.
The people, having come out of Egypt, must
receive a law. Sinai is the chosen spot, the
prepared amphitheatre for a great assembly.
It " was altogether on a smoke, because the
Lord descended upon it in fire, and the smoke
thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and
the whole mount quaked greatly "— (Ex. 19: 18).
Here is the God of Abraham and of Moses. And
what a view of the Lord's gracious presence with
the people is given when that same august sym
bol stoops over the tabernacle ; " for the cloud
of the Lord was upon the tabernacle by day, and

114

WHA T IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE?

fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the
house of Israel, throughout all their journeys."
(Exod. 40 : 38.) There is mercy with the Lord :
there is also judgment. When Nadab and Abihu
profaned His altar, " there went out fire from the
Lord and devoured them" — (Lev. 10 : 2). So, to
punish this murmuring people (Numb. 11 : 1),
" the fire of the Lord burnt among them at Ta-
berah." To this, probably, the allusion is made
in Deut. 4 : 24 — '- for the Lord thy God is a con
suming fire, even a jealous God." In the days
of the Judges, the heart of Gideon is moved to
the struggle with Midian by a Divine revelation :
his sacrifice lieo on the rock, and the angel's staff
touches it, " and there rose up fire out of the
rock and consumed it" — (Judges 6 : 21). There
was natural fitness in Elijah's challenge to the
priests of Baal (1 Kings 18 : 24): " and the God
that answereth by fire, let him be God." " A
great cloud, and a fire infolding itself," introduces
the visions of Ezekiel — (1 : 4).
It is an extremely improbable thing that
these harmonious representations, running over
a thousand years, should be accidental coinci
dences. There are natural resemblance, which

WHA T IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE? t 1 5
might account for some vivid figures in the
prophets, such as "the wall of fire" around
God's people in Zech. 2 : 5,— or the "refiner's
fire" of Malachi ; but they would not account
for this continuous representation of the Lord.
Possibly there may be more reference to this
mode of Divine appearance in some of the
prophetic allusions than at first sight appears.
The question of Isaiah 33 : 14 — " Who among
us shall dwell with the devouring fire ? who
among us shall dwell with the everlasting burn
ings?" may be a parallel to the question of
Psalm 15: 1—" Lord, who shall abide in thy
tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill ? "
The answer is precisely the same as that given
to the questions of Isaiah. If this be so, the
" devouring (or consuming) fire" and the " ever
lasting burnings" are the symbolic designations
of that Deity whose work of judgment on As
syria suggested the question and the form of it.
The point of it then is : " Who among us shall
be meet to dwell with this just and righteous
God ? " Then it is not penal flames, but the
glories of Heaven the alarmed inquirer thinks
of. Like Peter, when the miracle revealed the

1 16 WHA T IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE?
Divine to him, and compelled him to say,
" Depart from me for I am a sinful man,
0 Lord," so this judgment on Assyria inspires
a new and keen sense of Divine holiness in the
reflecting Hebrew.
Now, we are prepared to look at the New
Testament allusions to this significant symbol.
In Matt. 3: 11, the Baptist contrasts himself
with the coming Messiah, mightier than he, and
whose shoes he was not worthy to bear. " He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and
(with) fire."
Two interpretations have been put upon
these words. According to one, the idea is, He
shall baptize those who receive Him with the
Holy Spirit ; and on those who reject Him, will
send the fire of His wrath. High names can be
quoted for this rendering, from the fathers
downward. And it is true that the symbol has
this felicity, that it can represent, and has rep
resented, as with Nadab, and Abihu, and at
Taberah, that side of the Divine character on
which justice is seen in operation. But yet
the fi -'. aptism is not the alternative, but the
explanation of the baptism by the Holy Ghost

WHA T IS THE. BAP TISM OF FIRE ? ny
It is not " or," but " and." This view is founded
on truths elsewhere taught in Scripture: but
it is not the truth of this passage. The second
explanation,, therefore, and which we adopt, is
that the Divine Spirit will be given abundantly
to men under the symbol which disclosed God
to His people from the days of Abraham down
ward. It is the same Almighty Power who
rested on the tabernacle, was in the shekinah,
who in ampler manifestation comes to the Israel
of the New Testament in fulfilment of Isaiah's
prediction — (4 : "5)—" And the Lord will create
upon every dwelling-place of iViount Zion, and
upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day,
and the ' shining of a flaming fire by night : for
upon all the glory shall be a defence."
That this, and not mere judgment, is the
meaning, appears from our Lord's reference to
the same future transaction : "I am come to
send fire on the earth ; and what will I, if it be
already kindled?" — (Luke 12:49). The fire
here is not indeed the immediate work of the
Holy Ghost, but the ferment, disputing, strife,
and division among men to which His working

1 1 8 WHA T IS THE BAP TISM OF FIRE ?
gives rise, and which is essential to purity by
the separation of the evil from the good.
At Pentecost it was tongues of fire that de
scended on the disciples. Then the strife and
the separation began. The penetrating power
of the Holy Ghost rested on God's people. A
new energy is given them. They are cleansed
and transformed. They are only men on the
earth, but they have come into living connec
tion with " the Seven Spirits of God " (the all-
perfect Spirit) symbolised (Rev. 4: 5) by the
" seven lamps of fire burning before the throne."
In the plainest words, then, that we can use,
the baptism of fire is the abundant giving of the
Holy Ghost to disciples that they may be quick
ened, empowered, purified, and fitted to spread
His truth. And concerning this indispensable
blessing, there are the following noticeable
points: 1. The spirit comes from Jesus, and for His
sake. He baptizes with the Holy Ghost ; He
sends the Comforter ; He sends the tongues as
of fire. This gift had never come to the world,
if Christ had not come ; it will never come to
you, unless you receive Christ. So we do not

WHA T IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE ? i ig
preach the Holy Spirit, but Christ. We sum
mon men to Him that they may receive from
Him this blessing. And when they do, it is not
merely that Christian truth by itself has a bene
ficial influence on them ; but the Christian truth
is the means the Holy Ghost employs for chang
ing and elevating them. So we teach the truth,
and pray for the spirit. " We prophesy to the
dry bones," and " we prophesy to the winds" —
(Ezek. 37 : 4, 9).
2. As fire makes heat, so the Holy Ghost
brings warmth into the sou! and into the church.
This is the remedy for coldness of heart, and
deadness of the community. There has never
been kindled a finer enthusiasm than that which
glowed in the first band of disciples. They
burned with zeal. Set before them such barriers
as persecution raises — chains, tortures, death —
and they exclaim, " None of these things move
me," as they rush on their luminous path.
3. There are applications of heat that punfy
and separate the refuse from the pure metal as
nothing else can do. You could not hammer
out, but you can melt out, the iron from t he
massive ore that comes from the mine. And «o

120 WHA T IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE?
you may ply men with the superficial agency of
rites and forms, or the force and restraints of law,
in vain. But let the love of God be shed abroad
in the heart by the Holy Ghost given, and the
evil goes to its own place, and the good, parted
from it, is increased and strengthened. Vessels
of brass were ceremonially cleansed under the
Mosaic law by passing through the. fire. It is by
this baptism of fire the vessels of mercy are puri
fied, and made meet for the Master's use.
4. And it is not unworthy of notice, that
while God is represented as fire, consuming fire,
the same properties in Him that warm and pu
rify, can burn up and destroy.' The ark of the
covenant parted Jordan, protected Israel, and
brought a blessing to Obed-Edom's house ; but
it smote the Philistines with judgments, and
struck down Dagon. And so it is with the
Divine Being himself. His mighty influence
obeyed, makes us spiritually-minded, which is
life and peace : striven against and resisted, He
becomes to men " a consuming fire."
God being presented as "fire" in the symbols
of the Bible, and rejected by men, who, unable
to do without some god, make gods from their

WHA T IS THE BAPTISM OF FIRE? \z\
own fancy, there is a fearful emphasis in His lan
guage to such, in Isa. 50: 11, "Behold, all ye
that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about
with sparks ; walk in the light of your fire, and
in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall
ye have of mine hand, ye shall lie down in sor
row." Nor is it inappropriate to notice that, as
evil apes good, and the devil tries to caricature
the Almighty, the worship of fire — material fire —
became widely diffused among the early oriental
nations. What was a symbol of the true whom
they forsook, they set up as divine, and con
verted into a delusive and helpless idol. So they
" changed the truth of God into a lie, and wor
shipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed . forever. Amen." (Rom
1 : 25).

HOW SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH
GOD?
HERE are two ways of looking at this
question. There is the strict and
proper theological topic of justification.
There is the popular and practical idea
of being forgiven and received into heaven.
For the purposes of exact thought and precise
statement, some men must treat the subject sci
entifically. If the Christian authors desired to
avoid this course, the opponents of the truth
compel them -to exactness. True believers can
live and die, and reach eternal rest without mas
tering this subject in its theological aspects ;
but some must be familiar with these aspects
for the purposes of defence and instruction.
The popular view would not be clear, and gen
erally accepted, if the theological had not been

'IOW SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD? 123
maintained and defended. Luther, Calvin, and
other Reformers, had to unravel all the tangled
knots which the Schoolmen had drawn ; had to
meet scholars on the Greek and Hebrew Scrip
tures ; had to go to the roots and uses of words,
and the nature of things, in order to gain a firm
footing for "justification by faith," in colleges,
seminaries, pulpits, churches and literature. The
wayfaring man, though a simpleton, can learn —
" I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all,
But Jesus Christ is my all in all,"
and be saved by it ; but to make that way of life
so plain to him, the entire battle of the Refor
mation had to be fought, and the learning and
skill and prayer of the greatest men the world
ever saw, had to be employed. For the way
was blocked up and covered over with all man
ner of rubbish, some of it altogether heathen,
some of it partly heathen and partly Jewish, all
of it old, and the solid mass had to be removed,
that a straight path might be made for man's
feet to the Celestial City.
We mention all this because there is a ten
dency to depreciate Theology, to undervalue
dogma, and to set up as against them " plain,

1 24 HOW SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD j
common-sense ways" of putting things How
ever it might have been at one time, deej>, ei^act
scholarly, and learned statement of the truth
is essential under God to its maintenai.ee. And
for the popular teacher to take a ding at the
learned, is no more wise than few ttie illiterate
engine-driver, who manages ab he has to do
with a lever, to belittle the r.iechanical engineer
who planned his engine w the civil engineer
who planned the road.
In the discussion of this theme theologically,
it is necessary to deal t ith the divine attributes
of mercy, justice, holiness ; with the divine gov
ernment by law ; wi'.h the nature of man ; and the
work of Jesus Christ. Such terms as condem
nation, sentence, penalty, atonement, satisfac
tion, pardon and temptation have to be defined
and interpreted definitely. The human heart is
deceitful, and an enormous amount of ingenuity
— human, and, may we not well believe, devil
ish — has been employed to obscure the light of
Scripture, and to bewilder as to. God's " easy,
simple, unincumbered plan." Any man who
has had occasion to look into the controversies
that have raged on this subject will not despise

HO W SHA LL A MA N BE JUST U V TH GOD? t 2 5
but respect the industry, zeal, and diligence of
those who have stood on the side of the truth,
and driven its opponents inch by inch from
the field.
The popular and practical form of this ques
tion immediately affects us. How can a man
be just with God, so as to suffer no wrath at
His hand, but to be a member of His family
forever ? We can look at the human and the
Divine replies to this demand. The human may
be roughly divided into two classes : they who
do not accept the Scriptural method, as we
hold it, either level up or level down. In other
words, they give to man more than he has, or
they give to God less than He has. In elevating
man, they proceed on the idea that he has more
virtue than is thought ; he does his best ; errors
are usually obedience to inclinations which na
ture gave him ; his good can counterbalance any
little admitted evil. Or, if there be a balance
against him on the whole, his deep regret and
attempted amendment may be set over against
it ; or if this should still be insufficient, then in
the next life he can endure so much as will at
once be a set-off to his sins, and the means of

1 26 HOW SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
his purification. It is curious that what is
called Universalism and Romanism touch here ;
the belief that all will eventually come to hap
piness, held by the Restorationist being an ex
tension of the Purgatory of Rome, and though
defended on different grounds, really having
their roots in a common idea regarding God and
man. Purgatory meets the notion that many
people are not good enough for heaven, not
bad enough for hell, and so are purified in this
middle place. Restorationism goes on the plan
that permanent exile from God is too severe a
punishment for God to inflict on any man, and
so devises a way in which they shall all be
rescued, and even the devil himself, as in
Bailey's Festus, become loyal and happy in
heaven. But all this is contrary to Scripture. Men
in the Bible fall, like Adam, resist the striving
of God's spirit, corrupt the earth, rebel, go
astray, speak lies in hypocrisy, forget God, grow
worse and worse, choose evil and not good, cast
His words behind their back, have their
minds' enmity against God, and are not subject
to His law, neither indeed can be. The deline-

HO W SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD ? l2j
ations of Rom. i and ii, are entirely opposed to
the levelling-up plan. Every word spoken in
the Bible of a new heart, of being born again,
of conversion, as essential to the enjoyment of
the Divine favor, is based upon the hopelessness
of man's state without these conditions. And
every word spoken of the justice of God, of the
unutterable hatred He has to sin, of the incom
patibility between Him and it, of the judgments
prepared for it, is against this levelling-up plan.
Nothing in the tone of Christ towards Satan
and wicked men implies that they are ever, at
how remote soever a period, to be the loving
and cherished members of His family, where He
is to behold his glory. It is not Paul only, but
Peter and John, — nor these only, but the Evan
gelists and Christ, who are committed to the
doctrine, humbling as it is to us, that man is
utterly and irretrievably lost, except in one way,
by the covenant of Christ ; and he who is not in
that covenant abides in the lost state.
The levelling-down plan deals directly with
God. Of course it does not own that it levels
down It claims rather to exalt Him. It

128 HOW SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
makes Him infinitely good-natured, kind-heart
ed, too merciful to punish severely. It repre
sents Him as looking on man's transgressions as
peccadilloes, seeing all the good, and little of the
evil, indulgent, having implanted those seeds
which a little rankly grown, are sins, and not
likely to deal more severely with human trans
gressors than would an excellent and magnani
mous man.
In holding by the Divine method, we rule
out much of this absolutely. As to God, we hold
that man is no proper judge of what He ought
to do; that, apart from his own darkness and
weakness, he is in the worst possible position for
forming a true and candid opinion, — just as the
prisoners in the jails are unfitted for dispassion
ate judgment as to civil rights and the criminal
code. As to God and man in their spiritual rela
tions, we hold that we caii know nothing certainly
but as it is revealed in the Word. All outside
that word is guessing and speculation; and'the
facts of our life, we hold, are all with the word.
It reveals what is in us ; and its pictures of man,

-C'O W SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD ? 1 29
?3 far as we know, are true. We may have our
faith strengthened by this fact in the belief that
they are equally true to the truth of things,
where we cannot see.
In the shortest and most concise way, the
general elements of the truth regarding justifi
cation by faith may be stated thus :
(a.) Man as man, and each person as an indi
vidual, being in sin, must be under the sentence
of divine law and the displeasure of a holy God.
Rom. 3 : 19. — " Now we know that what things
soever the law saith, it saith to them who are un
der the law : that every mouth may be stopped,
and all the world become guilty before God."
(b.) The Lord is the judge of what is to be
done with us, either in the way of punishing or
pardoning. It is with Him we have to do. If
he propound a way of saving us we may be sure
He will take care of His own rights. If it
pleases Him it ought to please us. He knows
just what is due to Himself. For us to assume
greater, or more intelligent, concern for the
credit of the Almighty than He himself exhib
its, is preposterous. " It is God that justifieth."
(c.) Jesus Christ, appointed of the Father,

I 30 HOW SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
and in obedience to the Divine will, wrought out
and brought in a righteousness which He did
not require for Himself, which good angels do
not need, which is not offered to evil angels,
which is offered freely to men for their accept
ance ; Rom. 3 : 22. — " Even the righteousness
of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all
and upon all them that believe ; for there is
no difference." This righteousness of Christ is
promised by God, is provided by Him, is accep
ted by Him, as ours, when we believe Christ
and accept it.
(d.) Accordingly it is " by faith " in us, God
having settled that our believing should be the
means of uniting us with Jesus, and instrument-
ally identifying us with Him. Conceivably other
means might have been employed ; but this has
a natural fitness. It is the opposite of man's
way of sinning at the first. It is the retraction
of man's original insulting declaration, made not
in words, but in effect : " God is not to be be
lieved." It is the restoration of mutual confi
dence. It is the basis of a good understanding.
It makes all spiritual and unseen things real.
Heb. 11: 1. — "Now faith is the substance of

HO W SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD ? 131
things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen." " He that cometh to God must believe
that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them
that diligently seek him." It is the root, unseen
itself, and deep in the heart, of all the graces
that appear in the life. As it is strong, they
grow ; as it is weak they languish.
And so, finally, all is of grace. God gives
the salvation of Christ. The sinner receives it
by faith, itself the gift of God. Faith lays hold
of a righteousness which man has no more share
in working out than he has in making the sun.
He is taken off his own doing, powers, and
goodness, and placed wholly on the grace of
God and the work of Christ. God gives Christ.
The Son gives Himself. The Holy Ghost testi
fies to Him and leads to Him. The human
spirit, quickened, believing, at peace, is now pre
pared to give glory to the Father, to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost. The believer has the
Son, and he has life. He shall not come unto
condemnation, but is passed from death unto
life. He has, like the Israelites on the Passover
evening, sprinkled the blood on the lintels. He
may not always see it clearly himself, but the

132 HOW SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD I
Lord sees it, and the destroying- angel will pass
over him. He has come under the terms of that
most glorious word — written to the Church
which, alas ! afterwards placed herself at the
head of the great apostacy — *Rom. 8: 8-IO. —
" The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and
in thy heart ; that is, the word of faith, which
we preach ; that if thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart
man believeth unto righteousness ; and with
the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
This chapter is not likely to catch the eye of
persons entirely careless regarding their souls'
salvation ; but it may be read by some who feel
great anxiety, and are prepared to make effort,
if it can. be hopefully made; for this high object.
Their attention we earnestly call to Rom. x :
I -3, with its truth-like description of men zeal
ous, but uninstructed, going about to establish
their own righteousness, and not submitting
themselves unto the righteousness of God. The
forms under which we thus go about are of sec-

HO W SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD ? 1 33
ondary importance. They may be those of
Romanism, or Ritualism, or faultless Orthodoxy,
or proud Rationalism. We may grovel on our
knees on the Santa Scala, or visit in the houses
of the poor. If we are " going about to estab
lish our own righteousness," the where, or the
how, or the duration, or the earnestness, is of
little account. The essentially vicious and viti
ating element is that it is " our own " that we
are trying to establish. The true departure is
taken when we despair of our own and submit
ourselves to the righteousness of God. This is
humility. The Other plan has its root in pride.
This is believing. The other plan is unbelief.
It, like Adam, denies God's sincerity in offering
life as a free gift. It declares, practically, that
we can do something good ; that the whole na
ture is not corrupt ; that by works of righteous
ness which we do, we can be saved. To all souls
that have some earnestness, though it has been
mis-directed, we would re-echo the cry of the
Old Testament and the New, of Christ and His
apostles, of God through all His dispensations,
Isa. 46: 12, 13 — "Hearken unto me, ye stout-

134 HOW SHALL A MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
hearted, that are far from righteousness. I
bring near my righteousness ; I shall not be far
off and my salvation shall not tarry ; and I will
place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory."

HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION?

' O this question many persons would
give a prompt and decided No ; and, as
a reason, would add : religion is perfect
love, and " perfect love casteth out
fear." Others would say No, in a different
form. Heathenism, they would say, is a religion
of fear ; Christianity has expelled all that, and
revealed a God of love. Others still would say
that the Old Testament dealt much in fear ; the
New Testament brings the Gospel of peace.
The form of our question is to be noticed.
It does not respect one stage only of the Chris
tian life; it does not look to the "perfect
peace" of saints. It asks if fear has a place in
religion, in that entire experience through which
human hearts come from the uncontrolled sway
of sin, to happy fellowship with God. If it has,

[36 HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION?
as we believe, we wish to ascertain its place and
purpose. Let us look at some forms of religious ex
perience, and to be sure that they are correctly
described to us, let us find them in the Bible.
The jailor at Philippi, under very complex feel
ing probably, but certainly with fear, as a part
of it, " came trembling, and fell down before
Paul and Silas" with the question, "What
must I do to be saved ? " He had seen evi
dence of irresistible power. He was impressed
by the proofs of a present Deity. Nearness to
Him threw him back on himself, and suggested
danger, quite different from the danger arising
to him from apparent neglect of duty. He was
afraid, and had a right to be. afraid. It would
have been irrational, criminal folly, to be other
wise. A light or vacant mind in such circum
stances would have raised a doubt of his good
sense. But, it may be thought, he was probably a
heathen, accustomed only to the heathen idea
of God. Then let us look at the well-educated
Saul, when in direct contact with Christ, on the
way to Damascus. He, trembling and aston-

HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION? 137
ished, said : " Lord what wilt thou have me to
do ? " That was no unreasonable or artificial
experience produced by heathen conceptions of
cruel gods. This man was conversant with the
highest idea then in the world of the " Lord
God, merciful and gracious," and his mind was
not exceptionally weak, but rather exceptionally
strong. Here there is one stage of religious experi
ence, where fear has its place. As you walk
the street, a runaway horse, a falling wall, a
dangerous cutting, awakens apprehension for
your bodily safety. That fear is according to
God's will, and is meant to be the means of
your safety. In some similar way when men
become conscious of a real God, a holy law,
their violation of it, and the inevitable reckon
ing, fear has its due place in impelling men to
seek safety.
To summon this fear into existence is no
small part of the preacher's difficult work. The
sceptic does not fear, if he is sincere in his scep
ticism. With Lucretius, he counts, the divinity
a creature of man's fear, and religion a product
of terror. He has to be shown " that God is."

[ 38 HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION?
The " careless ones ' — (Isaiah 32 : 1 1) — feel no
fear, because they do not allow themselves to
think at all on the subject. Is not the world
fair, and full of " well-created things ? " Are not
they healthy and happy? Have they not
enough to do, or to enjoy ? A time may come,
perhaps, when they should think, and doubtless
will think, of these things ; but plainly, now is
not the time. So, like the dwellers on the
slopes of Vesuvius, busy with their vines, and
oblivious of subterranean perils till the moun
tain quakes and burns with fire, many are with
out fear ; and the first step towards their safety
is to awaken it.
The preacher of the gospel has to shape his
teaching to their condition. To unfold the good
ness and love of God to them is not the appro
priate effort for him. It will only confirm them
in their mistake. Goodness will become to them
good-nature, and love an easy disposition that
will recognise all that good in them, of which
they are fully conscious, and be blind to all their
faults, if there be any. Even such partial views
of the Cross as present it as a display of God's
love and pity are out of place here. It is cer-

HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION? 139
tain that the most awakening of all truths is
Christ's atonement ; but its awakening element
is in the holiness that recoils from sin, and the
justice that requires its punishment, even when
borne by the Son of God. To men in the state
of mind above described, one must preach as
Christ did — (Luke 12 : 4, 5) — " And I say unto
you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill
the body, and after that have no more that they
can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall
fear : Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath
power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you,
Fear him." Such men must be told what sin is
— how much of it is in them, how God hates it—
that He knows of it in them — that He will call
to account for it — that they can be eternally con
scious of His displeasure — and that His displeas
ure is eternal and intolerable.
This style of teaching is not popular ; but
popularity is not the test of truth. Men desire
" pleasing" views of God and of men. They
wish to have the Divine Being painted as like
themselves as possible, not like a common human
being indeed, but a perfect human being, His
artistic taste, His breadth- of view, His foresight,

I4C HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION?
His consideration, His skill entitling Him to our
admiration and regard. This is an incomplete,
and, so far, an untrue, view of God, and he who
only knows this, knows not God. " Just and
righteous art thou. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord
God Almighty." The God of the Bible cannot
look upon sin. Any sinner who begins to know
this God, must fear ; ought to fear. A God of
the popular kind, indeed, will awaken no appre
hension. The God of the Bible is "a consuming
fire." And now the soul alarmed and terrified has
fled to the cross, owned sin, received forgiveness,
and a hope of eternal life. The Christian race
has begun. The cross is taken up in all the
fervor and enthusiasm of first love, and the hu
man heart means to be for the Lord and not for
another. But where is the race to be run ? Not in
heaven ; not in a sinless paradise, but in a world
on which Satan has so much power that all its
influences are malign, and all its forces hostile.
Temptations abound. Sometimes they come as
the continual dropping that wears away even the
stone. Sometimes they are sprung upon the

HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION? 141
believer in a moment. Now if the believer
were like the sinless Redeemer, if the prince of
this world " found nothing" in him in affinity
with the evil without, the danger would be less
serious. But regeneration is not personal per
fection. A new direction is given to the facul
ties ; but they are not so immovably fixed in
that direction as to resist all pressure. Here,
then, is a place for fear. " How can I do this
wickedness and sin against God ? " Will any one
maintain that we see there mere simple love ?
Does any one say that Joseph was a youthful
believer of the Old Testament type ? Then hear
Paul counsel New Testament believers to obey
earthly masters from regard to a heavenly — (Col.
3: 22) — " in singleness of heart fearing God." In
the clearest light of divine manifestations, it is
proper to say : " Praise our God all ye His ser
vants, and ye that fear Him, both small and
great" — (Rev. 19: 5).
"What does such a man fear?" it may be
said, " God is his father." Is that a reason
for the absence of fear? He is a holy Father.
He is not blind to His children's faults. His
judgments begin at God's house. His enemies

142 HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION?
shall see that He is not weakly indulgent to
one class, and sternly severe to another. " If his
children forsake my law and walk not in my
judgments ; if they break my statutes, and keep
not my commandments : then will I visit their
transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity
with stripes" — (Psalm 89: 31, 32). It is true
and blessed to know that the Head of the cove
nant secures their final safety ; but that does not
avert the stripes in the meantime. A believer
regards the personal character of God, and re
veres it ; he expects to be chastened by his
Father, if he disobey; he counts upon walking
" in darkness and having no light" (Isa. 50 :
10) if he grieve the Holy Spirit ; and so he is
deterred from sinning.
It is easy to object to this view ; to denounce
it as servile ; and to expatiate on the power and
beauty of love There is love ; there is grati
tude. These noble and elevating graces have
too much to do in inspiring obedience, to admit
of its becoming sordid. But fear is there also,
actively and promptly working, when perhaps love
alone, or gratitude alone, might be overborne by
the rush of inner evil, or of outward temptation,

HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION)

143

or of both ; and its presence is not offens ive to
the Lord. He " taketh pleasure in them that
fear him" — (Psalm 147: 11). Nor does this hin-
dei fellowship with Him. " The secret of the
Lord (the confidential friendship) is with them
that fear him " — (Psalm 25 : 14).
It is a most likely thing that any system of
teaching that ignores this fear will, so far as it
is received, produce a race of Christians little
troubled about consistency or close walking; not
very positive in Christian living ; not much con
cerned about keeping the body in subjection ; of
easy Christian virtue ; and on terms of tolerable
fellowship with the world.
It is idle to tell us in reply to all this that
fear is not the highest exercise of a living soul.
We are not making that statement ; we are try
ing to show it is an exercise — a most important
exercise of a living soul, and a true preparation
for the highest. The boy who goes in a right
frame of mind to the school of a man like Dr.
Arnold, has, in the first instance, a feeling toward
the person and character of the teacher differ
ent from that which he has to the best boy in
the school, who is like himself— only better. Is

144 HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION?
that " fear" incompatible with an after develop
ment of love ? As he finds out the justice, the
true goodness, the uprightness, the deep tender
ness of nature in his teacher, as, coming more
from under tutors, and nearer to himself, he sees
more of him, and, growing in power of apprecia
tion, he can better measure him, may there not
grow up a love such as Dr. Arnold inspired — so
that the pupil would die for the master ? All
this is in harmony with the make of our minds,
and the laws impressed on our moral nature ;
and the Lord works in the line of these laws.
We conclude, then, that fear has its place in
religion — a place of the utmost importance in
the earlier stages, when men are passing from
the stupefying power of Satan unto God ; and
afterwards a power only secondary to that of the
love to which it gives place, in part on earth,
wholly in heaven.
From the consideration of these Scripture
truths, we infer that if there be an extreme view
of God on the side of severity, there is a like
extreme on that of goodness. But the truth is,
neither is extreme ; for both the mercy and the
justice of God are infinite, and exaggeration is

HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION? 145
impossible. Each is a partial view. We are to
"behold the goodness and severity" of the
Lord. There are certain conditions of communities
in which the justice and holiness of God need
especially to be presented to men. When there
is no occasion to suffer for religion ; when truth
is rather taken for granted than discussed ; or
when it is superciliously regarded as unworthy
discussion ; when iniquity abounds, and the love
of professors waxes cold ; when the radical dif
ference between a saint and a sinner, between
the church and the world, is obscured ; then is
there need to hold up Him "who is glorious in
holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders." It is
in some degree confirmatory of this view that
awakenings of religious feeling have commonly
begun with such impressions. Of the " Five Dis
courses" afterwards published by Jonathan Ed
wards, because they had been the means of
great and blessed influence on his people at
Northampton, not one is without these deep
and solemn views ; and the fourth is on the " Jus
tice of God in the damnation of sinners." In two
instances, the delivery of Dr. Dwight's sermon

1 46 HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION?
on "The harvest is past, the summer is ended,
and we are not saved," was the beginning
of a revival of religion, at one time half the
students uniting with the church. And with
out depreciating servants of God whose la
bors have not been marked by this feature, it
is not unsafe to say that some of the greatest
preachers of the church have been persistent in
declaring these truths. Latimer, Knox, Calvin,
Baxter, Alleine, Whitfield, McCheyne, Nettle-
ton, Payson, the three Alexanders, and a host
of others might be mentioned as illustrations.
Nor is it too much to say that the young
generally, and we do not exclude young Chris
tians, should be encouraged to cherish this fear.
With a corrupt nature, in the midst of a cor
rupting world, with temptations to sin, that often
come too quickly to allow time for the sober
decisions of judgment, and too impetuously for
the gentle sway of a too feeble love, swiftly-act
ing fear is the proper and salutary check ; it is
"the beginning of wisdom." On the other
hand, among a generation of young people, who
have slight impressions on this general subject ;
who are deficient in reverence generally ; who

HAS FEAR A PLACE IN RELIGION?

1 47

talk easily and glibly of the great things of God ,
who come into the church without much con
cern ; who dwell almost exclusively on the sooth
ing side of the divine character ; there will be
little Christian decision, little Christian earnest
ness, little hatred of error and evil, and a very
wide-reaching toleration for the fashions of that
world, friendship with which is enmity with
God.

HOW SHALL A MAN EXAMINE HIM
SELF?
HERE are two opposite mistakes, for
the sake of guarding against which,
• mainly, we consider this question. The
one is promoted by those who decry
all effort on the part of a man to look into, and
form an opinion regarding, his own heart. To
them it is " self-anatomy," " unhealthy introspec
tion," " morbid self-scrutiny," and such like
folly. They illustrate it by the pulling up of the
plant to see how it is growing. One eminent
essayist has an amusing reminiscence of a lad
who tried his water-melons to see if they were
ripe so frequently that he hastened, not their
ripeness, but their rottenness.*
The second is that promoted by those who
* Sermons on living subjects. Bushnell, 1872

HOW SHALL A MAN

149

assign to self-examination a place and use differ
ent from those assigned to it in Scripture. On
the one side is a precipitous and perilous steep,
up which, according to Dr. Bushnell, we cannot
possibly climb ; and on which, if we could, there
is nothing to be gained. On the other is a
marsh, lying out of our way, and in which much
of the time we spend is comfortless, as well as
lost. The safe way of a scriptural self-examina
tion lies between.
We shall look at the texts on the subject.
Many preachers have, no doubt, quoted as in
point — ( II. Cor. 13 : 5) — " Examine yourselves,
prove your own selves. Know ye not your own
selves, how that Jesus Christ is in ye except you
be reprobates ? " It is undeniable that the direct
aim of the Apostle here is not to inculcate self-
scrutiny for its own sake, or its benefits. He is
repelling the Corinthians' doubts regarding his
authority, and appealing to their experience foi
proofs of his apostolic power. " Why look at
yourselves, are not you Christians? How did
you become so ? Are not ye my seals, my let
ters of commendation ? "
But Dr. Eushnell surely speaks too strongly

1 50* EXAMINE HIMSELF?
when he says, " It will be seen at a glance, by
the mere English reader, and much more by a
scholar versed in the original language, that the
Apostle is simply referring the Corinthians here
to their own new spiritual state, for proof that
he has had a power in them for good." So far
is this from being the obvious and simple and
only design that Hodge sees in the opening
words an antithetic retort on the Corinthians :
" Ye examine me — examine your own selves ; ye
seek for Christ in me — seek for Him in your
selves." This he considers the first link of con
nection with the foregoing context. Lange
makes this the direct, simple point of the open
ing clause, and does not see at all what Dr. Bush
nell counts so obvious. But he does see what
Bushnell misses, and Dr. Hodge does not empha
size, and our English version does not notice at
all, the (<5) "or," connecting the two members of
the verse, and introducing a new and alternative
idea. Having in view the context, the original
tongue, and the sense commonly put upon it,
there is no reason for abandoning the common
meaning of this text.
It is argued that only God can examine us ;

HOW SHALL A MAN

151

that He does; and that we may no., uake the
business out of His hand ; that we truly prove
ourselves when He proves us ; and may rightly
approve ourselves when He approves.* But
this is not denied, but implied ; no sound think
ing Christian ever supposed that he could infal
libly discern and approve himself, as he might a
piece of goods, or a tradesman's workmanship.
It is urgued that for a soul to look into itself is
to be taken off its proper work, which is to look
outward and upward. Dr. Bushnell elaborately
arguet, to that effect in a sermon from Psalm 26 :
2 — " Examine me, O Lord, and prove me, try
my rei is and my heart" — the doing of which by
the Lord supersedes the duty of ^//-examin
ation. He appears to have overlooked the fact that
of that very Psalm, nearly a half consists of this
lookinj; within, and is founded upon it, in such a
strain as this — " I have not sat with vain per
sons, neither will I go in with dissemblers. I
have hated the congregation of evil-doers, and I
will net sit with the wicked" — v. 4, 5. In fact,
most of Dr. Bushnell's argument against " cpm-
* Bushnell. -; ¦ '¦

152 EXAMINE HIMSELF?
muning with one's own heart," founded on the
second verse, is a censure on the rest of the Psalm,
and he entirely omits to indicate how one can
have such approval of one's self as he would
admit, without introspection. Even when the
Spirit of God witnesses that we are the sons of
God, it is not an independent objective testi
mony, like Jonah's preaching to Nineveh, but is
" with our spirit " — (Rom. 8 : 16). Indeed, Dr.
Bushnell, with a strong love of iconoclasm in his
nature, has been tempted to strike at more than
he seriously meant, and to heap all manner of
ingenious censure on what we feel certain he ap
proves and practises, perhaps under other names.*
He would not surely censure that habit of mind
which both philosophically and popularly is de
scribed as " reflection."
The only other text that is allowed to have
a formal bearing on this subject is in 1 . Cor. 1 1 :
28 — " But let a man examine (sou/mcm — same
word as in 11. Cor. 13: 5 for "prove") himself,
and so let him eat of that bread and drink
* See, for example, a most eloquent and admirable sermon
on " Dissolving of Doubts," and a fine piece of self-examination
p. 174.

HOW SHALL A MAN 153
of that cup." It is admitted that the imme
diate reference is to the Lord's Supper. " But,"
says Dr. Bushnell, " the point here is to
merely interpose a caution, an appeal of cir
cumspection that will prepare the receiver of
the supper to partake with reverence — let him
put himself to the proof sufficiently to make sure
of this : there is no thought of putting him on a
retrospective study and testing of his disciple
ship." Yet it is assumed that he can, so far,
form a judgment on himself, which is against
Dr. Bushnell's first position (namely, that only
the Lord can examine us) ; and it is assumed that
it is good for the soul, in some circumstances at
least, to be engaged in introspection, which is
against his second position, that self-examination
is " an artificial state in which the soul is drawn
off from its objects, and works, and its calls of
love and self-sacrifice, to engage itself in acts of
self-inspection." Dr. Bushnell, with an illus
tration that is half argument, says — "as if a
workman might withdraw himself for a day, or a
week, from his work, to examine whether he is
industrious' or not." We respectfully submit
that there is no true parallel in the case ; but if

154 EXAMINE HIMSELF?
one may find analogies between spiritual and
natural industries, it would be wiser and safer
to refer to the merchant, or even the store-keeper
who is doing his business loosely if he has not time
for " taking stock," and balancing his books, and
determining exactly where he stands. It would
be easy, but not wise, to reprove him for turning
from his proper business of effecting sales, and
making operations, to the scrutiny of his own
books and goods.
The main advantage we can derive from
these sharp censures on self-examination, which
include even Edwards' book on the Religious
Affections, is to beware of morbid feelings, or
uhscriptural methods, or degrees, in this essen
tial and inevitable department of Christian life :
and the danger is, that the light and frivolous,
whose lives are more like a log floating with the
current than a ship steered towards a port, will
encourage themselves in their unreflecting, un-
calculating, unregulated lives, and regard with
supercilious pity the conscientious souls that
prosecute a vigorous, self-scrutiny in God's pres
ence. We must hold in view of these texts and of

HOW SHALL A MAN 155
all the facts, that there is a place for self-exami
nation in the Christian life. We learn from those
who undervalue it that it is not to be entered
upon alone, but in view of, and with the coop
eration, so to speak, of the Lord, who searches
the heart. It is impossible to get away from
the duty of passing moral judgments upon
ourselves. "For," says the apostle, in closest
connection with our subject, "if we would
judge ourselves we should not be judged " —
(1. Cor. 11 31). "The haupmuv judge? says
Lange, " most truly refers back to the SuKi/jmleiv
prove." We cannot consider the question of
entering on any Christian work without it.
Why ask a candidate for the ministry as to his
motives in seeking the office ? Why raise any
question in the mind of an applicant for church-
membership, if no moral judgment is to be passed
on one's self? The necessity lies in our very be
ing. How can one repent without looking within.
and looking back ? How can one say, " I be
lieve," without calling consciousness to bear wit
ness of that which is within ? How can we even
give thanks for mercies of the most precious
kind, the sense of pardon, the presence of

I 56 EXAMINE HIMSELF?
Christ, the comfort of the Holy Ghost, the as
surance of Divine faVor, without looking within ?
And if we can and must look within for the
good for which to praise, we can and must also
look within for the corruption, and heart-evils,
that we may confess them, get strength to re
sist them, and forsake them.
What is a proper subject for self-examina
tion ? We reply without hesitation : everything
that makes character. This includes feelings,
aims, motives. Do I love God, trust Christ, and
seek to serve Him? Am I aiming at His glory?
Is my motive to honor Him, or indirectly my
self? What is the standard of examination ?
There can be but one — the infallible Word of
God. All others are uncertain and varying.
The conscience is not always enlightened ; can
be drugged, or seared, or blinded. What is
called moral sense is often dull and blunt.
Human opinion shifts with the times and
changes with localities. Usages are tolerated
here now, which, wisely or not, Christian and
even secular society reprobated fifty years ago,
and which would be condemned elsewhere, even
in this State of New York. But the word of

HOW SHALL A MAN [57
the Lord is determinate and fixed. The human
experience is to be brought to it, tried by it,
approved or condemned by it. When it ap
proves, God approves ; when it condemns, God-
condemns as truly and really as if we saw Him
on His throne, and heard Him in articulate
tones of thunder denounce the evil. What He
approves in us, we shall not be sinfully proud of,
for a clear view of it implies a clear sight of it as
God's work in us ; and a reading of the 119th
Psalm, and many other portions of God's word,
shows that a saint may recall his integrity, love
to God's statutes, engagement in His service,
grief over transgressors, hatred of sin, with per
fect propriety, without anything morbid, and in
the very spirit in which the apostle says : " It is
God that worketh in you, both to will and
to do." In what manner shall we examine ourselves ?
In the presence of God. He invites us to this.
" Come and let us reason together " — (Isa. 1 : 18).
A sin which we commit fearlessly and unob
served, we feel keenly when seen by another, and
even the after discovery that we were observed
will often awaken shame. Much more does the

1 58

EXAMINE HIMSELF?

enormity of our sin appear, when. God's presence
is realized. One may say : " I have gone
against my conscience," with comparative indif
ference, but it is a different thing to say : " I
have sinned against God ;" and it is something
still different to say to Him, as a present, holy
Deity : " Against Thee have I sinned." For, as
Dr. Shedd effectively exhibits,* there are two
parties concerned in every sin : the transgressor
who commits it, and the Lord whose law is
broken. It is bad to sin against society, against
self, against the voice of conscience, but the
most real, deepest criminality is that we rob,
insult, and mock God. What is common crime
against a fellow-subject, is treason against the
State ; what is bad against the creature, is worse,
by far, against the Creator and King.

* Sermons to the Natural Man, d. 183 — a most valuable and
quite necessary volume.

WHAT IS DISORDERLY WALKING?

HE word "disorderly" occurs three
times in our English version, and once
in the margin, where the text has
" unruly." It is in three forms in the
Greek ; as an adverb in II. Thess. 3:6, 11; an
adjective in I. Thess. 5 : 14 ; a verb in II. Thess.
3 : 7. All the words are from the one noun,
taxis, a purely military word, corresponding to
" line," or rank. A disorderly soldier is a man
who breaks line, and allows himself to fall out
of rank. He is a man under authority, and the
authority settles the rank. He disregards the
authority so far as to step out of rank. The
act, by itself, may be trivial — a few feet one way
or another — but it is a disobedience to author.
ity. It is a little curious that the use of this word
should be confined to the two letters to the

1 60 WHA T IS DISORDER! V WALKING ?
Thessalonians. The peculiarity of this church,
which called for the letters, is well known.
Somewhat speculative, perhaps, in view, the
Christians of the wealthy and populous Thessa
lonica had concluded that their departed friends
had been serious losers by their dying before
the coming of the Lord. Feverish anxieties
and restless expectations so far prevailed in the
Church as to render calm, authoritative admo
nition no less necessary than consolation and
encouragement under trials and afflictions.
Of course this apprehension regarding de
ceased friends, rested on the assumption that
the day of the Lord was " at hand " — (n. Thess.
2 : 2). Either a misconstruction of the first
Epistle, or the circulation of a spurious Epistle,
had deepened this unhealthy feeling, and awak
ened an unwholesome enthusiasm — such an en
thusiasm as is easily roused, and rapidly diffused,
among an excitable people in a great city.
Having regard to this state of things, the
apostle says very gently — 1. Thess. 4 : 11,12 —
" And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your
own business, and to work with your own hands,
as we commanded you ; that ye may walk hon-

WHA T IS DISORDER! Y WALKING? j6l
estly toward them that are without, and that
ye may have lack of nothing."
They were carrying indifference to earthly
things to the verge of prudence, and he com
mends them for their brotherly love, but imme
diately adds a word that would imply they had
been on the border of meddling, bustling, os
tentatious, " brotherliness," which did not then,
and does not yet, commend religion to the better
class of refined persons. They are advised to
make it their aim to be quiet, to confine them
selves to the sphere of their proper duties, work
at their proper callings, — the words implying
handicraft — as he had counselled them when
with them. This would secure the respect of
the non-Christians, and keep themselves from
dependence on others. It would show that the
Christian re.igion was not a visionary scheme,
breaking up men's ways, and sending them
abroad as disturbers of general quiet life ; that
it worked in with all prudent, self-reliant toil,
and all honorable callings and labors, by which
men took care of themselves and their families.
The firm and precise manner in which this
counsel is given, may explain his language in

[62 WHA T IS DISORDER! Y WALKING?
v. 14, " Now we beseech you, brethren" (all tne
members — not the rulers only), " warn them that
are unruly," or disorderly, who are not quiet, not
minding their own business, not honestly sup
porting themselves, but making Christianity
offensive to the outsiders.
The advice is not, at least solely, to church-
officers who do not always know of these things
as well as the members ; but to the members.
The " warning " is " correcting them by word."
" Tell them of their error ; speak to them ; ad
monish them ; not necessarily with severity, but
in a neighborly, kindly way." Now all this is
in the first Epistle. The admonition is not
direct ; it is mildly hinted ; it is put construc
tively. But — how is not the question here — befo e the
writing of the second, the apostle has heat d that
so far from this gentle caution effecting th': de
sired reform, matters grew worse amony the
Christians in Thessalonica. He proceeds accord
ingly with greater plainness of speech in the
Second Epistle. He does not mince matters.
In his clearer and more emphatic statement,
we can see what he meant in his former k-tt.*r

WHA T IS DISORDER! Y WALKING? 163
" We hear (11. Thes. 3:11) that there are some
which walk among you disorderly, working not
at all, but are busy-bodies." This is all wrong ;
and the remedy is at hand. It is a command
and an exhortation that they go quietly to work
and maintain themselves. The apostle Paul
was direct, practical, and straightforward.
Well, suppose they did not ? Suppose they
found it more pleasant to designate themselves
to a general supervision of other workers, and
claimed with more or less form to be main
tained by them : what then ?
The apostle has a rule for this — v. 6 — " We
command you, brethren, in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves
from every brother that walketh disorderly, and
not after the tradition which he received of us."
" But," it may be alleged on behalf of these
self-constituted supervisors. " they are godly
persons and they are doing good." " Even so,"
replies the matter-of-fact and practical apostle,
" when I was among you, to set an example in
this very thing, I worked with my own hands
night and day — I never depended on any one —
I meant by foregoing rights I had, to take away

1 64 WHA T IS DISORDERL Y WALKING ?
all colorable pretence for such wrongs as these
disorderly walkers inflict."
The brethren, then, are to withdraw from
these busy-bodies; to give them no counte
nance ; to let them severely alone ; to show
them by their conduct and bearing that they
are not wanted, except in another character.
If a "man of honor" violates any of the
rules of honor's code, will not stand fire, or
pay his gambling-debts, his associates know
what to do with him. They cut him. If a
person of fashion violently transgresses any of
the commandments in the decalogue of " good
society" he is "put into Coventry." And the
Christian church without " formal process," or
discipline by session or presbytery, by the
faithful discharge of duty on the part of her
members in withdrawing from the idle and self
ish camp-followers, is to preserve herself, and
stand clear before the world.
On this general subject, in this connection,
we have several observations to make, more or
less directly growing out of the theme.
First of all, where a new religious " cause" is
coming into existence, some of these busy-bodies

WHA T IS DISORDERL Y WA IKING? 165
may be looked for. They have probably lost
caste in several other causes ; worn out their
" friends," been getting the " cold shoulder ; "
they are ready to reconsider their duty. They
become keenly alive to the shortcomings of their
old associates, and enthusiastically devoted to
the virtues of the newcomers. They talk ; they
go around. They are busy — very busy — bodies ;
hearts they have none. They rate themselves
highly : patronize the young minister, while they
hang on him : confess the sins of other people :
deplore general deadness : and particularly the
deadness of their last set, who, meanwhile, se
cretly feel that they have had a good riddance.
It is a proof to any man who ever nursed the
cradle of an infant " cause," of Paul's manly
courage, and practical, thorough common-sense,
that he tells these useless hangers-on to get to
work, and earn honest bread ; and that he tells
Christians, if they will not, to have nothing to
do with them.
Secondly, a speculative type of religious
thought, such as afflicted the Thessalonians,
breeds these buzzing church-flies in a peculiar
degree. Men with notions, hobbies, crotchets,

66 WHA T IS DISORDER! Y WALKING?
peculiar views — very peculiar — and ideas of their
own, feed on the unfulfilled prophecies, and be
come so absorbed in the prospects of a future dis
pensation as to neglect the plainest obligations
of the present. They are exercised about the
signs of the times. They leave others to watch
the signs of hunger and nakedness in their wives
or children. They are so exclusively spiritual
that they leave their friends to provide for their
temporal things, and congratulate them on hav
ing the privilege. From this form of unhealthy,
unmanly, unreasonable, and often fussy relig
iousness, Paul would have us withdraw. It is
all disorderly, in his estimation.
Without sinking to the depth of dependence
for bread, there are many who allow themselves
in a habit of life which is essentially disorderly
in the apostle's sense. They gossip. It is
about religious things, perhaps, but it is gossip
concerning ministers, churches, conversions, per
sons " interested," changes that ought to be and
will be. They know the insides of things. They
saw such and such men. They made it their
business to inquire ; they felt an interest in the
matter. They gain, perhaps, a little importance

WHA T IS DISOR OERL Y WA LKING ? x6j
from their being early or exclusive possessors of
scraps of church-news, and, like the store-keep
ers, they put their most tempting wares in their
windows. In deciding with nice exactness whose useful
ness is at an end ; who preaches the gospel ; who
is doing a " grand work," and who is not ; such an
one is sometimes captious, sometimes censorious,
and, not being infallible, sometimes mistaken,
and so sometimes extremely mischievous. In the
constant news-carrying that gives him interest in
life, and gets him a hearing among men, he en
ters the ranks of " not only the idle but tattlers,
also, and busy-bodies, speaking things which they
ought not." We cannot stop these vain talkers,
perhaps ; they will bring forth fruit after their
kind, but we can deny them intimacy, and coun
tenance ; we can maintain to them a prudent
reserve ; we can keep them at a distance ; we
can keep from being among their listeners ; we
can make up our minds neither to " receive them
into our houses nor to bid them God-speed."
And the point is surely worth the attention -
of many most excellent men, whether much of
our religious newspaper correspondence is not

1 68 WHAT rS DISORDERLY WALKING?
degenerating into this disorderliness? How
much of it is taken up with the purely personal,
including the eyes, hair, whiskers, shoulders
dress, of ministers ! A man — perhaps a min
ister — has a seat given him among the worship
pers in God's house ; is attentive, earnest, pen-
;il in hand ; they who sit by him conclude he is
noting some good thoughts from their pastor, of
which he will make wise use some day in his
own pulpit. Ah ! my dear sir, like Caiaphas's
hearers, "you know nothing at all." He is
noting the " salient points" in the personnel of
the preacher; finding out "how he does it," and
meditating the nice hits that will make a read
able ten-dollar article for the editor and the in
telligent readers of The Oracular Expositor.
At the imminent risk of vexing some good
Christians, we venture the further statement
that the spirit of the Apostle's counsels on this
subject is entirely against not a few things freely
done by excellent persons in our time. In the
light of these admonitions, all encouragements to
dependence on good societies is unwise. It
may be very desirable to show the necessity for
their existence by the numbers they aid ; but

WHAT II DISORDERLY WALKING? jfa
the showing is often made at the cost of mis
chief to individuals and the community. There
is no excuse in America for the lamentable and
growing dependence which threatens to rival
that of older European communities. That the
mendicancy, which Rome has exalted into high
Christian virtue, has no countenance here, is too
obvious to require notice. And we can hardly,
with present light, satisfy ourselves that some
of the popular forms of " running" institutions,
and living " by faith," are not out of harmony
with the practical good sense by which this
bold apostolic action, in common with the rest of
Scripture, is marked. Faith is the belief of
God's promises ; but where is the promise that
A. B., having appointed himself a minister, and
called himself to a line of labor, or placed him
self at the head of an institution, will be sus
tained without the employment of the ordinary
means through which God declares He will
work? True prudence and true piety never
fail to harmonize.

WHAT ALTAR HAVE WE?

HE opening words of Heb. 13 : 19, " We
have an altar" the meaning of which
we are to find from the context, may
be seen as the heading of compositions
intended to show that the minister is a sacri
ficing priest, and the Lord's Supper a means of
propitiation. By detaching a phrase of scrip
ture from its natural connection, and ignoring
all related truth, one may make the inspired
volume teach almost anything ; but it is at the
cost of its reputation as a book of wisdom, to
say nothing of the good sense of such exposi
tors. Foolish as is the argument so founded, that
is a most serious position which it is brought to
sustain. It affects not only the position of the
ministry, but the religious experience of the

WHAT ALTAR HAVE HE? \-j\
people, because it affects our views of the one
great sacrifice offered by Christ. We ought
therefore to know of what kind is that altar to
which Christians come.
The word is of frequent use in scripture. The
first altar expressly named is Noah's — (Gen. 8 :
20) — erected on his coming out of the ark. Tra
ditions regarding an altar erected by Adam, on
which Cain and Abel offered, and affirming that
God erected the first altar prior to creation and
made man upon it, are worthless as to fact, and
only suggestive of the conspicuous place the al
tar held in all ancient religious thinking.
We need not here look at altars of which we
have several illustrations in scripture, that have a
memorial, rather than a religious use, such as
those erected in commemoration of the divine
interdict against peace with Amalek, and of the
perpetual unity of the separated tribes with
their brethren, notwithstanding that "Jordan
rolled between " their possessions — (Exod.
17: 15, 16, and Josh. 22: 10-29).
The altars with which we have to do, aie
those that possess divine sanction for religious
uses ; and the question that concerns us is, do

172 WHAT ALTAR HAVE WE?
they run on into the New Testament and stand
to us as they did to the Jews in the Old ?
The two altars that Moses made by divine
command, and which were renewed and modified
in the changes which the Tabernacle and the
Temple underwent, were that of Burnt offering,
and that of Incense. That of the Burnt offering
had to do with sacrifice, shedding of blood,
making of atonement, and averting divine anger.
Its fire was never to die out. It was not the
symbol of Deity, like that which Roman Vestals
guarded, or Persian priests kept constantly burn
ing. It was the means of the most solemn acts
of Jewish worship. Its origin was regarded as
divine, and it suggested that the people should
never cease to be divine worshippers, a " king
dom of priests, unto the Lord " — (Exod. 19: 6).
On this altar blood was sprinkled, and the
sacrifices were consumed. It hallowed the gift.
It was nothing if not for sacrificial purposes.
The altar of incense had no such use. Once
a year it was sprinkled with blood — (Exod. 30:
10) — as a part of the service of the great day of
atonement. Sweet incense was burned on it
daily. It is the expression of a people's praise,

WHA T AL TAR HA VE WE? 173
the praise itself accepted on the ground of their
being atoned for. So the horns of it once a year
bear the traces of blood shed for the remission
of sin. When heaven is represented in scrip
ture under the figure of a temple, we miss from
it the altar of Burnt-offering. No more atone
ment is to be made. The saints are " perfected
for ever " by the one offering long since made.
But we do find the altar of incense — for praise
is perpetual. "They rest not day and night,
saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty,
which was, and is, and is to come." A live coal
from off the altar — Isa. 6 : 6, 7 — of which the
smoke or incense filled the house, — v. 4 — touches
the lips of Isaiah that he may speak the praises
of the Lord. (The tradition of the Jews is that
the original fire on the altar of Burnt-offering
emitted no smoke). In Rev. 8 : 3, 4 — heaven
is presented to the Apostle's gaze ; an angel
stands by the altar of incense, with a golden cen
ser, and much incense, which he offers up with
the prayers of the saints. Symbolic though these
representations be, the absence of any other
altar is not without significance.
Now we come to the New Testament, where

'74

WHA T ALTAR HA VE WE?

worship is set up by the Apostles and a church
of the Lord Jesus reconstructed. But we miss
all allusion to an altar of any kind. It is of no
importance that distinct religious edifices for
Christian purposes were not erected in Apostolic
times. If the altar had been an essential part
of the Christian ritual, it would have been pro
vided for, as truly as by Abraham or Noah.
The early Christians were at home in the syna
gogue which had no altar ; and their simple wor
ship easily accommodated itself to the private
house. Not that there is silence regarding all sacri
fice ; on the contrary, the sacrifice of Christ is
constantly on the lips of the preachers of the
gospel. They "glory in the Cross," where the
Redeemer "put away sin by the sacrifice of him
self" — Heb. 9: 26. They speak of the shedding
of blood which " cleanseth from all sin," and of
a Saviour who " is the propitiation for our sins."
But they give no hint of a Christian altar for any
renewal or presentation or representation of that
offering. They have indeed a rite for the show
ing forth of Christ's death ; but it has no altar
or sacred place connected with it. Its only re-

WHAT ALTAR HAVE WE? 175
quisites are those of a simple meal, and it can be
observed anywhere and at any time.
They do indeed speak of a Christian sacrifice,
but it is always defined in its nature so strictly
that it cannot be confounded with the one offer
ing. They offer a living sacrifice— (Rom. 12 : 1)
— but it is the daily consecration of themselves
to God. It is not resemblance to the Hebrew
sacrifice, but contrast with it, that gives point to
the statement. They offer a sacrifice, but it is
not in any distinct or exclusive way in the
Lord's Supper ; it is the " sacrifice of praise," —
(Heb. 13: 15) — "that is the fruit of the lips,
giving thanks to His name." And when they
say, " we have an altar," — (Heb. 13: 10) — it is
not to assert that in any form answering to the
Jewish , they offer sacrifice ; it is to assert the
radical difference between the Jewish method
and th eirs, a difference so radical that serving at
both i 5 impossible. He who would be a priest
at the Jewish altar, and go on sacrificing, by
that very fact shuts himself out from the spirit
ual provision of which the Christian shares and
to which the Redeemer alluded as eating His
flesh and drinking His blood,— (John 6 : 54-55)

176 WHA T ALTAR HA VE WE?
— that is having Him so incorporated with us,
and us with Him, that we shall be as one before
God. This being the case, it is obvious that our
fathers of the Reformation did not obey a mere
fanatical impulse when they cast out altars.
They logically followed out a principle funda
mental in Christianity, that Christ's sacrifice is
complete forever, and that we do not repeat, or
re-present, but plead it. To turn the people
to " a pure language" on this subject, would be
no inconsiderable gain. Educated persons, of
course, know that the " hymeneal altar," of the
newspapers, comes to us not from Judaism, but
from heathenism, with its Hyman as God of
marriage. The Christian church in mediaeval
days made the altar everything; and the sup
posed "sacrifice" thereon naturally drove the
people to worship and adore on their knees. It
was no narrowness, it was a wise precaution that
discouraged this " appearance of evil," and
taught men to sit at the communion table, and
to stand up in the ordinance of baptism. If
the evil never had gained place in the world,
reverence might have safely expressed itself by

WHA T AL TAR HA VE WE ?

177

the lowliest attitude ; but the theoretical and
practical error still remaining and still asserting
itself, it is safe for Christian churches to with
hold anything which might be construed into
low partial approbation.

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF "THE FA
THERS?"
sS§)|Y " the fathers" we mean, in common
with all Christendom, the early writers
of the Christian church. Their pro
ductions and the discussions to which
they have given rise are frequently described as
Patristic Literature. In the nature of the case,
early church history has much to do with these
venerable records ; and all good men, whatever
degree of authority they may attach to the
documents, must regard them with profound in
terest. The fathers are distinguished variously ; as,
by the date of their productions ; the nature of
their works ; and the language in which they
wrote. So we have the " apostolical " fathers,
who were cotemporary in part with the apostles

WHAT IS THE VALUE \yg
or some of them : the " apologetic" fathers, who
entered the lista of controversy and defended
Christianity on the field of literature ; and the
Greek and Latin fathers, a distinction of no
great value, except as suggesting peculiarities
of modes of thought and expression. A further
distribution of them has been recently made
into ante-nicene and post-nicene. In A. D. 325
the Emperor Constantine called a Council at
Nice, in Bythinia, for the suppression of the
Arian heresy, the result of whose deliberations
on that subject we have in the " Nicene Creed,"
part of which, with some changes, is embodied
in the formularies of the Roman and Anglican
churches. The principal reason for our feeling some in
terest in the fathers, is in the use that it has
been attempted to make of them for the revival
of mediaeval religion ; for the re- establishment
of sacerdotalism, or the religion of the priest ¦
and the undoing of the work of the reformation.
With the growing practical activity of modern
times, and the increasing authorship of the
churches, there had been little attention paid to
this department of ancient literature till the

l8o OF « THE FA THERS? '
"Oxford movement," claiming to found itself
on the ancient authorities, compelled attention
to them. Men take the unknown, if it be osten
tatiously presented, as very great ; and num
bers of persons bowed in silent submission be
fore the learned quotation of " one of the
fathers," as an end of all controversy. As nerv
ous horses are cured by compelling them to face
the dreaded object ; as ghosts lose their terrors
when boldly faced, so the terrors of "the fa
thers" have been sensibly diminished by the
acquaintance with them which a good English
translation renders easy. There is now no ex
cuse for any blind deference to alleged extracts
and authorities from these ancient writers, when
their works can be procured for a few dollars,
and examined by an ordinary English reader
with the same ease with which he examines Ed
wards, Andrews, or Jeremy Taylor.
If we do not yield to these venerable writers
the unquestioning submission that has been de
manded for them, we are not the less ready to
appreciate the light they cast on the customs,
usages, and circumstances of the early church.
Nor dp we fail to see a value they have never

WHA T IS THE VALUE t 8 1
contemplated by those who exaggerate their
worth, namely, in displaying by contrast the
dignity of style, moderation of sentiment, and
consistency of parts, of those inspired oracles
which they approach in time, but from which
they are divided by a great gulf in everything
else. We can readily admit all this, and at the
same time own that for the purpose of teaching
Christian truth, the works of the late Dr. Archi
bald Alexander are of more value than the
" apostolical fathers."
Good service was rendered some years ago
by the Rev. John Harrison, an English curate
near Sheffield, on the subject of the authority
of the Fathers, in a work directed against the
Anglo-Catholic view of apostolic succession, and
its affiliated doctrines. Mr. Harrison,* by a
careful and laborious collation of the writers of
the first six centuries has shown that by them no
such view of the Church and its ministry is
countenanced, as is urged on England at the
present time. In the course of his examination
he has proved that traditional misquotations,
* Whose are the Fathers. London : Longmans, Green
k Co., 1867.

1 82 OF " THE FA THERS? "
garbled extracts, and extravagant mistransla
tions have been doing duty in the pages of men
so distinguished as Dr. Andrews, Bishop Words
worth, the Bishop of Exeter, Dean Hook, and
Mr. Gladstone, in days when he was a greater
authority in High-Church religion than in poli
tics. The argument of the Anglo-Catholics has
been that whatever is agreed on by the early
fathers binds the church. This is no more than
the rule of the Church of Rome to interpret the
scriptures by the unanimous consent of the
fathers, a condition as probably attainable as the
squaring of the circle, or the realization of per
petual motion. But there are certain simple and
obvious matters about which the Apostolical
fathers do come very near harmony — which
nevertheless have been ignored by their obsequi
ous followers. Two of those touched by Mr.
Harrison may be mentioned. All the authority
of the Apostolic fathers is in favor of standing
at prayer on Sundays and certain holidays ; but
the very lowliest and most frequent kneeling and
prostration find favor among the Ritualists.
Nothing is of more moment in modern Anglo-

WHAT IS THE VALUE 1 83
Catholicism than that the chancel, the most sacred
part of the church, should be at the east end.
The use of the compass is recommended to
architects, by Dean Hook, that they may give
the building the proper orthodox bearings, and
even sextons are to use the same helps in placing
graves due east and west. But the examination
of the fathers shows that as late as the fifth cen
tury the exact opposite was the Christian
method, and that the west end was the sacred
end of the church ; and strangely enough some
of the evidence of this fact passed through the
hands of Drs. Pusey, Keble, and Newman, in a
work of Cyril, which they edited.
In the full belief that the best cure for a
superstitious regard for the fathers is a little
knowledge of them, we venture on a modest in
troduction to the names and remains of those
known as Apostolical, and whose authority may
be naturally supposed the very greatest.
For a long time the Epistle of Barnabas
held rank as the earliest production of the Apos
tolic fathers, and was credited to the compan
ion of Paul's labors. Scarcely any scholar now
attributes it to him, nor can the author's name

1 84 OF " THE FA THERS? "
be fixed. Though other fathers, like Clement of
Alexandria, attribute it to Barnabas the Levite,
its internal evidence condemns it. It includes
within thirty-five octavo pages absurd and tri
fling interpretations of scripture, numerous inac
curacies as to Mosaic enactments — (very inex
cusable in a Levite, if Barnabas were the writer)
— and a good deal of extravagant boasting of
superior knowledge. This is the estimate of it
formed by its careful translator in Clark's library.
It was probably written by a Gentile Christian
of Alexandria, against Judaism, and about the
end of the first century. Except as a curious
monument of the past, it is worthless, even in
point of style and expression taking but a low
place. It ought to be added, in justice to the
unknown writer, that he did not claim the name
of Paul's illustrious and devoted co-laborer.
The'next of these fathers is CLEMENT, with
out any proper evidence, supposed to be the
Clement named by Paul in Phil. 4 : 3. Without
any identification of the writer with Paul's
friend, he gives us an Epistle of the Church
of God sojourning at Rome, to the Church

WHAT IS THE VALUE

185

at Corinth, probably of a date as early . as
A. D. 96. It is feeble in style, but thorough
ly earnest and evangelical in spirit, and gives a
good impression of the heart of the writer,
though he has managed to put into about forty-
two octavo pages enough that is fanciful, and
enough that is fabulous, to mark off his produc
tion from the inspired writings.*
HERMAS is mentioned in Rom. 16: 14, and
to him is ascribed the most popular book of the
second and third centuries, the Pilgrim's Pro-
*For the benefit of those who have not the work at hand we
print entire chap. xxv.
" Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection]
which takes place in eastern lands, that is in Arabia and the
countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called
a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hun
dred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near
that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense and
myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled,
it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of
worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the
dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired
strength, it takes up the nest in which are the bones of its
parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into
Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying
in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun,
and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The
priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it
has returned exactly as the five-hundredth year was completed."

1 86 OF " THE FA THERS? "
gress of that time, held in so high esteem that
its inspiration was sometimes suggested. In
112 pages, written originally in Greek, we have
a book of four visions, one of twelve commands,
and a third of ten similitudes. The name " Pas
tor" or Shepherd has been given to it, because
an angel described as "a man of glorious aspect,
dressed like a shepherd, with a white goat's
skin, a wallet on his shoulders, and a rod in his
hand, presented himself to the writer." After
respectful mutual salutations, he said : " I have
been sent by a most venerable angel, to dwell
with you the remaining days of your life."
Distrusting him, Hermas makes more inquiry,
eliciting the fact that he is a guardian angel.
He develops much imagination, suited, no
doubt, to the taste and temper of the times, and
the product which Hermas records from his lips.
Ignatius, commonly described as Bishop of
Antioch, and who, by his own account of him
self, was more zealous than prudent, coveting
martyrdom, was long credited with the author
ship of fifteen letters, one of them to the Vir
gin Mary. But of these, eight are now univer
sally admitted to be spurious and of a later age,

WHAT IS THE VALUE 187
and the remaining seven are yet in the fires of a
controversy, in which great zeal, learning and
ability have been displayed, and of which little
other good has come. Even those who main
tain the genuineness of the seven are ready to
admit that they " have been grievously cor
rupted and interpolated." These interpolations
have evidently been made by some zealous par
tisans of the priesthood for the purpose of un
duly exalting the episcopal dignity.* In the
note below will be found specimens of the sup
posed Ignatian correspondence, amply sustain
ing this view, and explaining sufficiently the zeal
of Anglo -Catholics for patristic literature.f
*Rev. J. Taylor in the Brit. Encyc. Vol. ix. p. 491.
f " See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does
the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles ; and
reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no
man do anything connected with the church without the bishop.
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered]
either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of
the people] also be ; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is
the catholic church. It is not lawful without the bishop either
to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast ; but whatsoever he shall
approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that
is done may be secure and valid. It is well to reverence both
God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been
honored by God ; he who does anything without the know)
edge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil."

1 88 OF" THE FA THERS? "
When we have named the Epistle of POLY-
CARP, a genuine letter of nine or ten octavo
pages, probably of about A. D. 150, and one
chapter of which is doubtful, we have reached
the end of the list of Apostolic fathers, and any
one who will take the trouble to read them will
be apt to conclude that the extravagant eulogies
upon them, and the claims rested thereon, are
to be placed among the " great swelling words
of vanity " of the apostle Peter.
The limits of this paper preclude a detailed
notice of the later fathers, whose works become
more voluminous, and more assured, as we fol
low the stream of time. Of men like Origen,
Cyprian, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, Hippolytus, and above all, Jerome and
Augustine, it is impossible to think otherwise
than with love and cordial appreciation of their
industry, learning, courage, and general fidelity ;
while it is equally impossible to deny the many
evidences they all furnish of human fallibility,
and of a growing tendency to accommodate
Christianity to the current of thought, to
smooth off its angles, to adapt it to a state of
mind moulded by heathenism, and to admit

WHAT IS THE VALUE 189
much of that hierarchical grandeur, which is at
once grateful to the natural man of its wearer,
and which was in those days the supposed fitting
accompaniment of a great corporation, and of
high spiritual influence.
To show, however, that they are not to be
held responsible for all that has been offered to
the world in their name, let us avail ourselves of
two texts of Scripture, on which Mr. Harrison
has turned the light of his investigations. They
are main strongholds of Anglo-Catholicism. In
John 20: 21. our Lord says: "As my Father
hath sent me, even so send I you." The ren
dering of this verse by Dean Hook, Dr. Words
worth, the Bishop of Exeter, and all of that'
school, is to the effect that Christ thereby em
powered the apostles to give to others the mis
sion which His gift showed to be transferable,
and that, by inference, the bishops exclusively
have the powers of the twelve. But no father
has so understood the words, or given the An
glo-Catholic sense. Tertullian puts the church
where the Tractarians put the bishops, and
Chrysostom expressly guards against supposing

i^O OF " THE FA THERS? "
that there is any comparison in the text but be
tween the Father and the Son.
So all countenance from the fathers is de
nied to another favorite reading of the same
party, namely of Matt. 28: 20. We presume
many a humble private believer has comforted
his heart with the blessed promise of Christ :
" Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world." But Dr. Wordsworth could not
admit the right of an ordinary Christian to ap
propriate the assurance. He reads : " With
you, and with those in whom your apostolical
authority will be continued, to the end." But
Origen applies the text to all believers ; Cyprian
even to persecuted women ; Novatian to all
Christians; as do Athanasius, Jerome, Augus
tine, and the rest.
It is something for those who have little
time for the study of authorities, and who are
apt to have an undefined dread of what they
have not examined, to k:ow that the Apostoli
cal Fathers are readable and accessible ; that
their bulk is not hopelessly discouraging ; that
evangelical truth has nothing to fear from them,
but everything to gain ; and finally, that the

WHAT IS THE VALUE, ETC. 191
main principles of that Tractarian System which
rested, in so great a degree, on " the Fathers,"
give way before the fearless examination of these
ancient authorities. Tractarianism in thinking,
and Ritualism in worship, can long sustain
themselves on the natural Romanism of the
human heart, and the natural taste for scenic
effect, among those who have not the inclination
even if they had the ability, to examine the
literary foundation of the system. But they
cannot be sustained among those who know the
Fathers, on their authority. Next to an accu
rate acquaintance with the inspired word, the
best cure to a mind of ordinary intelligence for
unreasoning deference to the Fathers, is a mod
erate acquaintance with their productions.

IS THE SABBATH FOR US?

CCORDING to the book of Genesis,
^| the Creator rested from all his works
on the seventh day. That fatigue or
need of physical relief made this rest necessary
is of course out of the question. It could only
be for the sake of example and authorization
of a Sabbath for the world.
In what sense a day could be hallowed, or
sanctified, except by setting it apart for holy
uses, it is difficult to see. A portion of time
can have no moral quality, or conscious happi
ness : but it can have dignity and honor put upon
it, by its separation to holy uses. And as bless
ing the lower creatures gave them continuance
on the earth, why should not the blessing of the
Sabbath have the like significance?
We do not need to enter on a discussion as

IS THE SABBA TH FOR US? 193
fo the Sabbath-keeping that prevailed in the
ages intervening between the creation and the
Mosaic economy. There is too much evidence
that in the universal corruption that preceded
and necessitated the flood, and after the flood
made the call of Abraham needful, the Sabbath
fared as it usually has in a godless and corrupt
community. Nor do we need to put Homer, Hesiod and
Herodotus on the stand to tell us of the early
division of time into weeks, and of the weekly
holidays. They who disregard the authority of
the Scriptures will as readily allege that the
Christian Sabbath grew out of these usages, as
that they grew out of primitive traditions, and
broken memories of a state of innocence.
Neither do we rest much weight on the word'
" remember," in the opening of the fourth com
mandment ; as we do not quote at all in proof
of the divine intention the words, "the Sabbath
was made for man," with the emphasis on man,
as distinguished from Jews, since, if anywhere,
the emphasis should be on " made." We point
to the fact that in the very midst of the com
mandments, written by the finger of God, on

1^4 JS THE SABBATH FOR US?
tables of stone, and made the basis of a cove
nant with his people, God placed the full and
explicit st dtement of his will regarding the sev
enth portion of time. We see no more reason
for setting it aside than any of the other com
mandment i. It is as truly interwoven with the
decalogue as any of them. The first secures ac-
knowlei tgment of God in his unity ; the second
in his spiritual nature ; the third in his holy
and re\erend character; the fourth in his day
and right to be worshipped ; the fifth in his
representatives ; as the sixth guards the person,
the seventh the purity, the eighth, the property,
and the ninth the good name of our neighbors,
while the fifth makes the easy transition from
God to one's neighbor, parents having something
in common with God (" in the Lord," Eph. 6 : I.)
and with our neighbor ; and the tenth closes up
all by interdicting the beginnings of evil in the
heart. As a careful farmer cuts out the roots of
weeds in his land, so the Lord by this command
eradicates the germs of evil deeds.
We need not be staggered by the fact that
public worship is not enjoined in the fourth com
mandment. We may . be sure that under

IS THE SABBA TH FOR US? 195
Moses and inspired judges and prophets, the
commandment was rightly understood by the
people, and what they did in holy convocation,
at the tabernacle and around the temple and in
the synagogue, was in accordance with the well-
known Divine will. The Sabbath synagogue
worship of our Lord's time He did not by pre
cept or example stigmatize as a piece of fanati
cism, or of will-worship.
Nor should it weigh much with us that the
Sabbath of Christendom is at the beginning,
that of creation at the end, of the week. The
point is not where the holy time shall come,
but that one-seventh part of it shall be given.
Our geographical knowledge enables us to know
that it is physically impossible to observe identi
cally the same hours all over the world. If the
Bible had made a point of that, how eagerly the
second-rate " Scientists " would have attacked it
as evidence of " popular ignorance " in the book !
The point is that one-seventh part of our time
be for the Lord ; and if the Son of Man, among
other changes in modes of approach to God,
made by him, not only to attest his authority,
but for man's good, should alter the plan of the

ig6 IS THE SABBA TH FOR US?
Sabbath, we may be sure it has been done «rith
sufficient, though undeclared reason ; for sove
reignty is not the adoption of a course l>y the
Lord capriciously and without reason, but for
reasons of infinite wisdom which are not dis
closed. Nor is there absolute want of fitneii in the
change. A completed creation was suitably
commemorated by a day at the end of t he week.
But when Jesus rose from the dead it v/as not as
the end of new creation, but as its leginning ;
and the commemorative day may mos'-; properly
come at the week's commencement. The end
of the new creation will be the everla iting Sab
bath. A thoughtful and discriminating reader of
Scripture will not be influenced by the alle
gations that are made as to Jewiih ways of
keeping the Sabbath in the wilderness. Who
has not heard of the man who was stoned for
gathering sticks — and of the prohibition of a fire ?
It has a certain plausible force to say, ' you would
rtot stone a man for this offence, and you all
break the commandment when you light your
fire.' It is a sufficient reply to say, these things

IS THE SABBA TH FOR US? \gj
were not in the commandment. The gathering
of sticks was a deliberate and defiant act of re
bellion against the government of the Lord.
It is treason, and was punished as all nations
punish treason ; and the prohibition of fire
(Exod. 33 : 5) was a legitimate deduction from
the forbidding of unnecessary work on that day.
" For domestic comfort, fire was not a thing of
necessity or mercy in the peninsula of Sinai. In
colder regions it is otherwise ; and there the law
of necessity or mercy regulates the observance
of the Sabbath." (Murphy in loc) But these
particulars are not inserted in the command
ment. They were matters of detail and admin
istration that sprung from the principle of it,
while the people were immediately and solely
under God and in the wilderness. There is no
prohibition to us against lighting fires ; and as
to " the sticks " we are not under theocratic
government. The conclusion then remains, un
touched by any objections, that the Sabbath, or
the Lord's seventh portion of our time, passes
on from the Old Testament to the New — not as
a church arrangement, or a convenience, but on
divine authority. Any changes it has undergone

I98 IS THE SABBA TH FOR US?
in the transition are not greater than those
effected in praise, prayer, and service generally.
So we come to put a practical question, often
asked in our time : Can men keep the fourth Com
mandment ?
The opponents of the " Puritan Sabbath "
are very much concerned about the interests of
the working-classes. They overflow with sym
pathy for the sons of toil. They are pained be
yond expression by the tyranny exercised over
them by rigid and narrow-minded Sabbatarians.
With an eager and demonstrative regard, de
scribed in other connections as " gushing," they
proclaim themselves the friends of the crowd who
in the sweat of their brow eat their bread. That
a Mosaic Sabbath should be inflicted on them,
that a day of Jewish austerity and gloom should
darken their week, is to them intolerable. But
it is not alleged, even by them, that Moses in
vented the Sabbath. It is conceded that, what
ever it might be to the enlightened Gentiles of
this century, the Sabbath was a divine institu
tion to the Jews. Now it is commonly held
that the Lord was most kind and considerate to
the Jews. A land flowing with milk and honey,

IS THE SABBATH FOR US?

I99

in which they were protected and blessed, made
them a happy people. It does not occur appar
ently to these benevolent reformers of social life,
that their programme means nothing if it be not
that they are wiser and kinder friends of the
working-men than was the God of Israel. He
imposed the burden of a Sabbath. They will
roll it off. He cursed the chosen people with
the sour sanctity of a weekly Sabbath. They
will remove the curse ; their promised land shall
have no such bondage. He either intended
a cruel yoke for the people, or He blundered.
They mean kindness, and they make no mis
takes. We do not call this blasphemy. THe
word is too grave for such absurdity. We are
willing to believe that they know not what they
say. In many cases these liberators of the down
trodden are active in business. They run rail
roads, print newspapers, manage theatres, and
even keep beer-saloons. Now, there is a test of
their benevolence which they can easily apply.
Give the sons of toil railway passes, free news
papers, exhibitions, and " drinks " gratis on Sun
day, and then we shall know the sincerity of

2oo IS THE SABBATH FOR US?
your benevolence. But, gentlemen, while you
make money out of your proteges your virtue is
questionable. It is like that of the city friend
who keeps his " country cousin " out of the tav
ern because he means to pluck him at the gam
ing-table. However otherwise indifferent- to the Sa
viour's example, these reformers of the churches
and friends of the workingmen are much edified
by what they consider our Lord's encourage
ment to Sabbath-breaking in His being at, as it
is described, " a large dinner-party on the Sab
bath-day." The reference is to Luke 14 : 1-24.
On this event we make the following remarks :
I. It was not forbidden in the commandment
to exercise hospitality. " It was usual for the
rich to give a feast on that day," says the writei
of the Sabbath article in Smith's Dictionary of
the Bible, " and our Lord's attendance at such a
feast and making it the occasion of putting forth
His rules for the demeanor of guests and for the
right exercise of hospitality, show that the gath
ering of friends and social enjoyment were not
deemed inconsistent with the true scope and
spirit of the Sabbath. It was thought right that

IS THE SABBA TH FOR US? 201
the meats, though cold, should be of the best
and choicest, nor might the Sabbath be chosen
for a fast."
2. This will not serve the turn of those who
wish to make out that our Lord relaxed the
fourth commandment ; for, in the first place, if it
had been against the commandment, or even the
Jews' sense of it, we may be sure it would have
been made the ground of objection against
Christ; and, secondly, Nehemiah, a Jewish re
former of the strictest principle, gave directions
for " eating the fat, and drinking the sweet, and
sending portions unto them for whom nothing
is prepared," on the Sabbath, after sermon.
(See Nehemiah 8 : 8, io.)
3. This cheerful view of the Sabbath cannot
be reconciled with the epithets "gloomy," " mo
rose," etc., so freely bestowed on the Jewish Sab
bath. 4. There is nothing in the whole matter to
trouble any friend of the fourth commandment.
When a minister preaches away from his home,
and there is a second service, is it uncommon
or wrong that several persons should have a
meal together with any family in the place?

202 IS THE SABBA TH FOR US?
Who censures this ? Who counts it a breach
of the fourth commandment ? Who is Supposed
thereby to relax the standard of Sabbath-keep
ing? This was as nearly as possible the case
with the Redeemer. " We are not here to un
derstand a public banquet," says Paulus, who
has no object to serve. Lange also notices the
fact that the food was prepared beforehand, and
the family had no special work to do on the
Sabbath. The narrative, therefore, shows two
things — namely, that the fourth commandment
was not so gloomy an enactment as its enemies
make out, and that whatever it enacted was not
held to be touched by the Lord in this particular
case. Any argument therefore founded on it in
favor of the relaxing theory falls to the ground.
But can the fourth commandment be kept ?
Why not ? It enjoins six days' work and labor,
and a seventh day in which men shall not work
nor labor. So far its rule is plain. The things
to be laid aside on the seventh day, are not a
turn in the garden, or look out of the window,
or a walk in the corn-field, or anything of the
kind, but — the work and labor of the six days.
Is there anything impracticable in that? Can-

IS THE SABBA TH FOR US?

203

not the farmer stop his ploughs and wagons ;
the trader close his store ; the merchant shut up
his office ; Sir Matthew Hale lay aside his law
books ; the factory be closed ; the mill be silent ?
Any impossibility in that? But so far as the
working part of the commandment is concerned,
that is all the Lord enjoins. All the supposed
prohibitions brought up to show the impractica
bility of a Sabbath are importations, inventions
of men who wish to decry the divine appoint
ment. This use of them is not only dishonest, but
there is a curious perverse childishness about
them. So a noisy and troublesome urchin, de
sired to keep quiet, replies : " I can't stop breath
ing, can I?" A firm father would say, " No,
that is not wanted ; but you can stop upsetting
the chairs;" and then with great propriety he
might punish him for his insolence.
Nor does this view of the Sabbath — as in
volving the cessation from the servile toil and
business of the six days — imply that the Sabbath
meant nothing more. With a singular literalism
it has been alleged that non-labor is all that the
fourth commandment enjoins. How this is to

204 IS THE SABBA TH F0R USi
be reconciled with the fair reading of the com.
mandment it is for such eccentric theologians to
say. How can a portion of time be hallowed or
kept holy? It is of no use to tell us of some
meanings of the Hebrew word for hallow.
Things hallowed lost their common and ac
quired a holy use. How can a day be hallowed ?
By simple non-labor? The Jews did not so un
derstand it, as their holy convocations and doub
led sacrifices proved. The non-labor was not
an end, but a means toward another end.
Besides, it is surely unlike God's way to
order idleness for idleness' sake, which, indeed,
was the Pharisaic idea against which the Saviour
uttered the protest : " My father worketh hither
to and I work." (John 5 : 17.)
If the views we here defend be true, then the
self-constituted friends of the working-class are
their foes. For any number of persons to play,
some must work. You cannot drive, entertain,
keep public places open, enjoy the play in the
theatre, without work by some class of laborers.
My dear friends ! who throw up your caps to
day because you can, in defiance of the Sabbata
rians, enjoy yourselves in public places, you are

IS THE SABBA TH FOR US? 205
not only false to your class, you are stupidly
false to yourselves. You play to-day ; your
turn to work will come next week, or next
year. The contractor who is in a hurry with the
house will require you carpenters or masons to
work on your holiday, or find another place,
which may not always be convenient. The mas
ter tailor wants coats ready for his Sabbath-des
ecrating customers, who will " air their new
clothes " on their holiday afternoon, and you
must finish them in the forenoon or find another
job. One is tempted to quote to you the words
of one who saw the blind fickleness of the mob :
" Ye blocks ! Ye stones ! Ye worse than sense
less things ! " but that might not be respectful
to you or your friends.
If we had any opportunity to speak to young
ministers on this subject, we should say to them
something like this : It may seem to you very
nice to patronize the working-man — to feel great
sympathy for those who, if not amused or em
ployed on Sabbath, will be in very bad places
(how they themselves regard this estimate of
their habits is another matter,) and to be very

2o6 IS THE SABBATH FOR US?
liberal in your interpretation of the Sabbath law.
Liberality is very nice, but one can only be lib
eral of one's own. You may not have a right to
give away in this instance. The Son of Man may
be Lord of the Sabbath in a sense that precludes
your disposal of it. Do not belittle your office
or your message. Do not make excuse for the
despisers of it. Do not give out that the " glad
tidings " are dull and unattractive, compared
with other appeals to the intellect from the his
torian, the poet, or the philosopher. And if
they tell you of pretty devices they have for lur
ing sinners out of very bad places to better,
which shall be half-way houses to the sanctuary,
let your reply be, that the chances are as many
for men going down to the half-way houses from
the sanctuary as for their going up from them.
They tell you of the chance of " reforming "
men. God has given the Gospel of His grace
for reforming men by saving them ; and one soul
saved is a more solid and real gain than ten re
formed and left to sleep in sin. They will tell
you that s^ome men will stay away whether you
like it or not. Very well ; they do it on their
own responsibility. It is no part of your duty

IS THE SABBA TH FOR US?

207

to make their consciences easy in it by enabling
them to say : " The minister owns the Sabbath
dull, his sermons prosy, the doctrines stupid, and
absence very natural, and he sanctions my half
way house."
And if they persist in telling you how much
good somebody has done by these non-religious
devices on the Lord's day, turn away from them
as if you heard the Master himself say to you :
" Let the dead bury their dead ; but go thou
and preach the kingdom of God." (Luke 9 : 60.)

WHAT IS THE USE OF THE BOOK OF
REVELATION ?
HERE is a true sense in which it is not
forbidden to a Christian to pry into
the future. Christ gave hope to the
disciples that the Spirit would lead them into all
truth and " show them things to come." The
curiosity becomes childish or simple when it em
ploys ways of its own, and in matters on which
God reserves to himself the knowledge of the
future. He has not put the book of Revelation
in the Bible, without an object ; and it is fair to
assume that as the Evangelic Scriptures are suf
ficient for all evangelical purposes, the apoca
lypse is sufficient for all revealing purposes.
Not that these portions of Scripture are dis
tinctly marked off one from the other. They

n J AT IS THE USE Of Alt.

209

blend necessarily and from the nature of the
case. Our Lord responds to the questionings of
the twelve as reported in Matthew, with a
lengthened prophetical discourse, containing
the substance of the visions which He gave at a
later day, and in different circumstances to the
beloved disciple. Nor can anything be more
marked than the pains taken at the outset of
the later announcements to impress on the be
lieving mind that the same divine Teacher is in
Patmos that taught hard by Jerusalem. He ap
pears in his glory. He announces his name and
history. He declares his purpose. He is identi
fied by one who leaned on his bosom and stood
near him in life. (Rev 1:11, 13, 18.)
Nor can it be properly alleged that we have
nothing to do with unfulfilled prophecy. Proph
ecies are miracles of knowledge. Raising the
dead is a miracle of power. Both are evidences
of the supernatural, credentials of a divine am
bassador, for which Pharaoh and all other men of
a true instinct seek. Exod. ch. iv. and 7 : 9.)
But apart from this evidential value, there
are facts resting on the authority of prophecy
hardly less vital to our Christian hopes than

2io WHAT IS THE USE OF
those that stand on the foundation of history
Christ has come — that is history. Christ will
come again — that is prophecy. Christ has died
and risen — that is history. Christ will raise up
all his people — that is prophecy. Christ has
gone to heaven — that is history. He will come
to carry his people, even in the body, to the
many mansions— that is prophecy. Christ has
purchased a church — that is history. He will
render her triumphant over all opposition — that
is a matter of belief on the ground of prophecy.
No arrogance of style therefore that men have
adopted ; no mistakes which they have commit
ted; no incautious announcements that they
have made ; should deter us from examining that
prophetic truth which is bound up with all reve
lation, or indeed have any other effect upon us
than to teach us reverence for the word, caution
and self-restraint in expounding its obscurer por
tions. Two things are done when a sinner believes
Jesus Christ. He enters into life; and he en
ters into a body, or new and organized commu
nity, of which Christ is the head, and which has
a future in the world. " We believe in the holy

THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION? 2 1 1
Catholic Church." The believer cannot be in
different to the prospects of that community
Nor will his Bible leave him without apprehen
sions. The earliest glow of hope regarding the
progress of the kingdom must have been cooled
somewhat by the ominous announcements of the
Epistles. See for illustration 2 Tim. 3 : 1-5.
" This know also, that in the last days perilous
times shall come. For men shall be lovers of
their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blas
phemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, un
holy. Without natural affection, truce-breakers,
false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of
those that are good. Traitors, heady, high-
minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of
God. Having a form of godliness, but denying
the power thereof — from such turn away." There
would be organized opposition to the kingdom.
See for illustration 2 Thess 2 : 4 — 7. " Who
opposeth and exaltcth himself above all that is
called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he
as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is God. Remember ye not,
that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
things ? And now ye know what withholdeth

212 WHAT IS THE USE OF
that he might be revealed in his time. For the
mystery of iniquity doth already work : only
he who now letteth will let, until he be ta
ken out of the way." The kind of war it
should wage might be dimly perceived in the
writings of John, who announces as to alarmed
" little children," that displays of evil must not
terrify them, as an unexpected disclosure, for
" antichrist" was to come — has already begun
his work. So Paul told his son in the faith i
Tim. 4: 1-3. "Now the Spirit speaketh ex
pressly, that in the latter times some shall de
part from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils ; Speaking lies in
hypocrisy ; having their conscience seared with
a hot iron ; Forbidding to marry, and com
manding to abstain from meats, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving
of them which believe and know the truth."
Nor was it a secret for Timothy's own guid
ance, as an Evangelist. He tells the Thessalon-
ians that " the mystery of iniquity doth already
work." (2 Thess. 2 : 7.) How it would work
they might learn from living opposers. There
was Deotriphes, scheming for the preeminence.

THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION? 2 1 3
There was Demas loving this present world, and
quitting his Christian work. Had they not Hy
menaeus and Philetus declaring the resurrection
to be past already ? Were not Judaizers cor
rupting the simplicity of the truth ? All these
things boded evil : nor mere abstract evil, but
bitter personal assault and fierce conflict. Hard
ness must be endured. The faith must be con
tended for. Fiery trials must be undergone ;
and the words of the Master spoken to the
twelve, " in the world ye shall have tribulation,"
and which early believers might have fondly
hoped, were exhausted in their force in the early
days of Jewish prejudice, they begin to feel may
include them, and imply for them a very real
" partaking of the sufferings of Christ," they who
hated the Master and put him to death, hating
and killing also all who bore his name.
How in view of all these things could the
question be suppressed in the Christian heart,
" what shall the end be?"
Now, let it be borne in mind that it is the
community that is inquired about, rather than
the individual. The individual has his promise
of personal safety. " Go thy way, Daniel, and

2i4 WHAT IS THE USE OF
rest." But the new body, the church, is in ques
tion ; and we are not to look for details and per
sonal history written beforehand, nor notices of
secular movements, nor the rise and fall of em
pires except in so far as the future of that body
is concerned. The discovery of America, the
art of printing, the utilizing of steam and elec
tricity, are mighty events, but they are not in
the conflict in any distinctive way, do not bear
on the issue, are not in any form in the heart of
the questions the church asks, and so are not to
be looked for in the inspired prophetical reply.
We may expect however that the special or
ganized forces that oppose the church will be
delineated in any answer the lord vouchsafes
to his people's eager inquiries And «o they
are. There may be differences of view among
readers of the scripture regarding antichrist ;
but there can be none regarding " the bride, the
Lamb's wife." The chaste spouse of Christ,
foreshadowed in the Forty-fifth Psalm, and
doubtless also in the Song, has for her rival and
persecutor the great whore, Rev. 17: 4. 5. Her
identification with Babylon is complete enough
in v. 5. Departing from the Lord is constar tly

THE BOOK OF REVELA TION?

215

represented in the old Testament prophets as for
nication, and adultery and whoredom — bold
and startling charges that have their basis in the
covenant union — close as that of marriage, — into
which the Lord took His Church. But the most
powerful and relentless of Israel's foes was Bab
ylon.* It only needed then to combine the
two ideas, infidelity to the Lord on the part of
the spouse, and the acquisition of great power,
used, like that of ancient Babylon, in hostility
to the remnant of God's faithful people, to have
the representation of an apostate church, secu
larized, temporally powerful, long in the ascen
dant, great in power and visible resources, bit
ter in her hate of God's word and servants, and
making war against the saints. If anything can
be expressed in bold symbolical imagery it is
that this mighty power will be utterly subverted,
its glory taken away, and the cause of truth, and
* That other reasons besides common hate of God's true Israel
underlie the representation of the Christian apostacy by the name
of Babylon, will be rendered probable to any one who will trace
the similarity between many of the idolatrous usages of ancient
Babylon and those of Romish Christendom. Among the au
thorities in which the parallel may be traced, we would call at
tention to THE TWO BABYLONS, OR NlMROD AND THE PAPACY
by the Rev. A. Hislop.

2l6 WHAT IS THE USE OF
the body of Christ at length delivered from its
fierce and inveterate hatred. (Rev. 18: 21.)
"And a mighty angel took up a stone like a
great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying,
Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon
be thrown down, and shall be found no more at
all." The method by which the overthrow shall
come, the time of it, and other circumstances,
are left in a nimbus of symbol and mystery, the
existence of which has roused inquiring minds,
and stimulated much inquiry — none of it proba
bly useless : but of the issue it is impossible for
the most unlettered to entertain a doubt. The
sentence against this organized opposition is as
clear and unequivocal as that upon Adam in the
Garden. " For her sins have reached unto heav
en, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Reward her even as she rewarded you, and dou
ble unto her double according to her works : in
the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double.
How much she hath glorified herself and lived
deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give
her : for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and
am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. There-

THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION? 2 1 J
fore shall her plagues come in one day, death,
and mourning, and famine ; and she shall be ut
terly burned with fire : for strong is the Lord
God who judgeth her." (Rev. 18 : 5-8.)
The Saviour claimed all power in heaven
and earth. He asserted for himself a kingdom,
not indeed of this world, or like the kingdoms
of earth, but a real and true supremacy over the
souls of men. Will it ever be given ? The
Book of Revelation supplies an answer. Our
translators placed the word " millennium " over
the 20th chapter, not unfitly. It speaks of the
binding of Satan, the setting up of thrones, and
the life and enlargement of the party that had
espoused Christ's cause and been faithful to Him
in darkest times. Let the attention of the
reader be given to Chap, xx : 4, in connection
with two preceding passages. In Chap. 6: 9,
are seen the souls of those which were " behead
ed for the word of God, and for the testimony
which they held." Suppose them for a moment
to stand for the Church, resisted by the Pagan
powers, and appealing to God for supremacy ac
cording to Christ's just claims, we can under
stand why, in response to their appeal (see verse

2i8 WHAT IS THE USE OF
io) for judgment, and vengeance on them that
dwell on the earth, they should be told to " rest
for a little season until their brethren, their fel
low-servants that should be killed as they were
should be fulfilled," or have their time. Now
we naturally look for these brethren as we pro
ceed in the book. We find them at Chap. xiii. :
15, where a power is exhibited to us (it does not
matter what that power may be) that causes that
" as many as would not worship the image of
the beast should be killed." It controls and
marks all as its own, small and great, rich and
poor, free and bond. It makes all things subor
dinate to itself and its interests. It demands au
thority over trade, government, education, things
civil, and things sacred. Chap. 13: 16, 17:
Here now are the " fellow-servants " of those
who cry for vindication in Chap. 6: I, 10, and
who are told to wait until their fellow-servants
" should be killed as they were." That catas
trophe having arrived, we naturally look for the
realization of the hope that has been raised.
So we come to Chap 20 : 4, and we read : "And
I saw thrones," the natural symbols of power
and authority, "and they sat upon them," i. e.,

THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION?

219

the down-trodden and oppressed who could
barely exist before, "and judgment was given
them " (the very thing for which they, cried in
Chap. 10, " how long, O Lord, holy and true,
dost thou not judge," that is, vindicate, " and
avenge our blood on them that dwell on the
earth "), " and (/ saw, an interpolation of the
translators) " the souls of them that were be
headed for the witness of Jesus and the word
of God," that is, the party of Chap. 6 : 9-1 1, the
Christian party as against Paganism, and " which
had not worshipped the beast, neither his image,
neither received his mark upon their foreheads,
or in their hands ; " that is the Christian party
as against a later, corrupt, and tyrannical power,
"and they lived and reigned with Christ a. thou
sand years."
The following facts will appear from a care
ful collation of these three passages :
I. The Christian party will suffer severely
under the opposition of one force that will hate
the name of Jesus and the word of God. That
description surely suits Paganism. Is it to be
established, and is Christ to be given his power
on the overthrow of Paganism ? . r ' , ,

220 WHA T IS THE USE OF
2. A second form of opposition is to be raised
which will not specially hate the name of Jesus,
indeed, but will insist on acknowledgment of it
self, and kill all who will not bear its mark, openly
or secretly, on the forehead or in the hand. It
will accept Jesuitical service; but it must rule
or ruin. Not till this power also shall have
been put down will Christianity have its prom
ised ascendancy. We see its sway. We see it
fill up the cup of its iniquity in the prophetic
delineation. We see its overthrow there. And
then, the conditions of the promise of Chap. 6
9, io, ii being complete in Chap. 13 : 15-17, we
see in Chap. 20 : 4 :
3. The promised " judgment " given, the vin
dication complete, the thrones granted, the
crushed and hated party (" the souls of them
that were beheaded ") rise to life and power ; and
no foe appearing, and no force any longer resist
ing, it lives and reigns with Christ for a period
of great, indefinite length, represented as a thou
sand years, after the manner of symbolic pro
phecy. 4. This is adequate reason for the Book of
Revelation. It answers the question which for

THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION? 22 1
hundreds of years must have stirred in the
heart of all true believers — Will the kingdom of
Christ ever be dominant ? Will the thrones ever
be His ? Is the " all power " only rightful
power, but never to be actual?
It will be actual, as it is rightful, says the
Book of Revelation. But it will be after delays
and dangers. " In the world ye shall have trib
ulation." Be not dismayed by opposition ; be
not alarmed by its long continuance. The
scheme of providence takes in all this. It has
been contemplated. No strange thing happens
to you, or the church. Satan has not sprung an
unexpected force against Christ. He knows it
all ; is " patient because He is eternal ; " and in
due time, when the wickedness of the wicked
shall have become so apparent that none will
be so lost to sense of right as to defend it, He
will arise and plead His cause, take His power
and reign, and His church shall triumph.
The Church needed these assurances. They
are so indefinite as to the form of fulfilment that
no man's free will is interfered with, and no party
can corruptly serve itself heir with confidence to
the promises ; and yet they are so clear and de-

222 WHA T IS THE . USE OF
finite as to the final issue that no heart that loves
Christ and His cause need despond. There was
sufficient reason, therefore, for " the Lord God
of the Holy Prophets " sending His angel to
" show unto His servants the things which must
shortly be done." (Rev. 22: 6.) Nor was it
without reason, but on a distinct and definite
principle that it was alleged in the beginning of
this wonderful and most necessary section of the
Scripture (Rev. 1:3): " Blessed is he that
readeth, and they that hear the words of this
prophecy, and keep those things which are writ
ten therein ; for the time is at hand."
Did we stand on an eminence overlooking
the plain on which two armies contend for vic
tory, ourselves ignorant of military tactics, con
fused by the roar of artillery, seeing but dimly
through clouds of smoke and dust, catching only
glimpses of wheeling battalions and ever-shifting
standards, we should have, during the conflict,
but dim ideas of the result ; but when the smoke
cleared away and the roar of battle died out,
if we saw one army off the ground it held in
the morning, and the other occupying it in
force, we should no longer be uncertain as to

THE BOOK OF REVELA TION? 22X
the issue. And this is very much like our
position as we read the Revelation of John.
We hear the blast of successive trumpets.
There are thunders and lightnings and earth
quakes. Blood flows like water. Strong angels
career through mid-air ; mightiest forces come
into deadly collision. We hear the cries of the
dying and the shout of them that triumph ;
and we hardly know which is victim and which
is victor. But as the book approaches its close,
and the tumult is hushed ; as we see that one
force that had covered the field is off the ground,
is no more to be seen, and that the opposite
power holds the heights, we are no more doubt
fui as to the issue, and we join with " much
people in heaven," and the elders, and the living
creatures, and the multitude whose voice is as
the sound of many waters, in the shout of praise
(Chap, xix : 1-6), " Alleluia ; for the Lord God
Omnipotent reigneth."
" Hold on, then," this book seems to say in
terms and tones that are not mere human, " ye
servants of the most high God ! Fight your
battle ; defend the truth ; resist the devil. You
are no forlorn hope, making a desperate stand,

224

WHAT IS THE USE OF, ETC.:

with no better prospect than to sell your lives as
dearly as you can. You are a part of a victori
ous host, destined to world-wide victory and
everlasting triumph. The future is all yours.
Your king is mighty, and can wait, because the
crown is His by right, and He has all time in
which to do His will. " Be ye therefore stead
fast, unmovable, always abounding in the work
of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your
labor is not in vain in the Lord."

WHAT SHALL THE END BE?
CHRISTIAN Englishman* describes
the perplexity of many minds over the
fact that America is nowhere mention
ed in prophecy. The country seems so
large, and so important a force in these last days,
that the omission of reference to it appears
strange and inexplicable. Dr. Macaulay men
tioned the matter to Dr. Keith, to whom it was
no difficulty. This veteran on the field of pro
phecy promptly replied that prophecy takes note
of principles, and the method of working them
out ; and the method of operation is the same
all the world over. The kingdom of God is not
bounded by geographical limits, but is to the

* James Macaulay, M.D., editor of the " Leisure Hour," in
his " Across the Ferry, or First Impressions of America and its
People (187a), p. 365.

226 WI AT SHALL THE END BE?
ends of the earth. He might have added that
prophecy uses known terms. The naming of
America would have given no idea to a Hebrew.
The human mind often turns to the end of
the world. All men who think at all must think
of this, and any reflection on it is unspeakably
better than no reflection at all. There is a tor
pid, indolent engrossment with the mere present
which offers one of the most obstinate barriers
to religious feeling. At the same time we had
better settle a great personal question — What
shall be the end of us ?— on sure grounds, before
becoming absorbed in the other question, What
shall become of the world ? As much as we
need to know is declared on both points ; and
where Scripture is silent we may be perfectly
sure the silence is as wise as the revelation.
On the personal question, the teaching of
Scripture and the faith of Protestant Christians
is that,
(a). Every man shall, die (Heb. 9 : 27); or, in
the case of those who see the Lord's second
coming,, undergo, a change substantially the same
as death; (1 Cor. 15 : 51, 52.).
(b). The bodies of the dead go into the dust,

WHA T SHALL THE END BE? 22f
and the souls into happiness or misery, accord
ing to moral character, until the resurrection.
(*r). That state into which they go is one of
conscious life, and not of sleep, as has been sur
mised on slender grounds, but is not one of pro
bation or purification, or of moral change. The
character with which it is entered, remains. Ef
forts towards gaining the Divine favor are not
possible to the departed ; nor are petitions on
their behalf of any avail. They find no counte
nance in Scripture ; nor is any weight to be at
tached to the fact that early in the history of
the Church they began in one form or other to
be offered. Many practical errors and supersti
tions began early.
(d). The ground of distinction and distribu
tion is the relation to Jesus Christ. They who
fall asleep in Him go to be with Him. (2 Cor.
5 : 8.) They who are not in Christ are never to
be with Him. He " never knew " those to whom
He will say at the final judgment, " Depart from
me." (Matt. 7: 23.)
The wider question as to the end of the
world has many branches, such as the evangeli
zation of the race, the future of the Jewish na-

228 WHA T SHALL THE END BE?
tion, the coming of the Lord, the resurrection,
the final judgment, and the destiny of this earth.
Here are six momentous themes, on almost any
one of which so much difference of opinion has
existed, and so little detailed, explanatory state
ment is made in Scripture, that dogmatism is
inexcusable. But there is a safe middle ground
between having no opinion and dogmatism. It
is impossible to avoid thinking on such topics.
We ought, so far as we have views on the sub
ject, to base them intelligently on Revelation.
The disciples eagerly asked Christ (Matt. 24 : 3),
" Tell us when shall these things be, and what
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end
of the world ? " There is reason to think that
our Lord replied to these questions in their
order. The only objection to this view is
founded on his words (in Matt. 24: 34) : " This
generation shall not pass till all these things be
fulfilled." But this objection is obviated if we
regard " generation " as " race " (which the word
may well be), and then the meaning is, " this
Jewish race shall not pass away ; " in other words
there is to be no end of the Jews till the close of

WHAT SHALL THE END BE? Z2Q
all things. The following points appear to be
well established :
I. The universal proclamation of the Gospel
is to precede the end of the world. So we
gather from Isa. 45 : 22, 23. All ends of the
earth are to look to the Lord and be saved. He
has sworn that every knee shall bow to Him, and
every tongue shall confess Him. So the apos
tles used the words as warrant for calling the
Gentiles to Christ. The Saviour himself said
explicitly (Matt. 24 : 14), " This Gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations ; and then shall the end
come." How far this is equivalent to the abso
lute conversion of the nations is a question to be
settled on other grounds. But all the arrange
ments of the Church, all the promises of the
Spirit, and all the obligations to teach and
preach, rest on the basis of this divine appoint
ment. 2. The conversion of the Jews is to precede
the end of the world. Among many passages
which, with their preservation as a people, raise
the expectation of their conversion, the chief is
Rom. xi. Old Testament poetry may easily be

230 WHAT SHALL THE END BE?
misconceived ; but the Apostle is here specifically
and argumentatively treating this very subject.
He says the casting off of the Jews was mercy to
the Gentiles. So the gathering in of the Gen
tiles will be mercy to the Jews (v : 25). " Blind
ness in part is happened unto Israel until the
fulness of the Gentiles " — the complement to be
rendered from the Gentiles to the invisible
Church — be come in, and the coming in of this
complement will bring — instrumentally — " mer
cy" to the Jews (v. 31). "And so all Israel
shall be saved." There will come a time when
every synagogue shall be a Christian church.
There is an appendix to this topic, namely,
shall the Jewish nation regain their land ? There
seems no scriptural reason to think so. The
New Testament takes no note of it, and lays
down many principles that bear against it ; and
any proof drawn from the Old Testament proves
too much. It would imply, for example, the lit
eral restoration of nations absolutely extinct,
and whose extinction is a prominent feature in
prophecy and in providence, as, for example,
Moab and Ammon. It is more self-consistent
to understand that they who stand in the future

WHAT SHALL THE END BE?

231

to God's people, as Moab and Ammon did to
Israel, shall be overthrown.
3. " The coming of the Lord " is constantly
held up to the saints for encouragement, and to
the godless for warning and terror. But the
phrase is ambiguous in so far as this, that it is
applied to various events, such as the incarna
tion, destruction of Jerusalem, the death of
saints, and any signal judgment.
We can only define anything regarding the
second coming by collating the passages, and
examining in their context the object to be
gained and the wo*k to be done by the particular
" coming " of each passage.
4. We pass on, therefore, to the Resurrec
tion. If we except the doubtful passage of Rev.
20 : 1-6, there is only one resurrection spoken
of in Scripture. The rising of good and bad
will be simultaneous (Dan. 12: 2). The oft-
quoted passages 1 Thess. 4 : 16,* and 1 Cor. 15 :
* In this passage the comparison is not between the rising
of the righteous and of the wicked, but between the rising of de
parted, and the change of living, saints. The resurrection of the
wicked is not in question here, and had no relation to the sub
ject in hand, namely, the comforting of the Thessalonians for
the removal by death of their believing friends. The same
statement applies to the passage in 1 Cor. 15 : 51. 52.

232 1VHA T SHALL THE END BE,
51, 52, have no meaning in opposition to this
view, while the last passage teaches that the end
comes after this resurrection. So our Lord
teaches explicitly that the rising again (John 6 :
39, 40, 44, 54) shall be — not in the " last days "
in the general sense of Heb. 1 : 2, but with a
distinct and definite reference " in the last day."
That the rising of all from the dead and the sec
ond coming are cotemporaneous, is proved by
Matt. 24: 30, 31 : "And then shall appear the
sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then
shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and
they shall see the Son of man coming in the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he shall send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather to
gether his elect from the four winds, from one
end of heaven to the other." And so Chap. 25 :
31-46: "When the Son of man shall come in
his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then
shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : And
before him shall be gathered all nations : and he
shall separate them one from another, as a shep
herd divideth his sheep from the goats : And he
shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the

WHAT SHALL THE END BE? 233
goats on the left. Then shall the King say un
to them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world : For I was
an hungered, and ye gave me meat ; I was thirsty
and ye gave me drink ; I was a stranger, and ye
took me in ; naked, and ye clothed me ; I was
sick, and ye visited me ; I was in prison, and ye
came unto me. Then shall the righteous an
swer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungered, and fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave
thee drink ? When saw we thee a stranger, and
teok thee in ? or naked, and clothed thee ? Or
when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came
unto thee ? And the King shall answer and say
unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as
ye have done it unto one of the least of these
my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then
shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels ; for I was
an hungered, and ye gave me no meat ; I was
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink ; I was a stran
ger, and ye took me not in ; naked, and ye
clothed me not ; sick, and in prison, and ye vis-

234 WHAT SHALL THE END BE?
ited me not. Then shall they also answer him,
saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or
athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
prison, and did not minister unto thee ? Then
shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto
you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of tht
least of these, ye did it not to me. And these
shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but
the righteous into life eternal." So also we read
in 2 Thess. I : 7-10. Concerning the meaning
of these passages, there is substantial agreement
among the most reliable interpreters of the
Greek Scriptures, such as De Witt, J. A. Alex
ander, Miiller, and Lange.
Connected with this in the most intimate
way is the question, " With what bodies do
they come?" No reply to this can carry any
weight but that which the apostle gives. The
identity will be complete enough for recognition ;
but the present terrestial body adapted to the
present terrestrial world will be changed and
adapted to the new condition of things — called
" the new heavens and the new earth."
5. It ought to surprise us that various theo
ries have been held of the judgment that take

WHAT SHALL THE END BE?

235

no note of its definite and conclusive character
With some it is the constant general providence
in which God is ruling the world, with a future
in which to rectify the temporary wrongs of this
imperfect state. With some it is the ruling on
earth in visible glory and millennial splendor of
Jesus Christ. With some it is a process now
going on, and in progress ever since Jesus came
to the earth. With some it is only the working
out of natural principles that make virtue its
own reward, and vice the means of its own pun
ishment. Rationalistic, or hyper-spiritualistic,
these views have something in common, and are
all founded on denial or mis-reading of Scrip
ture. We are taught to look for a definite
future event, deciding, and publishing, the doom
of all men and angels, a day of judgment (Matt.
11:24), a harvest that shall forever separate
tares and wheat ; a coming of the Lord to judge
(1 Cor. 4: 5). It is a day " appointed." (Acts
The Judge is to be Christ, according to plain
Scripture, such as Acts 17: 31: "Because he
hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the

236 WHAT SHALL THE END BE?
world in righteousness by that man whorr he
hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance
unto all men, in that he hath raised him from
the dead." So John 5 : 22, 23 : " For the Father
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg
ment unto the Son : That all men should honor
the Son, even as they honor the Father. He
that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Fa
ther which hath sent him ; " see also 2 Cor. 5:10.
The judged are to be men and angels. Of
the bearing of the judgment upon the latter less
is said than on the human aspect of the subject,
for the good and sufficient reason that men are
mainly contemplated in the Bible. But Peter
tells us that evil angels are " reserved unto judg
ment " (2 Peter 2 : 4). Then shall end forever
the long war with principalities and power and
wicked spirits, of Eph. 6 : 12.
The time of this event is asserted expressly
to be at the second coming of the Lord (for no
third coming is hinted at) and is constructively
settled' to be cotemporaneous with His appearing
and kingdom, 2 Tim. 4: 1. The tares and wheat
grbw together .till jtke harvest, or end of the

WHAT SHALL THE END BE? 237
world. The argument in 1 Cor. xv. connects the
changing of corruptible bodies with the last
trump; and Paul to the Philippians (3 : 20, 21)
tells us that at His coming he shall " change our
vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his
glorious body, according to the working whereby
he is able even to subdue all things unto him
self." Without pronouncing in any oracular tone on
the opinion of those who have been led to other
conclusions, we deduce from the comparison of
the Scriptures by which these points appear to us
to be sustained, that the " literal view " of inter
pretation cannot be defended ; that the millen
nium, in the future existence of which we firmly
believe, will not be a new form of the kingdom
of grace, but its establishment over the minds
of men as generally as ever the sway of evil has
been felt ; that Christ will reign, not in visible
glory, but by his word and spirit ; that his reign
may possibly last long enough, with its succeed
ing generations of good men, to give to the Re
deemer an overwhelming majority of the race ;
and that then, after it has come and gone, and
the earth has performed its work, and is trans

238

WHAT SHALL THE END BE?

formed or renewed in connection with the judg
ment scenes, the Redeemer " shall see of the
travail of his soul," and that great heart of love
" shall be satisfied."

<3

" HOW CAN A MAN BE BORN WHEN
HE IS OLD?"
HEN England lay in spiritual deadness
and her church was buried in formal
ism, the Wesleys and George Whit
field were God's instruments for arousing men,
and challenging attention to the solemn and in
dispensable truth, "You must be born again."
When a thoughtful man, capable of following
his own feelings and expressing his own judg
ments, begins to weigh this matter, he will find
various modes of thought open to him ; and
among them he must choose, with the Word of
God in his hand. He becomes conscious that
he has been, that is, his soul has been acting
wrongly in its affections, and decisions. Learning
that the Holy Ghost is given to them that ask,

24O " HO W CAN A MAN BE
he may resolve to look for the Holy Ghost to
come to him, and produce in him right decisions,
and to make him, that is his soul, act rightly.
But as he examines the Bible he will be
come conscious that it uses language which im
plies a good deal more than all this. It speaks
not only of leading the soul to do good, but of
creating anew, Eph. 4 : 24. " And that ye put on
the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness." It speaks of
the soul as if it were dead and required life,
John. 5 : 21. "For as the Father raiseth up the
dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son
quickeneth whom he will." He is proposing to
put the ship of his soul under a new, and better,
captain. These tests imply something quite
wrong with the ship. Not the command only is
defective : the ship requires reconstruction. He
may try this plan for a time; but his own
experience, and the word of God, will demon
strate its insufficiency. He needs " a new heart
and a right spirit ; " to be made " alive from the
dead." Warned by his past mistakes and wrong
choices, and finding that they.have not procured

BORN WHEN HE IS OLD? " 241
for him happiness but misery, he determines to
choose more wisely. God is presented to him
in the Bible as the blessed God whose favor is
life, whose service is perfect freedom, whose
peace passeth all understanding, in whose pres
ence is fulness of joy, whose people have the
promise of the life that now is and of that which
is to come ; and he makes up his mind that he
will choose God as so much better for him than
any of the Lord's rivals. He will receive the aid
of the Holy Ghost, indeed, to restrain the evil in
him, and show him the pre-eminent worth of the
Lord to him ; and so he will choose the Lord
and his service.
But in practice he will find defects in this
plan. It also overlooks radical and inherent
imperfections in his very nature. He is re
garding his soul as a deliberative body, with a
party for God, and a party in opposition. He
is proposing to bring in a new debater in the
person of the Holy Ghost, who will be more
than a match for the opposition, and whose elo
quent presentation of truth will win a vote for
the wiser and happier course. But this plan
fails to satisfy the requirements of Bible Ian-

242

"HOW CAN A MAN BE

guage. This is not the " begetting" of James,
1 : 18. " Of his own will begat he us with the
word of truth, that we should be a kind of first
fruits of his creatures." It fails even to satisfy
the requirements of our common language.
This process is not descriptive of a radical change
of nature but only of the first distinct act of a
changed nature. It is more nearly Conversion,
or the turning round of the whole man to God
(and which is man's act undoubtedly, in the
rense that man does it) than a sufficient means
for securing that object.
The question will arise — What were the
qualities and tendencies in my soul that made
the opposition ? Why did it not choose God ?
Whatever hindered it must be bad ; and is it
enough for me, who hope to be holy and to live
with a holy God, to have these evil qualities —
whatever they may be — though restrained, yet
latent ? Do I not need that they be taken away,
or rooted out ? He will here; indeed, encounter
a simple question of mental science, as one often
must when he follows out religious thought,
namely, " Was my Spirit without any qualities,
good or bad, until it took the bad course ? And

BORN WHEN HE IS OLD?"

243

if it was, why did it take the bad course ? Par
ticularly, why did it so uniformly take it ? Why
was it disposed to the bad ? Had it bad dispo
sitions?" For one may have dispositions to
theft or other form of crime, though the oppor
tunity never be given for its commission. When
the opportunity is given the disposition appears ;
but the opportunity did not make, it only showed,
it. He will not find his difficulty met by the
scientific result. If there were bad qualities in
his soul, which the acts only displayed, all the
more need for the change.
Turning from these perplexing views of his
inner life to the outward forms of religion, and
finding strong language in the Scripture re
garding " the working of regeneration," and
" baptism saving," he may conclude that God's
way is to give the new life through the rite ;
and so he makes up his mind to be baptized.
So he hopes to get remission of sins, to get a
new nature, and to become a child of God. But
then he looks to his Bible, and somehow it ap
pears there that these great blessings are far
more closely and frequently connected with
believing on Jesus Christ than with baptism ;

244 " N0 W CAN A MAN BE
and furthermore, that previous believing on
Jesus Christ is necessary to the baptism of a
man. In fact he will see that men are not bap
tized that they may get forgiveness and life, but
as an avowal that they have received these
blessings, and as an acknowledgment of them
as children of Him who appends the seal of
that covenant of which they have taken hold.
He will also be perplexed by another fact,
namely, that many baptized persons give evi
dence that their sins are not forgiven, their
nature not renewed, and that they are not the
children of God.
When he looks into this latter fact he is met
with the statement that the grace given in bap
tism may be opposed and neutralized, or received
and improved. " Ah ! " he says, " this is quite
another thing than making me a forgiven child
of God and a new creature. This is only giving
me a chance to reach this high place by my tak
ing care of myself. But, alas ! so many appear
not to take care of themselves, I am afraid re
garding myself. When baptized, I am not, on
this plan, a child of God, with my sins forgiven •
but it is only possible I may be such eventually.

BORN WHEN HE IS OLD?" 245
This is mocking me with high-sounding names.
This is like insuring me a " handsome income ; "
and when I inquire as to the manner, it is by my
selling a wonderful number of a doubtful article
for which the demand is limited and the supply
enormous. I shall be rich if I sell so many.
Yes, but the ' if.' "
All the assertion and argumentation of the
Council of Trent, or of Protestants recreant to
the cause of the Reformation, will not carry an
intelligent reader of the Bible over this difficulty,
nor relieve this scheme from the charge of being
salvation " by works of righteousness which we
have done." It is the outgrowth of that human
pride which in the end renders " every man his
own Saviour," and sets up the religion of man,
or of the priest, above that of God.
Nor will it mend the matter much for him,
if, turning with aversion from a sacramental re
ligion, he should say " I have been choosing evil :
now I shall choose God. I can as readily do
the latter as the former." He here encounters
two sets of difficulties. The Scriptures represent
him as unable to do any good without Christ,
and as being much more inclined to the evil than

246 "HOW CAN A MAN BE
the good, indeed to be sold under sin, and un
able to do the good that he would. Then in
practice he finds the reformation of the kind he
proposes incomplete and unsatisfactory, even
to himself. His " heart" often condemns him,
and God is greater than his heart and knoweth
all things. But a man will have derived some good from
the trial of those insufficient methods, if he finds
out that he has in him, over and above his men
tal powers and natural conscience, some govern
ing propensities — come how they may — that
need to be dealt with, and that determine his
character in the eyes of any being that searches
the heart, whether these propensities ever ex
press themselves in act or not. These ruling
propensities in our first parents were, and in
holy angels are, holy. Any adequate method
of recovery for the man must in some true sense
put him under these holy principles, as Adam was
put under them. When a man is brought un
der their sway he is " created anew" or regener
ated. There are men of whom we speak as kind
in heart, good, or bad in heart. We mean, not
that they have faculties different from those of

BORN WHEN HE IS OL O ? " 247
other men, but that there is a quality in them
which inclines them to kind, or good, or bad
courses, with those faculties common to them
with others. So the Scriptures use the word
" heart." It is bad, in this sense, towards God,
in the unrenewed; it is good, in this sense, to
ward God, in the regenerate.
It is not to be thought that the spirit of God
works in us as a man rows upward a boat that
was drifting down the stream. Then it would
not be that we believe, or turn to the Lord, but
the Holy Ghost believes in us. The boat is not
the subject of any change in its nature, only in
its direction. And the force under which it op
erates is mechanical, and external, adapted to
its own nature. The spirit of a man is not dealt
with in regeneration, otherwise than as a human
spirit. Nor is it to be supposed that the Holy Ghost
simply throws such new light on God's charac
ter and claims that any man's common sense
must needs choose God, as a hungry man
chooses food, or as a man prefers pleasure to
pain. In this case the work of the Holy Ghost

248 " HO W CAN A MAN BE
would be only persuasive,* and it is doubtful if
there would be any better influence developed
in us than intelligent self-interest.
But it is to be held that in whatever way the
Divine spirit made man at the beginning, so that
in point of fact he freely chose to love God and
do His will, in some such way He new-creates
in Christ Jesus, so that the soul, not mechani
cally, nor by any kind of compulsion, but of its
own act, and by its own nature, so truly that
it does not know how much is its own, and how
much the product of the Holy Ghost, turns to,
and loves, and delights in, the Lord, and in all
goodness. This is to " be born again." And if
* The writer, when a very young student at college, had an
opportunity to test the value of a good hold, even by the memory,
of the Shorter Catechism. In the city a " sensation" was being
produced by an earnest and attractive preacher, who seemed to
make the Gospel so easy on the plan above named. There was
nothing to do but see the superiority of godliness, and the Holy
Ghost showed that. " Do you see it. Yes ? Then you are con
verted and are God's children." The writer well recollects a
vague and painful sense of something wanting in this presenta
tion, when the words of the catechism came up — "effectual
calling is the work of God's spirit, whereby convincing us of our
sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of
Christ and renewing our wills, He doth persuade and enable us
to embrace Jesus Christ for salvation.'' The preacher had a
firm hold of the "persuade? but omitted the " enable."

BORN WHEN HE IS OLD?" 349
any one shall insist on an explanation being
given of the mode, the Saviour has already fur
nished the only answer we can give. " The
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest
the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it
cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one
that is born of the Spirit."
It is not meant however that the soul is pas
sive in the sense in which a watch is passive in
the hands of a watchmaker, or clay in the hand
of an artist. It is meant that while the soul is
active, so that it can weigh evidence, see truth
and feel motive, yet that in reference to the pow
er which the Holy Ghost exercises upon it, it is
receptive and not active, and submits to an act
of divine energy which it cannot discriminate at
the moment from its own movements, and can
only identify and distinguish by the results that
follow. The regenerating Spirit thus becomes
not a stupefying force, checking effort and exer
cise, but an energizing, quickening power, rous
ing the soul to new movements, and inspiring it
with new and exalted capacities of loving, feel
ing, admiring, and adoring. Many a human
mind originally dull and sluggish, or coarse and

250 " HOW CAN A MAN BE
unlovely, has been aroused, or has taken on a
kind of refinement and elevation, from the intro
duction of that new bias given by the spirit of
life and holiness.
In teaching the truth on such topics as this,
it is wise to notice the connection in which the
Scriptures present it. One does not there find
formal and detached statement of man's inability
to do anything spiritually good until he has
been renewed in the spirit of his mind. One
does not find a demonstration of this fact such
as may be proper enough in a sermon, and is
often quite necessary, particularly where formal
ism or pride is in power. We do find the truth
set forth in connection with the positive way of
life. "You cannot thus" — the word says, but,
in closest connection with the paralyzing nega
tive there is the encouraging positive, " You can
thus." We infer therefore that the doctrine on
this point should be taught and preached along
with the clear presentation of Christ, as the one
sufficient, blessed, precious, ever-accessible Re
deemer. In resting on and receiving Him, men
are born again, in many cases without particular
thought on the subject of internal changes.

BORN WHEN HE IS OLD?" 25 1
They are taken off themselves ; they look to
Christ and in looking to Him they become new
creatures. So in that chapter of John's gospel
which most distinctly sets forth the absolute need
of being born again (John 3 : 5.) we have, imme
diately following, the fullest statement of the way
of life. " And as Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be
lifted up : That whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have eternal life. For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish but have everlasting life. For
God sent not his Son into the world to con
demn the world; but that the world through
him might be saved. He that believeth on him
is not condemned : but he that believeth not is
condemned already, because he hath not believed
in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
— John 3: 14-18. So also we have in closest
combination what we venture to call the neg
ative and the positive truth in the following
passages, the number of which might be easily
increased : " But as many as received him, to

2J2 "HOW CAN A MAN BE
them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name : Which
were born not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." — John
i: 12, 13. "For we ourselves also were some
time foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers
lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy,
hateful, and hating one another. But after that
the kindness and love of God our Saviour to
ward man appeared, not by works of right
eousness which we have done, but according to
his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regen
eration, and renewing of the holy Ghost, which
he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ
our Saviour." — Titus 3 : 3-6. " Among whom
also we all had our conversation in times past in
lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the
flesh and of the mind ; and were by nature the
children of wrath, even as others : but God,
who is rich in mercy, for his great love where
with he loved us, even when we were dead in
sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by
grace ye are saved ;) and hath raised us up to
gether, and made us sit together in heavenly

BORN IVIIE.X HE IS OID?'

253

places in Christ Jesus : that in the ages to
come he might shew the exceeding riches of his
grace, in his kindness toward us, through Christ
Jesus." — Eph. 2 : 3-7.

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS?

HERE is a strong current setting in
among the members of one of the
smaller churches of the country in
favor of what is known as " Sacramen
tal " religion, that is, a religion which looks for the
communication of grace necessarily, and spe
cially, through sacraments. This movement, if
in any degree successful, is sure to be attended
by reaction against sacraments, on the common
principles by which human nature is influenced ;
just as in England the current views and prac
tices regarding infant baptism have contributed,
in no small degree, to discredit infant baptism
and increase the numbers of the Baptists.
There is a tendency to heap censure on this
latter denomination, in this country, because of
the views generally held, and acted upon, regard-

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS? 255
ing the Lord's Supper. "Close communion,"
that is, the restriction of the Lord's table to
those who have been baptized in the way held
by the denomination, is being assailed by many
in the interests of Catholicity. Whether the
assailants act wisely or kindly in that matter,
or not, is an open question. It is a course of
doubtful Catholicity to raise a popular cry
against a most valuable body of people, who
honestly defend and consistently go through
with, what they deem an important principle ;
and more particularly when they have some
little internal embarrassment on the subject.
Our love for the brethren should include, surely,
the Baptist brethren. " Charity suffereth long
and is kind." And it is doubtful if, considering
the lengths to which liberal ideas have been car
ried in the country, there be not some gain to
the community as a whole from a large denom
ination making a stand at a particular point,
and reminding their brethren that there are
church matters which we are not bound, are
not even at liberty, to settle according to the
popular demand, as we should settle the route of
a railroad.

256 WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTSt
But over and above these local interests, there
is a general reason for our raising some questions
regarding the sacraments because, lying, as they
do, on the borders of the things believed and
also the things done, the things visible and the
things invisible in the Church, and touching
both, it is in them that error has so early and
fully developed itself, and it is there that its
appearance is soonest noticeable.
Avoiding the nicer distinctions that have
been made regarding the sacraments, we con
fine ourselves to those views which the ordinary
mind can, and ought to comprehend. We shall
try to present those which we think are sus
tained by Scripture, and so commended to the
judgment. The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper form a link of connection between the
Old and the New Testaments. There was much
bodily service, much employment of material
sacrifice in the Old Testament. There is an
almost entire absence of this feature in the New
— but the sacraments perpetuate in the Chris
tian dispensation what was so distinctive a
feature to Jewish believers, as a lower ridge of

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS? 257
hills represents the distant mountain range of
which it is a part, and conducts gradually to the
fertile valley? below.
Bit why this element in revelation ? Outward
acts and objects express and represent religious
truth. This we can hold without establishing —
what we think to be true — that Baptism is the
successor of Circumcision, and the Lord's Supper
of the Passover. And this use of outward acts
and of material substances is in harmony with
man's nature. It is a loose and untrue statement
that religion has only to do with the souls. of
men. Men are persons composed of body and
soul. The Creator formed man of the dust, and
breathed into his body the breath of life, and
of the two, constituted a man. Religion re
spects the whole man, and the sacraments are
in natural and fitting accommodation to his
complex nature. From God's side they have
this adaptation. He teaches, influences, and
blesses through material things and by outward
and often visible acts. He appeared in form
to men ; He clothed them with skins ; even as
He had set the symbolic trees in the garden.
So from man's side sacramental acts have a

258 WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS?
natural adaptation. We bow in reverence ; give
the kiss of affection; avert the face in anger;
grasp the hand in confidence ; lay on the hand
in tenderness or sympathy. Our deepest feel
ings are expressed, and not only that, but inten
sified by bodily act. So it is in the sacramental
actions appointed by the Head of the Church.
As the Circumcision and Passover of the
Jews marked them as a people, " circumcised "
coming to be a synonym for Hebrew, so the
sacraments distinguish Christians. And all
men recognize the propriety of such distinction.
The foundation of it is laid in nature. Men's
looks and speech bewray their nationality. The
soldier's, or the clergyman's, costume is felt to
be proper. There are suitable methods for marking off
for proper purposes, the members of great polit
ical parties. In important matters great lead
ers are felt to have a natural and undoubted
right to the avowed and open support of those
whom they represent. In emergencies the with
holding of it would be considered cowardly and
criminal. The " Captain of Salvation " has, on
these principles, universally accepted, a right to

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS; 2$g
open avowal, and identification with Himself, of
those who follow Him. When " demonstra
tion " is to be made in the country for a princi
ple, and for the chief who represents it, the man
who would hold back, alleging that " his heart
was all right," would be deemed weak and re
creant. This principle the Head of the Church
embodies in His demand that he should be con
fessed before men, on penalty of being disowned
in the judgment.
When Jews met in Rome or Alexandria,
their rites constituted a bond of union and fel
lowship. The many artificial alliances, with
appropriate signs of unity that men have formed
outside the Church, testify to the felt want of
association. This principle of our nature is
accepted and sanctified in the Church. The
sacraments become not only signs of adherence
to the Redeemer, but the means of mutual iden
tification to Christians, and of conseqent fellow
ship ; and it is much to be regretted that they
could not be thus universally accepted among
Christians.* That drawback, however, is only
* The more nearly the ordinances are observed after New
Testament models, the larger the number of Christians who can

26o WHA T IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS?
the incidental consequence of an earlier calamity,
namely, that Christians should have diverged
from the truth, and that different organizations
should have become necessary.
The Church is a society, and offers certain
advantages to her members. It is competent
for any one who enjoys and values these advan
tages to recommend them to others. Lay-
preaching, on this account, has its justification
in the very nature of things. Any man, or, in
suitable ways to be determined by other con
siderations, any woman, may commend the bene
fits of the Church to others. The only difference,
in so far (for we are not now looking at the
Divine side of things), between the minister and
the lay-preacher, is that the former has been en
join in them as means of communion. Most Protestant Chris
tians can join in the Lord's supper with Congregationalists, Bap
tists, Methodists (as the writer has often done with gladness),' and
Presbyterians. But when, for example, kneeling is made necessa
ry to receiving, the long habit of disliking the appearance of adora
tion (though no such is now meant), and a firm conviction as to
the origin and history of the practice, would render it distasteful
to many. But no one pretends that kneeling is required by the
New Testament. So those who would gladly submit their chil
dren to baptism at the hands of ordinary Christian ministers,
would scruple as to sponsors, the sign of the cross, and other
human additions to the simple rite.

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS? 26l
dorsed by a body of men more or less weighty,
and the latter rests his claim to be heard (out
side the word, which both employ) on his per
sonal character. Conceivably an amateur sur
geon may operate as well as the educated prac
titioner, but the common mind feels that the
diploma of the latter is a kind of guarantee that
he knows what he is about, and has at least seen
the thing done. In the case of women preach
ing, the average human mind will attach some
weight to woman's general aptitudes, and to the
fact that the bishops, or elders, or presbyters and
deacons spoken of, and contemplated in the
New Testament, are invariably masculine.
But in the case supposed, when persons per
suaded of the value of Church connection, desire
to enter it, no matter who persuaded them, they
must have to do with official persons who act
for the Church. This, also, is in harmony with
the nature of human proceedings ; for the
Church, while a Divine institution, and not a
mere voluntary society, like an association for
making a railroad, has a human side, and being
composed of men, has something in common
with other societies. Any man may canvass few

262 WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS*
an insurance company, or recommend it to his
neighbors, but when a neighbor would insure, he
must deal with an official, who becomes the pro
per party to sign his policy, not because of any
personal qualities, but because of his relation to
the company.* And even so ministers baptize
and administer the Supper, not in virtue of any
thing inherent in them, or communicated to
them in ordination, but in virtue of the official
relation they sustain to the Christian society.
The ministry is not, on that account, a human
institution, but a Divine provision for the pur
poses of the Church.
There is a sense in which a young man be
comes a full American citizen at the age of
twenty-one, when he begins to exercise all the
rights of an American man. The only thing
* When it is stated in the opening of the Book of Discipline
(Chap. ii. : 4) that a particular church consists of a number of
professing Christians, with their offspring, voluntarily associated
together, etc., the definition is o a particular congregation.
The Church is in Section I. defined otherwise as a kingdom
erected in this world by Jesus Christ. The Church may be said,
indeed, to be a voluntary association, in contrast with the crea
tion of the State, or with any body constituted by force. Men,
individually, are free as to men to enter or remain outside.
They are not thus free as regards Christ.

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS? 263
that prevented him exercising them before was
something to which he had not yet attained in
himself. But there is a sense also in which a
boy is an American citizen in virtue of his
parents being so, and in the event of his inter
ests being assailed by any alien power, the pro
tection of the American nation would be properly
claimed for him.
The same twofold condition attaches to the
adherents of a Christian Church. The children
are born into it ; and as Circumcision and the
Passover belonged to the seed of the Jew, so the
promise is to the believer and his seed. The
children are born into the Church. Baptism,
among other things that it does, recognizes that
position. It is a mediaeval superstition that
represents the child as " christened," or made a
Christian, in the rite ; and the only reason why
the baptized child does not sit at the Lord's
table, of course, is the counterpart of the re
straint on the vote of an American youth. He
has to wait for something to be attained in him
self. He has to acquire knowledge to discern
the Lord's body, faith to feed upon Him, re
pentance, love, and new obedience ; and the

264 WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS?
attainment of these becomes the qualification
for exercising a higher Christian privilege than
he has hitherto enjoyed. We do not suppose
the parallel perfect, but it is sufficient for the
purpose in hand, and does not misrepresent any
thing. It seems to follow that the phrase, "joining
the Church," is hardly accurate in the case of
the immense majority of those who are so de
scribed. They were born into the Church ; they
were baptized in virtue of their parents being in
the Church ; they have hope that they are born
again ; and they are now entitled to the ordi
nance in which union with Christ is symbolized,
and the benefits of the new covenant are applied
to saints. It seems also to follow that parents
should make much of this relation of their child
ren to Christ. The language to be held to them
is: "You were given up to the Lord. It is
evidence of His good-will to you that He put
you in a Christian household. You belong to
Him, and are to trust, love, and serve Him."
But instead of this tone being adopted and
appropriately expressed, how often is the im
pression left on the mind that as a matter of

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS? 265
course the children of believers solemnly given
to the Lord will differ little or nothing from the
outside world, till they have undergone a change
of heart. The prophecy fulfils itself, and if they
are not under some thorough and satisfactory
teaching that counteracts this impression, they
will, while waiting for some high tide of religious
feeling to float them over the bar of indifference
and natural corruption, very naturally bring forth
fruit after their kind. On the other hand let a
sense of God's right over them be inculcated
from the beginning ; let their baptism be treated
as through faith a sincere and real transaction ;
let the idea of God's love to them from the be
ginning be made familiar to them ; let them be
taught and governed as the Lord's children ; let
them be " commanded in his fear ; " and then
the recommendation from the directory for wor
ship (Chap, ix.), quoted with approval by Dr.
Hodge in his " Outlines of Theology," would be
obviously proper and natural. " Children born
within the pale of the visible Church, and ded
icated to God in baptism, when they come to
years of discretion, if they be free from scandal,
appear sober and steady, and to have sufficient

266 WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS?
knowledge to discern the Lord's body, ought
to be informed that it is their duty and their
privilege to come to the Lord's Supper."
The years of discretion, amount of knowl
edge, and sincerity of profession must be judged
of by the officers of the church. It is not
always certain that all the members of a church
will possess even average discernment and pru
dence. The officers may be presumed to pos
sess these qualities. One or two indiscreet or
self-asserting church-members may by negative
votes make much trouble and discomfort, if
every applicant must secure the formal approba
tion of all the members ; and the remark is
surely true that the facility to humble-minded sin
cere believers to enter the church should be
extended to the utmost — the difficulty reduced
to a minim im.
Of what the officers are to judge is a ques
tion of fome difficulty. If they require the
applicant to state not only that he believes
Christ, but the evidences he has that he is a
believer, ind if they pass upon these, their ad
mission i him is a certificate so far of his gen
uine piet This may embarrass a church and

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS? 26.7
injure the individual. It seems, therefore, to
be in accordance with true wisdom, and the
rule of Scripture, as it can be gathered from the
practice of the Apostles, to examine concerning
the knowledge of truth, to receive the profession,
and there to stop. Of course, no matter how
strong the terms in which a man living notori
ously in sin, professes true religion, his sin ren
ders his profession incredible. But when the
elders have satisfied themselves of his knowl
edge, and of his credible profession, they have
exhausted their powers, personal and official,
and the applicant is to be assured that the only
judge of his truth and sincerity is the Lord,
that " with Him he has to do." This does not
preclude a pastor or any Christian friend help
ing an inquiring Christian to form a judgment
regarding himself, but it does preclude a sen
tence being virtually or really pronounced on
the alleged experience. The Elders say in
effect, " We are satisfied you have competent
knowledge ; you profess your love to Christ and
your purpose to serve Him ; we know nothing
incompatible with this profession ; we receive
you."

268 WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS?
The benefit of the Lord's Supper to a child
of God depends in great measure on the degree
of understanding he has of the truth of Script
ure. Detached from the paper or parchment
which it authenticated, a seal is nothing; and
the Supper is nothing separated from the cove
nant whose benefits it seals, represents, and
applies. A true communicant has laid hold of
the covenant, in believing God's testimony re
garding Jesus. So he has taken Christ as his
Saviour. He has rested on Him as He is
offered in the Gospel. The Supper is to him
the ratification of this agreement with God in
Christ, and communion is founded upon it,
The believer's faith is strengthened by every
new display of divine love ; and what display
more complete and explicit than in the Supper !
His repentance is renewed and deepened as he
realizes his sin, need of Christ, the ill-desert of
evil, and his unworthiness since he believed.
His love is called out afresh as he beholds the
love that bought redemption for him by suffer
ings and obedience unto death ; and obedience
in gratitude and loyal attachment is the true
and natural expression of his love. So all the

WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS? 269
essential graces of the Christian life are strength
ened by the ordinances ; and as the satisfying of
natural appetite with proper food has itself
been made by our Creator a source of pleasure
to the palate, so the eating by faith of the living
bread is a joy and delight to the spiritual
nature. Saints sit under the shadow of the
Tree of Life, and the fruit is sweet to their
taste. Just because they do not lay hold of the
covenant, and are yet in unbelief, out of Christ,
and without any spiritual appetites to be satis
fied, or any graces to be exercised, natural men
are excluded from the table. They shut them
selves out by unbelief. Their coming would be
a declaration of the thing that is not, a mockery
of the All-Seeing, and a hardening of their own
hearts. They never received Christ; how can
they call Him then ! They never made Him
Master and Saviour by a free heart-choice ; how
can they confess Him ? They do not mean to
walk as disciples; how can they truly declare
such an intention ? They do not in any spiritual
way know Christ ; how can they have communion
with Him? They have first to give themselves

270 WHAT IS THE USE OF SACRAMENTS?
to the Lord ; they are then joined to him in an
everlasting covenant, not to be forgotten. Then
can they properly, consistently with the word
and the truth of things, join themselves to the
company of disciples in showing forth their
Saviour's death.

HOW MUCH RITUAL IS THERE IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT?
E have no objection to "ritual," pro
vided it be of the right kind. To
determine its quality and value we
have to find out what it is in the popu
lar sense, and how much of what is popularly
known as " rilual " is in the Charter of the Chris
tian Church, the New Testament.
The " ritual " of a church is its established
method of conducting divine service. It is in
form separate from its doctrine, and yet, in fact,
it is the expression of views and opinions on
doctrine. When, for example, the " host " (from
the Latin hostia, a sacrifice) is regarded as
changed from a piece of bread into the person
of Christ, we have a doctrine. Out of it most
naturally grows a rite, namely, the elevation of

272 HOW MUCH RITUAI IS THERE
it before the people, and their adoration. If,
again, a " priest " is supposed to have official
power in the matter of sin confessed, in some
sense not true of a non-priest even though a
deacon and entitled to preach, then it will be a
part of the ritual for the " priest," and for him
only, to pronounce the absolution. These ex
amples might be easily multiplied.
To say that there is no ritual in the New
Testament would be to say that everything con
nected with public worship is left to the taste or
judgment of Christians ; but that statement is,
happily, not true. Since tastes are endlessly
diversified, and judgments are influenced by
many considerations, any degree of uniformity
would be of difficult attainment on this idea,
and the results would carry little moral weight.
Nearly all churches make their appeal wherever
they can do it with show of force, to the Scrip
tures, and endeavor to sustain their positions by
the word of God. Where the New Testament
fails they turn to the Old. Robes, altars, in
cense, priestly grades, processions, and such like,
suitable enough to the Jewish Church, and ap
propriately expressing its doctrines, are de-

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? 273
fended on this ground.' Where it fails, antiquity
is relied on ; and where the plea of antiquity is
set aside, and the Old Testament authority is so
defined as to rule it out, men are apt to fall
back on the assertion that no inspired rule is
given beyond the general direction "let all
things be done decently and in order." So
loose practice, like loose thinking, always seeks
to represent the standard as extremely indefinite.
But if any one will examine the Epistle to
the Corinthians, from which this supposed all-
comprehensive rule is taken (1 Cor. 14: 40), he
will observe two things —
(a.) That this maxim covers a particular
case out of the ruling on which it grew, namely,
the unregulated, arbitrary, and self-displaying
use of gifts on the part of Corinthian Christians.
It is not a positive precept, so much as a rebuke
of disorders and indecencies described in the pre
vious part of the chapter. To read it as the ex
clusive direction for public worship, and as sanc
tioning all that is not revolting to decency, and
productive of confusion, is to adopt a looser
method of interpretation than any respectable

274 HOW MUCH RITUAI IS THERE
expositor has ever ventured to apply to the
Scriptures generally.
(b.) He will see that these very Epistles
contain many positive directions for divine ser
vice, as, for example, in this very chapter (xiv.),
and in Chap, xi., touching the Lord's Supper,
and that many elements of worship are pre
scribed with a clearness and directness which it
has been found impossible to evade. Let us
look at some of these directions.
The New Testament authorizes the observ
ance of the Lord's Day as a day of rest and wor
ship. Jesus never violated the Jewish Sabbath,
though he disregarded some frivolous Pharisaic
additions made to it. He declared that to make
sin out of disregard of these human rules was to
condemn the guiltless (Matt. 12: 7), and he set
an example of respectful compliance with Jewish
law while it remained in force. He asserted his
lordship of the Sabbath, implying a right to
modify its circumstantials. His rising from the
dead, His gift of the Spirit, and His own appear
ances, consecrated the " Lord's Day." The
Christians, by common consent, and without any
question, met on that day for worship and the

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? 27$
supper. The Hebrew part of them continued
for a time to keep the Jewish day ; and there
was an effort made to perpetuate this and other
observances, but it was discouraged by the
apostles. They who chose might keep the new
moons and Sabbaths (Jewish), but no obligation
was to be enforced. As to these " Sabbaths,"
and not to the Lord's Day, was this latitude of
action tolerated. (Rom. 14: 5.)
The " assembling together " of the people on
that day is enjoined in the New Testament.
(Heb. 10: 25.) This was addressed to Hebrews
who were accustomed to assembling in the syna
gogue. The gospel was preached in the syna
gogue as long as the Jews permitted, and inserted
itself, as the sermon, into the synagogue worship.
The leading and controlling minds in every new
Christian cause had been accustomed to syna
gogue worship. Just as seceders from the
Church of Scotland, when they were either
driven out, or when they went out for something
they could not find there, carried into their new
organizations the old forms, only infusing into
them the new life ; so the Christians reproduced
in substance the synagogue's ways, with the

276 HOW MUCH RITUAL IS THERE
truth and spirit of the gospel added thereto.
So truly was this the case, that for a considera
ble time the Christians were counted by out
siders as simply a sect of Jews.
When the Christians came together they
were accustomed to make common supplica
tions; and in addition to the mention of their
own personal wants with giving of thanks, they
are directed to make prayers and supplications
" for kings and for all that are in authority." (1
Tim. 2 : 1,2.) This obviously implies that they
had no settled forms, but were left at liberty to
regulate their addresses to the throne of grace
by the ever-varying exigencies of life. The same
thing is implied in the rebuke of the Pharisees'
" long prayers," the notice of which was meant to
raise them in the esteem of others ; and in the
disorders of the Corinthian Church, which could
not have existed had there been a prescribed
and settled form. (1 Cor., chap, xiv.) No one
can allege that this matter of public prayer for
others is left to the taste or judgment of men. It
is as much binding on Christian people as the as
sembling of themselves together.
The administration of the Lord's Supper is

IN THE NE W TESTAMENT? 277
also prescribed as a part of the exercises of the
Church ; and many of its arrangements are indi
cated both negatively and positively. It is not
to be a feast in the common sense. It gives no
field for personal display of means or comforts.
Its receivers sit together in the ordinary attitude
of a meal. Bread is broken ;* — wine is poured
out. Both are partaken of by the communi
cants. Here again the field for human taste
and judgment is very narrow indeed. The same
authority that prescribes the rite, indicates every
leading feature in the mode of its observance.
The New Testament habitually assumes the
continuance in the Christian Church of all that
did not expire with the completion of Christ's
work and is silent on such matters. There was
good reason for this silence. When a pastoral
epistle is written to the brethren from Presby
tery or Synod, say, to the churches of New
York, it would surprise us much if it directed
that the people should build church edifices for
themsejves, choose ministers, dedicate their chil-
* How strange it is that in plain disregard of this symbolic
act, and in deference to a supposed transformation, pains should
be taken to avoid breaking the bread !

278 HOW MUCH RITUAL IS THERE
dren to God, procure Bibles, have sermons
preached, and worship on the Lord's day. But
why should it surprise us? Because all these
duties are accepted by us already and are being
done. Greater zeal, fervor, and life, indeed, are
wanted, and to the attainment of these exhorta
tions would be properly given. It was so with
the mass of Christian believers. They had set up
their assemblies, and reproduced the worship to
which they were accustomed, and needed no
directions on these points. This explains the
comparative silence of the New Testament on
the consecration of infants, the observance of a
day of rest, the public reading of Scripture,
the erection of church edifices, and other similar
matters. The variations and alterations are
dwelt upon; the usages that were to continue
have possession, so to speak, and keep their
place. Now from the gospel narratives we can
gather something of the ordinary ways of the
synagogue. We see from Luke 4: 16, 17, that
it was customary for one to stand up and read a
section from the Law or the Prophets : " And
he came to Nazareth,- where he had been

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? 279
brought up ; and, as his custom was, he went
into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and
stood up for to read. And there was delivered
unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And
when he had opened the book, he found the
place where it was written." This custom natu
rally continued in the Christian Church. It was
the custom, also, for the reader, or for some one
designated by the elders, to explain and exhort
from the portion read. So the Saviour, as he
returned the book, applied what he had read to
himself, to the indignation of the people, v. 20-
30. In Acts xiii.: 15 we find that at Antioch,
in Pisidia, where Paul and his company attended
worship at the synagogue, " after the reading of
the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the
synagogue sent unto them, saying: Ye men
and brethren, if ye have any word of exhorta
tion for the people, say on." Paul accepted the
invitation and addressed the people. How often
have ministers been reminded of this informal
simplicity of the primitive worship when, sitting
in the pew hoping for the quiet enjoyment of
the service, a word from the " ruler of the syna-

28o HOW MUCH RITUAL IS THERE, ETC.
gogue " summoned them to the desk to give a
" word of exhortation " to the people !
From this passage, also, we learn that the
synagogue had rulers, or elders, as they are else
where called, who directed or conducted the
synagogue services, and one of whom, being
president or moderator, is sometimes called
" the ruler of the synagogue." This deference to,
and employment of, elders, was an ancient and,
indeed, natural arrangement. Even in Egypt
there were recognized the elders Of the people,
who had a certain gravity from years and weight
of character. This fitness of things was respect
ed in the synagogue, and as we see by the pas
toral epistles, is regulated and perpetuated in the
Christian Church. It is not left to taste and
judgment to determine any of these matters.
The Scriptures speak explicitly as to " elders in
every city," and every church, as to a plurality
of these, as to their having oversight of the
flock, and being responsible for the conducting
of divine service. There seems no more right
to set this aside than to ignore baptism or public
prayer.

WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST?

O study the entire subject of fasting
does not raise one's respect for the re
ligionists of the world. It supplies
however, curious illustration of the unity of the
race, Jewish, Christian and heathen, and of the
strong tendency of superstition to blend itself
with religion.
The early prevalent Oriental idea of the bad
ness of matter, as distinguished from spirit, natu
rally favored fasting. A man can go without
his dinner, and at the same time feed his revenge,
pride, avarice, or ambition, with the pleasant
thought that he is dealing a blow at essential
evil. The true idea that the body is to be sub
jected to the spirit and kept under, became
perverted and distorted into every form of
grotesque self-mortification, and the general

232 WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST?
principle that was meant to rule the whole life,
acquired an easier, limited application to brief
definite periods. As this subjection of the body
lost in real, it rose in factitious, value, and became
a sacrifice to Deity, a means of conciliating, and
satisfying Him, either in view of correction to
be deprecated, or favors to be gained. Accord
ingly the Parsees, the Chinese, the Hindoos, the
Scythians and all the older Asiatic races prac
ticed fasting with an ostentation and severity to
which western nations are strangers. A Hindoo
can procure the purging of all his sins by an un
broken fast of twelve days ; and the conditions
of Indian life render a feat sufficiently practica
ble, which would put an end to the earthly trans
gressions of most people, by ending their lives.
More rational views obtained in Greece and
Rome. To be prepared to share in the myste
ries, or consult the oracle a day's fasting was
held to be a proper preliminary. Here however,
as with the Hebrews and Ninevites, the fasts were
not so much regularly recurring periods, as oc
casional interruptions of the flow of common
life, called for and justified by special emergen
cies. Such were times of national calamity, or

WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST? 283
public peril. Then men felt that they were little,
and the Deity great; that just displeasure visit
ed, or threatened them ; that it was seemly to
put off gay attire, and lay aside pleasant dain
ties ; and to express as they best could, their
sense of dependence and demerit ; in the hope
that submission might lighten or avert the
stroke. In Scriptural fasting then there is a natural
fitness ; its injunction by God is not purely ar
bitrary; and that natural fitness accounts for
the fact that abstinence obtains among men
prior to, and independent of, revelation. As in
the weekly rest of the Sabbath, and in the sym
bolism of the Sacraments, the Father of lights
has added sanction and significance to that
which — as Creator, seeing all and harmonizing
all He made — He had already settled in the
nature of things, as He made the rainbow, the
natural product of sun and shower, the pledge
of His promise, and the sign of His Covenant in
the heavens.
One feels no surprise then in turning from
Buddhists and Brahma-worshippers to the Old
Testament Scriptures, to find that while fasting

284 WHY D0 N0T THE DISCIPLES FAST?
has a place there, it is in marked contrast to the
clumsy and constrained observances of heathen
ism. There was but one day in the year set apart
by divine authority as a fast for the Hebrews.
The tenth day of the seventh month, the day of
the atonement was ordained for the " afflicting
of the soul ;" the very phrase employed pointing
to the true idea in all such abstinence. If after
wards the Jews added five other days, it was
their own doing, not the Lord's, and nothing
can be argued from it. Nor are we forbidden
to smile at the nicety of ritualistic detail with
which it was settled by the Hebrew authorities
that these fasts lasted from the break of day till
the appearance of three stars in the evening.
Considering that the Hebrews understood by
fasting not a nice selection from the ordinary
bill of fare, but entire abstinence, we can read
ily conceive the evening star to have had spe
cial beauty to a Hebrew eye on the anniversary
of the day when Ishmael killed Gedaliah. All
unauthorized as were these five Jewish fasts, we
have a certain respect for them. They were
real, earnest fasts. They did not offer any em
barrassing and entangling choices between fish

WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST? 285
and flesh, between the flesh of quadrupeds and
lacticinea, on which Christian Councils have
been keenly discriminating. They did not re
quire Jewish Rabbis to write Pastorals that
looked like an extract from a cookery-book.
They gave no place for a little pious fraud such
as that practised by a disciple " of the letter "
who dined on the " breasts " of two ducks on
fish-day, but excused himself on the ground
that he had only eaten the aquatic part of them.
If we are to have fasts let us stand up for the
Jewish style of them. Let us be thorough.
When — there being but one authorized fast
day among the Jews — Moses, Elias, and our
Lord fasted for forty days, they did something
entirely outside the Jewish ritual — something
special to them, appropriate to their life-work,
and only to it — miraculous, and above and be
yond the imitation of Christians, as much as
walking on the sea, or calling down fire from
heaven. The washing of the pilgrims' feet by
the Pope in St. Peter's is not a very life-like or
natural performance. It would be still more
melo-dramatic and unreal, if by an ingenious
mechanical contrivance the " successor of the

286 WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST?
apostles " should affect to walk on the water in
imitation of Peter. But the principle would be
just the same if men justified a periodical Quad
ragesima by the non-imitable example of Elias
or Christ. The Christian " lent" does not however dis
tinctly base itself upon these high exhibitions of
mastery of divine spirit over the human body.
The Jews had Mondays or Thursdays as fasting-
days. Our Lord simply let them alone as to the
act, though severe enough on the motives and
accompaniments, and he refused to own the cus
tom as a " commandment " or to blame those
who disregarded it. By the end of the second
century many Jewish and heathen people had
come, with their usages, into the Church. They
kept their fasts but altered the days. Wednes
days and Fridays in reference to our Lord's
seizure and death were made days of fasting.
Forty hours represented the doleful period of the
entombment. With the progress of Asceticism
in the Church they became forty days ; and in the
Council of Orleans in 541, meat was interdicted
to Christians except on Sundays during the en
tire period. When the Council of Toledo pro-

WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST? 287
nounced a lent-breaker unworthy to share in
the resurrection, it became necessary to define
terms, and understand the exact law. And then
came the Casuists and set up the barriers,
which soon became traps to catch consciences.
They had the Jejunium (fast)
1. Generale,
2. Votivum,
3. Consuetudinarium,
4. Penitentiale,
5. Voluntare.
Each of these might be kept in one or other of
four ways — I. Jejunium naturale,
2. Abstinentia,
3. Jejunium cum abstinentia,
4. Jejunium sine abstinentia,
whoever has no useful employment, and desires
to know more of these with the penalties of
breach, and " the reasons annexed," is referred
to Bingham, Muratori, Walch and Homberg.
The regimen of the Latin church, though
we have not given it in full, is mild, compared
with that of the Greek, which has a prescription
for at least eight months of the twelve : and

288 WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST?
in which violations of the fasting-law are most
serious matters. The Greek Lent is seven
weeks all but a day, and Christmas, instead of be
ing a time of feasting, is solemnized with a fast
of thirty-nine days. There are briefer periods in
honor of the Virgin Mary, and the apostles.
Whether good Greeks ever suffer from dyspepsia
or not should be a question of some interest to
those who charge excessive eating as the cause
of half our troubles. It is melancholy to think
how much religiousness there may be with little
religion if religion implies intelligent regard to
God ; for a more ignorant population than that
which uses the forms of the Greek Church, it
would be difficult to find under the Christian
name. It is said the priests are also very igno
rant. It does not require an educated and
thoughtful ministry to regulate the diet of a
people, under spiritual pains and penalties.
It has been sometimes jocularly said that the
Protestants kept all the feasts and left all the
fasts to Rome. The statement is imperfect.
One half of Reformed Protestantism has kept the
fasting where the New Testament leaves it, and
has left the feasts out altogether. The Church

WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST?

289

of Scotland holds in theory that special cir
cumstances may make it proper for an individ
ual, without boast or publicity, to fast, and for
a christian community to appoint a day of fast
ing and prayer. Public religious exercises are
usually held on these occasions, but the extent
to which food is to be used is left to individual
conscience. At such times, as on the " fast" be
fore the Communion, serious people participate
in religious engagements ; and the non-religious
amuse themselves. If this be urged as a charge
against Protestantism, it is enough to say that
the " fast-day" does for Scotland exactly what
every Sunday and holiday does for Roman Cath
olics throughout the world.
It is gratifying to know that as far as public
action is concerned, the Church of England has
kept off" indefensible ground on fasting. She
counts it a useful preparation for the means of
grace. The Church of Rome makes it an impe
rative means of grace. The English Church has
never gone into the dining-room or kitchen to
make sumptuary laws for spiritual ends, and the
pastorals proceed on the principle that it is not
what goeth into a man's mouth that defileth

290

WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST?

him. She would find it hard probably to define
on Protestant principles the ground on which she
has named and provided for the forty days of
Lent, the Ember days, the Rogation days, and
the Fridays of the year : but she has issued no
imperative command to fast. Acute people find
out this weakness, and hence the "Anglicans," or
" Catholics" as they love to be called, who "fast
twice in the week," plead that either she should
have said nothing or have spoken as Rome does,
either have said more or held her peace. The
bulk of the people however practically disregard
the church's suggestion, and if they otherwise
serve God consistently, it is little to be deplored
that it happens to them as of old — "Why do
the disciples of John fast often, and make pray
ers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees,
but thine eat and drink," (Luke 5 : 33.) Such
questioners hardly understood the tender pathos
of the Lord's reply — not a prescription, but a pre
diction. " Fasting is depression, why should
they be depressed now ? Alas ! the time will
come to them when they will be depressed
enough ! I shall be torn from them and they shall
have many a peril, and sufficient affliction of

WHY DO NOT THE DISCIPLES FAST? 291
soul." And so now, when God lays his hand on
them, or they feel the need of conscious mas
tery over the body and that they can get it by
fasting, let the disciples fast; and only then.
When the minister wrote on the side of his ser
mon-page, " weep here," irrespective of the feel
ings of preacher or hearer at the moment of
delivery, he was a long way below the highest
type of pulpit oratory. And when the Church
rules that in all time to come, at certain dates
in the Almanac, there shall be fasting, she runs
the risk of making artificial consciences, and pro
ducing practical disregard and reactionary
saturnalia. The Mohammedans, copying older
religious forms, have their Lent also ; and one
thing in it deserves commendation as far as it
goes. During the entire month Ramadan, eat
ing, drinking, and smoking are strictly forbidden
from daybreak till sunset. It would have been
an improvement if the ban upon smoking had
been carried through the night, and like that
upon wine, made perpetual.

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?

HE attempt to learn, by special or
supernatural means, what is not un
folded to ordinary observation, or
reached by calculation, is neither rare
nor novel in human history. Every divine gift
to man has its imitation in baser material, and
every form of revelation has had its copy ; lust
of knowledge or lust of power in fallen creatures
making the demand and suggesting the supply.
As early as Gen. xii. 8, we find a distinct
order of men in the Egyptian Court, called by
various names, " magicians," " wise men," etc.,
the indefiniteness of the popular idea regarding
their peculiarities rendering the language indef
inite, precisely as among ourselves.
The general public cannot discriminate be
tween electro-biology, clairvoyance, spirit-rap-

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?

293

ping, and table-turning, though no doubt the
professors in this general line have nice and in
telligible distinctions among their respective
methods and departments.
In Exod. 7:11 we find " wise men " and
"sorcerers" called to the royal council, and we
have conclusive evidence of the zeal, earnest
ness, and apparent, though temporary success,
with which these persons sought to serve Pha
raoh. We think the conclusion probably certain
that these men did not accomplish anything out
side laws of nature known to them, and that
when they were reduced to humiliating confes
sion of impotence they said quite candidly :
" This is the finger of God," as distinguished
from our arts.
The tribes among whom lay Jewish intercourse
must have been much addicted to such devices,
if we may judge from the earnestness and fre
quency with which the Lord warned — as in Lev.
xx.: 6 — against the wizards and familiar spirits.
At this point we get two branches of the line,
one in the direction of communicating with the
dead, the other of impressing the living by the
feats of ventriloquism. Probably both were fre-

294 /s SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?
quently combined, the unwonted sounds verify
ing to the client the supposed voices of the
dead. That women often cultivated these arts,
and with success, appears from the prevalency
of feminine words which, like " witch " among
us, hold an important place in the popular lan
guage. By the time the book of Deuteronomy is
reached we have " divination," " observing of
times," " enchanters," " witches," " charmers,"
" consulters with familiar spirits," " wizards,"
"necromancers." These are all described by
their appropriate words, the etymology of which
sometimes approximately describes the method
of each. It is not needful for our present pur
pose to follow these minutely.
Later in human history we begin to notice
the similarity between the Bible forms of su
perstitious inquiry and those encountered in the
classics. Micah speaks of the " observer of
times," and Isaiah of " soothsayers " and
" monthly prognosticators ; " to whom comets,
lightnings, clouds, and meteors were the means
of suggestion and enlightenment. Then came
in long and motley array the enchanters vindi-

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE? 295
eating their claim by power over serpents;
" diviners," with their cups and rods and arrows ;
augurs peering into the entrails of slain beasts,
as in Ezekiel 21 : 21, "looking in the liver," and
the endless variety of oracle-mongers from the
richly endowed shrine with a national repute, to
the hag, that from the recesses of a cave domi
neered over the fears and superstitions of a
hamlet. Two remarks may be made at this stage.
1. It would be unfair to imagine that all the
operators of this machinery were conscious im
postors. Men, by long telling a lie, come to
believe it. Education moulds the mind as ample
observation proves, to accept things most un
likely and incredible to others ; and there is a
blinding and hardening judicial process to which
men are given up when evidence produces as lit
tle effect on their intellect as rays of light on
the sightless eyeballs. There were, no doubt,
then as now, sincere and honest exponents of
these plans, who "were in part dupes, and, so far,
unconscious impostors. It is so still.
2. In the course of life-long application to
one set of facts and studies, and this often car-

2g6 IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?
ried on in one place, or by one undying corpora
tion from age to age, it is exceedingly likely that
acquaintance was made with occult laws of hu
man being, the knowledge of which was turned
to account, and which availed for impressing,
overawing, and swaying the minds of men.
The possessors of this exceptional knowledge
had secrets — not supernatural secrets, indeed,
but such as made them miracle-workers to the
mass of men, because the mass of men were
ignorant. This appears to be the exact state of the
case in modern spiritualism. Any one who has
seen an exhibition of electro-biology must have
been convinced that there are persons of such
temperament that their minds can be reduced to
abnormal states, can be turned into the current
of other minds, so as to feel as they are directed,
and to will and command their muscles as they
are instructed. From this it seems an easy and
not an unlikely step to the controlling mind
gaining a perception of the state and feeling of
the mind controlled, so as to know what it
knows, and for the time comprehend and sympa
thize with its feelings.

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE? 297
We say, " to know what it knows." That is
the inexorable limit. There is no case of the
revealing mind rising above the attainments of
the mind with which it is in sympathy. The
inquirer at the oracle gets nothing but what he
brings. If he asks as to what is in his own
mind the medium has entrance so far to his own
mind, and can read off what is seen there. If he
inquire of what is unknown to either one or the
other, the oracular current does not rise above
the level of the supply, and the response is only
a guess more or less accurate.
This is the result of all observation ; it is
also the verdict of scientific inquiry. We do
not now touch another and very interesting case
of occult or partially known law — in which hu
man will seems to have power that is different
from conscious mechanical power — over dead
matter, except to say that man may have been
— who can tell? in an unfallen state an image
of the Creator in His control over matter, and
restored and glorified, may have it given back
again, and in this be " equal to the angels."
Now when we apply the principles above
stated to the one well-defined case of necro-

298 IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?
mancy, or spiritualism described in the Bible,
there is a solution of questions not otherwise
satisfactorily answered. We refer of course to
Saul's interview with the witch of Endor. That
Samuel should have come in the circumstances
to meet Saul and announce the tragedies of the
melancholy morrow, was a thing so antecedent
ly improbable that it could only be explained by
the theory that God so judged, and aggravated
the doom of Saul. There still seemed to be
some need for explanation of Samuel's language
of complaint as to being " disquieted," and
" brought up" — and of the announcement that
Saul and his sons should be " with him."
But on the theory which applies spiritualism
to the case as it is now in use among us (and
which Dr. Baldwin of Troy has carefully elabora
ted in his " Witch of Endor and Modern Spirit
ism") there are enough points of coincidence to
make the explanation worth consideration. The
woman has a reputation for necromancy. She
is an accomplished medium, possessing the
power of biologising the related natures. Her
faculties — like those of the gypsy, the sharper,
the fortune teller, have been quickened by the

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE? 299
practice of long and perilous years. Saul is agi
tated, nervous, faint, hungry, and prepared to
catch at anything — just in that mood when
" the very stones prate of one's whereabout, .
And take the present horror from the time,
Which now suits with it."
•The tall figure of the stately king, and the
general look of Samuel might well enough be
known to the witch, and if not, her practised
acuteness soon identified Saul and he introduced
Samuel to her attention. And now, magnetized
and full of unutterable tremor, his unbalanced
mind picturing the " doom he dreads yet dwells
upon," the witch proceeds to read off from that
opened page what she finds there. The last
time Saul saw Samuel he had on a mantle.
Saul remembers it, for in the frantic effort to de
tain the prophet, he laid, hold on the skirt of it
and it rent (1 Saml. xv : 27.) It is an old man in
a mantle the witch perceives. The best way in
which to exhibit the value of the communication
made by the witch is to put in parallel columns
the very words of the living Samuel which must
have burnt their way into Saul's memory, and
the words uttered in the cave.

300

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?

After Saul's rash sacrifice,
(I Sam. 13: 13): "And Sam
uel said to Saul, Thou hast
done foolishly; thou hast not
kept the commandment of
the Lord thy God, which he
commanded thee : for now
would the Lord have estab
lished thy kingdom upon Israel
for ever."
After the episode of the
Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. : 16) :
" Then Samuel said unto Saul,
Stay and I will tell thee what
the Lord hath said to me this
night. And he said unto him,
Say on.
"And Samuel said, Hath
the Lord as great delight in
burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as
in obeying the voice of the
Lord? Behold, to obey is bet
ter than sacrifice, and to hear
ken than the fat of rams.
" For rebellion is as the sin
of witchcraft, and stubbornness
is as iniquity and idolatry. Be
cause thou hast rejected the
word of the Lord, he hath also
rejected thee from being king.
"And Samuel said unto Saul,
I will not return with thee : for
thou hast rejected the word of
the Lord, and the Lord hath
rejected thee from being king
over Israel.

The woman, speaking for
Samuel, says (1 Sam. 28 : 16,
17, 18, 19) : " Wherefore then
dost thou ask of me, seeing
the Lord is departed from thee,
and is become thine enemy ?
" And the Lord hath done
to him, as he spake by me :
for the Lord hath rent the
kingdom out of thine hand,
and given it to thy neighbor,
even to David.
" Because thou obeyedst not
the voice of the Lord, nor ex-
ecutedst his fierce wrath upon
Amalek, therefore hath the
Lord done this thing unto
thee this day.
" Moreover, the Lord will
also deliver Israel with thee
into the hand of the Philis
tines : and to-morrow shalt
thou and thy sons be with me :
the Lord also shall deliver the
host of Israel into the hand
of the Philistines."

LS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE? 301
"And Samuel said unto him.
The Lord hath rent the king- .
dom of Israel from thee this
day, and hath given it to a
neighbor of thine, that is better
than thou.
" And also the strength of
Israel will not lie nor repent ;
for he is not a man that he
should repent."
Add to this Saul's own state
ment of his condition (1 Sam.
28 : 15) : " And Samuel said to
Saul, Why hast thou disquieted
me, to bring me up ? And Saul
answered, I am sore distressed ;
for the Philistines make war
against me, and God is depart
ed from me, and answereth
me no more, neither by pro
phets nor by dreams : therefore
I have called thee that thou
mayest make known unto me
what I shall do."
That Samuel is described as the speaker is
in accordance with the usual method in such
cases. Apollo gave the oracles at Delphi,
though priests spoke ; and in any number of the
" Banner of Light," the organ of spiritualism in
this country, the dead — mighty or not, wise or
otherwise — are credited with the declarations,
though the trance-speakers and the mediums

302 IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?
make the actual communication. There is ab
solutely nothing told Saul that he did not either
know or expect, for defeat stared him in the
face, and the only thing not uttered by the liv
ing Samuel, and now put into his lips — namely,
that Saul and his sons should be slain — was
already in the fallen monarch's mind ; for how
could that spirit brook " to live and be the show
and gaze of the time?" In fine, the woman
only put into words what in the clairvoyant state
she saw in the brain with which she came into
what Richardson calls " unconscious cerebra
tion," or what others call " abnormal psychic
relations." It only remains to be added that while real
satanic influence was believed in, and witches
were supposed to be in connection with evil
supernatural powers, Samuel's appearance was
supposed to have been imaginary, but effected
through supernatural agency. Later commenta
tors, remembering that that form of witch-theory
is exploded, differ with Calvin, Luther, and the
Fathers, and are compelled to fall back on the
theory of a permitted appearance of the real
Samuel. It may appear that the whole episode;

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE? 303
was within the limits of natural law, and that at
the same time the process was one of imposi
tion and deception on the part of the sorceress,
and an interesting illustration of a point of con
tact between the heathenism of Canaan, as de
scribed in the Scriptures, and the heathenism of
Greeks and Trojans, as described in Homer.
Many persons having seen undeniable facts
of which they could give no explanation, con
clude that the deniers of spiritualism are igno
rant of these facts, and that their denial would
be less strenuous had they opportunity to wit
ness them. For the sake of such readers, we
offer a brief sketch of what may be called the
scientific history of what now assumes to itself
the honors of a religion.*
*The substance of the following pages appeared over the
author's name in the New York Ledger, and the writer has rea
son to know, with the effect of satisfying some who were per
plexed and in danger of losing their hold of revealed truth. The
result of the publication was a correspondence of some interest,
in which the strongest arguments and evidences available were
laid before the author. The effect was twofold : 1. To confirm
the theory of the text, and to deepen the conviction that Spirit
ualism is a comet with a small body of natural fact and an enoi-
mous tail of guessing, of sensation, of superstitious and ignorant
fear, and of conscious and interested imposture. 2. That it is,
as far as it is intelligent, animated by a malignant dislike of

304 /s SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?
The subject gained some scientific interest in
the hands of Frederick A. Mesmer, a German,
born in Baden in 1734, and educated as a physi
cian. He published in 1766 a work called De
Planetarum influxu, to show that a fine subtle
influence pervades the universe, affected like air
and water by the heavenly bodies, in turn affect
ing the nervous system of animals, and influenc
ing human disorders. Then, he concluded, if
artificial means of exercising this influence could
be obtained, cures might be effected ; and he
tried magnets.
But a rival in Vienna, with the ominous
name of Hell, claimed the prior use of this de
vice, and so far made good his case. In vain
Mesmer tried to obtain the indorsement of
learned bodies; and his attempt to cure Made
moiselle Paradis, a public singer, in 1777, left
her as blind as ever.
Paris has always been a good field for the
ingenious, and thither Mesmer went ; practised
there ; made friends ; published his theory, and
had it refuted. Handsome, and not timid, he
Christianity, though occasionally claiming to offer evidence in
favor of its great facts.

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE ? 305
intimated that he was a benefactor of the race,
and desired an estate as an acknowledgment of
his services. On condition that he would sub
mit his process to three persons appointed by
the government, a good pension was offered
him ; but he declined it, and left in high dud
geon for Spa. Returning — tempted by another
offer — to Paris, he set up a curative establish
ment, luxuriously furnished, in which he operat
ed upon his patients, as they gathered round a
kind of magnetic battery, producing no doubt
many of the familiar phenomena of electro-biol
ogy, which, being then new and strange, made
him a prodigy. In 1784 the French government
appointed a scientific committee of inquiry into
the Mesmeric process, including many physi
cians, and men of repute, such as our own Ben
jamin Franklin. This committee pronounced
it a humbug ; so did the Royal Society of Med
icine; but that did not prevent Mesmer from
escaping to England with about fifty thousand
dollars subscribed to pay for his secret. There
he lived and spent his money, under another
name, but finally returned to Germany, and died
in obscurity in 181 5.

3o6 IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE).
The life of Mesmer may be regarded » the
immediate precursor, in modern times, of table-
turning, biology, spirit-rapping and othei feats,
underlying many of which there is, likely, a
basis of true natural fact — such fact, namely, as
scientific men recognize as animal magnetism.
Mesmer's magnetic rod has given place to passes
with the hand ; and these again have been dis
pensed with, and the eyes have been a sufficient
means of producing the desired bodily and
mental condition. Perhaps a tithe of the hu
man race is susceptible of this abnormal state,
which, according to the report on Mesmer's
process signed by Franklin, was produced pure
ly by the imagination of the subjects, and not
by the operator, as the committee made out
by repeated experiment. on those who were af
fected. All that was yet shown, however, was that
Mesmer gave an erroneous account of the facts.
The facts were there ; as probably most intelli
gent persons have seen them in biological ex
periments. There was no clear explanation of
them.. " Everything unknown is taken for the
magnificent ; " and these mysterious facts offered

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?

307

a tempting facility for " practice." Perkins con
structed, his patent metallic tractors, and might
have made a good thing of them but for Dr.
Falkoner of Bath, who made wooden " tractors"
that produced identically the same results.
But a new generation is continually coming
up, ready to notice curious facts. A man or
woman with a few of these, claims the ear and
eye. On the narrow base of fact a great pile of
— something else, is raised. The pile is con
demned as a whole ; but a few persons undoubt
edly see the base of fact, spurn the unbelievers,
and believe too much because too much has
been denounced.
The following facts are well known and es
tablished on proper scientific evidence, and no
one, in his anathemas of imposture and jug
glery, need waste his breath in their denuncia
tion. 1. The minds of some persons, by their gaz
ing on a copper cent, a spot on the wall, or
vacancy, can be tired into reverie or sleep; and,
as the facts of sleep-walking show, some fall
into this state without the act of any one's will,
their own or others'. The " operator " only

308 IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?
produces this state, as a schoolma'am produces
tiredness in a child whom she compels to stand
for two hours on one spot.
2. In this state a suggestion can be made to
the person by any one, by word, or look, or
touch, which will be obeyed. But it must be so
conveyed. An operator, it is believed on evi
dence, may wish his " subject" to do a thing,
forever, and in vain, until the suggestion is
made, and the vague and dreamy ideas of the
subject — floating in vacancy — are fixed, and be
gin to become forces. Being told to do so the
subject will now taste sugar as salt, or salt as
sugar, shiver in the cold, or be oppressed with
heat. 3. Tables and other movables have, undoubt
edly, been moved by persons who did not mean
to do it. Faraday showed, by an ingenious
contrivance, that a dominant thought producing
expectant attention, led persons unconsciously
to use force. The correct statement to make
concerning these table-turners is, not that they
were " a fraud," and conscious impostors, but
that they did a real something, only not knowing
what they did.

IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE? 300
4. Pencils in men's hands have stopped at
the revolving letters which made out answers
Wi which their attention was nervously fixed.
There is no proof of anything being revealed
but what has been known to some one in the
company. Nor when " spirits " have been in
troduced, does their information ever rise above
that of the entire company. There is no " in
spiration of elevation." Even defects of gram
mar and spelling have adhered to very distin
guished spirits, suspiciously like those of the
operators. There is no evidence of any really
valuable discovery made to men by such pro
cesses. When Sir John Franklin and Dr.
Livingstone had attracted the attention of the
civilized world, and reliable information regard
ing them would have been a welcome boon to
science, it did not come. No new religious
truth has been authenticated to men. No great
national event has been announced with cer
tainty. Any man who had supernatural com
munications, a few years ago, as to the issue of
the American war, could have made or saved
fortunes for multitudes. But no one did so.
On the other hand, the spirits, so called, have

310 IS SPIRITUALISM IN THE BIBLE?
been convicted of mistakes, which would have
done them no credit even in the less developed
bodily state.
It remains, then, that we candidly acknowl
edge certain very curious natural facts in the
human system, capable of development, perhaps
in every tenth person, of the same order as
dreaming and somnambulism ; facts occasionally
presented among the older generations, asin the
heathen priestesses ; and which are to be studied
like other natural phenomena, by such scientists
as Braid, Carpenter, Holland and Faraday.
It remains also, that we avoid the connect
ing of these with the invisible world, or expect
ing through them any supernatural information,
or in any shape or form building a religion upon
them, or in any way putting them in the same
list with the miracles of Scripture — of which
they are possibly the ill-intended caricature,
their evil use suggested by him who has been
called the ape of God — or expecting from them
moral and religious results upon unbelievers.
" If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose
from the dead."

MAY THE MINISTRY BE DEMITTED?
HE interest Of this question lies in the
fact that in America there are many
excellent men, who from a variety of
causes not discreditable to them, though set
apart to the work of the ministry, are engaged
in other pursuits, and who would be glad to
have a way by which without any moral blame
attaching to them, they could retire into the
ranks of ordinary christians, and in some cases
assume duties from which they are now shut
out by the very fact of their " orders."
The answer to this question must be prece
ded by some examination of terms, in order to
accuracy of reply. " Ministry" in the general
sense is incumbent, by God's law, on all who
can minister. Nobody can demit that. A rich
man can never demit giving ', nor a teaching

312

MAY THE MINISTRY BE DEMITTED?

man teaching ; nor a ministering man, minister
ing, while the power remains. As to man,
such persons may do as they please. As to
God, they can never lay down their ministry,
but with the power to execute it.
Ministry in the official and special sense must
be examined on grounds a little different in form
yet not different in substance. Here we get
among the dust of scholastic and patristic accu
mulations, and a little of it must needs be cleared
away. Here for example is an old distinction be
tween " orders" and " holy orders." In the
second century arose the " lector ; " in the third
the doorkeeper ; in the middle of the third the
subdeacon ; in the fifth the acolyte. The dea
coness — regarding whom we humbly venture to
think some half-learned sentiment is now grow
ing up around us, was another of these subordi
nate officials, of whom all were " in orders ; " but
the presbyter and deacon being mentioned in
Scripture were in " holy orders."
Now where did men get this phrase " holy
orders?" Not from the Scriptures certainly,
but from u the church."

MAY THE MINISTRY BE DEMITTED? 313
And what are " holy orders" according to
their manufacturers? We reply in the words
of a catechism in use in France and slightly
modified for use and circulation, by Anglo-cath
olics. " Holy order is a Sacrament by which
bishops, priests and other ministers of the church
are ordained, and receive power and grace to
perform their sacred duties." The grace can
only be given by competent persons ; comes in
the line of succession ; and like the virus of vac
cination in the physical system, inheres ever
more in the ordained. And this opens up a
curious bit of history. The number seven was
early accounted sacred. So seven sacraments
gradually grew up, and seven orders of ministry.
Some of them we have named already. Their
Latin names were "ostiary," " lector," " acolyth,"
"exorcist," " subdeacon," "deacon," and " pres
byter." Each had its appropriate ordination,
and each had its appropriate pecuniary grant.
We, in reverent regard to the Scriptures, have
discarded five Sacraments, and five orders to
gether, and we have modified the views of men
regarding both the Sacraments and the orden

3H

MA Y THE MINISTRY BE DEMITTED?

we retain. We deny for example, that " orders"
have any Sacramental character.
We count the word and the thing alike eccle
siastical. In the Jewish church, altar, priest,
and sacrifice were co-relative terms and concep
tions, and priest and laity, as distinct, had a real
• meaning by divine appointment. But they have
given place to a New Testament order of things.
The conceptions still stand as they ever did to
one another ; but Christ is the priest, the altar,
and the sacrifice. " He offered Himself without
spot to God." Into so much of his official char
acter as He continues to execute, all Christians
enter on their belief and baptism in his name.
They are kings and priests to God, and the
teachers of men, in the measure of their gifts,
and graces — ALL OF THEM, without a single ex
ception/ Some have more gifts and graces than
others, and there is divine authority for such to
take on themselves, or accept, and for the
Church to lay upon them special functions, and
by the act of ordination to designate and recog
nize them. It is not held by Protestants that
ordination confers grace. It is so believed by-
Romanists and Romanisers. They hold that

MA Y THE MINISTR Y BE DEMITTED I 315
ordination communicates grace ; that when the
hands are laid on with prayer — to which Scrip
tural rite they added anointing with oil, bal
sam, etc. — the ordained pass out of the ordi
nary condition of men, acquire a new character
in some way inherent in him, and hence called
indefeasible, or in the jargon of the ecclesiastical
lawyers, character indelibilis. It soon followed
that, being taken out of the category of men, he
should be made a celibate, wear a tonsure and a
habit, and have a distinction clearly drawn in his
favor between the original mere man and the
imparted superaddition ; so that he might be
conceivably drunk as a man without any im
peachment of the sacerdotal character, or he
might swear as a prince of the Church with
out prejudice to his reputation as a Bishop.
All this we consider a part of the relapse of
Christendom into heathenism with an infusion
of the Mosaic economy. We consider the
Church a divinely-appointed society, governed
by the laws which, in the nature of things, any
society requires. The society has divine author
ity to appoint its officers. They are divinely
appointed as classes by divine express command.

3 16 MAY THE MINISTR Y BE DEMITTED ?
They are divinely appointed as individuals only
through the judgment of the Church. That
judgment is founded on gifts and graces, and
is not infallible. It sometimes occurs, for ex
ample, that persons are ordained who prove
their destitution of the gifts and graces that
they were supposed to possess — prove it so pal
pably that the Church takes back her act of
ordination. It is proved to her that the ordain
ed man had not the gifts and graces of which
his supposed possession formed a ground for
his ordination. She then compels him to de
mit the office. She does not hold that he
retains some mysterious character indelibilis
after his degradation, in virtue of which he
can never be anything but an ecclesiastic. This
is the Romish theory, and is acted on in Romish
countries. It is to some extent acted on in the
law of England, though recent changes have
been found necessary.
But suppose he made the diicovery himself
that he lacked the gifts and graces which he
supposed justified his ordination, must he con
tinue to regard himself as an ecclesiastic, and
be denied the power to demit his office, unless

MA Y THE MINISTRY BE DEMITTED? 317
by some criminal act he oblige the church to
degrade him ? We can hardly think so. If it
be said his feeling has nothing to do with it,
we reply — It certainly had with the assumption
of office. It would be a strong thing to ordain
a man against his own will and feeling of right !
His will is an element in his being ordained,
and may be regarded at any subsequent period.
We conclude, therefore, that a minister recog
nized by the Church may find out that the
Church took him as prepared of God, when in
point of fact he was not ; and on being assured
of this he has a right to go back to the ranks,
unless otherwise disqualified.
Of course, so long as a man's conscience
assures him of his possession of the gifts and
graces for the ministry, he is bound to continue
in it. But that obligation does not spring out
of his relation to the Church, but out of his
relation to God. He is bound to use all hi*
talents as long as God leaves them with him.
This obligation the Church did not make, nor
has it anything to do with his ordination. If
his ordination increases his responsibility and
obligation, it is because it gives him a new

318 MAY THE MINISTRY BE DEMITTED?
talent, namely, recognition and confidence on
the part of those calling and ordaining him, and
not by any means from any quality in it of it
self. It may be objected that this destroys the
basis of ministerial character and position. We
venture to think not. It rests it on the posses
sion of recognized solid qualities, and not on a
human act, done, indeed, in accordance with
a general divine rule, but the particular applica
tions of which are not divinely directed.
It may be argued that if this argument is
sound, then the ordinary Christian may admin
ister the sacraments. Some might reply to this
supposed logical coup de grace — What harm ?
Even the Church of Rome allows a midwife to
baptize. But we are not driven to this extrem
ity. We reply that out of the nature of a
society — which the Church is by divine constitu
tion — arises a distinction between the ministry
and the congregation. An insurance company
is a society (voluntary, indeed, and therein dif
fering from the Church, but) for the purposes of
this argument, having enough as a society in
common with the Church to warrant the paral-

MAY THE MINISTRY BE REMITTED?

319

lei. Now any one may explain to his neighbor
the advantages of insurance. But when I, per
suaded of them, wish to take out a policy, I go
to the officers for their signature to make my
papers good. Why ? Because my counsellor or
instructor is inherently less wise or good than
the officers of the company ? No; but because
it is a company or society, and it has organs, by
common consent, to represent it, and by whom
to act. So, in the Church, any member is bound
to tell of the benefits of membership. But so
soon as I am persuaded to become a member,
the whole society being in some measure affected
by my action, has a right to be regarded ; and so
I must go to the Church as all the members, as
in the Congregational form, or to the officers, as
in the ordinary Presbyterian administration.
The administration of the sacraments corre
sponds to the signature of the president or secre
tary, and both spring out of the nature of the
societies. It may be inquired — How then could you
take hold of an ordained man who wished to
give up his ministry, in order to make money?
We reply — simply as on any Christian, by tell-

320

MA Y THE MINISTRY BE DEMITTED?

ing him that he has no right to cast away a tal
ent by giving which to him the Lord indicated
His mind that he should use it ; that he has no
more right to do. it than a rich man has to tie
up his own hands, and give nothing to the
Lord's treasury. But it is by the Lord's deal
ing with him as a Christian, and not specifically
in virtue of his ordination, that he is bound by
this obligation.
That the ministry may be demitted, and that
" orders" are not indelible appears to be the
general Protestant belief if we may judge from
the little weight which men attach to them
when the popular and effective use of gifts has
ceased. The Romish Church punishes an ill-
behaved priest, in countries wholly Roman Cath
olic by confinement in a monastery, a method of
withdrawing unworthy men from notice not
open to Protestant Churches. Our mistakes are
all apparent. The indelible theory logically
should oblige a church that holds it to make a
life-provision for its clergy. That family ties are
discouraged in the Romish system, and this
provision comparatively easily made, is an illus
tration of the logical consistency of that system

MA Y THE MINISTR Y BE DEMI T TED ? 321
— a system so thoroughly concatenated (as might
be expected when we remember how long the
most subtle and cultivated minds of the race
have been engaged on it) that they who sneer at
it as " absurd" and ridiculous indicate thereby
their absolute incompetence to deal with its
arguments. A real knowledge of the Romish
system and some respect for its well-arranged
defences, are necessary to him who would in
struct its adherents.

WHAT HAVE THE "OLD CATHO
LICS" TO DO?
OSSIBLY less interest was awakened
in the early years of the Reformation
struggle by the efforts of Luther and
his friends than has greeted the
movement now known as " Old Catholic."
Whether it is to lead to results corresponding in
magnitude to those which the Reformation of
the Sixteenth century produced, will depend
largely on the position given to the Bible by the
later German Reformers. In many things the
circumstances of the nineteenth century are far
more favorable to a wide and successful revolt
against Rome than those of the sixteenth. The
present leaders have the benefit of their prede
cessors' experience. They have the advantage
of a Protestant literature, an arsenal of contro-

WHAT HA VE THE " OLD CA THOLICS," ETC. 323
versial artillery. They have the spirit of the
times with them. They are favored by the de
caying prestige of the Papacy, and by the steady
upward and Protestant movement of the Ger
man mind, and of German national life. On
the other hand Protestantism has not the charm
of novelty ; the personal character of the Pope
and of his advisers is free of the scandals which
seemed to so many to justify secession in Lu
ther's time, and the lengths to which revolution
has so often proceeded on the continent of Eu
rope deter the timid, indeed the conservative
generally, from entering upon any movement
the end of which cannot be clearly foreseen.
Nor is it to be forgotten that no leader has yet
appeared with Luther's great and fearless na
ture, or what made him so strong, his grasp of
evangelical truth.
The man of greatest weight in this move
ment — who may, perhaps, be called its leader —
Dr. J. J. Ignatius Von Dollinger, is a man of
great learning, of wide culture, of blameless
character, and whose personal worth and public
services have secured for him general esteem
and honor. He has written largely on the his-

324 WHA T HA VE THE
tory of the Church, not always with freedom
from a partisan spirit, but with indications of a
mind freeing itself gradually from traditional
trammels, and daring to form its own judgments.
He has not confined himself to purely theologi
cal labors. The religion of Shxkespeare, the Eng
lish Tractarians, and Dante's Paradise, have en
gaged his attention and been the subject of pub
lications more or less known, vhile such practi
cal themes as mixed marriages, A*xd the duty of
the Church to those who die in ither commu
nions, have been discussed by him He has had
reputation as a college professor, an \ as a legisla
tor, for he served in the Bavarian Chamber for
four years, and in the National Parliament in
1848, when his voice was loud and clear for
liberty ; but he embraced the earliest opportu
nity to retire to the more congenial duties of
his chair and to purely literary labor.
Taken asa whole Dr. Dollinger is in his line one
of the most notable and impressive men of this
century. But he is now seventy-four years old —
an age at which men do not easily strike out into
new paths. He is, besides, afraid of the forces,
which he has in some degree evoked, and would

"OLD CATHOLICS" TO DO? 325
fain do that which we think can hardly be done,
retain the essence of " the Church," as he would
call the system in which he has lived, and cut
off the abuses which he thinks vitiate her influ
ence and impair her usefulness. The wonder
perhaps is not that he goes no farther, but that
he has gone so far. He is generously acknowl
edged to be the Nestor of the movement, and
one only wishes for the whole Grecian council
with an Ajax, a Diomede, an Achilles to do and
dare, and level to the ground in Germany that
doomed Troy, the Priam of which, in his old
age, may awaken our sympathy, but cannot
command our respect.
More known popularly than Dollinger is
Father Hyacinthe, whose eloquence as a preach
er, and whose breach with Rome by his marriage
have called to him disproportionate attention.
He appears to be without much logical power,
and mainly forcible in that rhetorical aptness
which in combination with strong sympathies
makes a vigorous exponent, but without the
power to originate. One may have great power
of utterance, and yet lack the first element of a
great teacher, namely, something to say. Hardly

326 WHA T HA VE THE
one declaration of Pere Hyacinthe is clear and
distinct. He is on both sides of the question.
He denounces this or that error of Rome, and
with equal eloquence and earnestness assever
ates his soundness as a Romanist. He is for
the platform and the popular audience, and not
long for even them, if nothing is done ; for the
mere eloquence of words soon loses its zest if
there is not the illustration and accompaniment
of living deeds.
We have never been of those who hoped
much from the old Catholic movement. We
have too much respect for Romanism as a sys
tem to suppose that such undecided and desult
ory assaults could seriously affect it. We anti
cipate that the politicians will use the feeling
the movement represents for their own purposes,
and that, destitute of any strong hold on the in
telligent convictions of men, and without a de
cisive policy, it will disappoint the expectations
of the sanguine, and produce little permanent
result. No amount of pruning will make Rome
a tree of the Lord's planting.
The old Catholics propose to reform the
Church, and make it pure. Reform, we may

-OLD CATHOLICS" TO DO? 32;
surely say, implies the casting out of what is
from heathenism, and the reduction of the
Church to substantial harmony with the New
Testament. Approaching the citadel, and, of
course, first encountering the outworks, the Re
formers are met at the church-door by the vessel
of holy water, and in some places by a sprinkler
with a brush, to touch which is proper on enter
ing. The origin of this is obvious enough to
any reader of Virgil —
" Idem ter socios pura circumtulit unda,
Spargens rore levi, et ramo felicis olivae,
Lustravitque viros, dixitque novissima verba." *
This thrice passing around the company
with pure water, sprinkling with the branch of
the fruitful olive, so purifying the men, is re
produced with slight variations in Christian
Churches. This the old Catholics should get
rid of, especially as the high authority of Justin
Martyr, in his first Apology, can be quoted in
proof of its heathen origin, and its offensive as
pect to early Christians. He adverts to the
identity of washing and scriptural illumination,
in Scripture language, and proceeds (ch. lxii.,
* Aen. Lifc. VI.

328 WHAT HAVE THE
"And the devils, indeed, having heard this
washing published by the prophet, instigated
those who enter their temples, and are about to
approach them with libations and burnt offer
ings, also to sprinkle themselves." It cannot be
wrong to stand with Justin Martyr, and those
early Christians who would starve rather than
use the food which they counted polluted by the
sprinkling upon it in the market of the " holy
water " of the heathen.
It cannot be alleged that this comes to the
Christian from the Jewish Church. The blood
and not the water was the purifying element to
the Jew ; and the laver was for the priesthood,
and not for general use or any kind of sprink
ling. If it be true that salt is mixed with the
water in the modern temple, the identification
with the heathen usage is the more formal and
marked. It is a funeral that Virgil describes.
Residents in Roman Catholic countries know
how identical is its employment in the present
day. Indeed, the modern sprinkling has been
carried further than the ancient; for horses,
donkeys, cows, and mules share the benefits ; it
was only before the races in the Circeusian games

"OLD CATHOLICS" TO DO? 329
that the heathen sprinkled their horses, and then
possibly for the very proper purpose of refresh
ing them before or after their efforts.
In those descriptions of the " imposing ritu
al" of Rome with which our newspapers occa
sionally indulge us, the censer and incense are
marked features. All men remember the boys
who, in Continental Cathedrals, so industriously
swing the censer before the priests and around
the altar.
The purely heathen character of this usage
is certain. So distinctive was it, that for a
Christian to throw a pinch of incense on the
altar, or into the censer, was counted an act of
homage to the heathen god, and a renunciation
of Christianity. Hence, in violent reaction
against it, Christian law-givers confiscated the
very dwellings in which incense was found. It
was a part of the ceremonial appliances of the
Jews, but the early Christians knew its ceremo
nial and transient character, and discarded it.
Not so the Church of Rome, in which it plays a
most important part — book, priest, altar, almost
everything and every person being incensed.
But she has no monopoly of it. Buddhists also

330 WHA T HA VE THE
incense their images with great regularity, and
no doubt attach to the act special significance.
The puerility of boys burning pastiL which
seems to promote anything but reverence, must
be discontinued in a reformed Church.
In San Francisco one is struck on entering
the joss-houses of the Chinese, with the lights
burning before the most hideous and contempti
ble of idols. How widespread is superstition,
and how truly one is the race! So the Egyp
tians honored their deities. So one may judge
in some places of the amount of honor given to
a saint by the number of lights around his
image. " They light up candles to God," says
one, " as if he lived in the dark ; but do they
not deserve to rank as madmen who offer lamps
to the Author and Giver of light ? " All this
was foolish in heathenism ; it is sinful in Chris
tianity. The old Catholics will need to extin
guish these useless lights. They can do this
with the better grace since the Apocrypha,
which they acknowledge, is so severe upon the
candles. In the book of Barach (ch. 6) is the
alleged copy of a letter from Jeremiah to the
Captives in Babylon, in which he does not spare

" OLD CATHOLICS" TO DO? 331
the Babylonish idolatry — satirizing gods that
need to be locked up lest they be stolen away ;
and in allusion to the lights before them (v. 19)
" They light them candles, yea, more than for
themselves, whereof they cannot see one." It
is alleged that the friends of mediaeval revival
are reproducing this form of antique and hea
then ritual. Shall we not have some vigorous
Archbishop Leighton to say to them, " The
superstitious use of lights in the church by day
is an affront done both to the sun in the heav
ens, and to the Sun of Righteousness in the
Church." In Italian churches one is often struck by
the columns on which legs, arms, heads, hands,
and other portions of the human body are hung
in waxen representation. He is informed that
the healed, through the intercession of the saint,
thus honored their benefactor. Here are the
"votive offerings " of heathenism, not even dis
guised. The witticism of Diagoras derived its
point from these tablets and pictures, memo
rials of deliverance. " Don't you see," said his
friend, " that the gods take notice of human
affairs, by this number of pictures ; how many

332

'WHAT 'HAVE THE

people, for the sake of 'their vows,:L*«i been
Saved ; in storms at sea, and got safe irito;har-
sbor." "I seehow it is," he replied ; "for those
persons are never. painted who happened 'to be
drowned." To ! look on the motley group of
representations, more or less accurate,; of por
tions of the human frame, crowded on aeolumn
in a church, one might really think he had come
-into one of the temples of Eseulapius, which
.were excessively rich in. these offerings, but not
richer, we venture to assert, than many churches
- dedicated ! to saints, whose intercession - or mira
cle-working power has been credited with unu-
.sual benefit 'to the affluent, or 'the powerful.
Nor is it in such mementoes of mercies received
that the Christian copies the heathen temple.
When miserable Hecuba of Troy, suppliant, be
sought * the favor of inexorable Minerva, she
carried to the image, according to Homer, her
very best and richest dress. And who does not
know how varied and costly is the wardrobe of
"Our Lady;" 'how queens, and even kings,
with a piety which might have1 taken more prac-
ticarforms,have with their, own hands enriched
the shrines of the 'Virgin Mary and other saints

" OLD' CATHOLICS" TODO? 333
of Christendom ? All this, and all that has the
like origin, and produces the like results, old
Catholicism must clear away before ever it
reaches the altar, touches the priesthood, or
enters on the creed.
But these things abolished, the outworks
only are carried. On entering a cathedral in
France or Italy, one finds curiously constructed
sentry-boxes ranged around, with an opening in
front or at the side, and facility for kneeling out
side. Those boxes it would be easy to carry out
of the edifice as lumber, and burn. But the real
difficulty is to get rid of that of which they are
the outward and sensible sign. Those boxes
stand for one of the five sacraments which have
been added to the original two of our Lord's
appointment, and which the primitive Church
received. They represent Penance as a sacra
ment, made to rest on the same authority as
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They repre
sent also the obligation to confess one's faults
to a priest, irrespective of his being injured ; by
them, and simply because he is a priest ; and
they represent the belief that he is endowed
withipower from on high, not of the declarative

334 WHAT HAVE THE
sort, which belongs to all true preachers, but of
the executive kind, which is exclusively divine,
to remit the sins so confessed on the perform
ance of the penances he enjoins. They repre
sent the strongest links in that chain by which
the priest binds the human conscience, and by
which sacerdotalism fetters a people. It is
doubtful if a confessional-box and an evangeli
cal pulpit could stand together in the same edi
fice. Where the confessional has received a
place hitherto, the Gospel has already taken its
departure. In vain you quote the admission of
Peter Dens that the number seven for the sacra
ments is only insinuated in Scripture, not
alleged. In vain you urge that the Apostles and
Evangelists give no testimony in favor of any
of the five added in later times. The Council
of Trent has hurled its anathema against any
one who shall affirm that the whole seven sacra
ments are not instituted by Christ, and roundly
asserts that they are proved from Scripture, the
unbroken traditions of the Fathers, and the
authoritative declarations of Councils. In vain
you point to the Catechism of the Council of
Trent, with its allegation that a true sacrament

"OLD CATHOLICS" TO DO? 335
consists of matter and form, and, bringing the
sacramentalists to their own test, demand the
matter and form in their five additions. In vain
you require to be told where and when Christ
instituted as sacraments matrimony, extreme
unction, penance, confirmation ? The answer is
" the time is not certain." In vain you ask how
do we know that He did appoint them ? The
reply is — The Church says so. It is not much,
but it is all you can get. In vain you adduce
undeniable proof that for a thousand years the
Church did not own seven sacraments. The an
swer is, " well, the Church does so now." And
if you quote Cassander to prove that Peter
Lombard first defined the number seven — and
that in the twelfth century — you are gently re
minded that the Council of Trent has pro
nounced you accursed for your assertion.
These boxes, and all that belongs to them —
all the assumption, all the priestly claims, all the
misreading of history, all the misinterpretation
of Scripture, all the bold and baseless assertion,
all the audacious preference of human to divine
authority, the old Catholics have to overthrow.
Councils, Canons, and Fathers have to be driven

336 WHA T HA VE THE
out of the temple if the Saviour is to be en
throned there, and the Father worshipped in
spirit and in truth.
But let us suppose all the ecclesiastical fm>
niture we have described, boldly thrown out of
the church, and all represented by it, discarded,
the work of reform has but begun. We will
suppose a service commencing, and consider the
changes demanded in order to accommodate it;
to the New Testament requirement. The
tongue is Latin. No one has spoken it as a liv
ing language for centuries. It is maintained
under the allegation that it is the same to all
Christendom. That statement is true — it is
equally unintelligible everywhere. Let us get
the vernacular of each land and let men pray
and praise, as well as hear of the wonderful
works of God, " in their tongue wherein they
were born."
Where are the Bibles ? The Church of
Rome licenses the use of the Bible mainly where
there are heretics, as a matter of prudence and
against her rule. She has never repealed the
decree of the Synod of Toulouse (i229),prohu>
king the possession of oidor new Testament by-

" OLD CATHOLICS" TO DO? 337
the laity. She has never recalled the fourth
rule of the Index of the Council of Trent, which.
Pius IV. (1564) confirmed,, to the- effect that
" the reading of the Bible by all persons in ge»»
eral does more harm than good, and so any per*--
son reading or keeping the book without license^
shall be disqualified to receive absolution till- he
delivers it to the ordinary." Cardinal Wiseman-
said of Great Britain : " But though the Scrips
tures may be here permitted* we do not urge
them on our people ; we do not encourage them
to read them ; we do not spread them to the ut
most among them- — certainly not."
It will be needful for a church truly reformed!
to say " The word of God is not bound." — (2
Tim. 2 : 9,)
As the service proceeds, one finds the cele
bration of the Last- Supper, its main feature.
To " assist at mass " is a. synonym for worship
with a Roman Catholic. But the. bread or
" host " is adored.; for it is believedto be divine.
It has been changed into the person of our Lord;
Says the Council of Trent: "It is one and the
same sacrifice with that of the cross ; for the*
victim is one and the same,, Christ our Lord/*

338 WHA T HA VE THE
Can this dogma stand in a reformed church?
But the moment any man attempts to deny this,
he comes under the anathema of Rome. Where
the service is made so much of, one would sup
pose the people would enjoy it to the full. But
no ; the cup is withheld from the laity. It is
only communion in one kind. St. Thomas
Aquinas, in the middle of the 13th century, ad
mits that " according to the ancient custom of
the Church, all men, as they communicated in
the body, so they also communicated in the
blood." And not till the Council of Constance
(1414) was the new limitation ratified. Shall
the church go back to the old way ? She must,
if she reform herself.
There are surroundings of the service which
need to be altered, if it is to accommodate itself
to the Scriptures and to primitive ways. Shall
we hear the old Catholics say with Epiphanius
irt the 4th century, "I entered into a certain
church to pray : I found there a linen cloth
hanging on the church door, painted and having
on it the image of Christ as it were, or some
other saint ; therefore, when I did see the image
of a man hanging in the church of Christ, son

" OLD CA THOLICS" TO DO ?

33&

trary to the authority of the Scripture, I did tear
it." Alas ! for honest Epiphanius ! he had not
learnt the jargon about Christian art " to which
later ears have become used. John Knox
could hardly have done worse.
So the place of the celebrant must undergo
a change, in a reformed church. The " altar "
implies a sacrifice; but there is none; and a
priest, but there is none rightly there. Will the
" old Catholics " say with Origen, against erect
ing altars, statues and temples : " The soul of
every pious man is an altar from which true and
spirit ial incense is sent up — namely, the prayers
offered by a pure conscience ? " And what shall
we say of the prayers of the reformed church ?
are t-hey to be addressed to angels and saints,
against Scripture, against Augustine, against
reason ? Is Purgatory to be recognized with its
affiliated arrangements of masses for the dead,
and indulgences? Of such minor matters as
relics — though their veneration is enjoined by the
church, and such themes as penances, we shall
not dwell. They are corollaries from leading
dogmas. But we must look in a reformed
church for the replacing of Mary as one of God's

340 WHA T HA VE THE
people, but no more a miraculously-conceived,
and omnipotent hearer of prayer, appealed to
with innumerable repetitions " Hail Mary- full of i
grace," (whereas Christ is " full of grace and >
truth,") and described as " Mother of God/' and,
"Queen of heaven," and in fact constituted a
fourth person in the Godhead?
What, is, the Rule of faith to be? Scrip-.
tures, , or the Fathers, or the Church? How. is.
the Pope to be regarded? As head, of the.
church, or as a- usurper of Christ's place? Is.
subjection to him to be held. binding on all true
Christians? Are we to believe.it proved that
Peter was at Rome; that he was Pope ; , that he
had a primacy, of jurisdiction over the whole
church ; that his . powers were not personal but
for transmission ; and that in point of- fact he
transmitted them to the popes, wh© have them
in a line of unbroken (succession? Are we to
believe all this against the Scripture, representa
tions of the apostolic office, and of Peter's per
sonal history.; against the fathers who. have
four separate interpretations of the text in
which. Peter is represented as. the Rock? If
Popes are infallible, Pope Felix. I IL must- have

"OLD CATHOLICS" TO DO? 34J,
been right when declaring Peter's confession and
not Peter, the rock. If Ambrose, Theophylact,
and Jerome are of any weight, they tell us that
" all the apostles did receive the keys of the king
dom of heaven ; " and if general councils are re
liable, that of Constantinople made Jerusalem
the mother of all churches, and so wrote in a
synodical epistle to Damasus, the Bishop of
Rome. Romanism is a system, partly political,
partly, religious, of which the papal claim is a
vital part. No reform of the system is possible,
that spares the supremacy of the Pope. All
that falls short of that is dealing with symptoms.
The radical reform must include the word of
God as the sufficient and authoritative rule of
faith and life, the completeness of the believer
in Christ, on the ground of one atonement
which supercedes every human priest and sacri
fice; and the Headship of Jesus Christ, which
implies usurpation and - blasphemy on the part.
of any creature claiming to be head. We have
by- no means exhausted the list1 of the changes
which are necessarily impliedun any real reform'
of the Church of Rome. We should be glad to
hope much from the " old Catholic " movement,

342 WHAT HAVE THE
but we see no warrant for any high expectations.
The old Catholic leaders make appeal for sym
pathy to Protestants in one breath, and in the
next asseverate their loyalty to Rome, or to what
they are pleased to call the real Catholic Church.
But they cannot be ignorant that their Church
makes it essential that Rome be acknowledged
as mother and mistress of all Churches, and that
the friends whom they invoke are by their refusal
to make this acknowledgment, and accept the
Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, ruled out
of the Church of God. We might say truly —
" You ask our Christian aid, while by the solemn
decisions of the authority you own, we are not
even Christians."
Two things have been taught in the word
regarding the great apostacy, and one of them at
least is illustrated in history. To a believer in
Christ, formally within the system, the Scripture
call is " Come out." That is the first : the sec
ond is, that they who stay in for the sake of
reforming the system, are sooner or later over
borne. The system is stronger than the man :
the corporation puts down the individual. The
reformation of antichrist is the destruction of

"OLD CATHOLICS" TO DO? 343
antichrist. Multitudes of individuals will be
saved : multitudes we doubt not, are being
saved now, in spite of the errors: but the
system, as a system, is doomed. With these
convictions — we cannot look on the reproduc
tion of mediaeval ways, and the adoption of frag
ments of Romanism, but with grief for the Ro-
manisers, and with anxiety for those whom they
influence. A thing is not necessarily bad be
cause it is in the Romish Church, for she holds
though she nullifies much truth ; but anything
she has made distinctive, and that is not in Scrip
ture, is to be regarded with suspicion. A small
thing, skilfully applied, will inoculate a great
body; and it will be a woful day for Ameri
can institutions, for the American churches, for
the American nation, in so far as through servile
imitation of Europe, through human pride and
corruption, through ignorance on the one hand,
and astute management on the other, Romish
views and practices acquire ascendancy in the
land. THE END.