Uh Pee Maya
th Xa Ree oy iii ne si :
i aa aa
ell 4
iit
py
jt
in ae 2b Roll ly
y Hil Vee spat athe Ths ls Py ‘ a ih
al is) ;
Pate i rt)
¥
Wet IPA "
Beant
bed
Aniaue hte
ee ny
ant
Wake ee hh He
siete tf : Fanny We AL Se 3)
f Need a : “ih
ih of Mh HA i hy a ry
ta an RAY ( fy) ad M7 | ;
i 1 4 Hy ; : AD tl ; ade ore -| '
AY iar eer et Begala hy B hail ie Prasat
4 Pe UAL
i; st
ae Vi
Le gren
at LU Re TM
Ht Hi ia Ds Ble ait
Oa al ¥ (eh re eas
Hues Hit ve i ae
Ws Sian tis Fd
ie ie Os
fit A 4 | ie
(i inet
i as
it in rape}
ibe af Hr
ho i iH
ae ] oe
We aan bh sie Sea
4 pate | i \
J NaN et Sal Ne a Heb Aah
( i PAU t Hes DA ‘ i Li i
: Gd iily pal Hace Me ia
( : , Hh Hi } Fd Mee f Ay ‘ iia ith Os ay ie ea i HWE : a a ee
Ae panae ith (3 catia si Naas, D Hit ure = nai ine a :
OH hy Hy A ie ‘ 1 i it inetd sai a aie ny un Hf “1 ta : i
} aid t rie) he a i cae sin Hak i
ai
cli 4
i oe
ery Min a
; iat abet, iit Sea An
EW aa dsh casita LEU WHORE CHI LRA rah 4
he eae i" ih Ht AL ik en if j ie at iy ine ite] a mit i (i
inv HU MR MN ab ee fs eda ei - a ss se
fi ft Hl Por ey et Hae ane " vy
ui i th a ee io
it
ah
EAN
Hs, sa
iN é
ae
i: sels
a i hi Me
ANNO i
rath ik iS ; ie f ag
; * i} 8
HO Be ihe ae Ht i. ty ae
uate iy ie
ok | Le
f Pa
ee ail {halts
aaah tat i
a
fatal if 1
{1s ha sale Pipatgly epee AN Mate Pais
RU ; a uri ny? ii if ) n
are eh ee | HIRO Hea Canard arr PAE ea i we HWA Hi) He i
; l asa Vy AREF np iil ue tate a) He
j MSA TEM atte
a tat $ a ‘By a iat
it
ie
f a
By
one
th oo
nae
-
: Fea ae
; ee Be te
oun Hitt ata
Haha Penn i He a be a EMH vi Gaigall
tome ita | Bil? naa ys : f ster ht
A AG ait Aa He i Hi a oe
Me ;
lsh ait
Wain
is ld
rp i nh
rte a os
a caNvies
we ie i : asus
ya! Wey Fass Chey ANA i
i Re i a itt { bal
at } ittitl Bh
Hy ! ed if fit
a the See azitah he ae lie
fant ' ;
Hrs heed bt tay Feit ‘ i ayiHib
alten AN oe ae ‘ aps = 2
PRL Wi ian ane a
“Ase at “hn Hyori i i
she 4 tis fhe: ie he i
! w DM ied SUP. eed
4. ate rake
iit 1) it
Hee
ee
BT 1101 .L9213 1872
Luthardt, Chr. Ernst 1823-
1902.
Apologetic lectures on the
ayving pooh ade
y
'p fi
i
APOLOGETIC LECTURES
ON THE
SAVING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY.
EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY TURNBULL & SPEARS,
FOR
T. AND T. CLARK:
LONDON, . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO,
DUBLIN, . . . . JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO,
NEW YORK, . . . . C. SCRIBNER AND CO.
APOLOGETIC LECTURES
ON THE
SAVING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY.
DELIVERED IN LEIPSIC IN THE WINTER OF 1866.
BY
CHR. ERNST LUTHARDT,
DOCTOR AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY,
SECOND EDITION.
- ‘Translated from the Third German Edition by
SO PAST ANY U.O.R:
EDINBURGH:
T. & T, CLARK, 88 GEORGE STREET,
1872,
“7 ee
ee
i
Bean
Cy ie
:
ait
eae
ba d ® vs é +, i
tae? tu, Me ye be) a ae ee
~ ee y da » # ww ase om his + = ' :
yi a ey a CAs oe Pas 7 ;
tay ae » vas Jee UR. ; f* wan y 0 "es A a BID LF 4
* ‘ - d t & tem f -
7 Y..'
7 oe } , ay
1 + rue le, =
: . ~ “A
5 2 ~ i 4
- ou
* ae a) .
1 a " j 9
’ ’ ; had
it 4 iz ul
4 ‘ i
it < . ¢
( os
* ee
ot bhi . ‘ f
> :
‘ y ait, 8g P| ;
, { i ¥ : P we) Te
i _* Uae P &.,
ae | 7 am |
- s Sy
.
‘ie Des
7 |
o . A
'* t
a |
He L
‘
!
> 4 oe .
tT -_ A
ek ls am i t ie ‘ ‘ te tan
=> of 4 bal
‘ F 5 Fs
‘ a 4 rs
R ‘ i. j a P
: : of
‘ 4 4 o*,, wu a
uJ i ee , oe ; ered
.t ~ , 4 E ‘ ' c
, ‘
‘- a + ' ¥
' ‘ ~~ fs i in / mi
a ’ i fed hs We Cie SY a
; x x!
7 $ ’ ,
* z; a ; us
( - : ae ape Te OL eee Vere ae ey
; AA 2 be ® | y CUA Te
i D : rth oe NERAS # ”
a " hos ‘ ; os
rie x ‘ Wd
he’ i! : " ‘ wi 5
y i) ‘} ys De
pyar acta ee baa
A 6) eet Wits tasee
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
with the two former editions will show
that I have endeavoured, to the best of
my ability, to meet the frequently expressed wish for
a more thorough treatment of the several doctrinal
questions. Some of the criticisms which have been
made are based indeed upon a misconception of my
design. My purpose was not to enter into each
Christian doctrine under all its different aspects, and
to consider the various doubts and objections of which
each has been the subject, but to give prominence
to that chief point of view under which each must
be regarded, and from which it must be examined—a
process involving the dismissal of subordinate ques-
tions and objections. While I have in no wise
altered this mode of treatment, I have, so far as was
vl Preface.
consistent with it, entered more thoroughly into many
subjects, or considered others which I formerly passed
over, both in the text and the notes. In the latter,
especially, I have taken a nearer view of certain
doctrinal questions, and given more complete refer-
ence to the Literature of the subjects in question.
It only remains to accompany this work on its
reappearance in the world with my best wishes, and
to commend it to the blessing of God.
C. E. LUTHARDT.
Letpzic, August 1870.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
exmesy HE Lectures which I last winter delivered
on the ‘Saving Truths of Christianity,’ in
continuation of my former series of Apolo-
getic Lectures, are here presented, with very few
additions and alterations.
I confess that it was not without hesitation that I
undertook this work ; for the more sacred and serious
the themes I had to discuss, the greater was my
responsibility—a responsibility which I have never lost
sight of. I have found, also, but little assistance from
the works of others, from the fact that these very
questions are just those which have been much less
treated by apologetical writers, than those more general
religious questions which form the subject of my
former series, If, however, I may venture to draw a
conclusion from the unusval and sustained interest
vill Preface.
bestowed upon them, God has not suffered these Lec-
tures to be entirely without success. May they do
their work in their present form also.
I have provided these, as well as the former series,
with notes, chiefly of a literary and theological char-
acter, and designed especially for such as may desire
more accurate information concerning the various
matters discussed.
This work is sent forth to the world with the
prayer, that the blessing which God has so abundantly
bestowed on the former series may accompany this
also.
G. E: LUTHARPTE
Lerpsic, July 1, 1867.
CONTENTS,
LECTURE I.
THE NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY.
PAGE
The Subject—Christianity the Absolute Religion—Heathenism
—The Religion of the Old Testament—Christianity, the Fact
Jesus Christ—Former Views of Christianity—Christianity,
the Certainty of Salvation—Grounds of this Certainty—Means
of this Certainty—Faith and Knowledge, :
LECTURE IU.
SIN,
Universality of Suffering and Death— Universality of Sin—Origin
of Sin—Universality of its Consequences—Internal Discord—
Selfishness the Essence of Sin—Impotence of the Will with
Respect to Sin—Guilt,
LECTURE III.
GRACE.
A Remedy Needed—Vanity of Human Remedies—Need of For-
giveness—Grace Needed—Grace Certain—Grace Universal—
17
43
x Contents.
PAGE
The Operations of Grace, Secret Operations—Education for
Grace, é -' 18
LECTURE IV.
THE GOD-MAN.
The Question of the God-man—The Man, Christ Jesus—His Sin-
lessness—Jesus Christ, a Miracle—The Son of Man—The Son
of God—Confession and. Denial of His Divinity—Necessity of
the God-man—Possibility of the God-man—Reality of the
God-man—The Self-renunciation of the Son of God—The
Contrasts of His Life, - 106
LECTURE V.
THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST.
The Three Offices of Christ—The Development of Jesus—His
Prophetic Office—His Rejection—His Atoning Sacrifice—Need
of Atonement—Substitution ; its Possibility and Reality—
Vicarious Suffering—The Last Hours of Christ—The Cross, 136
LECTURE VI.
THE CONCLUSION OF THE WORK OF REDEMPTION—
THE TRINITY.
The Resurrection of Christ—Its Reality—The Exaltation of
Christ to be the Ruler of the World—The Holy Spirit—The
Conclusion of the Work of Redemption—The Trinity—The
Possibility of Understanding it—The Trinity of the Divine
Revelation—The Trinity of the Divine Nature—Faith in the
Trinity, . : « 165
Contents. x1
LECTURE VII.
THE CHURCH.
PAGK
The Church a Fact—Antipathy to the Church—The Intolerance
attributed to the Church—The Supposed Superfluousness of
the Church—The Nature of the Church—The Contrast of
Catholicism and Protestantism—Catholicism— Protestantism
—The Internal and External Aspects of the Church—Dif-
ference and Unity of the Churches, . : 3 . 195
LECTURE VITI.
HOLY SCRIPTURE.
Estimation of the Old Testament—Origin and Collection of
the New Testament Scriptures—Regard paid to Scripture
by the Church— Scripture Principle of Protestantism —
Universal Importance of Scripture—Religious Importance of
Scripture—Necessity of Holy Scripture—Matter of Holy Scrip-
ture—The Understanding and Interpretation of Holy Scripture
—Inspiration of Holy Scripture—The Certainty of Inspiration
—Faith and Criticism—Duty towards Holy Scripture, . 234
LECTURE IX.
THE CHURCH’S MEANS OF GRACE.
The Agency of Grace—The two Means of Grace, Word and
Sacrament—The Word—Law and Gospel—The Law—The
Gospel—Its Essential Matter the Doctrine of Justification by
Faith—The Sacraments—The two Sacraments, Baptism and
the Lord’s Supper—Baptism—Confirmation—The Lord’s
Supper, . ; : : ; ; @ . 263
LECTURE X.
THE LAST THINGS.
The Goal of Perfection—Belief in the Immortality of the
Soul—Evidence of the Immortality of the Soul—State of
X1l Contents.
PAGE
the Soul after Death—The Resurrection of the Body—
The Future of the Church—The Conversion of the Nations—
The Apostacy—Enmity against the Church—The Victory of
the Church—The Future of the world—The Last Judgment—
Eternal Perdition—Eternal Salvation—Retrospect, . . 291
NOTES.
Notes To Lecture L., A ce a : “ 319
Nores to Lecture IL., : “ : 5 : 330
Nores to Lecture III., ; : : . : 351
Nores to Lecture IV., - ; , ; ; 356
Nores to Lecture V., Tigre ‘ : : : 370
Nores to Lecture VI., : ‘ ° ; 382
Nores to Lecture VIL., : : : : ; 389
Notes to Lecture VIIL, : ; : ; . 404
Nores to Lecture IX., : 4 ; : 3 414
Nores to Lecture X., : : z : ; 418
APOLOGETIC LECTURES
ON THE
SAVING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY.
LECTURE I.
THE NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY.
rea EN I addressed you from this place, a few
sy] years since, it was upon The Fundamental
Truths of Christianity. Starting from
those questions of the human heart and
intellect which press upon every serious and thinking
man, from the contradictions of the moral world, from
the enigmas of our whole existence, I showed you how
all these demand the living and personal God, and
His revelation in Christ Jesus. It is only by the
religious view of the. world, by Christianity, that these
contradictions are reconciled, these questions answered.
For it is only by beginning with God that we can
understand either the world or ourselves. Hence
everything that surrounds us, and we ourselves, are
facts which bear testimony to the necessity and the
B ,
18 Lecture I. The Nature of Christianity.
truth of religious faith. Such is, in few words, a sum-
mary of the former course.
The road which we then traversed together led us
but to the door of the inner sanctuary. I now invite
you to follow me into this sanctuary itself, and to
contemplate its holy mysteries. It is not my inten-
tion again to speak of the primary foundations of
religion, but of Christian truth itself. I shall this
time assume a belief in the fundamental propositions
of religious faith, and address you as those who are
convinced that the God of whom we cannot help
thinking, is also the living and personal God, whom we
are designed and called to acknowledge, to honour,
and to love; that He has revealed Himself to us, has
shown us our highest destination in religion, and that
Jesus Christ is His complete and supreme manifesta-
tion. It is, then, on The Saving Truths of Chris-
tianity that I propose to expatiate; and to explain
and justify these will be my present object.
The road on which we shall travel together is
_ narrower than the former—perhaps, too, it is more
lonely. Very many who were willing to accompany
us on that, may possibly hesitate to follow us now.
And yet what I am now about to lay before you is
but the necessary consequence of the great general
truths which then occupied us.
Those truths come everywhere in contact with
human thought and experience. The doctrines which
I have now to bring before you move in a much
narrower field of observation. Indeed, it is not so
Christianity the Absolute Religion. 19
much the connection with human knowledge in gene-
ral, as the limited nature of this knowledge, which
becomes evident from the central station of Christian
faith. :
I am well aware of the difficulty of my present
task, but I undertake it with the hope that God will
not deny me His assistance and _ blessing.
How far I shall succeed in satisfying the require-
ments of such a subject, I know not; but whatever
may be the weakness of my words, I beg you to
believe—and this is the only thing I ask you to take
on my word—that the cause itself is far stronger than
its advocate.
Christianity was the goal of the former, it is the
starting-point of the present course. I shall therefore
begin by speaking of The Nature of Christianity; and
this will form the subject of our first lecture. (*)
And what, then, is Christianity? It is a world of
thoughts, which have been working and fermenting in
the minds of men up to the present hour ; it is an all-
affecting change of our entire mode of thought and
observation ; it is a transformation of our entire social
system ; it is a renewal of our inner life; in short, it
is a world of effects, which are matters of daily expe-
rience. Wherever we may be, and wherever we may
go, we encounter this new world of Christianity, even
when we do not recognise it, even when we miscon-
ceive or deny it. But, above all, Christianity is reli-
gion. The Christian religion is the source whence
flows that stream of blessings, of which even they who —
20 Lecture I, The Nature of Christianity.
perhaps oppose or ridicule Christian faith partake.
As religion, however, it is connected with all those
religions which have preceded it, and that not merely
as one of them, but as their truth, their aim, as
simply religion. Christianity is the absolute religion——
the only true and internally justified religion. Such
is the pretension with which it entered the world,
and which it constantly maintains. This may, perhaps,
be called exclusiveness and intolerance ; but it is the
intolerance of truth. As soon as truth concedes the
possibility of her opposite being also true, she denies
herself. Ag soon as Christianity ceases to declare
herself to be the only true religion, she annihilates
her power, and denies her right to exist, for she denies
her necessity. The old world concluded with the
question, What is Truth? The new era began with
the saying of Christ, I am the Truth. And this say-
ing is the confession of Christian faith.
The forms which the Christian faith assumes may
alter; the human notions by which it seeks to express
itself may change—but Christian faith must declare
itself to be the unchangeable truth. It must affirm
that this truth is the answer to the old questions of
human nature, and that all the religions which have
been its predecessors were merely preliminary and pre-
paratory, and have found in it their aim and goal,
Heathenism was the seeking religion, Judaism the
hoping religion; Christianity is the reality of what
Heathenism sought, and Judaism hoped for (’)
Let us first consider Heathenism. (°) To seek God
Heathenism. — 21
is the origin of all religion—is the truth even of
heathenism. For this feeling, this attraction towards
God, exists in every man. Man cannot cease from
seeking and inquiring after God. No period of history
can be mentioned as that in which men began to be
religious, At no time, andin no place, have men been
found without religion.(*) It is the distinctive mark
of humanity. Homer delights to call men speaking or
inventive beings. He might have called them reli-
gious beings; and this would have been entirely in his
spirit.(°) It is true that individuals may deny all reli-
gion, just as individuals may deny all human affection.
But these are exceptions. It is as essential to man to
be religious, as to love. As man cannot live without
his fellow-men, neither can he live without God.
Individuals may resolve to renounce all human com-
panionship ; but we could not but call this an unnatural
resolution. And he who should carry it into execu-
tion, would do so at the cost of his own nature, which
would be stunted by the process. So, also, an indi-
vidual might resolve to renounce all communion with
God ; but this, too, would be an unnatural resolution,
to the detriment of his own soul, which would be
impoverished and stunted by the experiment. Nor
would any one be capable of fully carrying it into
execution. As he who seeks solitude carries with him,
nevertheless, thoughts of that world and that human
society from which he flees into the desert ; so does he
who wants to know nothing of God, nevertheless bear
about with him. everywhere thoughts of God, and in-
22 Lecture I. The Nature of Christianity.
quiries after Him. We cannot forget God. This
inquiry and search after God is the origin of religion,
and the truth even of heathenism.
In all its various forms, from the most elevated and
refined to the most revolting, it is equally the religious
sentiment and the religious craving which impels men
to seek after God. Religion is not a mere collection
of notions or of external observances. Even when we
meet with it.in a stunted or distorted form, we still
recognise, at least in single features, its proper nature. —
Religion belongs to no single aspect of the mind, to
no single province of the outer life. It is, on the con-
trary, the chief matter of the whole man and of his
whole life, its home is in man’s inmost soul, and the
realm over which its dominion extends is the entire
activity of the life. For religion is, by its very nature,
a relation to God, and indeed a. personal relation.
We are all made by Him and for Him, and are there-
fore all made and destined for religion. Our “soul
thirsteth for God, for the living God.” All religions
seek Him, and this is the truth of even heathen re-
ligions. They do not, indeed, find Him, because they
seek amiss. The heathen mind has sought God in the
variety of nature, in the stars of heaven and in the
powers of earth; but the heart has always aimed at
the one God. Religions are polytheistic ; but the re-
ligious craving is monotheistic. -A touch of mono-
theism runs through the heathen religions, and some-
times finds a touching expression by individual
voices. The heart seeks and means God, but the
_ Judaism. 23
mind goes astray by the way, it neither finds God
Himself, nor attains to a really personal relation to
Him. % |
However beautiful the thoughts, or elevated the
words, found in heathen poets and philosophers (‘)
concerning the Deity, they always exhibit a twofold
deficiency : they know neither the Creator nor the
holy God. °
Creator and Creature, God and the world, stand on
the same level in their ideas. Either the divinity 1s
the highest product of the great process by which the
world and mankind were brought forth, or the world
is an emanation of the Divine essence, proceeding
from God, much as thoughts or dreams of the night
arise involuntarily from the mind. The former is the
system of thought peculiar to the Greek, the latter
to the Indian mind. By both is the boundary line
between the Creator and the creature obliterated.
But the consciousness of the distinction between them
is the pre-supposition of their fellowship, and they
who do not know the Creator, or deny Him, do by this
ignorance or denial destroy the very foundation of
religion. |
But if they know not the Creator, still less do they
know the holy God. It is after the likeness of sinful
man that they have imagined their gods, with the
weaknesses and passions of mortals. Where the notion
of the divine holiness is wanting, there is wanting also
the highest standard of moral judgment, and a super-
ficial morality takes its place. All heathen worship is
24 Lecture I. The Nature of Christianity.
a testimony to this ; for nothing but a superficial
morality could think of atoning for sin, or propitiating
the Deity, by its own works and sacrifices, There
is, it is true, a certain elegance of sentiment in the
honour rendered by the Greek woman to her goddess,
in an offering of fruits and flowers. Such worship
might well be imagined acceptable, if there were no
such thing as sin. The heathen religions may be
religions of beauty; but they are deficient in moral
truth and moral seriousness. I know well that heathen
worship has its dark, as well as its bright side. Tull
far down the stream of time, even till the time of the
Roman emperors, human sacrifices were offered. g)
We turn away shuddering from such a worship ; and
yet it is founded on a true feeling—the feeling that
life is forfeited by sin, and that sin can only be expl-
ated by life. This horrible distortion of truth—what
_ else is it but the ery of the heart seeking after a pro-
pitiated God? Heathenism is the seeking religion ;
but it seeks without finding, and without the hope of
attaining to God.
The religion of the Old Testament is the religion
of Hope. The first quality which raises the Old Tes-
tament far above heathenism, is faith in God the
Creator. An atmosphere of Divine majesty, before
which the creature is but dust and ashes, pervades the
whole of the Old Testament. The Almighty, whom
the heaven of heavens cannot contain, whose throne
is Heaven and the earth His footstool, who speaks and
it is done, who commands and it stands fast, is exalted
a ee ee
Christianity. 25
high above all created beings. And the other parti-
cular which raises Israel above the heathen world, is
the knowledge of the Divine holiness. Nowhere else
are found such poignant confessions of sin ; among no
other nations are heard tones so pathetic as in the
penitential psalms of Israel ; (°) nowhere else does a
like consciousness of the impassable abyss, separating
sinful men from the holy God, exist. No human
being can bridge it over; grace alone is able to do
this. It is true that the Israelite offered sacrifice, and
underwent purifications ; but he well knew that these
could not purge his conscience, that they were but
symbolic images of inward piety—types of the future.
To this futwre was the eye of Israel’s hope directed.
Upon this future did Israel live. From it was ex-
pected the fulfilment of all God’s promises, the satis- .
faction of all the soul’s cravings, when God should
establish His kingdom on earth, abolish all sin, put an
end to all suffering, take into his own hand the govern-
ment of His people, and uphold the cause of His saints.
This is the hope which runs through all the prophecies
of the Old Testament. This goal of the future gave a
light by which Israel was able to understand the ways
of God in history. Among no other people was the
notion and consciousness of the Divine Government
of the world so strong and vivid, and the soul of
this consciousness was the hope of the future, the
future of God’s kingdom. This future was to com-
mence with the new Covenant which God would make
with His people, that perfect covenant which, unlike
26 Lecture I. The Nature of Christianity.
the old one, was not to consist in external precepts, but
to have its home in the inmost heart, and to be based
upon atonement and forgiveness. This was the great
prediction of Jeremiah (xxi, 31-34).
Israel was the nation of hope, and its religion the
religion of hope. The hope of Israel became a fact in
Jesus Christ. This is the essence of Christianity. Its
essence consists not in an idea, not in mere thoughts,
but in a fact.
About thirty or forty years since, it was thought
that the key to the knowledge of the essence of
. Christianity was found, when it was said to be the
highest idea of the reason. |
The era of illuminism and rationalism, which re-
duced the whole essence of Christianity to a scanty
history of ‘the wise and virtuous Jesus of N azareth,
and to some general elementary truths concerning
God, virtue, and immortality, had preceded this,
When the deeper spirit of speculative philosophy
revived in the great philosophers of the present
century, it declared this to be the most unsatisfactory
notion of Christianity that was possible. It affirmed
that the deepest thoughts which occupy every think-
ing mind had been here deposited in the popular form
of figurative language, that the thought of thoughts
which forms the mystery of Christianity is the unity
of God and man, that God is the truth of man, and
man the reality of God. To the external contempla-
tion of the understanding, the two are indeed distinct :
but to the inner contemplation of the reason they are
Christianity, the Fact Jesus Christ. 26
one. Man is not merely the finite being he seems to
the external senses; he is rather a manifestation of
the Infinite. When man thinks of God, he is think-
ing of his own higher truth, and thus combining him-
self into unity with God. This is the highest thought
of reason, and this is the meaning of the Christian
doctrine ‘of the God-man. Such were the notions
then taught by the philosophic schools of Schelling |
and Hegel. (’)
Well, it is now acknowledged that all this is a total
misconception of the proper meaning of Christian
doctrine(?"), and these notions of the age of philosophy
“are generally abandoned. We have learned that philo-
sophy is not religion, and that it cannot take the place
of religion. But what does modern so-called Pro-
testantism, designating itself as the necessary progress
of the religious mind,—what does that self-named
liberal or free movement: in theology, which has taken
upon itself to reconcile Christianity with the know-
ledge of the age,—what does it put in the place of
the philosophical idea? A religious one, the idea of
religious and moral . perfection. This, it is now
asserted, is the essence of Christianity. It is said to
be the Jewish stand-point to adhere to historical facts,
which have no signification for our reason. It 1s
declared to have been the Shemitic mind that en-
riched the world with the miraculous history hitherto
known as Christianity. The advances in culture made
by the modern mind are said to have done away with
miracles, and made belief in them impossible. This
28 = Lecture I. The Nature of Christianity.
cannot therefore be the essence of Christianity. For
Christianity, like all other spheres of mental life, is a
product of general mental development, and its truth
consists in an idea, the idea of religious and moral
perfection. (7%)
We grant that Christianity has ideas: it is more
rich in ideas than the whole body of ancient philo-
sophy; and the thoughts of a Christian are deeper
than those of a Plato or an Aristotle. Yet it is not
In these, but in a fact ()—the fact of the atonement
—that the essence of Christianity consists. It is
true that this fact is the manifestation of an idea, of
God’s own eternal idea, of salvation. This idea, how-
ever, assumed historical reality, for the purpose of
saving man. Even this divine idea could not of itself
have saved us. It is our salvation only because it
became a fact. For sin is a fact, the most potent fact
on earth. Now, if a fact is to be done away with, it
must be, not by mere ideas, but by facts. But Christi-
anity is the doing away with sin, the Divine answer to
human sin. Therefore it is a fact, the fact of
atonement. For this alone, this actual atonement,
and not an idea, can give us the peace of conscience
we are seeking,
Our whole mental life rests upon facts. All here
is governed by the mighty facts of history; and why
should not religion be so too? All religions appeal to
facts, except, indeed, so-called natural religion, which
has no existence but in beoks (3):
The fact constituting the essence of Christianity is
«a
ee ee
ee
— Former Views of Christianity. 29
Jesus Christ. His person may be designated as the
essence of Christianity; for Christ is related to Christi-
anity in a different manner from that in which Mo- —
hammed is related to Mohammedanism. He has not
merely an historical, but a religious significance with
respect to the religion called after Him; He is not
merely its founder, but its subject; He is one with it,
—in fact, He is himself Christianity; and He has
united it for all time to His person. It is impossible
to forget Himself in His cause. In other cases it may
often happen, and this is, indeed, the ordinary course
of events,—that, m progress of time, a cause gets
separated from the person to whom it owes its origin.
Gratitude will, indeed, cherish the memory of those
who have been the benefactors of mankind; but the
time may come when their benefits will be enjoyed
and themselves forgotten. For who can be certain of
being never forgotten? Jesus Christ will never be
forgotten. (“) He has made Himself the centre of His
religion; and Christendom has in all ages so regarded
Him, as the whole history of the Church testifies. All
the controversies waged during the course of the
Christian centuries, really turn upon the person of
Christ. All worship is a glorification of Christ. All
church hymns praise Him. Christian art triumphs
when she lays at His feet the choicest treasures she
possesses, the best she can perform. And if the
conflict of our age turns upon the religious significa-
tion of Jesus Christ, what is this but another testi-
mony that He is the central point of the Christian
30 Lecture I. The Nature of Christianity.
religion, that He kas indissolubly united it to His
person ? :
Christianity being then, not merely an idea but a
fact, and that fact Jesus Christ, we proceed to
inquire, wherein the essence of Christianity consists.
Various ages and Churches have given various
answers to this question.
The ancient Greek Church considered it to consist
in the revelation of the highest truth, the manifesta-
tion of absolute reason. The teachers of the Greek
Church were nourished on the great poets and philoso-
phers of Greece. Hence their desire to associate these
great spirits of antiquity with Jesus Christ, the King
of spirits. They saw scintillations of truth dispersed
on all sides; they saw in Christ the Sun of trutb, in
His teaching the highest philosophy, the absolute
reason. Such were the notions of the Greek dogma-
tists. They express a truth, but not the whole
truth.
The Western Church inherited that practical turn,
that talent for government, which had been manifested
by ancient Rome. It affirmed that Christianity had
brought into the world the Divine kingdom of grace
and life, that this kingdom is in the Church, that Chris-
tianity is the Charch, He, then, who would partake
of the grace of the kingdom, must submit to the ordi-
mances of the Church. Hence, Christian piety is
obedience to the Church. We cannot but admire the
energy with which Rome secured for Christianity a
safe refuge within the Church, during the tempests
Se ee
:
:
'
Grounds of the Certainty of Faith. 31
- of national disturbances in the West. Yet we cannot
find in her the full truth and essence of Christianity.
The Reformation proceeded from the anxiety of
the conscience for salvation—from the heart’s craving
for assurance. In it was repeated the old question :
What must I do to be saved? and the old answer:
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ! It should never
be forgotten that such was the origin of the Reforma-
tion and of Protestantism, which finds the essence of
Christianity to be the salvation of the sinner by Christ
Jesus, of which we are assured by faith. It is on this
foundation that Protestantism considers the mental
supremacy of Christianity over the whole life to rest.
For it does not seek to limit the extent of its in-
fluences to the inner life of the individual, but extends
them to the entire circuit of human life in general.
Not, however, by measures of external authority, but
by the power of the Spirit, is Christianity to seek
to conquer the world, until the opposing spirit of
the world shall, at the close of history, yield to the
full supremacy of the Christian spirit, in the times of
_ the future kingdom of God. time was
come, God sent forth His Son.’ Sin is the reason for
the incarnation of Christ.
There is in recent theology a widely diffused opinion
_ that Christ would have become man even if there had
_ been no sin in the world. It is said: Sin occasioned
not the incarnation itself but only its manner, its lowli-
ness, and abundant suffering. On the contrary, the
incarnation of the Son of God was required both by
the idea of God as self-imparting Love, and the idea of
man to whose nature belongs the highest degree of
receptivity for God and for communion with Him, and
finally, by the idea of the absolute religion; for
only a divine-human religion, having the God-man
for its centre and object, can be the perfect religion. (*)
But by this way of reasoning we shall arrive only at
the kind of communion which takes place between
God and the Christian, the child of God, only at the
mutual surrender of the loving Father to His child,
and of the God-loving man to his Father, only at the
God who is the God of man and the man who is a
man of God, but not at the God-man proper, who is
‘somethimg more than a man of God. It is true that
this communion of God and man is the primitive
purpose and original aim of God, and_ therefore
the ultimate object of the mission of Christ. But
that this mission should be necessary, to do away
with the transgression which prevented the realiza-
124 Lecture IV. The God-man.
tion of the Divine purpose, and thus to bring us
back to God who were alienated from Him,—this
was occasioned by sin alone. Hence, it is only by ©
starting from sin, and not from an idea of God or of —
man, or the like, that the incarnation of Christ can ‘
be understood. Not a philosopher able to inculcate —
ideas, but John the Baptist, the preacher of repentance, —
was Christ’s forerunner to prepare His way before Him. ~
And his saying concerning Christ was: Behold the
Lamb of God, that beareth away the sin of the world.
It is in the way of conviction of sin and repentance, —
and not in the way of speculation, that Christ is to be
Him as the Redeemer from sin. It was to the sin of
man that the grace of God replied with this greatest
of all gifts, the gift of the God-man. All the more F
should we esteem this grace, to which sin became an —
inducement to disclose to us the whole depth of its ,
love. For where sin abounded grace did much more
abound (Rom. v. 20), in Him who appeared as the
Mediator between us and God.
But if He was to appear as Mediator between the _
known. For we truly know Him only when we know {
two, to restore and to perfect the communion which
sin had broken off, it was necessary that He should
also belong to both. He must stand in perfect fellow-_
ship both with God and with us, to represent even im
His very person that perfect bond between the two
which it was to be the work of His life to create.
He must belong to us, that He might represent us
and yet, He must at the same time be above us; for
Possibility of the God-man. 125
we are to come to the Father through Him. He
must be one with God to redeem us; for the work of
atonement and redemption could be the act of God
alone ; and it is of the fulness of Divine grace that we
must receive when we receive of His fulness. If, as
we believe, we are to have in Him, the Atoner, the
Deliverer from sin, Godhead and manhood must be
united in Him. Sin requires atonement, and atone-
ment requires the God-man.
But how can these two be united in one? Is the
~God-man possible? Are not Godhead and manhood
opposites which exclude one another? They would be
such if they were merely opposed to each other as
are finity and infinity, if a connection did not also exist
between them, if we were not akin to God. But we
| were made in the image of God ; we bear in our nature
His image and likeness; and we are of Divine ex-
traction. If we think of God, we think of Him after
our image ; and we do not think incorrectly. And as
God has ever thought of and willed Himself, so has
He ever lovingly willed man, in order to impart Him-
self to Him. He willed Himself to us, and we ought
to will ourselves to Him and in Him.
There exists both a bond of love and an attraction of
love between God and us. It is true that God is the
Self-sufficient and Self-blessed, needing none other for
His happiness and perfection ; but it is His love which
so draws Him down to us, that He inclines towards
us, and imparts Himself to us. He whom the heaven
‘of heavens cannot contain, has chosen us for the habi-
126 Lecture IV. The God-man.
tation in which His love is to dwell. And in propor- —
tion as we departed from Him by sin, did His grace 3
follow and draw near to us, till it sunk into our very —
flesh and blood. That He could do this—in other
words, the possibility of the incarnation—lies in the ~
condescending love of God. ;
And in the destiny of man. For this is: to receive
God into. ourselves, to bear Him within us, to have ©
Him for the indwelling object of our thoughts and _
desires, of our whole inner life. Since we have lost ;
this indwelling object through sin, our soul hungers to ;
be again filled with the life of'God. It was for this
purpose that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt. bodily :
in Jesus, even that out of His fulness we might receive ©
erace for grace. Hence the possibility of the incar- |
nation lies as much in the nature of man as in the —
nature of God.
But how are we to conceive of the reality of the — |
God-man? And shall we ever attain the power of
forming a conception thereof? It is a necessity to
faith to strive after knowledge; but let us not forget
that it is not our knowledge which believes, but our
faith which knows. Who has ever really known God ?
Would we wait to believe in Him until we compre-
hend Him? Are we not, without this, directly con-_
scious of His existence? Our convictions do not arise
solely from the reasonings of our minds; and this is
the case here also. No one has ever fully understood —
the nature of God; no one has ever fully known the
nature of man. What then? If, when we think of
|
|
|
|
|
Reality of the God-man. 127
God and man, much as we may reflect, there still
remain enigmas, shall we be surprised if, when we
think of the God-man, all enigmas are not solved ?
He would not be as He is, the most wondrous pheno-
menon on earth, if there were nothing mysterious to
usin Him.
When we speak of the God-man, we combine into
a unity the greatest possible opposites—Godhead
and manhood. It is an immense thought; it is an -
unparalleled word. Is it a possible thought? When
we lay due emphasis upon the Divinity of Christ, do
we not slur over His true humanity ? Or, when we
maintain His true humanity, are we not in danger
of losing sight of His Divinity? The thoughts of men
have erred on both sides, ever since they have sought
to master the notion of the God-man. Some have
esteemed Him a mere man, filled in a peculiar degree
with the spirit of revelation ; to others He has been
a being from a higher world, passing through this
world only as an apparition, without really belonging
to our race. The Church has maintained the idea of
the God-man in opposition to both these errors; but
fora long time they were still working in her own
- bosom, and ever breaking out under various forms.
And this has continued to our own days. For when
Rationalism sees in Christ only the most virtuous and
wisest of men, or, as it is now expressed, a religious
genius ; this is but a revival of former Judaizing mis-
conceptions of Christ. And when modern philosophy,
from Spinoza to Hegel and his school, designates the
128 Lecture IV. The God-man.
idea as the chief matter in Christ, the idea, viz., that
God and man are intrinsically one—God, the truth of
man, and man the reality of God—and declares that
this thought expresses the ultimate mystery of all
knowledge ; the historical reality of Jesus, as_per-
taining to the sphere of history, and not to that of
higher truths, being indifferent in comparison with —
this idea,—what else is all this but a ‘revival of
the former heathen mode of thought, which evaporated
the human reality of Christ into a mere phantom ?
Rationalism holds fast the history but loses the idea ;
philosophy tries to preserve the idea but gives up the
history—while the very speciality of Jesus Christ,
the mystery of His person consists in the fact, that
in Him both are combined into a unity, that manhood
is taken into the fellowship of the Godhead, and the
Godhead enters into the historical life of man. The
Church’s contemplation of the mystery of Christ’s per-
son during the course of the centuries, has been an ever
renewed effort to conquer these errors and to conceive
in thought, and fully express in words, that truth
which Christendom has from the beginning received
by faith. (7) And who would venture to say that
she has yet attained her aim? We are still only
on the road to the perfect knowledge of the son of
God (Eph. iv. 13).
We may compare the course of Christian doctrine
and theology with the history of Christian art.
‘You are all acquainted with those representations
of Christ—of the earlier, or so-called Byzantine type—
Reality of the God-man. E23
which represent the form of Jesus, with an expression
of Divine majesty, upon a golden background of celestial
glory, but severed from human fellowship and void of
earthly reality. We should all say that we have in
them a symbolical expression of His hidden glory, but
no representation of His historic reality. But still less
would those other pictures content us which bring
Jesus before us with human surroundings, after the
fashion of a Dutch Genre-picture, but deprived of all
Divine dignity and sublimity. While the former
pictures endeavour to depict the truth at the expense
of reality, these endeavour to restore reality at the ex-
pense of the truth. We should designate it as the
highest aim of art to bring before us the Divine truth
in the human reality—an aim scarcely, indeed, possible
of attainment, yet: still one worthy of the utmost effort.
And the case is similar here. It may, perhaps, be
said that the manner in which the ancients speak of
_ the person of Jesus Christ somewhat corresponds with
paintings of the Byzantine type. They are penetrated
with the feeling of reverence, and we recognise, in their
teaching, Him before whom every knee must bow ; yet
we sometimes miss the full reality of the incarnate
Saviour. When the moderns however, seek to repair, as
they think, this error, by merging the Divinity in the
man Christ Jesus, and make amends for this by adorn-
ing Him with borrowed colours, which they bestow
upon Him after their own fancy, our faith revolts from
a form so strange to us. (1°) The task set before otir
reason is, while seeing in Jesus the full, true, and
; :
130 Lecture IV. The God-man.
perfect man, to behold in His manhood the fulness of
the Godhead—everything human, yet at the same_
time Divine.
It was thus that St John viewed Him, when he
uttered that great saying, ‘The Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of
grace and truth’ (John i. 14), and when he described —
this Word made flesh as the perfect revelation of the —
Father, as the light and life of the world, and His
human nature as the vehicle of eternal life. Not only
did His eternal Godhead veil itself in human form,
but it passed from the condition of heavenly being
into the historical reality of human existence,—out of
the life of Divine glory, into the life of our earthly
human nature. ‘This was the thought in the mind of
St John, when he began his gospel with those three —
famous propositions, which announce, as with powerful |
shocks, the mystery of which he is about to write: ‘In |
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.’ For what he means to —
say in these three sentences is: He who appeared in
time existed before time ; He who appeared among us
was with God; He who appeared in the flesh was by _
nature God. He exchanged the one existence for the
other; He renounced His glory to enter into our
poverty ; He left eternity to enter into history. (”)
In the church, this, His self-denial, has been called —
the renunciation. It is true that a measure of un-
certainty ever prevails in the notions of church teachers
Self-renunciation of Christ. 131
as to the extent of this self-renunciation. It was felt
better to set too narrow limits to it, than to stretch
it too far, lest it should reach even to His Divine
nature itself. For it has ever been unanimously held
that the Divine nature is removed from all possibility
of change. Heremained what he was when he became
man. But Luther rightly says: “we cannot draw
Him deeply enough into our nature and flesh, it is
still more consolatory to us.’ It is contrary to the
impression made upon us by the gospel history, to the
image of Christ as it has hitherto existed in our im-
mediate consciousness, to admit a sphere of operation
for the Divinity of Christ exterior to his human reality,
and in which his human nature does not participate.
For then the incarnation could not have been complete.
It is true that it was the fulness of the Godhead that
entered into flesh, but inasmuch as this fulness did
enter therein, the human existence of Jesus becomes
the historical reality of its presence and the limits of its
operation. He bears within himself the infinitude of
His eternal being, but this has betaken itself within
the limits of temporal existence, and subjected itself to
the laws of an earthly human life. He did not, as it
were, reserve to himself a secret Divine agency beyond
the bounds of His earthly human life. On the con-
trary, He unreservedly confined within these bounds,
even His position as God in the universe, and the
employment of His power with respect to the world,
not to suffer them again to develope into full Omni- |
potence, till after He, the now incarnate God—-had
132 Lecture IV. The God-man.
ascended into Heaven. Let it not be said that this
was unworthy of His Deity. For this self-denial and
self-limitation were required by His office as the
Saviour, required moreover by Divine love; and there
is nothing so worthy of God as love and our salva-—
tion. 2°) With this renunciation then, which his
office of Saviour demanded, did he become man.
And what He did when He entered the world was
the constant act of His earthly life. His was no single
renunciation of the glory He had with the Father,
but a renunciation again and again confirmed—there in
the wilderness, when the future supremacy which He
was one day to exercise over the world was held up—
before Him, and he was tempted to seize it by an act
of self-will; and then, when the populace, in a fit of —
_ enthusiasm, after the miraculous multiplication of the
loaves and fishes, wanted to lead Him in triumph to
Jerusalem, to seat Him on the throne of David, and to
make Him a king, according to their own view of His
office; (John vii. 15), and, hardest of all, in that
darkest of nights, when, at the commencement of His
passion, the tempter sought to attain by the horrors of
fear what he had failed to attain by the seductions of |
hope. It was the continual act of His will, instead of |
that equal glory with the Father which was specially
His own, again and again to choose and consent to the
servile condition of that earthly life into which He had_
entered.
But the light of a hidden glory shone through that
form of a servant, and that not only in His miracles. |
a NE eum ee ent
The Contrasts Exhibited in His Life. 1388
All efforts to withdraw the miracles from His life are
vain. (*) But they are not the chief matter; they are
but the phenomenal effect of his office as Redeemer,
and it is the Redeemer, the Saviour, that we seek in
Him. It is not the majesty of the Divine omnipotence,
omnipresence, and omniscience that gains Him all
hearts, that conquers our hearts. It is not these
that we seek in Him; for these could not help us.
His power does but subserve His office, and goes
no farther than this does. The mystery of the
Tncarnate is: the eternal life which overcomes our
spiritual death, the holy light which chases the night
of our sin, the love which seeks and saves us, the lost.
Herein consists the manifestation of His glory. This,
too, is the manifestation of God; for we do not truly
comprehend God when we view Him only as Infinite
Power. This is but the hem of His garment. He
Himself is that holy, living love which fills our souls,
satisfies our cravings, and is our essential portion.
This is the fulness of the Godhead which dwelt in
Him, |
Yet truly in the earthen vessel of fleshly weakness,
There was a contradiction between His inner nature
and His external historical reality. It is not merely
the external life of Jesus, from His birth in the stable
at Bethlehem to His death upon the cross and His
burial in Joseph’s tomb, that is pervaded by these
opposites. This contradiction between His nature and
reality is stamped upon His whole earthly existence,
For that which He was in His proper nature, even the
134 Lecture IV. The God-man.
eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father,
He did not appear to be; and what He appeared was
not the corresponding reality of what He essentially
was. But may we not say that this is also, in a cer-
tain sense, the case with ourselves? Even in us there
is a contradiction between our destiny, which consti-
tutes our nature, and our actual condition, which is
subject to the law of perishableness. We are not yet |
in reality what we are in truth ; but we are waiting ©
for a time when we shall be so. Then will the con-
tradiction of our existence be solved, This contradic-
tion was found in the highest sense in the case of
Christ ; for in Him eternal life itself was sunk in time,
the eternal Son of God in the weakness of flesh. He
bore in His person the greatest possible contradiction
between nature and reality And that which He
bore in His person was carried out in the history of
His life. Here the contrast becomes still sharper, and
is sharpest of all in His death, when eternal life sank |
in death, in order thus to become our life. This |
seemed to be the flattest denial, the very annihilation |
of His office as Saviour. Hence His disciples never |
could understand that He was to die. And certainly |
this was the very utmost that could happen. But this
very utmost was also the crisis. The great knot which |
sin had tied was drawn as tightly as possible at His
death ; but it was just then that grace undid it. His
death was followed by His resurrection and His glory.
Then were the contrasts of His life reconciled; then
was the contradiction which He bore within Him anni-
The Contrasts Exhibited in His Iife. 1385
hilated ; for the risen Saviour was in reality that which
He was by nature. Then was He proved to be that
which He is: the Son of God no longer in weakness,
but in power. Then did the history of His person
attain its end, that it might henceforth become our
history. For, what He experienced and suffered, He
experienced and suffered for us. In His history, His
work—the work of atonement, was consummated.
This was His life’s task, His vocation. It is of this,
His work of atonement, that I intend to speak in our
next lecture.
LECTURE V.
THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST.
poms HE last time I addressed you, it was the
| person of Christ that formed the subject of
‘| discussion. My present lecture will treat
s work.
When we would describe the work of Jesus Christ, —
we are accustomed to speak of His three offices,—His
prophetic, His priestly, and His royal offices. (*) We
call Him the Prophet, Priest, and King, both in accord- —
ance with man’s general calling of God, and with the
type of Israel.
For our calling is a threefold one. As prophets, to
recognise and to testify to the thoughts and works of
God ; as priests, to consecrate our lives to Him ; and
as kings, to govern the world. And the type furnished
by Israel in its mediators between God and man—its _
prophets, priests, and kings-—is also threefold. But |
sin made our calling vain, and the history of Israel |
remained only a prediction.
Our destiny found its higher realisation, and the
history of Israel its final fulfilment, in Jesus Christ.
He became the prophet, the high priest, the king.
It is by these three titles that we describe His
His Development. wheegalin y!
work ; and it is on the first two that I propose to
address you to-day.
For thirty years He lived in retirement, and con-
cealed in His own heart the secret of his person, until
the time of His ministry arrived. The period before
this was that of His development; the period succeed-
ing it that of His work. (*) The years allotted Him
to work in were but few. But the importance of a
work is not to be estimated by the number of years
it occupies. One single moment may reveal what
_ eternity is. The three years of Christ’s ministry lifted
the world off its hinges.
When we endeavour to bring before our minds,
with some degree of clearness, the inner development
of Jesus before His baptism, we cannot but admit
that the first step there was His consciousness of
Sonship, His consciousness of being indeed the Son of
God. Out of this grew next His consciousness of
being the destined Saviour. For He must needs have
been certain of His eternal fellowship with the Father,
before He could be certain of His office. This con-
sciousness arose within Him in the secret intercourse
of His soul with His Father iu prayer, It was then,
if we may so speak, that He found Himself as the
eternal Son of the Father. His vocation, however, He
chiefly met with in the Scriptures of the Old Testa-
ment. It was there that He read the will of His
Father concerning Himself. His baptism expressed
His determination to take upon Himself the burden
of this calling. And it was with His baptism that
His office began.
188 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
Not unannounced was He to enter upon it, nor
were His people to be left unprepared. It devolved
upon the Baptist both to introduce Him to His people
and to prepare them to receive Him. The symbol of
preparation was the baptism of John. This baptism
even Jesus partook of, thus submitting to the will of
God, as it concerned, and was expressed to, the then
existing generation of Israel. But it had as widely
differing a significance in His case, and that of others,
as His person and office differed from those of all
other men. What was to others a preparation for an
entrance into the kingdom of grace, was to Him a
preparation for manifesting this kingdom. For His
baptism by John denotes not merely a stage in the
progress of His Messianic consciousness, but an actual
operation of God upon Him, It was not merely a
declaration of His willingness to enter upon His office,
and to undergo those sorrows which He well knew to
be inseparable therefrom, but it was, at the same
time, an endowment for this office by the Spirit of
God. |
It has been asked, How should He need endowing j
with the Spirit of God if He was conceived by the _
Holy Spirit? Does not the one exclude the other? _
But this arises from a misconception of the distinction
here found, As there is in our case a difference be-_
tween our becoming children of God by the regenera-
tion of the Spirit, and our being fitted for the service
of God by the gifts of the Spirit ; so too in the case of
Jesus, that operation of the Spirit which originated
His Temptation. YS 8
His earthly life and formed the bond of the personal
communion of the Incarnate Son with the Father, was
different from that which referred to His miraculous
endowment for His office, and thus rendered His
human nature capable of its part in the Divine work
of salvation,
He was not, however, to enter upon His office until
He had been proved by temptation. As the first
Adam was to advance towards his future through
temptation, so too was the second Adam. The former
succumbed to temptation, the latter triumphantly
withstood it. As, moreover, the temptation was in
the case of the first man an external occurrence, so
still less can it, in the case of Jesus, be transposed into
the sphere of His inner life. For if sinful thoughts
had arisen from his own heart, the pure mirror of his
soul would have been obscured thereby. The tempta-
tion of Jesus was an unparalleled event, even as He
was an unparalleled man, and the history of His life
was decisive of the ancient conflict carried on through-
out the history of mankind between the two king-
doms—the kingdom of God and that of His adversary.
Just when He was standing on the very threshold of
His ministry, and the whole future which lay before
Him was crowding upon His thoughts, there was pre-
sented before Him also, in a tempting and seductive
form, the caricature of that future which existed in
the carnal Messianic notions current among the Jews
of those days, and which were often brought near to
Him during the course of His official life, for the pur-
140 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
pose of leading Him astray into these God-displeasing
paths. This is the signification of this occurrence.
The longer period of temptation which He had to
experience did not close with the three temptations
which are especially narrated. All three were designed
to induce Him to forsake, in a self-seeking sense, the
path of His calling. To make a selfish misuse of the
miraculous power with which He was endowed, to
rely for selfish ends upon the promised mighty aid of
God, selfishly to seize upon that future sovereignty of
the world which was decreed Him, instead of receiving
it from the hands of the Father,—these were the
three temptations which were to put in the place of a
Saviour after God’s own heart, a Messiah after the
heart of the carnally-minded people. (?) Jesus by
repelling in this temptation the seduction of seek-
ing to attain the end of His office, not in the way
of suffering, but in that of enjoyment and honour,
decided His future. It was when he returned to the
Baptist from the temptation in the wilderness, that the
latter hailed Him as the Lamb of God that taketh
away the sin of the world (John 1. 29).
This was His entrance upon His office.
His prophetic office is delineated by the evangelists
in their various pictures of His life. It was His words |
which were the power of His work. Of all powers on |
earth, the powers of mind are the greatest. Their
effect is often apparently eclipsed by the power of
physical agencies; but the results of external force,
brilhant as they may often appear, fall, sooner or later,
His Prophetic Office. 141
under the inexorable law of mutability, and often
scarcely a trace remains of what caused perhaps aston-
ishment and admiration to half a world; while a breath
of eternity dwells in the silent work of the mind, The
kingdoms of the world crumble to pieces; but an eternal
kingdom is built up by the world of mind. To this
the victory is promised. The true kingdom of mind is
the kingdom of God, and its soul is religion. Christ
- came to found an eternal kingdom of religion by the
power of his word.
And what kind of religion did He preach? He did
not merely proclaim a religion of free-thinkers, as is
thought perhaps in France’; nor transfigure Judaism
into Greek humanism, as is stated by the German
schools of philosophy; nor did He merely intend, as
certain theologians seem to understand Him, to set
before us the ideal of human nature; but He preached
the grace of God. All the before-mentioned explana-
tions omit one matter, and that the chief—they leave
sin out of the question. But the sin of man needs
grace. It is this which we want. If Jesus was to be
the prophet for mankind, He could not but preach
grace. And who that knows His words, as the evan-
gelists have reported them, does not know that He is
the preacher of Divine grace? This is the atmosphere
which pervades His every word—the secret of His
power over the minds of men. He speaks indeed of
the kingdom of God, but it is the kingdom of grace,
‘There is nothing more touching than such calls of
tender persuasion as: ‘Come unto me, all that are
142 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
weary and heavy laden, and | will give you rest.’
And that which so moves us in them, is that tone of
grace proceeding from the heart of God, and penetrat-
ing to our hearts. His crowning parable—if it is lawful
so to speak—is surely that famous parable of the pro-
digal son; and the whole parable is nothing else than
the powerful preaching of grace. Nothing more mar-
vellous can be read than the beatitudes with which
the Sermon on the mount commences; but it is the
voice of grace which speaks to us in these wonderful
words. The preaching of Jesus is the preaching of grace.
This preaching of Divine grace and of God’s king-
dom of grace was the truth which mankind had so long
been seeking.
“¢ Du den wir suchen auf so finstern Wegen
Mit forschenden Gedanken nicht erfassen
Du hast dein heilig Dunkel einst verlassen
Und tratest sichtbar deinem Volk entgegen.” (*) *
Israel had its prophets and Greece its philosophers.
Jesus is the object of prophecy, and therefore its end,
and His word the higher truth of whatever knowledge of
truth pre-christian philosophy may have possessed. What
the former beheld at a distance became reality 1 Him.
and what the latter sought in its paths of error became
truth in Him. In Himself, in His Person, appeared
the saving word of God. Hence He could call Him-
self the Truth. But He is the revelation of truth be-
* Thou, whom we seek in paths so dark, and whom we cannot _
grasp with our inquiring minds, didst once leave Thy holy obscurity _
and visibly present Thyself to Thy people.
avad
His Prophetic Office. 143
cause He is the revelation of grace. The error of
heathen philosophy Jay in seeking truth by means of
knowledge, and regarding the realm of knowledge as
man’s ultimate object, while truth is not a knowing but
a being, and its realisation a right relation to God.
And this appeared in Jesus. Israel possessed the
prophecy thereof, Jesus brought the fulfilment. He
is Himself what He proclaims, and brings in Himself
what He teaches; Hs takes of His own, that which
by His word He dispenses to His disciples. The dis-
tinctive feature of His teaching is that His Person is
its guarantee. Hence, what we are taught by Him,
we are taught about Him. And they who understand
Him attain to an entirely different understanding of
God and the world, of man and his destiny, they know
that God in Christ is our Father, and the world the
theatre on which He manifests Himself, that man is
destined to be a child of God, and a subject of the
kingdom of God, which is advancing over the sorrows
of time to the perfection of eternity. This kingdom
of grace it was which His mouth proclaimed.
But it is also the spirit of holiness, of the strictest,
the most inexorable holiness, which addresses us in
these words of seeking and saving grace. For such
is the nature of God. God is love, but holy love. If
Jesus is the revelation of God, He must be as truly
a revelation of the Divine holiness as of eternal love—
of both in one. Neither by respect of persons, nor
regard to consequences (¢.g., Luke xiv. 26, 38), can
He be induced to abate aught of the strictness of His
144 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
demands. Let the circumstances be what they will, the
hearers whom they may, His word is the same to
all. Even when they are His mother and His brethren,
He recognises nothing but obedience to His word
(Mark iii. 23), and reproves even the foremost of the
apostles in the same terms as He reproves His enemies _
(Matt. xvi. 23). Not even when many of His _fol-
lowers secede from Him, as at the critical period, a »
year before His death, does He relax one word of the
seeming harshness of His speech. Even though the
cause He is advocating should seem to be ruined there-
by, even should it cost Him His life, He abates not
one jot of His unrelenting demands, He makes not the
slightest concession to the sluggishness of will and
carnality of mind which characterise the nation. We
might sometimes be tempted to call His pure words
inconsiderate, if we did not feel, through the apparent
harshness of their form, the deep sorrow of His soul,,
when He knew that His words would have a repelling
effect, and,could yet abate nothing from them. This
wondrous combination of love and severity, which is
at once so touching and surprising, is the effect of that
spirit of holiness which breathes in His every word,
and pervades His every action.
It was this holiness which brought about the catas-
trophe of His life. This world would not have been
the world of sin it is, if the phenomenon of His hfe
and teaching had not stirred the minds of men to
their very depths, and aroused all that hatred of truth,
which slumbers in the human breast. (°) It is a
His Rejection. 145
delusion to think that truth will meet with approval
for its own sake, that it will ever gain the masses in
this sinful world. There does, indeed, exist in the
soul of man a sense for truth, but there co-exists also
an opposition to truth, and the latter is the stronger
of the two. It is true that Christ did meet with
love,—with love faithful unto death,—but He met
with still more hatred. From His first days till His
last, both the love and the hatred increased together.
But the hatred was the mightier; and, at least out-
wardly, it triumphed. I know not what could be
more humiliating to our race than the fact, that such
love as was manifested in Jesus could produce and
call forth such hatred as fell to His lot, and. that
such heavenly purity should become the mark against
which all the passions of men should combine, If
anything could make us despair of human nature, it
would be this fact. To despair, indeed, it should not
lead us, but to humble and serious reflection upon
what must be required to win to God a nature capable
of such deeds. And let-it not be said that this was
done only by the Jews. With Jewish fanaticism was
combined heathen want of principle. And who can
assert that his own nation would better have stood
the test? What was done to Jesus was but the
culminating point of what has been the experience
of all ages. The witnesses for truth have ever been
its martyrs. It was His testimony to truth which
cost Jesus His life ; and the Prophet was a martyr to
His office,
K
146 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
But His death was more than a martyrdom: it was
a sacrifice for the sin of our race.
It was not enough merely to proclaim grace: He
had also to obtain it. The way to the grace of God
is a way of sacrifice. Between us and God stands our
sin; and sin can only be removed, and the way of
access to God opened, by an atoning sacrifice.
All religions have sacrifices. (°°) In them is ex-
pressed the universal need of reconciliation, and the
acknowledgment that the way to reconciliation 1s pro-
pitiation, and the means of propitiation, sacrifice.
This is a fundamental principle in all religions, and
the central point of all worship. Whatever we may —
think of the fact, we are compelled to admit it, and
_ its universality compels reflection. However much |
of error may have been mingled with it, some notions |
of the truth must have been the foundation of this |
religious custom. Certainly we find in it a sad per- |
version of truth. Men thought to earn the favour of |
the Deity by the gifts they presented. This was the
heathen error, reproved in the strongest terms by the
prophets of Israel (comp. e.g. Michah vi. 7, &c.) It
is true that in Israel, sacrifice was an ordinance of |
God, and had therefore an atoning significance, But —
how could the blood of animals take away sin? Hence |
the heathen world sought to make vicarious atonement _
by human sacrifices. Human sacrifice made the tour |
of the world, and continued down to the very latest |
period of pra-christian heathenism, even among the |
classic nations. (°) Our hearts turn with loathing from |
The Necessity of Atonement. 147
this horrible custom. And yet even in this ex-
treme distortion a true feeling is expressed—the deep
feeling of guilt and the painful craving for reconcilia-
tion. Israel did not practice human sacrifice—the
occurrence on Moriah, when Abraham was on the point
of offering his son, was, to the Israelite consciousness,
a protest against it. Its place was to be supplied by
that future better sacrifice, offered by the obedience of
Him who was to be the fulfilment of all the desire of
the heathen world, and the realization of all the hopes
of Israel. His sacrifice both sanctioned and abolished
all the sacrificial worship which preceded it. This
sacrificial worship, however, teaches us that the religious
craving of man has in all ages regarded reconcilia-
tion with God as the chief element of religion, If
Christianity then is to be the absolute religion, it must
be the religion of reconciliation. For it must bring
the accomplishment of what all others were seeking.
The prz-Christian religions were prophetic of Chris-
tianity ; their sacrifices a prophecy of the sacrifice of
Jesus Christ. We cannot understand sacrifice till we
survey it from the height of Golgotha, And what
sacrifice, studied and understood from this point of
view, says to us, is, that a guiltless life must make
_expiation for the life forfeited by sin. Now, we know
that this was really effected by Christ. He compen-
sated for the debt we had incurred; He became the
sacrifice for our sins. This is the central point of the
whole system of Christian doctrine.
But was this sacrifice necessary? Its necessity ig
A:
148 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
involved in God himself; for God is both holiness
and love. As the Holy One, He hates sin, and 1s
angry with the sinner; as Love, He desires his salva-
tion. As the Holy One, He desires to know nothing
of the sinner ; as Love, He desires to know him happy.
As the Holy One, He is his judge ; as Love, He would
be his deliverer. As man really is, He is angry with
him; as He thinks and wills Him in His eternal
counsel, He loves him. Love and wrath oppose each
other in God, and each demands its right. It is true
that love finally triumphs over wrath, for love is that
which is eternal in God; but it triumphs only in the
way of holiness, that is, in the way of atoning sacrifice.
It has often been asked : Cannot God forgive uncon-
ditionally ?(°) Why is an atonement needed? We
answer: Can God deny Himself? Can He cease to
be the enemy of sin and its judge? Even if He
could cease to be such, our conscience would not cease
to demand it. A law of righteousness exists in our
conscience, without which our conscience would cease
to be conscience. It is this which requires a propitia-
tion. If sin could be unconditionally forgiven, we
should lose all confidence in our moral consciousness. It
would be false love in a father towards his son to
ignore his transgressions as though they had never
existed. We should perplex and destroy the moral
consciousness of our children if we were at once, and
unconditionally to forgive ; the transgression must.
first be expiated. This is required by the moral
system of the world, which is not an act of Divine
P € oy
Ll 7 € ; on ee ow De bi ee
& Pee t
MS
~ f 4 G ri S24
A i tap nate r 7 % s
The Necessity of Atonement. 149
arbitrariness, but the expression of the nature of God
Himself. (°) For the nature of God is a moral one
and consequently His love is moral also, Only when
it is in harmony with the Divine Holiness, is love even
morally possible to.God. And the holiness of Gcd
requires that transgression should be expiated.
But how is this to be effected? Not by future
amendment. For to be good and to act rightly being
at all times no more than we are bound to perform,
no previously committed transgression can be obli-
terated thereby ; and before the guilty child can render
the obedience of joyful love, he must already be
assured of forgiveness. Not till then is the weight
removed from his mind, and the condemnation from
his conscience, which it chains. Before, however, it
can receive forgiveness, it must have experienced
sorrow for sin in its consequences. The way of for-
giveness is a painful one. I must learn what my sin
really is. I must feel, and painfully feel, it in its
Consequences ; not till then can grace reply to my
prayer for forgiveness by pardon. God cannot uncon-
ditionally pardon, cannot unconditionally do away with
sin, lest it separate us still farther from Him. Sin
must accomplish its results ; we must painfully experi-
ence them. We painfully experience the consequences
of sin as the deserved punishment of sin. Only in the
way of suffering can sin be expiated. (1°)
But the sinner himself cannot furnish the true
atonement ; for he continues a sinner in God’s sight.
He must first cease to be a sinner, if he is really to
V
150 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
make restitution for sin. Only a guiltless one, appear-
ing as a substitute for the guilty, is capable of offering
the true atonement. Christ became an atoning sacrifice
for us, for He became at the same time our substitute.
It is a universal notion of man's moral consci-
ousness, that the guiltless must appear for the
guilty, Even in the heathen world we meet with
presentiments of this great truth, The greatest trage-
dians of Greece, when they have drawn the knot of the
moral conflict as tight as possible, loosen it—Aschylus,
in the legend of Prometheus, Sophocles in that of
(Edipus—by the notion of substitution. (") What
was in them the faint twilight of presentiment, became
truth and reality in Christ. He became the substitu-
tionary sacrifice for our sin.
But can there be a substitution where, as in this
case, moral guilt and its punishment are concerned ?
Can one appear and make satisfaction for another ?
Is substitution possible ?
The idea, or rather the fact, of substitution pervades
every grade of human life. The busband is the head
of the house. He thinks, he provides, he works, or at
least he ought to work, for the whole family ; he appro-
priates its weal and woe, the conditions and wants of
the whole, and of each individual ; and that not ex-
ternally only, but so that they form a part, or at least
ought to do so, of his own life. And again: as the
whole family is comprised in him, so also does all that
affects him éxtend to all the other members. All
share in his position, his honour or dishonour. That.
Substitution ; its Possibility and Reulity. 151
which touches him touches all; all suffer for any evil
he may commit, and his moral nobleness ennobles all.
What is true of the husband is not less true, in her
measure, of the wife and mother. That which makes
the mother truly such is, that she bears in her own
heart the weal and woe, the joy and sorrow of the
members of the family, as if they were her own per-
sonal experience. It is this inward appropriation,
this soul-felt sympathy, this most real heart-bearing
which makes her the soul of the family, in whom the
manifold emotions of the family hfe find their place
of union and repose, and from whom a refreshing
atmosphere of peace is breathed forth upon all. And
what is true of the family is equally true of every
community. Every community requires a bond in
which it may find its unity; a head to represent it,
to appear as its substitute. And- this substitution,
when it is of the right kind, is not merely a natural,
but a moral relation. In so far as any one heartily
appropriates the interest of a community, and makes
it a part of his inner life, does he become its repre-
sentative. It is he who incorporates the idea of the
society, discharges its office, bears it in his heart ; he
lives the life of the whole, and the whole lives through
him. This law extends even to the individual. None
serves another, none truly helps another, who does not
mentally put himself in his place, and take his wants
into the very life of his own heart. We may say that
all love is of a substitutionary nature, for it ever makes
the interest of another its own. There is a substitu-
152 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
tionary acting, and there is a substitutionary suffering
in all love for others, in which love, both outwardly and
inwardly, does, in a certain sense, take upon itself that
which falls upon another, and thus appear ‘for him. (’)
It was a saying of Aristotle, that all noble-minded
men are inclined to sadness. (*) It is not merely the
feeling that their own lot is a hard one which oppresses
them ; it is something more—it is their inward sym-
pathy with and consciousness of participation in the
sufferings of the human race to which they minister,
Selfishness alone can dissolve the inward bond of union
with others, and say: ‘ What is that to me?’ Love
inwardly unites us to another, and makes his joys and
sorrows our own. And the more Divine the love,
the more does it do this. The more noble the man is
—the more the spirit of love, which is from God
dwells in him—the more does he take the sorrow of
the whole race into his own soul, bear it in his own
heart, and thus undergo it in his own experience.
We may say that there never was a truly great man
in whom this trait of substitution was not found. For
true greatness consists in love, and love makes that
which is another’s its own. When the prophets of
God, in the Old Testament, bewail and reprove the
sins of their nation; when we perceive by their words
how their souls are pierced with grief for their nation,
it is because they know and feel themselves to be one
with it, and because instead of looking upon its sins
and sorrows as something foreign to them, they appro-
priate them to themselves. It is everywhere love ©
Vicarious Suffering. 153
which forms this bond of fellowship, which places even
the guiltless in the rank of the guilty, because he
belongs to them, because he chooses to belong to
them. ~ :
Now, in Jesus perfect, absolute love appeared, and
that for all. He belongs not merely to His nation ;
He belongs to mankind. He enters into intimate
union with the whole race. It is comprised in Him,
for it finds in Him its aim, its head, its representative.
He is the Son of Man. Thus does He also gather
into His large and loving heart all the sorrows of
humanity, and all its suffering—the suffering both of
sin and guilt. From the beginning, so soon as Hig
consciousness developed, He knew that in Himself the
threads of human history met; that He was to con-
clude the old and begin the new era; that He was
the Son of Man. And what He knew Himself to be,
He also chose to be—chose it from the very bottom
of His heart. He identified Himself with mankind.
He could say, I am mankind. In Him their history
was to be accomplished. —
All progress, however, is effected by suffering ;
every step in advance requires sacrifice. For that
which is new cannot appear until the debt of the old
is paid. Because our path is one of sin and debt, it
is also one of suffering; for as every act entails its
own results, so also do human sin and guilt involve
their proper consequences, These consequences must
ensue. Not till then can the old be surmounted and
the new begin, This is a demand of Divine justice,
154 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
and a postulate even of our own conscience. If the
threads of our history are all united in Christ, if our
race is comprised in Him, if He is the turning point
of our history, the path of its progress, the path by
which it is to advance, He must also submit both ex-
ternally and internally to all the consequences of our sin |
and guilt, and suffer them to be accomplished in Him.
He must take upon Himself the whole burden of our
euilt and its consequences ; bear them, suffer for them,
and experience the feeling of them in His inmost soul.
In this way was He to effect our deliverance. For
this is the way of moral necessity. We must be justly
and righteously, not arbitrarily saved ; for arbitrariness
is not moral. ‘Truly it is love that saves us; but it
is the love of the Holy One, who bears in His very
nature the law of moral necessity. And this moral
necessity requires atonement in the way of suffermg—
the bearing and atoning for the consequences of sin.
For this reason, then, did Christ become the vicarious
sacrifice for our sins, that He might thus become the
Reconciler and Redeemer : ‘God made Him to be sin.
for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the |
righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Cor. v. 21); ae, )
God. imputed to Him, and visited upon Him, our sin, |
which was not His own, that He might then impute
to us His righteousness, which is not our own. He
bore the consequences of our sin.
The consequence of sin is the wrath of God. To
speak of the wrath of God is perhaps to express our-
selves in human fashion, but what is meant thereby is
OS Et FE ge
Vicarious Suffering. 155
not human, For God would not be holy love if He were
not angry with sin. God loves only what is like Him-
self ; He loves in us only His own image; He loves
us as He willed us to be. It would not be loving us
as He willed us to be, if He were indifferent to the
marring of His own image in us. Sin is this marring
of His image; sin is opposition to God, is denial of
God. God would not be what He is if He did not
deny the sin which denies Him. This is the wrath of
God. It is not a passionate, not a hasty wrath, after
the manner of men, but the opposition of His holiness
to the sin which opposes it. His wrath is the obverse
of His love. Noman truly loves holiness, and advances.
in the way of holiness, unless he hates and opposes sin,
—at least the sin that is in him,—and is angry with
himself, the sinner. But God is the absolutely Holy
One, and this He could not be if He had that false
tenderness which is incapable of anger. His wrath is
that result of sin which finds an echo in our own con-
sciousness ; and to this result of human sin Jesus
submitted. |
It was this that He bore from the time of His
incarnation, throughout the whole course of His life
on earth, till the overwhelming fact of His death.
His very entrance upon this life of pain and sorrow
was itself a consequence of our sin; and so, moreover,
was His work. For it was, indeed, a work of suffering
which he undertook, from the temptation which He
had to repel at its commencement, throughout all the
misconception and enmity He endured, and which
156 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
extorted from His soul the sigh of complaint, down to
His last hour, in which sorrow upon sorrow was
heaped on His head. In all this He was bearing
our burden, the consequences of our sins.
But it wasin His last hours that all which had been |
preparing during His whole life was accumulated.
And how am I to speak of these? No words can give
even a remote idea of the momentousness of this
—
subject. Allow me very briefly to direct your atten- —
tion to the important facts.
It was night when Jesus left the city to go out to
Gethsemane, where His last suffering and the conflict
of His soul began. He had but just before called Him-
self the vine, as bearing and supporting by His strength
those disciples who cleave to Him in love and faith, as_
the branches do to the vine; and now it is He who
seeks comfort amd assistance, at least the comfort of
their society, and finds Himself deserted by them. It
was the first, it was the only time in His life that He
sought alleviation at the hands of man. At other |
times it was He who.called men to Himself with the
promise: I will refresh you. ‘ And out of His fulness’
—says the apostle—‘ have all we received grace for |
grace. He nowseeks refreshment from men, but they |
all forsake Him. He is alone, heart alone too, without |
one to help Him, without one to understand or even |
faintly to conceive what He has to go through.(")
This sorrow of being forsaken, of being alone in the_
wide, wide world,—this sorrow, too, was added to tlre
inward anguish of His soul. We all know that Jesus
ee eee
His Last Howvrs. 157%
was not wont to use mere empty expressions, We may
have the habit of choosing to express our feel-
ings in terms which far exceed the measure of our
actual sensations. We know this, and are accustomed
to make allowance for it in what we hear said. It
ought not so to be; but so it is. With Jesus,—as we
all know,—this was not the case; He was truth itself,
even in His slightest expressions. When He, then,
complains to His disciples: ‘My soul is exceeding
sorrowful, even unto death ;?’ when He says, In these
words, that His heart is ready to break with sorrow
and anguish—what a flood of woe and agony must
have rushed in upon Him !
And what was it that made Him thus inwardly
quail? It was the path of suffering He had to tread,
the death which stood before Him. Yet how strange
is this! Many have met death fearlessly, and why
should not He?() I speak not of those who have
deadened their feelings and hardened their hearts
against the truth of the fact. There is an indifference
to death into which men can delude themselves. But
he who desires to be true cannot but own that death
is the king of terrors; and he who does not own it,
either has his feelings benumbed, or is untrue to him-
self’ Of such I am not speaking. Yet how many
martyrs have met death joyfully, and. praised God for
it! while Jesus offered strong crying and tears to Him
that was able to save Him from death, as the epistle
to the Hebrews informs us (Heb. v. 7). But Jesus
was more than a martyr. Terrible as death may be to
158 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
us, it is yet, as we are now constituted, a natural event.
‘We bear it within us from the very first, and have
deserved it. With Jesus it was the absolute contra-
diction to what He was. For He was the Life itself,
the Prince of life; and it is the greatest of all con-
ceivable contradictions, that the Life itself should be
delivered to death. It was, indeed, that by passing ;
through death He might open the path of life, but still
by passing through death. He was in absolute com-
munion with the Father; and it is the greatest of all
conceivable contradictions that He, the Holy One, who-
was in eternal and indissoluble communion with the
Father ; should deliver Himself to the dark power of
death, and the prince of death—a power hostile to
God. It was, indeed, that by this very means He
might restore us to communion with God, but yet it
was by this means of separation from God. This was _
a tearing asunder of the inmost nature of Jesus _
'
Christ. Which made His very heart tremble.
But it was more than death. He saw in spirit, and
felt beforehand, how the sin and wickedness of the
whole world were combined in what was done to Him. |
The whole dark depths of our sinful heart, the whole
abyss of our soul's dark passions, were here brought
to light. The old contest between good and evil, |
which had been going on throughout the whole course
of history, was here comprised in its full force and
utmost severity. If we would know what is in man, |
}
we must learn it here. It is here that we may esti-
:
|
mate what we are capable of, for it is vain to try
|
j
His Last Hours. 159
and except ourselves. Jesus Christ is indeed to us not
an object of hatred, but of love. But He is so only
because He has borne the hatred of our race. That
we now occupy so different a relation towards Him, is
a fact which has been brought about since, and brought
about by Himself. What we see in the history of
Christ’s passion is a picture of our heart, such as it is
when left to itself Israel and the heathen world
jomed hands in the deed—the high priest and the
Roman governor, the nation of religion and the nation
of universal dominion ;—we might say: Church and
State were there banded together by common hatred
against the Holy One of God. That which so moved
Christ, was that in the fate which He underwent
He had to encounter the whole extent and power of
sin; that mankind, whom He loved as never man
loved, should be capable of answering such love with
such hatred ; that evil should have such power over
human hearts.
Nor was it this only, for underlying all was the will
of His Father. It was this which was exposing Him to
this ungodly violence ; which was, in all this, laying
upon Him and causing him to bear the doom of sin ;
which was punishing our sins by His sufferings, in
order thus to expiate them ; which was letting Him
suffer, not merely through the sin, but for the sin of
man. It was this which made His anguish so sore,
that His heart. was nigh to breaking ; and for this He
had but one remedy, the knowledge which He gained
by. prayer of the necessity of this suffering. Not
160 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ
merely the knowledge of its external inevitableness.
Such knowledge may produce resignation, but not acqui-
escence; it may lead to surrender, the surrender of
the conquered, but cannot conduce to victory. It was
on the contrary the knowledge of its inward necessity,
the necessity involved in Divine love, which alone
could help Him through the heavy trials of the suc-_
ceeding hours. This knowledge, and the acquiescence
it produced, made Him victorious, the knowledge that
the cup could only pass away from us by His drink-
ing it; that sin could only be atoned for by his paying
its penalties—paying them by Himself experiencing
what sin really was ; and that these very consequences
of sin were through His willing obedience to become
the causes of restoration. (*°)
He went to meet the traitor, and gave Himself into
the hands of those who were sent to arrest Him. He
uttered before the Sanhedrim that confession which
condemned Him, the confession that He was the Son of |
God, and chose rather. to be silent before His secular |
judge than to say anything which might increase
Filate’s fear, and save His own life. Thus did He
make what He underwent His own act and deed, and
when ‘He might have had joy,”™* chose the cross (Heb.
xu. 2). |
The ingenuity of man has ever exhausted itself in|
the invention of torture. Crucifixion is one memorial
* ‘Da er wohl hitte médgen Freude haben,—erdultete er das |
Kreuz,’ etc. (Heb. xii. 2).—Luther’s translation. ‘When He might |
have had joy, He endured the cross,’ ete. |
The Cross. 161
of this sad ingenuity. It was introduced into Rome
from Carthage, and into Palestine from Rome. It was a
combination of the most painful tortures. Only slaves
and malefactors of the lowest class were thus punished.
On this occasion, it was inflicted upon Him who was
the Holy One of God, the manifestation of Divine love.
Israel demanded this punishment, and a heathen power
was the instrument which executed it. (”)
For six hours did ‘the Lord hang upon the cross and
endure its sufferings. Heaven, as the narrative relates,
covered the sad scene with a veil of obscurity. Never
shall we succeed in raising the veil which conceals the
mysterious sufferings of Christ’s soul during these
Sr rr rr os
hours. But it is overpowering to behold that even
then He was love—interceding, pardoning, considerate
‘love. He prayed for His enemies; He proclaimed
pardon and a share in the kingdom of God to the
thief on the cross; He committed His mother to the
disciple whom He loved. He was, to the very last,
the manifestation of love. He manifested love even
when He experienced none from either man or God.
_ For, as far as His own feelings were concerned, even
God had deserted Him. It was indeed an indissoluble
tie which united Him to the Father ; and even now,
when all the waves and billows of God’s wrath were
| going over His head, He was still the Son of His love.
But what His heart felt was not love, but desertion.
The hardest times in the lives of believers are those
| when God seems, to their inward perception, to have
withdrawn Himself ; when they cannot but think them-
| 7 L
162 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
selves forsaken, and say: ‘I sought Him whom my soul
loveth ; I sought Him and found Him not.’ And yet
what takes place in our case is but a faint echo of the
reality which He experienced in its highest degree.
We cannot pass through the same experience ; we are
incapable even of explaining it intelligibly ; but we can
form a notion of how He felt, from that cry of His ©
anguished heart: ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou |
forsaken me ?’ | |
‘Surely,’ says the prophet, when, more than seven
hundred years before the event, He describes His
sufferings as though he were himself standing at the
foot of the cross,—‘ surely He hath borne our gviefs,
and carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our
transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities : the’
chastisement of our peace was upon Him ; and with
His stripes we are healed’ (Isa. 11). |
God is greatest when His condescension is great-
est. Divine love could not descend to lower depths
than thus to plunge into this extreme conse
quence of our sin ; to receive this suffering into its
own inward and dential) Divine life; than that
God should thus appropriate what was ours, in order
that we might be possessed of what was His. This act,
of love has ever since been the joy of Christians, and
the cross their confession. |
To the ancient world, the cross was the symbol 0
shame ; to us, it is our joy, our comfort, and our boast
There is nothing which could possibly be mor
opposed to all our natural ideas than the cross. Wi
| ‘
.
:
:
The Cross. 163
can understand a God of majesty; we can comprehend
a manifestation of God in great human geniuses ;
but nothing could be more directly opposed to our
“every notion, than that the death on the cross
should be His supreme manifestation. ‘To the Jews a
-stumbling-block, to the Greeks foolishness,’ says the
apostle (1 Cor. i. 23). And so it is still. And yet it
was just the preaching of the cross that conquered the
world. In proportion as concessions are made to the
repugnance of the natural reason to the cross, is Chris-
tianity weakened and its efficacy lessened. It is only
the Christianity of the cross which is the victory over
the world. And it has conquered. A few years
since a drawing representing the Crucified was found
upon the walls of the ancient palace of the Czesars in
Rome. ‘The rude sketch speaks to us from the times
of the struggle between Christianity and heathenism,
and is a memorial of the manner in which the minds
of men were then stirred. Some heathen servant of
the emperor is taunting his Christian fellow-servant
with this contemptuous sign. The relic belongs to
about the year 200, and is by far the most ancient
crucifix we know of. But this, the oldest known
Box, is an ironical one. It is a caricature of
Christ, before which a Christian stands worshipping,
‘and it bears the inscription: ‘ Alexamenos’— the
name of the derided Christian — ‘ worshipping his
God.’ (*) We see that.the crucified Saviour and the
preaching of the cross were the scorn of the world ;
and yet this conquered the world. In the great
164 Lecture V. The Work of Jesus Christ.
strugele between heathenism and Christianity, the
cross was the sign of victory. Whether the story is
true or not, that Constantine, before his decisive battle
with Maxentius, saw in the clouds of heaven the
appearance of a cross, with the inscription, ‘ By this
shalt thou conquer,’—even if it is a fiction, it 1s yet
truth in the form of fiction, for the cross was the
power that conquered; and such it will remain. if
Christianity is to conquer the world, it will only do so
as the preaching of the cross, and not by concessions
to the natural reason.
It is contrary to all natural logic that God should
humble himself to such an extremity. That death
upon the tree of shame should be His supreme revela-
tion is contrary to all the logic of the natural reason
But it is the logic of love; and love can hold its ow
against the logic of the mere understanding, for it ha
on its side the higher logic of truth.
Wondrous paradox! The sign of deepest sham
has become the sign of dominion and of consolatior
The cross now stands upon the high places of th
earth ; it is a mark of honour and of graceful orne
ment among men; to Christians it is the point, th
place around which their thoughts gather, and whe
their hearts meet. If we would truly understan
God, we must make the cross our starting point, fi
it is here that His holiness and His love are four
united. Jf we would have communion with God, ¥
must seek it at the cross, for it is here that judgme
is executed on the sin which separates us from Go
The Cross. 165
and here that the love is manifested which unites us
with Him. So long, therefore, as there are Christians
on earth—and that will be to the end of time—their
confession will be: He who died upon the cross is my
=
Beloved.
Now, however, He is seated on the throne of His
majesty, and to this subject I shall proceed next time
I address you.
LECTURE VL
THE CONCLUSION OF THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
AND THE TRINITY,
Wey N our last lecture we accompanied the Lord
Jesus to His death upon the cross; let us
now accompany Him from the depth o
His abasement to the height of His glory
to His throne of sovereignty.
In His death, the. contradiction running througl
His whole life, the contradiction between His eterna
nature and His historical reality, became as great a
was possible, without destroying the unity of th
Divine life itself, This contradiction required a solv
tion in'a state of life in which His historical realit
should be one with His nature and its correspondin
expression. ver since sin came into the world, tl
law of its moral constitution has been that. humiliatic:
is the way to exaltation, and that the tension of co:
trasts leads to harmony of existence: per crucem ¢
lucem, through the cross to the crown. We all ho
for a life of glorification and enlightenment, where +
the contrasts of this existence will be resolved in
harmony. But the road to this future state lea
through death, through this greatest tension of opf
Reality of Christ's Resurrection. 167
sites. We know, however, that beyond death lies
eternal life. The pledge of this assurance is Jesus
Christ. He died in order to rise again to a perfected
life of glory. This is the reconciliation of the con-
trasts exhibited by His earthly existence. From this
point it is that a light is thrown both backwards and
forwards; hence, everything relating to Him turns upon
His resurrection, which is the foundation of Chris-
tianity.
There is, however, hardly anything which has been
so much the object both of attack and defence, in the
relivious conflicts of the present day, as the question
of Christ’s resurrection. For it is the decisive ques-
tion. If Christ is risen, then is His life, then is His
person, a miracle; if he is not risen, then He stands
within the limits of the natural, and Christianity is a
production of the natural intellect. |
The resurrection has been denied upon doctrinal
grounds. Criticism—it is said—must explain every-
thing naturally. This is a vital point in criticism ;
hence, Jesus cannot have risen. We must not—it is
said—exact from our race, and from modern con-
sciousness, a belief in a miraculous Christianity, for
this would be a contradiction to modern conscious-
ness. (’)
But Christianity is a contradiction to nature such
as it is in consequence of sin; and Christ is a con-
tradiction to the natural man such as he is in con-
sequence of sin. It is true that Christ is the truth of
man, but only because He is the rupture with the old
168 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
man. Now, what is true of Christ is true of Chris-
tianity. It is above alla judgment upon merely natural
reason. Only in this way is its higher truth manifested.
He who would expunge the paradoxy of Christianity,
expunges Christianity itself; and he who will have no
Gospel which is foolishness in the eyes of the natural
man, will have no Gospel at all. He who thinks to
help Christianity to conquer the world by giving up
its miraculousness, cuts through the very sinews of its
strength. It is not by the way of concessions that it
has conquered the world.
The resurrection has been denied upon both dog-
matic and philosophic grounds. But the question is
one of history, not of philosophy. It concerns a
fact, not a view. Facts cannot be overthrown by
arguments and views, but only by the adduction of
historical evidence. Let us first, then, establish the
Jact.
Certain women, as the evangelical narrative tells
us, were the first to behold the risen Saviour. For
the purpose of completing the work of embalming Him,
which had been interrupted by the Sabbath, they
went at day-break to the sepulchre, which lay |
just outside one of the gates of Jerusalem. The spot
now regarded as the locality of the Holy Sepulchre, has
every probability in favour of its genuineness (*).
They found the grave empty, and forsaken by the ~ |
keepers, with whom the hatred and suspicion of the
Jewish authorities had surrounded it. Struck by |
this unexpected fact, they first saw angels, who reas-
Reality of Christ’s Resurrection. 169
sured them concerning the fate of their beloved Master,
and afterwards Jesus himself. St. John tells us
further, that it was Mary Magdalene to whom the
Lord first appeared, but with a direction to her not
to cling to His sensible presence but to carry to His
disciples the news of His resurrection. Peter and
John went meantime to the grave, and left it in
perplexity. The message of the women found no
credence among the disciples, but was regarded as
the result of their excited imagination. In this sense
it was spoken of, as St. Luke relates, by the two
_ disciples when, on their road to Emmaus, a place some
}
'
j
|
miles off, they poured out their full and troubled
hearts to the companion who joined them, in words
which sound like a wail of despair—until they recog-
nised in their companion Jesus himself, who vanished
as suddenly as He had appeared. Full of this won-
derful event, they hastened back to the other disciples,
who received them with the joyful news that Jesus
| had already appeared to others, and especially to
Peter, to comfort him, who had denied his master.
While they were thus talking together, Jesus unex-
pectedly stood in their midst, convinced them that
He was alive,—alive in the body, and yet different from
what He had hitherto been. T hese appearances were
moreover continued; vanquishing the doubts and per-
plexity of Thomas, and raising the disciples to a
faith in the invisible nearness of their risen Lord.
The Jews, moreover, explained the strange fact of the
empty grave, by the subterfuge that the corpse of
170 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
Jesus had been stolen by His disciples. St. Matthew,
in his gospel, openly accuses the Sanhedrim of bribing
the keepers to spread this fable.
Whatever then we may think of this fact, one thing
is certain: the disciples believed in the resurrection
of Jesus.
The disciples believed in the resurrection of Jesus.
With this faith they went out into the world, with the _
assurance that they had seen and had intercourse with
the risen Saviour, they conquered and converted the
world, and for this faith they suffered death. This is
a fact which no one controverts, which no one has yet
controverted. The only question is how this fact is to
be explained. (’)
Was ita delusion? Did the Lord after all not
really die, but only fall into a trance, and, reviving —
after a short interval of apparent death, go forth from
the grave into life again? Such is the way in which
the older rationalists got over the difficulty, and which
even the penetration of Schleiermacher did not disdain
to adopt. But it was an impossible one, and the |
acute criticism of Strauss has made it for ever such. |
It may certainly have happened once, or even several |
times, that a crucified man was taken down from the |
cross before death, and his life saved by the most
careful attention and medical skill; but that one who)
had suffered those mortal agonies patie six hours, and |
had revived from His death-like exhaustion—that such |
a one, with His broken strength, and with that deadly,
weakness which would utterly prostrate Him, and make,
Reality of Christ’s Resurrection. 171
the most anxious care necessary, could give His fol-
lowers the impression that He was a conqueror over
death and the grave, and enkindle within them a joy-
ful assurance of victory, and a certain hope of a better
life, and raise them at a stroke out of the darkness of
mourning and doubt to the joy of a world-conquering
faith—to accept this as truth, is not common sense,
but folly.
A revival from a state of trance being then insuffi-
cient to explain the faith of the disciples, perhaps their
own notions may account for it. Did not their faith,
that Jesus was the Messiah, require the resurrection as
its necessary consequence, and thus gradually lead them
to the supposition that He had really risen? This is
the modern plan for getting over the difficulty. But
how is this possible? The logic of the disciples did
not run thus: Jesus is the Messiah, therefore He must
rise; He must rise, therefore He is risen; and there-
fore it is believed that the risen Saviour has been seen
and spoken with. On the contrary, their logic. was—
as appears from St Luke’s narrative of the two disciples
on the way to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 21): Jesus is
dead, therefore He cannot be the Messiah ; nor were
they re-assured of His Messiahship until they were as-
sured of His resurrection. Scripture testifies that it
was not His Messiahship which was a reason for belief
in His resurrection, but His resurrection which was a
reason for the belief that He was the Messiah (¢.9.,
Acts ii. 33, 86). Even if the resurrection of Jesus
was a fiction of His disciples, originating from their
172 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
own reflections, this at least would be certain, that such
a revolution in their thoughts and frame of mind could
not have taken place in a few days, and that external
facts of some kind would even then be needed.
This is admitted, and so this intrinsic change in the
thoughts of the disciples is helped out with certain
occurrences. . The aid of Visions is appealed to. The
disciples did not see their risen Lord; they only believed
they saw Him. ‘Their excitement was so great as to
amount to imaginary visions. The women began; the
men followed suit. How, then, did it come about ?
Because the grave was empty? The grave was cer-
tainly empty on the Sunday morning. How came it
to be empty? And what notion could be more natu-
ral to the disciples than that either the Lord had risen,
or that His body had been taken away? Mary Mag-
dalene at least, of whose state of enthusiastic ecstasy
so much has been ‘said, only came to the second and
more sober-minded conclusion (John xx. 18), And
even if the women saw visions, what about the men
(Luke xxiv. 22)—these men of active life, these fisher-
men of Galilee, with their sound sense and strong
nerves? And those ‘five hundred brethren,’ to whose
testimony St Paul appeals (1 Cor. xv. 6)? and the
whole Christian Church of primitive times, than which
no body of men could be further removed from the
visionary condition and phenomena of a morbidly ex-
cited state of nerves? It is impossible. And then
the Apostle Paul? The most desperate efforts have
been made to do away with his testimony. He has
Reality of Christ’s Resurrection. 173
been represented as the subject of nervous disorders, of
epilepsy !(“) As though it were not a still more diffi-
cult task to explain how so essentially sound a mind,
and so blessed a work as his, could proceed from so
diseased a source. And how, too, is the phenomenon
which he himself presents to us to be explained ?
Nothing was more opposed to his notions, His vision
of the Lord was no fruit of his inner development ; it
was a sentence of condemnation upon his whole past
life. Like the thunder of God, it struck him to the
earth, and overthrew his whole Pharisaic theology.
His former world was laid in ruins, and a new one
dawned upon his mind. A man would surely know
whether such a turning point in his life were a real
event or a dream. It was a fact which decided him.
From that time he became a preacher of the risen
Saviour, and the resurrection was to him the founda-
tion of the whole Christian faith, and the proof of: it.
‘If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet
in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep
in Christ are perished’ (1 Cor. xv. 17, 18). No one can
speak more decidedly or unmistakably. If the resur-
rection is a delusion, then Christianity, at least the
Christianity of the apostles and of Holy Scripture, is a
delusion, and a new one must be invented. But this
is needless, for if any one fact of history is certain, it
is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
And that not only on historical, but also on ¢nter-
nal grounds. If Jesus himself is an exception to rule,
why should rule be appealed to against the resurrec-
174 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
tion ? (°) On the contrary, both His person and His
work require it. His person: for it was necessary
that His condition of life should correspond to what
He really was. Resurrection was but the necessary
consequence of His earthly life. For how should the
lot of Him who was the life itself, terminate in death?
and the life of Him who was the eternal Son of God,
end in the grave, and far from God? He could not
have been what He truly was, had He continued in
the state of death. Death was the contradiction to
His person, Hence death was forced to yield to that
new order of life which His person required. And
His work : for this was atonement and redemption,
and our faith in the atonement is not Divinely autho-
rised till God by this fact proves it to be our atone-
ment. The resurrection is the proof by fact, on the
part of God, that sin is forgiven. And redemption is
is not perfected until the power of death is overcome
in His resurrection by the victorious power of life.
This has ever since been the foundation of our hope.
The resurrection of Christ, then,.is certain: not
merely on historical grounds; but equally so on inter-
nal grounds.
But the Christian creed continues with the words :
‘He ascended into heaven. He sitteth at the right
hand of God, the Father Alinighty.’
Jesus Christ rules the ages. He has become the
ruling power of the world and of its history; and
that not merely in the sense of general intellectual
power; for we do not mean merely that the spirit of
Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ. 175
_ Christianity as combined with the intellectual life of
mankind, rules the world. It would then be no
power of inward renovation and moral regeneration.
Neither have we to deal with the influence left behind
by the person of Christ; an influence which, propa-
gated from generation to generation, by the vibrations
of that vital power which proceeded from Him, is thus
communicated to every individual who comes within
the radius of its agency. (°) Christ is not merely a
past greatness, but a present living power.. When He
took leave of His disciples, it was with the words:
‘Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world.’ He is gone to God, that He may be near to
us. He has cast aside the limitations of space, that
He may be everywhere present. He departed from
the circle of His disciples, that He might be with His
Church at all times and in all places. Christianity is
not a mere subject or system of thought, not a code
_ of morals, but a personal relation—the personal rela-
tion to Jesus Christ. For Jesus Christ is not the
Mediator who once procured through His mediation
our communion with God: He continues to be our
Mediator. He will not make Himself superfluous, nor
does He desire to be so considered. Our communion
_ with God is ever caused by His present mediation,
_ This is Christianity. And every Christian knows that
progress in Christianity is a progress in personal rela-
tion to Jesus Christ. We may be certain, that in so
far as we are indifferent to Jesus Christ, so far are
176 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
we retrograding as Christians; for so far are we
at a distance from Him. For He will be near to us,
only that we may be near to Him.
His departure from earth marked the commence-
ment of a higher kind of presence, a higher order
of agency. He rules the. ages; and He will rule
hearts.
All history must serve Him. The first impression
made upon every intelligent observer, by the course of
the world’s history, and also the deepest meaning
which the most penetrating research can discover, is
that all things, great and small, are tending towards
one end—an end not laid down by man, but one
which is in the hand of a Higher Power, the end of
the Kingdom of God and of Christ. For what reason-—
able man doubts that Christianity will yet become the
universal religion? And what else does this mean,
than that every knee shall bow in the name of Jesus
Christ 2 All things subserve this end, evil as well
as good—the progress of the human intellect no less)
than the triumphs of morality. The Divine govern-.
ment of the world stands at the service of Jesus Christ;
it is He who loosens the seals of the future.
But it is not merely in the aggregate of mankind
that His work is being carried on: He concerns Him--
self no less with the individual; for He dwells not’
merely in the world and its history, but first of all in
the heart and in the inner spiritual life of the indi-
vidual. It is here that He desires to dwell and to
work ; and the work which He carries on in the
The Holy Spirit. - PGs
individual soul is to bring that salvation which He
made an historical fact to the world, and which He
completed and deposited in His own person, into the
heart of each individual, and to make it a fact of his
spiritual life,
But this is an operation carried on within the pro-
vince of our spiritual life, and, therefore, a spiritual
operation—an operation of spirit upon spirit. Hence
Christ carries on this work by His Spirit, called in
Scripture the Holy Spirit. As Christ fulfilled the
will and work of the Father upon earth, so does the
Holy Spirit administer the will and work of Christ
in the human soul. What Christ effected in the
world of history, the Spirit inwardly appropriates and
brings into the inner world of the human soul; for
this has been the office of the Spirit of God ane the
beginning.
The Holy Spirit is frequently spoken of even in the
Old Testament. He there appears as the power of
Divine life, producing life in the world—life natural
and intellectual as well as moral; for it was He who,
as Scripture represents, in the beginning animated the
earth, so that from it proceeded the manifold forms,
whether of the vegetable or animal kingdom. It was
He who called forth the intellectual life of man, and
who is ever its origin and cause. It was He who
awakened in the prophets their higher knowledge, and
in the saints their moral affections. Thus He every-
where implants in the world the life of God, and forms
the bond of communion between God and the world,
M
178 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
But since the blessing of redemption, the new life of
grace, has been achieved, and brought near by Jesus
Christ, it is His office to convey this new life mto the
souls of men, and to enable them to appropriate the
salvation offered them in Christ. This has been the
office of the Holy Spirit since the work of Christ was
finished, (*) Hence He forms the bond of communion
which unites the souls of men with God and Christ, and
binds our hearts in faith and love to our Redeemer.
For communion with Christ does not consist in exter-
nals, but is an inward relation, It is not forms and
formulas, not certain practices and external ordinances,
which make us Christians, but the Spirit of Jesus
Christ dwelling in our hearts and ruling our thoughts.
and desires. The pre-Christian era sought religion in
external forms and practices. We know that its home»
is in the heart, and that its essence consists in the love
of the renewed heart to God, who is eternal love. A
new era for man’s spirit began with Christ. For it)
was in the depths of the human spirit that He im-
planted the word of His truth, and into the most
secret chambers of the soul that He cast those cords of
love which unite us to the eternal world. The mystery
that He revealed was that mystery of the heart of God
and of His eternal love, which can only be understood
by the human heart and its love. But the interpreter
of the mystery of God to our spirit is the Holy Spirit
and it is by Him that the mind of Christendom i
roused, the life of Christendom excited.
Christianity has conquered the world—the world o
The Holy Spirit. 179
mind and of thought, as well as the world of morals
a
}
:
f
)
and of public life. But its mightiest triumph is its
conquest of hearts. It is in this agency upon the soul
that the Divine work.of salvation is completed. The
history of salvation is like a stream flowing through
the ages. It rises in the ancient times of the Old
Testament, with its prophets and heroes; flows onwards
through Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Golgotha; but it
is ever tending towards the heart of man, av it is
there that it must empty itself, for it proceeded from
the heart of God, and eternal love is its source. As
the rivers of earth arise amid the dark and silent
recesses of the lofty mountains, so, too, the stream of
our salvation had its origin in another world, in the
silent mystery of eternity, whither no glance of the
human mind can penetrate, and of which no human
tongue can bring us information. But that which was
born of the counsel of Divine love, in the bosom of
_ eternity, rushes down from those everlasting heights
into time, and traverses its broad plains, till it arrives
at that silent haven of all life which we call the human
heart. Here, in the silence of the soul, in the un-
fathomable mystery of the inner life, in the solitary
chambers of the heart, whither no eye can penetrate,
and to whose deepest feeling the tongue shuns to give
_ expression—here it is that the eternal purpose of the
| Divine love and its history become an inward ex-
_ perience; here it is that it finds its resting place.
Here, too, it does but collect its forces, that it may
begin its course anew, and pour forth fresh streams of
180 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
life, which shall at last find their end in that ‘eternal
world, that world of glory, that world of God’s child-
ren, their eternal rest upon the heart of God.
‘O the depth of the riches !’ exclaimed the apostle,
when his mind was overwhelmed by similar contempla-
tions (Rom. xi. 33, etc.),—‘ O the depth of the riches,
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How ~
unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past
finding out! For of Him, and through Him, and to
Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ‘ever !’
When, then, we would sum up in a few words the
faith which we confess, we say: JI believe in God the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For the meaning of our
faith in the Triune God is, that we acknowledge the
God who has revealed salvation to us,—a salvation
whose history begins and terminates in the heart of
God, and in the glorified world of renovated humanity. |
When Jesus, before His departure, gave command- |
ment to His disciples to baptize in the name of the |
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. |
xxvill. 19), He comprised in these three names the |
whole revelation of salvation, in which the mystery of
God has been disclosed; and when we designate be- |
lievers in Christ as believers in the Triune God, we
confess thereby faith in that God of love who has been I
manifested in the work of redemption. It is from this
point of view that the Trimity must be understood. __
But can it be understood? Are we not all far
from understanding it? Is not this notion of the)
Trinity an impossible one? ‘Truly, the very word
ee ee Cee See
Confession of the Trinity. 181
is, so to speak, preceded by rumours of the difficulties
which accompany it, and of the internal contradictions
which forbid us to reason on it. For how, it is asked,
can the part be equal to the whole, or one to three ?
And yet the greatest minds, from Augustine to Leib-
nitz, have believed in and investigated it. Rationalism,
indeed, with its superficial criticism, rejected the dogma
as nonsense. But Christianity must. be strangely con-
stituted if, when its chief fundamental dogma contained
nothing but a palpable offence against the simplest
mathematical or logical propositions, it could have con-
tinued to publish this as the most important of religious
truths for more than a thousand years. Hegel con-
fronts rationalism with this objection,(*) and recent
philosophy now finds in this very doctrine the expres-
sion of its profoundest ideas. It is true that it mis-
applies to its own purpose the meaning of the dogma ;
which it has nevertheless brought into favour again.
And however slight a value may be set upon the
authority of great minds, this much at least is certain,
that this doctrine cannot be delivered up without farther
_ Ceremony to the jurisdiction of the multiplication table.
_ Certainly one is not equal to three; but only miscon-
_ Ception could find such an assertion here. Does the
_hature of God belong as much to mathematics as the
figures of a sum?(°) Has not every nature its own
laws? If we say of God that He is One, do we speak
_ of the bare and empty unity of a mere numeral? Is
there not such a thing as a unity which includes with-
in itself all fulness? Should we attain to an adequate
182 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
knowledge of the nature of the free and rational soul
of man by regarding it merely according to mathe-
matical laws? But God is greater than the human
soul, and is removed far beyond any standard which
our intelligence can furnish. Can we, then, wonder if
the fulness of the Divine nature should not submit to ~
the limits of our thought, and should overflow the
banks of our powers of expression? It is but natural
that, by reason of this disproportion of our reason and
its forms to the subject in question, difficulties should
arise, and doubt and scruple be produced. From the
time when I began to think, the first youthful doubt
of which I was conscious was concerning the doctrine
of the Trinity; and my last thoughts will certainly get
no farther than did those of Melanchthon, who com-
forted himself upon his deathbed with the hope that,
in the world to come, he should be acquainted with
those mysteries of God which, in this life, he had been
incapable of comprehending. And how long has the
incomprehensibility of any subject been considered a
proof of its non-reality? If it were such, the limits
of reality must be extremely narrowed. If it were
such, God himself would be non-existent, for He will |
ever remain incomprehensible.("®) ‘God dwelleth,’ |
as the apostle says (1 Tim. vi. 16), ‘in the light |
which no man can approach unto. And if God is |
incomprehensible, why should not that distinction
in His life, which we designate by the name of the
Trinity, be so too ? | 3
One of the greatest minds that ever lived was
ee —_
Meanwng of the Trinity. 183
Augustine. For a whole millenary did the West
derive its mental nourishment from him; and at the
present day we are still his scholars. Great part of
his powers of mind were devoted to the investigation
of this mystery, and whatever has since been philo-
sophically taught or thought concerning this doctrine
has been chiefly a mere treading in his steps. He was
one day—so tradition relates—-wandering by the sea
shore, lost in thought, and meditating the plan of a
work on this doctrine, when he saw a boy playing and
making a ditch in the sand. When Augustine asked
him what he was doing, ‘I want,’ he said, ‘to empty
the sea into my ditch.” ‘And am I not trying to do
the same thing as this child,’ said Augustine to him-
self, ‘in seeking to exhaust with my reason the infinity
of God, and to collect it within the limits of my own
mind 2’ | |
We are not obliged to understand a matter perfectly,
in order to feel certain about it; nor need we be able
to refute all the objections which may be urged
against our faith, in order to be relieved from per-
plexity concerning it. Do we not all know how much
easier it is to question than to answer? There is
another kind of certainty than that of the understand-
ing. One need not be a great theologian to be a good
Christian ; and the possession of great scientific know-
ledge is not necessary to the possession of truth.
The greatest theologian knows no more truths necessary
to salvation than the simplest Christian ; he is only,
perhaps, better able to prove and defend them.
184 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
Nevertheless, in every Christian, faith is pressing on —
towards knowledge, and truth has a tendency to become
the possession of the understanding as well as of the
heart. The lazy ignorance which does not care to
give a reason for anything, and the learned conceit
which thinks itself able to explain everything, are
both equally reprehensible. (")
How, then, are we to understand the doctrine of the
Trinity? It is not a mystery for scholars, but the
creed of Christians; not wisdom for the initiated, but
a fundamental article of faith for all. ‘I believe in
God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.’ In these
words is comprised the whole of Christianity. But
Christianity is not for the aristocratic circle of great
minds, but for all people. It is not philosophy, it is
religion ; and religion is, or at least ought to be, the
most popular thing extant. And so, too, should the
doctrine of the Trinity. It is no philosophical theorem.
It may be that it conceals within it depths which the
profoundest speculation may in vain seek to fathom ;
but it must be, at the same time, that plain truth which
the simplest Christian is able to grasp. Christian truth
has often been compared to a river, in which an
elephant might be drowned, and which yet a lamb
might ford.(") . The doctrine of the Trinity is the
fundamental article of Christianity. Now Christianity
is, the religion of redemption. Hence this doctrine
is no proposition of philosophic speculation, but the
expression of our faith in redemption. Hence, too,
the prae-Christian era knew nothing of it, for it knew
Meaning of the Trinity. 185
nothing of redemption ; and left to itself, no cogitations,
no reflection of the human intellect could ever have
attained to it. But when redemption was accom-
plished, this truth was self-evident. When the Lord
was risen, He spoke of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, and the disciples asked him for no explana-
tion. In the facts of redemption the mystery of God
had been disclosed, and in this saying concerning the
Triune God, they beheld the facts of redemption. Thus
it became to them the expression of Christianity itself,
The modern view—as advocated ¢g., by Strauss—
which makes Christianity result from an intermingling
of Judaism and Heathenism sees, consequently, in the
doctrine of the Trinity an expression of this combina-
tion of Jewish monotheism with Heathen polytheism,
This view, however, is no less in opposition to history
than to the matter itself. For the circle in which
Christianity found its birth-place came in contact
neither with heathen notions of religion, nor heathen
philosophical speculation, and the Christian doctrine
of the Trinity is not the dilution of heathen polytheism,
but its opposite. It is true that traces of this notion
are found in the most opposite religions, and not
merely in the Indian Trimurti of Brahma, Siva, and
Vishnoo, But they are expressions not so much of
the inner life and nature of the Deity as of the
process of natural life, The saying that the number
three is the signature of Deity may perhaps be
called a thought common to all nations, and an
appeal made in its favour to the consensus gentium.(')
186 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
God is indeed reflected in the mind of man, But such
a reflection is far from giving the knowledge of the
Trinity of God. The philosophy of Plato has been
thought to have struck out a path to this doctrine,
and certainly no ancient philosopher so nearly approxi-
mated Christianity in his speculations as Plato did,
nor was his influence unfelt either in the elaboration
of orthodox doctrine, or in the circle of thought
occupied by heretical teachers. The roots of the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity are not, however, to
be found in the Platonic philosophy. Far removed
from it, is also the idea of so unreserved a revelation
of God, as we possess in Jesus Christ, who could say:
he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. From
this revelation of God in Christ, did the knowledge of
the Trinity arise.
Undoubtedly, when God steps forth from the dark-
ness which conceals Him, and is about to reveal Him-
self to man, He is ever preceded by presentiments of
the human, mind as His forerunners, Yet these are
but shadows of things to come—creations of the mind
without reality. It is the acts of the self-revealing
God which first give these empty notions substance.
Thus, presentient ideas of the Triune God were already
stirring in individual minds. The wisdom of God, the
word of God, were spoken of; ('*) but they were un-
substantial shadows without flesh and blood—the pro-
duct of the human intellect. The knowledge of the
Triune God Himself, it entered into no heart or thought
of man to conceive. This knowledge was no discovery ©
God’s Triune Revelation. DET
of the human mind, but a revelation of the Divine
love. It was not till God revealed Himself as the
Triune God that He was known-as such. It was not
till He revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit,
that He was acknowledged as Father, Son, and Spirit.
And this too, must be our way to the knowledge of
Him. It is in His revelation that we too, must find
the Triune God.
We must begin with Jesus Christ, if we would be
certain of the Trinity of God; with the knowledge
that Christ was the revelation of God; that in His
intrinsic and eternal nature He is one with God; and
that the Spirit of Jesus Christ, who works in our souls,
is the Spirit of God himself. God has revealed Him-
self to us in this distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit;
and our faith rests upon this threefold revelation, and
sees in it the revelation of one and the same God.
And when we profess our faith in the Triune God, we
name the one great historical drama of redemption.
The circuit of revelation terminates in the Divine
Three. What the Father demands, the Son performs ;
_ and what the Son effected, the Holy Spirit appropriates
to us. The Father sends the Son into this our world;
the Son atones for our guilt, and reconciles us to God ;
the Holy Spirit makes us the children of God, and
_ produces the new life of love in our hearts. It is
| upon this threefold act of God that our salvation ever
_ depends, and it is an act of one and the same God.
For what the Son has done for us, and what the Holy
_ Spirit effects within us, is all the act of that same God
188 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
who from eternity willed our salvation, and in the ful-
ness of the time accomplished it. He accomplished it,
however, under the distinction of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, and of this threefold revelation. We do
but profess a belief in our salvation, in the acts by
which He effected our redemption, when we profess
our belief in God as the Triune God. This was Christ’s
meaning when He made this confession the fundamen-
tal confession of His Church. It is not a speculative —
view of the nature of God which we are to express by
it, but our faith in the redemption which has been
actually effected and is constantly being brought to
pass by this revealed Triune God. |
But the revelation of God is the mirrored reflection
of His nature. God would not be the Triune in the
history of His revelation, if He were not such in the —
mystery of His nature. The work of salvation would
not have been accomplished in a triune manner, if the
inner life of Love did not itself exist in a triune man-
ner. ° By the same steps by which the Deity de-
scended from His secret dwelling into time and its
history, does our mind ascend to the heights of the
Divine mystery, and venture a glance into the hidden
abyss of His nature. The one God includes within
Himself a fulness, in whose variety the process of His
life of love is accomplished ; and yet throughout this
distinction of Himself, the unity of His nature and
His life is maintained. But who can fitly speak on
such a subject? They are indeed but stammering
words that we can utter. We speak of three Persons
t
God’s Triune Revelation. 189
in the Divine nature. It is an utterly inadequate ex-
pression ; but we have no other for it. All our words
are derived from human relations, and are insufficient
to express the Divine. We are but too conscious of
the inadequacy of language, when we seek to apply it
to the mystery of God. For, designate it as we will,
our designation must still remain an insufficient one.
What we want to say is but this; that the unity of
God is not a simple but an effected one; that God’s
inner life of love is carried on by an inward self dis-
tinction of God; that this eternal distinction in God
includes within it the whole Divine nature, sothat God is
in this sense a Triune Being ; and that then this eternal
Trinity, as we call it, set itself in motion, and entered
into history to realise therein the eternal counsel of love.
In the doctrine of God,.Deism and Pantheism are
_ two errors in mutual opposition. Under spurious forms
the former advocates the bare unity, the latter the ful-
_ness of God. The former separates God from the
| world, and views Him as abstract greatness without
vitality, the latter confounds Him with the world,
transports the world and its life into God, and makes
the life of the world the life of God Himself. The one
' extreme calls forth the other. For, just. where God is
regarded as inactive unity, the need of a living God
_ leads to the filling up of this empty greatness with the
| life of the world. Islamism, which inculcates the bare
| abstract unity of God, is ever accompanied by Pan-
|
theism. The mysticism of Mohammedanism is panthe-
_istic.(°) Both these errors are averted by the know-
190 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
ledge of the Divine Trinity. God is not bare solitary
unity, but the living self-filled One. And it is not |
the life of the world, but His own life, which consti-
tutes His intrinsic fulness. God is not lifeless repose, .
but ever living activity ; not mere passive being (Sewn) ©
but active being (Werden). And this His active being ©
ig manifested in His triunal modes of existence. These |
are the outcome of His eternal and active being. Into
this, His inner life, God’s loving will received the
world, and placed His Trinity in relation with the
world. In the Son, God willed the world and man ;
in the Spirit, He unites the world and man to Himself. ©
The Son’ is the eternal copy of the Father; at the
same time, the world’s prototype and end. The Spirit
+3 the hidden bond of life of God the Father and God
the Son, and at the same time the living bond which ~
unites the world with God. The Father is the eternal
reason of all things, the Son is their prototype and
end, the Spirit, the ever present power of their exist-
ence. As the relation of God to Himself and the
course of His inner life is ever fulfilled and concluded
in the distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit, so, too,
is the relation of God to the world ever fulfilled and
concluded therein. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity
leads us rightly to distinguish between God and the
world, and yet to connect each with the other. It
averts both Pantheism and Deism, because it is the
higher truth of both. But the higher it is the more
must we acquiesce in the distance at which it is placed
from the contact of our thought.
|
|
|
|
Trinity of the Divine Nature. 191
The attempt has been made to render the mystery
of three persons in one Divine nature more easy of
comprehension by means of thé analogies of the human
mind; for since God made us in His own image and
likeness, we have a right to think of God after our
image and likeness—as the supreme prototype of our
own mental life. It was that great Church father,
Augustine, who first struck out for successive ages the
path on which their speculations on the Trinity after-
wards advanced. The notion may be nearly thus ex-
pressed: As our mental life is exercised and fulfils
itself in the acts of knowing and willing; as our mind
does not exist without knowing itself and willing itself ;
and as in each of these acts of our mind, our whole
mind is present,—sgo also does the eternal life of God
fulfil itself in the eternal acts of knowing and willing.
God knows Himself eternally ; God wills Himself eter-
nally. The result of these Divine acts is those dis-
tinctions in God which we designate as the three per-
sons of the Godhead. ‘The Son is the eternal self-
thought of God, the result of His knowledge; the
Holy Spirit is the eternal love of God, by which God
wills Himself. For before God knows and wills the
extra-Divine, the world and mankind,—this imperfect
copy of God,—He must know and will Himself in His
perfect counterpart, for He ‘alone is the worthy and
adequate object of His own knowledge and love. These
acts of the Divine life are, moreover, no transitory
notions or emotions, as in our case, but abiding acts,
‘which also really suppose their object. God, by know-
192 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity.
ing and willing Himself eternally, supposes Himself in
His perfect image. Thus, then, God is hereby involved |
in an inward self-distinction. He who knows is dis- —
tinct from the self that He knows, while in His love ;
He gathers Himself again into unity with Himself.
This is the method of explaining the mystery of the
Trinity from the nature of God, which has been .
familiar to the Church from ancient times, and on ‘
which all the variations of this explanation are |
founded 2("°)
But let us not forget that these are but attempts at
explanation, which, though they may have their value,
do not form the foundation of our faith. It is not
upon the notions of human wisdom, nor upon the
changing forms of human speculation, that our faith
rests, but upon the facts of the external and internal
history of salvation. God has, in the history of salva-
tion, revealed Himself, in a triune manner, as Father,
Son, and Spirit ; and we, in that work of appropriating
salvation, through which we become Christians, have
experience of God according to this distinction,—viz.,
as Him to whom we are reconciled, as Him through
whom we are reconciled, and as the Spirit who has
inwardly appropriated to us the grace of reconciliation,
and made it the power of a new life to us. Thus do
we become certain that there are distinctions in the
Godhead, that God is the Triune God. He, the Triune
God, it is, who cherished in His heart the counsel of
our salvation; He, the Triune God, who, in the history
of mankind, effected this counsel of His love ; He, the
Faath in the Trinity. 1938
Triune God, who manifested His love to our hearts,
and made us the children of His grace. In Christ,
God ever eternally willed to love us; in Christ, God
redeemed us in time; in Christ are we the children of
His love for eternity. It is only in Christ, and not
out of Christ, that we have the God of salvation: Out
of Christ God is the consuming majesty, before which
no man can endure. They who would know and find
God, the God who is eternal love, the reconciled God,
the God of grace, can find Him only in Christ, (”) not
out of Christ; but to know, to find, to possess Him
in Christ by faith, love, and hope, this—we confess
it—is not our work, but the work of God the Holy
Spirit. The Triune God alone is perfect love, and the
revelation of the Triune God the perfect revelation
of love.
Hence, because the God of Christianity is perfect
love, and Christianity the revelation and proclamation
of this love, the God of Christians is the Triune God,
‘and all Christian puncte of God the knowledge of
‘the Triune.
| It is no speculation which we thus express, no mere
‘notion of God which we entertain, but it is the con-
fession of the faith which saves us. To say: God is
Triune, is to say God is the God of redemption ; to
deny the Trinity, is to deny redemption; to acknow-
ledge the Trinity, is to acknowledge redemption.
Christianity is the religion of redemption ; hence its
central point is the confession of the Triune God. It
has ever been such in all Christian Churches on earth,
| ; N ;
194 Lecture VI. Redemption and the Trinity. ;
§
This confession receives us at our entrance into the .
world, at our Baptism; we make it when we are —
admitted into the congregation of communicants by
confirmation; it is the expression of our faith when
our Christianity becomes a conscious fact of our inner —
life by conversion; and that future knowledge which :
we hope for, those disclosures of eternity which we
long for, will all centre around the theme; I believe in
God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
i
os
LECTURE VII.
THE CHURCH.
mosey HE Church is to form the subject of my
i38]| present lecture.
ost sk In the apostles’ creed, we say: I believe
in Bins Riot Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church. The
doctrine of the Holy Ghost, who concludes the work
of salvation effected by the Triune God, is immediately
succeeded by the doctrine of the Church; for the
Church was the first work of the Holy Ghost.
It is not enough to acknowledge God in the work
of creation, nor even in the work of redemption : we
must also acknowledge Him in the work of sanctifica-
tion,—that is, in the Church ; for the Christian creed
confesses the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Holy
Ghost. Atheism denies the Creator; Deism denies |
the Redeemer ; Rationalism denies the presence of the
Holy Ghost in the Church. There must be a desire
to find God, if we are to discover Him in creation; for
creation conceals as much as it manifests Him. There
must be an eye for true greatness, if we are to see in
_desus Christ and His redemption the revelation of
God; for His form of a servant seems to be a contra-
196 Lecture VI. The Church.
diction. And even so it is with the Church: She
bears the heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel, and
there must be spiritual eyesight to discern the pre-
sence of God in her. But they who are willing to see
and hear, find God to be in her of a truth.(’)
Whatever we may think of the Church, this much
is at least certain: it is a fact. And what a fact!
Let it be our first endeavour to bring it clearly be-
fore ourselves.
Even if we regard the Church as only a work of the
human mind, and not a creation of the Divine, we
cannot but acknowledge that it is the most wonderful
of works. Outwardly regarded, it is an association of
mankind; an organism of intellectual life; an institu-
tion in which religion has found her home. We are
accustomed to combine Church and State in our |
thoughts, and they have a certain relationship to each ©
other; they are the largest social circles of human —
life. But where is there a State which can compare
with the Church for the antiquity of its existence or
the elasticity of its life? How many storms have
passed over the Church! She has survived them all !.
Nations and kingdoms have disappeared from the
earth ; the Church has remained. She saw the last .
days of the Roman empire ; she stood at its grave and
bestowed upon it a parting blessing. She stood at the —
cradle of the German empire, and has taken her share
in the varied events which have befallen it; she ac-
companied it upon its pilgrimages and crusades, and —
assisted in the arrangement of its domestic relations; |
—
The Church a Fact. 197
she saw the days of its greatness, shared its days of
tribulation, and has survived its downfall. Nothing
of the ancient German empire remains except the
dream of our youth, and the hope of the future; but
the Church still is what she was at the time of the
coronation of Charles the Fifth." The change of times
has indeed affected her. The alterations which human
society and the human mind have undergone, have
caused alterations in the Church. She has been drawn
into the stream of history, and has allowed herself to be
carried away thereby ; but she has remained the same.
Her forms have changed, her appearance is altered,
but her nature is ever the same; and her creed is
what it was in the days of the apostles. It is the
one same Triune God whose salvation she proclaims,
with whose consolations she comforts, and to whom
she calls the nations, as to a sure refuge in the
tempests of the ages. See has suffered losses, but
she has also made conquests. In Asia Minor and
Northern Africa, where there were formerly flourishing
churches, the crescent and barbarism are now triumph-
ant. But she has gained the nations of the future—
the west of Europe, and the countries of the West.
She has experienced many attacks; but she is, as
Theodore Beza says, the anvil upon which all hammers
have been broken. The stormy waves of Moorish
conquest in the South were broken when they dashed
against her; the hordes of the Huns and Mongols in
the Kast at last bent to her, or disappeared before her.
At times, it has seemed as if the evil deeds of her
*
198 Lecture VII. The Church.
children must destroy her, but she has been more power- —
ful than the sins and crimes of her unworthy repre- —
sentatives. The spirit of negativism has opposed her, —
and appeared victorious, but she has repulsed the attacks —
of unbelief. She has ofttimes been pronounced dead, yet
still she lives. So long as fourteen hundred years ago,
in the time of Augustine, it was said that she was
expiring; but to-day finds her yet alive.) In the
nk -
age of Voltaire and Frederick IL, her decease was ~
expected; but when the name of Voltaire is forgotten,
she will yet exist. At first she was reproached for her
youth, now for her age; (*) but she possesses an eter-
nal youth. She seems to have been thrust aside by |
the intellectual progress going on in the world; but
when the wonderful progress of our age shall have
made the whole earth one great city of the human —
race, it will be seen that men have only been prepar-
ing a place for the Church. ‘ Wondrous, unparalleled,
nay, Divine is it,’ exclaims Pascal, ‘ that this Church,
which is ever being attacked, has ever endured.’ (*)
And wondrous, too, is it, that Christ predicted this
fact: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it ’
(Matt. xvi. 18.)
The Church is a fact; and what a fact! All must
at least acknowledge that, of all institutions on earth,
she is the most venerable, and that, at all events, it 1s:
impossible not to feel respect for her.
And yet, at the present day, an antipathy to
the Church prevails in extensive circles. It is not,
perhaps, always confessed, but still it exists. It
The Church a Fact. 199
clothes itself, perhaps, in the garb of external respect,
but under this is concealed the most utter indiffer-
ence; and the soul of this indifference is aversion.
Aversion to the Church is concealed perhaps by a
pretended interest in Christianity. When, however,
this is not hypocrisy, it is a delusion ; for the Church
is the body of Christianity, and Christianity is the soul
of the Church. No one, then, can be on the side of
Christianity who is not on the side of the Church.
What then is said against the Church? She is
reproached for being indifferent to temporal interests
and intellectual progress, and for want of participa-
tion therein. Certainly she does not undertake the
care of worldly interests, nor labour directly for the in-
tellectual progress of the natural man ; but then this
is not her office. And I should have thought that it
would be a matter of rejoicing to those who had men’s
real interests at heart, that there is a society on earth
with another object than that of attending to the
matters of natural life, and which is a constant me-
morial that there is something higher than this tem-
poral life, and that the life of the soul in God and in
eternity is of far more importance than all the progress
of the human intellect. But is the Church an enemy
to the matters of natural life, because the care of
them is not her immediate vocation? Has not reli-
gion been, in all ages, the bearer of civilisation ?
Modern French scholars have made it their special
task to show the connection in which the progress of
civil society stands with religion. (’) It is not merely
200 Lecture VII. The Church.
that she has introduced into the world a spirit of love,
and taught that to minister to the unfortunate is the
most acceptable worship ; (°) she has also modified the
et
severity of law, and founded the happiness of society
upon benevolence. She has preceded the nations in —
their emigrations, as Edgar Quinet says, like the pillar —
of fire. And all the attainments of modern culture ©
have their roots in our faith, and in our notions of
God. What the heathen Plutarch says: ‘ You might
more easily build a city in the air than give perma-
nence to a State without a religion, (’) applies to us
also. But to speak of religion is to speak of the
Church ; for the Church is religion organised. And
history confirms the fact that the Church has ever
been the most powerful element in the civilizing
potency of Christianity.
Just imagine the Church banished from the world.
Such a state of things is predicted; the State of the
future is, it is said, to be without a Church and with-
out religion. (*) Well: let us conceive the Church
banished,—for it is an impossibility to us to conceive
it non-existent; it is far too closely interwoven, not
only with our outer, but with our inner life, to let us
even imagine it not to be—but let us try to suppose
it gone, and what would be the consequences? The
least of these would be, that the noblest instrument
of intellectual culture would be lost. For—let us not
be deceived in this matter—our nation derives its
noblest culture from the Church. It is by her that
the mind is fed with the sublimest thoughts, the most
Antipathy to the Church. 201
magnificent images, the purest poetry, the most ele-
vated aspects of art. Our nation would suffer an irre-
_coverable loss in the whole province of its intellectual
lite. Nor let it be thought that this would befall only
the lower classes and the masses of the people. We
know not by how many thousand threads our whole
mental life is interwoven with the Church and depen-
dent upon it. We donot generally learn adequately
to value a possession till we have lost it, and such
would be the case in this respect also. But the in-
tellectual loss would be the least result. The moral
surpasses the intellectual life. Well: let the churches
which occupy in our towns so many a costly site, which
might be better bestowed, be demolished, and what
would be the consequence? It does not need
much reflection to say, that for every demolished
church we should have to erect a prison, for each
church forms a hearth whence a moral influence is
_ diffused throughout its neighbourhood. If the churches
| were no more, we should goon feel that a moral force
had vanished from our life; for the mental and moral
forces of life are greater than its material ones. In
_ Short, they who look upon things with only worldly
wisdom cannot but own that the Church is a necessary
moral institution, which nothing else can replace, and
that it would be the most short-sighted economy to
try and save here. But all who truly know the Church
_ know that she is not only this, but something more :
the proclaimer of God’s grace, the dispenser of Divine
comfort, the counsellor of the erring, the consoler of
202 Lecture VIT. The Church.
the afflicted, the source of moral strength, a blessing |
to the living, a blessing in death. Whence, then, this
wide-spread antipathy to the Church ?
She is reproached with intolerance, ‘Toleration is —
the triumph of modern times, and the Church—it is
said—sins against this progress of humanity, for she —
allows nothing to be truth but her own dogmas: she ~
declares the way of salvation which she announces to
be the only one, she thus denies salvation to all who
do not agree with her; she delights in condemnation.
a“,
This is what is said of her. Isittrue? What is her —
preaching ? and what is her behaviour? The subject
of her preaching is the grace of God in Christ Jesus
for all—the grace which desires not to condemn, but
to save. And her action is unwearyingly to proclaim
this in all possible forms, and to bring it near to all
men, that they may let themselves be saved by God’s
erace. Nor does it content her to announce this word
of grace, and to carry on this work of saving souls
within her own limits; wherever there is life in the
Church, there is also the missionary work of bearing,
far beyond the boundaries of the Church, to those
poorest of the poor, the heathen, the message of God’s
fatherly love as manifested in Christ Jesus. Her
office and her work recognise no barriers of nations
or tongues, Let it be candidly said, whether it is a
spirit delighting in condemnation, or a spirit of love,
which is here manifested.
But it is asserted: the Church is nevertheless into-
lerant, for she professes herself to be the sole possessor of
Antipathy to the Church. 203
truth, and her doctrine to be the sole way of salvation.
If this is intolerance, then truth is, by its very nature,
intolerant, 2.¢., exclusive ; for every truth is the denial
of its opposing error; and He who is absolute truth,
i.¢., God, says: ‘My glory will I not give to another,
nor my praise to graven images.’ If Christ had a right
to say: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’
(John xiv. 6), then the apostles had a right to say:
‘Neither is there salvation in any other’ (Act iv. 12).
And if the Church is the announcer of the truth of —
Jesus Christ, she must hold this language also. As
Christ said of himself: ‘No man cometh to the
Father, but by Me’ (John xiv. 6) ; so must the Church
say of it, 7.e., of the faith in Christ which she preaches :
No man cometh to the Father but through it ; that is,
she must maintain the exclusiveness of her truth, or
she is denying it. |
Let us be quite clear about this matter. If the
Church were to demand unique and exclusive privileges
in the world of civil life, she might be justly reproached
with intolerance ; but when she ascribes to herself ex-_
clusive truth, in the world of faith, in the question of |
the soul’s salvation, she is only doing what she cannot
help doing so long as she believes in herself; and,
when she no longer believes in herself, what right has
she to exist at all ? (’)
We boast of freedom of conscience. But to whom
are we indebted for freedom of conscience? Its first
advocates were the first preachers of Christianity.
Heathenism terminated in doubt and fanaticism,—a
204 Lecture VII. The Church.
fanaticism which Christianity experienced, for the very —
right of existence was denied her. ‘ Non licet esse vos’
i
4
was the watchword in the battle waged against her —
in her youthful days. (*°) Doubt was allied with this
fanatic intolerance, for doubt cannot suffer pretensions —
to absolute truth to exist. The philosophic scepticism —
of the heathen world could not endure that unphilo-
sophic Christianity should declare itself to be supreme —
truth, and intolerant doubt replied to this exclusive-
ness of truth by persecution. Christ said: ‘I am the
truth ; and Pilate asked: ‘ What is truth? In the
one case we see exclusiveness, in the other scepticism.
But on which side was persecution—on Christ’s, or on
Pilate’s? It is an erroneous, though a widely spread
notion, that scepticism is tolerant, and that belief in
the truth makes a man intolerant. (") I admit that
religion has often served as a pretext for intolerance ;_
that not only false friends, but her own ministers, have
practised cruelty and intolerance in her name. But
how can religion help being misused, does the misuse
of a thing do away with its lawful use? It is said:
Persecutions arise in the name of religion ; let religion
be done away with and persecutions will cease. Might
we not as reasonably say: Conflagrations arise by means
of fire; let fire be done away with and conflagrations will
cease ? Certainly they will, but then men will perish
with cold. (’”)
If truth is to be possessed, it must maintain itself
against error. Ifit were to treat error as of equal
authority with itself, certainty would no longer exist.
The Intolerance of Truth. 205
To declare everything equally true means to declare
everything equally false, and nothing certain; and
this would be not charity, but cruelty; for we need
truth, we want certainty. We owe truth to ourselves
and to others. We forfeit our right to conviction
when we have none. They who have convictions are
certain of their truth; and they who are certain of
truth cannot but deny its opposite. They who value
their own opinion no more than its opposite, are in-
ditferent about truth ; and to be indifferent about
truth is not a virtue, but a crime. Scepticism is not
strength, but weakness of mind. To be unable to
arrive at any certainty, through mere doubts, is the
mark of a race in a state of degeneracy and decay.
The old world finished with scepticism, and was
ruined by it. Christianity began with certainty, and
triumphed thereby. To be tolerant through doubt
does not denote elevation of mind, but is a sign of
degradation and a forerunner of ruin. Moreover, if
we can really declare it a matter of indifference to us
whether we are Christians or not, why, then, should
we be Christians ? If we can be all things, we are
nothing. As long, therefore, as the Church believes
in herself, her declarations must be exclusive. But if
she no longer believes in herself, how can she require
faith in others 4? And if she can no longer venture to
do this, what is the use of her?
What, indeed, it is said, is the use of her? The
Church is superfluous. The history of the Church ig
the history of her gradual dissolution. There is a
206 Lecture VII. The Church.
time for all things. The Church has had her day, and
the signs of the times declare that the Church’s day 1s —
over. Well, this has often been said before, and the
Church has survived the advertisements of her death.
And if the announcement is renewed at the present
day, it does not look as if the Church will really do-
these prophets the favour of dying.
But perhaps our opponents separate Christianity :
from the Church, and say: ‘ Christianity is not to
cease, but it will cease to exist in the form of the
Church’ In what form, then, is religion to exist ?
Is it to be the affair of the State? The State belongs
to an entirely different province of life. The State
administers justice; the Church announces Divine
grace, The State ministers to temporal life; the
Church ministers to eternal life and the salvation of -
souls. Every province of intellectual life requires its
appropriate organism. The State cannot be the organ-
ism of the Church.
Or is religion to be relegated to the heart and to_
the private life of the individual ? |
It is true that religion has its inmost dwelling in
the heart of the individual. But man was made, not
for solitude, but for society, He may occasionally
flee from the distractions of life, or the corruptions of
society, and take refuge in solitude, but he cannot
endure it for ever, nor ought he to do so. Man was
made for society. Minds seek each other; souls unite
with each other; and when the same religious life
exists in many, it will combine them into a com-.
Nature of the Church. 207
munity possessing religious life. This is a law of our
nature, and a necessity of our earthly existence. But
the Church is a community possessing religious life ;
so long, therefore, as this is not superfluous, 7.¢., never,
the Church will not be superfluous.
Having now considered the fact of the Church’s
existence, and the grounds on which it has a right
to exist, we will proceed to the consideration of its
nature.
The Church is, as has been said, an association
possessed of religious life. But it is not merely a
human association, it is more: it is a creation of God,
a work of the Holy Ghost.
The birth-day of the Church was the day of Pente-
cost, the festival of the Holy Ghost. The Book of
Acts relates the foundation of the Church by relating
the sending of the Holy Ghost into the hearts of the
disciples. You are all acquainted with the narrative
(chap. ii.). The Holy Ghost—for this is the meaning
of the account—inwardly renewed the hearts of the
apostles, and bestowed upon them all needful gifts for
the ministry of the Word, thus becoming the power of
their new life, and the inward bond of their associa-
tion. Thus did the Church originate—as a creation
of God, as a work of His Spirit. What, then, do we
Jearn from this? That it is not external ferms and
customs, but the Holy Ghost that makes the Church
really the Church. He is the soul that fills and ani-
mates her, and combines all her individual members
into the unity of one body.
208 Lecture VII. The Church.
Externally viewed, indeed, the Church consists of
ke
weak and sinful men. But that which appears is not
the essential nature of the Church. Her nature is
spiritual. The first Church consisted of fishermen and
publicans, and its first increase was chiefly from the
lower classes; ‘Not many wise, not many mighty, —
says the apostle (1 Cor. i. 26). (°) And yet how soon ~
did this poor and despised band, with their foolishness
of preaching, conquer the world! We have here a
contradiction between means and end similar to what —
we saw in Jesus Christ, whose home was the despised
town of Nazareth, yet whose inheritance was the
whole world. But that which the eye can see is not
the essence of the matter. We believe in Jesus Christ,
i.e. we do not stop at the visible, but seize on the
invisible ; we mentally grasp His hidden nature, and ~
behold therein what He truly is. We believe in one
Holy Catholic Church, i.e, we do not esteem that
which our eyes behold, but that which she’ secretly
is, to be her very nature.(“) Now, the essential in-
eredient of her nature, which makes the Church truly
the Church, is the possession of the Holy Ghost. It
was He who made the disciples certain and joyful in
their faith; made them the one flock of’ Jesus Christ,
the members of which are united by faith and love to
their Head in heaven, and to each other on earth.
It has become one of the requirements of human
nature to see in every man a brother. But the notion
of brotherhood is not enough without the fact. This
want has at all times produced associations extending
:
Nature of the Church. 209
beyond the boundaries of civil and political communi-
ties. The Pythagorean circle of friendship, the socie-
ties gathered around. the sacred mysteries in the old
world, and the similar companies of various kinds
which have been formed, all express that craving for
association which draws men together. We may well
see in them presentient anticipations of the all-embrac-
ing association of the Church. Is not Buddhism, with
its great fundamental idea that we are to see and
acknowledge in another, not a member of some par-
ticular rank, but a man as such—is not this, the only
ancient religion of the East which made attempts to
diffuse itself, a shadow, though a distorted one, of what
the Church not only desires but effects. (?°) And even
the systems and forms of Socialism, which the present
age has brought forth, even these ‘caricatures of what
is holy,’ are a testimony to this want. The mere idea
of human brotherhood is not enough, the fact is re-
quired. Men’s repeated attempts to institute it are
predictions of its realisation. The Church is this fact.
In her all men are equal, for she views all with respect
to God. Here it is that all distinctions cease. Let
the Church be banished from the world, and it would
be again plunged into those national animosities which
Christianity found in existence, but which she over-
came by means of that great organisation of fraternity
and equality which we call the Church.("°) The
Church is the great institution of unanimity. As we
travel about in the world, we meet with nothing but
mere diversity. What is law in one place, has no
)
210 Lecture VII. The Church.
authority in another; and what 1s here esteemed truth,
is there rejected as error. Space separates minds, and
opinions vary with distances. The zones of the earth
are also walls of partition in the sphere of intellect,
and with change of times comes change of ideas. (7)
It is the Church which joins the differing minds of all
zones and ages in one thought, and unites them all in
one truth. Let her disappear from the earth, and that
bond of mental union, which nothing else can replace,
is destroyed. It is true that she also belongs to his-
tory, and is subject to change; but underlying all
change, is that secret unity of the One Spirit which —
fills all, of the one truth which all advocate, and
which, after periods of declension and decay, ever
renews its youth.¢@*) Herein consists her intrinsic
unity, in the midst of every change of outward form. —
Wherever there are Christians, wherever there are
members of the Church, they have a wide realm of
thoughts and views in common, and meet each other
in a world of similar feelings and emotions. Thus the
Church is that bond of unanimity among mankind,
which keeps the world together, as the soul does the
members of the body.
If the fate of the world be contemplated merely from ;
the point of view afforded by the interests of civilisa-
tion, it must be confessed that the Church, even by —
this organisation of unanimity among mankind, is an 1n-
finite blessing and an indispensable necessity to our race.
But this office of the Church depends upon its _
religious office. This unanimity is the result of unity
—_—
©
Nature of the Church. 211
of faith. If she ceased to effect this, she would no
longer be able to bring about the former. Many as are
the changes which the Church has experienced in the
course of time, in the age of the apostles and the
period of the catacombs, as well as in the days of her
worldly power or in the period of Protestantism—her
faith has ever remained essentially the same, and her
worship ever similar. Her faith is belief in the Triune
God. From the time of her foundation to our own
days, all Christians, however they may be designated,
however their opinions on other matters may differ, if
called upon to confess their faith, would exclaim with
one mouth and in one sense; ‘I believe in God, the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. All Christians glory
in the grace of God ; all acknowledge the Saviour Jesus
Christ ; all honour the Crucified, His name is the
central point of the Church’s worship, His praise the
soul of her devotion. Her hymns celebrate Him, her
very stones speak of Him. Much as Christians and
churches may dispute and quarrel with each other,
this essential unity of faith still underlies all their
contention ; and there is one place where all Chris-
tians find themselves to be of one mind, and that is
the Cross. Herein consists the unanimity of the Church.
The Church, however, is not merely that hidden
community of souls—that aggregate of the children of
God in all times and places—which we call the invisi-
ble church, The Church has also a special office in
the world—the office of calling and gathering; and
must, in order to fulfil it, come forth visibly and pro-
912 Lecture VII. The Church.
minently.” ‘Ye shall be my witnesses, was the charge ©
with which the Lord of the Church sent forth His dis-
ciples into the world to call the nations to Him, and ~
to gather them into His flock. The Church is to be
the herald of salvation, the messenger of truth, the
instructor of the nations. The grace and truth which
came by Jesus Christ and found its earthly home in
the Church, is to be on her lips, to be the confession —
of her mouth, the preaching of her ministers, her means
of leading the nations into the path of salvation. In
proportion then as she understands and fulfils this
office, is the Church on earth separated into the several
Churches.
Allow me to speak to you of that great contrast in
the Church, which we are accustomed to designate by
the name of Catholicism and Protestantism. |
That diversities should prevail in the Church, 1s not
contrary to, but in conformity with, her nature.
Unity, but not uniformity, is one of her essential
characteristics. The preaching of the Gospel on the
day of Pentecost in the various languages, by the
apostles, signified that the Church was to become the
Church. of the nations, to speak to each nation in its
own language, and to enter into its special tempera’
ment, The Church was to take one form among thi
people of the South, and another among the nations 0
the North; one form in the East, the world of con
stancy, another in the West, the leader of progress
But these are only diversities, not contrasts; this J
only the multiplicity of unity, not separation. Separe
Catholicism and Protestantism. 213
tion in the Church through diversity of faith and con-
fession takes place, not on natural, but on moral
grounds. It is the different measure of obedience to
the Word of God which has called forth these contrasts.
The difference between North and South, between
the German and Roman nations, is insufficient to ex-
plain the difference between the Romish and Protestant
Churches. It might account for variations in the form
and colour of Christianity, and in its ecclesiastical
appearance, but not for diversities of faith. The South
produced the unpictorial worship of the Reformed, as
well as the pictorial worship of the Romish Church.
And when Italy fell away from the Pope, he ever
found faithful adherents in Germany. The difference
between Romish and Protestant Christianity is of a
deeper nature than can be accounted for by national
diversity.
Wherein, then, does it consist 2
The difference consists in opposite mental tenden-
cies; and these, again, have their roots in opposite
views of religion. |
The opposite mental tendencies are sometimes desig-
nated as authority and liberty.() Catholicism repre-
‘sents authority ; Protestantism represents liberty. The
former advocates legitimacy; the latter, the rights of
historical progress, The former, says Protestant con-
troversy, is stagnation; the latter, says Romish contro-
versy, is the spirit of revolution, though revolution has
ever had her seat in Romish lands.
Rome represents authority, we represent the principle
214 Lecture VII, The Church.
of liberty and criticism; and history is fulfilling her
ends by the co-operation of these two great powers of
all historical movement. But authority makes its
power felt among us also. The masses always follow
authority; and how much do all of us accept upon
authority! The greatest part of what is believed is_
believed because others have believed it. Certainly, we
do demand the right of criticism; and it may be true
that it is, as has been said, a Protestant spirit which is
going through the world ; the spirit of criticism having
obtained the preponderance in the present time. But
one cannot live upon criticism. It is truth which is
the food of the mind; and the duty of criticism is to
establish truth, But truth lays claim to authority.
We do not, then, reject authority : we require only the
authority of truth. The highest of all authority is
due to Divine truth; and this it is which Pro-
testantism confesses. Protestantism is not merely a
~ method, but substance. Its substance is Divine truth;
;
and this truth is the grace of God in Christ Jesus..
Herein lies that distinction which we are seeking.
But Catholicism and Protestantism are not merely
general mental tendencies. They are this; but beyond
this they are religious powers, differing conceptions of
Christianity,
What then, first, is the system of Catholicism ? 1
will endeavour to represent it with all the objectivity
I can. (7) Its train of thought is as follows :—
Man’s supreme want is truth. I must have cer
tainty about truth. In the strife of opinions I am :
Catholicism and Protestantism. 215
prey to comfortless uncertainty as to what may be
truth and what may be error, if truth cannot be made
certain to me. How is it to be certain to me? One
Says one thing; another, another. Where shall I
get information that I may rely on? The Church is
the possessor of truth. I must hear the Church; she
must know what is truth, When Christ. was pleased
to bring truth into the world, He was at the same
time pleased to found a Church to possess and impart
the truth, and to guarantee it to individuals, If, then,
she is to guarantee the truth to me, she must be so
constituted as to be able to do this. If I am to ask
and to hear the Church, I must be able to ask and to
hear her. I must know where the Church is; I must
find her ; I must see and hear her; I must be able to
learn with unequivocal certainty what her answer is,
Hence the Church cannot be something invisible,
which can neither be laid hold of nor comprehended ;
it must be a visible and tangible institution, which
can speak to me, which I can hear; it must have its
accredited organs, to whom I can apply, and who can
speak to me; it must be an organism having members ;
it must be a hierarchy; it must have a judicial
tribunal, to decide on doubtful or contested points ; it
must have a supreme head, a voice whose utterance is
decisive. Now, if I am to be certain that what the
Church says is truth, it must be infallible, must have
within it the Spirit of Truth ; must be enlightened by
Him, inspired by Him. The Holy Ghost is infallible,
He also makes the Church infallible. If it were not
216 Lecture II. The Church.
so, I should be ever wandering upon a sea of comfort- —
less uncertainty. The Church is not inspired and in-
fallible in all her members. She must be so only in ©
her organs, in her supreme tribunal. The mouth of ©
the Church must speak truth, What the Church
says through her supreme representation, the Holy ~
Ghost says. If, then, I want to know what is truth, —
I only need to know what. the Church authorises. If —
an ecclesiastical council is legitimately convoked, —
has legitimately come to its decisions ; if its decisions
are confirmed by the supreme head, the Pope; if the
Pope has decided with Papal plenipotence,—the
decision is truth, and is spoken by the Holy Spirit.
No subjective criticism avails here, but obedience
alone. A Christian’s first duty is obedience to the
Church ; his greatest sin, disobedience to the Church’s —
authority. The root of all sin, and the chief sin, is
to want to know anything better than the Church
does. The individual has no rights apart from the
Church—no right of private judgment, of private
conscience. There is no Christian independence
apart from the Church—no independent conviction |
of truth, no independent assurance of a state of
grace, no independent appeal to Scripture ; but every
Christian, as regards his faith, his spiritual life, his
assurance, and his understanding of Scripture, is ever
dependent upon the Church—the Church of the Bishop
of Rome.
Such is the system of Catholicism ; and we cannot
but confess that it is both logical and consistent, |
Catholicism. 217
Many have been caught by the snare of its logic; and
as for the reality of this system itself,—the Church
of Rome,—who can deny that it is the most magni-
ficent edifice which the human mind has ever erected ?
Its superstructure, based upon the broadest founda-
tions, rises, by the gradations of episcopacy, up to
its supreme head, the Bishop of Rome, the servant
of the servants of God, the vicegerent of Jesus
Christ, the vice-God, the sub-God, as he has been
called. (**)
Rome has from of old been accustomed to govern
the nations (Zw regere imperio populos Romane
memento). (”) It is true that only the ruins of her
Forum and imperial palaces now speak to us of her
ancient greatness, but her universal sway has revived
under a Christian garb. The Romish Church has
taken the place of the Roman empire; she has in-
herited from old Rome both her administrative talent
and imperial destiny, and has added spiritual to
secular means of sovereignty. The circle of her sway
embraces not only the nations; she governs also the
relations of life, and the consciences of mankind.
She has undergone many transformations and ex-
perienced many changes, but her pretensions have ever
been the same. Formerly, the Bishop of Rome
asserted that he bore in his hands two swords, the
secular as well as the spiritual, and that the empire
and all secular dominion was only held in fief of
himself. (*) It is true that he no longer appoints
and deposes princes, that the treaty of Westphalia,
218 Lecture IT. The Church. |
and the new order of states endure, despite his
protests, and that even his excommunication seems to-
have lost its effect ; but his pretensions are still the
same that they were of old; for not a stone may be
taken out of the. firmly compacted edifice, and his
spiritual authority has for a long time suffered no-
diminution. There was a time when it seemed un-
decided who was to have the supreme power—the |
Pope, or a general council; and the great councils of
the Middle Ages claimed the most extensive powers.
(**) But consistency of principle has resulted in the
ascription of supreme authority to the Pope; and he
has already begun to lay down new dogmas without
the assent of a council. (””) The Pope, as the sole
depository of supreme ecclesiastical power, is the top-
stone of the whole system. “It was reserved for Pius
IX. to add this top-stone to the structure. The new
dogma of Papal Infallibility is but the final and
legitimate result of the principle. (°°)
We admit the logic and consistency of this system,
but as for truth, we deny that it possesses it.
It is not my business here to enter into controver-
sial matters ; but merely to bring before you the charac-
teristics of the system. I therefore content myself
with giving, in few words, our reasons for rejecting
these assumptions. The Romish system is condemned
by a threefold contradiction. It is contradicted by
fact, by history, and by the very nature of the matter
in question.
When the Romish Church says that she is the sole
Cuoneenn (i 919
Church, we oppose to this statement the fact that,
beyond the limits of her sway, the Holy Ghost carries
on His work, and Christians have a locality; and
that, hence, the Church of Jesus Christ is not con-
fined within her boundaries.
When the Romish Church asserts that she is inspired
in her organs, especially in her supreme organ, the
bishop of Rome, and that what he says and assumes
is infallible, we oppose to this the fact that councils
and popes have erred, from the days of the heretical
pope Liberius, who condemned Athanasius “the soul
of orthodoxy,” and from Honorius who was found guilty
of heresy by an acknowledged cecumenical council, and
by his own successors in the papal see, (*’) down to the
times of the great schism, when one pope excommuni-
cated another pope and his adherents until the whole
of Western Christendom was excommunicated, and the
emperor and council had to take the matter in hand,
and down to Pius IX. and his dogma of the Immacu-
late Conception, a dogma opposed not only by Scripture
but also by tradition. (?°)
And, finally, when the Romish Church says that
the first thing is to be certain of the place where truth
is to be sought and found, that we may thus be certain
of the truth itself, we answer, that God would not
have made the knowledge and certainty of the truth
so slight a matter, that nothing more should be need-
ful than to apply to the right address and to get sup-
plied with the article. Certainty about truth is not
a question of law, but a question of conscience; it is
220 Lecture VII. The Church.
not outwardly but inwardly that I must have assur-
ance of it. Truth is not proved by its place, but by
itself. I do not believe in Christ because I believe in
=
the Church, but I believe in the Church because I~
believe in Christ. Certainty about truth is a work of
the Holy Ghost, which is not carried on in the way of ©
a juristic logic, but by His answers to the inquiries of
the conscience concerning the soul’s salvation,
It was from such inquiries that the Reformation
arose ; it is in such inquiries that Protestantism is
rooted. It was the felt need of salvation, the inquiry
after assurance of salvation, which was the soul of
Luther’s life and work, the power of his influence
upon minds, the strength of early Protestantism, and
which will ever be the secret of its power. They who
would bave a Protestantism founded on aught else, —
annihilate its truth and destroy its future.
The word Protestantism has at all times been much
misused. (””) Protestantism is not a mere negation.
Truly it is a negation—the negation of falsehood set-
ting itself up for Divine truth—the negation of human
authority usurping the place of Divine; yet this nega-
tion rests upon an affirmation which is its premise,
viz., the supreme authority of the Word of God and
His truth, in matters of faith and salvation. Protes-
tantism is not merely a constant struggle, search, and
inquiry. It is true that it arose from inquiry, and
that inquiry and research belong to its nature. For
truth is infinite, and no one possesses it who is not con-
stantly acquiring it. Truth is not dead capital which a
Catholicism. pM |
man may lay up in a napkin, but a living possession
and a living blessing. Protestantism, moreover, is not
merely a search after truth, but its possession. It is
not merely an inquiry after salvation; it is also the
answer to this inquiry. For it is not merely a school,
but a church ; not merely a society of investigators or
doubters, but of believers. And the answer to that
great inquiry of the conscience concerning the soul’s
salvation, from which Protestantism and the Protestant
Church were born, is that saying of the apostle:
‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved’ (Acts xvi. 31). It was the experience of
Luther, that neither works of penitence, nor obedience
to the Church, nor anything else, but only faith in
Christ Jesus, who has atoned for and expiated our
guilt, and reconciled us to God, can take away sin and
give peace to the conscience and assurance of salvation
to the soul. It is faith in Christ Jesus as our Saviour
and Reconciler, and assurance of the mercy of God and
the forgiveness of sins, even our own sins, which alone
make Christians really such. This faith is not a mere
fiction of the mind, but an act of the will; it is not a
mere effort of the understanding, but a communion of
the heart with Jesus Christ.
And it is this which, according to Protestant teach-
ing, constitutes the nature of the Church. The Church
is not merely an external institution. As it appears
to us, indeed, it is an external institution, with
appointed ordinances and customs, and an external
government. But these do not constitute the Church’s
papa Lecture VII. The Church. ©
essence, they only belong to her earthly manifestation.
All these do but subserve her proper nature. Accord- —
ing to her inward and spiritual nature she is the |
people of God upon earth, the communion of believers,
the assembly of all God’s children below. (°”)
Wherever there are believers, let them be called by ©
what names they may, there is the Holy Catholic .
Church of Christ. And though our eyes may see little ~
or nothing of them, yet by faith we know that in all
places Jesus Christ has a people who are spiritually —
united to Him by faith and love, and who form one
great union of souls with each other, This vast, wide,
ample communion of all believers is no pleasant dream,
but a reality, the highest reality. For while all else
is subject to death, and will fade and pass away, this
invisible community, this hidden Church, will abide ©
for ever. It forms the germ of all the several visible
churches. Through it the several churches are truly
the Church. But it assumes a different appearance |
in different churches, an appearance brighter or more
obscure in proportion as the signs and forms by which
the invisible Church becomes visible and comprehensi- —
ble, viz., the preaching of the Word and the Sacra- _
ments, are preserved and administered in more or less
purity, v.é.,1m more or less conformity to Holy Scrip-
ture, as the sole rule and model of the Church’s
doctrine and practice. .
For this is the visible side which does belong to the —
nature of the Church. The Church is. by her own
nature not merely invisible, she has also a visibility
Protestantism. 293
which is essential to her. Romanists reproach us with
teaching, only an invisible Church, which is everywhere
and nowhere. But this is a misconception, whether
entertained by Romanists, or here and there by some
among ourselves. According to evangelical doctrine,
the Church is indeed, first of all, ‘the fellowship of
faith and of the Holy Ghost in the heart,’ as our con-
fession expresses it. But faith requires outward means
by which it is produced and maintained, and the Holy
Spirit carries on His work in the heart only by such
means, hence called means of grace. As all human
intercourse of mind with mind, and all influence of
one human spirit upon another must be brought about
by external means, and chiefly by words, in which
mind attains its suitable and sensible form, so also does
the operation of the Holy Spirit require—so long as
we are in the flesh—external and sensible organs and
means by which to approach our souls.
These means, by which the Holy Spirit works, are
the Word and Sacraments. Hence, it is just because
the Church is a work of the Holy Ghost upon earth,
that these belong to her proper nature. The nature
of the Church cannot be fully described unless these
‘Ineans of grace,’ the word and sacrament by which
the Church becomes external and visible, are included
in the description. Eternal grace has deposited its
heavenly treasure in these earthen and sensible vessels,
and so filled them therewith that they everywhere and
always convey and dispense it. They are, however,
given to the Church, not that she may quietly possess,
224 Lecture VII. The Church.
but that she may use and administer them. For this
purpose the Church must have a ministry, commissioned
by herself to administer them—the ministry of the
means of grace, As far as the word is preached, as”
far as Baptism is administered, and the Lord’s Supper
participated, so far does the action of the Church of
Christ extend; and in such action, and in the means
of such action, the Church herself—born as she is of the
Spirit of Jesus Christ—appears an object of the senses
external, visible, and comprehensible. To this Church,
this dispenser of the means of grace, let us cleave, and
not rest satisfied with the inward and spiritual union
in which we individually stand with our Lord and
Saviour. For we are called to association and not to
isolation, and even our personal Christianity is depen-
dent upon that Christian association which we call the —
Church, and those means of grace which the Church
dispenses. Only in fellowship with the Church can
our religious life maintain its health and vigour.
Hence the Church has by its very nature two
aspects, an invisible and a visible, an internal and an
external. It is an association of believers, and it 18_
an institution for the dispensation of the means of
grace. With this second aspect is combined that ex-
ternal order of government, worship, and customs —
postulated by the Church’s earthly existence, and deter-
mined by her historical relations. This external order —
is also necessary to the Church. No Church on earth —
can exist without prescribing to itself some definite,
though it may be more or less elaborated order. This,
Protestantism. 295
however, is not necessary in the same sense that it is
necessary to the Church to be the society of believers,
and the institution of the means of grace. For the
latter is necessary to her heavenly, the former, only to
her earthly office. Faith and the means of grace
are necessary to salvation; external order and consti-
tution are only necessary because everything on earth
must be ordered and every society managed in some
way. ‘This then belongs not to the Church’s nature,
but only to her existence as a fact in the world.
Hence this actual earthly existence of the Church has
no share in the eternal constancy which belongs to the
Church’s proper nature, but, having only a historical
and temporal origin, is subject to the laws of time and
history. It is in the intrinsic nature of the Church
that the eternal kingdom of God has its home; the
temporal form of the Church on the contrary is but the
external covering in which the treasure of the kingdom
of God is deposited. We can find and comprehend
the Church herself only in this her protective covering.
Nevertheless, it is the Church herself and not her
~covering which we ought to grasp, and which we are
concerned to find. It may well be that the Church is
existing in a poor and destitute condition, but she is a
queen upon earth, even though clothed in the garments
of a beggar.
In this sense then must we distinguish between
church and church, between the church according to
her proper nature and the church according to her
external earthly form; between the church in so far
P
226 Lecture VII. The Church.
as she is the company of believers and the institution —
of the means of grace, and the church so far as she is,
like the state, a legally ordered, external corporation,
between the church in a religious, and the church in
a juridical sense. We must also constantly bear in
mind, that here on earth these two aspects do not
fully correspond, but that a certain amount of contra-
diction ever exists between them. For the nature of
the church never attains a perfectly adequate expres-
sion in her earthly form, which is always subject to
weakness and imperfection. Hence there is no lack
of occasion for taking offence at the church. They
who look no farther than to the external appearance
presented by the church, will perceive abundance of
faults, weaknesses and deficiencies, which may make
them misconceive her, and even alienate them from
her. They only who concern themselves about the
church herself, will be capable of disregarding all the.
offences and contradictions presented by the external
appearance of the church, and of feeling a happy cer-
_ tainty of her heavenly nature. And blessed are they
who are not offended at her.
We may well say: it is with the church as with ©
her Lord Himself. What faith saw and found in ©
Him was the Son of God and the revelation of eternal
life. This heavenly mystery was disclosed to men _
and imparted to them by the word of His mouth,
which proclaimed grace and truth and sank into the
heart ; also in the miracles in which His word attained:
a sensible form, and in which the blessing of that word
.
|
Internal and External Aspects of the Church. 227
was variously manifested and appropriated to indivi-
duals. But all this was deposited in the Son of Man
who bore the form of a servant, and was subject, to the
wants and weaknesses of human nature as we ourselves
are. They who looked only at what was evident to
the eye might well be offended in Him. For in
His outward appearance but little of the Eternal Son
of God and of the manifestation of that life which pro-
ceedeth from God was to be seen. On the contrary,
all that struck the senses was rather opposed, than
agreeable to such a claim. If the contradictions
and hindrances placed in the way by His external
appearance were to be surmounted, it was necessary
that the effects of His hidden nature should be felt,
and that faith in Himself should be kindled in the
heart by His word. And so too is it with the church.
The church is the place of communion with God, the
kingdom of grace, and the institution of salvation
through the preaching of the word and the adminis-
tration of the sacraments. But all this is deposited in
the earthen vessel which bears the form of a servant.
It was not till Jesus was glorified, and His human body
also received into the heavenly glory, that the contra-
diction which had till then existed between His intrin-
sic nature and His outward condition was dissolved, or
reconciled. And so too does the church await a future
in which she will exchange that form of a servant
which she now wears, for a glory corresponding to her
inner nature. Not till then will she appear as what
she really is.
pA Y Lecture VII. The Church.
Now the Romish church already sees the kingdom
of God in the church as at present existing, and in
her external reality. In her eyes the visible church
on earth, her external order and government are no
mere temporal and historical necessity of only transi-
tory importance, and subject, like all that is historical,
to change. On the contrary, she regards these as so
essential to the manifestation of the church, that she
can conceive of the church in no, other form than that
which she has actually attained and now bears, in the
Romish communion. Hence church government is
with her a matter of dogma, #.e., an article of essential
doctrine, and therefore an object of faith. The exter-
nal organism of the church is in her eyes the church
itself, and therefore so filled and inspired by the Holy :
Ghost as to be exempt from all error, and endowed
with infallibity, whatever may be the personal relation
of the representatives and heads of the hierarchical
organism to the Holy Spirit and to Christ. The
church is not first of all, as with us, the congregation
of believers united by faith, and the Holy Ghost
to Christ their head, and in heart, to one another.
On the contrary, the church is, in the first place,
an external institution, and an external common-
wealth, as visible and palpable as any national com-_
monwealth. That which we can, and must only
BELIEVE, is thought to be already here in visible
reality. The earthly and visible is, without farther
change, the manifestation of the heavenly and fu-
ture. The view held concerning the church is always
Difference of the Churches. 229
related to that held concerning the person of Jesus
Christ. For the church is the image of Jesus Christ.
Now there has ever been a touch of Docetism, 7.¢. a
tendency to merge the human and natural in the super-
natural, in the view entertained by the Church of Rome
concerning the person of Christ. This is the peculiarity
of the apocryphal, asdistinguished from the canonical gos-
pels. They make the child Jesus already perform miracles,
and miracles of the strangest kind. They know of no |
development, but only of the appearance of the hea-
venly through the transparent and vanishing cover of
the natural. Now, the Romish notion of the Church
corresponds to this. The supernatural reality of the
Church is everywhere perfectly manifested and fully
expressed in the earthly form. The latter is but the
transparent covering of the heavenly. The: invisible
is absolutely visible, and the future already present,
so that it may be said, the Romish Church is the
Church erroneously regarded as fully manifested in
this world.
In contrast thereto the Reformed Church is the
Church, as one-sidedly relegated to the next world.
If by the former the Church is regarded as essentially
the visible Church, the latter views it as essentially
the invisible Church. The visible is not the appear-
ance of the invisible, nor the means by which we are
to participate therein, but only a sign directing us to
something beyond itself in the sphere of the invisible.
The Reformed Church connects the salvation of the
individual with the will of God in the other world.
230 Lecture VII. The Church.
. The threads of individual fate are directly connected
with the absolute will of God. God has no need of
any earthly intervention, nor is the earthly capable of
becoming the means, properly so-called, of the Divine
operation. For God and the world, Creator and crea-
ture, the Infinite and the finite, stand in too great
contrast to each other, to allow the earthly really to
include the heavenly, and to become its depositary.
Even in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine far
overtowered the limits of the human, and was not
restricted to the latter. And thus is it also in
Church transactions. The Church, properly so-called,
is the absolutely invisible Church ; the visible Church
is not the reality of the Church. She is, and in truth
continues, the Church of the world to come, not find-
ing in the Church of this world even her present form,
but merely a sign of her future reality, as we hope to:
see it. This is the case also with Church transactions.
In the means of grace, in the sacraments, the earthly
and visible is not the bearer and medium of the
heavenly gift and operation of grace, but only a sign
and pledge thereof. As for grace itself, its gift and
operation, we obtain this only when by faith we soar
above all that is earthly and visible, and grasp the
grace of God in the sphere of the invisible. To this
inward elevation of the spirit, the earthly sign can be
only:a help and incentive, nor is it designed to be
anything more. ‘The gift of God itself continues to
be the gift of the world beyond.
The Lutheran Church teaches the union of this |
Difference of the Churches. 231
present world-with the other world. It is the Church
of the intercourse of both worlds. In its view of Jesus
Christ, the human and natural is neither swallowed
up in the Divine, nor even overtowered, and therefore
really forsaken, but pervaded and filled thereby: the
one is in the other, where the one is, there is the other
also, and the earthly is the bearer of the heavenly.
Such is the doctrine of St John’s Gospel: ‘The word
became flesh.’ In the flesh of Jesus Christ, the eter-
nal life was locked up; in the man Jesus was the
Presence of God—the life was manifested (1 John i. 2).
With this corresponds the notion of the Church. She
is neither merely of this world, nor merely of the next
world ; neither only visible, nor only invisible, but both
visible and invisible. For her invisible and spirit-born
nature has a visibility in this world, in the Word and
sacraments : these are the outward appearance of the
true Church. In them, in these means of grace, are
the spiritual treasures of the Church deposited—here
are they audibly, palpably present. So, too, is it with
the life of Christians. We are already what we are
becoming, and still we are as yet only becoming what
we really are. We are becoming it, moreover, be-
cause the new and heavenly life of the Spirit is filling
and pervading the natural life with its presence. For
we must neither absolutely deny to the sphere of
natural life its due claims, nor must the spiritual life
advance in paths of its own wholly outside of the
earthly ; but both must be combined into a unity.
The whole sphere of the natural, together with all the
232 Lecture VIT. The Church.
productions of the intellectual life, has its due inde-
pendence, and is not, as Rome teaches, held in fief of
the Church, for it is a work of God the Creator. Its
office, however, is to be the bearer of revelation, and
the medium of the saving work of the Redeemer.
He inlays those natural gifts which the Father pro-
vides with His gift of grace, and we are to inlay our
natural life with that new life which the Son has given
us. The former takes place in the’ sacraments, the
latter in the sacrifice of our life.. This is the way to -
future glory. Then will the heavenly and earthly,
the spiritual and the sensible, have fully permeated
each other. And the path towards this goal is laid
down by the gift of the Lord and the duties of life. (*")
It is not in individual doctrines merely that the
Churches differ, but in the different impression each
has received from a totally different instinct. As long
as this difference exists, all external union is in vain,
and only an occasion of strife and discord. Great and
universal facts of history, like the separation of the
Church, do not rest on mere misunderstandings, and
cannot be done away with by mere good resolutions.
Truly this is pain and grief to us. But the pain and
grief must be borne with patience, and the union
which we hope for sought by prayer. Even this sepa-
ration must subserve the purposes of God. For, much
as our hearts may be grieved by the fact that the one
Church of Jesus Christ is rent into separate Churches,
we yet know that each Church has its special gift
wherewith to labour in the work of extending the ©
Difference of the Churches. 233
kingdom of God, and that each is to minister to the
other with the gift it has received. And wherever we
meet a Christian, whether beneath the sway of Rome,
or among the disciples of Calvin, there we know that
we greet a child of God, a brother in Christ, and an
heir of salvation. Let us rejoice in that unity of faith
and spirit which exists in spite of all differences, until
it shall please the Lord to bring us to perfect com-
munion of mind and harmony of thought. Tull then,
we must walk in the path which God sets before us,
following that light which illumines it. This light
to our path is Holy Scripture, to which my next
lecture will call your attention.
LECTURE VIII.
HOLY SCRIPTURE.
pest HE Christian Church has never been without
"4 (ey, Holy Scripture. Before the New Testa-
iativens) ment was written and collected, she pos-
shea die Old Testament, and reverenced it as the
Word of God.
Our Lord himself often appealed to it. (4) He quoted
passages from almost every book of the Old Testament.
He used the Old Testament Scriptures as a weapon
against temptation, as’'a means of instruction for the
people and His disciples. He used them, moreover,
to express His own inmost feelings in the very mo-
ments when His heart was most deeply moved. It
is evident that Scripture was the atmosphere in which
He lived and moved, the sanctuary in which His soul
ever dwelt.
His disciples, too, took up the same position with
respect to the Old Testament Scriptures as their Master
had done, They had known them from their youth ;
for Jewish boys were early instructed in the Scriptures,
‘From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures,’
writes St Paul to Timothy (2 Tim. iii. 15). For he had »
a Jewish mother, who had early initiated him in the ©
Origin of the New Testament. 2355.5
‘sacred writings. And the Jewish historian Josephus
tells us of the high respect in which Scripture was
held by the Jews. Every one, he assures us, would
be ready to lay down his life for the Scriptures; for
to revere them as the Holy Word of God seemed, as it
were, innate.(*) To the disciples of Christ they had,
besides, a special importance, as the prophetic testi-
mony to Jesus Christ. ‘They are they which testify
of Me,’ had they heard their Master say (John v. 39) ;
and such had they themselves found them to be. The
risen Saviour, we are told (Luke xxiv. 27-45), ex-
pounded to them the Scripture, to show them that,
from first to last, He was its aim and object. Thus
the Old Testament, supported by the authority of
Christ and His apostles, was transferred to the Chris-
tian Church.
To this, in the course of time, was added the New
Testament. Jesus left no writings ; for He was sent
to proclaim grace and truth by the word of His mouth,
and to redeem us by His death and resurrection, He
was not to be the author but the subject of Holy
Scripture. It was to treat of Him, not to be written
by Him. His apostles, too, were sent by their Lord,
‘not in the first place to write, but to preach the
Gospel: ‘Go and teach all nations’ (Matt. xxvii. 19)%
‘Preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mark xvi. 15),
The Word is the chief matter in Christianity; and
the first form of the Word is oral teaching. It is by
this that soul speaks directly to soul, mind to mind.
236 Lecture VIII. Holy Scripture.
The written Word is an expedient to supply the lack
of it, but a necessary one.
How did the composition of the New Testament
Scriptures take place ?
Christian instruction began with the narration of
the Gospel history. But it is the nature of history to
be recorded. Such records of that Sacred History
soon arose, and, among them, our four Gospels were
distinguished as the most genuine. When St Matthew,
as we are informed, after having for many years
preached the Gospel in Palestine, was about to visit
other countries, he desired to leave in the hands of
the Christians dwelling in Judea, a written compen-
dium of his evangelical preaching, that they might be
able to defend themselves against Jewish attacks. The
Gospel preaching of St Peter in heathen lands was
collected by his companion St Mark; and in order
that Christians among the heathen, who desired more
exact information, might no longer be forced to con-
tent themselves with fragmentary and less trustworthy
records, Luke wrote his great historical work—the
Gospel, and Acts of the Apostles. St John, moreover,
before the close of his life, was prevailed upon by the
elders of the Church of Ephesus to commit to writing,
in the Gospel which bears his name and concludes the
series, those reminiscences of the life of Jesus Christ
which he had frequently delivered to his Ephesian
flock. Such was the origin of the four Gospels, and
the Acts of the Apostles. (°)
The Epistles were occasioned by the special diffi-
Collection of the New Testament. 237
culties, dangers, or necessities of the churches or
individuals to whom they were addressed. When
any church received an apostolic epistle, 1t was not
regarded as private property, but communicated to
the neighbouring churches, The close of the Epistle
to the Colossians (chap. iv, 16), shows how St Paul
himself provided for such mutual communication of
his Epistles. Hence, copies of the several Epistles
arose, and a collection was gradually formed. lt was
a matter of rejoicing to possess such a compensation
for the preaching of their absent teachers, and the
Epistles were frequently read for the edification of
the assembled Church. The last sacred writing, the
Revelation of St John, was written for the instruction
and consolation of the Church during that period of
sore trial which was approaching, and during which
there would be no apostle to exhort and comfort her.
Thus the New Testament Scriptures were designed
both to support, and to compensate for the want of
the oral teaching of the apostles, and to invest it,. as
it were, with an abiding presence and influence in the
Christian Church.
The separate sacred writings were early collected
and combined into a whole. A _ collection of our
Gospels had already taken place at the close of the
first and beginning of the second century.(*) From
the conclusion of the Second Epistle of St Peter
(2 Pet. iii, 16), it is evident that there was, when it
was written, already a collection—even if an incom-
plete one—of the Pauline Epistles; and, according to
238 Lecture VIII. Holy Scripture.
indisputable testimony, the New Testament itself, as
we now have it, existed with the exception of a few
books concerning whose canonicity universal convic-
tion has not yet been attained, towards the end of
the second century, in both the Eastern and Western
Churches. (°) Christians were persuaded that in these
writings the Holy Ghost had spoken with as much
purity and power as in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Thus this New Testament collection was added to the
Old, which had been received by means of Israel, and
the whole regarded as the one Holy Bible, the one
Word of God.
It is true that at that period oral tradition was still
ample and clear. Certain disciples of the apostles, or
at least disciples of the former, were still living. In
the Churches founded or instructed by the apostles,
the remembrance of these great teachers was still vivid.
If any one, then, desired to become acquainted with
the Christian faith, he had but to resort to the locali-
ties and holders of primitive tradition. The greatest
teachers of the West, a Tertullian and an Irenzus,
could, in opposing the heretical teachers who distorted
the Word of God according to their own fancies, appeal
to this genuine tradition, and thus put an end to all
further dissension concerning the true meaning of
Scripture. But, together with this primitive tradition
of the then proximate times of the apostles, there
co-existed the apostolic teaching deposited in writings,
which, while they bore incontestable testimony to their
doctrine, were also regarded as of Divine authority,
Regard paid to Scripture by the Church 239
and as the work of the Holy Spirit. »
li. 141, p. 145: ‘Lincarnation montre a VPhomme la
grandeur de sa misére par la grandeur du reméde quil a
Jallu,
(°) This thought, viz., that the Christian faith is certainty,
and does not deal merely in opinions and probabilities, is
very forcibly stated by Luther at the beginning of a treatise
on necessity of the year J525 (de servo arbitrio) against
Erasmus: for here, says he, we are concerned about truths
which are certain, because of the Word of God; hence
Christian faith has nothing to do with scepticism, &e., but
stands or falls with certainty. Compare e.g., Luther's W.W.,
by Walch, xxiii. 2058, sq.: A Christian must be quite
certain about his doctrine and matter, and therefore know
how to give a reason for his doctrine, or he is no Christian —
at all. Away therefore with philosophers ; they are all like —
the sceptics or Academics, who have never wished to assert
anything positively. We Christians must be supremely cer-
tain of our doctrine, and know how, without the slightest
hesitation, to say either yes or no, and to stick to it,’ &e.
(7) Compare on this subject, Pasc. Pens. ii. 108 : ‘ Nous
connaissons la verité non seulement par lu raison, mais encore
© ee 9 Spe a
Notes to Lecture I. 329
> ° .
par le ceur: cest de cette derniere sorte que nous connaissons
les premiers principes, et Cest en vain que le raisonnement qui
ny a point de part, essaye de les combattre. P.109: ‘Ht
Cest pourquor que ceux & qui Dieu a donné la religion par
sentiment du ceur sont bien heureux et bien legitimement
persuadés. Mars ceux qui ne Pont pas, nous ne pouvons la
donner que pur raisonnement en attendant que Diew la leur
donne par sentiment de cour, sans quoi la fot west qw
humaine et inutile pour le salut.’ Delitzsch (System der
christl. Apologetik, 1869, p, 493,) quotes the saying of St
Bernard : Sermo amantis barbarus est non amanti (the lan-
guage of the lover is an unknown tongue to one who does
not love). And the Eastern proverb: A fool knows not
how a wise man feels, for he never was wise ; but a wise
man knows how a fool feels, for he too was once a fool. So
also is it with the unregenerate with respect to the re-
generate,
(°) In opposition to the (impossible and unattainable)
requirement,of freedom from all assumptions, as insisted on
by Strauss, in his so-called Christian Glaubenslehre, for the
purpose of showing the stand-point of faith to be unscientific.
Stahl, in the Preface, p. vii., to his Fundamenten einer christl.
Philos., 1846, reminds of the fact that every philosophical
system, when traced to its first principles, is based upon
faith, and that even unbelief is a kind of faith. Hase, too,
in his Gnosis, vol. i., 2nd edition, 1869, p. 14, says: ‘ All
our scientific inquiries rest upon the belief that there is
reason in the course of things,’ &c. The thought that
every grade of existence must be measured by its proper
standard is ably carried out in Grau’s ‘ Lecture on
Faith as the Highest Reason’ (Giitersloh, 1865, p. 4,
&c.). We are here also reminded (p. 20), of the application
which Schelling (Philos. der Offend., 24 Lect., WW. ii. 4,
p, 27) makes of the well known saying of Alexander the
Great to Parmenio, with respect to this thought, that the
lower cannot be a standard for the higher. ‘ When, after
repeated overthrows, Darius offered peace to Alexander, on
the advantageous condition of resigning to him a consider-
oo Notes to Lecture II.
able portion of his kingdom, and giving him his daughter in
marriage, &c., Parmenio thought, if he had been Alexander,
he would have accepted these conditions. Alexander an-
swered : ‘Ht ego, si Parmenio essem. Alexander’s manner
of acting surpassed the notions of Parmenio, his most inti-
mate friend. But God is raised infinitely higher above men
than one man can, by the magnitude of his designs, be raised
above another. In this sense alone, then, do the dealings of
God in revelation surpass all human conception. It is not
that we are utterly incapable of comprehending them, but
that, in order to do so, we must measure them by a standard
which surpasses all ordinary human standards.’
NOTES TO LECTURE II.
(1) Compare Pascal, Pensées, ii. 10: ‘ La fot Chrétienne
ne va principalement gw a établir ces deux choses: la cor-
ruption de la nature et la rédemption de Jésus Christ.’
Pascal frequently recurs to this thought. Compare 1. 136,
&c. It forms the central point of his whole Apology, and
is in his eyes the special justification of Christianity. So
also in the Charactéres de la vraie Religion, ii. 141. Com-
pare Lecture I., Note 15. These two truths form the
foundation upon which the whole body of evangelical
‘divinity rests, and upon which the first Protestant treatise
on divinity, in particular (Melanchthon’s loci), is founded.
(2) Compare, on this subject, Réper (Professor of Natural
History and Botany at Rostock), Der Friede in der Schip-
fung kein Friede in Christo, a lecture in the Hv Kirchen-
zeitung, 1864, No. 30. I here give an abstract of the
principal contents of this interesting lecture. The author
begins by saying ‘ that poets, &c., direct the human heart,
in its search after peace, to Nature and its peace. Is peace,
then, to be found in the vegetable and animal kingdoms ?
A brilliant picture is then drawn of the virgin beauty and:
Notes to Lecture IT. 331
exuberant luxuriance of uncultivated nature in the primeval
forests of Brazil. But the obverse of this picture is to be
found in the violent storms, the hurricanes, and the terrible
devastation they cause; in the destructive labours of
animals, apes, birds, and insects ; in the manner in which
the largest trees, gnawed by ants, termites, and other in-
sects, suddenly break down, and the royal palms are de-
stroyed by the wretched palm-worm, while whole plantations
are eaten up by ants, and the largest tracks Jaid bare by Jocusts
(whose hosts are estimated by billions), and made so utterly
barren that nothing grows on these desolate places for many
years. And not only animals, but plants, carry on, as it
were, a war against plants, and against their own posterity.
And chiefly the parasitical plants. The notorious liana, a
plant like our ivy, crushes the tops of the proudest trees ;
others absorb the bark, or consume the vital juices after the
manner of fungi. The magnificent clusia, which grow upon
the trees themselves, conceal them like coffins. And what
an infinite number of germs perish! In every acorn, be-
sides the one seed which is developed, are five germs, which
are either crushed to death or drained of their moisture. In
every cocoa-nut are at least three germs, one of which kills
the other two by consuming all the nourishing milk, &c. In
short, every plant lives by plundering others, and destroys
other formations to deprive them of the matter necessary to
itself. A continual process of destruction and transmutation
is going on in every little cell ; new cells being formed only
by the destruction of old ones, &c. And then, finally, the
animal kingdom! Most beasts live upon animal, some upon
living food. Those who serve as food to others are often
slowly tortured to death. The pretty, and, in some varieties,
tuneful nine-murders, impale their prey—butterflies and
other insects—upon thorns and prickles, where they may
live for days. And then the great massacres of the little
ants, who make regular war on each other, unmercifully
slaying their grown-up adversaries, and bringing up the kid-
napped larve as slaves! The ichneumon fly lays its eggs
in caterpillars, &c., and the larve then consume the body of
_ their host. The wall-wasp brings each of its young maggots
300 Notes to Lecture IT.
from ten to twelve little caterpillars, wounded, but not dead,
who live from ten to twelve days, and of which one is de-
voured each day, till the maggots enter the chrysalis state
within fourteen days. Add to these the horseflies, autumn flies,
and gadflies in the lowlands of the Danube—those torturers
and slayers of cattle, &c. And in the primeval forests—
what enemies of man! Then, too, the lower organisms !
The lower its grade of organisation, the more is a creature
infested by parasites. Many thousands of askarides live in
the entrails of the little land-tortoise, and in the body ofa ~
living ear-wig, a thread-worm was found curled up, whose
length, when unrolled, was three inches. “ We may boldly —
assert that the condition of other organised creatures —
entirely corresponds to that of man, and is therefore by no
means a peaceful one.” Nor is it otherwise in inanimate ~
nature. - Here, too, a continual work of destruction, by —
physical and chemical agents, is going on. To mention only —
tempests and earthquakes! And are we not living upon.a ~
sea of fire? But the starry heavens? The so-called peace-
ful moon is as arid as pumice-stone, scarcely surrounded by
an atmosphere, barren and desolate as the scene of a con-
flagration. Jupiter’s sea of clouds is agitated by the most
fearful storms, &c. In short, here, too, there is no stability.
All is groaning for redemption. Nature ‘ preaches the most
crushing fatalism, the most inexorable necessity and pre-
destination.’ In God alone is peace.
From this point of view we can easily understand how _
Perthes could write to Steffens (P. Leben, edit. 4, iii, 199). —
‘Much has been done since Goethe to reveal the depths and ~
shallows of the human heart ; but no one has yet attempted
to bring before the mind of the present age a lively picture
of the horrors of nature and the cruelty of her operations, —
and to show that they who would infer the existence of a
God, from the goodness and wisdom therein displayed, neces-
sarily fail unless they are satisfied with mere rhetoric. You —
must write a thoroughly ungodly book for deists and
rationalists, one which would be a horror and an abomi-
nation to both. A great blessing might rest on such a
book: it might give to many that only true key to the
Notes to Lecture II. oe
knowledge of nature which is involved in the apostle’s
words (Rom. viii. 22), that nature, severed from God
through man and with man, is in a state of disorder, and
groaneth and travaileth in pain, together with us, until
now.’ Similarly, too, Auerbach, Auf die Hohe, edit. 8, 234
(Irma’s Tagebuch). ‘ Nature is terrible, she labours so long
at the production of a being, and then suddenly and
wantonly lets it perish. God is a God who hideth Him-
self. Compare ‘Apol. Lectures on Fundamental Truths,’
Lect. I., Note 9, Pascal ii., 113. The existence of God
cannot be proved to unbelievers from nature. Ce nest pas
de cette sorte que Vécriture, qui connait mieux les choses qui
sont de Dieu, en parle. Lille dit aw contraire que Dieu est
un Diew caché, et que depwis la corruption de la nature, il
les a laissées (les hommes) dans un aveuglement dont ils ne
peuvent sorter que par Jesus-Christ. The whole section
treats of these thoughts, p. 118. Je regurde de touts parts
et ne vors partout qu’ obscurite. La nature ne moffre rien
qui ne soit matiére de doute et @inquietude. Delitzsch in
his above quoted work recals the saying of Schopenhauer :
‘If God made this world, I should not like to be God ; its
woes would break my heart.’
(*) Victor Kip (Der Pessimismus und die Ethik Schopen-
hauers, Berlin, 1866) gives a sketch of the history of the
pessimist view of the world, in order to represent Schopen-
hauer as its chief advocate. Even in the Vedas, especially
the Upanischaden, i.e., the extracts from the Brahmanas,
which form the second part of each Veda, are found the
fundamental features of pessimism. The soul unborn and
infinite as Brahma, nay, a part of himself, gets into dark-
ness in a corporeal covering, and suffers torment, from
which not even death releases it, for it wanders from body
to body, and dies successive deaths after continually renewed
torments. Deliverance from this suffering is only possible
_ through the pantheistic view of the union of Brahma with
all that has emanated from him. By this means man
passes out of the world of the phenomenal and enters into
the Nirvana, 7.¢., into a state of happiness (‘ Schopenhauer’s
Negation of the Will’). The Zend religion sought to solve
304 Notes to Lecture if 18
the contradiction by dualism, ¢¢., the twofold origin of good ~
and evil. ' Heraclitus had already viewed the birth of man ~
as something calamitous, a birth only for death. The ~
descent of the reasoning power from the flaming heavens to
earth was the death of Divine life, and the animation of —
mankind, who now, in circumscribed action, suffer want P
upon earth. The subsequent philosophy of the Greeks was
optimism ; of the Orientals, pessimism ;. and so was also the —
prevailing philosophy of the Christian era. It was not till
his later period that Fichte struck a pessimist chord ; but
it is Schopenhauer who has fully carried out pessimist
views. Some passages from his principal work (Die Welt
als Wille und Vorstellung) may serve to prove this. He
designates his subject to be (§ 56, 3d edit., p, 366), that all
life is essentially suffering. He then proceeds thus to
describe (§ 57, p. 367) the life of man: ‘His proper exist-
ence is only in the present, the unchecked flight of which
into the past is a constant transition to death, a continual ‘
dying.——The present, however, is continually becoming the ~
past ; the future is quite uncertain, and always short.
Hence, his existence, even when viewed only in its formal
aspect, is a continual rushing of the present into the dead
past, a continual dying. But when we look at it in its physical —
aspect also, it is manifest that, as our walk is confessedly a—
continually checked fall, so our bodily life is but a continually —
checked dying, a still delayed death ; and so, too, finally, is
the activity of our mind an ever postponed tediousness.
Every breath we draw repulses the death which is ever |
pressing towards us, and which we are thus fighting against _
every hour. At last death must conquer, for we are
devoted to it by the very fact of our birth; and it is only ©
playing awhile with its prey before it devours it.. Sec. 59,—
p. 8382: ‘The history of every life is a history of suffering,
for the course of life is generally but a series of greater or
less misfortunes. —The real matter of the world-famed —
monologue in Hamlet may be thus summed up: Our con-
dition is so wretched that utter annihilation would be
decidedly preferable.—So, too, what the father of history
adduces (Herodotus, vii. 46), viz., that there never existed
a tiewe
Notes to Lecture 1I. 39D
a man who did not more than once wish not to outlive the
following day, has never yet been refuted. Hence, the so
frequently lamented shortness of life may perhaps be its
best attribute.—If, finally, all the terrible pains and sorrows
to which his life is ever exposed could be brought before
the eyes of each, he would be seized with horror; and if
the most obstinate of optimists were led through the hos-
pitals, lazarettos, and surgical operation rooms ; through the
prisons, torture-chambers, and slaveholds ; over the fields of
battle and places of execution ; if, then, those dark abodes
of misery, where it creeps out of the view of cold curiosity,
were opened to him ; and, finally, a sight were afforded him
of the starvation of some Ugolino—he would surely at last
perceive what kind of meilleur des mondes possibles this is.
Besides, I cannot here refrain from the declara-
tion that optimism, where it is not the mere thoughtless
speech of those under whose low foreheads nothing but
words are lodged, seems to me not only an absurd, but a truly
wicked mode of thought, a bitter contempt for the number-
less sorrows of mankind. Let it not for a moment be
thought that Christian doctrine is favourable to optimism,
for in the Gospels, on the contrary, the terms world and
evil are nearly synonymous expressions.’—Schopenhauer
subsequently (ii. 46, p. 654) gives a touching and partially
true description ‘of the vanity and sufferings of life.” I
extract a passage from this section. ‘Life may be repre-
_ Sented as a constant deception, both in small and great
things. If it makes promises, it never keeps them, unless
to show how undesirable is that which was desired. Thus
first hope, then the thing hoped for, disappoints us. If it
gives, it is but to take away. The charm of distance shows
us a paradise, which vanishes like an optic delusion if we
suffer ourselves to approach it. Hence happiness ever lies
in the future or the past; and the present may be compared
to a dark cloud, which the wind drives before it across a
sunny plain ; behind it there is brightness, but it is itself
_ ever casting a shadow. It is, consequently, ever unsatisfiy-
ing, the future being uncertain, the past irrecoverable. Life,
with its hourly, daily, weekly, and yearly, little, greater,
336 Notes to Lecture I,
and great disagreeables, with its disappointed hopes, and its
mishaps baffling all calculations, bears so plainly the impres-
sion of something which is to be spoilt to us, that it is
difficult to conceive how this could ever have been mis-
taken, and how any one could have persuaded himself that
it was given to be thankfully enjoyed, and that man was
made to be happy. Far rather does the continual dis-
appointment of hope, the disabusing of expectation, the
general constitution of life, show that it is intended and
calculated to produce the conviction that nothing is worth —
our efforts, our energies, and our struggles—that all pos- —
sessions are but vanity, that the world is bankrupt in all —
quarters, and life a business which does not pay its ex- ;
penses.’ Hence, satisfaction and prosperity are merely
negative, are but the absence of suffering. ‘ We feel pain,
but not painlessness ; we feel care, but not its absence ;
fear, but not security. We feel a wish as we feel hunger
and thirst; but, as soon as it is gratified, it fares as the ©
morsel we enjoy, which, the moment it is swallowed, ceases —
to exist to our perception. We painfully feel the want of
enjoyments and pleasures as soon as they cease; but
sorrows, even when they cease after having long existed, —
are not directly missed; for only sorrow and want can be ©
positively felt.— Prosperity, on the contrary, is merely
negative. Hence we are not conscious of the three best
possessions of life, youth, health, and freedom, as such, so
long as they are ours, and do not become so till we have
lost them, for then they are negations. We do not perceive
that certain days of our lives were happy till they have given
place to unhappy ones.’ ‘If, then, there were a hundred
times less sorrow in the world than there is, its mere
existence would be enough to confirm a truth, which is
expressed in various ways, though always with some indi- r
rectness, namely: that the existence of the world is not a
matter of rejoicing, but of grief, that its annihilation vouldll
be preferable to its existence, that it is fundamentally some-_
thing which ought not to exist, &c.—‘ Human life, far
from wearing the aspect ofa gift, has every appearance of —
an incurred debt, the payment of which is exacted in the
es
:
Notes to Lecture IT. BO)
form of the urgent necessities, the tormenting desires, the
unceasing want which life involves. The whole period
of life is generally consumed in the liquidation of this debt,
and yet it is only the interest which is hereby discharged.
The payment of the capital is effected by death. And when
was this debt contracted? At conception. Consequently,
if we regard man as a being whose existence is a punish-
“ment and a penance, we shall be viewing him in a far more
correct light. The myth of the Fall is the only thing
in the Old Testament to which I can concede a meta-
physical, though only an allegorical truth. New Testament
Christianity, whose ethic spirit is that of Brahmanism and
Buddhism, has also, very wisely, fastened upon this very
myth.’ ‘If we would measure the degree of guilt with
which our nature is infected, we must survey the suffering
which is united with it. Every great sorrow, whether
bodily or mental, declares what is our desert, for it could
not come upon us if we did not deserve it.’ But enough !
Fortlage has compared this pessimism of Schopenhauer, and
placed it side by side with the opinions of the Christian
martyrs. (Compare Frauenstddt Briefe riber. die Schopen-
hauersche Philosophie, 1854, p. 329, etc.). But that posi-
tive element with which they opposed this world of pain
and suffering escapes him. This positive element is not an
*ideal,’ as Rudolf Seydel, who misses it in Schopenhauer,
calls it in his treatise on Schopenhauer’s philosophical system
(Leipsic, 1857, p. 101, etc.), but the realities of atone-
ment andj redemption, of God’s eternal world which is
opened to us thereby, and of communion with Him.
(4) Lasaulx—Ueber die Linosklage, Wiirzburg, 1842—
though seeing chiefly in these myths and lamentations (as
the lamentations for Adonis in Syria, Egypt, &c., or for
Narcissus and others) the lot of man himself depicted, yet
acknowledges that they have a reference also to the great
catastrophes of natural life ; to spring, summer, autumn,
and winter, to flowering and fading, growth and decay—in
short, to all those sorrows and joys of nature with which the
human mind sympathises, p. 10. I may here perhaps be
308 Notes to Leeture IT.
allowed to refer to those well-known verses of Friedr. vy.
Schlegel :-—
© Noch deckt ein triiber Wittwenschleier
Der kiinftigen Vollendung Feier,
Und Trauer hiillt die Schépfung ein ;
Bis einst der Schleier wird gehoben,
Muss ewig Klaggesang erhoben
Von allein was da athmet sein.?
* Es geht ein allgemeines Weinen,
So weit die stillen Sterne scheinen.
Durch alle Adern der Natur.
Es ringt und seufat nach der Verklérung
Eintgegen schmachtend der Gewdhrung
In Liebsangst die Kreatur.’ *
Also, a saying of Bettina v. Arnim, in Goethe’s Brief-
wechsel mit einem Kind, i. 33: ‘ When one stands thus
alone with nature, it seems as if she were a spirit praying
to man for redemption. Is man then to redeem nature 2’
(>) Compare the touching description of Vinet, in his
sermon on Rom. ii. 11, St Paul’s criticism of human.
reason (Evangelische Silberblicke, Reden, Predigten und Stu-
dien von Alex. Vinet, translated by Lehman. Zwickau,
1863, p. 25). Also, Pascal, ii, 40, Misére, p. 79, ae. ;
Grandeur et Misére de 1 Homme, p. 136, &e., where he
points out that Christianity alone is in possession of the true
cure for human misery. |
(°) Schelling’s Sdimmél. Werke, div. 1, vol. ix., p. 1 sq.
On the connection between nature and the spirit-world : a
dialogue, eg., p. 55: * Death, said she (Clara), is neverthe-
less the deliverance of the inward form of life from the out-
ward, which keeps it in subjection.’ ‘And death is neces-
sary, because these two forms of life, being unable to continue
united after the degradation of nature to the merely exter-
nal, must be separated.’
* The sad veil of a widow still shrouds the festivity of future per-
fection, and a mourning garment covers creation.
One universal weeping goes through all the veins of nature
wherever the quiet stars shine : creation, yearning for security, sighs
and struggles for glorification in an agony of love.
Notes to Lecture ITI. 339
(*) Similar reflections may be found in Pressensé’s Jesus
Christ, p. 211, a section which I had in view when writing
as above.
(8) Compare “ Lectures on Fundamental Truths,” Lecture
ii., note 14, and Lecture vii., note 9, and the passages there
cited.
(°) See Naville, Der himmlische Vater, p. 290.
('°) Schiller, in the essay, Htwas diber die erste Menschen-_
gesellschaft nach dem Leitfaden der mosaischen Urkunde
(from Schiller’s Lectures on Universal History before the
University of Jena, which first appeared in the 11th No. of
the Thalia. Works, in 12 vols, 1867, vol. 10, p. 380, &.):
‘Man was made complete as the plant or the animal was.’
But he was ‘to work himself upwards from a Paradise of
ignorance and vassalage, to a Paradise of knowledge and
freedom. ‘If we exchange the voice of God in Eden, for-
bidding him the tree of knowledge, for the voice of his
instinct drawing him back from that tree, his supposed dis-
obedience to the Divine command is nothing else than a
revolt against his instinct, and therefore the first expression
of his spontaneity, the first venture of his reason, the first
beginning of his moral existence. This revolt of man against
his instinct, which indeed introduced moral evil into crea-
tion, though only to make moral good possible therein, is
incontrovertibly the happiest and greatest event in history ;
-from this moment man’s freedom dates, and it was here that
the first foundation-stone of his morality was laid. The
same view is expressed by Hegel and Strauss on this sub-
ject. Hegel (Philosoph. der Gesch., p. 233) says: ‘The
state of innocence, the Paradisaic state, is the animal one.
Paradise is a park in which only animals, and not human
beings, can remain. Hence the Fall, whereby man became
truly man, is a universal myth.” And, lastly, Strauss
(Christl. Glaubenslehre, ii. 29): ‘Not God, who, as the
primeval spirit, would treat the human spirit made after his
340 Notes to Lecture IT.
own image in a spiritual and liberal manner, but only a.
brutal subaltern, taking pleasure in imperiousness towards
his inferiors, could have given such a command.’
(1) Scarcely anything better could be said on this matter
than the words of Rousseau (Vicaire Savoyard): ‘If man
is active and free, his act is his own ; what he does of his
own free will, forms no part of the system of Providence,
and cannot be attributed thereto. It does not cause the
evil which man commits, when he abuses the freedom be-
stowed upon him. It made him free, not that he might do
evil but good, of his free choice. To murmur against God
because He does not hinder the practice of evil, means to
reproach Him for giving to man a glorious nature, and to
his acts a moral nobility, for bestowing upon him a title to
virtue. What! in order to restrain man from evil, was He
to limit him to instinct, to make him a mere animal?’
(Quoted by Naville, Der himml. Vater, p. 288.)
(1?) Pascal ii. 106: le peché originel est folie devant les
hommes. Mais cette folie est plus sage que toute la sagesse
des hommes. Car sans cela, que dirait-on quest Vhomme ?
Tout son etat depend de ce point imperceptible.
(8) Liiken has collected these traditions in his work,
Die Traditionen des Menschengeschleschts, 1856, p. 74, etc.,
a collection showing both the agreement of national tradi-
tions with the biblical narrative, and the great and unde-
niable superiority of the latter. A similar collection is
given by Nicolas, Philos. Studien uber das Christenthum,
ul. 29, etc. Compare also Delitzsch, Commentar uber die
Genesis, 3d edit., 1860, p. 165, ete. Ottfr. Miiller (Ges-
chichte der griechische Literatur, i. 161) sees in the history
of Japetos, as contained in Hesiod’s theogony, remains of a
profound poem on the lot of mankind by certain ancient
minstrels. Japetos signifies the thrown down (/é¢7w—
Japetos is the father of Atlas, Prometheus, and Epimetheus) |
the human race driven from such happiness.
Notes to Lecture IT. 341
(4) Pascal, ii. 79; Grandeur et Misere de Vhomme, p. 82:
Toutes ces miséres-laméme prouvent sa grandeur. Ce sont
miseres de grand seigneur, miseres d’un roi déposésdé. Com-
pare also Nicolas, ii, 15-19, where excellent and affecting
passages from Bossuet’s Sermons are also quoted.
(*°) Scripture sometimes calls the angels spirits, some-
times messengers (angels) ; alluding by the former designa-
tion to their nature, by the latter to their office. They
differ from men by being incorporeal spirits, personal
powers of incalculable numbers (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. lxviii.
18; Dan. vii. 10 ; Rev. v. 11), created by God (Ool. i. 16)
at the beginning of creation (Job xxxviii. 7). Unlike men,
too, they do not form a unity, for they do not descend from
each other, though they do form a kingdom composed of
many members holding various ranks and offices (Eph. i. 21,
li. 10 ; Col. i. 16). They are superior to man in power
and knowledge (¢.7., 2 Thess. i. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 1 ; and Matt,
xxiv. 36), but inferior in destination ; for they are not the
object of God’s creation and government, but only its means,
ministering spirits to God’s children (Heb. i. 14), and in-
struments of the connection of both angelic and national
life with the kingdom of God.
(*°) The doctrine of Satan is but gradually developed in
Scripture. The history of the temptation (Gen. iii.) only
hints at a spiritual background. Greater prominence ig
given to in “ Asasel,” the rite of the great day of atone-
ment. In Job i. and ii. Satan appears as a seducing power
—hostile, but subject, to God—among the “Sons of God,”
a.¢., the “ministering spirits ;” and similarly does he appear
(Zach. iii.) as the accuser, who advances his claim to sin-
ners. That which in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 is said to arise from
the wrath of God is, in 1 Chr. xx. 1, attributed to him.
In the N. T., on the other hand, a persuasion of the great-
ness of Satanic power is significantly prominent both in the
consciousness of Christ and in the teaching of His apostles,
and it may be easily seen and shown (comp. eg. Matt. xii.
342 Notes to Lecture II.
25-28, xiii. 39, xxv. 41, and the history: of the temptation)
that Jesus does not speak thus merely from accommodation,
but from his own knowledge. St John, too, subsequently
summarized the entire work of Christ by saying that He ©
came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John ii. 8), an
act figuratively represented in those expulsions of devils of
which the evangelists, especially St Mark, relate so many.
When it is said of the devil (1 John iii. 8) that he sinneth
from the beginning, he is thereby designated as the origi-
nator of sin, as the seducer of other spirits who followed
his example (‘his angels,’ Matt. xxv. 41; his kingdom,
Matt. xii. 26). He is called ‘the liar’ (John viii. 44),
because he deceived, and still deceives and tempts man by
‘the deceitfulness of sin ;’ and the murderer (John viii. 44),
because he thereby brought death upon mankind, whence
sin and death are said to be the sphere of his dominion
(Heb. ii. 14). He is the ruler of the world (2 Cor. iv. 4 ;
Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12; 1 John v. 19), with whom Christians
have constantly to contend (Eph. vi. 11 sq.) ; but they are
assured of victory over him through Christ (John xii. 31),
and of his final condemnation (1 Cor. xv. 24-26; Rev.
xii. 9, xx. 10). The possibility of a union of superior
intelligence with wickedness is expressed also by Cicero :
de Nat. Deor. iii. 27; Summa improbitate usus non sine
summa ratione.
(7) R. Schneider, in his interesting work, Christliche
Klange aus den griech. und rom. Klassikern, 1865, has
collected (p. 133, etc.) a large number of those sayings of
ancient authors, in which the universality of sin is ex-
pressed, e.g., Soph. Antig. 10, etc. : avSpuroror yap roig rhot
zowoy gor1 rovEapapravey (it is common to all men to sin).
Peccavimus omnes, says Seneca (De clem.), Nam vitiis nemo
sine nascitur, Horace (Sat. 1, 3, 68) ; and Simonides in
Plato: sivas dvdpa ayusiv advvaroy nal obm ayIpuireiov, HAAG
Jebg wovog rotro eye rb yépas (for a man to be good is impos-
sible, and surpasses human nature: God alone has this
honour. Compare especially with the text that saying of
Goethe in his Tasso (v. 2) :
‘Notes lo Lecture ITI. . 343
‘ Es liegt um uns herum
Gar mancher Abgrund den das Schicksal grub
Doch hier in unserm Herzen ist der tiefste.’*
And Platen, i. 110, ‘Antwort :’
‘ Abgriinde liegen im Clemiithe
Die tiefer als die Holle sind.’ t.
When Sulzer once announced to Frederick II., King of
Prussia, that education had gone on well since it had been
perceived that man was by nature good, and ought to be
treated accordingly, Frederick replied: Mon cher Sulzer, vous
ne connaissez pas cette mauvarse race la.
(18) Lenau, at the close of a sonnet, ii. 125:
‘ Lieblos und ohne Gott ! der Weg ist schaurig ;
Der Zugwind in den Gassen lalt—und du ?
Die ganze Welt ist zum verzweifeln traurig,’ t
Heine (vol. d. L., 10 edit, p. 328): The sick soul, the
God-denying, angel-denying, unhappy soul. Disselhoff has
collected a series of such expressions in a lecture entitled :
The infidel poetry of modern times brought before its own
tribunal (Vortrdge fiir das gebildete Publikenn 3 Sammlung,
Elberfeld, 1864, p. 105).
(19) Compare ‘Lectures on the Fundamental Truths of
Christianity,’ Lect. VI., p. 144-147.
(7°) It is the special merit of Julius Muller to have re-
asserted the fact that selfishness constitutes the essence of
sin (Die chriestliche Lehre von der Sunde, i. 140, etc.)§ So
also, ¢.g., Sartorius, Die Lehre von der heil., Liebe, 1. 62, ete.
It was ever the prevalent doctrine of the Church to con-
trast the love of God, as real virtue, with the love of self, as
* There lies around us full many an abyss which fate has dug, but
the deepest is here in our heart.
+ There are abysses in the mind which are deeper than hell.
+ Without love, and without God, the way is terrible ;
The Wind moans in the streets—and thou?
The whole world is desperately sad.
§ ‘The Christian Doctrine of Sin.’ Clark’s Foreign Theological
Library, 1868.
344 Notes to Lecture IT.
real sin. Compare also Pascal, i. 56, etc.: La nature de
Vamour propre de ce mot humain est de waimer que soi et
de ne considerer que sot. The pre-Christian ages had no
deep views of the nature of sin, because they were unac-
quainted with the highest moral standard. With them the
essence of virtue consisted in a keeping within the bounds
which are drawn around man as he is in himself, and in
his various relations. Hence they regarded sin as the
transgression of these bounds, the USps. Even Plato
views good as the moderate (¢umerpov), evil as the immo-
derate (dmerpia).
(71) Romans vii. 14-21, is alluded to. Comp. Pascal,
i. 79: ‘Guerre intestine de Vhomme entre la raison et les
passions. Il est toujours divisé et contraire & lui méme,
p- 103: quelle chimére est-ce done que Vhomme? Quelle
nouveauté quel monstre, quel chaos, quel sujet de contradiction,
quel prodige |! Also Rousseau, Hmile, iv., p. 14: ‘Lhomme
nest point un; je veux et je ne veux pas, je me sens & la foi
esclave et libre ; ge vois le bien, je Vaime, et je fais le mal,
etc. Compare ‘ Lectures on the Fundamental Truths,’
Lect. IT. Note 2. Naville, Das ewige Leben, p. 129, cites
some appropriate lines of Racine’s on this subject of the
internal discord ; also Louis the Fourteenth’s opinion con-
firming them. Mirabeau writes in the Lettres a Chamfort :
“What a strange compound of levity and perversity is man !
Man, who numbers the stars, who subdues the elements,
who contends with the forces of nature, who is capable of
everything—except of guiding himself and his fellow ; who
has discovered everything—except freedom and peace ; has
power to institute, but knows not how to direct 3; can
cringe, but not obey; can rebel, but knows not how to
defend himself; can love, but not love faithfully ; bears
within him, in his heart and mind, all the contrasts of good
and evil.” Jakobi, of whom Niebuhr says, “He was a
man of unusual purity, he always seemed to us like a being
from a better world, who was sojourning but for a brief
space among us,” confesses :—“ It is very easy to do all
kinds of good, and it is always a pleasure to act nobly.
But to live without sin, without transgression—how diffi-
Notes to Lecture I T 345
cult! but how far surpassing all else! To avoid evil
demands powers of quite another kind, for this the whole
man must collect all his strength, must exert himself often
almost to his destruction, to find after all that the energies
of his whole manhood were too feeble.” Comp. Gelzer, die
feligion im Leben, 1863, p. 84.
(*) Compare with this paragraph ‘Lectures on the
Fundamental Truths, Lect. VIL, p. 161; ete.; my Lehre
vom freien Willen, p. 349, and pp. 454-456. The ancients
also perceived that man is not able to effect a moral change
in himself, ¢.g., Aristot., Mikom. Ethik, iii. 5, 14 3; and -
Celsus : ‘It is, however, manifest to all, that no one can
by punishment, much less by mercy, wholly change those
who are by nature inclined and accustomed to crime ; for
wholly to change the nature is a matter beyond all things
difficult’ (Neander, Denkwiirdigheiten, i. 3d edit., p. 15.)
Compare also Schneider, Christliche Klange, p. 134, etc.
(2) Moral statistics have of late been much dwelt on,
especially since the works of Quetelet (Swr ? Homme et le
developpement de ses facultés, 2 tomes, Paris, 1835 ; Du
systéme sociale, Paris, 1841; Sur la statist. morale, in the
Mémoires de 0 Acad.'royale de sciences de Belge, tome 21,
Brussels, 1848) led the way in this direction. The facts
collected by these statistics were immediately made prey of
by materialism. Thus, F. G. Fischer (Uber die Freheit
des menschl. Willens, Leipsic, 1858) revels in natural law ;
and Dankwardt (Psychol. und Criminalrecht, 1863) says
briefly, and in capital type: ‘Man is nor FREE. He is ag
little responsible -for his acts as the stone which wounds
our head by obeying the law of gravitation ; a crime is
the necessary effect of a law of nature” Adolf Wagner, on
the contrary (Ueber die Gesetzmiissigheit in den scheinbar
willkiirlichen Handlungen, Hamb. 1864), though he says,
indeed (i. p. 44), ‘ Society prepares crime ;. the criminal is
only the instrument which carries it out,’ yet leaves the
problem essentially unsolved (i. 48). He acknowledges
that the true causes cannot be inferred from the facts
346 Notes to Lecture ITI.
alone; that hence we cannot, without further ceremony,
speak of constraining natural laws as abolishing responsi-
bility ; that to know all the concurrent factors, and to
compute their mathematical formula, we must be acquainted
with the ‘divine arithmetic ;’ that consciousness of respon-
sibility and of moral freedom in individual cases is also ‘a
fact,’ which.is as certain to the reason as this conformity to
law ; that the whole question is only the old problem under
a new form—a problem which statistics will never be able
to solve. The question raised by these interesting statis-
tical labours has been variously treated, both in its theo-
~ logical and philosophical aspect, in the interest of defending
man’s freedom of will. In the first, in the Lrldnger
Zeitschr fiir Protestantism. und Kirche, 1865 ; Zur Apolo-
getik, iv., pp. 199-238 (by Prof. Frank ?) ; in the latter by
Dobrisch, Die Moralische Statistik, 1867 ; by Vorlander,
in an article on moral statistics and moral freedom (Zeitsch-
rift fiir Staatswissenschaft, 1866, iv., p. 477, ete.) ; and by
Carriére in the Awgsb. Allg. Zeitung, 1867, No. 113 ; Ap-
pendix: Naturliche und sittliche Weltordnung. We must
not—says the theological article—confound freedom and
lawlessness, accident and arbitrariness, for this is the
atomistic individualising view of Pelagianism, which severs
man from his. historical connections. These historical con-
nections involve opportunity, but not absolute necessity.
Circumstances influence the decision of the individual, but
the latter suffers himself to be thus influenced. They who
do not suffer their decision to be thus influenced, but, in
spite of the obstacles of outward circumstances (famine,
etc.), ¢g., contract marriage, are not freer than others
because they do so.
Thus, then, the increase or decrease of certain human
actions, which statistics show to be dependent on external
causes, is no proof of the absence of freedom in those
transactions. Such influences upon the free choice are of
universal occurrence. The fact that an act is the result of
reasonable deliberation, does not make it cease to be an act
of freedom. It is by external circumstances and their
influence that the Divine government of the world is
Notes to Lecture IT. 347
carried on. It is in conformity to law that Divine causality,
‘the secret will of God,’ as Luther calls it, is apparent. .
Certainly the question becomes more difficult in the case of
actions morally reprehensible. But what statistics designate
the ‘next cause,’ is generally compounded of many causes.
Age, sex, etc., are no special causes, and special causes do
not come within the range of statistics. Their influence
only varies according to age, etc. The seductiveness, too,
of these causes is of various strength, according to age, etc.
Yet this does not abolish individual freedom ; for the moral
condition of the subject which turns the scale, is itself the
product of moral decisions. In his external actions, more- ~
over, man is fitted into a groove of circumstances and forces
which. in many ways determine the external form of his
actions. God has indeed left man free to choose to be
ungodly, not free to institute an arbitrary chaos ; for He
provides for order, regularity, conformity to law even in the
process of the development of sin. God’s hand so guides
the threads, that even in the web of sin law is apparent, the
maintenance of which, in the midst. of human perversity
and sin,is His prerogative. The figures of statistics are
but the rays by which the fact of this secret world-ruling
will of God, with its conformity to law, shines forth—
Drobisch, too, reminds that a distinction must be made
between human, relative, non-absolute freedom of will and
arbitrariness, and that no choice is devoid of motive. But
he lays more emphasis on the fact that the resolve is deter-
mined partly by the personal character, and partly by
external circumstances, so that the individual act of the
will appears as the necessary result of these various factors.
This seems to me a more decided denial of the possibility
of arbitrariness than I can think correct.—Vorlander well
shows that, with respect to the question of free will, these
negative consequences cannot be deduced from the experi-
ence of external facts without logical leaps; and also
lays stress upon the natural limits of the decisions of the
will.—Carriére shows, by individual examples from occur-
rences in Bavaria, how easy it is to draw false conclusions,
involving principles, from certain facts, whose accidental
348 Notes to Lecture IT.
social causes may be unknown to statisticians, and refers to
the fact of the moral consciousness. On this ground, he
rejects the opinion of Buckle (in his History of Civilisation
in England), whose words shall be quoted to conclude this
note, and to show how these things are looked upon from
his point of view. ‘In a given state of society, a certain
number of persons must put an end to their own life.
This is the general law ; and the special question as to who
shall commit the crime depends, of course, upon special
laws ; which, however, in their total action, must obey the
large social law to which they are all subordinate ; and the
power of the larger law is so irresistible, that neither the
love of life nor the fear of another world can avail any-
thing towards even checking its operation” Carriére rightly
denies the proposition. ‘The must, the constraining law,’
he says, ‘does not exist.’—Professor A. von Oettingen, of
Dorpat, has collected in the first part of his Social Ethics
‘Die Moralstatistik, an inductive proof of the conformity
to law exhibited by moral life in the organism of humanity
(Erl. 1868), very copious and valuable materials in proof
of this double position viz: On the one hand that the
freedom of uncaused self-determination does not exist,
but that the spiritual life is, on the contrary, universally
conditioned by the fact that the individual together with
his actions, is always so dove-tailed into the whole society, —
that a constant interaction is ever taking place between the
collective and the individual personality, in consequence of
which the moral world moves as much in conformity with
Divine laws as the physical, (Quetelet Systéme Social, p. 9 :
Jen ai @ autre but que de montrer qw il existe des lois
divines et des principes de conservation dans un monde (viz
le monde moral) o& tant @ autres s’obstinent & ne trouver qu’
un chaos désordonné. On the other, that this conformity to
law answers to the nature of this moral world without pre-
judice to freedom, and hence that natural necessity and
absolute connection cannot, without farther ceremony, be
inferred from mere regularity of facts, and that succession
and contemporaneousness must not be confounded with
causality nor converted into ‘natural laws ;’ in short, |
Notes to Lecture IT. 349
that conformity to law and freedom do not contradict but
mutually condition each other. Why are moral statistics
chiefly occupied with crime, and much less, or even not
at all, with well-doing? This one consideration suffices
to prove the weakness of the conclusions which have been -
built thereupon.
(**) Compare the fine paragraph of Naville, Der himml.
Vater, pp. 215-235. Bruch, too, of Strasburg, in a very
appreciative notice of this work, takes occasion to speak ag
follows of this denial of the moral view of actions. ‘When
Macaulay, the famous English historian, expresses his ab-
horrence of those authors who try to justify crime and make
virtue ridiculous, M. Taine remarks (Hssais de Critique et
d'Histoire, p. 8, sq.): ‘ Criticism moves more freely in France.
If we try to relate the life of a man, or to exhibit his cha-
racter, we like to look upon him as an object of painting or
science. We do not judge him ; we desire merely to exhibit
him, and make him comprehensible to the understanding.
We are desirous of knowledge, and nothing else. Peter or
Paul may have been a rogue ; that concerned his contem-
- poraries, but is a matter of indifference to us. They suffered
from his crimes. To-day we are out of his power, and with
the danger our hatred has vanished. I feel neither dislike
nor disgust ; I have left these feelings at the door of history,
and I enjoy the very deep and very pure feeling of seeing a
soul treated according to a definite law.’ Let it not be
thought that this passage expresses only the aberrations of
a young and immature mind ; it expresses, on the contrary,
as Naville justly remarks, the theory of a whole school.
This theory is clearly and definitely stated in the Revue des
deux Mondes (Feb. 15, 1861, p. 855): ‘We have nothing
to do with morality, but only with custom ; nothing with
principles, but only with facts. We explain everything,
and, as has been truly said, the mind finishes with allowing
everything which it explains. Modern virtue resolves itself
into toleration (se résume dans la tolerance). This is an
immense innovation! Whatever is, has for us a right to
be.’ How deeply such principles have penetrated into the
350 Notes to Lecture IT. .
opinions of the present day, is proved by the repeated attempt
to whitewash the most abominable characters. This theory
may be said to be the expression of an absolutely blasé state
of existence.
(>) Tacit. Ann. vi. 6. Compare Nicolas, i. 103.
(26) Tholuck gives extracts from Plutarch’s work on the
‘Fear of the Gods, in Der sittliche Charakter des Heiden-
thums, p. 42, sq.). ‘The physician—it is thus that Plutarch
describes his unhappy ones—is driven away by the sick, the
consoling friend by the afflicted. He exclaims, ‘ Leave
me, O man, me, the accursed, the hated of gods and demons,
to suffer my punishment. ‘ He sacrifices and trembles, he
prays with a faltering voice, he scatters, incense with trem-
bling hands. On the Flagellants, compare, e.g., Gieseler
Kirchengeschichte, ii. 509 ; iii. 273, sq.*
(7) Among the ancients it was chiefly the history of
Orestes the matricide which gave poets occasion to depict
the torments of a guilt-laden conscience. So Eschylus, in
the Triology of Orestes (Agamemnon, Choephores, Eumenides,
guilt, revenge, expiation), especially Cheophores, 101 0-
1062 ; Euripides, Orestes, 284-292. Juvenal, Satire iii.,
190-244 ; xii, 192, sq.:
“Consciousness of crime constantly terrifies the wicked
and lacerates them with silent stripes. For the soul itself
secretly wields the torturing scourge. But the punishment
is stern, and it is far more horrible than any which the
severity of Caeditius and Rhadamanthus invents, to bear
about day and night the witness in one’s own breast, &c.” .
—a description which recals Shakespeare’s Richard IIT. and
Macbeth, those powerful tragedies of a guilty conscience.
Compare also, among modern poets, Lenau (14th ed, 1855),
ii. 113; ‘Frage, p. 126 ; ‘ Palliativ, i. 55 ; ‘ Nebel :?
‘ Nimm fort im deine graue Nacht,
Die Erde weit und breit ;
* *Gieseler’s Church History.’ Clark’s Foreign Theological Library,.
Notes to Loutiere TOE Sua}
Nimm fort was mich so traurig macht,
Auch die Vergangenheit!’ *
Or the Sehnsucht nach Vergessen, i. 50 ; or, ii: 117, where he
sees in askesis an involuntary testimony to a feeling of guilt.
Platen (1853), i. 91 (1820) : :
‘ Wie raft ich mich auf in der Nacht, in der Nacht.’ +
Goethe :
‘ Ihr stiirzt ins Leben ihn hinein,
Lhr lasst den Armen schuldig werden ;
Dann iiberlasst ihr ihn der Pein,
Denn jede Schuld récht sich auf Hrden.’ t
(8) This is a fundamental thought of Shakespeare’s moral
. . . . . < > ;
views, as touchingly exhibited, eg., in ‘Macbeth.’ Platen,
indeed, says,—
‘Ich fiihite dass die Schuld die uns aus Eden bannte,
Schwungfedern uns zum Flug nach hihern Himmel leihe ;’ 3
but with what right, every one may know from his own
experience,
NOTES LO-LECTU RE: L11
(1) To this saying of Lenau may be added the manifold
confessions of other celebrities. I confine myself here to
those of Schiller and Goethe. The former writes from
Mannheim to Korner, Feb. 10, 1795: ‘I must come to you
—with you I shall be happy. JZ have never yet been so.
Weep for me, that I am obliged to make such a confession.
I have not yet been happy. For fame and admiration, and
all the other accompaniments of authorship, cannot balance
even one moment which friendship and love prepare. The
heart starves in the midst of it all. And, Aug. 20, 1788:
‘I can, at no- moment, say that I am happy. You will
ask, What then do I desire? Ido not myself know.’ And
further, in his conversations with Eckermann, 1,106, he
* Take away in thy grey night, the wide, broad earth ; take away
also that past which makes me so sad.
t How I snatched myself up in the night, in the night.
ft You plunge him into life, you let the poor creature become
guilty, then you deliver him up to punishment, for all guilt is
_ avenged upon earth.
§ 1 felt that the guilt which banished us from Eden, furnished me
with fresh pinions to soar to a higher heaven.
SD Notes to Lecture IIT.
_ says: ‘I have always been esteemed a man specially favoured
by fortune ; and 1 neither wish to complain nor to murmur
at the course of my life. But, in reality, it has been nothing
but pains and labour, and I may truly say, that during my
seventy-five years I have not had four weeks of real plea-
sure. It has been the perpetual rolling of a stone which
has to be picked up again and again.’
(*) Compare Vinet, p. 24; on the preceding, Vinet, p. 69.
(°) Auerbach, Auf der Hohe, iii., 235, 279: ‘Rest and
peace are nowhere in this world.’
Jienau, i..249 ; ii. 58,
The following saying from Auerbach, Auf der Hohe,
(Irma’s Tagebuch).
(*) Regis, 1842, No. 114, p. 245:
‘ Kein Malen stillt noch Meisseln mehr die Seele,
Sie flicht zu jenem liebevollen Gott,
Der uns am Kreuz die Arm entgegenbreitet.’ *
(°) If we inquire, e.g., of those poets who refer us to our
own strength, we find that they do not themselves believe in
their strength. They get no further than a ‘perhaps.’ So
Platen :
‘ Wo ist das Herz das keine Schmerzen spalten ?
Und wer ans Weltenende fliichten wiirde,
Stets folgten ihm des Lebens Truggestalten,
Ein Trost nur bleibt mir dass ich jeder Biirde,
Vielleicht ein Glleichgewicht vermag zu halten,
Durch meiner Seele ganze Kraft und Wiirde.’ *
How little comfort, however, this uncertain hope affords
him, those other well-known words of the same poet prove :
‘ Es liegt an eines Menschen Schmerz, an eines Menschen Wunde nichts,
Hs kehrt an das was Kranke quilt sich ewig der Gesunde nichts,
* No painting nor sculpture can give peace to the soul ; it flees to
that loving God who stretches out His arms to us from the cross.
t Where is the heart unriven by sorrows? and if any one would
flee to the ends of the world, the deceptions of life would continually
follow him. One comfort alone is left me, that I may, perhaps, with
the whole might and dignity of my soul, be able to counterbalance
every burden.
Notes to Lecture ITT. 3538
Und wiire nicht das Leben kurz, das stets der Mensch vom Menschen
erbt,
So gib’s Beklagenswertheres auf diesem weiten Runde nichts.’ *
To own, however, that we know of no other comfort than
death, is to own that we know of none.
(°) Auerbach (Auf der Hohe) entitles the wisdom of the
old Count Eberhard, ii. 319, &e., ‘ Self-redemption ;’ iii.
168, ‘there is nothing but self-help. The subsequent ex-
pressions, li. 320 ; iii. 170.
(7) Compare Vinet, p. 155, 159 ; and the fine passage of
Riickert :
‘ Du findst in dir die Ruhe nicht
Den milden Hauch von Gottes Gnaden,
So lang von deiner Schuld Gewicht
Du willst ein Theil auf Andre laden.
Nicht wenn du das was dich gelenkt
Von dem was du gethan hast trennest;
Dir ist die Schuld nur ganz gesehenkt,
Wenn du zur ganzen dich bekennest.’ +
(8) Auerbach(offers a striking proof of this in his romance,
Auf der Hohe. Irma had during four years been perform-
ing almost superhuman penance. ‘There are saints even in
our days,’ is said concerning her penance (iii. 484). And
yet Auerbach cannot refrain from making this penance, of
which his hero, the physician Gunther, says (p. 491), ‘Thou
hast made expiation,’ conclude with a prayer for forgiveness
from the queen she has injured. Not till then does Irma
get peace. P. 491: ‘Ah, thou art here at last! gasped
Irma, drawing a deep breath. She raised herself up with
her latest strength, and knelt up in her bed ; she folded her
hands, and then, stretching out her arms, she exclaimed, in
* There is no remedy for human pain, for human wounds. The
healthy man cares nothing for what torments the sick. And if the
life which man ever inherits from man were not short, there would
be nothing more pitiable upon this earth.
+ Thou dost not find rest within thee, the gentle breath of God’s
mercy, so long as thou wilt heap one portion of the weight of thy
guilt upon another ; nor when thou separatest what impelled thee
from what thou hast done. Thy guilt is only wholly remitted when
thou acknowledgest the whole.
Z
354. Notes to Lecture ITT.
heart-piercing tones: “ Pardon, pardon!”’ Is this close
of the drama dictated merely by esthetic feeling, and not
also by the involuntary testimony of the moral feeling to
truth, a testimonium anime naturaliter christiane ?
(°) Compare the famous passage in the ‘ Merchant of
tv entice.’
‘It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath : it is twice bless’d ;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes:
’Tis mightiest in the mightiest ; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown ;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings ;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself,
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.’
(1°) Humboldt, Kosmos I7., 116 sq. It is peculiarly
characteristic of the Hebrew poetry of nature ever to present,
by its view of the unity of the entire universe, a reflection
of the belief in God’s unity. Nature is not described as
something existing for itself, as glorified by its own beauty,
it always appears to the poet in its relation to an overruling
spiritual power. Nature is to him a thing created and
ordered, a lively expression of the omnipresence of God in
the works of that world which is the object of the senses.
It might be said that in this single 104th psalm is con-
tained an image of the whole universe. It astonishes us to
see all heaven and earth depicted by a few broad strokes in
a poem of such small compass. Man’s dull and trouble-
some labour, from the rising of the sun till the close of his
day’s work at evening, is here contrasted with the move-
ments of nature. The contrast, the universality in which
the reciprocal influence of various phenomena are viewed,
this regard to the all-present invisible power which can re-
new the earth or shatter it to dust, forms the solemn ele-
ment in a poem not more charming than sublime.
Notes to Lecture ITT. 3 55
(11) Psalm viii. The intention of this Psalm is to depict
the position secured to man in creation, by contrasting his
seeming meanness, on the one hand, with his high vocation
with regard to the world and the kingdom of God on the
other—a vocation which found its higher fulfilment in Jesus
Christ, Heb. ii., 5, sq.
(1?) Cad. Col. 1276:
‘Yet as mercy ruling shares the throne of Zeus to adjust
every work, so, O father, let it also prevail with thee !’
(*) The thoughts which follow, are further carried out in rt
my Lehre vom freien Willen, p. 436, sq.
(‘*) Compare, in Neander’s Denkw. i. 27, &c., the expres-
sions of desire for a revelation of mercy expressed at the
conclusion of the ancient world, eg. by Porphyry who
speaks of ‘those who, longing after truth, once prayed that
a vision of the gods might be vouchsafed to them, that so
they might, by means of well authenticated information, be
set free from their doubts.’ Also the touching description
of the inward restlessness and craving of Clement of Rome
(from the Recognitions), a description evidently taken from
life. On the similar development, in the case of Justin,
_ compare * Lectures on Fundamental Truths,’ Lecture VIIL,
p. 214. Pascal ii. 96: Il est bon d’étre lassé et fatigué par
—Pinutile recherche du vrai bien, afin de tendre les bras au
libérateur.
(°) On the maxim, that whatever is best is freely and
graciously given, compare ‘Lectures on Fundamental
Truths, Lecture VIL. p. 176. The opinion of the natural
mind on this point is shown by Celsus, who esteems it one
of the follies of Christianity, that it should call sinners into
the kingdom of God. ‘They say that God accepts the
sinner, if he humbles himself on account of his vileness, but
will not accept the just man who virtuously looks up to
_ Him from the beginning’ (Neander, Denkw.i. 13). Seneca,
on the other hand, says, Ep. 52: Memo per se satis valet ut
emergat; oportet manum aliquis porrigat, aliquis educat.
356 Notes to Lecture 1V.
NOTES TO LECTURE IV.
(*) Starting from this supposition, Strauss entitles his
critique of Schleiermacher’s Leben Jesu, ‘The Christ of
Faith, and the Jesus of History’ (1865). In his view, the
Christology of Schleiermacher is the last attempt and failure
to reconcile the faith of the Church and the history of Jesus,
the ideal and the historic Christ. ‘ Once for all, it will not
do.’ Especially pp. 209-223. Compare also my Lecture :
Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu, 2d edition,
1864, p. 9, ete.
(*) On Plato’s picture of the suffering righteous man, com-
pare my ‘ Lectures on Fundamental Truths,’ Lecture VIIL.,
p. 211. Aristotle generally founds his decisions concerning
what is morally right on the standard of the ideal virtuous
man, and draws a picture of an ideal morality in his descrip-
tion of the high-minded man (ueyardpuxos), Eth. Nicom.
iv. 3; but it is really only a picture of pride, if not of arro-
gance, which he sketches. The Stoic ideal, moreover, which
according to Cicero’s confession (Z'usc. ii. 32), was never yet
realised, is pride personified.
(*) The ancient ideal is conscious pride—even in the
Aristotelian ethics, ¢.g., in the description of the high-minded
man (iv. 2, 24; v. 5, ete.) ; while humility is entirely absent
from the notion of ancient morality. Compare ‘ Lectures
on Fundamental Truths,’ Lecture VIIL., p. 203.
(*) A coarse attempt to do so was formerly made by
Reimarus (Wolfenb. Fragm.), who attributed to Jesus a
political plan, the failure of which He is said to have
deplored on the cross, when He uttered the words: ‘My
God, ete. Vom Zwecke Jesu und seiner Stinger (7 Fragm., —
edited by Lessing, 1778 ; section IT., § 3-8). It isnot in the
rude and arbitrary manner of the Fragmentist, but as the
necessary result of His true humanity, that the modern works
on His life by Schenkel and Strauss—to say nothing of the
Notes to, Lecture IV. 357
indignities done Him by Renan—have denied the sinlessness
of Jesus. Because Jesus calls Himself lowly, says Schenkel,
He must have had to contend with pride (2d Edition, 1864,
p. 170) ; when He says none is good but God, He declares
Himself to be not good in this sense ; He knew the sinful
motions of flesh and blood from His own experience (pp.
288-290), and therefore He could pray with His disciples,
‘Forgive us our debts, our trespasses’ (p. 368). Strauss,
on the contrary, thinks himself justified in calling it not
merely fanaticism, but ‘unjustifiable self-exaltation for a
man to imagine himself so separated from other men as to
set himself before them as their future judge’ (Leben Jesu,
1864, p. 242). Keim has, however, already given a sufti-
cient answer to all this. Compare my Lecture, Die
modernen Darstellungen, etc., p. 47.
() Compare Liiken Die Traditionen, etc., p. 308. The
apologists of the ancient church, as Justin Apol. i 22;
Origen. c. Celsus i., 37, appeal to the Hellenic myths of sons
of the gods, to point out that a virgin birth is not contrary
to reason.
(°) This forms the difference between the Romish and
Protestant veneration of Mary. Hase, in his Handbuch der
protest Polemik, 2d edit., 1865, p. 317, shows from history
how that glorification of Mary which introduced into the wor-
ship of the Romish Church a suspicious element of sensuous
fancy, and at length so choked the healthy evangelical
elements, that the Romish Church became, to use Pusey’s
expression, ‘the Church of Mary,’ and the sole Mediatorship
of Jesus Christ was very greatly prejudiced, arose gradually
from the ancient custom of contrasting Eve with Mary, and
from a spurious over-estimation of the state of virginity,
combined with the natural attraction towards what was
_ womanly and pleasing to the senses. The legends of the
Romish Church concerning Mary are chiefly derived from
the apocryphal gospels, which, though rejected by the
_ Church, have actually had almost more influence in it than
the canonical. And not only have the Jesuits and Pius
358 | Notes to Lecture IV.
IX., that special worshipper of Mary, raised her to a super-
human dignity, but even German theologians, e.g., Hettinger
IL., i, 507, take up this tone, concealing the absence of
Scriptural authority for so doing by a mixture of poetry,
imagination and arbitrary assertion. Hettinger calls Mary
‘Prophetess and Queen of Prophets,’ ‘the Highpriestess,’ p.
517, ‘a living Holy of Holies, a tabernacle built by the
hand of God, ‘Mother and Queen of the New Covenant,’
for so the Divine Son entitled her in his !ast hour, John
xix., 27: ‘ Behold thy mother, p.518. ‘She is the mother
of the true body of Christ, and therefore the mother of His
mystical body, the Church, p. 519. Hence results the
justification of her right to the title of mediatrix. ‘ Her
participation in the work of redemption is special and
direct, and only surpassed by the work of the Redeemer
Himself. Her Fiat (fat mihi secundum verbum tuum) cor-
responded with the creative fiat,” p. 520, She has a central
position in the economy of salvation,’ p. 523, The history
of Christ being an eternal one, ‘ Mary also ever exercises her
mediatorial office with the Son,’ p. 524, ete. All these
fanciful notions, however, are shattered by the two passages
of Scripture which are appealed to in their behalf. The
first of these is the angelic salutation, Luke i, 28, ‘ Hail thou
that art highly favoured (xexapirwuévn) ; The Lord is with
thee ’—the ‘words following: ‘blessed art thou among
women’ must, according to the oldest MSS., be expunged.
—Mary is not here called ‘ full of grace,’ gratearum plena,
as the Romish translation has it, but the favoured of God.
Hence she does not impart favour or grace, but has herself —
received it from God. The other passage too, John xix.,
26, 27: ‘Woman, behold thy son, ‘Behold thy mother,’
does not mean that Mary is, as a mother, to take charge of
John and of all believers, but that John is to care for Mary
who was now growing old, as a son for his mother. It isa
saying expressing the care of Jesus, not for believers, but for
his mother, He who had at the marriage at Cana dissolved
the connexion between Himself and His mother, so far as
His office was concerned, by the saying: Woman, what
have I to do with thee? fully dissolves it from the cross, ©
i
i
Notes to Lecture IV. 359
because-he is now entering upon a life for which she is
no longer his mother. Thus this very passage refutes all
the inferences which have been drawn from it, in favour of
Romish doctrine. And the rest of Scripture confirms this
conclusion. For after Mary has been once more mentioned,
Acts i. 14, together with other believers, she is named no
more, but disappears entirely from the scene. Of her sub-
sequent history nothing is known, God bestowed upon this
humble and believing daughter of Israel the favour of select-
ing her for the mother of the Saviour, and to have humbly
bowed to this decree, and faithfully and submissively
endured all the bitter sorrow connected therewith—a pattern
of humility and fidelity to all ages—this is her fame which |
is not to be taken from her.
() This applies not’ only to rationalistic and recent
theology, but also to Schleiermacher’s deductions, and
to the attempt of the Berlin General Synod of 1836.
For Schleiermacher in his Glaubenslehre, § 97, 2
(ii., p. 70) declares this dogma of the Church to be, both
religiously and doctrinally unimportant, and esteems_ it
sufficient to reduce it to the influence of the Divine Spirit
_at the origination of a natural life; and the Synod in
question, acting upon Schleiermacher’s criticism, expunged
this dogma from the confession of faith to be used at ordin-
ation. When the genealogies are appealed to in opposition
to the gospel account of the miraculous origin of Jesus, as
being documents which presuppose the paternity of Joseph,
it is forgotten that in Israel, the descent of the son was
determined by that, not of the mother, but of the father,
whether the latter were the father in the natural, or merely
in the legal sense. Hence, Joseph’s descent from David is
repeatedly dwelt upon in the gospels, because it was on this
that the membership of Jesus in the house of David legally
depended. It is possible to reconcile the discrepancy of the
two genealogies in various ways. That the miraculous
origin of Jesus should be spoken of neither by Himself nor
Mary, was naturally to be expected. For how was it possible
360 Notes to Lectwre IV.
for Mary to mention it publicly? And Jesus would
not use this mystery as a means of faith, for it was to be
not the means but the reward of faith. Hence He leaves it
to faith itself to advance by degrees, during the course of its
internal development, to this necessary consequence of the
Divine sonship of Jesus. The other books of the New
Testament, moreover, especially the Pauline epistles, far
from contradicting, help to confirm this doctrine. The pas-
sage, Gal. iv. 4, would alone suffice to prove this. And
when St Paul presupposes the prae-mundane existence of
Christ (¢.g., Phil. ii. 6) the fact that his human life origin-
ated not by human generation, but by a Divine operation,
is but anecessary consequence. Nor would it be otherwise
by the very nature of the thing. For Christ was to be not
the product of mankind, but a gift of God which was to
enter into, and be received by it. And what is true of
Christ is true of Christianity. For in this dogma the
nature of Christianity also is manifested to be both new
and supernatural.
(°) ‘The Son of Man’ is the most usual title of the Lord
Jesus, and that by which He specially designates Himself
in the Gospels (in these it occurs more than eighty times ;
once only out of the Gospels, Acts xii. 56, and nowhere in
the Epistles)., It was formerly regarded as denoting, upon
the authority of Dan. vii. 13, nothing more than that He
was the Messiah ; but Matt. xvi. 13, 16,-and John xii. 34,
speak against such a restriction of its interpretation. The
way to the correct understanding of this title was struck
out by Hofmann in his work: Wetssagung und Erfullung,
ll. 19, ete, and in his Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, 78 ; while the
Weizsticker Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie, 1859, 4,
Baur, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftliche Theol.,
ui. 3, 274, and Kahnis, in his luther. Dogmatik, i. 416,
followed in the same direction. It points out that Jesus is
the end and aim of human history, He that was to come.
Thus this designation is allied to St. Paul’s view of Christ
as the second Adam (Rom. vy. 12, etc.; 1 Cor. xv. 45).
Starting from this idea of the central and universal relation
of Christ to all mankind, modern theology, especially }
4
Notes to Lecture IV. 361
Schleiermacher and his school, has endeavoured again to
attain to the knowledge of the higher significance of
Christ. This is well, if only we do not stop here, but
combine with the idea of the Son of Man that of the Son
of God, which is not—as has been lately supposed—iden-
tical with it. The former denotes Christ’s relation to man
and to the world, the latter His relation to God. He is
the former because He is the latter. I may perhaps be
allowed to refer, on this subject, to the Lecture I delivered
at Bremen (Die Person Jesu Christi), which forms the fourth
of a course of nine Lectures on certain important questions
and truths of Christianity, etc. Published by the Commit-
tee of the Association for the Inner Missions in Bremen.
Gotha F. A. Perthes, 1869.
(°) The absolute relation of Jesus to the world, as de-
pending upon His relation to God, is summed up (Matt. xi.
27). This may be stated under its separate heads, as fol-
lows: With relation to the O]d Testament, He is the desire
of the Old Testament saints (Matt. xiii. 17); to the Old
Testament Church He is the bridegroom of the Church
(Matt. ix. 15) ; to individual souls, the soul finds rest in
Him (Matt. xi. 29); to the human race, His Gospel must
be everywhere preached (Matt. xxv. 14); and He will
gather all nations into His Church (Matt. xxviii. 19) ; to
the world in general, He is the Judge of the whole world
(Matt. xxv. 34), ete.
('°) This difference between the fourth and the first three
Gospels was early noticed ; and in the ancient Church,—in
the Alexandrian theology,—the fourth Gospel was called
the spiritual Gospel, and was regarded with special estima-
tion. Compare Luther, ‘the unique, tender, genuine, chief
Gospel, far preferable to the other three’ (Werke, Erl. Edit.,
Ixiii. 115) ; and Matth. Claudius (i. 8): ‘There is some-
thing so wonderful about it—twilight and night, and
through both the swiftly darting lightning !—a gentle cloud
of evening, and, behind the cloud, the great full moon
bodily !—something so melancholy, so sublime, so presen-
362 Notes to Lecture IV.
tient, that one is never satiated. "Whenever I read St
John’s Gospel, I seem to see him lying on his Master’s
breast at the Last Supper ; I seem to see his spirit holding
up a light to me, and, at certain passages, falling upon my
neck and whispering in my ear. I am far from under-
standing all I read; yet it often seems as though his mean-
ing were hovering in the far distance before me ; and even
when I am considering a totally obscure passage, I have
still a presentiment of a great and glorious meaning, which
I shall one day understand, and therefore I seize with such
avidity upon every fresh exposition, upon every new expla-
nation of St John. Most, indeed, only skim the evening
cloud, and leave alone the moon behind it.—In modern
times this difference has been exaggerated into a contrast ;
but without reason ; for what is stated in the text shows
that even the first three Gospels furnish points of connec-
tion for the instruction in St John’s. The former represent
the earlier stages of Christian teaching, St John’s the higher ;
the former represent rather the historical, the latter the
eternal existence of Christ ; the former His relation to the
world, the latter His relation to God. But the latter forms
the postulate of the former, and is the substructure on which
they are based.
(11) Jesus ascribes to Himself a direct relation to God:
with reference to life: He has it in Himself, as the Father
hath (John v. 26)—with reference to His work: the work
of God is performed by Him (John vy. 17, etc.) ; with
reference to His power: He and the Father are one (John
x. 30); with reference to His being: there is absolute
communion between the two (x. 38, xiv. 10, ch. xvii.)—
hence, He is the presence of God himself (xiv. 9) ; and dis-
poses of the Spirit of God at His will, and for His service
(xvi. 7, etc., 13, etc.). This is only comprehensible, if His
communion with the Father did not take place in time, but
existed from eternity, and merely took this historical form
in the present. Hence Jesus emphatically teaches us His
existence with the Father before He became man (John iii.
13; vi. 38, 46, 51; viii. 42; xvi. 28; and, .indeed, that
es
Notes to Lecture IV. 363
this existence is a personal and eternal one (vii. 58), in
the communion of the Divine glory and love (xvii. 5, 24).
On this account, also, He accepts the confession of Thomas :
‘My Lord and my God’ (John xx. 28), and speaks of it as
the true expression of faith in Him. It is upon the ground
of this self-testimony of Jesus that St John, at the begin-
ning of his Gospel, designates Him, in his famous triad of
propositions, as the Word which was with God, and which
was God.
(2) Examples of the invocation of the Lord Jesus in
prayer occur in Acts vil. 59; Rev. xxii. 20. Christians, ©
too, are, in the New Testament, generally designated as
those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus (as in the
Old Testament the name of Jehovah was called on). Com-
pare Rom. x. 13; Acts ix. 14, 21; 1 Cor. i. 2 (upon the
ground of John v. 27).
(18) Pliny, at the beginning of the second century, in
consequence of the inquiries he had instituted, wrote con-
cerning the Christians in his letter to Trajan (Ep. x. 96):
Quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque
Christo quast Deo dicere. And this custom of praising
Christ in hymns, as God, is corroborated by the Church
historian Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 28), who speaks of the
psalms and odes of primitive times, in which Christ was
praised as God: aro! bool nas woul ddEADnY aa apyiis
urd Toray ypuPeous, Tiv Adyov rou Jeod roy ypiordy twyovor
Jeodoyourres,
('*) These thoughts are specially carried out in the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians (compare Eph, i.
10; Col. i. 20). Hence originated the view, which regards
the incarnation as not merely effected for the purpose of
taking away sin, but as necessary, even if sin had not
existed, for the realisation of the ideal of man, and for the
bestowal of a head upon the human race—a speculative
view advocated in former times, especially by certain mystics,
in modern, by theosophists, as Franz v. Baader, etc.,
364 Notes to Lecture TV.
and by theologians, as especially Dorner, etc. This notion
has no adequate support from Scripture, and differs from
primitive doctrine. It is opposed especially by Jul. Muller
(deutsche Zeitschr fiir Christl. Leben, etc., 1850, No. 40,
etc.) and Thomasius.
(*) How the heathen world strove after, yet failed to
attain to, the idea of the God-man, is stated by Dorner in
his Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi,
i., pp. 4-15. The Messianic traditions of various nations
are collected by Liiken in his Die Traditionen, etc., p. 300
sq. The East had its incarnations, the West its apotheoses.
Both have a prophetic significance, as expressions of the
ardent longing to bridge over the abyss which separates the
holy God from sinful man,
(*°) This notion of the absolute necessity of the incarna-
tion of God in Christ, even if man had not sinned, is advo-
cated by most recent theologians, especially by the tendency
which follows Schleiermacher, e.g., Nitzch, Martensen,
Liebner, Lange, Rothe, Dorner (compare his Entwicklungs-
geschichte der Lehre von d Person Christi ii, 1243, sq. ).
Jul. Muller (Deutsche Zeitseprift fiir christl. Wissensch,
1850, No. 40), and Thomasius (Christi Person und Werke,
i, (2nd edition), 1856, § 22, p. 202, sq. § 26, p. 261, sq.)
have emphatically pronounced against it. And justly so.
From Schleiermacher’s stand-point, indeed, this notion is a
necessary one. For if Christ is—according to Schleiermacher
—only the end of creation, the ultimate development of the
Divine germ. deposited beforehand in human nature, his
appearance is—if mankind is to attain the end for which it
was made—an absolute necessity. Such a Christ is, how-
ever only the realizer of that communion with God which is
implanted in us all ; and not the restorer of that which sin
had destroyed, not God and man in one person, the God-
man properly so-called. Hence this view only brings about,
by one of three ways—viz., by the (ethically conceived) idea
of God, by the idea of man, or by the idea of religion,—the
highest degree of what theology calls the wnio mystica of
Notes to Lecture IV. 365
God and man, to which we are all to attain. It seeks to
construct a Christ by speculation, instead of learning to
understand him by the history of his work of salvation.
(7) The first task of the Church, in laying down the
doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ, was to establish the
truth that two natures are united in Christ the God-man—
the Divine and the human—the second, to make evident to
the mind the personal unity of these two natures, The
Godhead of Jesus was denied by Jewish opinion, which saw
in Jesus only a prophet filled with the Spirit of God, though
the greatest of the prophets (Ebionitism) ; His proper
humanity, by heathen opinion, which recognised in Christ
an exalted spiritual being, going about the world in a
phantom body (Doceticism). This opinion afterwards pre-
vailed within the Church, in the so-called monarchian
tendency which thought that it could only maintain the
unity (monarchy) of the Deity by viewing Christ as a mere
influence or indwelling of the Spirit of God, and which
culminated in the doctrine of Arius (a presbyter at Alex-
andria during the times of his great opponent Athanasius),
according to which Christ. was a kind of intermediate being,
produced by God before the creation of the world, for the
purpose of effecting this act. After these errors had been
rejected (the latter at the Council of Nice, a.p. 325), the
question was to solve the more difficult problem of making
the unity of the two natures in the God-man compre-
hensible. Here, also, two views opposed to each other had
to be encountered ; the one, the system of sober and dis-
tinguishing reason, incapable of conceiving any but an ex-
ternal union of the two natures, and viewing the Godhead
of Christ as dwelling in the manhood, as it were, in a
temple, since otherwise, it was thought that the truth of
the human nature and the necessary distinction between
the Divine and human were violated. Such views, ad-
opted by the Antiochian school, were taught by Nestorius,
from whom they derived the name Nestorianism. The other
was that of speculative reason (the Alexandrian theology),
which, seeking to give due emphasis to the unity of the two
366 | Notes to Lecture IV.
natures, incurred the danger of sinking the human in the
Divine. This system, advocated by Eutyches in Constanti-
nople, was called Monophysitism, 7.¢., the doctrine of one
nature from the mingling of the two. In opposition to
both these contrasted views, the abiding distinction of the
two natures, and their union in the central point of the
personal life, was laid down at the Council of Chalcedon,
A.D. 451, by the influence of the Romish bishop Leo. But
even this did not satisfy the demands of Christian faith.
And it is to the Lutheran doctrine of the God-man that we
are indebted for dealing more seriously with the unity of
the two natures, which are viewed as not merely united in
the personal centre, but as themselves unified, and existing
in each other. It must, however, be confessed, that the
older Lutheran doctrine gave too great a preponderance to
the Divine, as is evident from the fact that it ascribed to
Jesus, even during His earthly life, and with regard to the
human side of His person, omnipresence, omniscience, and
omnipotence, though the possession of these attributes
does not agree with the picture presented by the Gospel
history.
(18) Jesus, after having been regarded by rationalism as a
mere man, though the ideal of virtue and wisdom, is in these
days either looked upon as the religious genius (Strauss), or
the man of ecclesiastical liberty, and the friend of the op-
pressed people (Schenkel), or the portrait given of him in
the Gospels is disguised by sentimental additions (Renan).
Compare my Lectures on the modern views of Jesus ; also,
Uhland’s Die modernen Darstellungen des Lebens Jesu, 4
lectures, 1866 ; and Niemann’s Jesw Siindlosigheit und heil.
Vollkommanheit, 1866. ;
("°) This idea of renunciation is especially expressed by
the Apostle Paul, Phil. ii. 6. The meaning of this passage
evidently is, that Christ shared in the Divine glory before
He began an earthly life, and that He surrendered this
glory in order to enter upon a life of dependence and self-
denying service, that He might then, by this road of humilia-
es =
Notes to Lecture IV. s” OOF
tion, raise himself to the height of equality with God, which
He would not seize as plunder, but receive from the Father
as the reward of His obedience. The notion of a renuncia-
tion, to a certain degree, of the Divine nature at the incar-
nation, has, from the first, prevailed in the Church, though
it has never been clearly seen how far this was to be ex-
tended. A just hesitation was felt to extend it to the divine
nature in Christ, because of the unchangeableness of God (in
deum nulla cadit mutatio), hence such a self-limitation as is
involved in the fact that the Son entered into human nature
was the point usually stopped at. This notion is also ex-
pressed in those Christmas hymns, which place side by side
the sharp contrasts found combined in Jesus Christ, as, C93
in the medizval hymn—
Altitudo, quid hic jaces
In tam vili stabulo
Qui creasti coeli faces
Alges in praesepio.
O quam mira perpetrasti
Jesu, propter hominem
Tam ardenter quem amasti
Paradiso exulem.
Firmitudo infirmatur
Parva fit immensitas,
Laboratur, alligatur
Nascitur aeternitas.
O quam mira perpetrasti, ete.
Or in Luther’s well-known Christmas song: Gelobet seist
du Jesu Christ, &e.—
In unser armes Flesch und Blut
Verkleidet sich das héchste Gut.*
In scientific theology, however, the matter assumed this form.
Starting from the twofold supposition that the Divine nature
is unchangeable, and that the attributes of omnipotence, &e.,
pertain to this nature; the human nature was in the incar-
nation, by reason of its union with the Divine, allowed to
participate in these attributes ; with this reservation, that
the human nature, in the state of humiliation, was to be
conceived of as indeed possessing, but not fully exercising
* The supreme good is disguised in our poor flesh and blood.
368 Notes to Lecture IV.
them, such exercise being the part of the Divine nature
only. Thus was it attempted both to preserve the unity and
to leave room for the human development, as well as for the
earthly and human existence of Jesus. This theory, how-
ever, offers a two-fold difficulty.. For, first, the unity of
the two natures seems not fully carried out, if the exercise
of the Divine attributes is conceded only to the Divine, and
not also to the human nature, the Divine being in this exer-
cise conceived of as exterior to the human nature. And,
secondly, this distinction between possession and exercise
can be hardly carried out in some of the attributes, e..,
omniscience. It is said, Mark xiii. 32, that even the Son
knows not the day of the judgment, and this saying seems
to militate even against the possession of omniscience, and
that not only on the part of Christ’s human, but also of His
Divine nature during His state of renunciation and humilia-
tion upon earth. Hence more recent theologians seek to
escape this difficulty by extending the renunciation to the |
Divine side also, without the latter being changed in its
proper nature. Thomasius especially (Christi Person und Werk,
ii, 2nd edition, 1857), endeavours, with much energy, to
assert and carry out such extension, by distinguishing be-
tween such attributes as belong to the proper nature of
God, and are inalienable, and such as belong to God’s rela-
tion to the ,world—such as omnipotence, omnipresence,
omniscience. These Christ renounced when He became
man. It is true that this attempt has encountered decided
opposition from other orthodox theologians, especially
Philippi, in his Kirchl. Glaubenslehre, iv. 1, 306, sq. But
though the statements of Thomasius may need much re-
vision, he has yet struck out the right path. It would
perhaps be better not to speak of the attributes of Christ,
but of His position with respect to the world. This was
changed at His incarnation. It was not during His earthly
life, one of absolute sovereignty. Christ renin according
to His nature, the Lord of the world ; and when this is
said, everything essential and eternally befitting Him in His
position with respect to the world is saved and preserved.
But His historical position was a different one, and His
Notes to Lecture IV. 369
power was determined by the limits of His office. The re-
lation of God to the world is that of power and love ; but
the power of God is at the service of His love, and is meted
to the measure of love. Thus the power of God limited
itself, even at the creation, with respect to the free self-
determination with which the love of God endowed human
personality. Now the incarnation of the Son of God being
the supreme act of love, the deepest descent into fellowship
with us, is therefore also the utmost possible self-limita-
tions of the Divine sovereignty with respect to the world, in
the service of the Divine counsel of love, and its execution
in history. In this His office of love to the world, the
power of Christ was saved and reserved, and was, at the
proper time, again displayed in His exaltation, but then as
historical reality in His position towards the world. Hence
we may say that, for the period of His earthly life, Christ
renounced, not only on the part of His human, but also His
Divine nature, the actual sovereignty of the world, in the
service, and for the purpose of His office of love towards the
world, until, at His exaltation, His office again required this
sovereignty for the purpose of appropriating to the world
that which He had earned for it by loving service.
(°°) Tertullian advers, Marcion, ii, 17 : ‘Is then the in-
carnation unworthy of God? It is in the highest degree
worthy of God. For nothing is so worthy of God as our
salvation.’ In these words is implied the notion that it is
only by beginning with the incarnate Christ that we can
rightly know God, inasmuch as the incarnation of Christ
manifests that not power but love is the highest and deepest
quality in God.
(7!) There was a time when efforts were made to get over
the miracles of the Bible by explaining them, as it was said,
in a natural manner. Paulus of Heidelberg especially sought
his laurels in such efforts during the first decades of the
present century. This was, however, the most unnatural
explanation possible, and only excited ridicule. The wise
men of the Hast, eg., were said to be travelling merchants ;
2A
370 Notes to Lecture V.
the transfiguration of Christ, a storm; the miracle at the
marriage at Cana, a marriage joke ; the healing of the man
born blind, the salutary effect of the moist cool earth upon
an inflamed eye, etc. But this folly has not even yet died
out, though the progress of education has (especially since
Strauss) exchanged such outrages for the myth and imagina-
tion theory. Hence the Gospel history is now to be regarded
as a fiction of the Christian, Church (Strauss). But, then,
whose work is this Church itself? Is it not the most
primitive conviction f the Church, that what she is, she is
through Christ? This effect requires an adequate cause.
Hence the appearance of Jesus Christ must have been a
most powerfully efficient cause; and of this appearance,
according to the conviction of the Christian Church, His
miracles formed a part. Compare ‘ Lectures on Funda-
mental Truths,’ Lect. X., p. 278.
NOTES; T0O-LECTURE Y¥-.
(*) The inculcation of the three offices of Christ is of great
antiquity in the Church, and prevailed also in the doctrinal
teaching of our Church, until Ernesti (of Leipsic) rejected
it as merely figurative language. Schleiermacher, however,
again brought it into acceptance. And justly so, for it cor-
responds with the three great eras of Israel’s history: the
post-Mosaic, in which the high priest, the Davidie, in which
the king, and the later period, in which the prophet, formed
the central point of the nation, and was the organ of God.
(*) Attempts have recently been made to explain the
development of Christ by extending the period during which
His ideas were developing beyond His baptism and into His
ministry. This view is advocated even by Keim, Der
Geschichtl. Christus.. 1865, although Christ’s baptism was
itself the assumption of His Messianic office. His Messianic
consciousness, however, presupposes his consciousness of
Sonship, and not vice versa; for it was in the nature of
things that He should first be conscious of Himself, of His
aoc
Notes to Lecture V. BY
person, and of His personal relation to God, and afterwards,
and by reason of this, of His office. The narrative of His
visit, in His twelfth year, to the Temple at Jerusalem,
‘makes this sufficiently clear. It is true that Jesus did not
from the very first, but only gradually, bear testimony to
His Messiahship ; but it is equally so that this was on
paedagogic grounds, and not because He did not at first feel
and know Himself to be the Messiah. For this testimony
and faith therein had certain moral and religious presup-
positions, unless it were to be a faith on mere authority, and
destitute of moral worth. The person and teaching of
Jesus must first have made an impression before this testi-
mony could be rightly understood and received. The dis-
ciples had reached this stage, Matt. xvi..16; and the rea-
son that Jesus so greatly rejoiced was, that their confession
of His Messiahship was not an opinion externally accepted,
but the mature fruit of their own inward development.
If then—as is evident—Jesus raised His disciples to His
own level, He must first Himself have stood upon that
height of knowledge to which He sought, by slow and patient
labour, to elevate them. This was the case, also, with His
consciousness of His approaching passion, which did not be-
come evident to Him for the first time when He spoke of
it (Matt. xxi. 21, etc.), but which He then spoke of because
His disciples were then able to bear this saying.
(*) The period before His baptism was to the Lord Jesus
the period of His development ; that subsequent to it, the
period of His ministry. When He went to His baptism
His inner development was complete ; He was certain both
of His person and His office. Hence, His baptism was
both a declaration on His part of His willingness to under-
take His office, and a Divine preparation for it (Acts x. 38).
Strauss and others have asked how this narrative of His en-
dowment with the Holy Ghost is to be reconciled with that
of His conception by the Holy Ghost, and have concluded
that the former represented the original view, while the
latter was, on the contrary, a legend subsequently formed ;
that if Jesus had been conceived by the Holy Ghost, He
572 Notes to Wecchitre V.
already possessed Him, and did not need the reception of
Him at His baptism ; and therefore that, if the latter took
place, this is equivalent to a denial of the former. But all
this rests upon a misconception of the diversities of the Hol y
Spirit’s operations, both in the case of the Lord Jesus and
of each individual believer. It is one operation of the Holy
Ghost which renews our hearts, and makes us new men,
and another which endows us with gifts and powers for the
efficient service of God. The former is His work of regen-
eration ; the latter, of bestowing gifts and graces. That
makes us children of God; this makes us His servants.
The one effects our personal communion with God ; the
other makes us fellow-workers with God. In both instances
it is one and the same Spirit, but in distinct and varying
operations ; and the former does not necessarily involve the
latter, as, on the other hand, the latter may exist indepen-
dently of the former (Matt. vii. 22; 1 Cor. xlii. 1, 2)—
Tha temptation of Christ cannot be looked upon as a merely
internal occurrence, since in this case the spotless mirror of
Christ’s soul would have been clouded by the sinful thoughts
thus made to arise from His heart. Hence it is a transac-
tion between Jesus and the tempter,—though not to be
understood in so material and literal a manner as the con-
versation and intercourse of two human beings ; for such
representations of the invisible world to the senses as we
here meet with can only be appreciated by those for whom
they are intended. This occurrence is unique in history, for
the revelation of God in Christ is also unique in history.
It is, moreover, decisive with regard to the execution of
God’s plan of salvation, and the ancient antagonism between
the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. The
importance of the event evidently consists in the fact that
it was an attempt to seduce Jesus into the path of those
carnal and earthly Messianic notions which existed in the
imaginations of the people, an attempt frequently renewed
during the ministry of Jesus. (Compare, eg., John vi. 15.)
The whole period of forty days, during which Jesus was
wholly absorbed by His spirit’s tendency towards God, and
withdrawn from bodily wants, was a time of temptation.
iia
Notes to Lecture V. Bye:
The three temptations of which we possess a narrative, form
the close of this period of temptation, when Jesus returned
to a state of consciousness to sensuous impressions, and
therewith to the feeling of bodily wants. The first tempta-
tion concerned the misuse of the miraculous powers bestowed
upon Him, for the arbitrary supply of His own temporal
necessities, instead of for the service of His Messianic office :
the second, the abuse of the mighty protection of God for
self-chosen glorification before the people ; the third, a
premature assumption of His future dominion over the
world, in direct opposition to His office, instead of receiving ~
it from the hand of God upon the path of suffering. It is
significant that Jesus, in spite of the misuse of Scripture by
the enemy, was not deterred from using it as the lawful
weapon and decisive rule of conduct.
(*) Uhland ‘ To the Unseen.’
Du den wir suchen auf so finstern Wegen
Mit forschenden Gedanken nicht erfassen
Du hast dein heilig Dunkel einst erlassen
Und tratest sichtlear deinem Volk entgegen.
Welch siisses Heil, dein Bild sich einzuprdgen
Die Worte deines Mundes aufzufassen!
O selig, die an deinem Mahle sassen!
O selig, der an deiner Brust gelegen !
Drum war es anch kein seltsames Geliiste
Wenn Pilger ohne Zahl vom Strande stiessen
Wenn Heere kiimpften an der fernsten Kiiste.
Nur um an deinemfrahe noch zu heten
Und um in frommer Inbrunst noch zu kiissen
Die heilige Erde die dein Fiiss betreten.
(Thou—whom we seek in ways so dark, whom we can-
not with all our researches comprehend—Thou didst once
leave thy sacred obscurity and appear visibly to Thy
people.
What a precious blessing, to have had thine image im-
pressed upon (the mind), to have taken in the words of
Thy mouth. Oh happy they who sat at table with thee,
Oh happy he who leant upon Thy breast.
It was no strange fancy that innumerable pilgrims should
launch on the deep, that armies should contend on distant
374 | Notes to Lecture V.
coasts only for the sake of praying at thy sepulchre, and
kissing with heartfelt devotion the holy soil trodden by thy
feet).
Some lines, too, of Schenkendorf’s poem ‘ Sehnsucht’ may
also be added—
Act, das war ein schiéner Segen
Wenn er mit den Jungern ging
Auf den Feldern, auf den Wegen
Jedes Herz wie Maienregen
Seinen Trost sein Wort empfing.
(Ah it was a great happiness when He went in the
fields and by the way with His disciples—every heart
received His comforting words like rain in May).
(°) So, also, Pressensé, Jesus Christ, etc., p. 291.
(°) An excellent section on the universality of sacrifice
may be found in Nicolas ii. 52, etc., where also Voltaire’s
saying (Essai sur les Meurs, chap. 70), is quoted: ‘ Among
so many different religions there is none whose main object
has not been propitiation. Man has ever felt that he
needed pardon.’ :
(7) Comp. Virgil Aen. V. 815: Unum pro multis dabitur
caput. On human sacrifice in a substitutionary sense
among the Greeks, compare Nigelsbach Wachhomer. V'heologie,
1857, v. 5 and 6, p. 195, etc, and vi. 19, p. 355, ete.
(8) The first attempt to prove the necessity of an atone-
ment by the God-man, in the way of suffering, was made
by the great theologian Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, :
in his work, Cur Deus Homo : (Why did God become man?)
It is man who must suffer for sin and for the offence done
to God by sin, while yet he is incapable of offering an
adequate, because an infinite, satisfaction for this infinite
offence, which God alone can do ; hence it is the act of the
God-man, and that by His voluntary death, which is a full,
perfect, and sufficient satisfaction for this guilt, and is there-
fore our comfort in death. This view of the subject became
and remained, on the whole, that of the Church, being in
Notes to Lecture V. 375
all essential matters that which is founded on Scripture.
(Compare, eg., 2 Cor. v. 21.) On the other hand, the
denial of the need of atonement originated with the
Socinians, and passed from them to the rationalists, a
summary of whose objections is given by Philippi, in
his Kirchl. Glaubenslehre, iv. 2, 158, etc. The doctrine of
the atonement, as held by the older divines of our Church,
is essentially as follows: 1. Sin is an offence against the
Triune God: 2. This offence God must punish ; to leave
it unpunished and forgive it unconditionally, would be at
variance with both God’s justice and truth. 3. Its fitting
punishment would be eternal. death, the perdition of men.
This would satisfy the justice of God, but not His love.
Hence the wisdom of God found an expedient by which
satisfaction was rendered, first to His justice and then also
to His love. This satisfaction was rendered by the God-
man, whose acts and sufferings are of infinite worth be-
cause He is God, and avail for us because He is man. 5.
His intervention comprises both His active and _pas-
sive obedience. By His active obedience He fulfilled in
our stead the law which we had not fulfilled; by His
passive obedience He suffered in our stead the punish-
ment of the law which we had incurred—suffered it not
partially but entirely, and therefore endured, though not
eternally, even the torments of hell and perdition, or eternal
death. Thus He made satisfaction to the Divine justice.
6. The effect of this satisfaction is the merit of Christ,
which the love of God then makes over and imputes to us.
Against this theory the Socinians objected—1. That sub-
stitutionary punishment was not necessary, because God
could, of His own kindness, forgive as well as men can.
To which it may be replied that the freedom of God is not
inclination, but that it is bound to the moral law of His
- own nature, which God cannot deny. 2. They oppose the
possibility of substitutionary penal suffering. For, first:
Forgiveness of sin and satisfaction exclude each other ; if
God is paid by punishment, there is no need for Him to
forgive. This objection, however, though it holds good in
the sphere of facts, e.g., with regard to money debts, etc.,
376 Notes to Lecture V.
does not hold good in the sphere of morals with regard to
moral debts. Then: It is unjust to make the innocent
suffer in the place of the guilty, and impossible to make
over the sin and guilt of one to another. These objections
are obviated by the idea of substitution or representation,
as it frequently occurs even in human relations. Jesus
Christ, moreover, does not stand in an incidental relation
to human nature, but comprises it in Himself as its head
and representative; He is the Son of Man. 3. They
object to the reality of substitutionary penal suffering, that
Christ did not really suffer the punishment of all men and
eternal death, for He rose from the dead. Christ, however,
did suffer death, which is the wages of sin. And, finally—
4. They object to the moral results of this doctrine ; for if
Christ has already obeyed the law for us, we need not fulfil
it ourselves. This, however, is an utterly external kind
of view, which misconceives the fact that in this case we
have to dea! with inward relations and moral transactions.
Rationalism then went beyond Socinianism, attacking
Church doctrine as one which made God ‘a blood-thirsty
Moloch,’ and affirming that the death of Christ was only the
death of a martyr for his testimony to truth. Recent theo-
logy, which has more or less decidedly returned to Church
doctrine, lays greater emphasis on the personal and moral
element in Christ’s sufferings than was done by the older
divines, and therefore regards them more as expiatory than
as penal. The question is, not to prove that Christ actually
suffered that hell and perdition which we must have suf-
fered in the future—a proof which would be attended by
some difficulty, because the bond of communion between
the Father and the Son was never wholly dissolved, not
even on the Cross, and hence Christ was never rejected and
condemned by God in the full and proper sense of the
words, but was, on the contrary, ever assured by faith of
God’s love and united therewith—but the chief matter of
all is that Christ, of His own free will, took upon Himself
the penal consequences of sin, which He suffered by death,
and thus made them His personal act and deed, which, He
being our representative, holds good for us.
Notes to Lecture V. 377
(°) On the moral nature of God, and on the moral system
of the world as conditioned thereby, comp. Delitzsch System
der christl. Apologetik, p. 178 sq., ‘God is just. The
punishment of sin, which makes itself felt in a thousand
forms, both in and around us, proves this. The pangs
which our conscience suffers, as the consequence of
sin—the afflictions of mind, body, or circumstances by
which sin is punished—death, to which all around us,
and at length we ourselves, succumb with all the sor-
row -which precedes and follows it—the Nemesis which
presides over the world’s history, and visits the sins of .
fathers upon children and children’s children, excluding
all notion of chance—all this testifies to us that God is the
Just One. He governs and judges according to the rule of
supreme justice. For there is a moral system of the world,
not ordained by a Divine arbitrariness which might have
ordered it otherwise, but a system which a moral will, cor-
responding with the goodness of God, and therefore neces-
sary and unchangeable, absolutely conditions and disposes.’
Comp. also Stahl, (Fundam. einer christliche Philosophie,
1846, p. 141, etc,) on Justice as the idea of the moral
world as such, 7.e., the idea upon which its stability and
preservation depend, and on its basis in the Supreme Per-
sonality, who unchangeably wills His own will. The
opposite view is expressed in the notions advocated by
mediaeval teachers, and subsequently by Socinians, accord-
ing to which the will of God is identified with arbitrariness,
and His freedom regarded as in opposition to necessity,
instead of in accordance with inward necessity.
(1°) The distinction between atonement and punishment,
in opposition to their identification by our older dogmatists,
has been well and clearly laid down by Stahl, Pundamente
emer christl. Philosophie 1846, p. 156, etc. Atonement
is an ethical punishment, a judicial notion; the former
presupposes an innocent, the latter a guilty person, the
former must he voluntarily undertaken, the latter need
only be endured ; the former sutisfies the moral conscious-
ness, the latter the sense of justice ; the former restores the
moral fellowship, the latter separates therefrom ; hence the
378 Notes to Lecture V.
former is done away with in the very act of its consumma-
tion, the latter is by its nature abiding.
(1) When Moses resolved (Exod. xxxii.) “I will go up
unto the Lord, peradventure I shall make an atonement
for your sins,” and professed his willingness that his name
should be blotted out of the book of the Lord, he was
seeking to save the people by offering himself to the anger
of God. * All those men of God ete, like Elijah and Jere-
miah, were consumed by the ardour of their wrath against, and
love for their people, were in this respect types of Him
who took upon His heart and conscience the sin of His
whole nation and of all mankind, that by so doing His
death might make an atonement for them.” Delitzsch A pol.,
p. 405.—Nor was the idea of substitution alien to heathen
antiquity. Compare Nagelsbach Machhomer. Theol., p.
29-34, 194-200, 343, 353.—The notion of a substitution
is found in Aischylus’s legend of Prometheus (Prometheus
Bound, v. 1026 sq.) : ‘ Hope not for an end to such oppres-
sion until a god appears as thy substitute in torment, ready
to descend for thee into the sunless realm of Hades, and
the dark abyss of Tartarus:’ (compare ‘ Lectures on
Fundamental Truths, Lecture VIII., 209), also in So-
phocles’ Cidipus in Colonos, v. 498: ‘ For one soul, I
think, would suffice to effect this, even for thousands, if it
approaches with a pure mind.’ On which passage Wilhelm
Henke, in his clever brochure on the CEdipus of Sophocles,
p. 23, remarks : ‘They who would find in these two lines
a touch of Messianic prediction, need no allegorical explana-
tion to help them.’ That only a pure soul is capable of
effecting an atonement for a guilt-laden family and race, is
the beautiful thought upon which Goethe’s Iphigenia in
Tauris is founded :
‘ Soll dieser Fluch denn ewig walten? Soll
Nie diess Geschlecht mit neuem Segen
Sich wieder heben ?
So hofft ich denn vergebens, hier verwahrt,
Von meines Hauses Schicksal abgeschieden,
Dereinst mit reiner Hand und reinem Herzen
Die schwer befleckte Wohnung zu entsiihnen’ (iv. 5).
Notes to Lecture V. 379
(Is, then, this curse to last for ever? Is this race never
to rise up again with a new blessing? Then have I hoped
in vain, kept here apart from the fate of my family, to
make, one day, with pure hand and heart, an atonement for
my deeply stained home.)
(7) Certain facts of ancient history, such as the self-
sacrifice of Codrus at Athens, or of Curtius, at Rome, are,
in some sense, examples of such passive and active substi-
tution. Compare also Stahl, /undamente, etc., p. 157, on
the idea of atonement in the death of Antigone, as well as
in other historical events.
(°) Compare Kritzler: MWumanitdét und Christenthum,
1866, i. p. 87.
('*) Compare a series of passages in Pascal, ii, 338, éte. :
‘Le mystére de Jésus: Jésus cherche quelque consolation
au moins dans ses trois plus chers amis, et ils dorment, ete.
Jésus est seul dans la terre, non seulment qui ressente et
partage sa peine, mais qui la suche, le crel et lui sont seuls
dams cette connaissance. Il souffre cette peine et cet aban-
don dans Vhorreur de la nuit. And farther on, p. 314,
where Pascal touchingly sums up in a few words all the
tragic circumstances in the life of Jesus: ‘ De trente-trois
ans, ul en vit trente sans paraitre. Dans trois ans il passe
pour un imposteur ; les prétres et les principaux le rejet-
tent ; ses amis et ses plus proches le méprisent. Enfin a
meurt trahi par un des siens, renié par Cautre et abandonné
par tous.’
(5) Compare, on this subject, Pascal, ii. 323: ‘Qui a
appris aux evangelistes les qualités dune dme parfaitement
heroique, pour la peindre si parfaitement en Jésus Christ ?
Pourquoi le font ils faible dans son agonie? Ne savent ils
pas peindre une mort constante? Out, car le méme saint
Luc peint celle de saint Etienne plus forte que celle de
Jésus Christ. Ils le font done capable de crainte avant que
la nécessité de mourir soit arrivée, et ensuite tout fort. Mars
380 Notes to Lecture V.
quand ils le font st troublé, cest quand il se trouble lui
méme, et quand les hommes le troublent il est tout fort.’
(1°) According to Pressensé, p. 290. On the alteration
in Jesus before and after His inward victory over the fear
that came upon Him, compare Pascal, ii. 323, &c., and
339: ‘Jésus prie dans Vincertitude de la volonté du Pere
et craint la mort; mais Vayant connue, il va au devant
sofrir & elle: eamus, processit (Johannes).
(7) On the punishment of crucifixion in the ancient
world, particulars will be found in Herzog’s Theol. Realen-
eycl. viii. 65, &e. There were two principal forms accord-
ing to which the cross was constructed, the so-called erux
commissa, T, and the crux immissa, f, the form with which
we are familiar. The cross on which Christ was crucified
seems to have been the former. This appears from a pas-
sage of Tertullian (adv. Marcion, iii. 22 ; ipsa est enim litera
Graecorum Tau nostra autem T, species crucis), from various
crosses in the ancient catacombs, and finally, from the cari-
cature-crucifix of the beginning of the third century, which
was discovered among the ruins of the palace of the Caesars
on the Palatine. Compare the next note, Crucifixion itself
was probably derived by the Romans from the Carthaginians
and Phoenicians. It was very extensively employed by the
former during the Servile War and at the conquest of Jeru-
salem. It was esteemed the most terrible punishment (Cic.
crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium), and a degradation
(servile supplicium) to which only slaves and the worst of
criminals, but never Roman citizens, were subjected. A
stupefying potion was, according to Jewish, but not accord-
ing to Roman custom, first administered to those condemned
to it. (This was offered to Jesus also, Matt. xxvii. 34, but
rejected by Him, because He desired to suffer and die in
full possession of consciousness.) ‘The criminal was then
drawn up with ropes by the four soldiers charged, according
to custom, with the execution, and seated upon the sedile (a
peg in the middle of the long beam to support the weight
of the body). The arms and legs were then firmly bound, and
Notes to Lecture V. 381
strong nails driven through the hands, and algo through the
feet, which usually rested on a foot-board (the suppedanewm).
The tortures of crucifixion were produced, 1, by the unnatural
extension and sameness of position, by the slightest motion,
especially of the lacerated back—crucifixion being generally
preceded by scourging—and by the nails; 2, many nerves
and sinews being torn and pressed upon by the nails, great
anguish must have been the result ; 3, the wounds became
inflamed, the flow of blood being checked by its coagulation,
and gangrene thus formed, which stopped the circulation,
and produced violent pain and unendurable thirst ; 4, the
blood, finding no room in the outstretched limbs, rushed to
the head and chest, causing terrible pains in the head, and
much internal congestion and agony. ‘Torpidity and ex-
haustion came on gradually. It not unfrequently happened
that birds of prey lighted upon the bodies of the crucified
while still alive, picking out their eyes, &c., without their
being able to defend themselves; or that wild beasts de-
voured them. Crucified criminals did not generally live
more than twelve hours, though they sometimes suffered till
the third day. The Jewish historian Josephus tells us of
certain who were at his intercession taken down from the
cross before death, and whose lives were saved by the most
assiduous care and attention. It is evident that this punish-
ment was a combination of the severest torments which a
refinement of cruelty could invent. Zestermann began the
_ delivery of a very thorough and interesting discussion on
_ the sign of the Cross, as the programme of the Thomassehule
at Leipsic, Easter 1867. The Pictorial Representation of
the Cross and the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ historically de-
veloped. Div. I—The Cross before Christ.
(8) The particulars will be found in the interesting work
_ of Fred Becker: Das Spottcrucifia der rimischen Kaiser-
_ paliste aus dem Anfang des 3 Jahrh. 1866; the chief matter
_of which is contained also in a second work of the same
writer: Die Darstellung Jesu. Christi unter dem Bild des
Fisches auf den Monumenten der Kirche der Katakomben,
1866. |
382 Notes to Lecture V.
NOTES TO LECTURE VI.
(‘) On the question of Christ’s resurrection, compare
‘Lectures on Fundamental Truths,’ Lecture VII., p. 202.
Holsten openly asserts (see the articles cited in the Protest.
Kirchenzeitung, 1862, April and May), that criticism must
explain everything according to historical, i.e, to natural
principles, and, hence, cannot but deny the miracle of the
resurrection ; that so fatal an inconsistency must not and
cannot be attributed to modern consciousness, as the recep-
tion of this fact would involve ; and believes he can account
for the faith of the disciples in the resurrection by the hypo-
thesis that the disciples found the grave empty because
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who were no disciples !
had removed the body to another place, which remained
unknown. In short, in the case of all modern deniers of
the fact of the resurrection, we find that either doctrinal
or philosophic assumptions form the motive or furnish the ne-
cessity for denial. Zeller, in his Vortrdgen und Abhandlun-
gen geschichtslichen Inhalts (1865, p. 491), unreservedly
declares, that he and those like-minded with him could
not possibly believe in the reality of such an event as the
resurrection of Christ, ‘however strong might be the testi-
mony thereto.’
(?) According to the unquestionable account of Holy Scrip-
ture; the place of Christ’s crucifixion, as well as the not dis-
tant sepulchre, was outside the city (Mark xv. 20, John xix.
17, 20, Heb. xiii. 12, 13) while the present Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, which also includes Golgotha, stands within.
Helena, the mother of Constantine, ascertained the spot,
guided not only by existing Christian tradition, but also by
diligent enquiries especially among the Jews, and three —
crosses being found here, Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem—
so says the Legend—verified the cross of Christ by healing —
therewith ‘a dying man after having in vain touched him ~
with the crosses of the two thieves. Eusebius declares that —
over the Holy Sepulchre had been erected a temple of
Venus, which was razed by Constantine, and a mortuary —
church erected in its stead, begun a.D. 326, and com-
Notes to Lecture V. | 383
pleted a.p. 336. According to an ancient retrospective
legend Adam is said to have been buried at the spot on
which the crucifixion took place. On the genuineness of
this Holy place investigators are divided, but the balance of
probability is in its favour. So much the more is it to be
regretted that this holiest spot of Christendom should be
desecrated by the unworthy scenes which notoriously occur
every Easter eve.
(*) Negotiations on this matter have, since the old ration-
alistic explanation of a trance could not be saved, even by
Schleiermacher, been all. concentrated on the question, —
whether we have here to do with a vision or an external
and actual fact. Compare Giider’s Apologetischen Beweis-
Jiihrungen ; Beyschlag’s Die Auferstehung Christi in the
Studien und Kritiken, 1864, ii; Gebhardt’s Die Auferste-
hung Christt und thre neuesten Glegner, 1864; and Stutz,
Vortrdge, p. 146, ete. Mosheim had already sufficiently
refuted the vision hypothesis. Compare Beweis des Glaubens,
1867, 1, p. 23.
(*) So Holsten, in the above mentioned articles, in Opposi-
tion to which Beyschlag brings forward all needful consider-
ations, and directs attention to the fact that St Paul makes
a very clear distinction between actual appearances like
that near Damascus, and visions (as in 2 Cor. xii.)
(°) So also Keim, Geschichtl. Christus, p. 133.
(°) It is fundamentally, Schleiermacher’s view, that a vital
influence proceeded from the personality of Christ, filled as
it was with Divinity ; that this influence, continuing within
the Church, is experienced by every individual who enters
its communion. From the fact of this experience, he argues
as from an effect to its cause, and demands and constructs
therefrom the historical fact of Christ’s person ; but the re-
lation in which he makes Christ stand to the Christian is
not that present and direct one which is unmistakably
represented in Scripture to have been the conviction of the
Apostolic Chrech. Compare also my Sermons, vol. iii., Das
Wort der Wahrheit, 1866, p. 16.
384 Notes to Lecture V.
(°) The Holy Ghost, in the sense of His New Testament
agency, was, both according to John vii. 3, 9, and to the
promises of the departing Saviour to His disciples (Jobn
xiv. 16, and elsewhere), as also to the consciousness of the
apostles (¢.g., 1 John iii. 24), something absolutely new ;
for since He is the power by which redemption is
appropriated, and the bond of communion with God, it was
necessary that redemption itself should be effected, and com- —
munion with God restored by the death, resurrection, and
glorification of Jesus, before the Holy Ghost could appro-
priate this new salvation. Since, then, the possession of
the Holy Spirit is the characteristic of Christians, it is He
who makes the Christian a Christian, Rom. viii. 9.
(°) Compare Delitzsch Apol., p. 262 sq., and Hegel in the
preface to the 2d edit. of his Encyclopedia.
(°°) Hegel Religions Philosophie, ii., note 188.
(*°) What Cicero tells us of the poet Simonides is interest-
ing. When questioned concerning the nature of God, he
always requested more time for his answer, because the more
deeply he examined the matter, the more obscure did it
appear (De Nat. Deor., i., 21-: Simonides ab Hierone Syra-
cusarum tyranno wnterrogatus, quid aut qualis sit deus,
deliberandi cousa sibi unum diem, inde biduum postulavit.
At quum saepius dierum numerum duplicasset, admiranti
cur id faceret Hieroni ; quia quanto, respondit, diutius con-
sidero, tanto mihi res videtur obscurior).
(") The words of Nicolas, iii. 83.
{") This comparison was originally used by the Romish
Bishop Gregory the Great, who, in a letter to Leander,
Archbishop of Seville, uses these words when speaking of
Holy Scripture.
(**) Compare Delitzsch Apol., p. 286, and his appeal to
Bahr’s Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus (1837).
a
ee ee oe
Notes to Lecture VI. 385
(‘*) In connexion with the Old Testament passages on
Wisdom, Job xxviii. 13, &e.; Prov. viii. 22 (compare Wisd.
vil. 25), in which the Church has at all times found allusions
to the Trinity (see even Philippi’s Kirchl. Glaubenslehre, ii.
192), and the Old Testament statements concerning the
Word, a theory of the Logos (i.e., word or reason), a kind
of intermediate impersonal being, and the organ of all Divine
revelation, whether natural or spiritual, was formed, especi-
ally in the Alexandrine philosophy of religion, and, above
all, by Philo, a contemporary of our Lord and His apostles,
Compare Kahnis, Dogmatik, i. 316, &c., where also the
literature of this subject is adduced. But this prae-
Christian speculation was no more a preparation for, or pre-
cursor of the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity than
was the son of God in Plato’s Timdus. They are mere ab-
stractions, and not realities. ‘The Christian doctrine of
one God in three centres of manifestation, which each by
itself manifests the whole Godhead, did not originate in a
purely metaphysical manner, but was developed from a be-
lef in. the facts of the manifestation ’ (Martensen, Dogmatih,
p. 96, &e.). Still less has it anything in common with the
supposed traces of Trinitarianism found in heathen religions,
as in the Indian Trimurti. These are founded on entirely
different notions, and are symbolic forms of the process of
natural life. They are only worthy of mention, in so far
as they exemplify that law of the human mind, its tendency
to think of the process of life exclusively in a triple manner.
(7°) Compare Tholuck Ssufismus sive theosophia Persarum
pantheistica, 1821. Bliithensammlung ans der morgenlind-
sche Mystik, 1825.
(*°) Traces (vestigia) of Trinity have from of old been
sought in nature (eg., sun, ray, light) ; but a resemblance
thereto, though but a very remote one (imago non equalis,
wmo valde longeque distans, August De civ. Dei, xi. 26 ; De
trin., xv. 22), has been found only in man ; Augustine, in-
deed, was the first to strike out this path. He pointed out
an image of the Trinity in the elements of man’s nature :
2B
386 Notes to Lecture VI.
Being (esse or consciousness, memoria), knowledge (nosse),
will (velle) Compare Confess. xiii. 11 ; De civ. Det xi. 26,
27 ; memoria, intellectus, voluntas De ipin, Ni, aoe 2.
The will is, however, more profoundly defined by him as
love, as dilectio, caritas: numquid est aliud caritas quam
voluntas? Thus, then, the Trinitarian process is an inward
mutual knowledge and will on the part of God. Or he
obtains from the very idea of love, which involves self-
knowledge as its postulate, the inward self-distinction of
God: amans, amatus, mutuus amor., De trin., vill. 10 ;
ix. 2. Subsequent Church teachers followed in the steps of.
Augustine. The first mode of explanation became the usual
one in the Church ; the other, that which prevailed among
the mystics. In the Reformation era, Melanchthon attempted
to transfer this explanation into the Protestant system of
doctrine: ‘The Son is the self-thought of the Father, the
Holy Ghost the loving will of both (Pater eternus sese
intuens gignit cogitationem sui, que est Imago wpsius non
evanescens, sed subsistens communicata tpsi essentia. Hoec
imago est secunda persona. Dicitwr Abyos quia, cogitatione
generatur, dicitur imago, quia cogitatio est imago ret cogitate.
Ut autem filius nascitur cogitatione, ita spiritus sanctus pro-
cedit a voluntate patris et filii ; voluntatis est enim diligere
—Pater filium vult et amat eum, ac vicissim filius in-
tuens patrem vult et amat eum; hoc mutuo amore, qui pro-
prie est voluntatem, procedit spiritus sanctus). Moderns
have sought, partly by the idea of self-consciousness, partly
by that ae love, to attain to that of the Trinity. Lessing
took the first course in a very interesting treatise: Das
Christenthum der Vernunfé (Works by Lachmann, xi.
604-607). ‘ God, the all-perfect,’ continues Lessing here,
‘from all eternity, thought Himself, and could think nothing
else’ (as Aristot., Waterton ph. vi. 9, also says: ‘ The Peete
Spirit can think ee else than Himself; for all else is
inferior, is less than Himself ; hence, if ie thought any-
thing else, He would think what is inferior, which is im-
possible’). Now idea, will, action, is with God one and
the same. God can think of Himself in two manners ; either —
as all perfections at once, or as these perfections separated.
Notes to Lecture VI. 387
The former self-thought of God is the eternal Son. If we
think of God, we think of Him together with the latter, be-
cause we cannot think of God apart from His idea of Him-
self ; He is God’s image, but an identical image. Now,
between two things which have all qualities in common, i.e,
which are but one, there is the greatest harmony, And
this is the case here. The harmony between these two is
called the Spirit. In this harmony is all that is in the
Father and in the Son ; it, therefore, is God. None can be
without the other; all three are one. “The other manner
of the Divine thought is that in which God thinks of His
perfections as separated, ¢.e., creates beings of which each
has somewhat of His perfections. These together form the
world, etc.’—To rise to the idea of Trinity from the idea of
self-consciousness, and of its subjective process, became cus-
tomary through the influence of the Hegelian philosophy.
Among modern divines, Twesten especially (Dogmatik
ii, 1, 194 sq.), has taken this road; a road, however,
by which we can never succeed in attaining to the
personality of the third Divine Person, the Holy Ghost ;
not even by such profound philosophic efforts as those
made by Weissenborn in his lectures on Pantheism and
Theism, 1859, p. 184, etc. Beginning with love, and
following in the steps of Augustine, Sartorius (Die Lehre v.
d. heal. Liebe. i), among others, has sought in an interesting
manner to attain to the Trinity. But little ag these
attempts are capable of affording actual support to faith in
the Trinity of God, they yet show that an inward process
of life and love must be thought of in God, by means of |
which God is ever causing Himself to exist, and which, by
reason of revelation, is known to bea triune one. For it
is opposed to Christian consciousness to imagine a stiff un-
bending monotheism, and a God existing, so to speak, in a
state of isolation. This has ever been maintained in the
Church. Thus, eg., Athan. contra Arian, ii. 1: The
Divine nature would be solitary (Zpyuos), like a light that
does not shine, like a dried up spring. Hilar. de trin., vii.
3: Non enim unum deum pie possumus predicare si solum.
Vine. Lerin. Commonit, c. 17, against Photinus: ‘ Dicit
deum singulum esse et solitarium et more Judaico confiten-
388 Notes to Lecture VI.
dum. It is for this very reason that God is self-sufficing
and blessed ; otherwise He would be in need of the world.
Thus a great defence against pantheism has ever been found
in the doctrine of the Trinity ; for the former makes God
exist by means of the world, while the God of Christianity
has His eternal being in Himself.
(") That God can only be truly and savingly known in
Christ, is the constant maxim both of Luther and Pascal.
Luther is ever returning to it in his exposition of the xiv.,
xv., and xvi. chaps. of St John, and of the high-priestly
prayer of Jesus. Thus he says, to quote only one passage,
on John xvi. 3: ‘Mark how Christ intertwines and
unites the knowledge of Himself and of the Father so that
the Father can be known only through and in Christ. For
I have often said this, and I will say it again, so that even
when [ am dead it may be remembered, and men may
beware of all teachers, as led and guided by the devil, who
begin first of all to teach and preach of God alone and apart
from Christ,’ ete. So, too, he was fond of repeating, that
if we would know God we must begin at Christ’s manger,
unless we would be lost in the labyrinth of the Divine
Majesty (e¢.g., Opp. lat. Hrl. ii. 170). Melanchthon, too, in-
troduces in his Loci, 1535, the discussion on the Divine
nature, with the remark that he can find no more fitting
commencement than the answer of Jesus to Philip, when he
desired to see the Father: ‘He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father ;’ and that we are therefore to seek and to
know God in Christ: Utdiscamus deum querere in Christo,
in hoc enim volnit patefiert innotescere et apprehendi; for
otherwise we shall fall into terrible darkness. _ Pascal, too,
often returns to the thought that, out of Christ, God is a
hidden God, and opposes mere deism as much as atheism,
etc., e.g., . 113, ete. Only the knowledge of God in Christ
is also true self-knowledge, p. 115: ‘ On peut bien connaitre
Dieu sans sa misére et sa misére sans Dieu ; mais on ne peut
connaitre Jésus Christ sans connaitre tout ensemble et Dieu
et sa misére,—Et cest pourquot je wentreprendrat pas ici
de prouver par des raisons naturelles, ou Vexistence de Dieu,
Notes to Lecture VIT. 389
ou la Trinité, ou Vimmortalité de Pame, ni aucune des choses
de cette nature—parce que cette connaissance sans J, ésus
Christ, est inutile et sterile. P. 116: ‘Le dieu des Chrétiens
ne consiste pas en wn Diew simplement auteur des vérités
géeometriques et de Vordre des elements; c’est la part des patens
et des Epicuriens. Il ne consiste pas seulement en un Dieu
qui exerce sa providence sur lu vie et sur les biens des hommes ;
cest la portion des Juifs. Mais—le Dieu des Chréticns est
un Ineu damour et de consolation. Cest un Dieu que rem-
plit Vame et le coeur quil posséde; cest un Dieu qui leur fait
sentir intériewrement leur misére et sa misericorde infinie,’ ete.
P.117: ‘Tous ceux qui cherchent Diew hors de Jesus Christ
et qui sarrétent dans la nature, ou us ne trouvent aucune
lumiére qui les satisfusse, ou ils arrivent d se JSormer un moyen
de connaitre Dieu et dele servir sans médiateur 3 et par la
us tombent ou dans Vathéisme ou dans le déisme qui sont deux
choses que la religion Chrétienne abhorre presque également. —
NOTES TO LECTURE VIL
() So Nicolas, iii. 145-147,
(’) August. Znarr, in Psalm. 70, sermo 2, § 12, Nicolas,
iv. 512, ete. |
(*) On the reproach of novelty, compare Schaff, Geschich.
der alten Kirche. 1867, pp. 181, 186. This was one of the
reproaches of Celsus, refuted by Origen (Contra Cels.
vi. p. 329),
(*) Pase. ii, 200: ‘I est venu enfin en la consommation
du temps ; et depuis on a vu naitre tant de schismes et
ahérésies, tant reverser d’états, tant de changements en toutes
choses, et cette église qui adore celui qui a toujour été adoré a
subsisté sans interruption. Et ce qui est admirable, incom-
parable, et tout a& fuit divin, est que cette religion qui a
toujours duré a toujours été combattu. Mille fois elle a été a
la veille d’une destruction universelle ; et toutes les fois quelle
390 Notes to Lecture VII.
a été en cet etat, Diew Va relevée par des coups extraordinaires
de sa puissance. Crest ce gut est étonnant, et gwelle s est main-
tenue sans fléchir et plier sous la volonté des tyrans. Les étuts
perissaient, st on ne fursart ployer souvent les lois a la nécessité.
Mais jamais la religion n'a souffert cela et nen a usé.—
(°) Naville, Der himmlische Vater, p. 60, adduces a series
of works by French scholars (Franck, Edgar Quinet,
Benjamin Constant), pointing out the importance of religion
as an instrument of civilization.
Buckle, indeed, in his History of Civilization, thinks that
‘the Church and religion are a power hostile to and restrictive
of progress, Compare, however, on the other side’ the deutsche
Vierteljahrschrift, 1866, No. 119, p. 79. Guizot cours
a histoire moderne, Lect. v., on the church: ‘She touched
on all the great questions in which man is interested; she con-
cerned herself with all the problems of his existence, all the
changes of his lot. Hence her influence on modern civil-
ization was very great, greater than either her most violent
opponents or most zealous defenders represented, Mont-
esquieu Esprit des lois, xx. 3: ‘Strange that the Christian
religion whose only object seems to be the happiness of the
other world should ensure also the happiness of this.’
(°) Excellent works on this subject have been published
by certain French authors, in consequence of a prize offered
by the French Academy in 1849. Among others: by
Etienne Chastel: Geneva. tudes historiques sur UT in-
fluence de la charité durant les premiers siécles Chrétiens, con-
sidérations sur son réle dans les sociétés modernes. Ouvrage
couronné en 1852, par ? Académie Francaise, dans le concours
ouvert sur cette question ; and Schmidt, Strasburg, upon the
same subject (a work also rewarded by the French
Academy) : La sociéte civile dans ancien monde Romain, et
sa transformation par la Chretienté, 1857.
(') Compare ‘ Lectures on Fundamental Truths,’ Lecture
VI, Note 1., p. 835.
(°) Ly. v. Schweizer, Zeitgeist und Christenthum, 1861 _
Notes to Lecture VIT. 391
p. 196. Compare ‘Lectures on Fundamental Truths,’
Lecture I., Note 9, p. 337.
(°) Nicolas has a similar train of thought, 3, 283; and
the paragraph following may also be compared with his
work, Pfaff (Ueber das Wesen und den Umfang der Toler-
anz im Allgemeinen und der christlichen Toleranz. insbeson-
_ dere) has some good remarks on. toleration.
(°) Compare Neander, Denkw. i. 39, Schaff Geschichte der
alten Kirche, p. 147, On the vindication of religious freedom
and freedom of conscience, notions then new to the world, by
the early Christian apologists, compare Neander, Denkw. i.
42, Schaff, p. i48, where various striking passages are cited,
especially Zert. ad Scap. c 2: ‘Tamen humani juris et
naturalis potestatis est unicuique quod putaverit colere, nec
alir obest aut prodest alterius religio. Sed nec religionis est
cogere religronem, que sponte suscipit debeat, non vi. A polog.
24: ° Videte enim ne et hoc ad irreligiositatis elogium con-
currat, adimere libertatem religionis et interdicere optionem
divinitatis, ut non liceat mihi colere quem velim, sed cogar
colere quem nolim. Nemo se ab invito coli volet, ne homo
quidem.’ Compare also, Ad. Schmidt, Geschichte der Denk
und Gewissensfretheit in den ersten Jahrh. der Kaiserherr-
schaft. 1847, and the fine passage in Naville, Der himml.
Vater, p. 68, ete.
(*) Compare Naville, Der himmil. Vater, p. 84: ‘ Faith,
when it seeks to gain adherents by force, acts in direct
antagonism to itself; the spirit of scepticism need only
walk according to the laws of its own nature, to become a
spirit of violence.’
(*) See Naville, Der himml. Vater, p. 73.
(°) It was the usual reproach of heathen controversialists
e.g-, of a Celsus, that Christians consisted chiefly of the lower
classes: ‘In other mysteries, it was customary for the
herald to cry out: Whoso hath clean hands and a good
conscience let him enter! But these cry: If any is a
392 Notes to Lecture VII.
sinner, a fool, a child, a lost man, he is received into the
kingdom of heaven! We see weavers, shoemakers, tanners,
illiterate peasants, men who dare not to open their mouths
before men of experience, if they can attract boys and foolish
women, relating to them their marvellous tales (Neander,
Denkw. i. 21; Kritzler, Die Heldenzeiten des Christenthums,
i. 1856, p. 145).
() Luther’s view of the Church when he dwells on the fact
that the Church is an article of faith, and, therefore, by her
very nature something chiefly invisible, is agreeable. to the
meaning of the New Testament (especially in the Pauline and
Petrine epistles, Eph. i. 22, etc. ; Col.i.18; Eph. 1. 20-22 ;
1 Peter ii. 9, and other passages), when it designates the
Church the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, or the spiritual house
of God, or the people of God, and, opposed to Romish doctrine,
which understands by the Church the external hierarchically
constituted establishment under the authority of the Romish
bishop—a corporate body as visible and comprehensible, as
Bellarmine says, as the kingdom of France or the republic of
Venice.’ For, continues Luther, ‘wesay: ‘I believe one
holy Catholic Church, now what is believed in is not bodily
or visible. If this article is true (viz., Z believe one holy
Catholic Church), it follows that no one can see or feel the
holy Catholic Church, nor say, lo here, or lo there it is ! for
what we believe we do not see or perceive ; and, again, what
we see or perceive we do not believe’ (Greater Catechism
Works, Erl., edit. xxvii. 303). But she is not only in-
visible ; she has also a visibility which is of her own nature,
and distinct from her empiric visible form and order in the
world-—and this visibility is the word and Sacraments by
which she may be recognised and discovered ; ‘ for the word
of God cannot be without the people of God, nor again the
people of God without the word of God.’ Hence, the Church
is by her nature spiritual, the congregation of believers, the
flock which the Holy Ghost bas in the world, the people of
God in all places and at all times (compare the Greater
Catechism). So also does the confession of our Church
understand it. Compare Augsb. Conf., Art. vii., and A pol.
Notes to Lecture VII. 393
The Church is, first of all, a spiritual society (Apol. p. 144,
etc.: Eccl. non est tantum societas externarum rerum ac
rituum sicut alice politic sed principaliter est societas fider et
spiritus sancti in cordibus, quae tamen habet externas notas
ut agnosct possit.—Ht haec ecclesia sola dicitur corpus
Christi, quod Christus spiritu suo renovat, ete. Quare illi in
guibus nihil agit Christus, non sunt membra Christe :
Ecclesia est POPULUS SPIRITUALIS, 2.¢., VERUS POPULUS DEI
renatus per spiritum sanctum). When, then, we speak of
an invisible, that is, a spiritual Church, we do not mean
that the Church is merely an idea or an ideal—as it
certainly has sometimes but erroneously been considered by -
Protestantism—or nothing more than a pleasant dream.
The Protestant confession has, from the very first, expressly
refuted such a notion (Apol., p. 148: Neque vero somniamus
nos Plutonicam civitatem ut quidam cavillantur, in sed dici-
mus eaistere hanc ecclesiam, videlicet vere credentes et justos
sparsos per totum orbem. Et addimus notas; puram
doctrinam evangelii et sacramenta), although our doctrine
has been thus misinterpreted on the part of Rome down to
the present time (Méhler Symbol, p. 347: ‘The idea of a
merely invisible universally diffused society, to which we
are to belong, is a barren and useless figure of the imagina-
tion and of misled feelings. D6llinger, Kirche und Kirchen,
1861, p. 26: ‘Theologians, giving up in despair the article
of the one universal Church, fall back upon an abstraction,
an image of the mind, the so-called invisible Church’).
But it is a reality, and, indeed the highest reality.
(°) Delitzsch Apol., p. 282.
(°) This is a thought frequently expressed by Guizot :
Histoire de la Civilisation en France, i. p. 316 ; by L’ Hglise
et la Sociéte Chrétiennes, 1816, p. 7-64. On the contrast of
the ancient world, he says: ‘ Dans Uantiquité paienne,
méme sur ses plus beaux théitres et dans ses plus beaux jours,
les etrangers etaient des ennemis. A moins que des conven-
tions particuliéres et precises neussent été conclues entre deux
nations, elles se considéraient comme absolument étrangéres,
394 Notes to Lecture VII.
Pune & autre ef natwrellement hostiles. A peine les plus
grands esprits de Vantiquité, Aristote et Ciceron en ont, ils
concu quelque idée, etc. Even Aristotle does not rise above
the level of the ancient view, as his well known theory
about slaves proves. It was only the latter stoic philosophy
that had some slight presentiment of a universal society of
mankind, but the idea remained a merely barren notion.
(") Pase., ii, 126. ‘Chacun suive les meurs de son
pays.—On ne voit presque rien de juste ou Minjuste qui ne
Opa . . -
change de qualité en changeant de climat. Trois degrés
Pélévation du pile renversent toute la jurisprudence. Un
POETS Bi 08, Pa Ls ’ 2 i
meridien décide de la vérité; en peu d années de possession, les
lows fondamentales changent ; le droit a ses époques. Vérité
au decd des Pyrénées, erreur aw dela,’ (Nicolas, iii. 543).
(**) Compare Goethe’s opinion on this subject, ‘ Lectures
on Fundamental Truths,’ Lect. [X., Note 22.
(°) It is a current idea to the French mind, which
delights in abstract generalities, thus to represent the con-
trast between Romanism and Protestantism. Guizot fre-
quently does so, and Vinet in particular ingeniously carries
out this idea in his above cited work.
(0) What follows coincides especially with the repre-
sentation of Martensen (Dogmatik, p. 26, ete.) ; but corro-
boration of each of the propositions of the text may be found
also in Catholic theologians even as recent as Mohler. I
refer, for the sake of brevity, to the numerous passages with
which Hase has corroborated his statements, in his copious
and interesting Handbuch der Protest. Polemik gegen die
rim-kath. Kirche (2d edit., 1856, pp. 1-192). That obed-
ience to the Bishop of Rome is necessary to salvation was
declared not merely by such popes as Boniface VIII.
(t 1303: Subesse Romano pontifici omni humane creature
declaramus esse de necessitate salutis), but also, with refer-
ence to this declaration, by the Lateran Council under Leo
X., at its eleventh sitting, in the bull: Pastor Zternus,
Notes to Lecture VII. 395
sanctioned by that Council (Gieseler Kirchengesch, ii. Fa Oe
etc.), wherein, among other things, it is said: ‘ Ht cum de
necessitate salutis eaistat, omnes Christi fideles Romano
pontifici subesse, prout divine. Scripture et ss. patrum test-
monio edocemur ac constitutiones fel. mem. Bonif. P. VILL,
que incipit “ Unam sanctam” declaratur,’ ete.
(4) To confirm what I have said, I adduce a series of
expressions in which the Pope and his power are exalted to
a superhuman level. Innocent IIL, Lib. i, Ep. 335:
‘Rom. Pontefex non puri hominis sed veri Det vicem gerit in
terris” Ep. 326: ‘Non hominis puri sed veri Det vere
Vicarius appellatur” To John of England, 15th August
1215: ‘ Quia vero nobis a domino dictum est in propheta ;
constitui te super gentes et regna.—Bonif. VIII. to Philip
of France, 1302: ‘ Christi vicarius, Petrique successor—
judex a deo vivorum ac mortuorum constitutus agnoscitur.—
At the Lateran Council of 1516, in the ninth sitting,
Antonius Puccius addressed the Pope in the words of Ps.
Ixxii. : ‘ Omnes reges terre adorabunt te et tibi servient, and
‘Omnes reges terrae sciunt quaenam potestas tibi data sit in
coclo et in terra” In the first sitting, the Pope was
addressed as ‘ Vestra divina majestas,’ in the ninth as
‘ Simillimus deo, et qui a populis adorari debet” At the
sixth sitting, Leo X. was called ‘ Leo de tribu Juda et radia
David’?—Calov., Bibl. Illustr. on 2 Thess. ii. 5, 6, quotes
from the canon law (canon satis dist. 96 gloss. ad extr. cum
inter) : ‘Dominus Deus noster” Franc., Panigarola Lees
calls the Pope ‘ Unum illum dominum de quo loquitur
Paulus, Eph. iv—In the books of the canonists it 1s
repeatedly said that the Pope has ‘idem cum deo consis-
torium, idem cum Christo tribunal. —Gieseler, ii, p. 229,
quotes from Gerson: ‘ Qui aestimant Papum esse unum
deum qui habet potestatem omnem in colo et in terra,’—
Christoph. Marcellus, in an oration delivered at the fourth
sitting of the Lateran Council, Dec. 10, 1512, addresses
Julius II. as ‘Zw alter Deus in terris.” Gieseler again
(p. 206) quotes from Gerson (an opinion which Gerson con-
troverts) : ‘ Sicut non est potestas nisi a deo (Rom, xiii. 1),
396 Notes to Lecture VI df ;
sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica,’ etc., ‘nist a Papain
cujus femore scripsit Christus: Rea regum, dominus domin-
antium (1 Tim. vi. 15). De cujus potestate disputare instar
sacriegw est, ete. On the occasion of the latest Vatican
Council, and the efforts of the Jesuits to make it sub-
servient to the last improvement of papal absolutism,
appeared the well known, learned, and most decidedly oppo-
sitional work, ‘ The Pope and the Council, by Janus, 1869.’
Its authors are as yet unknown, but Dollinger of Munich
had at least a share in its composition. It subjects the
whole Papal system to an annihilating criticism on the
ground of history. Referring my readers to the work
itself, I restrict myself to a few quotations from the chapter
on ‘ Papal Infallibility,’ p. 40. ‘Taken by itself as the
association of believers, clergy and bishops, the church is,
according to the expression of Cardinal Cajetan, the classical
theologian of the Curia, the slave (serva) of the Pope.’ In
an article of the Civilta, entitled, ‘The Pope the father of
believers, it is said: ‘It is not enough for the people to
know that the Pope is the head of the church and of the -
bishops, they must also understand that their own faith,
their own religious life, flows from the Pope—that he is
the dispenser of the gifts of the Spirit, the bestower of the
benefits which religion secures, Janus, p. 42. ‘God has
gone to rest, for in His stead His ever watchful and unerr-
ing vicar rules on earth as governor of the world, as
dispenser of pardons and penalties.’ When Janus continues,
‘We have to thank such men as Bellarmine and other
Jesuits for carrying matters to such an extreme, that
certain authors have bestowed upon the Pope even the title
Vice-God,’ the very passages cited show that there was no
need of Jesuits to do this, but that it is merely the result of
principle. Janus, however, rightly adds, ‘ there is but one
step more to declaring the Pope to be an incarnation of
God.’ The controversy of Janus, his proof that the papal
system is opposed to Scripture, based upon a tissue of fraud
and deception, untrue in itself, and leading to mere me-
chanical externalism, is unanswerable. (£.9., p. 45: To
ultramontanes Rome is an ecclesiastical inquiry and address
ee
Notes to Lecture VII. 397
office, or rather a standing oracle—the Civiltd calls the Pope
summum oraculum—-having ready to hand an infallible
solution of every scientific or practical difficulty.) His own
positive stand-point, however, is untenable, because a
divided one. For, starting from the same praemiss of the
church’s infallibility, he stops half-way at the aristocracy
of the bishops, instead of going on to the sovereignty of the
Pope. Hence his opposition, as well as that of the entire
minority in the Vatican Council—great as may be the
interest we feel in it—is @ priort a hopeless one. The
results of the principle must ensue, and its logic triumph,
unless we make deeper work, and both perceive and shew,
as the Reformation did, the falsity of the principle itself.
Sit ut est aut non sit, is as true of the Church of Rome as
of the Jesuits ; she cannot be corrected, but only reformed,
and this requires a change of her essential principles.
(**) The well-known saying of Virgil (An. vi. 85), and at
- the same time a prediction of future times. The Civilta says
the same thing after its own fashion, ‘As the Jews were
formerly the people of God, so under the new covenant are
the Romans. Their dignity is superhuman,’ IIT. 1862, p.
11. Even in 1626, Professor Carrerio, provost of Padua,
thus expressed himself, ‘ Italians may exalt themyelves above
all other nations because of the distinguished favour God
has shown them, by giving them in the Pope a spiritual
sovereign who has dethroned great kings and still greater
emperors, and set up others in their places, a sovereign to
whom the most powerful kingdoms have long paid such
tribute as was never before known, and who distributes
among his favourites domains so extensive that neither king
nor emperor ever had so much to bestow.’
() It is well known that it was chiefly Gregory VIT.
(Hildebrand, + 1085) who maintained these notions, and
carried them out to a compact and consistent system. In
his epistles we read : ‘ Quodsi sancta sedes apostolica divin-
tus sibv colata principali potestate spirituulia decernens
dyudicat, cur non et secularia ’—Sicut ad mundi pulchrit-
398 Notes to Lecture VI YZ
udinem, oculis carneis diversis temporibus representandam,
solem et lunam omnibus aliis eminentiora disposuit luminaria ;
sic ne creatura—in erronea et mortifera traheretur pericula,
providit ut apostolica et regia dignitate per diversa regeretur
oficia, etc. From the Dictatus Pape: 9, Quod solius
Pape pedes omnes principes deosculentur : 11, Quod unicum
est nomen in mundo: 12, Quod ili liceat imperatores de-
ponere: 27, Quod a fidelitate iniquorum subjectos potest
absolvere, Gieseler ii. 2, 5. And Innocent III. speaks, if
possible, still more decidedly (+1216), Lib. ii. Ep. 209:
‘ Deminus Petro non solum universam ecclesiam, sed totum
reliquit seculum gubernandum. Lib. xvi. Ep. 131: ‘ Hune
itaque reges secult propter deum adeo venerantur, ut non repu-
tent se rite regnare, nisi studeant et devote servire. To the
ambassadors of Philip: ‘ Principibus datur potestas in terris,
sacerdotibus autem potestas tribuitur et in celis: IIlis |
solummodo super corpora, istis etiam super animas. Unde
quanto dignior est anima corpore, tunto dignius est etiam
sacerdotium quam sit regnum. The famous comparison
with the sun and moon, Lib. i. Ep. 401: ‘ Stceut universatis
conditor deus duo magna luminaria in firmamento coeli con-
stitut, luminare majus, ut preesset diet, et luminare minus,
ut noctt preesset ; sic ad firmamentum universalis ecclesice,
que coeli nomine nuncupatur, duas magnas instituit digni-
tates, majorem, que, quasi diebus, animabus preesset, et
minorem, que, quasi noctibus, preesset corporibus ; que
sunt pontificalis autoritas et regalis potestas. Porro sicut
luna lumen suum a sole sortitur, que re vera minor est illo
quantitate simul et qualitate, situ pariter et effectu : sic regalis
potestas ab autoritate pontificali sue sortitur dignitatis splen-
dorem, etc. This comparison of the papacy and the empire to
the sun and moon was subsequently still more exactly carried
out, and indeed so nicely computed, that the pope was de-
clared to be one thousand seven hundred and forty-four times
higher than the emperor and kings (papam esse millies sep-
tingenties quadrigies quater imperatore et regibus sublimiorem),
Gieseler, ii. 2, 108.
(4) Even that most powerful of Popes, Innocent IIL,
Notes to Lecture VII. 399
acknowledged the privileges of a general council (compare
Hase, Polemik, p. 163); while the councils. of the 15th
century, at Constance and Basle, decidedly subordinated the
Pope toa general council. See in Gieseler, ii. 4,14, the
views of Gerson, which have become a standard in this
matter, eg. ‘Sed numquid tale concilium ubi papa non
presidet, est supra papam? Certe sic. Superius in autori-
tate, superius in dignitate, superius in officio. Tali enim
concilio ipse papa in omnibus tenetur obedire. Tale concil-
ium jura papalia potest tollere, a tali concilio nullus potest
appellare, tale concilium potest papam eligere, privare, de-
ponere, etc.
(°°) The opposition between the papal and episcopal sys-
tems, 2.¢., between the ecclesiastical absolute monarchy and
the ecclesiastical aristocracy, was not indeed fully disposed of
in doctrine though in practice it was decided in favour of
the former till the last council (compare Haye, Polemik, p.
162, etc.) Even Pius II. (Aineas Sylvius, + 1464) declared
appeals to a general council heretical, a declaration fre-
quently reiterated by his successors (Hase, p. 164). One
important element too, of the last new dogma, that of the
emmaculata conceptio Maric, consists in the fact that it was
laid down by the Pope without a general council, and that
it was thus a step towards complete papal plenipotence even
in the authorisation of new doctrines, the protests raised
against it by the Romish Church and clergy themselves
being utterly ineffectual. (Compare Hase, Polemik, pp.
337-350 ; and Preuss, Die rimische Lehre von der unbe-
Jleckten Empfiugniss, etc., 1865). The papacy has since
indeed taken the farther fatal step of laying down the dogma
of the Pope’s infallibility, and thus of definitely deciding the
point so long controverted.
(7°) Compare Uhlhorn’s excellent lectures on the Romish
Council. I adduce a few paxssages on the point in question.
On the subject of the recent dogma of the Immaculate Con-
ception (1854), he says, p. 57, ‘The importance of this
event can hardly be over-estimated. It marks a new epoch
400 Notes to Lecture VII.
in the history of the Church of Rome, the point at which
the work of mere restoration is exchanged for that of con-
struction. It is no longer with Tridentine but with hyper-
tridentine Catholicism that we have to deal. This proclama-
tion of a new dogma could only be the first step upon a new
path and it is no longer the only one,’ p. 58. ‘The Romish
Church, which the Reformation rejected, has nothing to
oppose to those negative powers which are hostile to the
church, but an increasingly rigorous Papal authority.’
‘Hence the council, hence the chief question before the
council, viz., the Infallibility of the Pope.’ ‘ Whatever
else the council may decide and effect, it will at all events
enhance the contrast still more, and make it more clearly
evident whether the remedy fora world increasingly alienated
from Christianity is to be found in the papacy or the
gospel, and whether the authority of an infallible Pope or
the power of the Divine word in the foolishness of preach-
ing the cross, and the grace of God in Christ will eventually
triumph.’ Uhlhorn, p. 88, rightly insists that the main
question is not that of the Pope’s infallibility, but whether
there is any infallible ministry at all ; not till this 1s decided,
can it be determined what is the organ of such ministry.
This question, moreover, depends upon another, viz., whether
tradition, 2.e., the Church or Scripture is to be regarded as
ultimately decisive. Ifthe former be so regarded, then (p.
47), inspiration is continued in the infallible ministry of the
Church. To this are men referred when they desire to
know what is the truth, etc. Hence the depreciation of
Holy Scripture. ‘Believers do not need the Scriptures,
because they have in the infaliible ministry, the ever-pre-
sent living oracle which answers all questions, and compared
with which Scripture is but a dead letter, an obscure and in-
‘comprehensible book, which does but mislead men to heresy,
or—as the Bishop of Mayenne says—the notes of a piece of
music which is not understood till performed upon the
instrument, 2.e., till interpreted by the infallible ministry.
Hence we everywhere encounter such obliteration, nay, such
annihilation of the distinction between the word of Scrip-
ture and the word of the Church, between canonical and
Notes to Lecture VIT. 401
apocryphal books. All are now canonical, and the council
can confidently exalt the ascension of Mary to an article of
faith, although it is only found in apocryphal writings,’ ete.
Now to its question: Who or what is the organ of
infallible teaching ? the history of the Romish Church
gives two answers: the Episcopalian says: An cecumenical
council ; the Curialist : The Pope. ‘ Episcopalism and Curi-
alism however are not two equally authoritative opinionsin the
present Romish Church, but two phases of development ;
episcopalism, a phase now surpassed, curialism the consistent
carrying out of the whole system,’ (p. 99). Episcopalism
indeed suffers also from internal incompleteness and incon- ~
sistency,’ (p. 100). They are indeed extremely simple in-
ferences and scarcely to be refuted, by which Archbishop
Dechamps, the defender of infallibility, advances from the
proposition ‘the Church is infallible,’ to the proposition ‘ the
Pope is infallible” He merely writes between them the
proposition : the Church is monarchically constituted, there-
fore he who exercises sovereignty in the infallible church must
himself be infallible (p. 101). I may here perhaps relate
that more than twenty years ago, being in a remote Bava-
rian village, I engaged in theological discussion with the
Roman Catholic clergyman of the place, at the inn which he
seemed much to frequent. He was far removed from the
movements and questions of the day, and led a solitary and
retired life. With true tact, however, he encountered my
maxim from Tertullian: ubi spiritus sanctus ibi ecclesia,
with the stout Romish maxim: whi Papa, ibi ecclesia.
For this proposition involves the whole recent development
of infalhibility. ‘In effect,’ continues Uhlhorn, p.102, ‘ In-
fallibility has long been claimed on the part of the Popes,
and acknowledged on the part of the church, although it
may never yet have been expressly declared. How else
would the Tridentine council have left to the Pope the
framing of the creed which is binding upon all? ete. ‘I
would moreover warn against the delusion of imagining that.
the bishops of the opposition materially approximated our
church. It is still just as far from Episcopalism to Pro-
testantism, as from the Council of Basle to the Diet of
2c
402 Notes to Lecture VII.
Worms, from the decrees of Kostnitz to the confession of
Augsburg,’ (p. 105). His final inference (p. 115) is: ‘ Decided,
and faithful adherence to the protestant scriptural principle
is the only right way of opposing Rome, the pure Word
of God the only weapon which will lead to victory. They
who turn aside therefrom, to the right hand or the left, are
on the road to Rome ; and they who wrest it, whether in
the interest of a Puseyitish High churchmanship or of-a
liberalism calling itself Protestant, are labouring in the cause
of Rome.’
(7) IT cite from Janus certain facts in refutation of. the
assertion of Infallibility :—1. Innocent I. and Gelasius I.
declared the Communion of children to be indispensable, and
relegate to hell all children who die before its reception.
2. TT ulius declared the openly Sabellian doctrine of Marcellus
of Ancyra to be orthodox. 3. Liberius obtained his recall
from exile from the emperor Constantius only by agreeing
to the condemnation of Athanasius, subscribing an Arian
creed, and declaring the Nicene creed to be erroneous. At
which Hilarius indignantly exclaimed, ‘ That is Arian per-
fidy! I excommunicate thee, Liberius, and thine associ-
ates. I excommunicate thee, perfidious Liberius, once,
twice, and thrice.’ 4. Innocent approved of the resolutions
of the two African synods of Milevium and Carthage, and
declared a work of Pelagius heretical. Zozimus, however,
approved of the creed of Céleetius who was accused of this
heresy. Not till after the African bishops, abiding by their
sentence of condemnation, had addressed to him an urgent
epistle, did Zozimus give in his agreement, by way of sup-
plement, to their decisions. 5. Honorius I., at the commence-
ment of the Monotheletic controversy, expressed himself in
favour of the heresy. Pope Martin I., however, rejected
Monotheletism at the Romish Synod. The sixth Ci&cu-
menical Council at Constantinople, 680, solemnly con-
demned Honorius, who was not defended even by the Papal
legates. His doctrinal works were delivered to the flames
as heretical. 6. The Tridentine Synod had declared the
translation of Jerome to be the text of the Bible for the
Notes to Lecture VII. 403
Western Church, but there was as yet no ecclesiastically
authorised edition of the Latin Bible. Sixtus V. under-
took to publish one, and it appeared with the necessary
anathemas and coercive measures. It was found, however,
to be full of faults ; above 2000 incorrect passages, which
were owing to the Pope himself, were discovered. It was
said that a public prohibition of the Sixtine Bible must be
issued. Bellarmine, however, advised that the great peril
into which Sixtus had brought the Church should be hushed
up as far as possible. Janus, in his criticism of the Papacy
and its history, speaks of ‘ fables, falsehoods,’ ‘ perversions,’
‘errors,’ ‘defective institutions and conditions,’ ‘ hereditary -
evils, ‘ancient and recent disfigurements,’ ‘oldest, old,
modern, and most recent counterfeits,’ etc. designates the
Papacy as ‘a disfiguring, morbid, and stifling excrescence on
the organism of the Church,’ ‘as the most unhappy of indi-
vidual absolutisms,’ ‘as the tyranny of an absolute monarch.’
In such a state of affairs it is impossible to attack the in-
fallibility of the Pope, and uphold that of the Church.
Hence Frohschammer rightly says: ‘In the face of this
history of the Papacy, it is impossible any longer to main-
tain the infallibility of the Church itself. How cana church,
~in which all took place, in which all could take place that
is related in this book, be infallible ; be, after all this, still
esteemed or declared infallible 2 How can a church in which,
for centuries, an all-pervading system of deception and
violence has prevailed be nevertheless declared to have itself
remained pure and uncontaminated ? A body, whose vital
organs, whose head and heart are totally corrupt, cannot
have remained sound in its other members.’ Compare
Schick’s Janus and Anti-Janus, “rlanger Zeitschr. fiir
Protest, und Kirche, 1870. July, p. 7, ete.
(8) Compare Menss’s work, mentioned note 25; also
Uhlhorn’s lectures on the Council, pp. 57, 77, sq.
(°) The word Protestantism is derived, as is well known,
from the protest of the Protestant States against the decree
of the Imperial Diet in the year 1529, which protest they,
40 4 Notes to Lecture VII.
in their appeal, grounded upon the positive principle that
matters being herein involved ‘ which concern and touch the
honour of God and the happiness and salvation of our souls,
we, by God’s command, and for our conscience’ sake, are
bound and obliged to have respect above all, to the same our
Lord God ;’ that is, in other words, that in matters of re-
Jigion and faith, not human authority, but God’s Word
alone, is binding and decisive. Thus the word Protestantism,
far from denoting any mere negation, involves a very decided
and definite affirmation. —
(°°) On the Protestant doctrine of the Church, compare
above, Note 14, and Luther's Lehre von der Kirche, by
Késtlin, 1853.
(°') Many treatises have lately been written on the prin-
ciple of the Reformed Church, and the difference between it
and that of the Lutheran Church (compare ‘ Literature’ in
my Kompend. der Dogm., § 13). To obtain a correct im-
pression of the proper nature of the Reformed Church, it
should not be observed in Germany, where it has adopted
many Lutheran elements, but in countries which are entirely
of the Reformed persuasion, such as Switzerland, etc. We
should then easily perceive, both that she has committed a
far wider breach with historical tradition than the Lutheran
Church has done, going to work in a far more radical manner,
and falling back more directly upon Scripture itself, and that
the doctrinal difference in her teaching concerning the means
of grace, as connected with the fundamental doctrine of pre-
destination (the absoluteness, sole causation, and sole agency
of God) has not merely a theoretical, but also a very decided
practical influence in the guidance of souls and the direction
of the conscience.
NOTES TO LECTURE VIII.
(1) I have collected the surprisingly numerous quotations
made by our Lord, in the Sachs. Kirchen-und Schulblat,
1862, Nos. 24 and 25. The position which Jesus takes up
Notes to Lecture VITT. 405
with respect to the Old Testament, and the estimation in
which He holds it, may be clearly seen by the use He makes
of it. He unquestionably regards the Old Testament as
absolutely the Word of God.
(7) Joseph. e, Apion. i. 8: r& dimatag Sete remioreupéve
Tldor 0: otupurdy or edSv¢ ex ss xpudrns yeveoews Lovdasors
70 voile aire Sot déymura, nal rodross EMLILEVEV, KO) varEp
aura, ef Ogos Ovqonesy HOEwS.
(°) On the Gospels, compare ‘ Lectures on Fundamental —
Truths,’ Lecture X., p. 287, ete, and Notes 5 and 6,
Uhlhorn ; Die Modernen Darstellungen, etc., pir .oos:
Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsre Evangelien verfasst 2? Ath
edition, 1866. A good and popular discussion of these and
kindred questions will be found in the excellent work of
Weber, Kurzgefasste Hinleitung in die heil. Schriften A. und
NV. Testaments, 2nd edition,1867, p. 192, ete.
(*) Compare Tischendorf’s above named work, p. 99.
(°) Testimony to the existence of the: New Testament
canon in the latter half of the second century is found
in Ireneus (t 202), in the Syriac version of the New
Testament, and in the. so-called Muratorian Canon (about
A.D. 170.) Compare Landerer’s careful article on the canon
of the New Testament, in Herzog’s Realencycl, vii. 270, &e.
(°) As early as the middle of the second century canonical
authority was attributed to the books of the New Testa-
ment, as may be gathered from the above named work of
Landerer, p. 278. Hase, in his Polemik, p. 68, etc. has
shown that not only in the days of a Tertullian and an
Treneeus, but also in those of an Augustine and ar
Athanasius, the decisive authority of the Holy Scriptures
was inculcated, and the members of the Church exhorted to
read them, as is also stated in the work of the well-known
Catholic theologian, L. Van Ess, Chrysostomus oder Stimmen
der Kirchvater tiber das niitzliche tind erbauliche Bibellesen,
406 Notes to Lecture VIII.
1824. Lessing’s controversial writings gave occasion to a
learned work on this subject, entitled: Aritische Unter-
suchungen von dem Gebranch der heil. Schrift unter den
alten Christen, 1779, by the younger Walch. Certainly
the Western fathers give greater prominence to tradition
than do the Greek fathers, who lay more stress upon the
written word ; yet the former by no means seek to impeach
by this prominence the authority of Scripture, starting, as
they do, from the premiss of the accordance of Scripture
and tradition. When the two are found at variance, it is
not for a moment questioned by such a churchman as |
Cyprian, that Scripture is to decide as to what is truth, and
that tradition, unsupported by Scripture, is but antiquated
error. And even subsequently, when in the Middle Ages
the notion of tradition had expanded into the notion of
Church doctrine in general, tradition was always designated
as autoritas, but Scripture as veritas.
(7) So taught the schoolmen of the Middle Ages. The
greatest and most respected of these, Thomas Aquinas, ex-
pressly says, that from Scripture alone can we indisputably
prove, while from the authority of the fathers we can only
probably infer. This certainly applies rather to theory than
practice. Yet the oath upon Holy Scripture which Luther
had to take, gave him also a legal right to oppose the errors
of tradition in the name of Scripture.
(8) The notion of tradition has undergone a transforma-
tion. Tradition originally meant such words of Christ and
of His apostles as were only orally preserved. Inthe course
of time, the whole body of Church doctrine, as gradually
developed by synods and endowed with ecclesiastical author-
ity, was comprised in it. The modern notion, as applied
by Jesuit theologians, and especially by Mohler, is.that of
Church consciousness under a process of development. But
in all these cases the decision as to what tradition is rests
with the lawful authorities of the Church.
(°) The sole authority of Scripture, as the supreme rule of
Notes to Lecture VIII. 407
Christian doctrine and practice, and the doctrine of justifica-
tion by faith alone, have generally been designated the two
principles of Protestantism. These are not (as Dorner, Das
Prinzip unsrer Kirche, etc., 1841, views it) to be understood
as the distinction between ‘ Christian objectivity’ and ‘ Chris-
tian subjectivity ;’ ‘Scripture exhibits objective original
Christianity ;’ ‘ the material principle is faith, by which the
truth found in Scripture, in a state of privation, attains to
free inward existence ;’ on the contrary, the justification
which is by faith denotes the thing itself (the material, z.e.,
the real principle), the essential matter of Christianity ; and
Scripture denotes the place where this matter is authenti- -
cally, and therefore normally testified, and whence it is con-
sequently to be obtained with infallible certainty. Hence
the doctrine of justification is generally called, in the con-
fessions of our Church, ‘The crowning and fundamental
article ;’ and in the Schmalkald Articles (ii. p. 304, 1, 3)
Luther speaking of it says: ‘Of this article nothing can be
yielded or relaxed, though heaven and earth, and such things
as will not remain, should fall, Upon this article is
founded all that we teach against the Pope, the devil, and
the world. Hence we must be quite certain and have no
doubt about it, else all is lost, and the Pope, the devil, and
all have the victory and the right over us.’ Holy Scripture,
moreover, is treated in the confession as the self-compre-
hensible rule ; and this principle is most clearly expressed
in the preface to the Form of Concord: Sola sacra Scrip-
tura jgudex, norma et regula, ad quam—omnia dogmata
exigenda sunt et judicanda.—An excellent defence of Scrip-
ture, and of the Protestant Scripture-principle, against the
‘attacks of Rome, is given by Ad. Monod in his work Lucile
ow la lecture de la Bible, 1854. |
(1°) Revue des Deux Mondes, 1864, iv. p. 422. Only a
few passages from the fine conclusion of the article of Alb.
Reville can be given here: ‘Que la bible reste done ce
qu elle est, le monument impérissable de nos origines religieuses
et le meilleur aliment de la piété réfléchie.—Cest delle en
grande partie que procede le monde moderne-—Jamais la
408 Notes to Lecture VITTI.
bible n'a été Pobjet d'une critique plus pénétrante et plus hardie
que de nos jours, jamais son influence n'a été plus grande
et sa propagation plus active.—Elle est traduite en plus de
cent trente cing langues, et comme jadis chez les Gothes
ad’ Ulfilas, elle a créé chez plus dun peuple Valphabet la
lecture et Vécriture.—
(1) Ad. Planck, in his work on Melanchthon Preceptor
Germanic, 1860, p. 86, ete, has called attention to the
ideal of education cherished by Melancthon, viz., of the in-
stitution of Christian humanities by the union of the
humanities with the Reformation. Luther’s zeal for the
cultivation of ancient languages often comes prominently
forward in his fine addresses in 1524 to the councillors of
all towns, exhorting them to institute and support Christian
schools. (Works, Hrl. Edit. xxii. 168, etc.), e.g. : ‘If, then,
the Gospel is dear to us, let us hold fast to the languages.
For it is not in vain that God has caused His Word to be
written in two languages only,’ etc. ‘And let us be sure
of this, that we shall not be able to maintain the Gospel
without the languages. The languages are the scabbard in
which this sword of the spirit is placed ; they are the casket
in which this jewel is deposited ; they are the vessel in which
this beverage is contained ; they are the room in which this
meal is spread; and, as the Gospel itself shows, they are
the basket in which are kept this bread and fish and frag-
ments. Nay, if we were (which, God forbid !) through
negligence to let go the languages, we should not only lose
the Gospel, but should at last come to such a pitch as to be
able neither to write nor to speak either Latin or German
correctly. Let us, therefore, take warning by the dreadful’
example of the high schools and monasteries, in which not
only has the Gospel been perverted, but the Latin and
German languages have also been corrupted. The wretched
people have become mere brutes; they speak and write
neither German nor Latin correctly, and have almost lost
their common sense.’
(1?) It is acknowledged that the cause of Bible propaga-
Notes to Lecture VIIT. 409
tion has in our times gone hand in hand with the revival
of Christian life, and that the one has promoted the other. In
theological circles, the Epistle to the Romans, and Tholuck’s
commentary thereon, kave become of especial importance.
Nor have Bible circulation and the study of the Bible been
less intimately related to the revival of religious life within
the Romish Church of South Germany (Boos, Gossner,
and others. Compare on this subject Thomasius, Das
Wiedererwachen des evang. Lebens in der luth. Kirche
Bayerns, 1867, p. 141.
(*) This question was agitated, especially by Lessing, ’
and the fact that Christian faith and practice are indepen-
dent of Scripture inculcated, but in an exaggerated manner,
and less in the interest of the cause itself than from love
of controversy (see his Theol. Streitschriften, x. and xi.
vol., Lachmann’s, edit. Compare Schwarz’s Lessing als.
Theologe, 1854, p. 161, ete, and Holtzman’s Kanon und
Tradition, 1859, p. 79, etc.). Lessing’s position of the pri-
ority and superiority of tradition to Scripture was repeated
by Delbriick (Philipp Melanchthon der Glaubenslehrer. Eine
Strevtschrift, 1826) and called forth the excellent epistles of
Sach. .Nitzsch and Liicke (Ueber das Ansehen der heil.
Schrift und thr Verhiltniss zur Glaubensregel in der protest.
und in der alten Kirche. Drei theol. Sendschreiben, 1827).
This controversy was again taken up by Daniel in Halle
(Theol. Controversen, 1843 :) (‘They who exalt the written
word of the New Testament into the supreme, or, more
correctly speaking, sole source of knowledge for faith,
declare it to be that which of its very nature it cannot be ;
which, in conformity with the Lord’s purpose, it never was
to be ; which, according to its own testimony, it never will
be ; which it was not esteemed to be in the first ages of the
Church ; and which it has never yet been in _practice.’)
Jacobi (Die Kirchliche Lehre von der Tradition und der heil.
Schrift. i. 1847) and Holtzmann (Kanon und Tradition,
1859) then defended the spiritual principle against this
Puseyism. In this question, sufficient distinction has not
been made between the different degrees in which Scripture
410 | Notes to Lecture VITI.
is important and necessary to the Church as such, and to
the individual Christian. To the former it is an absolute,
to the latter a relative necessity.
(*) On the part of Rome, the Protestant principle con-
cerning Scripture has ever been attacked on the ground of
the supposed obscurity of Holy Scripture, and the necessity
of tradition for the interpretation and determination of its
meaning thence inferred. If this obscurity is proved by the
varying interpretations which certain and even important
passages of Scripture (¢.g., the words of the institution of the
Lord’s Supper) experience, or by the need of commentaries
on Scripture, we must concede that in this respect Scripture
is certainly notan umpire in a juridical sense, but that the
way of attaining to and perceiving its decision is a moral
way, the way of moral labour and moral obedience. And this
does but correspond with the very nature of the Holy Spirit,
who is not an umpire in a human sense, but is a moral
spiritual power. The very premiss, moreover, of commen-
taries, is the clearness of Scripture, 7.¢., the possibility of
understanding it. How incapable tradition is of giving a
decision, to say nothing of its internal discrepancies, is evi-
dent on the most superficial observation ; for how else can
tradition prove its own truth but by a reference to its
prinitiveness, 2.e., its conformity to Scripture ? Compare on
this question in general, Hase, Polemik, p. 68, sq.
(°) Quoted from Guizot’s Meditations, i. 1864, p. 166.
(°) On the organism of Holy Scripture, compare my Lec-
ture in the Sdchs. Kirchen-und Schulblatt, 1861, Nos. 38
and 40. Compare also Auberlen, Die géttl. Offenbarung, i.
1861, p. 275. Weber’s Kurzgefasste Hinleitung, ete., 2d
edit., 1867, contains an excellent abstract of Scripture.
Standt’s Mingerzerg in den Inhalt und Zusammenhang der
heil. Schrift, 2d edit. 1859, also contains useful matter on
this subject.
(17) Compare ‘ Lectures on Fundamental Truths,’ Lecture
X., p. 301, etc., note 22 ; and Stirm, p. 22.
ee
Notes to Lecture VITT. 411
(8) Holy Scripture being designed in the first place, for
the Church in general, to enable her to fulfil her vocation,
and only in the second place for individual Christians, we
must distinguish between the certainty and experience of in-
dividuals, and of the Church with respect to it. The limits
of the former are not identical with the limits of the latter.
The Church verifies the truth of Scripture in her own ex-
perience, step by step, in the course of her history. Thus,
e.g., She found out what she possessed in the Epistles to the
Romans and Galatians at the Reformation, and she makes a
similar experience in the course of time with respect to other
portions of Scripture.
(19) Compare especially Brugsch, Aus dem Orient, 1864, ii.
29, etc., Moses und die Denkmdler. Besides the well-known
picture in which are represented Egyptian taskmasters
and slaves (probably Hebrews) making bricks, written com-
munications of Egyptian scribes of the court of Ramesas IT.
—=Sesostris (who succeeded to the crown about B.c. 1400)
have been found on ancient papyrus rolls, in which the
Hebrews (Apura) are mentioned as employed in the quarries.
(7°) Compare Niebuhr’s Geschichte Assurs und Babels, etc.,
1857, p. 274: ‘The lately so much derided book of Jonah
furnishes, besides other matter, a striking proof of the accu-
racy of Scriptural statements ; its description of Nineveh
being fully confirmed by modern discoveries concerning
the topography of that city.’ On the book of Daniel, com-
pare Hengstenberg, Bevtrdge, i. p. 333, etc. ; and Keil’s
Einleitung zum A.T., p. 394, ete. The stone with the
Moabitish inscription of the 9th century B.c., recently dis-
covered in the region east of the Jordan, furnishes a fresh
corroboration of the statements of Scripture. The Mesha,
King of Moab, who speaks by this inscription, is undoubt-
edly the same spoken of in 2 Kings iii. 4 ; and the whole
inscription is a testimony to the historical and geographical
accuracy of the Scripture narrative. Hence, Vogué, the
French investigator, calls the interesting document, une page
originale de la Bible. Compare the account in the Allg. Fv.-
412 Notes to Lecture VIII.
Luth. Kirchenzeitung, 1870, p. 11. One single section of
Scripture, the narrative of St Paul’s journey to Italy, in the
Acts of the Apostles, was recently thoroughly discussed in
an interesting lecture, given by Dr Arthur Breusing, Direc-
tor of the School of Navigation, Bremen, and author of
several nautical works,) for the benefit of the funds of the
German expedition to the North Pole. In this lecture, every
single particular, down to each separate numerical state-
ment, was most strictly verified and corroborated. An ac-
count of this lecture, as given by a reporter, appeared in the
Weserzeitung and also in the Allg. Hv.-Luth Kirchenzeit-
ung, 1870, No. 23.
(71) Stirm, p. 31. The proofs are given in the Schneck-
enburger Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, 1862.
(2) Reimarus, in particular, denied the moral character
of Holy Scripture and its contents, and indeed both the
moral character of Jesus himself and especially of the Old
Testament saints—the former in the Wolfenbiittel frag-
ments published by Lessing, the latter in the Remains pub-
lished by Schmidt, 1737.
(73) On the question of miracles, compare ‘ Lectures on
Fundamental Truths,’ Lecture VIL., p. 193.
(+) This self-evidence of Holy Scripture is decisive for
every Christian, e.g., in the case of St John’s Gospel. For
this manifestly declares itself to be the work of an apostle,
and indeed of St John, and bases upon this very cireum-
stance the veracity of its statements, so that violence would
be done to our sense of truth by this work, if its testimony
concerning itself were untrue. Now what the Christian is
certain of on these grounds is also scientifically confirmed to
the theologian. Where, moreover, such self-testimony is
absent, as e.g., in the case of the Gospel of St Matthew, a
Christian will feel that there are limits to the freedom of
criticism. It is no article of faith, but only tradition, that
this Gospel is the work of St Matthew, a tradition which
Notes to Lecture VIII. | 413
might by possibility be found erroneous. But whatever
may be the result of critical investigation concerning the
authorship of this Gospel and the date of its composition,
the historical credibility of the work itself, can by no means
be called in question thereby. This applies also in other
similar cases. Compare on this subject, Ebrard in Herzog’s
fealencycl. viii. 90, and Higenbach, Fneycl. p. 150, ete.
(77) Compare W. Menzel, Kritik des modernen Bewusst-
seins, 1869, p. 11, 3. sq. ‘ There is an intimate connection
between the German people and the Bible. Bonifice, the
Apostle of the Germans, left no other relics and has in art °
no other attribute than a Bible pierced by a sword, and yet
uninjured in a single letter. When he was slain by the
heathen Frisians, they pierced his Bible algo, but the sacred
book was uninjured. Into no language has the Bible been
since more frequently translated, than into German ; and in
no country has it been more written about and explained
than in Germany. And what could bea greater glory to our
nation ? For itis the book of books ; the source of eternal
life, of consolation and of support to all the unhappy
and tempted ; the shield and weapon of the innocent ; the
awakener of the spiritually asleep ; the guide out of the
labyrinth of sin ; and, finally, the condemnation of those
who remain therein. A book which has no equal in the
world, whose matter penetrates as deeply into every
soul as the eye of God himself ; a book utterly true, wiser
than all law-books, more copious than all manuals, more
beautiful than all secular poems, more touching to the
heart than the tones of a mother’s voice ; and yet of such
' profundity, that the very wisest could not exhaust it, ete.
Excellent testimony to the child-like nature of the Bible, is
given by the French historian, E. Rosseuw, in the introduction
prefixed to his French translation of an Alsatian. work (Legen-
des d Alsace traduites de Allemagne, etc.) There ig in the
German mind a strangely charming mixture of the naive
and the sublime, of the childlike and the profound, resulting
from the honest nature of this primitive people, who have
kept closer to nature than we have done, and are endowed
4.1 4 Notes to Lecture IX.
with an indestructible youth, which defies the lapse of ages.
If there are in the world any two types of mind so oppo-
sitely constituted, that they can never understand each other,
they are the French and German. One always ironical,
ready to jest at itself and others ; the other sincere even to
childishness (enfantillage), indignant at any jest contrary to
its nature, and ever ready to take offence when it feels itself
misunderstood. . . . . J haye travelled much, both in
North and South, and there is one fact which I have every-
where met with: Wherever the Bible is not made the founda-
tion-stone of education, of society, and of every form of life,
there is no literature for children, or for the people. Look at
Spain, Italy, and even France, in a word, at every country
in which the Bible isnot read. Nowhere is there any read-
ing for the child, or for the labourer! In Germany and
England, on the contrary, there exists a Christian children’s
and popular literature, in which, as in a mirror, the national
spirit is clearly reflected.
NOTES ‘TO LECTURE IX.
,
(‘) Compare Meurer’s Leben Luthers, p. 130.
(?) I may perhaps be allowed, in connection with this sub-
ject, to revive the remembrance my tutor Nigelsbach, whose
life-thought, carried out as it is in his works on the Homeric
and post-Homeric theology, was, the idea here expressed.
(°) Even Aristotle acknowledges that a formed character
cannot be altered (ih. Nicom. iii. 5,14). On the similar
opinion of Celsus, compare Neander, Denkw. i. 15. How
everything was despaired of at the close of the ancient world,
is shown in ‘ Lectures on Fundamental Truths,’ Lecture
VIIL., note 21.
(*) Compare Notes 14-16, on Lecture IT.
(°) Compare, on this subject, the words of Melanchthon (in
Notes to Lecture IX. 415
the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg), as conformable
with all experience, ¢g., p. 66: ‘ Finally, it is most foolishly
and unaptly said by our opponents, that men who have in-
curred eternal wrath obtain forgiveness of sins through love,
or actum elicitum dilectionis ; while yet it is impossible to
love God, until the heart has by faith apprehended the for-
giveness of sin. For a heart that is in distress and has a
real sense of God’s wrath cannot love Him, until He affords
that heart relief, comforts it, and shows Himself gracious.
Light and inexperienced people may indeed invent a dream
of love,’ ete. P. 68: ‘This same faith, then, the belief of each
that Christ was given for him, alone obtains forgiveness for —
Christ’s sake, and makes us just and righteous before God.
And being true repentance, it raises our hearts above the
cares of sin and death : thus we are born again thereby, and
the Holy Spirit who renews the heart enters into our hearts
by faith, so that we can keep God’s law and truly love Him,’
etc. P. 81: ‘If faith receives forgiveness of sins for the
sake of its love, forgiveness of sins must ever be unceriain :
for we never love God as perfectly as we ought. N ay, we
cannot love God until the heart is certain that its sins are
forgiven—since no one can rightly understand or possess
love until he believes that we receive forgiveness of sin
through Christ, of grace alone.’ P. 83: ‘When then, we
are born again through faith, and know that God will be
gracious to us, will be our Father and helper, we begin to
fear, to love, to thank God,’ ete.
(°) The whole material world is a symbol of the imma-
terial world ; nature a symbol of the world of mind, and of
the kingdom of God (compare the parables of Jesus) ; nay,
man himself a symbolic image of God. The law of the
material world is beauty, and thus beauty is, as Plato defines
it, the reflection of truth. Nicolas, iii. 475, justly starts
from this saying, in his treatise on ‘Worship and Ceremonies,’
in which are many apt remarks on the relations between
art and the Church, though interspersed with unjust attacks
on Protestantism. But if the world of the beautiful and
the symbolical is to enter into the service of the Church,
416 Notes to Lecture LX.
it must be the very reflection of truth, and the form which
makes the nearest approach to truth is speech. The justifi-
cation of symbolism lies in its being a verbum visibile, and
in its subserving speech. It is only thus that Christianity
maintains its character as an ethic religion in distinction
from the esthetic religions. What a friend Luther was to
art is seen from his repeated expressions on the subject
(Works, Erl. Edition iii. 280, 283, etc., and 56, 297:
‘Also that I am not of opinion that the arts are to be
overthrown and destroyed by the Gospel, as some bigots
give out, but I should like to see the arts, and especially
music, employed in the service of Him who gave and created
them,’ and much to the same purpose); and though he
gave the preference to music, on account of its affinity to
speech, he yet also highly esteemed the plastic arts, and
appreciated their religious and ecclesiastical importance. On
the relation of art to the Church, compare Kahnis, Kunst
und Kirche (three lectures 1865, especially p. 51, etc.) ;
and my Lectures: diber die religiése Malerei, 1863: Kirchliche
Kunst, 1864 ; and Darstellungen des Schmerzes, 1864 ; also -
Hettinger’s copious festival address : die Kunst im Christen-
thum, 1867.
() On the symbolic character of ancient Christian art
in particular, compare my Lecture, Entwicklungsgang der
relig. Maleret, 1863, p. 5, ect. ; Keigler’s Kunstgeschichte,
4tb edition, 1861, i. 221, ete.
(°) It was not till the Middle Ages (Petrus Lombardus,
+ 1164), that the doctrine of Seven Sacraments prevailed
in the Western Church. Till then the number was a fluc-
tuating one, because the notion of a sacrament was itself a
fluctuating and varying notion. It is not, however, difficult
to prove that, from the very first, Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper had precedence of all the other so-called sacraments,
Compare Hahn, Die Lehre v. den Sakr. 1864 ; and Hase,
Polemik, p. 350, ete.
(°) The institution of Baptism, verbally translated, reads
Notes to Lecture IX. 417
thus : ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
in the name,’ ete. . .. . ‘and teaching them to observe all
things which I have commanded you.’
(*°) The symbolism in Baptism consists both in the water,
which is the means of purification, and in the act of immer-
sion or aspersion, which is a representation of washing for
the purpose of complete purification.
(11) St Peter uses this expression (Le Pet. iis 2b) ie
includes the elements of Baptism : (1) the forgiveness of
sins (e.g., Acts xxii. 16) ; (2) the communication of the Holy
Spirit (eg., Titus iii. 5) ; and (3) reception into communion
with God in Christ (¢.g., Gal. iii. 27).
(*) That St Paul baptized whole households—and hence
also the children who formed part of them, unless they were
childless households—is seen in the Acts of the Apostles,
chaps. xvi. 15, 23 ; xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 16. Origen (+ 254)
bears testimony that in the Eastern Church infant baptism
was of apostolic tradition, while in the Western it was uni-
versally acknowledged as the undisputed custom about the
middle of the third century. Upon it depends the con-
tinuity of the Church, which is dissolved by Baptists who
thus atomize the Church. The little work of Dr Liihrs
Die Wiedertatifer in Briefen au einer Mutter 1869, is a good
treatise against the Baptists.
(*) Matt. xix. 13, sq. ; Mark x. 13, sy. ; Luke xviii. 1d;
sq. Thus were the disciples taught the position occupied
by children with respect to the kingdom of heaven. Baptism
in Church times corresponds with the blessing then bestowed
on children by the Lord Jesus,
('*) It is an indisputable fact that the Romish dogma of
transubstantiation is not the doctrine of primitive Chris-
tianity, nor of ancient ecclesiastical belief, but is of compara-
tively modern origin. Not till after the fourth century was
the way prepared—whether by the idea of the union between
2D
418 Notes to Lecture IX.
the earthly and heavenly elements, as with Irenzus, or by
that of the allegorical, as with Tertullian and the Alexan-
drian school—for the notion of transubstantiation. Even
in the ninth century, when Pachasius Radbertus sought to
gain ecclesiastical authority for it in the West, he encoun-
tered vehement opposition. It is equally impossible to prove
that the doctrine of the bare memorial and not that—as
Lessing expresses it—of the pregnant signs was primitive.
For it is only from the latter that the subsequent develop-
ment of the doctrine can be explained. Calvin sought to
give somewhat more profundity to the Zwinglian doctrine
by accepting in the Sacrament, not indeed a real presence
of the body and blood of Christ, but a certain personal union
of the believer with Christ, and, indeed, with the vital powers
of the body of Christ in heaven. But a certain amount of
hesitation and obscurity affects this doctrine, and it cannot
be confirmed by Scripture.
(5) The denial of the cup to the laity, which even Pope
Gelasius I. (+ 496) designated a sacrilege, did not begin till
the twelfth century, and was then justified by scholastic
subtleties.
(6) The festival of the Lord’s body (festwm corporis
domini) was,instituted by Urban IV., 1264, for the cele-
bration of the perpetual miracle of transubstantiation, and
revived by Clement V., 1311, after having fallen into
disuse.
NOTES TO LECTURE X.
(1) Schelling, Philosophie der Offenbaring, Works iv. p. 13.
“ All motion is, properly, a seeking after repose.”—The idea
of unceasing progress is properly, the idea of progress with-
out an aim ; now what is without aim is without meaning,
hence an unceasing progress of this kind is the most cheer-
less and barren of notions.
=
Notes to Lecture 10K 419
(?) Compare Naville, Das ewige Leben, pp. 3-8. It is
needless to mention the lamentations over old age, in which
all ages and nations have, as it were, vied in exhausting
themselves. That life is ever pointing us towards the future,
has been frequently pointed out by Vinet (e.g., his before-
cited work, p. 28) and Pascal. Compare, e.g., Pasc. ii. 44 :
“@ue chacun examine ses pensées, il les trouvera toujours
occupées au passé et a Vavenir. Nous ne pensons presque
point aw présent ; et si nous y pensons ce nest que pour en
prendre la lumiére pour disposer de Vavenir. Le présent
nest jamais notre fin ; le passé et le présent sont nos moyens ;
le seul avenir est notre fin. Ainsi nous ne vivons jamais, mais
nous espérons de vivre, et nous disposant toujours &@ étre
heureux, wl est inevitable que nous ne le soyons jamais.
(3) Lenau, i 124:
© Doch ist kein Menschenleben ohne Wunden,’
(There is no human life without wounds. )
1, 208 :
‘O Menschenherz was ist dein Glick ?
Hin rithselhaft geborner,
Und, kaum gegriisst verlorner,
Unwiederholter Augenblick.’
(‘O, human heart, what is thy happiness? A mysteri-
ously originating instant, lost as soon as greeted, and never
repeated, (Seneca, De cons. ad Mare. x. 5, tota flebilis
vita est).
(*) On this account, it is inseparable from poetry. Na-
ville, Das ewige Leben, p. 22: ‘The art of poetry does not
certainly consist in sighing, and yet that would be but a
poor and paltry lyre in which the string of melancholy did
not frequently resound,’
(°) Naville, the above-mentioned work, p. 21. This say-
ing maintains its truth, whether the book entitled Zeclesi-
asticus were the work of Solomon or not. Seneca, De
cons. ad Polyb. ii. 30: Hominis tota vita nihil aliud quam
ad mortem iter ist. Pasc. ii. 18: Nous cowrons sans souct
420 Notes to Lecture \x c
dans le precipice, aprés que nous avons mis quelque chose
devant nous pour nous empécher de le voir.
(°) One who was certainly an enthusiastic admirer of Ma-
dame de Staél, says : ‘The annals of the world’s history have,
during six thousand years, presented us with no woman who,
for power of imagination, universality of penetration, and
an ever kindling glow of youthful feeling, can be compared
with her ; and what age, what country, will be the first to
produce her equal?’ It cannot be denied that hers was a
mind of large calibre, and one that was ever dwelling in a
world of ideal beauty. Yet when in 1817 she lay upon
her death-bed, she said to her physician: ‘Sawvez moi et je
vous donnerai toute ma fortune, car jai Vhorreur dela mort.’
Compare Nathusius, Volksblatt, 1852, No. 52. Voltaire, on
his death-bed, promised his physician half his property if he
could give him a respite of six months. Aristotle, too (Hth.
Nicon., iii. 6, 6), calls death the most fearful, because the
last event. When he and the moralists of antiquity, such
as Seneca, exhort to fearlessness in the presence of death,
they do it on no other grounds than the necessity of death
and the shortness of life. Vinet, in his above-mentioned
work, p. 28, says: ‘ After the happiest, as well as after the
most wretched of lives, it is terrible to die.’ Compare the
whole of this sermon of Vinet’s.
(7) On the universality of the belief in immortality, com-
pare Liken, De Traditionen, etc. p. 407, ete. The Zndian
belief certainly rests upon pantheistic opinions. According
to this, the visible world is but a declension from the higher
truth and reality of spirit. Hence the spirit’s proper home
is in the other world, and this world is only its place of pro-
bation and purification. The soul must ever be re-entering
the vortex of this world, under new forms, that after passing
through various bodies, it may at last, after a long period,
attain the goal of perfection which the Indian mind indeed
represented as the merging of the individual life in the ocean
of Divinity, as a drop is lost in the ocean (compare Liiken,
417, etc.) The doctrine of the ancient Persians, as ex-
Notes to Lecture 4X ; 421
hibited in the Zendavesta, was freer from this pantheistic
feature, and therefore of a more moral character. Im-
mediately after death, the good and evil spirits contend
together for three days for the soul of the departed ; the
souls of the good pass safely across the high and narrow
bridge over the terrible abyss leading from this world of
troubles into the happy abode of Ormuzd and the Amschas-
pandas (the good spirits), while the souls of the wicked fall
into the place of punishment. Egypt, with her mummies,
her pyramids, and other memorials of the dead, is still a
loud-voiced witness to her own belief in immortality. All
the funeral ceremonies of this land ; the judgment of the
dead, at which it was decided whether the deceased should
be embalmed or not ; the journey in a boat to the city of the
dead, with one of which all the larger towns were provided
—declared the same belief. All these were figurative
representations of transactions in the other world. So indi-
genous was the persuasion of the soul’s continued existence
among this people, that the Greek historian Herodotus be-
lieved it to have originated with them (compare Liiken, p-
410, etc.). This faith, however, is found among nations
who were entirely removed from Egyptian influence.
Herodotus himself declares that it was a characteristic of
the Getz, dwelling in Thrace, to believe in the immortality
of the soul. They lived and died in the joyful faith that
the souls of the brave are gathered to the god of their
fathers. In later times, too, Roman poets held up this
people as a model to their own. (Compare Curtius, G'ottinger
Festreden, 1864, p.150. Indeed, the whole of this discourse
on the significance of the belief of immortality among the
Grecians may be compared with this paragraph). The same
belief is found among the Germanic nations of the north,
concerning whose religion the Ldda gives us information,
Only the brave who have fallen in battle are privileged by
this warlike race to enter the Walhalla, the abode of Odin,
to lead there a superior kind of earthly life ; the rest are
consigned to the gloomy abode of Hel. It was the hope of
the Walhalla which gave to the Cimbri and Teutones the
death-defying courage with which they encountered the
4.22, Notes to Lectwre ix. :
Romans. Even in China and the nations of the New
World, we find this faith consciously embraced and adhered
to, and that not merely as an opinion, but as a power influ-
ential in the present life. It was equally prevalent among
the Greeks and Romans (see especially Curtius’ above-
named work). The Greeks form a decided contrast to the
Indians. With the former, this world is everything, and
the visible the full expression of the whole inner life. This
is especially evident among Homer's Greeks. With them it
is this life which is the true life ; the life to come a world of
dread, Hades, the most hated of the Gods, souls descend
sorrowing to him. Achilles wishes rather to be a day
labourer in the light of the sun than a king among the
shades ‘who pass a colourless existence without strength—a
dull monotony.’ Yet even among them other notions of the
life to come existed in the consciousness of the people, which,
though repressed, were not to be extinguished. This was
especially the case with those poets who were connected
with Delphi, as Hesiod and others. A more serious view
of life, a sense of its sorrow, of the need of reconcilia-
tion with the Deity, and of the relation of the present to
the future life, preva) among them. And this was not
mere priest-lore or mystery, but a popular conviction, whose
extreme antiquity is testified by Aristotle in Hudemos, and
is supported by a series of facts. For history presents us
with examples, not merely of gloomy resignation, but also of
cheerfulness in death ; and that not only in the case of such
moral magnates as Socrates, but also in that of men of far
less moral worth. Equally do art, poetry, the sacredness of
the laws relating to the dead, and the honour paid to the
departed, bear testimony to this belief. The laws which pre-
scribe duties to the dead were indeed unwritten, but they
were supposed to be derived directly from the Gods ; and
Antigone, for the sake of fulfilling such a duty, scruples not
to disobey the contrary law of the ruler, and to incur the
punishment he threatens: ‘Death for such a deed is
honourable. Then shall I, a pious criminal, who have
piously committed a crime, rest peacefully near him who
loves me. I shall need favour among the dead for a longer
Notes to Lectwre kx . 4.23
time than among the living. For there I shall find an
eternal abode. As for thee, continue to despise, if thou
wilt, the sacred law of the gods,’ (Soph. Antig., v., pp. 71-77).
It is true that in public life this faith retired from obser-
vation, and that it was shaken by the sophists. But it took
refuge in the mysteries which gathered a kind of religious
fraternity around the belief in immortality, and sought to
guarantee it by sacred transactions, thus affording to moral
and religious consciousness that satisfaction which the public
exercises of religion did not offer. Among the Romans, the
belief in immortality did not disappear till the time of
Cesar and Cicero. Cicero confirms its antiquity, Lael. de —
amic,iiv.: ‘ Neque enim assentior tis, quis hec nuper disserere
ceperunt, cum corporibus simul animos interiere atque omnia
morte deleri. Plus apud me antiquorum autoritas valet—
vel nostrorum majorum, qui mortuis tam reliqgiosa jura tri-
buerunt, quod non fecissent profecto, st nihil ad eos pertinere
arbitrarentur—vel eorum qui in hac terra fuerunt Magnam-
que Greciam institutis et preceptis suis erudierunt, etc. So
that Cicero was as justified in speaking of a ‘ consensus gen-
tium’ to this belief, as to the belief in the existence of God.
—Tuse. i. 16: ‘Ut deos esse natura opinamur, qualesque
rint ratione cognoscimus, sic permanere animos arbitramur
consensu omnium nationum.
(°) The Appian road, with its monuments, is a proof of
this. Compare the before cited passage: Cic. Lael. de
amic., 4.
t (9) Pascal, ii, 18: ‘ Jd importe a toute la wie de savoir st
ame est mortelle ou wmmortelle” Also, Nicolas, i. 109 ;
and compare the whole of this excellent paragraph.
(1°) A good discussion of the special proofs, as well
as of the whole question, will be found in Huber’s Dze
Idee der Unsterblichkeit, Munich, 2d edit. 1865. The
proofs are usually divided into historical (‘ consensus
gentium’), metaphysical or ontological (from the immateri-
4? 4, Notes to Lecture IX.
ality of the soul), teleological (from the powers and capacity
of the soul), and moral (from the disproportion between
virtue and fortune). Compare Kahnis, Luther. Dogmatih, i.
pp. 179-194, where the literature of the subject is also
given.
(1) Compare the fine discussion on the immortality of the
soul, and the moral importance of this belief, in Matthias
Claudius, v. 2., ete.
(12) What follows is for the most part in accordance with
Martensen’s Dogmatik, p. 430, ete.
(*°) The resurrection of the body was specially alien to
Greek opinion, as is evident from the derision encountered
by St Paul at Athens (Acts xvii. 18 and 32), and from the
doubts of the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. xv. 12) ; hence it
is a subject frequently dwelt upon and discussed by ancient
Christian apologists. They were wont to prove it not
merely from the analogies of nature (from the seed, Theoph.
ad Antol., c. 18) and from the destiny of man, but, above all,
from a moral point of view—from the necessity of a future
Judgment, and the moral significance of this corporeal life.
So, e.g., Athenag. legat. c. 29, who believes indeed that if
all is over with this life, man may wallow in crimes ; but
not so if he has a hope of resurrection. Or Justin, de resurr.
extr: * Why should we not allow our body all the pleasures
of sense if it has not this hope, just as physicians at last
allow everything to a patient of whom they have no hope ?
The very purpose for which God seeks to withdraw our
body from sinful pleasures, is that He has determined to
reserve it for something better.’ And so also in the writ-
ings of many others.
(4) Compare on what follows my Lehre von den letzten
Dingen, 1870. I cannot, however, refrain from reminding
that the doctrine of the last things presupposes the know-
ledge and understanding of other branches of Christian
doctrine, and without these, may easily perplex the mind ;
Notes to Lecture IX. 425
also, that the Revelation of St John is the last and not the
first book of Holy Scripture.
(°) On the results of missionary labours hitherto, (especi-
ally in India) Caldwell, one of the principal English mis-
sionaries in Southern India, says, in Mission Work, March
1867, that though the external results are as yet nothing in
comparison with what still remains to be done, yet the indi-
rect agency, the shaking and undermining of the whole
system of heathenism, the intellectual and moral influences,
may not be lightly esteemed. Compare the extract from
his very interesting article in the Leipsic Ev. luth. Missions-
blatt, 1867, No. 8. On ‘this subject in general, I cannot
omit mentioning that the great importance of missions, not
only in a religious point of view, but in their bearing on the
advance of civilisation, is in general greatly underrated—at
least among us in Germany ; for in England these seem
more adequately appreciated. I freely concede that a cer-
tain pietistic and partially unsound manner of treating this
subject must bear a part ; but only a very small part of the
blame for this unmerited depreciation. That the subject of
missions demands and is compatible with the very highest
mode of treatment, has been shown by Graul, whose great
merit as a theologian consists herein. Compare my article
upon him in Herzog’s Theol. Realencl. xix. 578, ete. 3 and
Hermann’s Dr A. Graul, und seine Bedeutung fiir die luther.
Mission, 1867. Missions, apart from their moral and reli-
gious work, which is itself a civilising influence, and that in
the most eminent degree, stand in the closest connection
and mutual relation with religious history, literature,
philology, and geography (compare Livingstone, Petermann
of Gotha, and the Missionary Atlas, lately published there,
by Gundemann.) The Bible is at present translated into
two hundred languages ; and of these translations, one hun-
dred and eighty are the works of missionaries. Most of
these languages first became written languages, and were
thereby preserved from entirely dying out, and brought into
connection with general intellectual life, by means of these
translations of the Scriptures. This fact alone would suf-
426 Notes to Lecture LX.
fice to prove the great importance of missions with regard
to culture in general.
(6) Von Schweizer’s book, Zeitgeist und Christenthum,
which I have described in ‘ Lectures on Fundamental
Truths, Lecture I., Note 9, isa harbinger of such a future,
and a programme of the party to whom, according to their
own persuasions, the future belongs.
(17) I have here touched but slightly wpon the doctrine of
the so-called millennial kingdom, as being still too little
established and generally admitted. It is more precisely
defined in my above-mentioned work. Ji: Lehre von den
letzten Dingen.
(18) Pressensé, Jesus Christ, etc., p. 436. Also Marten-
sen, p. 438.
(9) The eternity of punishment is the special point
against which so many objections and scruples have been
entertained ; but as Nicolas, ii. 476, rightly observes:
‘Eternity is a necessary element of the idea of perdition.
For a temporary perdition, to be followed by salvation,
ceases to be perdition, The eternity to follow would
entirely obliterate it from the mind. Much as our feelings
may revolt against it, it is not merely the unmistakable
doctrine of Scripture, but also a requirement of the reason.
For no one is lost who is not in union with sin. Sucha
one, however, has excluded himself in his inmost nature
from communion with God. For him the love of God has
played its part, and has yielded to power. But he who has
withstood love will never be converted by power. Every.
moral development attains its climax either in heaven or
hell. The two goals, because the two possibilities, are
to be saved or to be lost. And there is a point at which,
it is no longer possible to will otherwise. On the misery
of being alone with one’s self, compare Vinet, p. 29.
(7°) Compare Vinet’s fine passage, p. 19, which I had
Notes to Lecture IX. 42°'°7
here in view—I conclude with the famous conversation of
Augustine with his mother on the day of her death, pre-
served in his Confessions, ix. 10, (compare Naville, Das
ewige Leben, p. 199, etc.): ‘As the day declined on which
my mother—unexpectedly to us—was to depart this life,
she and I were standing alone leaning against a window
overlooking the garden of the house in which we were
lodging, by the harbour of Ostia, at the mouth of the Tiber,
and where, after the fatigue of our long journey, we were
awaiting the time for sailing. We were alone ; and entirely
losing sight of the past in our pleasant conversation, we
were looking forward to the future, and talking together
of that eternal life of the saints, which no eye has seen, nor
ear heard of, nor heart of man conceived. Our conversation
led us to contemplate the fact, that no delights of sense
are worthy to be compared with the fulness of joy
of that life, nor even worthy to be named in speaking
of it, and upborne by our ardent longings after that
eternal life, we wandered step by step, first through
this world of our earthly bodies, then to heaven itself,
whence sun, moon, and stars cast their light upon
the earth. And still higher did our inmost thoughts
ascend in our discourse, and in our admiration of Thy
works, O Lord, even to the contemplation of our own souls,
and above them to that world of inexhaustible blessings,
where Thou dost eternally feed Thy people with truth,
where dwells that Wisdom by which all is created, that
either is, or was, or will be ; and which yet did not itself
begin to be, but ever is what it was and will be. And
while we were thus speaking, and in our desires reaching
after it, our hearts’ whole feeling came in contact with it for
a few moments ; then with sighs we left the firstlings of
spirit and returned to the sound of voice to speech, which
begins and ends. And thus we spoke: If the tumult of the
flesh were silent in the soul ; if all the forms of earth, air, and
water were silent ; if the poles of heaven were silent ; and
if the soul were silent within itself; if it could forget
and soar above itself ; if dreams and the fancies of the mind
were silent ; if all speech, all signs, and whatever surpasses
42.8 Notes to Lecture IX.
all these were silent ; for to him who chooses to hear, all
these things are saying: We did not make ourselves 3 but
He who inhabiteth eternity, made us—if having said thig
they then became silent, because they were wholly engrossed
in listening to Him who made them ; and, if He alone were
to speak so that we might hear His voice—to speak not by
things but by Himself, not by the tongues of men or angels,
not by the sound of thunder, nor by similitudes ; but, if as
now we rise in spirit towards him, and have by the soaring
of the mind, come in contact with that eternal wisdom
which is above all things—we could hear only Himself
whom we love in ali these things ; and if this would endure
and all lower forms would vanish, and this one Being should
alone so ravish the observer, and so wholly absorb and
cover him with inward joy, that this should be an eternal
life, as it is now a single moment of the knowledge for
which we long, would not this be the realisation of the say-
ing: ‘Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord? But when
will this be?’ Thus did we then converse ; and if not
in these very words, still, O Lord, thou knowest how
despicable the world and its joys appeared to us.
Then said she, ‘As for me, my son, this life has no
more joy for me. What more have I to do here 2
and why am I here since the hope of my life is fulfilled 2
There was but one thing for which I desired to tarry
yet awhile in this life, and that was to see thee a true
Christian before my death. God _ has granted me much
more, even to see thee, as his servant, contemning all
earthly good. What more have I to do here ?”
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS,
Acts of the Apostles, origin of, 236
Aeschylos, Prometheus of, 150
Angels, their Nature and Office, 59
Angelo Michael, 81, quoted, 352
Apostasy, the great final, and the
last form of sin, 305, 306
Aristotle quoted, 152
Art cannot take the place of reli-
gion, 81; the history of Christian,
compared with the course of
Christian doctrine, 128; the
highest aim of, 129
Athanasius, 219
Augustine, St., 183
Baptism, the Sacrament of, 282,
283 ; Infant, 284
Baronius, Cardinal, quoted, 254
Beza, Theodore, quoted, 197
Bible, the, its literary worth, 242-
245 ; the history of salvation, 251;
periods and authors of the several
books of, 258 ; question of author-
ship not a question of faith, 259
Buddhism, its origin, 44; its funda-
mental idea foreshadows the
church, 209; its doctrine of
atonement, 82
Cartesius, his opinion as to the
certainty of the existence of God,
38
Catholicism (Roman) its system, 214-
216 ; logical and consistent, 217 ;
devoid of truth, 218; condemned
by a threefold contradiction, 218 ;
difference between, and Pro-
testantism, 213
Christ, heathen presentiment of,
122; pictures of, 128-129; death
of, 160-165
Christianity, the most influential of
Christ the matter and central
point of, 28, 29, 316; its nature
the fact of atonement through
the death of Christ, 28, 146 ; its
nature according to the Western
Church, 30; according to Ration-
alism, 26; according to modern
Protestantism, 27 ; according to
recent speculative philosophy, 26 ;
its relation to heathenism, aly ol,
146 ; to Judaism, 24, 146 ; is to
be the universal religion, 176, 304
Church, the, the work of the Holy
Ghost, 195; a fact, 196 ; its anti-
quity, /bed., its triumphs, 196-198 :
antipathy to the, 198-203 ; a neces-
sary intellectual and moral insti-
tution, 202, 203 ; charge of in-
tolerance against, 202; her de-
clarations exclusive, 203; relation
to the State, 206 ; nature of, 207 ;
unity of, 207-210; an indispensa-
ble necessity to the world, 210;
its religious office, Jbid., separated
into the churches, 212 ; Office of,
differently viewed by Catholicism
and Protestantism, 212 sqg.; doc-
trine of in the system of Catho-
licism, 215; the Protestant doc-
trine of its twofold aspect, 224-
227; the difference between the
Romish, Reformed, and Lutheran
Churches, 228-232: the commun-
ion of believers, 233; The O. T.
transmitted by the Jews to the
Christian, 235 ; testimony of, to
the Inspiration of Scripture, 256 :
its means of grace, 263-290 ; the
future of, 303
Condemnation, eternal, 310
Confirmation, baptism, followed by,
286
all historical facts, 19, 178, 200 ;} Conscience, God’s witness in man,
the absolute religion, 20; Jesus
100 ; asserts man’s responsibility,
430
73; liberty of, a fruit of Chris-
tianity, 203
Contradiction between Christ’s na-
ture and His reality, 133; Co-
pernicus, 90
Creation, acknowledgment of, a reli-
gious need, 23; its purpose a loving
one, 91
Crime, the constant enemy of society,
48; indifference to truth a, 205
Criticism, its explanation of Chris-
tianity, 167 ; futility of its attacks
upon the matter of Holy Scrip-
ture, 257 ; its inferences do not af-
fect the essential matters of faith,
259 ; the present the age of, 257
Cross, the, 161 ; the Church’s point
of union, 211; the paradox of its
use, 164
Crucifix, ancient, found in Rome, 163
Crucifixion, punishment of, 160
Culture, its roots in the past, 242 ;
unable to free from sin, 80; the
Church the noblest instrument of,
200
Death connected with sin, 48; do-
minion of in nature and history, 45
Deity, the, deficiency in the opinions
of heathen philosophy concerning,
23
Divine Nature, the Trinity of, 188
Dogma, the Christ of, 107
Dogmatists’ notions of the Greek, 30
Deism acquainted with only the bar-
ren unity of God; its position
towards Pantheism, 189
Doubt allied with intolerance, 203
Dying not a single act but a process,
46
Ebionites, the, denied the deity of
Christ, 118
Education, history the, of the hu-
man race, 270.
Epistles, the, origin of, 236
Errors regarding the God-Man, 127
Eternal perfection, 313-316
Evil, a universal fact in human na-
ture, 44
Experience, faith founded on, 36
Eusebius referred to in confirmation
of worship being offered to Christ,
118
Faith, its position in Christianity,
32; founded neither on the doc-
Index of Principal Subjects.
trine of the Church nor the letter
of Scripture, but on the Person
of Christ, 33; demands and pos-
sesses certainty, 32, 35; its cer-
tainty, religious certainty, and
founded on experience, 35, 36 ; its
relation to knowledge, 37 ; its po-
sition with regard to Biblical criti-
cism, 257-261
Fall, the, Scripture account of, 52,
56 ; its consequence is the univer-
sal dominion of sin, 63
Frederick II., quoted, 258
Freedom essential to human nature,
52; does not abolish Divine guid-
ance, 72
French scholars, modern, efforts of
to show the connection between
the progress of society and reli-
gion, 199
Feuerbach, 83
Freiligrath, 82
Gethsemane, Jesus in, 156
God, seeking Him, the origin of all
religion, 21 ; the religious craving
impels men to seek Him, 22 ; not
known to the heathen, 23 ; cer-
tainty of His existence, 37 ; known
only in proportion as He is be-
lieved in, 40; His will the limit of
man’s thought, 90; His love the
purpose of creation, 913 a a
that hideth Himself, 93, 99;
God of patience, 95;
man’s freedom ; 985 all experi-
ence His secret influences, 100 ;
the self-sufficient and self-blessed,
125 ; cannot unconditionally par-
don, 149; His wrath the conse-
quence of sin, 154; the absolutely
Holy One, 155 ; His Triune reve-
lation, 186, 187; His purpose in
redemption, 266; final union of
His people, 315.
God-man, the question of, 107 ; His
sinlessness, 109-111 ; necessity of,
119-125 ; possibility of, 125, 126 ;
reality of, 126-128 ; errors of men
concerning, 129
Goethe, quoted, 250
Gospel, The, the whole truth, 32 ;
St John’s, Christ’s Life as depicted
in, 116; found in the Old Tes-
tament, ” 971 ; is Jesus Christ,
275
Gospels, origin of the, 236 ; the three
aes
aE Sn
Index of Principal Subjects.
first depict Christ especially as the
Lord of mankind, 115
Grace, forgiving and atoning, needed
by all, 84-90 ; the highest attribute
of royalty to exercise, 86 ; does not
dishonour but exalt man, 88 ; St
Paul pre-eminently the preacher
of, 89; certainty of, 91-96; uni-
versality of, 97-100 ; its operations
secret, 100- 102 ; education for,
102- 105 ; the Church’s means of,
263-290
Grace and sin, the two great facts of
Christian doctrine, 48
Greece and Rome, intellectual cul-
ture derived from, 242
Greek Church, the, the teachers of, 91
Greek thought, system of, 23
Happiness is comfort, 78
Harmony of Scripture, 255
Heathen, The, their presentiment of
431
Human sacrifices offered as an atone-
ment for sin, 24, 146
Humboldt, 92.
Immaculate Conception,: dogma, of,
_ opposed by Scripture and tradi-
tion, 219
Immortality of the soul, belief in
everywhere prevalent, 294; a ne-
cessary idea, 295 ; proofs of, 296
Incarnation of the Son of God, 120 ;
possibility of the, 125
Indian notions of the Deity, 23, 185
Infant Baptism, 284
Inspiration of Scripture, 48, 254 ;
testimony of the Church to the,
256 ; its nature, 253 ; its certainty,
254”
Trenzeus, 238, 246
Israel the nation of hope, 25 ; their
future conversion to Christ, 304
a Divine Redeemer, 122; of His | Jacobi, his notions of the origin of
supernatural birth, 112
sin, 51
Heathenism, the seeking religion, | Jeremiah, the great prediction of,
24; is polytheism, but with a
26
touch of monotheism, 22 ; knows | Jesus Christ, the realization of Is-
neither the Creator nor the Holy
God, 23
Hegel, his notions of the nature of
Christianity, 27; of the origin of
sin, 51 ; of Christ, 128 ; of the doc-
trine of the Trinity, 181
History, the course of, one of constant
advance, 79 ; the Christ of, differ-
ent from the Christ of rationalism,
119 ; Christ’s resurrection, a ques-
tion’ of, not of philosophy, 168 ;
the Divine education of the hu-
man race, 270; the judgment of
the world, 309 ; its final form ac-
cording to prophecy, 307; its
goal, 245.
Holy Spirit, His work before Christ,
His part in the work of Christ,
177-180 ; the Church the first work
of, 193; the possession of the, the
essential ingredient of the Chureh,
208
Heine quoted, 65
Heraclitus, 44, 249
Homer, 21
Honorius (Pope), 219
Horace, 87
Hug quoted, 260 ,
Humanity, true, cannot exist with-
out God, 68
rael’s hope, 26, 115, 147 ; His po-
sition with respect to Christianity,
29, 143, 175, 316; the revelation
of the holy love of God, and there-
fore the truth, 141 ; His person of
religious importance to faith, 32;
His mediatorial personality : ‘true
man and yet without sin, 107-111;
His temptation, 107, 139 ; His
miraculous birth, 111 ; is the Son of
God and wor shipped | as God, 117;
is the Son of Man, 114; is the
God-man, 126; required as such
by the atonement, 125 ; Doctrine
of His self- -renunciation, 130 ;
contrasts in His manifestations,
133, 226; His mediatorial work :
His inner development till His
baptism, 137; His baptism, 137 ;
His three offices, 136 ; His p -ophetic
. office and preaching, 140; His re-
jection, 145; His Hig gh-pr iestly
office, 147 ; His last hours, 156 ; His
death a sacrifice for sin, 146 ; : pos-
sibility and necessity of His
vicarious sacrifice to atone for sin,
146-156 ; His kingly office, 166 ;
His resurrection and its certainty,
167; His exaltation, 174; His
comprehensive designation the
432
Word, 266; Lord of mankind,
115; His return, 308
Jews, their respect for Scripture,
235; their ultimate conversion,
304
Josephus, 235
Judaism, the hoping religion, 25
Judgment, the last, 308-310
Justification by faith, doctrine of,
276-280 ; its ethical and psycholo-
gical truth, 276
John, St., Gospel of, its origin and
aim, 236; portrays Christ, espe-
cially in His relation to God, 116,
130
John the Baptist, His office, 138
Juvenal, 75
Kant’s morality, 70
Knowledge and Faith, 37-42
Knowledge limited, 41; its relation
to faith, 37, 188
Language inadequate to express
divine relations, 188
Last things, the, 291-313
Last judgment, 308-310
Law, through law to liberty, 270;
needful, 271 ; a necessary stage of
moral development, 273; as a
Divine means of education, 271 ;
its aim to make men feel their
need of the gospel, 274
Leibnitz, his doctrine of the best
world, 45
Lenau, experience of, referred to in
illustration of the impotence of
nature, 80 ,
Liberty and authority, 213
Life, sorrow and misery of, 44; the
light of, not happiness, but com-
fort, 78; vanity of, 292; the
earthly decides the eternal, 300
Lord’s Supper, its institution, 286 ;
its nature and object, 289;
Lutheran and Reformed doctrine
of the, 287
Liberius (Pope), 219
Love is true morality, 70-88; the
love of God the thought of crea-
tion, 91
Luke’s, St., Gospel, its origin and
aim, 236
Luther quoted, 246, 250, 253, 276,
286; his translation of the Bible,
261
Lutheran Church, its fundamental
Index of Principal Subjects.
doctrine, 276; its view of the
Church, with regard to the views
of the Reformed and Romish
Churches, 230
Man, at no time or place found
without religion, 21; unable to
deliver himself from sin and suf-
fering, 80; a unity, 83; his highest
aim communion with God, 85;
honoured by owning his faults, 89;
free in his moral resolves, 99, 100 ;
influenced by moral forces, 101 ;
made for society, 206; truth his
supreme want, 214 ; Scripture not
the work of, 252; his inward dis-
cord, 274; his destiny and faith
in immortality, 297; his relation
to the angelic world, 60
Mass, Romish, not found in Scrip-
ture, 251
Means of grace, 261-290
Mark, St, Gospel of, its origin and
purpose, 236
Mary, Virgin, her relation to Christ,
112
Materialism, sensuousness, the soul
of, 58
Matthew, St, Gospel of, its origin
and aim, 236
Melancthon on the mystery of the
Trinity, 182
Mental activity, human, the inspira-
tion of Scripture does not exclude,
253
Mental life, analogies of human,
used to explain the Trinity, 191
Missions, the preaching of the Word
the power of, 267
Missions, foreign, 202
Mission, the inner, 47
Mohamedanism, 304 ; results in Pan-
theism, 189
Morality of the ancient world, 273,
274, the doctrine of justification
by faith not prejudicial to, 277
Nature under the fact of the uni-
versality of evil, 44 ; full of strife,
44; its relation to the angelic
world, 60; its relation to morality,
71; impotent to deliver men
from suffering, 80; Trinity of
the Divine, 188
New Testament Scriptures, origin,
purpose, and collection of, 235-
238 ; added to the old, 238 ; autho-
Index of Principal Subjects.
433
rity attributed to, in the earliest | Protestantism, its two principles,
times, 239 ; assert the inspiration
of the Old, 252
Obscurity of Scripture, 249
Old Testament Scriptures regarded
as the Word of God by Jesus, His
apostles, and the early Church,
234; transmitted by the Jews to
the Christian Church, 235; the
the Gospel found in the, 271
Pantheism, pride, the soul of, 58;
its position with regard to Deism
a the Doctrine of the Trinity,
18
Pascal quoted, 198.
Pardon, nothing but, can annul past
transgressions, 84; God cannot
unconditionally, 149
Passover, Christ’s last, 286
Paul, St., his conversion and testi-
mony to the resurrection of
Christ, 172
Pauline Epistles, the, 237
Perdition and Salvation, 311
Perfection, the end of history, 291 ;
eternal, 313-317
Philosophy, the, of the Vedas, 44;
the aim of ancient, 80; the view
of modern, concerning Christ and
Christianity, 26, 127, 128
Pictures of Christ, 128
Pius IX., 218, 219
Platen, 76, 81
Plato, his testimony to the soul’s
aspiration after a better state,
53; his ideal of the true and
good, 273; his presentiment of
Trinity, 186
Pliny’s Epistle to Trajan, referred
to, 118
Plutarch, quoted, 75
Poetry full of the sorrows of life, 47;
testifies to the unhappiness of
man, the consequence of sin, 65 ;
ever speaks of guilt, 75
Predestination, absolute, at variance
with the universality of grace, 97
Poverty of spirit the condition for
the reception of grace, 103
Preaching the special form of the
word, the power of, 268; Jesus
Christ the substance of Christian,
275
Prophecy, tenor of, regarding the
future of the Church, 803, 304
241; its nature and its view of
Christianity, 220; its doctrine of
the Church, 221; its essential
difference from (Roman) Catholic-
ism, 213; view of modern so-called,
of Christianity, 27
Proudhon’s social system, 47
Puritanism mistakes human nature,
280
Pythagorean circle of Friendship a
presentient anticipation of the
Church, 209
Question of authorship not a ques-
tion of faith, 259
Questions of the day, Christ and .
Scripture the leading, 241
Quinet Edgar, quoted, 200
Rationalism, the. soul of, unbelief,
58; its assertion that sin is a
necessary product of our sensuous
nature, 50; that Christ is only the
ideal of virtue, 118 ; its explana-
tion of Christ’s resurrection, 170 ;
its rejection of the doctrine of the
Trinity, 181; its denial of the
presence of the Holy Ghost in the
Church, 195; its view of the
nature of Christianity, 26 ; regards
Christ as the religious genius,
119; its doctrine of justification,
276
Reformation, the, arose from the
craving after assurance of salva-
tion, 31
Reformed Church, its one-sided view
of the Church, 229 ; its doctrine of
the Lord’s Supper, 287
Religion a concern of universal man,
21; rests upon facts, 28; its
origin man’s natural seeking after
God, 21; its nature, 22; its chief
element man’s reconciliation with
God, 147; natural, has no exis-
tence but in books, 28 ; Christianity
the absolute, 20 ; the universal, 304
Religions Polytheistic, 22; difference
between prae-Christian and Chris-
tian, 281
Resurrection, Christ’s, the founda-
tion of Christianity, 167 ; denied
on doctrinal grounds, 167; on
philosophic grounds, 168 ; certain
on historical and internal grounds,
168, 174; of the body, 301
434
Reville, quoted, as to the importance
of the Bible, 244
Romans, Epistle to the, value of,
246
Romish Church, its one-sided view
of the Church, 228; its doctrine
of faith, 32; its doctrine of justi-
fication, 276; its doctrine of the
Lord’s Supper, 287; its assump-
tions, 219
Rousseau, 54, 64
Revelation, its history a history of
grace, 96
Sacraments, the, their nature, 280-
282 ; their number, 282
Sacrifice, the fundamental principle
of all religions, 146; Christ’s
necessary, 147
Sacrifices, human, founded on a
true feeling, 24; all religions
aie. 146 ; their purpose atoning,
146
Salvation, history of, 179 ; Scripture
not necessary to, conceivable, 246;
and perdition, 310
Satan, the doctrine of the existence
of, and of evil spirits, 58 ; motives
of its rejection, 59
Scepticism, intolerance of, 204
Schefer, Leopold, quoted, 82
Schelling and Hegel, their notions
concerning Christianity, 27
pep error of, on man’s freedom,
Schleiermacher’s view of Christ’s
resurrection, 170; critical errors
of, 259
Schopenhauer’s philosophy, 45.
Scripture, Holy, 234; Jesus Christ
the subject of, 235; the remedy
for the corruption of tradition,
239; its intellectual importance,
242 ; its religious importance, 245 ;
its necessity to individual Chris-
tians and to the Church, 246 ; its
' matter, 248; the understanding
of, 249 ; conditions of understand-
ing, 250 ; its inspiration, 251-257 ;
objections to the matter of, 258 ;
its predictions of the future of the
Church and of the latter days,
303-317
Soul, immortality of, belief in, uni-
versal, 294; proofs of the, 296 ;
state of, after death, 298
Speech, importance of, 265
Index of Principal Subjects.
Spinoza’s pantheistic doctrine com-
bated, 82
Statistics do not do away with sin, 71
Strauss, his criticism of the older
rationalistic view of Christianity,
170
Substitution, a universal notion of
man’s moral consciousness, 150;
its possibility and reality, 151
Suffering and Sorrow, universality
of, 45-48 ; vanity of human reme-
dies for, 80-83
Susceptibility, a necessary ingredient
for comprehending Scripture, 250
Symbols, no religion without, 280
Self-renunciation of Christ, doctrine
of, 131
Self-control not deliverance from
sin, 70
Self-deliverance, no such thing as, 83
Sin, the most potent fact on earth,
28 ; a universal power, 49 ; arises
not from sensuousness nor from
our finite nature, nor from neces-
sity, 50-52; is the abuse of free-
dom, 55-63 ; its consequences, 63 ;
its nature, 66; is guilt, 71; deli-
verance from, needed, 80 ; requires
atonement, 120; a transgression
against God, 83; no good work
can annul committed, 84 ; expiated
only by suffering, 149; the resur- :
rection a proof of its having been
forgiven, 174 ; law not a remedy
against, 272 ; forgiveness of, 278 ;
the contradiction of contradic-
tions, 316
Socialism founded on the reality of
human woe, 47
Society at war with crime, 48 ; man
made for, 206, 249
Socrates, greatness of, 103, quoted
249
Sophocles quoted, 150
Tacitus, 68, 75
Taste, objections of, to the matter of
Holy Scripture, 258
Tertullian, 238
Testament, Old, the religion of, the
religion of hope, 25; the Holy
Spirit spoken of in the, 177
Testaments, New and Old, con-
trasted, 270
Testimony of the Church to the in-
spiration of Scripture, 256
Things, the last, 291-317
Index of Principal Subjects. 435
Toleration the triumph of modern | Time does not bring comfort, 79
times, 202
Tradition, its original and extended | Unity of Scripture, 254
meaning, and its relation to Scrip- | Universal religion, Christianity the,
ture, 238, 251 304
Trinity, the, confession of, a confes-
sion of the God of salvation, 180 ;| Vedas, the, their subject the fact of
meaning of, 181; not a mystery| sorrow, 44
for scholars, but the faith of Virgin Mary, her humility, 90
Christians, 184 ; denial of, a denial | Visions, belief in, the resurrection of
of redemption, 193; the chief| Christ attributed to, 172
fundamental dogma of Chris-
tianity, 181; based not upon | Western Church, its view of the
human knowledge, but upon the] nature of Christianity, 30
revelation of God in Christ, 186 ; | Will, man's free, and entails respon -
the expression of our faith in the sibility, 71, 98; incapable of attain-
Redeemer, and to be understood | ing to true morality, 68 .
by starting from Him, 187; at- World, the eternal, understood only
tempts to explain it by the analogy according to its own laws, 38;
of the human mind, 191 Its rela-| this, a world of woe, 65; its final
tion to Pantheism and Deism, 189 preparation, 309, 314
Triune God, the, revelation of, 180;| Word, the, the form of mind and
the God of Christians, 193 ; the| of the revelation of God, 265; a
Church’s belief in, 211 means of grace, 264; its import-
Truth, the, is manifested in Christ, | ance to the Church and its form
142; is of its very nature ex-| therein, 266 ; its matter, 269 ; its
clusive, 205 aim, 280 ; is an expression used to
Tiibingen, school of criticism, 260 designate Jesus Christ, 266
i
a
be 20 Cee
*
MMO