H 
 
 ■ 
 1 
 
 mat 
 m¥ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 graftal 
 
 ■ 
 
 fefe 
 
 lilltiiiili^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 IS3E 
 
 
 ■ 
 
BR 121 .G72 1890 
 
 Gray, George Zabnskie, 183 
 
 -1889. 
 
 The church's certain faith 
 
33p tjje late iDcan <£5rap. 
 
 THE CRUSADE OF THE CHILDREN IN THE Xlllth 
 CENTURY. With Illustration and Appendix. i2mo, 
 £1.50. 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. With an Introduction by the Rt. 
 Rev. F. D. Huntington. Revised Edition. i6mo, gilt 
 top, $1.00. 
 
 THE CHURCH'S CERTAIN FAITH. The Baldwin Lec- 
 tures, University of Michigan. i2mo, $1.50. 
 
 HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & COMPANY, 
 Boston and New York. 
 
SSal&toiu 3tccturc£, 1889 
 
 THE 
 
 CHURCH'S CERTAIN FAITH 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE ZABRISKIE GRAY 
 
 LATE DEAN OF THE EPISCOPAL THEOLOGICAL 
 SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 
 
 BOSTON AND NEW YORK 
 
 HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY 
 
 (£fy iftiurrsior Press, tfambriDQe 
 
 1890 
 
Copyright, 1890, 
 Br KATE FORREST GRAY. 
 
 All rights reserved. 
 
 The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass.,U. S. A. 
 Electrotyped and Printed by II. O. Houghton & Company. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 In the publication of these Lectures but few 
 words seem necessary beyond my husband's In- 
 troductory Letter. 
 
 When he wrote this letter, his illness was 
 much more serious than he imagined, and he 
 was suffering from a failure of sight, from which 
 he never sufficiently recovered to be able to re- 
 vise any of the Lectures. Nevertheless, until 
 within three weeks of his death, he confidently 
 hoped to regain such health and sight as would 
 enable him to prepare them for the press. As 
 now printed, a few changes of form and occa- 
 sional verbal corrections have been made, but' in 
 other respects the Lectures stand as my hus- 
 band left them. 
 
 The fragmentary form of the first Lecture is 
 
 due to the fact that it was never finished, as is 
 
 indicated in his letter to the Rector of the Ho- 
 
 bart Guild. Kate Forrest Gray. 
 
 Cambridge, Easter, 1890. 
 
INTRODUCTORY LETTER 
 
 TO THE RECTOR OF THE HOBART GUILD. 
 
 Cambridge, April 22, 1889. 
 My dear Doctor, — It is one of the great disap- 
 pointments of my life, that owing to illness I cannot 
 deliver these Lectures, the preparation of which has 
 been a labor of love ; for although I did not expect 
 they would be equal to the occasion, I fully realized 
 the opportunity for good which that occasion affords. 
 But their delivery by me being entirely out of the 
 question, as I both know and am told by physicians, 
 I send them as you request, that they may be read 
 by yourself, or one whom you appoint. Yet, even in 
 so doing, there is the further distress to me, that I 
 have not been able to revise the work of the type- 
 writer, for I feel that there must be many things of 
 greater or less importance which I must leave to your 
 correction, especially in the first Lecture, which has 
 not even received the amount of labor bestowed upon 
 the others, and where I rely upon you, not only to 
 correct, but also to condense, as your judgment and 
 taste will indicate. I know of nothing of moment to 
 change as to matter, but I am aware that there are 
 many things in which criticism will call for change as 
 to form. During the summer I hope to be able to 
 put the Lectures into such shape for printing as may 
 render them a little worthier of their predecessors. 
 Please state, by way of introduction, that the 
 
Vi INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 
 
 brief period allowed for preparation, as well as my 
 imperfect health this last winter, shut me up to a 
 popular rather than an erudite course, which, how- 
 ever, seemed to me, perhaps, to be the means of 
 reaching an audience, whom more elaborate dis- 
 courses might not help as well, or which, if they 
 would, are so amply provided. As to the subjects 
 chosen, — The Nature of Christianity, the Reality of 
 Jesus, His Deity, His Church, Theology, and the 
 Bible, — they were selected because they cover the 
 ground of the great religious discussions of the day, 
 and because, about all of them, divergences in the re- 
 ligious world are more radical than is generally real- 
 ized, in spite of frequent apparent agreements. My 
 method of treatment, beyond the popularity of form, 
 has been to try to show how these matters are looked 
 at in consistency with the spirit of our own Church, 
 as it is represented by those who seek to rise above 
 parties and shibboleths, and realize the fullness of 
 her message and the width of her embrace. 
 
 In other words, I have tried to present what I have 
 so largely learned from Bishop Harris, for I in- 
 tended in my Introduction to speak of him as under- 
 standing, as fully as any one I have ever known, the 
 words " I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," and 
 the Lectures were written with a feeling that they 
 were to be delivered under the sense of the loss of 
 the 
 
 " touch of a vanish'd hand. 
 
 And the sound of a voice that is still," 
 
 and to constitute an humble contribution towards 
 continuing the influence of his magnificent life. 
 
 I have prepared in the rough an Introductory 
 
INTRODUCTORY LETTER. vii 
 
 Lecture upon various preliminary matters, especially 
 the nature of true Christian Belief, as resting not 
 upon mere authority, nor the result of argument, but 
 being the belief of conviction, based upon personal 
 perception of truth. I had hoped to show how, by 
 emphasizing this element, or by "manifestation of 
 the truth, commending ourselves to every man's con- 
 science in the sight of God," is what is needed in 
 dealing with the alleged prevalent unbelief of the 
 day, in which there is perhaps less unwillingness to 
 believe than desire to believe rightly, and less rejec- 
 tion of the Catholic faith than misapprehension as to 
 what it is. 
 
 Let me add, furthermore, that the limitations im- 
 posed by the time at my disposal, and by the field in 
 view, have not only led me to say many things which 
 will be trite to many hearers, but have also led me to 
 omit many things which, under other circumstances, 
 would have been called for. Critical listeners will 
 notice not a few significant silences ; and I desire to 
 say that inference as to my personal opinions drawn 
 from such silences, will be extremely precarious ; for 
 the object of the Lectures is to show the distinction 
 between what the Churchman is committed to, or 
 must hold, and those things which, however firmly 
 convinced of, he is yet aware are matters of private 
 conviction. 
 
 With these few prefatory words, I send to you 
 pages which in any event would have been submitted 
 with diffidence to the audience for which they were 
 prepared, but which, in their present condition, are 
 only forwarded because of your urgent request, in 
 view of the importance of making no break in the 
 
vill INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 
 
 series, and in confident reliance upon your kindness 
 and judgment to make such changes and corrections 
 as may be evidently called for. I sincerely hope and 
 pray that in this imperfect form they may contribute 
 something to fulfill the object of the lectureship j and 
 when Providence restores to me my strength, my first 
 labor shall be to put them into such form for publica- 
 tion as may be more efficient to promote the aim of 
 the generous founder whose name the foundation 
 bears, and more worthy of being associated with the 
 work of the Hobart Guild. George Z. Gray. 
 
EXTRACT FROM DEED OF FOUNDATION 
 OF THE BALDWIN LECTURES. 
 
 " This Instrument, made and executed between 
 Samuel Smith Harris, Bishop of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the Diocese of Michigan, of the 
 city of Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan, as party 
 of the first part, and Henry P. Baldwin, Alonzo B. 
 Palmer, Henry A. Hayden, Sidney D. Miller, and 
 Henry P. Baldwin, 2d, of the State of Michigan, 
 Trustees under the trust created by this instrument, 
 as parties of the second part, witnesseth as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 " In the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and eighty-five, the said party of the first part, 
 moved by the importance of bringing all practicable 
 Christian influence to bear upon the great body of 
 students annually assembled at the University of 
 Michigan, undertook to promote and set in operation 
 a plan of Christian work at said University, and col- 
 lected contributions for that purpose, of which plan 
 the following outline is here given, that is to say : — 
 
 " 1. To erect a building or hall near the University 
 in which there should be cheerful parlors, a well- 
 equipped reading-room, and a lecture-room where the 
 lectures hereinafter mentioned might be given. 
 
 " 2. To endow a lectureship similar to the Bamp- 
 ton Lectureship in England, for the Establishment 
 and Defence of Christian Truth ; the lectures on such 
 
X FOUNDATION OF BALDWIN LECTURES. 
 
 foundation to be delivered annually at Ann Arbor by 
 a learned clergyman or other communicant of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, to be chosen as herein- 
 after provided : such lectures to be not less than six 
 nor more than eight in number, and to be published 
 in book form before the income of the fund shall be 
 paid to the lecturer. 
 
 11 3. To endow two other lectureships, one on Bib- 
 lical Literature and Learning, and the other on Chris- 
 tian Evidences : the object of such lectureships to be 
 to provide for all the students who may be willing to 
 avail themselves of them a complete course of instruc- 
 tian in sacred learning, and in the philosophy of right 
 thinking and right living, without which no education 
 can justly be considered complete. 
 
 "4. To organize a society, to be composed of the 
 students in all classes and departments of the Uni- 
 versity who may be members of or attached to the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, of which society the 
 Bishop of the Diocese, the Rector, Wardens, and 
 Vestrymen of St. Andrew's Parish, and all the Pro- 
 fessors of the University who are communicants of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church should be members 
 ex-officio, which society should have the care and 
 management of the reading-room and lecture-room of 
 the hall, and of all exercises or employments carried 
 on therein, and should moreover annually elect each 
 of the lecturers hereinbefore mentioned, upon the 
 nomination of the Bishop of the Diocese. 
 
 " In pursuance of the said plan, the said society 
 of students and others has been duly organized under 
 the name of the ' Hobart Guild of the University 
 of Michigan ; ' the hall above mentioned has been 
 
FOUNDATION OF BALDWIN LECTURES. XI 
 
 builded, and called ' Hobart Hall ; ' and Mr. Henry 
 P. Baldwin, of Detroit, Michigan, and Sibyl A. Bald- 
 win, his wife, have given to the said party of the first 
 part the sum of ten thousand dollars for the endow- 
 ment and support of the lectureship first hereinbefore 
 mentioned. 
 
 " Now, therefore, I, the said Samuel Smith Harris, 
 Bishop as aforesaid, do hereby give, grant, and trans- 
 fer to the said Henry P. Baldwin, Alonzo B. Palmer, 
 Henry A. Hayden, Sidney D. Miller, and Henry P. 
 Baldwin, 2d, Trustees as aforesaid, the said sum of 
 ten thousand dollars, to be invested in good and safe 
 interest-bearing securities, the net income thereof to 
 be paid and applied from time to time as hereinafter 
 provided, the said sum and the income thereof to be 
 held in trust for the following uses : — 
 
 " 1. The said fund shall be known as the Endow- 
 ment Fund of the Baldwin Lectures. 
 
 "2. There shall be chosen annually by the Ho- 
 bart Guild of the University of Michigan, upon the 
 nomination of the Bishop of Michigan, a learned cler- 
 gyman or other communicant of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, to deliver at Ann Arbor, and under the 
 auspices of the said Hobart Guild, between the Feast 
 of St. Michael and All Angels and the Feast of St. 
 Thomas, in each year, not less than six nor more 
 than eight lectures, for the Establishment and De- 
 fense of Christian Truth; the said lectures to be 
 published in book form by Easter of the following 
 year, and to be entitled 'The Baldwin Lectures ; ' and 
 there shall be paid to the said lecturer the income of 
 the said endowment fund, upon the delivery of fifty 
 copies of said lectures to the said Trustees or their 
 
xii FOUNDATION OF BALDWIN LECTURES. 
 
 successors; the said printed volumes to contain, as 
 an extract from this instrument, or in condensed 
 form, a statement of the object and conditions of 
 this trust." 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 » 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 What is Belief ? i 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 What is Christianity? 25 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 Was Jesus Christ an Historical Reality ? .... 62 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 Who was Jesus Christ ? 95 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 What did Christ Found ? 129 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 What is Theology ? 166 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 The Bible 196 
 
THE CHURCH'S CERTAIN FAITH 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 WHAT IS BELIEF ? 
 
 " By manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to 
 every man's conscience in the sight of God." — 2 Cor. iv. 2. 
 
 It should be clearly understood at the outset 
 that these lectures are to be popular. It is an 
 undoubted fact that there is among the laity 
 a demand for a kind of information that is not 
 sufficiently provided. Books and lectures that 
 intend to commend and set forth the faith are 
 apt to be either marked by a scholarship which, 
 while admirable, is not adapted to those un- 
 familiar with theological study and having little 
 opportunity to become so, or else is unsatisfac- 
 tory to the intelligent and the thoughtful reader. 
 There is wanted a class of works that will help 
 keen and reflective men and women, without be- 
 ing either technical and erudite, or dogmatic and 
 pedagogical. It is in this line that these lectures 
 are planned, to give to such intelligent and inde- 
 pendent minds as those who are addressed, in an 
 ingenuous and sympathetic manner, a statement 
 
2 WHAT IS BELIEF? 
 
 of what and why we believe in this Church of 
 our love and our allegiance. 
 
 The reason for the selection of the topics 
 chosen for these lectures is that they cover all 
 the ground of controversy — are the great ques- 
 tions in issue in these days when there is so 
 much religious discussion. For this is the char- 
 acteristic of the mental activity of the age. 
 Some insist that the interest in religion is dying 
 out, and that Christianity does not occupy men's 
 thoughts as it once did. I should say that this 
 was precisely the reverse of the truth. If not a 
 very religious age, it is at any rate more inter- 
 ested in religious questions than any previous 
 age has ever been. Periodicals and newspapers 
 have regular religious departments. The books 
 that sell are those that turn upon such matters. 
 In fact, the writer of fiction who would gain a 
 hearing must have some doctrine to preach, 
 whether old or new ; and " art for art's sake " no 
 longer seems to have any disciples in this de- 
 partment. Clubs are occupied with these themes, 
 and a religious discussion will insure a full meet- 
 ing. Works on other subjects, on science of all 
 sorts, trench upon the religious domain, and now 
 and then even the mathematician will have his 
 say upon it. It is true that all questions must 
 somewhere trench upon religion, but it has been 
 reserved for our days to see such abounding at- 
 tention to it. Instead of religious matters being 
 neglected, people will not let them alone who 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? 3 
 
 might sometimes do so to advantage. New isms 
 are springing up out of the ferment. St. Paul 
 said that the Athenians were "too religious," 
 but the disputatiousness and fondness for new 
 altars and original cults that we see are probably 
 in excess of what marked their city. And so 
 it is an age full of encouragement to the be- 
 liever. We can look on and rejoice at all this 
 religious interest, for although much of it is hos- 
 tile and much is erring, yet it is an immense ad- 
 vance upon the stagnation of a past age. What 
 is wanted is that people should think upon the 
 matters in issue, and even if they think wrongly, 
 at any rate these subjects are before them, and 
 there is assurance of the triumph of the truth, 
 whose greatest enemy is indifference. But be- 
 yond this, as we shall see later, much of the dis- 
 cussion is earnest. It is an earnest questioning 
 of received teachings in order to be sure that 
 they are true. That is, this spirit of questioning 
 is often a most sensible thing. To have difficul- 
 ties of belief is not all a misfortune. Consider the 
 complicated theologies in which most people are 
 brought up, the old theories of Scripture and other 
 things imposed by their churches, the ancestral 
 beliefs handed down by the sects that exist but 
 to perpetuate them, and then answer whether 
 doubt and unrest are altogether to be regretted ; 
 whether there is not room for still more critical 
 inquiry into much that in popular religionism 
 passes for Christian truth. 
 
4 WHA T IS BELIEF? 
 
 The standpoint whence these topics are to be 
 treated is what I understand to be that of this 
 Church, or that of a strong and uncompromising 
 churchmanship. This is a matter not always 
 understood. It is made often to mean strong 
 emphasizing of some particular features of the 
 Church, rather than others, laying stress upon 
 its institutions rather than its comprehensive- 
 ness or catholicity ; so changing its conception 
 as to make it a holy narrow Church, with apos- 
 tolic order and very little room. Let us learn 
 to emphasize both its institutions and its catho- 
 licity. Be it our endeavor to set forth the idea 
 of Christian brotherhood as at once contain- 
 ing elements of fixity and elasticity, at once im- 
 movably abiding by what is essential to the true 
 discipleship of Christ and also giving free play 
 within it to all the varied sorts and conditions of 
 men and minds. The idea of the Church we as- 
 sume and would maintain is not that of a vessel 
 moored at both ends and motionless in the ebb 
 and flow of tide, and the change and fall of winds, 
 but it is that of a vessel anchored by that which 
 reaches down to the very rock and grasps it 
 firmly, and yet swings and moves as currents 
 come and go — adapts itself to new conditions of 
 the restless waters about it. In all this I shall 
 try to speak as I believe the noble Bishop would 
 have me speak to whose invitation these lectures 
 are due, and with whose thought I was favored to 
 be intimately acquainted, by conversations whose 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? 5 
 
 memory will ever be among the most treasured 
 recollections of my life. Not only was it his 
 brilliancy of intellect, his soundness of judgment, 
 his masterly ability, his rare culture : it was also 
 his signal apprehension of the true character of 
 the Church, the correct replies to the questions 
 we are to treat, that rendered him, in the estima- 
 tion of those that knew him, one of the foremost 
 men of our communion, a leader who gave prom- 
 ise of achievements that no one else yet gives. 
 
 In taking up our first question, What is belief ? 
 it may be well to approach it by considering the 
 state of men's minds on the subject, and certain 
 confusions of thought that are prevalent. 
 
 The religious condition of the age is much dis- 
 cussed ; and we hear much that is despondent 
 from those that believe, and exultant from those 
 that do not. One's generalizations are apt to be 
 affected by his surroundings, for we are all prone 
 to confine ourselves to our own horizons. It 
 is important neither to exaggerate nor to mini- 
 mize the spread of unbelief. Let us notice one 
 or two points that can safely be made. 
 
 In the first place it is hardly wise to affirm 
 that there is a decline of faith, in the sense of 
 belief in things unseen and forms invisible. On 
 the contrary, there never was so much of it since 
 the world began. Instead of faith wanting, it is 
 wisdom. We see everywhere its exaggerations, 
 in the scenes at Lourdes, in faith cures, in mock 
 sciences based upon it, in isms that are enough 
 
6 WHAT IS BELIEF? 
 
 to drive sensible people to despair and make the 
 scientific man feel his mission a failure. We 
 sometimes hear of " the Ages of Faith " as de- 
 parted never to return ; some rejoicing, others 
 mourning, that they are vanished. Nevertheless 
 they are coming back in aggravated form, and in- 
 stead of too little there is too much faith, and not 
 enough reason ; and whereas there is a regretta- 
 ble amount of materialism that is formulated, and 
 more that is practical, yet this is not a danger 
 that threatens us as much as a soul-destroying 
 spiritualism. For it is not true, as some seem 
 to think, that the mere belief that there are un- 
 seen realities has a saving or a purifying power. 
 
 But how is it as to Christianity ? Is not that 
 waning ? The really striking fact in the case is 
 the slight degree to which its hold upon human 
 hearts is affected by the changes and the assaults 
 that these times are bringing. There is so much 
 strength in the attacks that are made, so much 
 eloquence, so much that is true even in what the 
 opponents say, so much in the conditions of life 
 to aid their endeavors, that it is a wonder they 
 have not more success than they have. But 
 the numbers of recorded worshipers and com- 
 municants are unprecedented, the statistics of 
 expenditure for Christian purposes, of gifts for 
 missions and charities, are beyond all in the past. 
 This is clearly seen also by the perusal of such 
 books as cast light upon the matter in the gen- 
 erations that are gone, the last century and those 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? J 
 
 preceding. It would seem rash to affirm that at 
 any date there has ever been so large a popula- 
 tion in this or any other land professing Chris- 
 tianity as there is to-day ; and it is equally verifia- 
 ble that this increase is greatest among the most 
 intelligent peoples and the most cultured 'indi- 
 viduals. But to these add those who make no 
 profession, but are living by faith in Christ. It 
 is a great mistake to imagine, as both friends 
 and foes are apt to do, that all Christian belief 
 is included in the church-going part of the com- 
 munity. It ought to be so, but it is not. Out- 
 side of the pews there is a vast amount of trust 
 in Christ and of following Him in life, of bearing 
 trial because of the strength He gives and the 
 hopes He awakens, and of doing good and bear- 
 ing burdens in a spirit learned of Him. The in- 
 fidel must not sing his song of victory over the 
 decay of Christianity, nor the believer give way 
 to lamentations, until this large element of un- 
 demonstrative faith has been added to that which 
 statistics embrace. Then the former may mod- 
 erate his paeans and the latter his regrets. 
 
 But is there no extensive decay of belief in 
 Christ ? no giving up the gospel ? Yes, there is 
 a sad amount of it ; a strange reverting to hea- 
 thenism is often noticeable. Some people may 
 be shocked by this name for it. But what is hea- 
 thenism ? It is merely living without the gospel, 
 religion without belief in God's answers to a 
 world's needs. If one has given this up, he is a 
 
8 WHAT IS BELIEF? 
 
 heathen, be it of the materialistic or more ele- 
 vated and spiritual kind, and it is difficult to see 
 why he should object to the name that describes 
 him in this respect. And it is very amazing to 
 see men and women in this nineteenth century, 
 who have been blest by Christianity in their 
 homes, their social life, in all that renders their 
 lot different from that of skin-clad ancestors, giv- 
 ing up all that marks them as favored beyond 
 the nations that sit in darkness, and going back 
 to live and educate their children, or trying to 
 do so, in a way that was given up ages ago by 
 their fathers as an intolerable thing, so soon as 
 the light of Jesus came to them. Think of the 
 enormity, the absurdity, of a citizen of a land 
 like this, founded by Christians, made what it is, 
 perhaps more than any other land, by Christian- 
 ity, becoming a heathen again ! But while there 
 is much of this real abandonment of the gospel, 
 there is not so much as some think. The whole 
 question is one of proportion, and while we can- 
 not have statistics of mental conditions, yet all 
 available indicate clearly that there never was so 
 small a proportion of intelligent men and women 
 who really disbelieved the essence of Christianity. 
 The fact is that what unbelief there is now is 
 more outspoken. There is a liberty now to say 
 things once forbidden or discountenanced ; and 
 we must be very careful not to conclude that be- 
 cause more people say they give up faith, there- 
 fore more have really done so than was the case 
 in other days. 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? 9 
 
 But this leads us to ask what are really the sig- 
 nificance and weight of the apparent doubt of 
 the day ; for there is much that claims to be, and 
 is, both questioning and denial of Christian be- 
 liefs. We may consider this with reference to 
 the matters questioned, or with reference to the 
 spirit of the questioners. 
 
 Much that passes for doubt and causes regret 
 is really of no serious consequence, and does 
 not affect essential Christian faith. This is seen 
 when we divide the matters questioned into 
 those for which Christianity is not responsible 
 and those to which it is committed. 
 
 Among the former are tenets which are held 
 by this or that sect, or which are widely preva- 
 lent without any definite home. The Christian 
 Church, the brotherhood of believers, is not to 
 stand or fall with any of these. We are so sur- 
 rounded by the atmosphere of sectarianism that 
 it is hard for most people to realize that they can 
 question a great deal that is insisted upon by 
 many people without touching Christianity ; that 
 much which is the corner-stone of popular reli- 
 gionism, many points that bodies about us make 
 identical with the gospel, " the mark of a stand- 
 ing or a falling church," are simply the particu- 
 lar notions of individuals or sects, and as much 
 subject to approval or rejection as any other 
 opinion. It were well to do a little more ques- 
 tioning as to the tenets of recent and erratic 
 sects, or even to question the capacity of any 
 
IO 117/ AT IS BELIEF? 
 
 founders of larger and older ones to lay down 
 final tests of correct belief ; to criticise keenly 
 any addition to the simplest statement of the 
 gospel. Such things, for instance, as doctrines 
 of predestination, and theories of eternal punish- 
 ment, and explanatory dogmas about the atone- 
 ment, and this or that man's assertions about the 
 Bible, are as open to criticism as any teaching of 
 a professor in his chair. The Church of Christ, 
 Christianity, is not committed to any school of 
 opinion upon these subjects, and he who accepts 
 the catholic creeds may doubt all the theories 
 and explanations of them and yet be entitled to 
 every privilege and every hope of the believer. 
 It is time that assailants as well as defenders 
 learned that Christianity is not concerned, its 
 issues are not at stake, its claims are not im- 
 periled, in the attack upon any tenet or belief 
 that is but the shibboleth of some one or more 
 bodies in the land. The overthrow of such things 
 may destroy sects, or cut the ground from under 
 preachers of such ideas ; but the gospel is not 
 touched, reasons for believing it are not weak- 
 ened, the Church's voice is not discredited, until 
 some one point on which the Church is commit- 
 ted in its apostolic faith is overthrown. Learn 
 then not to be anxious about the rejection of, nor 
 to fight for as essential, any article of belief that 
 marks any fragment, or any local or transient 
 organization, of Christendom. 
 
 As to doubt upon matters to which Christian- 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? II 
 
 ity is really committed, to say that there are two 
 different sorts of doubt is not a subtle refining of 
 distinctions, but is only to say what every obser- 
 ver has noticed. Often what is doubted is not 
 the thing itself, but some misapprehension of it. 
 This misapprehension may be due to mistaking 
 the sense of terms or of dogmas because of in- 
 sufficient information, or because of the way in 
 which they have been interpreted by bodies of 
 Christians or by individuals of influence. This 
 may lead to conceptions of truths that ought to 
 be rejected, out of respect to the faith itself. 
 For instance, when an eminent divine so teaches 
 the doctrine of the Trinity that others could not, 
 and he said he hardly could, distinguish it from 
 the idea of three Gods, the man who knows no 
 better statement of it must deny it ; or, when 
 one is taught that the inspiration of the Bible 
 means mechanical dictation to its writers, he may 
 well say that if that is what it actually means he 
 cannot believe it. In either case a man is not 
 doubting anything that Christianity is committed 
 to, but only what ill-advised persons have imputed 
 to it. The true way, then, is for him to ascertain 
 just what the dogma meant to those who framed 
 it, or the word to those who adopted it ; what is 
 meant now by the wise and true representatives 
 of the faith ; what is intended to be affirmed, and 
 what is not, in the creeds of Christendom. This 
 will put an aspect so entirely different upon the 
 matter, that, it is safe to say, few of the apparent 
 
12 WHAT IS BELIEF? 
 
 deniers of the Christian creeds really impugn 
 what the Catholic Church meant to affirm by 
 their most disputed assertions. One of the most 
 difficult things in controversy is to get a plain, 
 clear issue. Too frequently, the assailant and 
 the defender have different things in mind, be- 
 cause of this prevalence of misapprehension, and 
 the cause of truth is imperiled by the defender's 
 accepting the issue as made up by the assailant, 
 and assenting to his definition of a doctrine as 
 the true statement of it : the refutation of which 
 leaves the real question untouched, though it 
 scores an apparent victory for the enemy. 
 
 All this might be amplified ; but what has 
 been said will suffice to show that actual doubt 
 of the faith is seen to be much less than some 
 suppose, by deducting doubt of matters that any 
 one is at liberty to deny, and criticism of state- 
 ments that do not correctly express the teaching 
 of the Church or the Bible, and therefore ought 
 to be denied in justice to those teachings them- 
 selves. This is the real reason of that calmness 
 with which many regard much of the seeming 
 doubt and much of the active repudiation of so- 
 called orthodoxy, which others, nurtured upon 
 shibboleths and bred in one-sided conceptions, 
 regard as indifference to truth. Such persons 
 know that in many cases that to which Christian- 
 ity is committed, the actual doctrines of the gos- 
 pel, are either not doubted or not involved in the 
 issues so hotly discussed. Real unbelief begins, 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? 13 
 
 and only begins, when some positive affirmation, 
 which is truly a part of the faith once delivered, 
 is intelligently and intentionally traversed. 
 
 But it is more germane to our object at present 
 to consider the spirit of the questioning. It is 
 true that in many minds it springs from a spirit 
 of unbelief, from a love of destructiveness, or a 
 pride that will not admit any source of wisdom 
 or of help greater than themselves. How much 
 of this there is cannot of course be estimated, 
 but it is rash to say that there is as much as some 
 allege. Much that is attributed to such a spirit 
 is known not to be due to it by those who are 
 acquainted with the facts. They whose doubts 
 are really due to it cannot be argued with : they 
 are to be appealed to, and their heart, their con- 
 science, their religious sense aroused, in order 
 that they may realize that their attitude is wrong 
 and not one in which serious issues can be dealt 
 with. It is useless to argue about religious mat- 
 ters with those who are not in an earnest, reli- 
 gious state of mind. All argument must be con- 
 fined to those sufficiently awake to the matter to 
 heed what is said and sufficiently aware of their 
 limitations to be willing to be humble and recep- 
 tive in spirit ; and this is the condition of most 
 of those, in all probability, who are questioning 
 the truths of Christianity to-day, at any rate of 
 the candid ones, those whom we meet and whom 
 we know and respect. They form a large class 
 of the community and are more or less outspoken 
 
14 WHAT IS BELIEF? 
 
 in their dissent, and we may learn much from 
 them. They are not skeptics in spirit : they are 
 willing to believe what they ought to believe. 
 They only want to be sure that they believe 
 rightly, to have their beliefs accord with their 
 convictions. This is itself a healthy state of 
 mind. Such men by their position teach us the 
 nature of belief, cast light upon what real faith is. 
 
 There are two kinds of mental attitude that 
 are called faith, which are widely different, and 
 denote different worlds of experience and life. 
 
 One is believing a thing or a proposition be- 
 cause it is told us upon some authority claimed 
 to be adequate for the purpose. This is believ- 
 ing upon authority ; and it has been the position 
 generally held in the past and widely urged now, 
 and all that even in some wise and apparently 
 thoughtful minds is meant, and deemed possible, 
 in matters of religion. 
 
 The other is the position of many earnest men 
 who conceive that the day for that is gone. It 
 may have been good and necessary once, it may 
 be so for the young and ignorant now, but for 
 thoughtful, inquiring minds it is not satisfactory. 
 They wish to see for themselves, not merely 
 receive reports of what others see, in issues 
 so supremely important as those here at stake. 
 Whether this position is reasonable or not, it is 
 in fact one that is taken by many people, and by 
 most of that class that we want to reach, because 
 they are the influential and moulding minds of 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? 1 5 
 
 the day in any community. Such people must 
 be dealt with in some way. It is idle to say that 
 they are flippant, or skeptical, or self-sufficient, 
 for it is not of those that we are speaking. On 
 the contrary, they are those who have in them 
 the making of the most valuable and efficient be- 
 lievers. 
 
 Again, we are told that to insist upon faith 
 resting on any external authority is making skep- 
 tics and infidels by the multitude. They who are 
 not satisfied with the authority will contend that 
 if our faith only rests upon it, then it has no 
 claims on them. Or, others will say that if we 
 have no reason to give for our beliefs, save that 
 others teach them, we give up the case and do 
 not claim that they are true, but only that they 
 are to us sufficiently attested, which is a very dif- 
 ferent thing, and means that there is no certi- 
 tude in religious matters, only probability, since 
 all our confidence in authority is only a question 
 of probability. 
 
 There must be more than this. There must 
 surely be certitude ; assurance must be attain- 
 able. The Church must meet this issue, must 
 show that Christian faith can be certain to the 
 man who has it, and so must have some reply to 
 those who say that authority is always open to 
 question. If the statement that two and two 
 make four, or that stealing is wrong, or that there 
 is reward for piety, only rests upon authority 
 of some sort, then either proposition is far from 
 
1 6 WHAT IS BELIEF? 
 
 being a thing above doubt to a candid and think- 
 ing man. 
 
 An esteemed clergyman was once heard to say 
 that there are so many difficulties about Chris- 
 tianity and so many cogent arguments on either 
 side that he only believed in its doctrines because 
 the Church brought them to him. Of course, 
 this man did not believe them true at all. He 
 accepted them, submitted to the authority that 
 imposed them, would not contradict them ; but 
 he could not say that he was sure of them, knew 
 them true. He was through and through a skep- 
 tic, without faith. If this really represented his 
 state of mind, (as indeed it did not,) then he was 
 not leaning on the gospel he preached, but on the 
 Church. That is, there is no real belief in such 
 a case. One who believes upon authority be- 
 lieves only the authority. He does not believe 
 the thing itself to be true. The former may be 
 safe, it may be a state of mind fruitful of good 
 results, but it is not faith. Faith means the 
 heart's assent to the truth itself. 
 
 True belief is believing for ourselves, seeing 
 for ourselves that a thing is true, assenting to it 
 because we know it to be so, not because others 
 affirm it, whoever they may be. This is assur- 
 ance, certainty, which we must have to find any 
 help in our faith, any comfort in our trust. It 
 is the faith of conviction as distinct from the 
 faith of assent. It is the only kind that has ever 
 done real work in the world ; the kind that has 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? 1/ 
 
 made martyrs, that has rendered men immovable 
 by temptation, or persecution, or argument. It 
 is the kind that Christ sought to awaken, when 
 He taught the disciples that in Him they might 
 have peace, or when He promised the light of 
 life to those that believe in Him. It was St. 
 Paul's faith when he said : " I know Him whom I 
 have believed," or when he compares his hope to 
 " an anchor which entereth into that within the 
 veil." 
 
 But why argue, that the only faith that is 
 actual and really deserves the name, the only one 
 that can be a source of confidence, the only one 
 that should be satisfactory to the Church, the 
 one that should be aimed at, is that which is 
 believing a thing for one's self, accepting any 
 verity because it is seen to be a verity ? Because 
 this spirit, which marks the sincere questioning 
 of the day, and is the state of mind of many who 
 hold aloof from the ordinances of Christianity, is 
 one to be encouraged, whose demand is to be 
 met as reasonable and right. Such faith is more 
 than a reasonable faith, which means a faith for 
 which reasons can be given, and which, in real- 
 ity, is not faith : it is persuasion by urgent con- 
 siderations. True faith is believing, not because 
 of persuasive arguments, nor because one cannot 
 escape the conclusion, nor because our minds are 
 overpowered by what others adduce, but believing 
 because one sees that the thing believed is true, 
 apart from reasoning, by direct perception which 
 
1 8 WHAT IS BELIEF? 
 
 leaves no doubt. It is like belief in the sunshine, 
 which is a matter, not of reasons for believing it, 
 but of personal, immediate vision. It is being 
 conscious of it, not persuaded that it exists. 
 
 This, then, is the kind of faith that we may and 
 should have, that of personal assurance, of im- 
 mediate conviction. We are entitled to demand 
 that anything we are asked to believe shall be seen 
 to be true, but we are bound to accept what is so 
 seen. That is, when any one asks us to believe 
 a thing, he may be expected to show that we 
 ought to believe it, because it is perceptibly true ; 
 and we are bound to do so if it so appears, whether 
 we can explain it or not. 
 
 Why are we so bound ? Because we have a 
 capacity for religious and moral truth, are not 
 unable to discriminate between it and error, al- 
 though of course not always with the same cer- 
 tainty. We all claim it, all day long. When a 
 man says I will not believe this, or I maintain 
 that against all argument, what does it mean but 
 that he knows he can tell right from wrong, truth 
 from error ? Every revolt against authority, 
 whether justified or not, every positive affirma- 
 tion, implies it. It is the basis of all argument. 
 When we reason with a man, we know we cannot 
 force him to a conclusion. We try to make him 
 see what we are maintaining, presuming that he 
 can see truth if we can put it rightly. All life 
 and intercourse move on this basis. The only 
 reason for blaming one for anything wrong is 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? 19 
 
 that he could know what is right. We act upon 
 it every day, assume it in our own conduct and 
 in our relations with others. So we claim for our- 
 selves the power to see what is true, and we de- 
 mand of others that they do so. 
 
 Can any one, it is asked, actually discern all 
 truth when presented to him ? Is the statement 
 absolute ? No, it is, as with anything else, a 
 matter of development and growth. We do not 
 expect a child to see the truth of many a matter 
 that older persons are expected to discern, in 
 morals, or in duty, or in logic. So in the dis- 
 cernment of spiritual things : in measure as one 
 is spiritually alive and mature in intelligence he 
 can see what is error, and what is verity, in 
 things spiritual. We do not expect the gross 
 man whose higher nature is dead or torpid to 
 perceive what others perceive. We do expect 
 those who are developed in that nature to per- 
 ceive, and follow, and accept truth, in the higher 
 realms. We all agree that this power of percep- 
 tion, or of discrimination, is a thing that can and 
 should be and is progressive in the world and in 
 individuals. It follows that if any one were spir- 
 itually perfect, if his eyes were cleansed and his 
 heart purified, he could always discriminate be- 
 tween truth and error ; and this is our hope in 
 the life to come, where there will be no delusions 
 because there will be no blinded sight. Not that 
 we can see it except as shown to us. God must 
 always be revealed. No man can by searching 
 
20 WHA T IS BELIEF? 
 
 find Him out. But what we do and must expect 
 is that we shall be able to recognize His verities 
 when presented, and to see that what is said to 
 us is true not only because He makes it known, 
 but true of and in itself. So as we advance in 
 spirituality here below we can see more and more 
 by direct vision ; can have the faith, not of testi- 
 mony, but of personal perception. This alone is 
 faith in the truth, as distinct from faith in the 
 witness to it. 
 
 Christ always claims this faith, and asserts this 
 capacity in us, as regards His gospel. He does 
 not argue, or give reasons why we should believe 
 what He says. Nor does He impose it upon us 
 to be received simply because He says it. He 
 says over and over again such things as this : 
 " He that is of the truth heareth my voice." He 
 says not, "Ye must believe what I say," but 
 always implies that we ought to believe it be- 
 cause we can see that it is true. He appeals to 
 men, does not use syllogisms nor coercion, sim- 
 ply takes for granted their capacity for immedi- 
 ate perception and conviction, and expects them 
 to exercise it, and to believe and confess that 
 He is " the truth, the way, and the life." So did 
 all the apostles, notably St. Paul. He does not 
 argue for Christ's gospel, though he may reason 
 cut its implications and inferences. He simply 
 presents truth and expects it to be received, ap- 
 peals to the consciences of men to follow what 
 he assumes they can know is to be followed. He 
 
WHAT IS BELIEF? 21 
 
 asserts this faith of conviction as distinct from 
 that of authority, as being the only true faith 
 and the one alone worthy of Christians, in such 
 passages as these : " Spiritual things are spirit- 
 ually discerned;" we endure "as seeing Him 
 who is invisible ; " and above all in the precept 
 set forth in our text : " By manifestation of the 
 truth commending ourselves to every man's con- 
 science in the sight of God." This shows the 
 position of an inspired man, which ought to set- 
 tle the matter for the believer and for the unbe- 
 liever, that we are asked to believe only what is 
 shown to be true. This was St. Paul's principle 
 of preaching, not arguing for the truth by pro- 
 cesses of logic which may convince the intellect, 
 nor requiring its acceptance because of the over- 
 whelming weight of authority, but simply mani- 
 festing, making plain, the truth, and thus expect- 
 ing that men would accept it because able to 
 recognize it to be true. Thus he preached, and 
 so did the early Church. Those were times 
 when no one cared for his or the Church's au- 
 thority ; just as with Christ, who spoke to those 
 who knew not, or cared not, that He was the 
 Son of God ; and in those times the gospel had 
 simply to go upon its own merits, had no power 
 except the power of truth recognizable by men. 
 So has it been ever since. Whatever good has 
 been done by authority, and this good we do not 
 deny, all the real converting work of the Church 
 has been done by making men know and see 
 
22 WHAT IS BELIEF? 
 
 the salvation that is in Christ, by presenting the 
 gospel to them ; which has awakened that faith 
 that has been immovable by temptation or by 
 trial, because the faith of knowledge, not of tes- 
 timony. How much more should we expect this 
 to be the case now, when all about us have had 
 their eyes open to visions which the heathen had 
 not, have in some measure the mind of Christ, 
 and so possess a capacity to discern what is bind- 
 ing upon conscience, what is true of God, and 
 of His dealings ; which warrants us in expecting 
 their assent to the gospel even more readily than 
 in other days and other lands. 
 
 To those who say, as some do, that it is un- 
 safe to leave it to mankind to accept the truth of 
 the gospel as they shall see it true, we answer 
 that it is of the very essence of skepticism to 
 affirm this. Are we not to believe in the power 
 of truth, and of truth in Christ, to carry convic- 
 tion ? We had supposed it was the power of 
 missions and the encouragement of our preach- 
 ing, that, when properly presented, men would 
 see that Christianity is what they want, what 
 meets their needs, what lays hold of their hearts 
 and claims the assent of their consciences. We 
 had supposed that it was so welcome, so direct a 
 response to the appeals of men, that when con- 
 cerned in religious matters they who hear would 
 at once say that they knew it true and would 
 cast their all upon it. And so it is. The prac- 
 tice of Christ and of the apostles in their preach- 
 
WIIA T IS BELIEF? 2$ 
 
 ing, all the experience of centuries, our own ex- 
 perience, our confidence in the truth of God, 
 agree to repudiate the unbelieving and skeptical 
 affirmation that the gospel of the Son of God 
 needs argument and authority to secure its ac- 
 ceptance. It only needs statement of its glories 
 and precious truths and appeals to conscience, to 
 be accepted. This is the way in which we who 
 believe have been won from our unbelief. This 
 is the way in which those are asked to come to 
 Christ who may not have done so. When and 
 if they care for a gospel from God, they will see 
 that this is it, and that it is real. No man who 
 has known Christ by direct vision and relation- 
 ship will give Him up. Any man is liable to give 
 Him up who only knows that some one else tes- 
 tifies to Him. 
 
 It will be said that this does not produce agree- 
 ment, and that there will be endless divergence if 
 men are left to their conscience, and if they are 
 urged to believe because and when they see the 
 truth. Has the method of presenting the faith 
 by arguing for it been successful in this respect ? 
 No one will maintain that it has. And as to au- 
 thority, if anything is written large upon the 
 page of history, it is that this has not succeeded 
 in producing agreement. The effort to produce 
 it has resulted in disagreement, and rebellion, 
 and schisms, all through the ages. There has 
 been no more disastrous failure in the past than 
 such an attempt. There is none now. Men will 
 
24 WHA T IS BELIEF? 
 
 not submit to dictation when intelligent, or when 
 they do, it is only up to a certain point. But on 
 the other hand there has been agreement on the 
 basis of appealing to the spiritual manhood, the 
 consciences of men. Despite the divisions and 
 antagonisms of the past, it is one of the wonders 
 of religious history that real Christians have 
 been substantially agreed in what their hearts 
 have accepted. 
 
 About the essence of Christianity, the nature 
 of Christ, the nature of His work, the agency of 
 the Holy Ghost, the whole creed of Christendom, 
 there has been unity : not because of any author- 
 ity, since it has been among those often sun- 
 dered, but because all have seen those things to 
 be true by the eye of their spiritual sense. The 
 history of Christianity is sufficient evidence of 
 the fact that if left to themselves, if properly 
 taught or shown the gospel truth, Christian peo- 
 ple would come to agreement in as far as they 
 were willing to follow their lights ; and if not an 
 organic unity, at any rate an agreement in be- 
 lief such as has never yet been effected by any 
 reasoning about doctrines or enforcing them by 
 authority. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 
 
 " I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, 
 . . . and wherein ye stand : by which also ye are saved ; . . . 
 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, 
 how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; 
 and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day 
 according to the Scriptures." — i Cor. xv. 1-3. 
 
 What is Christianity ? What is it that is pro- 
 posed to us by the Church for our acceptance, and 
 the acceptance of which renders us disciples of 
 Jesus ? What is it that we have in Him which 
 constitutes Him the Saviour of those that are 
 His people ? This is the question to which we 
 now turn. 
 
 It may seem a very unnecessary question, and 
 may be met at once with the answer that, of 
 course, every one knows what Christianity is, 
 that there are more unsettled issues that call for 
 our attention. But that is not the case. His- 
 tory shows that there is no question upon which 
 Christians have been more divided than the very 
 fundamental one as to the essential character of 
 what St. Paul terms "the vocation" wherewith 
 they are called ; and observation shows that it is 
 the same at present. Not that true believers 
 
26 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 vary in their inner life, in the relations of their 
 hearts to the Redeemer ; but nevertheless, in 
 theory, they " who profess and call themselves 
 Christians " disagree ab initio as to what they 
 would define Christianity to be. This is proven 
 by the divisions that have been so frequent, by 
 the corruptions to which Christendom has been 
 subjected, and by the persecutions that have 
 marked its history. How can all this be ac- 
 counted for, save by the existence of a radical 
 divergence as to what constitutes the true faith 
 of Christ's holy name ? For divergence here 
 affects everything else. They who separate on 
 this issue pursue paths that never come together 
 again. And, on the other hand, all differences 
 among Christians on other matters, all that pro- 
 duces separation and alienation, may be traced 
 back to underlying differences here. This will 
 be seen as we proceed, and it shows how the 
 consideration of this matter must precede those 
 which are to follow. Our conceptions of Christ, 
 the Church, Theology, the Bible, will depend 
 upon our conclusions here, and it is only by a 
 happy inconsistency that one who is astray in 
 this issue can, as undoubtedly many do, hold cor- 
 rect and helpful views upon these subjects. 
 
 Many answers are given, more or less expli- 
 citly, to our question ; but they may all be re- 
 duced to three, each of which carries with it 
 weighty consequences, and such as can have no 
 place under its alternatives. 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 27 
 
 One is that Christianity is a set of laws for 
 life, to be met by submissive obedience. Christ 
 came to be a lawgiver, to guide us into a con- 
 duct which will secure the rewards that God has 
 to bestow. This was the tendency of the Chris- 
 tianity of Europe in the early ages, due to the 
 fact that the Church had as its task the reducing 
 to order of barbarous and turbulent peoples. 
 Fortunately, the Church had the power to make 
 itself obeyed by them when it spoke in magis- 
 terial tones, and we must see the hand of Pro- 
 vidence in its work. But the tendency was 
 worked out very naturally in the practical teach- 
 ing of Rome, that obedience to Christ, through 
 t>£ Church that represents Him, regard for its 
 %af s an< ^ canons, is that which constitutes per- 
 F yJal piety. But this conception of Christianity 
 ib not confined to Rome. It is openly maintained 
 by some who speak of " the religion of Jesus 
 Christ," who mean that His work was to show 
 us the correct laws of life, that He redeems by 
 a faultless guidance. 
 
 It is undoubtedly to be admitted, that Jesus 
 gave us laws for life, " leaving us an example 
 that ye should follow His steps ; " but this does 
 not define His work in its essentials, nor give us 
 the relation in which the believer is to stand to 
 Him. To say that one's obeying Christ makes 
 him a disciple jars upon the ear that is attuned 
 to the language of the gospel narratives. It is 
 not the attitude that He expects. It is at war 
 
28 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 with all that is regenerating and precious in 
 Christianity, reduces it to the level of the world's 
 philosophies and religions, transforms a Friend 
 and a Saviour into a ruler and a pedagogue. 
 
 Another definition of Christianity is that it is 
 a series of doctrines to be received, that is, doc- 
 trines in the sense of theological propositions. 
 This was the prevailing tendency of the Eastern 
 Church, which regarded Christ chiefly as the 
 revealer of divine truth. But it has been also 
 the prevailing character of Protestantism, which, 
 since its first days, has not actually held to that 
 principle of justification by faith which it has pro- 
 fessed to advocate so strenuously. Controversy 
 with Rome and frequent internal dissensi 3 
 led very naturally to the emphasizing of con t 
 opinion, or precise doctrine ; and this resu* \ 
 in the identification of the gospel with dogmai- ; 
 statements. This idea has become deeply im- 
 bedded in the popular mind, is so generally the 
 conception of the Church's work, that, probably, 
 it would be the answer given, as a matter of 
 course, by the average person to the question, 
 What is Christianity ? It is on this basis that 
 Christianity is attacked by most of its assailants. 
 This is the assumption and the strength of ag- 
 nosticism, which asserts that our doctrines are 
 but speculations concerning abstruse things, and 
 at the most only guesses. This definition may 
 still appear correct to superficial thinkers, and 
 be defended by some who claim to speak for the 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 29 
 
 faith. It is plausible, and seems to be what the 
 Church has taught us ; but all its force is due to 
 a confusion of thought. It involves errors and 
 evils that condemn it as unwarranted, and the 
 vindication of our belief is not to be encumbered 
 with the difficulties that it brings with it. 
 
 Unquestionably, correct doctrine is important. 
 Right living must always be connected with 
 right thinking. Furthermore, Christ did give us 
 light upon divine things, which we are to accept. 
 But the statement that Christianity is a set of 
 doctrinal propositions cannot stand for an in- 
 stant. 
 
 In the first place, it also jars upon the ear that 
 is used to the words of Jesus, to the invitations 
 that He made, and the relationship which He 
 sought to create between Himself and men. 
 But, beyond this, it leads logically to the posi- 
 tion that to accept these propositions makes one 
 a disciple ; or that soundness of belief on deep | 
 things constitutes acceptability before God. This 
 has been in fact the result wherever this idea has 
 been held. It led, as we all know, in the Greek 
 Church, to a complete divorce between religion 
 and life, to the substitution of orthodoxy of con- 
 fession for personal piety ; and it has done the 
 same thing very widely in the Protestant world. 
 It is to-day maintained, by implication if not ex- 
 pressly ; as, in a Christendom divided by secta- \ 
 rianism it must be : for a sect gives up the rea- 
 son for its existence if it says that correct opinion 
 
3<D WHA T IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 is not supreme in importance. Orthodoxy, or 
 what is regarded as such, is evidently believed to 
 be the crowning virtue, the great criterion of 
 Christianity, by a multitude of our fellow citi- 
 zens in this land. It has been, and still is, made 
 to do that which only charity should do, " cover 
 a multitude of sins ; " and rightly so, if to be- 
 lieve in Christ is to assent to tenets. It also 
 leads to the corollary that the more doctrines a 
 man assents to, the more fully he is a theologian, 
 the more advanced and real a Christian is he. 
 Then, the wise and learned, not the lowly and 
 ignorant, can alone be Christ's ideal followers. 
 Then, the untutored saints, the obscure ones 
 who have known little of such things, are ex- 
 cluded from the crowns to which we had thought 
 them entitled. 
 
 The evils that have consistently flowed from 
 this idea of Christianity condemn it. It has 
 been, with perfectly plain warrant, the cause of 
 quarrels and heart burnings and self-righteous- 
 ness. It has lighted the fires of persecution, 
 and covered fields with blood. The man who 
 holds to it may be shocked by the atrocities of 
 an Alva seeking to reduce the Netherlands to 
 correct belief by the sword, but he has no right 
 to condemn his principle. 
 
 So, both these answers to our question are, to 
 one who has "the mind of Christ," condemned 
 by their implications, if not by their very utter- 
 ance. But they are condemned by another test 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 3 1 
 
 which must be final. I dwell upon this, because 
 our fellow religionists are generally astray here, 
 despite their professions to the contrary ; and 
 because the amplification of the error may lead 
 to the elucidation of the truth regarding the 
 matter, which to many is really difficult of per- 
 ception. The effect of religious controversy, 
 most of it entirely unnecessary, has been a great 
 confusion of thought, rendering it to many no 
 easy task to see why we must earnestly repudi- 
 ate the very idea that Christianity may be de- 
 fined in either of the ways mentioned ; why it is 
 perilous to its essence and its value to use lan- 
 guage implying, in any manner, that we regard 
 it as either a code of laws or a system of doc- 
 trines. 
 
 Any definition of our faith must be such as 
 makes it a gospel. This is what the race calls 
 for, in its sorrows and its sins, and every sympa- 
 thetic heart longs for it. Some intervention from 
 on high to help them bear their burdens is the 
 one prayer of the children of men. Now, Chris- 
 tianity claims to be such. Christ Himself al- 
 ways so spoke. His work is summed up in that 
 invitation, " Come unto me, and I will give you 
 rest." As such it was always presented by His 
 apostles. So to preach it, the Church was 
 founded and commissioned. Furthermore, a gos- 
 pel must be a power to better men, to transform 
 character. The wish to comfort has been the 
 aim of every benefactor of the race, but none 
 
32 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 has succeeded in the effort. The task was ever 
 beyond him. So the endeavor of philosophers 
 has been to find a power that will free men from 
 their sinfulness, deliver them from " the body of 
 this death." They have told of the love of ideal 
 beauty, the enthusiasm of humanity, and the 
 power of habit, but these have all been found 
 vain. After all their eloquence, their listeners 
 have replied that something else was needed to 
 be a good news for those who wanted help to 
 change the downward current of their lives, to 
 enable them to curb their passions or to purify 
 their hearts. If Christianity is a gospel, it must 
 be equal to these demands. But how can it pos- 
 sibly be such under either of the definitions that 
 have been given, and which are so widely held, 
 in fact if not in form ? Is it a code of laws ? Is 
 Jesus a Saviour in that He is an example ? Has 
 He revealed to us only the way that we should 
 walk in ? How can that transform us ? Then the 
 motive to sway us can only be a spirit of obe- 
 dience. But that will never change the heart. 
 On the contrary, the heart must first be changed 
 before it can obey. Some motive is demanded 
 adequate to render men willing and able to fol- 
 low this example. And how can it comfort? It 
 is just the reverse ; it is a discouragement. We 
 already know enough of our duty to crush us, 
 and a Christ who merely shows us laws that God 
 would have us obey only adds new burdens. He 
 does not save, but condemns. It were better if 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 33 
 
 He had never come, than that He should have 
 come but to present perfect ideals to those whose 
 hearts are sad and whose lives are dark because 
 of their conscious inability to realize the imper- 
 fect ideals that they have already before them. 
 Or, how is it with the definition that Christianity 
 is but a system of doctrinal statements about 
 things mysterious and divine, given to us by 
 Jesus, as the race's teacher ? What has that to 
 do with the change of character ? It may arouse 
 the motive to understand them, stimulate men- 
 tal activity ; but how can assent to truths make 
 one better ? To suppose that a man's admission 
 that a proposition is true will do him any good 
 is the fallacy at the bottom of persecution, and 
 also of controversial argument. It is a complete 
 non-sequitur. He may be convinced by reason- 
 ing, or coerced by suffering, and yet be unaf- 
 fected in his life. And the result is the same 
 when the definition is tested by the fact that the 
 Church's mission is to do what God wills when 
 He says, " Comfort ye my people." How can it 
 do so with such a Christianity ? What consola- 
 tion is there in mere dogmas or doctrines ? What 
 peace is found for the tried and the suffering, the 
 weary and the heavy laden, in the possession of 
 mere knowledge ? Wherein can they do more 
 than the propositions of philosophy or the teach- 
 ings of art ? How can either conception of our 
 religion give rest ? How can we know whether 
 we correctly apprehend the doctrine or suffi- 
 
34 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 cicntly obey the laws, with which some would 
 identify it ? No one can know in either case 
 that he has warrant for feeling " confidence to- 
 wards God," — whether he is really a Christian 
 or not. Orthodoxy of thought, as well as ortho- 
 doxy of life, is ever an uncertain thing ; and, if 
 we rely upon it, we must say, as Rome does con- 
 sistently, that we cannot tell, until the judgment 
 day, whether we can hope for "the rest that re- 
 maineth for the people of God," whether we 
 are partakers of " the salvation that is in Christ 
 Jesus." In either case, we are driven to salva- 
 tion by works, and that means despair ; for any 
 thoughtful man sees that he cannot find peace 
 through his own works, save by adopting stand- 
 ards which he knows to be lower than the ideal, 
 when the ideal is alone the true. 
 
 What, then, is the definition of Christianity 
 which will render it a gospel ? It is that which 
 was universal in Christendom until controversy 
 and corruption blinded the eyes of Christians to 
 the true preciousness of their Saviour ; that which, 
 despite all this, has yet been the changeless defi- 
 nition of the Church in its one accepted confes- 
 sion ; that which, behind all confusions and per- 
 versions of mind, is the conception that strength- 
 ens the heart and sways the life of every real 
 believer to-day. It is that we have in Christ a 
 body, not of laws nor of dogmas, but of facts ; 
 that the Church is to make known, as received 
 from Him, not merely rules for conduct nor dis- 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 35 
 
 closures regarding things mysterious and divine, 
 but certain actual transactions, things effected, 
 abiding relationships established, that change the 
 whole character and outlook of life. We need 
 to know God, to have a revelation of Him that 
 is found in no source which is accessible to us 
 here below ; to know whether and how we may 
 be spared the consequences of our guilt, and be 
 freed from the anxieties that lie so heavily on 
 the heart of humanity. This race is ever asking : 
 Is there any salvation from the guilt and the mas- 
 tery of sin ? Is there any hope in presence of the 
 all-conquering power of death ? Is there any care 
 that watches over us and directs events for good ? 
 Has anything been done, is there any provision, 
 for these great wants of a world that only knows 
 its own impotence, and walks through mystery 
 to darker mysteries before it ? To such ques- 
 tions, compared to which all others sink into pale 
 insignificance, Christianity is the answer, in the 
 person, the life, the work, the death, the resur- 
 rection, the ascension of Jesus Christ ; in His 
 gift of the Holy Spirit, in His living, directing 
 presence, unseen yet actual ; facts all as real as 
 any facts of history or experience. This is set 
 forth in the ordinance of baptism, wherein Jesus 
 comes to us and we to Him : that God is Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost ; that in Him are provi- 
 dence, salvation, sanctification, not only disclosed 
 as dispositions of mind, but shown to be opera- 
 tive in actual events, producing new relation- 
 
36 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 ships, readjustments, restoration, through the 
 historical occurrences of the career of Jesus. So 
 Christianity comes to us as a series of concrete 
 facts relating to God's dealing with us for our 
 redemption, some having occurred long ago, some 
 present realities to-day, some yet to be realized ; 
 all parts of the one great fact of the mediatorial 
 work of Christ. 
 
 This is the way in which Jesus Himself preached 
 His gospel, and markedly the manner in which 
 His apostles preached, as seen by the many ex- 
 amples that we have of their mode of presenting 
 their message. They always preached as St. Paul 
 did in our text. He was concerned, in this letter 
 to the Corinthians, with the matter of the resur- 
 rection, and instead of any abstract statements 
 simply says that his gospel tidings regarding it 
 was making known certain facts concerning the 
 resurrection of Christ. And what was the Church 
 organized for ? Only and solely to do as they did 
 who founded it, proclaim these facts brought 
 about by and included in the work of the Re- 
 deemer. Therefore it is consistent that the 
 Church's universal Creed, the one on which 
 Christians are united, the one which alone our 
 historical fold requires for baptism, the so-called 
 Apostles' Creed, should be a statement of them. 
 There is not a law, nor a dogmatic proposition in 
 it : only a list of actual occurrences, past, present, 
 and future, which constitute the salvation of 
 mankind. This is what a creed must always be 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 37 
 
 for a body that would proclaim the gospel. To 
 introduce doctrinal definitions, or rules for con- 
 duct, may be good elsewhere, but they have no 
 place in a statement of what is to be made known 
 in a ministry to the world. And so it must be 
 whenever that work is done. There are bodies 
 that have more or less elaborate confessions to 
 which they exact assent from those who would 
 join them, because they express what their seces- 
 sions stand for ; but, when they would do mis- 
 sionary work, they are compelled to give all 
 these up and preach only the redemptive facts 
 that constitute Christianity ; therein coming back 
 to just what their fathers gave up for some tem- 
 porary theological system, or for the dogmatic 
 inferences of some earnest but unduly confident 
 speculations. Would that none had ever forgot- 
 ten that the Christian message is simply one of 
 actual transactions in our behalf ; and that all 
 had abstained from that tendency to afhrm ab- 
 stract principles, to elaborate all the conse- 
 quences and implications of gospel details, which 
 has really cursed Christendom, and has been 
 the weakness and injury of a Protestantism that 
 gave greater hopes for the world than have been 
 realized. 
 
 In the light of this definition we see what is 
 personal Christianity. It is a resting upon those 
 facts, confidence in their adequacy for our needs, 
 as mortals and as immortals. That is, it is faith. 
 The other conceptions mentioned are met by 
 
38 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 intellectual submission, and by obedience ; but 
 this is met by trust. Intellectual submission 
 and obedience are not religious acts. They do 
 not make a man pious, though they may render 
 him wise and decent ; but faith is a religious, a 
 pious thing, and, as all these facts on which we 
 rest for our salvation are achievements of Christ, 
 Christian piety is after all faith in Him as the 
 sufficient Saviour of men from all their ills and 
 all their perils. 
 
 This comforts. The acceptance of, and repos- 
 ing upon, such verities as those in the creed of 
 Christendom must and does make men strong to 
 overcome the world, hopeful in discouragement, 
 able to confide in God despite conscious sinful- 
 ness, and to persevere despite repeated weakness 
 of will ; yes, able to lay away their dear ones 
 without despair and to see their own lives ebbing 
 without dismay. It gives peace of mind when 
 we ask whether we are accepted before God. As 
 we have seen, if we are to rely upon holding cor- 
 rect doctrinal opinions, or upon compliance with 
 the laws of God, we can never feel confidence 
 that all is well. But when our discipleship is 
 relying upon these saving facts of God's inter- 
 vention in Christ, or relying upon Christ's work 
 and Christ's self, then we can feel assurance ; 
 since, though a salvation of our own never can, 
 one effected by Him must, be sufficient. A pro- 
 vision for our requirements made by Him must 
 be one that we can trust implicitly. 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 39 
 
 And Christianity so presented is a power to 
 transform character. Some criticise this concep- 
 tion of it as not providing an energy for that 
 holiness which must be the end and aim of all 
 religion. It is said that this piety of faith will 
 render men indifferent to obedience because they 
 will be led, by consistency, to think it needless. 
 On the contrary, we may affirm that this piety 
 of faith, when real, — and that is what we mean 
 by it, — is the only form that has ever yet made 
 any one holy : that is, made any one do the will 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth. 
 They whose piety has been only regard for rules 
 have not been changed in character. Indeed 
 they cannot be, for the character must first be 
 changed, and that calls for some motive that will 
 control the heart sufficiently to make it willing 
 to obey. Whatever may seem to be the case, 
 every true follower of Jesus has been so because 
 to him Christianity was faith, first and foremost ; 
 and no other form of it has ever rendered men 
 better, whatever their professions may have been. 
 The reason is that this confidence in Christ ren- 
 ders him who has it lovingly grateful to this 
 Saviour ; and grateful love is the strongest motive 
 for good that exists. Man will do more for man 
 under its impulse than under any other ; and 
 men have done whatever they have done for 
 Christ because of it. It has made the saints of 
 the Church. St. John said, "We love Him be- 
 cause He first loved us ;" and St. Paul, "The love 
 
40 WHA T IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 of Christ [to us] constraineth us." What else, 
 than this grateful love for the redemptive deeds 
 of Jesus has made men and women do and en- 
 dure what believers have ? No amount of doc- 
 trinal information given by Jesus, nor of regula- 
 tions for conduct received from Him, could have 
 moved the hearts that have been moved to that 
 devotion and heroism and obedience in which 
 His disciples have left behind all the zeal and 
 bravery and loyalty of this world. 
 
 So do we see the difference between this defi- 
 nition of Christianity and the others, which are 
 both so widely held, sometimes avowedly, some- 
 times impliedly ; and how important it is to avoid 
 all phraseology that gives any impression to the 
 world which we would win, that our faith is iden- 
 tified with either of them. It includes laws for 
 life, of course ; it includes doctrines, of course ; 
 its object is the regeneration of character, its im- 
 plication, the knowledge of mysterious things ; 
 but it is, in itself, a system or series of redemp- 
 tive facts which are included in the one great 
 fact of Jesus Christ being the Mediator and Sav- 
 iour of the world. Apprehend clearly that thus 
 alone can Christianity be what we want and so 
 worth cherishing, a gospel to comfort and trans- 
 form the weary and the sinful children of men. 
 
 We are now in a position to see what is real 
 unbelief, or essential skepticism, as to the gospel 
 of Jesus Christ. It is not doubting any particu- 
 lar tenet, or rejecting this or that doctrine, or 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 41 
 
 differing from any authority upon this or that 
 point. To do so may be regrettable, it may be 
 dangerous, it may be wrong, it may be heresy ; 
 yet it is not necessarily the denial of Christian- 
 ity itself. That is denying, or questioning, that 
 Jesus is, or does, what it has claimed that He is 
 and does for man ; it is refusing to accept Him 
 and His work as the true relief for human needs ; 
 it is saying that this gospel of facts is not true. 
 He who believes these things assents to the 
 Church's message. He who relies upon them is 
 a believer. It is only he who does not this that 
 is a skeptic ; only he who controverts these facts 
 is an infidel. This should be urged more and 
 more, and both friends and foes must be made to 
 see that to attack Christianity in its essence they 
 must deal with this issue ; that assaulting the 
 Church's message as formulated in her creed is, 
 and nothing else is, assaulting the citadel and 
 dangerous to the Christian position. 
 
 And here we see the peril of a new form of 
 unbelief held by many pious and godly men, and 
 by men of great spiritual elevation. They tell 
 us that Christianity can be rendered independent 
 of the historical element in it ; that we can and 
 must so present it as to render it a help to men, 
 without requiring belief in events so difficult 
 to verify as the occurrences of centuries ago. 
 Now, there are some who may find light and 
 comfort in the gospel thus conceived of, in 
 thoughts of the love of God and His present care 
 
42 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 and the hope of eternal life, without connecting 
 them with actual transactions ; but it is because 
 they have been nurtured in the old form of the 
 faith, and know that such precious facts are true 
 because they are displayed in the work of the 
 Saviour. Apart therefrom they are pure specu- 
 lations, beautiful guesses ; perhaps true, but not 
 such actualities as we can rest upon in storms of 
 sorrow or of temptation. None have ever be- 
 lieved in them who have not learned them from 
 the incidents of Christ's work. There is no rea- 
 son to believe in God's mercy, or a Father's care, 
 or the power of resurrection, or the Spirit's as- 
 sistance, except as we learn them from Jesus ; 
 and they that use these facts for their comfort 
 are, whatever they say, using a light that He 
 kindled when He was on earth, and that has been 
 kindled from no other source. So, beware of 
 this high-minded and plausibly commended at- 
 tempt to render our faith independent of occur- 
 rences in Palestine long ago. It may avert some 
 difficulties, but it creates others that are vastly 
 more serious. It is taking just the same position, 
 only in a far more extreme way, as that assumed 
 by those who tell us that Christianity is a set of 
 theological propositions, and strange to say, it is 
 done by the last men of whom we should expect 
 it, men who have been opponents of dogmatic 
 religion. It is also eviscerating our religion of 
 all that makes it a gospel to our brethren and 
 sisters in this world, who can only find comfort 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 43 
 
 in real facts that bring to them relief. It is ren- 
 dering the transforming good news a series of 
 abstract truths, for which we have no sufficient 
 certitude, and which never could affect a charac- 
 ter, or touch a heart not already softened. There 
 are, as we shall see, satisfactory proofs of the his- 
 torical reality of the facts in question, though 
 they happened two thousand years ago ; but be 
 this as difficult as it may, it is better to cling to 
 the Christianity of facts than to take up with a 
 form of it which has no certainty, is essential 
 unbelief of what Jesus sent His apostles to pro- 
 claim, essential unbelief in Himself, and though it 
 may retain the semblance and much of the value 
 of Christianity in the generation that adopts it, 
 will have neither in the next one, which will con- 
 sistently follow it out. 
 
 But how about the institutions of Christianity, 
 its holy days, its ministry, its ordinances, above 
 all, its sacraments ? These things are undoubt- 
 edly so prominent in our system that they must 
 be included in any definition of it, and place must 
 be found for their true estimate. Alas ! as with 
 so many other things, these externals have been 
 but too generally the subject of mistaken valua- 
 tion, leading to divisions about matters on which, 
 if anywhere, there should be union and fellow- 
 ship. We know how they have been exaggerated 
 in their importance, and used for intolerable pur- 
 poses, for official aggrandizement and spiritual 
 despotism, for the excitement of fanaticism, the 
 
44 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 soothing of conscience, the fostering of a formal 
 piety. It is no wonder that there has come at 
 times a reaction against them and a teaching that 
 they are of no real value, not essential to Chris- 
 tianity. This is the tendency in the air to-day. 
 It is called spiritual religion. The minimization 
 of them is considered an advance in real piety. 
 The one thing to be aimed at in growth in grace 
 is to be independent of them. Then comes their 
 neglect, and a reluctance to urge them. It is 
 said to be needless to go to church. Sacramental 
 observance is outgrown, and the organization of 
 the Church regarded as of no importance and of 
 no authority. 
 
 But let us not be carried away by any such 
 plausible language, nor intimidated by any abuse 
 of the institutions of our faith, so that we fail to 
 see just what they are worth. If Christianity is 
 a body of facts in the work of Jesus Christ, to be 
 reposed upon in faith for the comforting and the 
 transforming of life, then their office is to in- 
 crease and to render more controlling that reli- 
 ance upon Him who, by these facts, has made 
 provision for a world's needs. What is said of 
 the sacraments in the Articles of our Church is 
 true of them all, " By them God doth not only 
 quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith 
 in Him." They are not to be used for what 
 might be their function under different concep- 
 tions of our relation to Christ ; that is, they are 
 not to teach theology, nor to impress lessons of 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 45 
 
 ethics, as if either of these were His message 
 to mankind. That they have been often so em- 
 ployed, is well known ; and the Church has been 
 made to serve exclusively as a school of morals 
 or of doctrine. That such should be the results 
 of its work is true, but such is not its immediate 
 task, which is to increase the faith, to intensify 
 the trust, of the children of men in their Lord 
 and Saviour. This faith produces holier living, 
 more unselfish conduct, and fuller views of truth : 
 things that come in no other way, and cannot by 
 any zeal or any eloquence be produced in human 
 hearts without it. 
 
 That these external features have done this 
 work is written in large letters on the page of 
 history. It is they that have handed on from age 
 to age the redemptive achievements of Christ, 
 and deepened that faith which has been the 
 source of the consolation and sanctification of a 
 multitude whom no man can number. Even in 
 their abuse, even when in the hands of unworthy 
 men, they have been " means of grace," the 
 means whereby the gospel has been brought 
 home and rendered a power for good to those 
 whom they have reached. There can be no per- 
 petuation of Christianity without them, nor has 
 piety been sustained in their absence. The re- 
 sult of neglecting, or dispensing with them, has 
 been the fading away of Christian faith and 
 Christian living in the communities or the indi- 
 viduals that have tried it, however high the aims 
 
46 WHAT JS CHRISTIANITY 1 
 
 or devout the motives that prompted them. This 
 is the reason why we insist upon them so strenu- 
 ously, to the frequent surprise of brethren about 
 us ; why we cannot recognize as normal any 
 Christianity that treats ancient ordinances, ven- 
 erable ways of apostolic precedent, or holy sacra- 
 ments, as matters of indifference. The whole 
 efficiency of the gospel is bound up with them, 
 and souls will starve without them. At the same 
 time, we must never regard them as valuable save 
 for the one end of promoting faith in Christ and 
 His salvation, of bringing about closer relations 
 with Him ; having, indeed, as their objects, purer 
 thinking and more unselfish living, but through 
 the awakening of that grateful love, which faith 
 engenders, and which both opens the eyes to 
 spiritual truth and strengthens the will to the 
 following of Jesus. 
 
 If Christianity be what we have said, some 
 important inferences will be seen to follow. One 
 is the way in which it must be preached. If it 
 be a gospel of soul-comforting and soul-redeem- 
 ing facts, then we are to address men on the 
 basis of their needs, with the feeling that in this 
 world they have great wants for which we have 
 relief to bring them. What people want for 
 real life is real facts, things achieved for them ; 
 and a true ministry is to give them those facts 
 as they are found in Christ. It must be the 
 Church's sleepless endeavor to urge these reali- 
 ties upon them as what their experiences call 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 47 
 
 for ; and to show how they satisfy their necessi- 
 ties. Therein lies the attractiveness of Jesus. 
 Some tells us that this consists in the beauty of 
 His character, others in the light He gives to 
 our ignorance, others in His faultless ideals for 
 life. These are all true, but that which attracts 
 men and women to Him, the magnetic power 
 that has drawn the millions to Him, is something 
 else : it is His being that for which in their sad- 
 nesses and weaknesses they long, " the light of 
 life ; " that for which the saint of old cried out 
 when he said, " Lead me to the rock that is 
 higher than I." Herein lies our warrant for be- 
 lieving in His triumphs. That will receive men's 
 allegiance which helps them. On this basis, noth- 
 ing but this gospel has any chance of supremacy 
 in coming years. Philosophy cannot expect it. 
 Centuries of effort have only made its insuffi- 
 ciency pitiably evident. Old religions tell of 
 disappointed hopes in many a despairing land. 
 New ones have no charm save for the erratic, no 
 value save to dreamers. The future belongs to 
 Christ, because He has what men want, and they 
 will take it at His hands as soon as they find this 
 out. Consequently each church, each body of 
 Christians, may expect a share in the furthering 
 of that triumph in measure, only as it makes 
 known " the riches of mercy that are in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord," the things done in His gospel 
 for a race that could do nothing for itself. With- 
 out this, no prestige of ancient lineage, no pos- 
 
48 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 session of venerable claims, no record of other 
 days, no numbers can secure a share. Nothing 
 tells with a needy race but ministering the provi- 
 sion for their needs. To this ministration alone 
 they will gather, as there alone they should. 
 
 How then do we explain it that so many do 
 not heed the Church's message ? It may be due 
 to an unawakened sense of need. Those whose 
 religious cravings are not alive, or who have 
 been strangers to vicissitude and softening ex- 
 periences, those who are hardened or frivolous, 
 may not be expected to listen to an offer of re- 
 demption. They that are whole, or think them- 
 selves so, need not a physician, but they that are 
 sick. In such cases, there need be no surprise 
 at indifference. They must first be made to ask 
 before they can receive, to feel their wants be- 
 fore they can accept an offer of relief. We can 
 only wait hopefully for the Providence of God 
 and for His Spirit, to render such willing to 
 hold out their hands for the bread of life, willing 
 in penitence to cast themselves upon Christ and 
 rest on His salvation. 
 
 But this will not account for all cases of indif- 
 ference, nor for so many as some may say. It 
 were flattering our own souls to assume that, 
 whenever pews are empty or words are vain, the 
 fault is in those who listen, or whom we would 
 reach. There is more seriousness than many a 
 clergyman realizes among men and women with 
 whom he mingles too little. There is much less 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 49 
 
 rebellion against truth and much less self-suffi- 
 ciency than are sometimes charged. If one go 
 about among his fellows in a sympathetic and 
 brotherly way, he will find, to his increasing sur- 
 prise, that many a man, of whom he had not 
 thought it, has sober moments, and soul-hunger 
 for what this world cannot give. The rejection 
 of Christianity by such is due to something else 
 than hardness of heart. There are business 
 men and worldly women who would truthfully re- 
 pudiate the charge of repelling the will of God, 
 ignoring help and salvation, but who would scorn 
 the narrow ecclesiastic who says that not heed- 
 ing his words means refusing the light of the 
 gospel. Their condition is like that of the sail- 
 ors on the vessel that once found its supply of 
 fresh water exhausted, when apparently becalmed 
 on the wide sea. Day after day it drifted, and 
 the agonies of thirst increased. Another vessel 
 hove in sight at length, and the sufferers sig- 
 naled " Give us water ! We are dying of thirst." 
 To their amazement, back came an answering 
 signal, "Dip it up ! " Again they made their ap- 
 peal, and again they read the seemingly mocking 
 response in the flags of the distant bark. At 
 length, one man, thinking it might not have been 
 a mockery, did dip some water from the ocean 
 and found it fresh and sweet. Then they saw 
 that they were in the mouth of the mighty Ama- 
 zon, and had been for days praying for what was 
 all about them. So are there many in this world 
 
50 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 thirsting for refreshment and strength because 
 they have not been made to see that it is all at 
 hand ; ignoring the gospel of Christ, not because 
 they are indifferent to it, but because they have 
 not been shown how free it is, and how to draw 
 upon its riches. That is, the unbelief of many 
 can only be the fault of those who are sent to 
 preach the good news. It should solemnize every 
 church and every minister to think that, if some 
 really thirsty soul, some earnest heart, does not 
 rest upon the Saviour's work, it may be only be- 
 cause He has not been properly made known to 
 him. He is a brave man who dares to say, as 
 some seem to say, that the responsibility of men 
 and women for failure to profess acceptance of 
 the Redeemer is to be measured by their indif- 
 ference to his words. It must rest upon himself, 
 perhaps, as often as upon them. He can only 
 feel, the Church can only feel, readiness to meet 
 the Lord, who will call us all to account, in meas- 
 ure as we have faithfully and plainly set forth 
 the good news of God's salvation in Christ. 
 Where that is done, we can expect that men will 
 accept it as surely as the hungry will accept food. 
 To these considerations, which show why the 
 indifference of so many does not prove that 
 Christianity is not the true provision for human 
 needs, we must add that there are many that 
 find in it strength and peace who make no pro- 
 fession of it ; that there are many more whose 
 lives are brightened by it, whose characters arc 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY! 5 1 
 
 purified by it, than those whose names are re- 
 corded in our parochial registers, or who seek 
 the advice of clergymen. This may not be as it 
 should be, yet Christ knows of a great multitude 
 who secretly have enshrined Him in their hearts, 
 who furtively rest on the facts that the Church 
 was founded to proclaim. 
 
 And this leads us to the definition of Chris- 
 tianity with regard to the religions of the world ; 
 a subject in respect to which there is not only 
 much error taught that is due to unbelief, but 
 also much confusion of thought on the part of 
 those who claim to be believers, and who ought 
 to know better. Careless or skeptical thinking 
 leads both to denial of the value of missions and 
 to such views of them as practically surrender 
 the cause and the principle of the gospel. 
 
 What are the religions of the world ? They 
 vary very much in form, very much in the degree 
 of their elevation or degradation of thought and 
 life, yet they are all expressions of that univer- 
 sal element in the human mind which we call 
 religion, or a sense of dependence upon higher 
 powers. Religion and piety, or holiness, while 
 they ought to be the same, and are so regarded 
 among us, are not the same in fact. Multitudes, 
 indeed most men, look up to a God more or less 
 unknown, and dread Him, without their lives 
 being thereby influenced for good. There is 
 goodness without religion, and religion without 
 goodness, although so divorced neither is what it 
 
52 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 should be. The religions of different lands are 
 the local expressions of a sense of dependence ; 
 they are Teachings out after God, attempts to 
 gain tokens of His disposition, endeavors to se- 
 cure some response to the anxieties that weigh 
 so heavily upon the hearts of all, wherever their 
 abode. And, back of all is a sense of guilt, or of 
 the deserved displeasure of the deity invoked. 
 This is seen in the universality of sacrifice, and 
 of laborious rites and painful penances, whereby 
 the worshiper seeks to appease the wrath of the 
 deity and avert his punishments. This may not 
 be clearly felt by the offerer, there may be noth- 
 ing left of it but some ancient custom that once 
 expressed it, yet it is a feature of all the forms 
 of religion in the world. In short, these religions 
 are modes of worship. They are not faiths, as 
 people sometimes call them, when speaking of 
 the faith of Asia or of China. The worshiper 
 has not any faith, does not believe in anything, 
 has not any trust at all. What is wanted and 
 sought after is something to lay hold of and to 
 rely upon, in presence of the sorrows of earth, 
 the reality of sin, the approach of death, the de- 
 mands of justice. Their whole shape and tone 
 show that, at the best, they are appeals, prayers, 
 supplications, cries to God ; and, instead of there 
 being any such thing as the Faith of Heathen- 
 dom, the earnest heathen would give his all to 
 have faith and gain the peace that it alone can 
 give. 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 53 
 
 Now, what is Christianity ? Is it one of these 
 religions wherein men have formulated their 
 Teachings out after God, expressed their specu- 
 lations and guesses regarding what He is and 
 what lies beyond the grave ? Some say that it is 
 such ; that it is the highest result of the human 
 search for truth, the flowering of the instinct of 
 religion, the loftiest form of worship, the purest 
 conception of things unseen, due chiefly to the 
 teaching of Jesus. Some tell us He was the 
 man who of all others has seen farthest into the 
 spiritual realm, and so is the leader of the race 
 in its approach to God ; but others, more consis- 
 tently and more plausibly, tell us that He was 
 such a leader for those who live in the lands that 
 have come under His influence, and that Chris- 
 tianity is only a set of speculations that are as 
 human as any others, peculiarly suited to our 
 circumstances. If this is so, missions are of 
 doubtful propriety. Then let each people keep 
 its own religion, for it may be presumed to be 
 most fit for it, as the outcome of its own expe- 
 riences and aspirations. Though ours be con- 
 ceded to be best, yet if that is all, we may well 
 shrink from disturbing old ways for its exten- 
 sion, for it might lead to derangements and divi- 
 sions and even sufferings, which would be too 
 great a price to pay for the mere improvement 
 of that which is good. If each land's religion is 
 its own way of coming to God, then it suits it 
 like a garment, and we should not try to replace 
 
54 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 it by our own. It were not worth the while to 
 supplant a Buddha by a Jesus, if each is the 
 teacher for his own people. 
 
 But this assumption, that Christianity is that 
 evolution of religious thought and activity with 
 whose results we are favored, can only be made 
 by those who are as ignorant of what it claims 
 to be as of what it is. Christianity does not 
 come to us in the shape of a human aspiration or 
 effort after God, of an attempt to gain relief from 
 Him. Christianity is not what man has taught 
 to man, but what God has done for man in Jesus ; 
 and what we mean by accepting it is placing 
 faith in its good news of soul comforting and soul 
 redeeming facts : a gospel from heaven, not an 
 appeal from earth. This is seen not only in its 
 creed, which affirms belief in revealing and sav- 
 ing transactions achieved in our behalf, but also 
 in all its inner life and all its external features. 
 As to its creed, the real believer relies upon it, 
 not as what man has invented in his loftiest re- 
 ligious soarings, but as what the Father of us 
 all has sent to us in Christ, and as what can be 
 leaned upon as no results of human thinking 
 ever can be ; for, in presence of eternal and di- 
 vine facts, the sublimest speculation excels but 
 little in certainty, perhaps not at all, the prat- 
 tlings of infancy. As to its observances, the key- 
 note of its worship is not, like human worship, 
 supplication and appeal, but it is glad thanksgiv- 
 ing. ' Its hymns are not like those of the Vedas, 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 55 
 
 only lofty adoration^ at the best: they are out- 
 pourings of joy for glad tidings from beyond the 
 veil of the unseen. Its central, one obligatory 
 rite, is indeed a sacrifice, but a sacrifice of 
 thanksgiving, a eucharist of gratitude, not an 
 offering to propitiate. 
 
 Everything that represents it shows, then, that 
 Christianity is something essentially different 
 from the religions of the world, whether the an- 
 cient ones of pagan lands, or the newer ones de- 
 vised to satisfy the religious instinct in lands we 
 call Christian. It claims to be that for which 
 they ask, the result for which they labor, the re- 
 sponse of God to the world's wants, the voice out 
 of the inaccessible world for which human hearts 
 do crave. Instead of being one of them, it is 
 not a religion at all. That is a misnomer : for it 
 is in itself a revelation, in its adherents a faith, 
 or the reverse of a religion. It is not a way to 
 seek to please God, but a gospel from a God who 
 is already pleased, for our comfort and our guid- 
 ance. Its membership means, not asking, but 
 receiving. Its people's hands are held out to 
 God : yet not to supplicate His mercy, but to 
 take the bounty that His mercy gives. 
 
 If it is the diametrical opposite of what has 
 been meant or expressed in the religions of the 
 world, then it is inconsistency for any one who 
 calls himself a Christian, it is infidelity, to class 
 it among them, or in any way to make it differ- 
 ent in degree only and not in kind. And we see 
 
56 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 a real infidelity in even the frequently heard ex- 
 pression, "the religion of Jesus." Whatever 
 may be intended, that phrase implies, and is often 
 meant to imply, that Christianity is a system of 
 worship which He established and which should 
 supersede all others, as a higher approach to 
 God ; that He has taught us, not merely as a 
 man, but even it may be said as the Son of God, 
 how to draw near to our Father in Heaven. 
 This is true undoubtedly, in one sense. In 
 Christianity is the only true and acceptable hom- 
 age rendered, the only true light possessed. But 
 this is not true as a definition of the mission of 
 Christ and of what He came to found on earth. 
 He did not come to show us how properly to call 
 upon God, nor how to serve Him acceptably. 
 He came to bring God to us, to found a Church, 
 not of those who serve God, but of those who 
 love Him, prompted not by a sense of needs un- 
 satisfied, but by a sense of blessings received. 
 Its piety is the piety of praise, not the piety of 
 supplicating prayer. 
 
 Therefore, to him who believes in this gospel 
 there can be no question of the duty to spread it 
 in every land. For it is what the heathen are 
 really praying for, the light that they are crying 
 for who sit in darkness ; that for which they plead, 
 out of their lot of suffering, in all the religions of 
 this world. And so, respect for old religious sys- 
 tems, or lofty and generous efforts after new 
 ones, instead of keeping us from urging upon the 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 57 
 
 heathen our own faith, should do the reverse. 
 The wider the cult, the more numerous its adher- 
 ents, the greater the appeal that comes to us who 
 have what they all seek in vain. The more ven- 
 erable the altars, the more hoary the temples, the 
 more ancient the groves, where earth's children 
 worship, the more intense the claim upon us to 
 give them that for which they have so long and 
 so pleadingly waited. And the purer the dreams, 
 the higher the aspirations of a people, the more 
 direct is our duty to tell them of that gospel 
 which can alone give the life and guidance that 
 they crave. 
 
 These, then, are the reasons for missions and 
 for their hopefulness. Sometimes they are ad- 
 vocated as the teaching of correcter doctrines or 
 purer ethics ; and then they are, naturally, but 
 love's labor lost. The heathen are not hunger- 
 ing for such things. What they want is a power 
 to rise to newness of life, a comfort for life's 
 vicissitudes. They want this more than people 
 here at home. If human needs call for a gospel, 
 there are no such burdens on life here as rest on 
 the life of heathendom. There is more suffering, 
 more weariness, more despair, more degradation 
 among them ; and consequently there is more 
 religion, more praying, more self -mortification, 
 more appeals to Heaven, than we see about us in 
 our world. Take to them this Christianity as a 
 gospel of facts regarding what has been done, 
 what is doing, and what is yet to be done by 
 
58 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 Christ's work, and it will spread. With increas- 
 ing rapidity, as the divine plans mature, they will 
 come to this faith which is what they bitterly 
 need. Deserting ancient shrines and immemo- 
 rial rites, they will fall at the foot of the uplifted 
 cross, the one availing altar ever raised on earth 
 for human atonement. 
 
 On the historic plain of Thebes, surrounded 
 by the ruins of palaces and temples, that tell of 
 departed greatness and vanished ambitions, there 
 stands erect the statue of Memnon. It looks, as 
 it has looked for ages, out towards the east whence 
 comes the dawn, and it is said that they who 
 dwell about it have been wont to hear at sunrise 
 a note of music when the first rays of the new 
 day come to bathe those wreck-strewn fields with 
 light and beauty. So it is with the heathen world, 
 the whole world that is yet without the Christ. 
 Surrounded by the ruins of its hopes, saddened 
 by ever present reminders of its failures, the van- 
 ity of all endeavors to build for it a city which 
 would give it rest, this race of ours is looking 
 eagerly for a new and better day, looking with 
 intenser yearning as each century comes on. It 
 is a silent world, silent of praise. It has no heart 
 to sing, no hope to tune its voice to joy. But, 
 when the Sun of Righteousness rises upon it, with 
 healing in His rays, then in measure as to it is 
 brought the good news of the redemption that is 
 in Jesus Christ, its silence will give place to song, 
 its despair to expectation ; and from a race that, 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 59 
 
 through its religions and its speculations vainly 
 looked for God, will rise an anthem that will 
 breathe forth the gladness of a heart at rest, of 
 anxieties relieved, and of a hope born to die no 
 more. 
 
 Such, then, is our definition of Christianity and 
 its consequences, the definition which the Church 
 itself gives : a gospel of mercy in the person and 
 work of the Son of God. Its life is a life of faith. 
 Its stimulus is grateful love. Its power is that 
 it meets human appeals for help. Its prospect is 
 supremacy, because mankind will surely come to 
 drink of its refreshing waters when 'wearied in 
 the greatness of their way.' Cling to this con- 
 ception. Let no influences delude you to accept 
 any other, no eloquence confuse your apprehen- 
 sion of it. Your life will be bright, your heart 
 strong, your hope clear, your doubts removed, as 
 day by day you live in the trustful discipleship 
 of the One Saviour of the world. 
 
 For there is no other. There are many voices 
 abroad to-day that, perhaps in kindness, claim to 
 preach good news to men, and too often with a 
 zeal and a vigor that might put the Church to 
 the blush. Art with its fair visions of an ideal 
 realm, material progress with its promises of 
 ease, education with its mental pleasures, science 
 with its plans of social improvement, all say, 
 " Come unto me, and I will give you rest." But 
 apply the test that St. Martin used in his cell, as 
 the legend tells us, when tempted by a false 
 
60 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 Christ. He was wont to pray daily for a vision 
 of the Lord he loved so ardently, and one day 
 there appeared, as he thus prayed, a person of 
 majestic mien, in resplendent attire, girt with a 
 golden girdle and wearing a jeweled crown. 
 "Who art thou?" asked the saint. "lam the 
 Lord whom thou hast asked to see. Behold me 
 and adore," was the reply. Awestruck at the 
 sight, and yet wishing to be sure that his homage 
 would not be misplaced, the saint hesitated. " On 
 thy knees, good Martin, if thou dost believe," said 
 the figure that lighted up his lowly cell. Humbly, 
 yet bravely, this wise man, who knew that pomp 
 and state are not the decisive signs of the Son 
 of God, replied : " Show me thy hands and thy 
 side ! ' With a cry of rage and dismay the 
 tempter vanished, for it was Lucifer personating 
 the Saviour, who was thus exposed by a test he 
 could not meet. 
 
 So, when other claimants come to you for your 
 allegiance, whether prophets of culture, or of 
 learning, or of civilization, of old religions or of 
 ambitious new ones, ask them too : " Show me 
 thy hands and thy side ! Show me what you 
 have done, or can do, for us needy children of a 
 dying race." Then will they too be silenced and 
 vanish in defeat. For only where there have 
 been such achievements for mankind, such ben- 
 efits conferred, as are these redeeming facts which 
 the Church of Christ proclaims, can be given the 
 faith that comforts and transforms. Poor, pitiable, 
 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 6 1 
 
 helpless saviors are they all in presence of Him 
 who came out of the infinite vastnesses to reveal 
 to us our God ; who lived to set us " an example 
 that we should follow in His steps " ; who died 
 for our redemption on the bitter cross ; who rose 
 again to open unto us the gates of the everlast- 
 ing life ; who ascended into heaven where He 
 ever liveth to make intercession for us ; who sent 
 the Holy Spirit to help our infirmities ; who is 
 with His people unto the end of the world ; who 
 will come again to bring about " the restitution 
 of all things, which God hath spoken by the 
 mouth of all His holy prophets since the world 
 began." And this is the gospel which is preached 
 unto you, the only message to this world which 
 can be called good news. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 WAS JESUS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY ? 
 
 " The certainty of those things wherein thou hast been in- 
 structed." — Luke i. 4. 
 
 We have seen that Christianity is in its his- 
 tory, and in its own definition by the universal 
 creeds, a body of facts to be received and relied 
 upon in faith, to the comforting and transform- 
 ing of life. 
 
 But are the facts in question actual ? Are not 
 the objections brought by opponents sufficient 
 to warrant hesitation in relying upon things 
 which occurred so long ago ? Is there not so 
 much difficulty about this, that we may, at best, 
 only find comfort in the ideas involved, and, as 
 some do and have done, abstain from making all 
 turn upon actual events ? 
 
 This brings us to the matter of the so-called 
 Evidences of Christianity, which form a vast 
 literature, representing great labor and great 
 learning. But there are some leading disadvan- 
 tages attaching as a rule to these works. One 
 is that they deal with issues that are not now 
 in controversy. The assaults on our faith vary 
 from age to age, and a defense that is efficient 
 at one time does not meet new foes who attack 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 63 
 
 at a different point. This is the case with the 
 chief works of the last century, when an antag- 
 onism peculiarly active was met by a display of 
 erudition and power such as has had no superior, 
 and was fully adequate at the time. Especially 
 is this the case with that great book, Butler's 
 Analogy. Unanswerable by those to whom it 
 was addressed, it gives little trouble to the unbe- 
 lief that is most vigorous to-day. Substantially, 
 its position is that there are no difficulties in 
 Christianity which are not also in natural reli- 
 gion. This is true, and it replied effectively to 
 those who once advocated such a religion, or 
 deism, as it was called. But now the trouble is 
 that unbelief admits the analogy, and gives up 
 Christianity and deism as equally unacceptable. 
 There has been a recent attempt to revive this 
 latter in a widely read book, but it is a position 
 that few earnest thinkers will accept, for Butler 
 has forever rendered it untenable, as having all 
 the difficulties of the gospel without its value. 
 So, this line of argument is as apt to make athe- 
 ists as to make believers, in the present state 
 of the controversy ; and, although a book that 
 can never be obsolete on account of its mine of 
 wisdom and its unsurpassed genius, yet as a 
 weapon for our use, Butler's Analogy is not the 
 argument that is needed now. 
 
 Another difficulty attaching to the apologetics 
 of the past is that they are too erudite, require 
 too much of either personal learning or accep- 
 
64 IV AS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 tance of the statements of others, for ordinary- 
 use. This marks signally the great work of 
 Paley. It appeals only to scholars. It makes 
 all the argument for Christianity turn upon the 
 genuineness of the New Testament narratives. 
 This argument is, as we believe, good for those 
 who can pursue it, but it requires especial train- 
 ing and opportunity to verify its force. Few 
 clergymen, and still fewer laymen, have the nec- 
 essary attainments in languages to read, and in 
 history to appreciate, the ancient documents upon 
 which the argument is virtually based, or even 
 the opportunity to see them. Therefore, at the 
 best, we have to come to this, that the proof of 
 the New Testament authenticity rests, for all but 
 a few, upon the statements of other people. 
 This is a strong position, yet it is not always 
 satisfactory to make such important issues turn 
 upon the correctness of the assertions of schol- 
 ars. It is the same with a stronger argument, 
 the admissions of the enemy. It is a curious 
 and little known fact, that learned unbelievers 
 now generally admit all we claim for the Gospels 
 and for St. Paul's great Epistles. This may save 
 us a retort, and give some of us great confidence ; 
 but this also is not satisfactory to many minds. 
 The reply may be made that the New Testament 
 writers either were deceivers or deceived, or that 
 a critical inquirer into the verities of our faith 
 wants more than the admissions of foes or the 
 testimonies of friends. He wants evidence that 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 65 
 
 he himself can weigh, who is not qualified for a 
 learned and laborious discussion. Therefore we 
 need, and the laity should have, reasons for be- 
 lief which are more direct and immediate, and 
 that do not turn upon even the authenticity of 
 the New Testament. For, as we shall see when 
 we speak of the Bible, our faith does not rest 
 upon the volume itself, but only upon what it 
 contains. Yet we are so familiar with it, and 
 with the perusal of the Christian facts as therein 
 preserved, that we are apt to imagine that we get 
 the facts only from it, and are entirely dependent 
 upon it. But this is clearly not so. Christianity 
 comes to us especially through the Church, but 
 also in the very life of the world and its litera- 
 ture, and is forced upon our attention apart from 
 any perusal of the Scriptures. 
 
 Now, can we construct an argument that every 
 sensible man or woman can follow, without hav- 
 ing to know history and peruse ancient manu- 
 scripts, or without having to meet, if we argue 
 from the New Testament, the reply that we must 
 first prove it to be trustworthy ? We think we 
 can ; and each thinking man believes the gospel 
 just because of such arguments, whether it is 
 realized or not. To deny this is like saying that 
 a man cannot be sure of the Declaration of In- 
 dependence of 1776, without reading the original 
 document ; or that one cannot argue for his own 
 birth without showing the registry of its occur- 
 rence, or its entry in the family records. Let us 
 seek to construct such an argument. 
 
66 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 It seems strange to have to prove that Chris- 
 tianity is true, at this date and in this land ; 
 strange that any should question it or deny it. 
 Think what it has done. It has done the work 
 of a gospel. Then it must be true, we should 
 think ; for a medicine that heals a disease must 
 be the right one. What we need is a faith that 
 can comfort hearts and redeem character. Wher- 
 ever that comes from, it is what we want, and 
 we should, we must, and we will accept it. If 
 Christianity is not true, and does not come from 
 God, we must then accept it as from some other 
 source that is found to be kinder than God. 
 Then we must look up to that source, give thanks 
 to it, and pray to it. It may be human or angelic, 
 as we are told ; then the man or angel that has 
 given us this gospel is to be our God ; since what 
 we mean by God is a being who can and will pro- 
 vide for our needs and relieve our ills. We must, 
 we should, adore and trust the giver of such a 
 real and actual redemption. But this shows how 
 absurd it is to affirm that Christianity is not the 
 gift of God. He that can bestow such a bless- 
 ing as the gospel has been to man and can re- 
 spond to our wants so adequately must be one 
 who loves and pities us ; and there is no one of 
 whom that can be said but " the Father of 
 Lights," from whom cometh every good and 
 every perfect gift. 
 
 But we must come to a closer issue, it is 
 frankly admitted. All turns upon the reality of 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 6j 
 
 Jesus Christ, as a person who lived, taught, suf- 
 fered, died, and rose again, nearly nineteen hun- 
 dred years ago. We must meet the challenge 
 to show our reasons for placing our confidence 
 in Him, and the facts that are connected with 
 Him, and that have no reality apart from His 
 own. This is the essence of the controversy, 
 the citadel to be defended. All goes with it. 
 Everything that we call Christian, and that leads 
 us to a different life and a different belief from 
 those of the heathen, stands or falls with it. If 
 it is not provable, our beliefs are dreams at best, 
 our characters are moulded by mere specula- 
 tions ; our homes, our civilization, our ethics, are 
 perhaps more enjoyable than those of China, 
 but no more certainly in accordance with right 
 and truth. If this historical reality is accepted 
 as a rule of life and trust, a man is so far a 
 Christian, whatever else he has given up or re- 
 jected. If not, he may be pious and devout, and 
 living on the plane to which Christianity has 
 raised him, but he is not a Christian. That name, 
 so fraught with associations, must not be used 
 save for what it was meant to express, for it is 
 recorded of the disciples of Jesus Christ that 
 they "were called Christians first in Antioch." 
 
 One argument for the actuality of the story 
 of Christ is, that it was held and believed by 
 those who lived at the time, as is seen by count- 
 less proofs of varied sorts. This is not saying 
 that it is proved by the New Testament, for we 
 
68 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 know it apart from any reference to that volume. 
 The New Testament proves it also ; for put it as 
 late as any one may wish, it still shows at least 
 that such was the belief at a time when peo- 
 ple could know the truth in the premises. But 
 what is now meant is that other writings, and 
 also many a memorial and relic, show that, within 
 a short period of the alleged date of the career 
 of Jesus, there was a Church that held the same 
 story that we have, and had been founded for 
 the very purpose of spreading it. 
 
 But it will be replied, that is going back to an- 
 tiquity. Give us an argument that we can weigh, 
 something that does not take us so far into the 
 past. What evidence is there now for the his- 
 torical reality of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 One is embarrassed by such a request, but not 
 because it is difficult to reply in the sense that 
 some seem to imagine. I once had a similar 
 question put to me that caused a similar embar- 
 rassment. It was when visiting the Cathedral of 
 Aix la Chapelle, which was built by Charlemagne, 
 is full of souvenirs of him, contains many relics, 
 and is his tomb. A fellow - citizen joined our 
 party to avail himself of our interpretation of the 
 information of the German sacristan who accom- 
 panied us. He was evidently impressed by the 
 succession of memorials of the great emperor, 
 the crown, the bones, the sceptre, the sword, and 
 other objects there preserved, but as evidently 
 puzzled by his lack of historical acquaintance 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 69 
 
 with the personage referred to. He saw that 
 this was some eminent man of whom he ought to 
 know, but did not. At length, when his curios- 
 ity and ignorance had been long reducing him to 
 misery, he came to that slab in the floor which it 
 thrills one to stand on, with its simple inscription, 
 " Carolo Magno." Here our friend, unable to 
 keep silence any longer, began to inquire : " This 
 person lived some time ago, did he not ? " I 
 replied in the affirmative. " How long ago ? A 
 hundred years ? " he asked again. " More than 
 that," I answered, " more than a thousand years 
 ago." With a look of incredulity, which showed 
 that he regarded me as of doubtful veracity, he 
 retorted : " How do you know that anything is 
 true of a man who lived so long ago?" What 
 could I do ? Where could I begin ? I could 
 only have said, had I time and had he been dis- 
 posed to listen, " The evidence is all around you, 
 in this church, this town, this nation. All mod- 
 ern Europe proves it." This is just the diffi- 
 culty that comes up when we would prove the 
 historical reality of Christ. One does not know 
 how to begin, what to point to, out of all about 
 us that shows it. The modern world, the world 
 of to-day, betokens that Jesus actually lived and 
 wrought as we hold. Its civilization, its litera- 
 ture, are full of memorials of His existence ; all 
 involve His teaching, and living, and dying, and 
 rising again, centuries ago. There is no such 
 evidence for Charlemagne, or for Caesar, as there 
 
JO WAS CHRIST A AT HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 is for Him, in effects produced or in memorials 
 that remain. 
 
 But let us, out of all these, select some palpable 
 facts and features, some of which will have force 
 with one person, some with another, and none of 
 which can be accounted for, save by admitting 
 not only that Jesus was historically real, but that 
 He was what Christians hold Him to be, and 
 what makes them Christians. It is only because 
 they are all such familiar things that their force 
 and bearing are not always felt. 
 
 Take, for instance, the religious condition of 
 the world. Note especially our idea of God. We 
 have a common conception of Him, as being 
 good, merciful, personal, directing and caring for 
 the world. This is the idea that is in all minds 
 about us, as to what the term God signifies. 
 Even they who may not concede that He is, con- 
 cede that, if He is, such is the necessary concep- 
 tion of Him ; and the unbelief of many is found 
 to be due to the feeling that, since they do not 
 find any revelation of such a God, we have no 
 revelation at all. So firmly rooted is it that this 
 is the true idea of God, that, if any one, or any 
 religious teacher, should ascribe to Him an ac- 
 tion inconsistent therewith, he would be rebuked 
 even by the infidel orator. The basis of his as- 
 sault upon this or that doctrine which he sup- 
 poses to be Christian teaching is its alleged con- 
 flict with this very postulate, which must be as- 
 sumed. Now, whence came this idea of God, so 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? yl 
 
 known to be true, and so at the basis of popular 
 thinking, so really at the foundation of all peace 
 and trust, that no one disputes it ? 
 
 Do you say that man has made it ? That it 
 has been evolved out of the higher thinking of 
 our ancestors ? Then, why has it not been 
 evolved anywhere else than in Christian lands, 
 where alone it is known ? No religions nor phi- 
 losophies of heathendom ever reached it. The 
 results obtained by human thought, of higher 
 power and longer duration than our own, upon 
 the subject of God, show that man cannot pro- 
 duce this idea of Him. Yet it is in the very air 
 about us, and we know it is the true one : not an 
 idea which is good for us, as another may be 
 good for Asia, but an absolute idea, the only one 
 that is to be tolerated as allowable. Now, how 
 did it come to us ? If not conceivable that our 
 mind evolved it, because all the rest of the human 
 race has, in its evolution, reached no such con- 
 clusion, then we can only account for it, as Chris- 
 tianity claims, by its having been given to the 
 race by One who did not learn it from the race, 
 even the man Jesus Christ. Think of this, and 
 you will see that it shows that such a thing must 
 have happened as the life and career of Jesus to 
 explain the knowledge that you have of your 
 Heavenly Father. 
 
 This is equally true of other beliefs that we 
 possess, such as, for instance, that of personal 
 immortality ; or, again, of our standards of right 
 
72 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 and wrong. These are our common heritage, 
 the conviction of those who are, as well as of 
 those who are not, Christians ; and they cannot 
 be accounted for, as the peculiar possessions of 
 Christian lands alone, save upon the theory that 
 those lands have received, as others have not, 
 the teachings of one who made them known, as 
 Jesus is alleged to have done. 
 
 But this opens up a vast field of argument, 
 even that based upon what has been done by 
 Christianity. This is obviously a subject too 
 great to be more than indicated in a general 
 way ; yet it may be worth while to point out 
 some weighty facts that bear upon our present 
 argument. 
 
 Think what it has done for the mental prog- 
 ress of man. As Balzac said, "Every thinking 
 man has to march under the banner of Christ. 
 He alone has consecrated the triumph of mind 
 over matter. He alone has revealed the inter- 
 mediate world that separates us from God." 
 Consider the literature of Christian lands, so 
 much loftier than that of others ; their art, that 
 is, the only art that has any life in it ; their phi- 
 losophizing, so free from absurdities that char- 
 acterize all other thinking. Think of its effects 
 upon science. It is, in fact, the mother of 
 science. There is none where it is unknown. 
 We have to take our conquests of recent date to 
 lands far older in civilization and more gifted by 
 nature with mental endowments. The reason is 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 73 
 
 that, in the sphere of Christianity alone is there 
 any such consciousness of his own powers and 
 possibilities, or any such freedom from supersti- 
 tious fears of nature, that man aspires, or is not 
 afraid, to investigate. They who have not re- 
 ceived the deliverance from despair and delu- 
 sions with which Christianity emancipates the 
 peoples that have received it never study nature. 
 Even in its degraded forms, Christendom is freer 
 than the highest paganism from what prevents 
 the advance of knowledge ; and the most igno- 
 rant and superstitious peasant of Italy rejects, as 
 plainly untenable, what the most intelligent Hin- 
 doo never questions, or believes as matters of 
 course, what the latter never dreams of as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Consider what it has done for the State. There 
 is as yet no actually Christian state, it is true, in 
 the sense of its being supremely controlled by 
 Christ, yet all are immensely affected by it in 
 legislation, in jurisprudence, in peace, and in 
 war. The most backward land of Europe is very 
 different from the most advanced in Asia, and 
 has features in its life that would be an improve- 
 ment upon the best specimens of heathendom. 
 Europe and America are shaped and moulded, in 
 all that constitutes their excellence, simply by 
 the influence of Christianity. 
 
 Consider the mark it has made upon the home. 
 How different are the homes of Christendom 
 from those of heathendom ! The latter are so 
 
74 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 horrible that we shudder at the idea of being 
 condemned to dwell in them, with their lust, 
 their cruelty, their absence of that love and con- 
 fidence that make our own so dear. And they 
 are such, chiefly because of the effects of Chris- 
 tianity upon the condition of woman. Some 
 may say that it has not raised her. They who 
 tell us this, especially women who say so, ought 
 to be afforded the opportunity to go where they 
 can have womanhood without it, and thus prac- 
 tically find out what it has done to make her 
 respected and other than a slave or a toy. Far 
 more fond are the homes, far more honored are 
 the women, of the least enlightened Christian 
 land. This is a commonplace, and so need not 
 be dwelt upon. Some tell us that our faith has 
 not raised woman. So does a reverend gentle- 
 man in Richmond also tell us in this nineteenth 
 century that the earth does not go round the sun. 
 
 Once more, consider the effects of Christianity 
 upon the condition and treatment of the unfor- 
 tunate. The poor, the sick, the helpless, the 
 orphans, the insane, the weak, the blind, the 
 dumb, are blessed by it ; their lot is made very 
 different from what it is elsewhere. Nowhere 
 more than in this sphere, can we trace effects, 
 not more beneficent than direct, to its influence. 
 
 Now there are two uses of this observation of 
 the effects of Christianity. One is that in so 
 richly blessing the world it is shown to be from 
 God, and the true provision for human needs. 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? ?$ 
 
 But this is not the use that is now to be made of 
 it. For it also serves, for our present purpose, 
 as an argument for the historical reality of Jesus 
 Christ, at the time alleged by the Church. 
 
 Suppose that from some point of elevation 
 you saw the ends of a number of straight but 
 diverging roads coming out of the far distance. 
 You could easily tell where, and how far away, 
 they had diverged from a common point of de- 
 parture. But suppose that, in place of this num- 
 ber of roads, there were so many streams of 
 water, or so many beams of light, or so many 
 sounds of music. Then you could not only tell 
 by simple calculation how far away beyond your 
 vision lay that unseen point of divergence, but 
 you could also tell what would be found there, 
 the size and quality of the fountain, or the bril- 
 liancy and nature of the luminary or the charac- 
 ter and kind of the cause of the sounds, as the 
 case might be. 
 
 So is it with these present observable effects 
 of Christianity. They point back beyond our 
 sight, into the past ages of history. But we can 
 follow them up, and measure the law of their 
 convergence as plainly as we can that of the 
 streams, or of the rays, or of the sounds. And 
 the result is that they all meet, about nineteen 
 hundred years ago, in a common origin, in the 
 land that we call Holy. They all go back to it, 
 as the one centre whence they started to spread 
 over the world, where they now are seen and felt. 
 
J6 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 But this is not all. We can tell what would .be 
 found there, could we reverse the course of his- 
 tory, or journey back up the ages that are gone. 
 We find that, no less certainly than the streams 
 would lead us to a copious and similar fountain, 
 or the beams of light to an adequate and like 
 constituted source of illumination, or the strains 
 of music to a sufficient and an equally sweet in- 
 strument, would these effects of Christianity 
 lead back to a person and a life like those of 
 Jesus Christ, from whom alone could come the 
 refreshing rivers that are gladdening the hearts 
 of men, the brightness that is lighting them, 
 the harmonies that are cheering them, in widely 
 separated lands to-day. 
 
 And now we see the answer to a popular fal- 
 lacy regarding the evidences both for Christ's 
 historical existence and for His divine mission. 
 Many really imagine that we are at a disadvan- 
 tage now, as compared with those who lived in 
 ages that are gone, and that each succeeding cen- 
 tury renders the historical element in Christian- 
 ity more difficult of verification. Upon this is 
 based that position which has been referred to, 
 that it is essential to our cause to lay little stress 
 upon that element. But all this is precisely the 
 reverse of the fact. Succeeding ages render 
 Christ's mission and career more palpably cer- 
 tain, and not less, because they bring forth more 
 and more results that can only be attributed to 
 Him. We have far more reason to believe that 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 'JJ 
 
 He existed than they who lived a thousand years 
 ago ; and much more reason to believe Him to 
 be the world's Redeemer than those who saw 
 and heard Him in His lifetime ; for we see, as 
 none before us have seen, what He can do and 
 has done for man. So will those who come after 
 us, though farther away from Bethlehem and 
 Calvary, yet see more of that light which floods 
 a world and has no other source than Jesus ; and 
 so will they know as we cannot the fullness of 
 the blessing that was in Him. 
 
 But let us take another line of argument from 
 the character of Christ. 
 
 When the name of Jesus is named it awakens 
 a distinct conception of a perfect character. We 
 all mean thereby a picture that exists in our 
 minds, which is the world's supreme possession, 
 the theme of the poet, the effort of the artist, 
 the model of the teacher, the ideal of the Chris- 
 tian. 
 
 Now, note some features of this character, as- 
 sociated with the name of Jesus Christ. 
 
 It is faultless. Unbelievers no less than dis- 
 ciples agree that Jesus was perfect ; perfect in 
 joy, perfect in suffering, perfect in His relations 
 with all who met Him and with whom He had to 
 do. We know that, in any conceivable emer- 
 gency, He would have acted as He did in those 
 that are recorded. That is, His character, and 
 His alone, is a model. He alone is copiable. We 
 hold Him up to our children and only ask that 
 
78 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 they may imitate Him. We know for ourselves 
 that we should need no more, if we could be 
 such as He was in this world. When we would 
 seek to influence others about us, we endeavor to 
 arouse this same desire in them, and the effort 
 to better men is but to render them like Him, 
 as sufficient to regenerate society and to trans- 
 form the world. 
 
 Again, it is a catholic model of character. 
 There is no one, man, woman, or child who can- 
 not learn of Him and would not be better for 
 doing so. And this is true of no one else. No 
 actual life, if this is supposed not to be such, can 
 be made a model. All others have their limita- 
 tions as to age or locality ; even if actually copi- 
 able in any one place or time, they would not 
 be sufficient as universal ideals. The Buddhist 
 could not ask to be only like his Sakya Muni ; 
 it would not be a sufficient light for Asia. We 
 know that neither he nor any other teacher 
 would suffice as a guide in the infinite variations 
 of human experience. Yet this is the case with 
 this Jesus. Whether high or low, rich or poor, 
 on island or on continent, in dark or in brilliant 
 ages, the imitation of Christ is always feasible, 
 and a source of betterment and comfort. There 
 are many kinds of saints in the Christian calen- 
 dar, saints of every clime and every age and 
 every circumstance, yet they all are such because 
 they learned of Him and copied in their lives the 
 spirit of His own. 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? yg 
 
 For, again, this conception of a perfect char- 
 acter copiable by all, is found in all parts of 
 Christendom. It is not confined to the more 
 advanced Churches ; it is found undefined yet 
 real in the most degraded, in those of Asia as 
 in that of England. All call this Jesus Lord, 
 and, however gropingly they walk, all press to- 
 wards Him as the faultless One. These various 
 Churches have been severed, without communi- 
 cation, for ages ; sometimes hostile and antago- 
 nistic, interested in finding weak points in each 
 other, learning nothing from each other. Yet 
 they all adore one Jesus, have the same model 
 for conduct, possess this same treasure of a per- 
 fect character as an example. 
 
 Now, what is the origin of this universal idea 
 of a Jesus, alone perfect, alone copiable by all 
 the children of men ? Plainly there are only two 
 alternatives. Either such a life was lived, of 
 which we have the story, or else the whole is a 
 fiction. Either Jesus was historically real, or 
 this character is the invention of man in the cen- 
 turies of the past. 
 
 Was it possibly an invention ? Could human 
 skill have constructed such a character ? To as- 
 certain this is not very difficult, for we may know 
 what man can do by what he has done. He has 
 done a great deal in the way of depicting imag- 
 inary as well as real characters. His highest in- 
 tellectual work has perhaps been in this line. 
 We know how much labor has been expended in 
 
80 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 biography, both in concealing the defects, and in 
 heightening the virtues, of those whom the inter- 
 est or affection of disciples or admirers has rep- 
 resented as models for others to follow ; and also 
 how men have eagerly sought out such lives as 
 could be delineated for imitation. But, further, 
 look at the mental power exercised in character 
 painting in fiction, whether in the poem, the 
 drama, the moral treatise, or the novel. Plato, 
 Shakespeare, Scott, Corneille, are names that 
 recall noble endeavors to give us ideals of hu- 
 manity. Now, what is the result of all this, the 
 work of giants ? It is that not one has given us 
 a perfect character, or a catholic one, one so liv- 
 ing and acting and speaking in varying expe- 
 riences, that we can accept it as a sufficient 
 ideal for our children, or for this wide world with 
 its countless forms of sorrow, of weakness, and 
 of imperfection. Or even if any such fictitious 
 character were a model where the author dwelt, 
 it would be unsuited to the nearest nation ; in- 
 comprehensible, perhaps absurd, to whole realms 
 of distant people. In the Walhalla of man's 
 creations, as well as in that of his biographies, 
 Jesus Christ has no place. Among such memo- 
 rials or such fiction His isolation and their short- 
 comings were but intensified. Thus, the percep- 
 tion of what man has done, at the high-water 
 mark of his genius, shows us what is the best he 
 can do, and discloses the fact that he cannot in- 
 vent a Christ, nor even develop a saint into a 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 8 1 
 
 Jesus. Rousseau and Napoleon both said, long 
 ago, the former out of a heart that was surely 
 unfriendly enough to Christianity, that they knew 
 man, and his capacities, and that the invention 
 by him of such a character as Jesus would be a 
 greater miracle than its reality. 
 
 The fact is that he does not really mean it 
 who says that this character has been invented. 
 It is a flippant utterance upon which he has not 
 reflected, or he would see that what it involves 
 is impossible ; that it has no more weight as an 
 argument than to say that, because man makes 
 ice by machinery, or constructs a mill - dam in 
 some river, the Mer de Glace or the Falls of 
 Niagara may have been due to his skill. It is an 
 assertion that carries weight only with those 
 who are too ignorant to know, or too superficial 
 to consider, the limitations of human capacity. 
 
 And yet there are some who will actually have 
 us believe, as reasonable men, that this picture, 
 which is enshrined in Christendom, the beauty 
 of which the human intellect despairs to equal 
 in its fictions, and the saint to reproduce in his 
 life, the copying of which is the only way to 
 advance in grace of character, and which is the 
 only source of inspiration for life, — they will have 
 us believe, that this was the creation of some 
 Jewish fishermen, in an age that was narrow and 
 bigoted, who themselves had been trained in the 
 most bigoted and narrow of its circumstances. 
 This is too much to ask of us in days when we 
 are expected to be critical and incredulous. 
 
82 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 But no, say some, it was the later creation of 
 the Church : Christians made this character, by 
 a more or less gradual process. But what made 
 them Christians ? What made them such peo- 
 ple as could evolve such an ideal out of their fer- 
 tile minds ? There seems to be no reply but 
 that a Christ must have first made Christians 
 those who could invent a Christ ; and if Chris- 
 tendom made this Jesus, why has it not made 
 another ? Why, in all its literature, with all its 
 advance since its lowly origin, has it not been 
 able to give us some other fictitious life equally 
 ideal ? Or why is it that the Church has not yet 
 grown up to realize, in a single member, this an- 
 cient fiction ; has never yet produced a real 
 Christ in the strength of its maturity, if it could 
 create an ideal Christ in the weakness of* its in- 
 fancy ? Why is it that the highest attainment 
 of all its saints has been but the partial repro- 
 duction of this story ? Surely, there is no ex- 
 planation of all this, if the Jesus of the Church 
 was but the evolution of its early and ignorant 
 days. There is no reason to expect any attain- 
 ment of such an ideal in the future thought or 
 life of Christendom ; still it were easier to be- 
 lieve that Christendom might yet in its progress 
 reach such a capacity than to believe that it pos- 
 sessed it in its beginnings. 
 
 So then, if the character of Jesus is not that 
 of one who lived and died and left such a mem- 
 ory, then the only alternative is the impossible 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 8$ 
 
 one that it is an invention of men, and of such 
 men as we have said. Either Christ made the 
 Church or the Church made Christ. The latter 
 is a supposition that exceeds the wildest credu- 
 lity of superstition, surpasses the absurdity of 
 the fairy tales that children in the nursery, or 
 the peasants of ignorant lands, believe. In pres- 
 ence of this character of Jesus, we can only say 
 that it is due to a life once lived ; that we have 
 a description of a person.. Jesus Christ was an 
 historical reality. 
 
 Once more, let us see the evidence of things 
 with which we are familiar, the Church and its 
 institutions. This is an argument so conclusive 
 that it is strange how any doubt can be raised as 
 to the actuality of the person of Christ. It is 
 like my friend's asking the evidence of the real- 
 ity of Charles the Great in a structure built by 
 him and rich in his memorials. It is like asking 
 proof for the reality of William the Conqueror 
 in presence of English history, or for the reality 
 of the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth, or of George 
 Washington in our own land, or of Michael An- 
 gelo in the Duomo of Florence. These things 
 presuppose the persons, are their work, tell of 
 them ; and so the Church is a monument, a fabric, 
 that tells of Christ, and proclaims that it was 
 originated for that purpose. No argument that 
 can be urged, no evidence that can be adduced, 
 whether documents, or books, or monuments of 
 any other sort, is so conclusive as this, a society 
 
84 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 that sprang from His creation. That is, when 
 the Church is pointed out to one who asks the 
 reasons for believing that Jesus actually lived 
 and died, and rose, his demanding documentary, 
 or any other, proof besides, is like a man who 
 lives in the new world that was discovered by 
 Columbus, asking to see documents to prove that 
 Columbus was a real man. 
 
 Yet, there is a peculiarity about this argument 
 which does distinguish it from the analogies 
 that have been cited. The relation of Christ to 
 the Church is closer than that of conqueror, or 
 pilgrim, or discoverer, to his work. When we 
 come to analyze the latter, we find other factors 
 mingled in their history. There were other dis- 
 coverers who cooperated with Columbus, other 
 patriots who shared with Washington in the 
 foundation of our liberties, other pilgrims than 
 those who landed on the historic Rock ; and we 
 can plausibly claim honor for other names than 
 these, as we consider historical events. But, as 
 to the Church, there is no one but Christ to 
 whom its origin can be attributed. It tells of 
 Him alone. His reality stands as its only foun- 
 dation. It is easier to believe that any one else 
 than a Dante wrote the Divine Comedy than to 
 believe that any one else than a Jesus originated 
 the Church ; easier to believe that some noble 
 fabric that has its builder's name on corner-stone 
 and pinnacle is inscribed with an untruth, than 
 that the fabric of the Church, written all over 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 85 
 
 with the name of Jesus, proclaims a falsehood. 
 We can separate the architect from his work. 
 We cannot separate Christ from the Church. 
 
 This same principle of sufficient and appro- 
 priate reason, or cause and effect, applies to the 
 institutions of Christianity, of which we select 
 three. 
 
 One is Baptism. This is an ordinance of effus- 
 ing or immersing, with the use of water, in the 
 name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost, with the declaration that it was estab- 
 lished by Jesus as the mode of initiation into His 
 Church. It is not only now, but it has always 
 been used for this purpose, and with this decla- 
 ration. Furthermore, there have been, from 
 the first, disputes about the value and methods 
 of it. There have been sects and parties and 
 persons interested in doing away with its use 
 and obligation. Yet it continues, in all lands 
 and divisions of Christendom, as a thing so man- 
 ifestly handed down from a Christ who estab- 
 lished it, so palpably assignable but to Him, and 
 bearing on the face of it such tokens of His be- 
 ing its deviser and appointer, that no Christians 
 have dared to dispense with it except a few in- 
 significant sects which either are now extinct, or 
 are fast dying out. Now, only a real Christ can 
 have founded a rite that has been such a factor in 
 the religious life, or that would not have died out 
 ere this, as so many practices have done, which 
 in themselves seemed more likely to endure. 
 
86 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 Again, consider the Lord's Supper. This is 
 a curious ceremony for the chief religious act of 
 Christendom, and for such lands and days as our 
 own. It is eating bread and drinking wine in 
 our assemblies, a sort of meal in Church. It 
 purports to have been instituted by Jesus Christ, 
 on the eve of His crucifixion, for the purpose, 
 among other things, of keeping fresh the remem- 
 brance of Him and His death. A part of the 
 ceremony is, and always has been, rehearsing the 
 alleged story of its appointment at the time to 
 which it refers. Old liturgies that we possess, 
 from a brief period after that date, contain this 
 rehearsal, as well as those of to-day. There 
 have been also special controversies about this 
 rite. Christendom has been divided upon its 
 details, yet all have clung to the ceremony as 
 coming to each independently of the rest. 
 
 Now, is it not unreasonable to ask us to believe 
 that a holy ordinance, one that is so ancient, 
 coming to so many different lands by separate 
 lines of transmission, one that was used as it is 
 now by those who had opportunity to know, and 
 every interest to proclaim, the truth about it, — 
 that such an ordinance rehearses a falsehood, and 
 then bases thereupon a pious and prayerful act 
 of worship ? It is difficult to understand how the 
 existence of any person whom we have not seen 
 with our own eyes can be certain, if this unique, 
 this monumental, ordinance of the Holy Commu- 
 nion does not show the reality of Jesus Christ. 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 87 
 
 Consider, lastly, the Lord's Day, or Sunday. 
 This, the first day of the week, is used as we use 
 it because the Church appointed it at an early 
 date to commemorate the resurrection and the 
 triumph of the Church's Founder. 
 
 It adds, therefore, a new fact to those we have 
 more particularly dwelt upon hitherto, the rising 
 of Jesus from the dead. All the arguments for 
 Christianity involve this fact. The foundation 
 of the Church, the observance of Baptism and 
 of the Eucharist, imply it, for two reasons. In 
 the first place, a dead Christ could have founded 
 nothing. Men do not trust and preach and urge 
 on others as a Saviour one who, whatever he had 
 been, yet died and was buried as other men. If 
 Calvary had been the end of the story of Jesus, 
 there is no reason to suppose that story would 
 have lived a hundred years, much less that we 
 should ever have heard of it. Stories much 
 more apt to endure have been forgotten. And 
 so this one, of a life lived obscurely in an ob- 
 scure land, without leaving a line of writing or a 
 single relic, followed by such convulsions as those 
 that came over the land where it was lived, sweet 
 as it was, would have been forgotten when the 
 children had died to whom fathers might have 
 told it, unless, after the disappointment of its 
 end, Jesus had reappeared to send out those who 
 should perpetuate it. His disciples went back 
 from Jerusalem to their homes and fishing nets, 
 and they would have stayed there, if a risen 
 
88 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 Jesus had not called them to His work again. 
 The Church as an organization would never have 
 existed, for the memory of a martyr does not 
 found a thing like that. But, more than this, 
 the resurrection of Jesus cannot be separated 
 from His story. We know no Jesus but the 
 risen Jesus. The only sources whence we learn 
 that He lived tell us that He rose. If we do 
 not believe the evidence of His resurrection, we 
 have no reason to believe that He ever existed. 
 The only reason for believing that He uttered 
 the Sermon on the Mount is a testimony that 
 tells of His victory over the grave. The idea of 
 a Jesus that died and did not rise is unknown 
 to any but a few credulous skeptics. It has no 
 historical warrant of any kind. Consistency may 
 lead to denying both, but, if one is believed, the 
 evidence for that is as strong for the other. It 
 is either to no Christ or to a risen Christ, that 
 we must come at last. 
 
 Now, the Lord's Day is a special witness of 
 this. Here is one day of the week, observed all 
 through the ages, in lands that have had no con- 
 nection, in Churches as wide apart as India and 
 Africa and Britain, and that have been willing to 
 receive nothing from each other ; which says of 
 itself that it is set apart to be the day for Chris- 
 tians to express their joy for the resurrection 
 that completed and assured their redemption. 
 How can the day be accounted for if this testi- 
 mony is not true ? How can such a festival come 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 89 
 
 into being if the fact did not occur ? How can 
 it, with all its antiquity, and all its memories, 
 bear a lie upon its face ? It is more conceivable 
 that the local festival of the Fourth of July is 
 the commemoration of an event that never oc- 
 curred than that this universal festival of Chris- 
 tendom is the memorial of what never took 
 place. 
 
 But still further. This day is ostensibly the 
 substitution of the first day of the week as the 
 holy day, in place of the seventh, because the 
 great fact which happened upon it authorized 
 such a change by the Church. Now we have 
 means of knowing that such a change was made. 
 The Jews still keep the last day, Saturday, as the 
 sacred one of the seven. They are still six days 
 behind us in their religious services, and charge 
 us with an unauthorized alteration in this respect. 
 That is, the use of Sunday was a revolution. 
 Now, how can this revolution and its success be 
 accounted for unless there was reason for it in 
 an event considered sufficient to warrant it ? 
 This abiding difference between us and the Jews 
 shows the reality of the cause that led to it. 
 
 So do all these lines of thought, based upon 
 present, palpable facts, arguments available to 
 every one, show the historical reality of the 
 career of Jesus Christ. It lies behind all our 
 civilization no less than behind all our Christian- 
 ity, as its cause and origin. It is the one fact on 
 the forefront of the world. 
 
90 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 But some, whose minds are peculiarly consti- 
 tuted, hesitate to assent to all this because of a 
 hypothesis that they raise without perceiving 
 what it involves. They say that our argument 
 rests upon the trustworthiness of the founders 
 of the Church. They are not prepared to say 
 that these founders were deceivers, so they ask, 
 may not these men have been deluded ? Now 
 this does not apply to the argument from the 
 blessings conferred by Christ, nor to that from 
 His character : they are untouched by any such 
 hypothesis ; yet it is conceivably the case as to 
 the foundation of the Church and its institutions. 
 That is, we may say it is speculatively possible 
 that Christianity was originated by men who 
 were convinced that Christ lived and died and 
 rose as they taught, but who were under a great 
 hallucination. But practically this does not help 
 the doubter. Our reply to him is that it is an 
 inadmissible supposition to conscientious and 
 reasonable men, and more improbable than what 
 it opposes. 
 
 In the first place, it is an impugnment, for 
 which there is no warrant, of the intelligence of 
 such men as John and Paul and their compan- 
 ions, who did such a work and showed such de- 
 votion unto death. There is no justification for 
 such an attack upon their sagacity, no ground for 
 saying that they are not just as trustworthy as 
 any other men upon whom we rely for matters 
 that we have not ourselves seen. 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 9 1 
 
 Again, if we say they were deluded, we make 
 them the authors of Christianity. Then all the 
 blessings of light and hope and redemption that 
 it has brought are due to them. Then they have 
 done for us what we ask and wish from God. 
 They are gods to us. They are saviors. Then 
 let us worship them ; for, if it is they who have 
 shown such love and such power, they deserve it, 
 and no one else can claim it more rightly. 
 
 But, still again, there is then no gospel. If 
 what we call such is the work of hallucinated 
 men, then it is only speculation, only guesswork, 
 and instead of having something to rest upon, as 
 we had fondly hoped, we are thrown back upon 
 our old misery. Heaven is still unopened. No 
 voice has come thence. Our faith rests upon 
 delusions. Our hope has no foundation. Sin 
 must still be expiated by ourselves. We must 
 still work and struggle in our own strength. 
 And so this reply of the doubter plunges a world 
 that had begun to take heart into unrelieved de- 
 spair. It has still to wait for some response to 
 all its appeals and prayers. 
 
 But, beyond all this, think what this assertion 
 or doubt implies. It means that this world's 
 greatest imposture has been its greatest blessing. 
 That Christianity has been its greatest blessing 
 is clear. It has done what nothing else has done 
 to relieve the ills and to lighten the darkness of 
 the world, to cheer our own lives, to comfort our 
 loved ones, to hallow the saints of the ages. 
 
92 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 Yet, if the work of deluded men, it is a fraud, 
 and the supremest fraud in all earth's history. 
 No lie has ever had such a power, no hallucina- 
 tion such a sway. 
 
 Now this cannot be allowed to be possible. It 
 is immoral, it is opposed to conscience, it is 
 wrong, to say that all the benefits of the gospel 
 can be due to a delusion. For it means that 
 the false can work for human good better than 
 the true. Then why seek for truth ? Then, con- 
 sistently, we must ask, not what is true, but 
 what will apparently work well ? Let us seek de- 
 lusions and ignore verities. The man who says 
 this with which we are dealing affirms therein, 
 not only that truth cannot be found, but that it 
 would be love's labor lost if found, since it has 
 no superior value over a deception. He affirms 
 that it is just as well to teach falsehoods as facts. 
 This is to doubt the reality of right and wrong. 
 And furthermore, if it can happen that the great- 
 est of benefits to others and ourselves can ensue 
 upon an unequaled fraud, then why trouble our- 
 selves to act rightly ? If it has happened so 
 once, in a great instance, why may it not again 
 in our own cases ? Why is it not probable that 
 it will ? When one says, " I will do evil that 
 good may come," we can only reply that good can- 
 not come from evil, and that the man who acts on 
 that principle is immoral. Yet, if this hypothe- 
 sis of which we are speaking be true, we cannot 
 give that reply. We must say that perhaps it is 
 
WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 93 
 
 as well to do evil as to do good, that one need 
 not concern himself about his conduct, his influ- 
 ence, his work, his teaching, if deluded men have 
 been the world's highest benefactors by a fraud, 
 innocent though they were of evil intent. 
 
 So we answer the objection that perhaps the 
 Church was founded upon mistaken affirmations 
 of some men as to Jesus, that it involves inadmis- 
 sible suppositions, and is impossible to those who 
 believe that good and evil are different things, 
 that one must do right and must not do wrong, 
 that sin and error injure, and righteousness and 
 truth benefit, us and our neighbor. It is no 
 relief to the perplexed, or to one who feels the 
 force of doubt, for it is harder to believe than 
 Christianity itself ; and to teach it is to break 
 the moorings for the lives and characters of our- 
 selves, our children, and our fellow-men. 
 
 Yet, notice this. If you cannot accept this 
 alternative there is no other. To this point the 
 discussion has now attained. All thoughtful 
 skeptics concede that one must either believe 
 as the Church does, or explain Christianity by 
 this theory of delusion, and as being, therefore, 
 a fraud. They declare that there is no other re- 
 lief. Unless you agree with us, say they, you 
 must agree with the Christendom of the past. 
 
 So we sum up. The establishment of the 
 Church by men whom we cannot suppose de- 
 luded without imperiling all righteousness, the in- 
 stitutions that bear the name of Christ on their 
 
94 WAS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL REALITY? 
 
 front, the character that is manifestly beyond 
 human capacity to create, the blessings that can 
 be traced to no other source, — all these facts 
 make it sure, as no other event is sure in all hu- 
 man history, that that is true which the Church 
 proclaims regarding Jesus ; and we know that in 
 staking our hopes for time and for eternity upon 
 Him, we are resting upon that which cannot be 
 shaken, we are reposing upon the one certain 
 thing amid the uncertainties of the past, our 
 feet are on the Rock of Ages. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." — yohn 
 i. 14. 
 
 We have seen that Christianity is a revelation 
 of comforting and saving facts regarding God's 
 provision for our needs, made in the person and 
 career of Jesus Christ, who lived, died, and rose, 
 as the Church was founded to proclaim. 
 
 Now, who is He that has done all this for us ? 
 The question is important, most obviously, and 
 is shown to be so by the very discussions re- 
 garding it. It was agitated for centuries by the 
 keenest and holiest of minds. " What think ye 
 of Christ ?" is to-day the great theme of thought 
 and controversy, and among men and women who 
 do not take such trouble about trifles. It is im- 
 portant because, as disputants have seen, very 
 extensive consequences depend upon the answer 
 that is given. The whole form and character of 
 Christianity, that is, of that religious life of the 
 world about us which is the hope of the rest of 
 the world, will be affected by the conceptions 
 that are held of Him upon whom that religious 
 life rests. It is very well to say, and there is 
 
g6 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 undoubtedly some truth in it, that the great thing 
 is to follow Christ, and that our views of Him 
 are secondary. It is true that orthodoxy has 
 often given the impression that the prime con- 
 cern is to think of Him rightly, and that right 
 discipleship is of comparatively slight moment. 
 It is nevertheless true that the question as to 
 His rank in the scale of being is not a fruitless, 
 unpractical inquiry, for the character of our dis- 
 cipleship will depend upon our opinion of Him 
 who is our Lord and Master. Is is also true 
 that the nature of our trust will depend upon our 
 conceptions of Him whom we trust. The degree 
 to which we have confidence in the facts dis- 
 closed will accord with our conviction as to the 
 position of Him who discloses them. Faith is 
 altogether conditioned by its opinion of its ob- 
 ject. It has therefore been seen in history, and 
 may be seen now, that the color, the shape, the 
 permanence, the peace, of Christianity are con- 
 nected with the answer to our inquiry. 
 
 And so all this discussion has been due to a 
 desire to avoid error and reach truth in so im- 
 portant an issue. All earnest men wish their 
 religious beliefs and hopes to be well founded 
 and sincere, since Jesus Christ is inseparable 
 from Christianity, inseparable to us from reli- 
 gion. Since the issue is forced upon us in books 
 and magazines and newspapers, and by lectures, 
 we must meet it. We must recognize its signif- 
 icance and deal with it, unless we are utterly in- 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 97 
 
 different to the great concerns at stake. It does 
 not satisfy to say that the solution is beyond us. 
 True, we cannot pretend to reach it perfectly. 
 All lives are mysteries and run up into mystery. 
 Much more is such a life, especially from the 
 stand-point of the Church. Theology has too 
 often alienated seekers by apparently claiming to 
 make final formulae of deep things, to understand 
 God and man, and to explain their union, whether 
 in sanctification, in providence, or in Incarnation ; 
 but the Church is committed to no such presump- 
 tuousness. It knows that its Lord's being is a ful- 
 ler, richer thing than can ever be fathomed. And 
 so, none but erratics, or would be Titans, claim 
 to have scaled the heights opened by the contem- 
 plation of Christ. Yet these heights can be as- 
 cended, up to reasonable limits. We may expect 
 to learn, to some extent, what can and what can- 
 not be known. We can hope to gain some fixed 
 points in the inquiry regarding the nature even 
 of this Saviour, before whom the world stands 
 in reverence, and the Church in faith, sufficient 
 to enable us to say, not exhaustively, yet truly, 
 who and what He is. With such data as are at 
 its command we must surely grant this much to 
 human intelligence, however humble be our esti- 
 mate of it. 
 
 Perhaps our inquiry may be best conducted by 
 discussing the answer that Christendom has 
 reached, and then setting forth its verification. 
 
 The Church declares that this historical per- 
 
98 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 sonage, Jesus Christ, is " God manifest in the 
 flesh ; " that behind that human life was a divine 
 personality ; yet that He was not the Father, but 
 the second of a Trinity in the divine Unity, in- 
 carnate in humanity ; the divine Being having 
 such threefoldness that this Incarnation is both 
 a possibility, and a manifest reality. 
 
 This is what the Church, and all Christians, 
 save an inconsiderable few, have held since 
 thought dealt with and answered the question we 
 are considering. It is the form in which the 
 gospel has been made known, has done its work, 
 and is clung to to-day. Not only does the preva- 
 lence of this answer warrant our studying the 
 theme by starting from it, as having the pre- 
 sumption in its favor, but it shows the issue to 
 be met. The alternative presented is tremen- 
 dous. If this belief is a mistake, then Chris- 
 tianity has been involved in a stupendous error ; 
 has been, and is, fundamentally wrong. For it 
 vitiates everything else to err radically on the 
 nature of Deity. Then no feature of the gospel 
 can continue to stand as it is now held, since 
 every other part is affected by this one. Every 
 phase of objective and subjective Christianity 
 must be changed if there is error here ; and all 
 Christendom, all Christian life and thought, are 
 condemned, as fostering a delusion that is a blas- 
 phemy. On the other hand, if this view of 
 Christ is true, the denial of it is an equally stu- 
 pendous error, and is a loss that is without equal, 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 99 
 
 for it means the rejection of the vision of God 
 among men, denial that God was in Christ re- 
 conciling the world unto Himself. 
 
 In studying this subject, it will help us to as- 
 certain first how this conclusion was reached ; 
 for it is possible with little technicality of terms 
 to tell to any one the story of the process. 
 
 I call it a process, for such it was. There is 
 no doubt as to the rank that the Church from 
 the first accorded to its Lord. Christians loved 
 and adored Him, sung praises and uttered pray- 
 ers to Him, declared in their simple services and 
 in their use of the formula of baptism, their 
 ascription to Him of supreme lordship. But, 
 very naturally, this belief entered into their life 
 before they asked and thought how it was true. 
 They did not at first labor at the question, how 
 can He be such ? How is this lordship to be 
 harmonized with the truth about the unity of 
 deity ? But they were compelled to labor at it 
 very soon. From without and from within came 
 the question and answers, accompanied by ex- 
 planations which had to be weighed, and either 
 approved or condemned. One person or sect 
 after another had its hypothesis, and each had to 
 be scrutinized, whether it were allowable, accord- 
 ing to the criteria that must control. So, by a 
 process of exclusion of inadmissible explanations, 
 and of adoption of necessary steps in advance, 
 the Church came, at length, to formulate its defi- 
 nition of what it understood by the formula of 
 
100 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 baptism, In the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and of what it 
 meant by Christ being the Son of God : that 
 doctrine to which it has clung so unalterably 
 ever since, and which is the one indestructible 
 thing in the changes and revolutions of Chris- 
 tian history. 
 
 Some tell us that the matter cannot be viewed 
 in this way ; that it must be settled by the New 
 Testament alone ; that this belief can stand upon 
 no other ground. Some say so who believe the 
 doctrine in question, and, undervaluing the think- 
 ing and authority of the Church, assert that they 
 find it in the Scriptures sufficiently defined. It 
 is a pity that the early Christians could not find 
 it so definitely expressed there, for it would soon 
 have put an end to controversy, and averted the 
 necessity of Councils. It would also have ren- 
 dered any words superfluous in the Creed be- 
 yond the quotation of some such texts. 
 
 To another class of objectors, who say that 
 we must give texts for our doctrine or not expect 
 them to accept this belief of Christendom, we 
 reply that we regard ourselves, and them, bound 
 to accept plain inferences from sufficient data, 
 and that necessary correlation of them which 
 holy thinking has made evident. We admit that 
 no words can be put on the lips of people, as 
 of divine obligation, that are not from divine 
 sources ; and, conversely, we insist that it is rea- 
 sonable to expect acceptance of a definition based 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 1 01 
 
 upon divine foundations so directly as is that of 
 the Church's faith. 
 
 For the truth is that the New Testament con- 
 tains facts and statements that can lead to no 
 other definition of Christ than the one which 
 Christendom reached, and by which it abides, 
 while it may contain no specific texts that suf- 
 ficed to settle controversy between those who took 
 different ground in interpreting the sacred writ- 
 ings. Some phraseology was needed, as the inter- 
 pretation of Scripture and the expression of the 
 meaning of faith in Jesus Christ, which would be 
 unmistakable, to which Christendom would cling, 
 and to which all must assent who would speak 
 for the Church and claim its indorsement for 
 their teaching. Let us now trace the process 
 more in detail. 
 
 The standard by which Christian thought 
 guided itself in this steering between conflicting 
 views is, of course, to be noticed at the outset. 
 It was not so simple as some appear to imagine. 
 The object was to think rightly, both of Christ 
 and of Deity, and to avoid thinking wrongly. 
 To this end, the Church had the utterances of 
 Christ Himself, and of His Apostles regarding 
 Him, both directly and indirectly bearing upon 
 the theme. The former are immediate assertions 
 of His rank, the latter are statements regarding 
 the relation in which His people are to stand to- 
 wards Him, as the object of trust and homage. 
 
 This teaching came down by tradition received 
 
102 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 from those who had heard Him, and embodied in 
 the life of Christianity. It came in the worship, 
 the services of the Church. It came in the Sac- 
 raments. These last certainly conveyed a very 
 distinct idea as to the position which Jesus was 
 to be accorded in Christendom, and therefore it 
 was a fundamental idea, not one of later initia- 
 tion. The teaching also came in Apostolic writ- 
 ings, which, as we shall see, though not yet so 
 exclusively relied upon as they came to be later, 
 still contained enough to guide thought when it 
 would meet foes without, and error within the 
 fold. 
 
 All this at once excluded any idea that Jesus 
 was merely a man. There was a slight attempt 
 to give such an explanation of Him, called Ebion- 
 ism. It was the view of some Jewish Christians, 
 who could not abandon their conceptions of God, 
 and thought that any ascription of divine rank 
 to Jesus conflicted with Monotheism. They re- 
 garded Him as the Messiah, who was miracu- 
 lously born, rose from the dead, was sinless and 
 perfectly inspired, yet only a man of miracle. 
 It may be worth noting, in passing, that no Chris- 
 tians ever held any lower view. Some, outside 
 the pale, heathens and Jews, affirmed that he 
 was only a Jew born of wedlock, though unu- 
 sually good and gifted ; but no Christian, none 
 who regarded Him as Master or Lord, did so, as 
 no one ever can, for it is absurd so to regard such 
 a Jesus. Yet these few Ebionites, who did make 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? IO3 
 
 Him a Saviour, denied Him to be of more than 
 human rank ; said that He was miraculous, yet a 
 creature. But this view did not spread nor live. 
 It was confined to a few among the Jews. It 
 had no foothold at all among the Gentiles, for it 
 was seen to be incompatible with the utterances 
 of Jesus, with the teachings of Apostles, and 
 with anything like that trust or adoration of 
 Him which had been the very characteristic of 
 Christianity from the beginning. We must never 
 lose sight of this, that primitive Christianity, 
 instead of holding that our Lord was but human, 
 however extraordinary, repudiated the idea, as 
 not to be entertained for an instant, in the pres- 
 ence of what was known about Him and His 
 work, as soon as a sect arose from Jewish preju- 
 dices to maintain it ; and this sect found no place, 
 and died out in a few years. It has been so ever 
 since. This conception of Christ was resusci- 
 tated in recent times under the name of Socin- 
 ianism, but has not been able to live among 
 those that pretend to believe in Him as in any 
 sense a Redeemer. It has had on its side ear- 
 nest and gifted men, and has had in its favor a 
 seeming simplification of great problems, yet no 
 Church, no sect, has adopted it. It has not been 
 able to form a sect for itself that remains Chris- 
 tian, in the real sense, and has gained no foot- 
 hold in the Church of baptized and believing peo- 
 ple. It is found to be so incompatible with the 
 very nature of Christian discipleship, so conflict- 
 
104 WH0 WAS J ESUS CHRIST? 
 
 ing with the needs of religion instead of supply- 
 ing them, that religious people will have none of 
 it. As unreligious men do not care for it, since 
 they have no reason to ask that even this much 
 be accorded to Jesus, this conception of Him, a 
 friendless applicant for admission into human 
 thought, is again disappearing into the region of 
 inadmissible speculations, as it did when every 
 door was closed upon it seventeen centuries ago. 
 
 So it is a fact that the thought of the Church, 
 as soon as it began to think, had really no other 
 problem to deal with than this, — how can Christ 
 be God manifest in the flesh ? All agreed, save 
 the unimportant few, that divine rank belongs to 
 Him, according to the nature of Christianity and 
 its fundamental positions. But the issue how 
 that is to be defined had to be met. Various re- 
 plies were suggested, and many conflicting ones, 
 all claiming apostolic authority and Scripture 
 teaching in their behalf, and Christians had to 
 settle which were allowable and which were not, 
 in view of loyalty to Him, to their conscience, 
 and to God. 
 
 One reply suggested was that He was God 
 and nothing else, that His humanity was a mere 
 phantasm, that His apparently human expe- 
 riences, such as being touched, being weary, 
 rejoicing, suffering and being crucified, were only 
 semblances. This was called Docetism, or the 
 hypothesis of semblance. Perhaps this was the 
 greatest danger that the Church ever met. It 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 105 
 
 spread so rapidly that at times, in the second or 
 third century, if the list of the baptized had 
 been polled, it would probably have had the 
 majority. This is a very significant fact. It 
 shows how untrue it is to say that the Church 
 by a gradual process made a man into a God. 
 It shows that the original impression made by 
 Jesus was such that His disciples tended at the 
 first to deny that He was human at all; that 
 they who lived nearest to Him had, not the 
 greater, but the less, realization of His manhood ; 
 and that the work of thinking and leading minds 
 had to be that of persuading the mass of people 
 that He was really man. That is, instead of work- 
 ing up to the addition of His Godhead to His 
 Manhood, the actual process was working down, 
 against Docetic exaggeration, to the apprehen- 
 sion of his manhood : a limitation, not an exten- 
 sion, of His divinity. 
 
 One evidence of all this is seen in the Apos- 
 tles' Creed. Why was it necessary to say that 
 Christ suffered, was crucified, died and was bur- 
 ied ? Because so many denied these facts, af- 
 firming that His divinity precluded them ; and 
 those passages were put there to prevent Chris- 
 tians being misled into the denial of our Lord's 
 humanity. They record the fact that, while dis- 
 belief in His deity had never yet endangered the 
 Church, this error so nearly swamped it at its 
 birth that the Creed had to be so shaped as to 
 combat it. 
 
106 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 It became clear that Docetism was untenable. 
 All that believers knew of Christ, by Scripture 
 and tradition and common sense, all that others 
 who had seen Him told them, made it certain 
 that He was human as any one else ; and conse- 
 quently the question arose, how the divine in Him 
 could be maintained while asserting His human- 
 ity. And this cost the keenest conflicts that have 
 ever been known in the history of human thought, 
 the acutest discussions ever pursued about deep 
 things. 
 
 There were two principal views or hypotheses 
 advanced, between which Christian thought had 
 to find some middle ground that it could stand 
 upon. 
 
 One was that view, very widely and acutely 
 urged, called Sabellianism, after its chief expo- 
 nent. It said that Christ was, in an indiscrimi- 
 nating sense, God, the full manifestation of all 
 that can be predicated of deity. Some held that 
 He whom we call Father is the Eternal, personal 
 deity, looked at as the source of all being ; then, 
 as manifested in the work of Christ, we call Him 
 Son ; and in the work of the Holy Spirit we call 
 Him by that third name. Others, and most of 
 the advocates of this opinion, said that deity is 
 originally not personal at all, but only the imper- 
 sonal absolute, and that Christ is, as is also the 
 Father, one of the three personal forms that this 
 absolute One assumes in succession. That is, all 
 this school taught that the Triunity in God is 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 107 
 
 not a real threefoldness, but only one of mani- 
 festation, — three masks through which He looks 
 out among us, who Himself is unitarian, not 
 complex in any sense or manner. This theory 
 had two leading difficulties. One was that, if 
 Christ revealed God as threefold, then He must 
 be threefold, or the revelation does not reveal the 
 truth about Him. If anything is true of the 
 Gospel, it is that it represents God as Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost. If He is not such, but 
 only is manifested as such, then we are no wiser 
 than before ; on the contrary, we have been mis- 
 led. The other difficulty is that Christ, instead 
 of confusing Himself with the Father or the 
 Holy Ghost, always distinguishes between Them 
 and Himself, is sent by the one, and sends the 
 other. These objections led the Church to see 
 that Sabellianism was no relief, and not a per- 
 missible hypothesis, in the discussion how Christ 
 could be God while there is yet but one true 
 God. 
 
 It would seem plausible to say then that, if 
 Christ must not be confused with the Father, 
 nor made synonymous with deity, there is no 
 alternative but to hold that He must be distin- 
 guished from real deity ; that, though all the 
 homage and worship accorded Him may and 
 must be continued, He is yet to be excluded 
 from actual Godhead. This was what Arius 
 and his party affirmed. In the interest of what 
 Christianity clearly demanded, they admitted 
 
108 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 that He was not of human or angelic rank, but 
 higher than all, and fit to be accorded supreme 
 honors and titles ; yet they held that He is not 
 God as the Father is ; He is dependent, not self- 
 existent. They argued for this theory, not 
 merely upon the basis of its being the only alter- 
 native to Sabellianism, but from the name " Son 
 of God," affirming that if He is Son, then, how- 
 ever exalted, He is yet not of equal exaltation 
 with the Father, and could not be ; He must be 
 other than the Eternal. But this had greater 
 difficulties than the theory it would supplant. 
 
 It made Christ a creature, however highly ex- 
 alted, and therefore unfit to be adored, unwar- 
 ranted in claiming that allegiance and that hom- 
 age which Christians give Him, and which was 
 the original relationship in which He placed Him- 
 self to His people. It also made one divine who 
 was not actually such. It gave us a godlike God. 
 This is polytheism, after all ; and Christians 
 would not allow that any one but the Eternal 
 could be partaker of the divine characteristics. 
 It also leads to this dilemma : if Christ is not 
 true God, then He cannot reveal God, for only 
 God can reveal God. It was claimed by Arian- 
 ism that Christ did this, yet it is difficult to see 
 why we need make Him more than a mere man 
 if we do not concede His deity, since the most 
 exalted creature is no more capable of revealing 
 God than the humblest ; and so the assistance 
 rendered to the problem by Arianism is only 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? IO9 
 
 imaginary. This has been so fully perceived by 
 others since, that an attempt to revive Arianism 
 has fallen dead in this century. It has no ad- 
 vantage over the complete denial of Christ's 
 divinity ; it does not relieve the difficulty any 
 more than its rival, Sabellianism. The latter can 
 square with some features of our Lord's story, 
 and some of His utterances. The former is in 
 hopeless conflict with all that He said and 
 claimed. The dispute which it raised turned 
 upon including or excluding an iota in a Greek 
 word, which makes all the difference between 
 saying that the Son was the same as God, or 
 only like God ; and some, following Gibbon, have 
 sneered at so much controversy over a letter. 
 But that is true which Froude reports Carlyle as 
 saying, that, though he once likewise sneered at 
 the dispute as unimportant, he yet came to see, 
 at last, that in that iota Christianity itself was at 
 stake. If Arius had won, he adds, Christianity 
 would have dwindled away into a legend. For 
 this was the issue : Was the Gospel a communi- 
 cation and a redemption made by a creature, or 
 by our God ? If the former, it had no reason to 
 claim enduring supremacy ; it contained no war- 
 rant for our trust. 
 
 But now there seemed to be a deadlock, if 
 Christ was not the same as the Father, nor yet 
 different in rank and nature. To the many, 
 there seemed no third alternative. What is to 
 be done? they asked. Is it possible that room 
 
HO WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 for Christ's deity can be found in the idea of 
 God ? Yes, said the thoughtful mind of the 
 Christian Church, under the lead of such peer- 
 less men as Origen and Athanasius, it can. 
 
 What is the true conception of God ? It is 
 not the heathen idea of an impersonal absolute, 
 nor as some arbitrary speculators, reasoning 
 partly from Judaism, but chiefly from philosoph- 
 ical assumptions, affirm, that of a monad, a sim- 
 ple, unitarian being. It is the conception of the 
 Eternal One as having a threefold, complex life. 
 This is the only way in which God is made 
 known in the Gospel. It is the form of His 
 name into which we are to be baptized. It is 
 the way in which He is spoken of, in all the New 
 Testament, by Jesus and His Apostles. So the 
 thought of Him is not exhausted when we say 
 Father ; and, as would seem obvious, if words 
 have any meaning, the Son is not only like the 
 Father, but of the same rank in the scale of 
 being, and must be of the same nature : not 
 created, but divine. 
 
 It was then seen that the only conception of 
 God given to us in revelation is that of unity in 
 threefoldness, and that thus the deity of Christ, 
 which had to be conceded if He rightly claimed 
 our homage, could be affirmed without making 
 Him identical with the Father or the Holy Ghost. 
 In this way the dilemma is solved which other- 
 wise would be hopeless indeed. 
 
 This result and conclusion were formally an- 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? Ill 
 
 nounced at the Council of Nice in 325, which 
 did not claim to create the fact, or add a doctrine 
 to the faith ; but did claim, as against contending 
 parties, that the Christian idea of God is such 
 that each of the Three is to be regarded as 
 really divine, that all Three form the completed 
 definition of the Eternal One, and that thus the 
 Church's Lord was the incarnation of the Sec- 
 ond in the undivided divine Unity of the Three. 
 
 And this doctrine of the Trinity has stood 
 ever since, permanent in Christianity. Reforma- 
 tions and schisms and sects have not shaken it 
 in the belief of Christians. People have given 
 it up, when giving up Christianity, but, with in- 
 significant exceptions, they have not done so 
 while believing in Christ as a Saviour. The rea- 
 son is, of course, that no Christian will be con- 
 tent with a Saviour that is less than divine, nor 
 concede Christ to be less than He claims ; while 
 he will neither confound Him with the Father 
 nor the Sanctifier, for the distinction between 
 them is obviously necessary to the religious 
 mind. This indestructibility amid such divisions 
 on other points would seem to be evidence of 
 its truth. At any rate, it has been shown that 
 there can be no Christianity without it that can 
 work or endure. 
 
 And we see how this doctrine was reached, a 
 matter about which there is much confusion of 
 thought. It did not come from metaphysical 
 speculation that, as some tell us, conquered the 
 
112 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 Church when it gave up piety for philosophy. 
 Nor did it come from exaggerated use of isolated 
 texts. It was the result of a process of inquiry, 
 — How is it that Christ is really our Lord and 
 worthy of our adoration ? Which led to asking, 
 What is God revealed to be in the Gospel ? That 
 is, study disclosed the truth which has ever since 
 been accepted, that God as revealed to us is three- 
 fold in His being. 
 
 What reason have we for disputing this ? One 
 who does so must claim that he knows what God 
 is, apart from His revelation of Himself. This 
 is the claim of some, by virtue of which they 
 reject our belief and teach that He is unitarian 
 in His life. But how do they know that their 
 idea is right ? It has no authority. It has never 
 been held by any religion in the world. All reli- 
 gious belief apart from Christianity and its fore- 
 runner, the faith of Israel, and the religion of 
 Mahomet derived therefrom, has been pantheistic 
 or polytheistic. The only conception that has 
 any value for us is that which He has given us, 
 for we only know God according to what He tells 
 us of Himself, and what is told us is that He is 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, not any one of 
 these alone. This is the sole way in which He 
 is presented to us in the Gospel, by Jesus or His 
 Apostles, and there is no foundation for the 
 unitarian idea but the philosophical speculation 
 of a Great First Cause, which indeed God is, 
 but which is not the God the Christian worships 
 and loves. 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 1 1 3 
 
 But is it verifiable ? Is this doctrine, which is 
 so inseparable from the Incarnation, more than 
 a result of pious logic ? Can it be shown to be 
 necessary, to candid minds ? These are reasona- 
 ble questions, and Christian thinkers have always 
 replied that they can be met to the satisfaction 
 of the religious conscience. We do not dwell 
 upon metaphysical arguments, such as that God 
 cannot be conceived of, either as a thinking or as 
 a loving being, save as a Trinity in Unity. There 
 is force in these arguments. Beyond question, 
 they are unanswerable. As to the former, a 
 thinking being becomes complex in his life by 
 the very fact of self-consciousness. That is, to 
 those who say that God is unitarian, we reply 
 that neither a divine personality nor any other 
 ever did or can live a unitarian life. It is an 
 impossibility to intelligent existence. Panthe- 
 ism has some philosophical plausibility. Uni- 
 tarianism has none whatever. As opposed to the 
 latter, it is obvious that if God is loving He must 
 have within Himself an object of love, or else He 
 was not actually loving until creation came into 
 being ; unless the world was eternal, as some 
 admit in order to avoid the dilemma. 
 
 Again, look at it in this way. God is love. 
 This will be disputed by no one with whom we 
 are now concerned. If, then, He is loving, He 
 must act accordingly and do deeds of love. But 
 how can this be, unless He is in some way so 
 constituted that it is possible for Him to come, 
 
114 WH0 WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 or speak, or act towards us ? A God so consti- 
 tuted that it is impossible that there be in Him 
 that which we call the Son or the Holy Spirit, 
 is reduced to a God who has in Him nothing by 
 virtue of which He can do more than, at the 
 most, feel love without any practical display of 
 it. That is, the denial of the Trinity means to 
 the Church a denial of that conception of God 
 which makes goodness and mercy possible, and 
 renders Him a self-contained being, with no 
 characteristics by which He can enter into rela- 
 tions outside of Himself. 
 
 Or, look at it in another light. Is your salva- 
 tion, is your sanctification, as well your creation, 
 the work of God or of a creature ? The reli- 
 gious heart cannot admit the latter ; it is revolt- 
 ing. But, if revelation through the Son, and 
 sanctification through the Holy Ghost, are divine 
 works, then they must be effected by divine 
 agents, that is, God must be such that He can 
 be to us Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. If He 
 can be to us these three, He must be threefold. 
 Call it three persons, or what you will, threefold 
 operation means a threefold line of self-determi- 
 nation in God. 
 
 Do we understand this doctrine ? No one 
 claims to do so who is to be respected for his 
 judgment. We do not, and never can, know the 
 inner life of God. But this we do know, that 
 He has manifested Himself as a Trinity, and 
 that we must cling thereto, or else ascribe our 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 1 1 5 
 
 redemption and spiritual life to creatures. And 
 all we mean is, that God is so constituted that, 
 while One, He can yet be and is Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, in fact as well as in semblance. 
 
 Do not some hold this who say they are not 
 in accord with the Church, and will not use the 
 word " Trinity " ? Probably, yes. And, if any one 
 does hold it, he holds what the Church means 
 and is aiming at, the divine character of redemp- 
 tion and regeneration. That he shrinks from 
 using the Church's words and creeds is usually 
 due to imagining that they imply what extrava- 
 gances have made of them. He may not, be- 
 cause of misapprehension, see, with the Church, 
 that these show really the nature of God ; but 
 he grants the Church's essential demands who 
 ascribes to God alone the glory of the rescue and 
 sanctifi cation of this world, and we can only re- 
 gret his not using the Church's language. 
 
 So much for the doctrine of the Trinity. We 
 had to deal with it in asking who is Jesus Christ, 
 for, if He is " God manifest in the flesh," it can 
 only be because, as the Gospel indicates, the na- 
 ture of God renders this a possibility. And we 
 see how it is not the weakness of Christianity, 
 as some say, but its strength, and is that idea 
 of God which makes the Gospel good news and a 
 treasure to mankind, the idea which alone gives 
 us a God who can love and can be loved. 
 
 But now let us revert to the main issue acrain. 
 Some may ask whether, if the deity of Christ 
 
Il6 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 necessitates the Trinity in God, the former is 
 sufficiently assured to base upon it such a fact ? 
 The Church reached this belief, as we have seen, 
 from the premiss that its Lord and Founder was 
 divine. Can that be satisfactorily shown to us, 
 critical and candid men ? This is a fair question, 
 and is entitled to an answer. 
 
 We may answer that He claimed to be divine. 
 Of this it is difficult to see any reasonable denial, 
 when it is understood. We will not now con- 
 sider texts, but consider the attitude which He 
 takes before men, and that which He expects men 
 to take before Him. He asks allegiance, love, 
 trust, homage. He presents Himself always as 
 expecting us so to bear ourselves towards Him. 
 That is claiming divinity ; for no one has a right 
 to ask this, nor any reason to expect it to be 
 granted, upon any other basis. He thus assumes 
 the relation that only God should, or ever will, 
 receive from unsuperstitious men. But, some 
 will say, He calls us to Himself, as other teach- 
 ers do, that He may lead us to God. But other 
 teachers have never done this as He did, claim- 
 ing adoration and the heart's surrender. No one, 
 no false prophet or true friend of man, has ever 
 said, " Come unto me and I will give you rest." 
 It would mean attracting humanity away from 
 its only rest, enslaving it in a dangerous and 
 wicked dependence upon another than its Lord. 
 That is, if Christ is not God, He has not only 
 demanded what no other has dared to demand, 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? WJ 
 
 but He has been the great power in history to 
 draw the world away from its God, to lean upon 
 another stay and another trust. 
 
 But it nicy still be said that more is needed to 
 satisfy us that Christ is God. Not only must it 
 be proven to us, we must ourselves see it, be- 
 fore we can be expected to believe it. True, we 
 should not, and cannot, feel sure of anything 
 until we see it for ourselves. That is the prin- 
 ciple of these lectures. 
 
 The question comes down, then, to this, Do 
 we see that Jesus Christ is God ? If He is, He 
 must plainly appear to be such. Perhaps we 
 must first, before settling this question, settle 
 what God is, so as to ascertain what He would 
 look like, did we see Him on earth, under the 
 form of humanity. 
 
 What is God essentially ? What makes Him 
 God ? What is that which constitutes His glory, 
 His supremacy, His splendor, and secures the 
 adoration of His creatures? Of course this, 
 whatever it is, must be seen in any alleged in- 
 carnation, for His creatures could not recognize 
 Him unless this divine glory, this which marks 
 off the difference between Him and them, were 
 perceptible. What is this ? 
 
 Is it omnipotent power, superiority to limita- 
 tions and incapacities, all-conquering and resist- 
 less might ? If this is what makes Him God, 
 then surely we do not see it in Jesus, the often 
 weary, thwarted, tortured, crucified One ; and 
 then He is not God. 
 
Il8 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 Is the glory of God His wisdom ? Is He es- 
 sentially omniscience ? Does that constitute His 
 divine isolation ? If so, then, as we certainly do 
 not see this in Jesus, who not only shows but 
 affirms His limitations, saying there are things 
 that He knows not, He may be denied to be the 
 divine Incarnation. 
 
 Is that glory, again, His state of majesty and 
 splendor? Is He who is enthroned, known and 
 regarded as God by the creatures who surround 
 Him, because of the ineffable light that dazzles, 
 or the accessories of dominion that awe ? If so, 
 then, surely we do not see this in the humble 
 Jesus, who was so approachable, so lowly, so un- 
 feared ; and where the glory of God is lacking, 
 there cannot be the vision of God. 
 
 That is, if, proceeding from these assumptions, 
 one tell us that the appearance of God would 
 mean such a vision as they would lead to ; that, 
 to see God incarnate, he must see a resplendent, 
 stately, all-wise, invincible person, one who would 
 cast into the shade, by these features, all the 
 heroes and sages and monarchs of history, — we 
 can only admit that, by this test, Jesus Christ can- 
 not be proven to be divine. But we can fancy 
 another replying — yes, there are many who do 
 reply to the question, What would you expect to 
 see if you saw God among men ? — in this way : I 
 should not expect to see that splendor and might, 
 for I could not be sure that the possessor of it 
 was my God. Some angel, or some Lucifer, 
 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 1 1 9 
 
 might assume a majesty that would dazzle me, 
 and display a power that would awe me, and so 
 such things would not prove the presence of 
 my God. But, to be sure of seeing Him, to have 
 a disclosure of His presence that would leave 
 no room for doubt that it is He, I should expect 
 His Incarnation to be the manifestation of a 
 heart, a character, that would be unmistakably 
 divine. So I should expect to see a goodness 
 such as earth had never known, a holiness such 
 as had been found in no creature. I should ex- 
 pect to see a love that is all-embracing, and 
 never discouraged ; a patience that never falters 
 even under ingratitude, cruelty, and death. That 
 is what I should expect to behold, for what 
 makes Him God to me is the infinite love that 
 isolates Him. That is the basis of His domin- 
 ion. On that His throne reposes. Because of 
 that the worlds adore Him. That is God's glory. 
 Power and wisdom and state are but the trap- 
 pings of His majesty, the garments that kingli- 
 ness puts on. And just as a king may lay aside 
 the robes and state of royalty to go on some 
 errand of mercy, and be no less a king because 
 retaining his kingly heart and kingly rank, so 
 could the Eternal Son discard the paraphernalia 
 of His splendor, and be no less divine, when He 
 would come in lowlier guise to rescue and recall 
 a world. 
 
 Would not this reply be true ? As you bow 
 before God, and serve Him with humble heart 
 
120 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 and bated breath, then you think of Him as the 
 One before whom angels veil their faces and the 
 very heavens are not clean, as the One entitled 
 to the lordship of all that lives, do you not know 
 and feel that you do so because of what He is ; 
 not because of His power or greatness, but be- 
 cause of His fathomless love, His infinite, per- 
 fect goodness ? You must do so, if you know 
 true godliness among men. 
 
 If this be so, it is that which we are to look for 
 when we look for God. This is what we should 
 expect in an incarnation, the display in human 
 conditions of the divine character Is not this 
 seen in Jesus Christ ? Surely it is visible to all, 
 that in Him are a character, and a personality, 
 that are not creaturely, but divine. If perfect 
 loveliness is the glory of God, we see " the glory 
 of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 
 
 And we see it nowhere else. There have 
 been good men, but no infinite goodness. There 
 have been lives that showed kind hearts, but 
 none that showed such a kindness as can sit upon 
 the throne of the universe. There have been 
 godlike men, but none among them was a God- 
 Man. We see the glory of God in no Socrates, 
 nor John, nor Caesar, nor Buddha. In all history 
 we see the divine in the human, only and solely 
 in the person and career of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 And so we come back to the question that we 
 set out to answer : How is Jesus Christ visibly 
 and perceptibly God ? And we reply that we 
 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 121 
 
 know Him to be such because He looks like God, 
 is what God is. The assertion of His deity is 
 strange to some only because they start with a 
 wrong conception of deity, and then tell us He 
 does not meet it. But it does not at all appear 
 strange to those who start from the true and 
 high idea of God. To them, who have grown out 
 of low conceptions of greatness and gained more 
 elevated apprehensions of majesty, of moral, per- 
 sonal splendor, it needs no proof of texts, nor 
 Church authority, to make us believe that God 
 was in Christ, for it is plain and manifest. It 
 may be, it is, true that what some people may 
 mean by God is not incarnate in Him ; but what 
 the Christian means is there. The God we wor- 
 ship, the God whom we have in mind in the utter- 
 ance of that name, that is what we see in Jesus. 
 To us, through those eyes looks out the divine 
 mind, through those lips speaks the divine heart, 
 that life in all its parts, its lowliest as its most 
 glorious moments, shows to us God as we believe 
 in Him. Yes, in its greatest apparent antithe- 
 sis to divinity, the divinity of that life is most ap- 
 parent. If the heart is what is most divine in 
 God, and if the character of Jesus is what shows 
 the unapproachable and uncreated majesty that 
 marks Him, then never was Jesus so divine, 
 never does His deity so shine out, as when that 
 goodness went farthest, and was most tried in 
 suffering; when that love was most displayed in 
 sacrifice for the sins of the world. That tender- 
 
122 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 ness was most superhuman when He died for 
 those who scorned Him ; when those cheeks 
 were wet with tears, and that brow was stained 
 with blood ; when those eyes looked out from 
 beneath the crown of thorns, when that face was 
 wan and worn with the night of agony, then do 
 we see supremely " the glory of God in the face 
 of Jesus Christ." 
 
 But some may still say, How can God become 
 man ? We do not nakedly affirm this ; we say 
 that God showed Himself through humanity, 
 that, in our Lord, God the Son lived humanly. 
 Well, how can this be ? 
 
 This objection is only another form of the one 
 just referred to, based upon a mistaken concep- 
 tion of God, and adds thereto an equally erro- 
 neous conception of humanity. 
 
 Some evidently imagine that the Incarnation 
 means the compression of an infinitely big or 
 great being into the narrow compass of human- 
 ity. But God is not to be thought of as having 
 any extensiveness or bigness : He is a Spirit, and 
 spirits have no more size than color. If this is 
 not in the mind, of course, incarnation seems 
 impossible and absurd, for no sensible man can 
 admit or imagine that one whose infinitude is 
 that of extensiveness was made known in Jesus, 
 or can be made known, in any way, to men or 
 angels. 
 
 But realize that God's infinitude is intensive, 
 not extensive ; is that of quality, not quantity ; 
 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 1 23 
 
 realize that it is perfectness, not measureless- 
 ness ; that a limitless personality does not mean 
 one that is of endless extent, but of infinite good- 
 ness, — and then the question is, not whether 
 the infinitely great can contract itself into the 
 compass of a human soul and its life, but whether 
 the unlimitedly perfect One can show Himself 
 through the instrumentality of a human life. Is 
 human nature, or is it not, capable of being the 
 channel of God's displaying Himself to His 
 creatures in His true glory ? That it is so, is 
 evident, if you conceive aright what that nature 
 was made for. It was made to show forth char- 
 acter. Now, why cannot a humanity, a soul, 
 properly prepared, as was that of Jesus, be capa- 
 ble of showing forth a perfect, that is, a divine, 
 character ? A musician can express his thought, 
 his life, in no ordinary piece of wood or metal, 
 but, if he finds one prepared, an instrument that 
 is fit, he can through it show forth the harmonies 
 of his mental creation. So, while other natures, 
 or created things, may not be such, human na- 
 ture is, by its very constitution, adapted to show 
 forth the life, the thought, of our Maker. Or 
 look at it in this way. Every soul is like a lens 
 through which we can see some rays of the light 
 of goodness. It was intended to be such. Why 
 may there not be one, suitably originated and 
 shaped, which could focus and show all the glory 
 of the sunshine, transmit all the rays of full- 
 orbed, holy love ? It is difficult to see why, if 
 
124 lvno WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 human life is meant to express indwelling char- 
 acter or personality, there may not be a life, prop- 
 erly begotten, in which should be expressed the 
 indwelling character or personality of God. 
 
 Now, it only remains to ask, Was the life of 
 Jesus such ? We have answered this by say- 
 ing, Yes, the life of Jesus was the life of God 
 under human conditions, as manifestly as can be 
 conceived. He said He was God. He acted 
 as God. He put Himself into relations that 
 God can alone bear to the world. He looks like 
 God. 
 
 Suppose a creature, however highly exalted, 
 were to be incarnate, do you think he would act 
 as Jesus did, or speak as He did, or make the 
 impression He made ? We should find a con- 
 scious inferiority to the Highest. But here we 
 find none. We should find humility before God. 
 But here is one who says : " I and my Father 
 are one." We should find dependence upon the 
 Creator ; but here we hear One saying : " I am 
 the Life." No, he knows not how creatures must 
 act, knows not how holy creatures do act, in the 
 presence of the Creator, who says that the bear- 
 ing of Christ was that of one of them. 
 
 Thus, strange as it may seem to some, and 
 difficult to believe to the mere philosopher or to 
 the heathen, it is not strange to the Christian, 
 has not seemed strange to the Church, to believe 
 in the Incarnation. It is a necessity to those 
 who know what God is like, it is the irresistible 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 1 25 
 
 testimony to the very senses, and the only ver- 
 dict of common sense. Not because others tell 
 us so, but because it is a patent fact to us, with 
 our educated conceptions of Deity, we live, and 
 expect to die, by the belief that those hands that 
 touched the suffering of old, and that lifted up 
 the fallen, were the ministers of a divine pity ; 
 that the words that brought that illumination 
 to the world, which has lighted it up ever since, 
 were from a divine mind ; that the promises which 
 have been the stay and peace of generations were 
 the promises of a divine power ; that the holiness 
 of the life that met the demands of justice in the 
 place of imperfect lives was the holiness of the 
 Son of God ; that the sacrifice which made atone- 
 ment for the race's guilt was the sacrifice of the 
 Lord Himself for those who had ruined them- 
 selves by sin ; that the resurrection which opened 
 the gates of immortality was the triumph of one 
 who had in Him the power of an endless life ; 
 and that the ascension from Olivet was the In- 
 carnate Word assuming forevermore His throne. 
 The Christian Church, the body of believers, have 
 decided that this is Christianity, its power, its 
 value, its essence, that without which any system 
 is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Does not this Catholic faith land us in seem- 
 ing contradictions and insoluble difficulties ? Cer- 
 tainly it does. We cannot explain the relation- 
 ship of the Persons in the Trinity to the Unity, 
 nor that of the Incarnate Son to the divine es- 
 
1 26 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 sence. But what of it ? We are everywhere 
 surrounded by the inexplicable, and every man 
 who thinks has to hold what the great thinker 
 taught us to call the antinomies. Belief in God 
 in any form, in His care, in His eternity, leads 
 us to contrasts or apparent antagonisms that 
 human thought can never harmonize ; includes 
 factors which cannot be reduced to any formula. 
 Christianity, as Butler showed, has no difficulty 
 of this kind that does not equally beset philoso- 
 phy. What are we to do ? One course is to stop 
 thinking, to ignore the whole matter, and accept 
 agnostic confessions of mental impotence from 
 the very beginning. We cannot, we will not, do 
 this. It is as wrong as it is vain to expect that 
 an extinguisher upon mental activity will be sub- 
 mitted to. Another course is to sacrifice one 
 horn of the dilemma to the other. So have some 
 done with Christ. Some have denied His divin- 
 ity, others His humanity, in order to solve the 
 problem and gain simplicity. Of course, any 
 problem can be solved if one is at liberty. to sup- 
 press troublesome factors, but it is hardly wise, 
 or the way to a satisfactory result. The third 
 course is to act as we do every day in common 
 life, — to recognize all the evident factors and go 
 without a solution if it cannot be reached with- 
 out denying some of them. This is what Chris- 
 tendom has done. It affirms that Jesus is both 
 God and man, because both are equally manifest, 
 but admits frankly that there is no formula that 
 
WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? \2J 
 
 will satisfy all the conditions, and repudiates the 
 folly of seeking relief by some statement that 
 might be simpler, but only at the cost of one or 
 more of the truths that are all of equal precious- 
 ness and importance to the believing and the 
 needy soul. 
 
 Shall we ever be better off ? Perhaps,- to some 
 degree hereafter, but we shall never understand 
 the inner life and relations of the God-Man. Only 
 God can understand His relations to the human, 
 in creation and providence ; and more obviously 
 true is it that only He can comprehend His re- 
 lations in a life lived under human conditions. 
 And so to all eternity it will be true, as Jesus 
 said : " No man knoweth the Son but the Father, 
 and no man knoweth who the Father is but the 
 Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal 
 Him." 
 
 In the roof of the apse of the Church of Santa 
 Sophia, in Constantinople, the emperor who built 
 it placed, on the gilt background of mosaic, a co- 
 lossal figure of Christ in colored stones, which, 
 with outspread hands, looked down upon the 
 worshipers. When the Moslems captured New* 
 Rome, they changed this church into a mosque, 
 and replaced this brilliant picture by new blocks 
 of golden stone or glass. But the contrast be- 
 tween the new and the older gilding was so 
 marked that it made no less distinct, though 
 colorless and dim, the outlines of the figure of 
 the Saviour. And so for centuries since the Mo- 
 
128 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 
 
 hammedans, with such imperfect views of Jesus 
 and His revelation, have been worshiping there, 
 in the presence of a shadow of Christ, and bowed 
 beneath the benediction of His outstretched arms. 
 Thus it is that, to many minds about us, there 
 has faded from the heavens over them the love- 
 liness and beauty of the Son of God. They see 
 but a Jesus who is like the world of men about 
 them, though perhaps more golden. They only 
 find in Him a shadow of what He once had been 
 to them in earlier days ; and though they may 
 not see Him in all His splendor, though they may 
 not even realize His presence, yet He bends over 
 them in blessing. But when faith comes back 
 to them, when again they rear the shrine that 
 their hearts call for, and restore the love and trust 
 that made their fathers what they were, they will 
 see Him again in all His glory, they will rein- 
 vest Him with His divine character, and over 
 them once more will they see, to their joy and 
 to their comfort, the more than rainbow-hued 
 beauty of " the image of the Invisible God." 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND ? 
 
 " The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the 
 truth." — i Tim. iii. 15. 
 
 Having seen who Jesus Christ is, we now 
 come to the question, What did He found ? What 
 did He leave behind Him ? or, what is the idea 
 of the Church ? 
 
 Here we open up a subject that has long been 
 the theme of acute and brilliant controversy upon 
 more than one issue that is involved. Let us en- 
 deavor to discuss it as simply as possible, and 
 with reference to the principal differences of 
 opinion on the subject. 
 
 And first we notice that, immediately and 
 strictly, Christ founded nothing. Some seem to 
 think differently, however, and speak of " the 
 Society that Jesus formed," as if there was such 
 a thing, which of course would then be the norm 
 for us forever. But it is difficult to see how in 
 any sense He can be said to have formed a So- 
 ciety. During His lifetime, His followers came 
 and went, walked with Him and fell away, with 
 notable fickleness ; and as to those who were 
 more intimately associated with Him, even they 
 
130 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 forsook Him in His peril. One betrayed Him, 
 their leader denied Him, and all returned after 
 His crucifixion to their homes and their pursuits. 
 Surely we cannot look at such a state of affairs 
 for the beginning of that brotherhood which has 
 done His work in the world. Such a Society, if 
 it is entitled to that name, with no organization, 
 no agreed belief, no capacity for endurance, 
 would never have been heard of again, had it 
 been the whole of the movement that Jesus ini- 
 tiated. It may have a certain attractiveness, as 
 a collection of men united by common regard for 
 Him, but it had not one of the features which 
 have marked that Church which has been a bless- 
 ing to mankind. 
 
 But, again, the Church could not be founded 
 until after He had risen from the grave, ascended, 
 and sent the Holy Spirit. They who hold the 
 view just referred to limit their idea of the 
 Church to what he initiated in His life, because 
 usually they do not believe that He did these 
 things. But, to those who do believe that the 
 grave was not the end of His career, the matter 
 presents a different aspect. To such, these sub- 
 sequent events are essential to Christianity. The 
 resurrection was of the very essence of Christ's 
 redeeming work, being the evidence of His ac- 
 cepted mediation, and the opening of that im- 
 mortal life which He came to restore to the race 
 for which He had made atonement. It makes 
 His work a gospel, since without it there would 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 131 
 
 be no reason to believe that He had not lived and 
 died in vain, nor any reversal of the all-conquer- 
 ing law of death. The gift of the Holy Ghost 
 was also needed to give that spiritual illumination 
 which was as necessary to the beginning of the 
 Gospel's spread as to its continuance. So the 
 Church could not be founded until these events 
 had taken place, of which it was to preach the 
 one in the power given by the other. 
 
 It is, then, a superficial error to speak of 
 Christ's founding the Church, as His immediate 
 act, and violates the facts in the case. We can 
 only speak of it during His life as a still future 
 thing which He expressed when He said, "I 
 will build my Church." For He did it mediately ; 
 that is, others did it at His command and in this 
 way : during His ministry, He was training se- 
 lected men, by peculiar intimacy and constant 
 instruction, for such a future task ; but chiefly 
 did this training take place in the interviews 
 after His resurrection, when, as we are told, He 
 taught them regarding the Kingdom of God, for 
 even the preceding years of intercourse could 
 not have prepared them adequately for such a 
 work. But when the series of events was fin- 
 ished for the perpetuation of which they were 
 to provide, when their training was at last com- 
 pleted, when Christ had finally withdrawn from 
 earth and the Holy Ghost came upon them, then 
 these men, called the Apostles, founded the 
 Church in accordance with the instructions re- 
 ceived. 
 
132 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 This is what we mean by saying that we be- 
 lieve in the Apostolic Church. We mean that 
 the true and real Church is that planted and 
 shaped by these men appointed thereto ; that, 
 on the one hand, we recognize as normal no 
 Christianity modeled upon any antecedent state 
 of affairs, nor, on the other, can we recognize as 
 lawful any Christianity that has arisen since. 
 To us, that is the Church which derives its ori- 
 gin from the apostolic action, and is in continu- 
 ous organic succession from it. It follows, of 
 course, that the Church must retain the charac- 
 ter and form given it by these commissioned 
 men ; that, just as that stream of Church life 
 which is legitimate must come from the apostolic 
 source, so any departure thence is a departure 
 from the foundation laid by the only men ever 
 authorized to formulate the belief or the institu- 
 tions of Christianity. No one since has ever 
 had the authority or the capacity to do this. 
 
 Now, what is this apostolic Christianity, to 
 which we are to conform, and whence alone we 
 can trace any valid ecclesiastical pedigree ? 
 
 We have not time, nor is it necessary to the 
 scope to which we limit ourselves, to define this 
 in detail. All that is proposed is, to seek its 
 polity and its creed ; about which are the princi- 
 pal divergencies between Christians at present, 
 and which also really cover other points that may 
 not at first seem to be involved. 
 
 But, before proceeding, one broad issue must 
 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 1 33 
 
 be met. It will be affirmed by many that apos- 
 tolic Christianity is that which is laid down in 
 apostolic writings, or that the New Testament is 
 the only source of learning about it, so that we 
 are shut up to its pages for the features that are 
 to mark the Church. We have already referred 
 to this principle, which is the Puritan position, 
 though it is rarely applied with consistency ; for 
 not only do they who claim it adhere to impor- 
 tant features which cannot be found explicitly in 
 the New Testament, but furthermore it is impos- 
 sible to adhere to it under the changing condi- 
 tions of succeeding ages. 
 
 For instance, to apply it rigidly would, on the 
 one hand, condemn those who fail to observe 
 such practices as the kiss of peace, the agape, or 
 love - feast before the Holy Communion, the 
 anointing of the sick, and other customs still. 
 These were clearly practiced in apostolic times, 
 according to the New Testament, and, if com- 
 plete conformity to its statements is essential, 
 consistency would require that all who advocate 
 this principle should resume them. On the other 
 hand, the rigid application of this rule would ex- 
 clude customs adhered to by those who claim to 
 follow it. Take, for instance, the practices of 
 observing Sunday instead of Saturday; of bap- 
 tizing infants ; of having services that are con- 
 ducted with sermon, prayers, and hymns, without 
 the Lord's Supper ; and the admission of women 
 to the Communion. These are by no means 
 
134 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 plainly inculcated in the New Testament. Large 
 bodies of Christians, who claim to be Bible Chris- 
 tians, reject one or more of them, which shows 
 that the matter cannot be settled on such au- 
 thority alone, and that any warrant for these 
 customs must rest upon some other argument 
 than Biblical precept. On the other hand, no 
 body of Christians either accepts or rejects them 
 all. Each body makes a selection such as suits 
 it, thereby resorting to some other criterion than 
 that of the letter of the Bible. The only sect 
 that approaches consistency is that of the Sev- 
 enth Day Baptists, which gives up infant bap- 
 tism and also Sunday observance. Others not 
 only cling to these, but also to other practices 
 that have no stronger warrant in the Scripture 
 pages. 
 
 The relation of the New Testament to these 
 practices will be seen when we come to speak of 
 the place of the Bible, but now we see that it is 
 not such as some maintain, — the only source of 
 deciding what is the fullness of apostolic Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 Nor should we expect it to be so. Consider 
 two facts. One is the origin of the New Testa- 
 ment. It is composed of letters, or books, writ- 
 ten by Apostles or their pupils after the Church 
 had been founded by oral teaching. They were 
 written during a period extending from twenty to 
 seventy years subsequent to our Lord's Ascen- 
 sion, for the purpose of instructing particular 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 1 35 
 
 churches or persons regarding points that needed 
 special treatment. Therefore it could not be ex- 
 pected that they should explicitly contain every- 
 thing that the Apostles wished to be remem- 
 bered of all that they had taught in their preach- 
 ing. Correspondence is meant to treat particu- 
 lar topics, not to include everything in the mind 
 of the writer, however important. 
 
 Again, consider this. The whole Church was 
 in its missionary stage, but some parts were 
 peculiarly undeveloped, so that, even so far as 
 passages in the New Testament are descriptive 
 of the condition of affairs at the time, they can- 
 not be shown to imply that this condition is to 
 be regarded as final. This would be like affirm- 
 ing that, from a letter of a missionary to some 
 recent converts to-day, we could infer that the 
 condition it indicated is the full realization of his 
 teaching. 
 
 All this shows that, in order to get a complete 
 idea of the principles and practices of apostolic 
 Christianity, we must add other data to the ex- 
 plicit statements that we find in the New Testa- 
 ment writings. Such are the hints or implica- 
 tions which are contained in them, and which 
 will often lead to unexpected results as regards 
 some people ; as for instance those that relate to 
 principles of ritual and government. Again, we 
 must add the evidences of apostolic teachings af- 
 forded by the literature and institutions of the 
 early Church, which cannot be explained away on 
 
136 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 the theory of corrupt or willful additions, since 
 we find them in existence too generally and too 
 soon for such a supposition to be reasonable. 
 The fruit of a tree is involved in the idea of the 
 tree, and so a feature found in churches taught 
 by apostolic men as soon as they take shape, 
 must in all reason be regarded as having been in- 
 tended by these men to be a factor in the Church 
 as they would have it develop. 
 
 This is the position of the Church of history, 
 the Church to which we belong, and our warrant 
 for the peculiarities that mark us, over against 
 the bodies of fellow-Christians that differ from 
 us. We claim, and, did the limits of this lecture 
 permit, the claim would be substantiated, that our 
 ways and principles are in conformity with that 
 picture of the Apostolic Church which is gained 
 from all the data in our possession. We do not 
 claim, that is, that we know no source for guid- 
 ance here but the written Scriptures. We be- 
 lieve we have other sources, which do not con- 
 flict with Biblical indications, but are harmonious 
 with them. As has been said, our opponents all 
 act upon the same principle in this or that re- 
 spect. We only claim to be consistent, and to 
 extend the principle in a reasonable way, and to 
 a proper degree. 
 
 But we may now dwell upon only the more 
 fundamental features of that Apostolic Chris- 
 tianity by which the Gospel received from Christ 
 was to be perpetuated through the ages to come. 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUXD ? 1 37 
 
 These are, the organization of Christians in a 
 Church for the promotion of the Gospel and of 
 mutual edification, with the right to legislate to 
 these ends as expediency should demand, united 
 by a ministry perpetuated through its highest 
 order, and on the basis of a creed of accepted 
 gospel facts. The Roman Catholic adds sub- 
 mission to the Pope as an element of the Apos- 
 tolic Church, the argument being that such has 
 been the growth of Christianity. The reply is, 
 that it has been the growth in that part of Chris- 
 tendom under that particular see, and unknown 
 elsewhere ; therefore it is as local and as uncath- 
 olic as the Congregationalism of New England 
 or the Presbyterianism of Scotland ; and those 
 now addressed are supposed to need no refuta- 
 tion of its claims. 
 
 Until recently, it was not disputed that the 
 Church is organized and united through its min- 
 istry. But, about two hundred years ago, there 
 arose in England a view which has obtained some 
 currency in that country and America, being the 
 theory of the Congregationalists, Unitarians, 
 Universalists, and Baptists, often modified, how- 
 ever, in practice. This position, so new and so 
 local in Christendom, is that in the Church the 
 only general bond of union is that invisible, and 
 undoubtedly supreme one, of common relation- 
 ship to Christ ; that the only organization is 
 that of each several congregation, which has the 
 power of appointing the ministry, and can be 
 
I 3 8 WHA T DID CHRIST FO UND ? 
 
 subjected to no other laws than its own. This is 
 the theory of Independency, or so-called Congre- 
 gationalism, directly traversing the position held 
 by all the rest of Christendom in all ages. 
 
 The arguments for it are substantially two : 
 namely, that the nature of Christianity requires 
 exemption from laws and rules, allows only a 
 spiritual brotherhood ; and that passages in the 
 New Testament show, as for instance at Corinth, 
 a state of affairs of this sort. To these argu- 
 ments we reply, in general, that the former as- 
 sumes an idea of Christianity which may well be 
 scrutinized ; and that the latter assumes a cer- 
 tain condition to be normal which perhaps was 
 not. But it were best to advance the positive 
 arguments for the organic view, which has the 
 presumption in its favor as the undeviating prac- 
 tice until this new view arose, and is the prevail- 
 ing one still. 
 
 In the first place, whatever may be said of 
 some cases, we find others in the New Testa- 
 ment where organic unity under Apostolic regi- 
 men is clear. We find the Church to be more 
 and more, as the years go on which the New 
 Testament covers, a brotherhood that is ruled 
 and ordered, each congregation being united with 
 the whole body, and the ministry being qualified 
 by others than the worshipers, that is, by Apos- 
 tles, or those whom they selected as their agents. 
 
 But this is all made the plainer by the fact that, 
 as soon as we find Christendom in shape and at 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 1 39 
 
 work, when we have many sources of informa- 
 tion, it is found to be organized in this way ; and 
 Independency, if it had ever existed anywhere, 
 has entirely disappeared. It may be said that 
 this was the result of a defection from original 
 simplicity. But this is too much for us to be- 
 lieve. We might find such a supposition plausi- 
 ble after the lapse of a more protracted time, but 
 it is not to be accepted as a reasonable explana- 
 tion of a state of affairs that is universal within 
 twenty or thirty years of St. John's lifetime, or 
 less than a century after Pentecost. It implies 
 a rapidity of corruption which there is no reason 
 to believe in, which is contradicted by all the 
 facts ; and a revolution so complete that it could 
 not have become supreme, as it did, without 
 awakening any protest in any land or place. 
 That which was an undisputed rule at this time 
 seems to us, beyond debate by intelligent men, 
 the indication of the known wish and teaching 
 of Apostolic men. 
 
 Again, the question is settled by the object of 
 the foundation of the Church. It was established 
 to preach the Gospel, as well as to perpetuate 
 the means of edifying believers, or the means of 
 grace. But this demands concerted action, and 
 that means organization. It is difficult to be- 
 lieve that those founders should have given such 
 a commission to their converts, and then left 
 them incohesive, with no capacity for united ac- 
 tion, no order of men to provide for the founda- 
 tion of new congregations. 
 
I4O WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 The fact is, that this theory only thinks of the 
 ministry as a means of edifying a Christianity 
 already in existence. It was invented in such 
 conditions where it was not called upon to sub- 
 mit to the test of the Church's essential work. 
 It is inconceivable how, on such a basis, the 
 faith of that England where it arose could have 
 come into being, or how the Church would ever 
 have spread beyond the walls of the cities that 
 Apostles visited. A Christianity thus begun 
 would have had but the temporary life of certain 
 local assemblies, which would soon have died out, 
 leaving the memory of an abortive movement 
 that had no machinery for its own perpetuation. 
 
 This is confirmed by the practice of these very 
 Independents when they would act upon the un- 
 believing world. In that grandly successful mis- 
 sionary work that their warm hearts have prose- 
 cuted, they have had to abandon their own prin- 
 ciple. Apart from any question of the needed 
 degree of organization at home to prosecute the 
 work, as soon as they found a mission, with its 
 one or more stations, they proceed to organize 
 it, of very necessity, with a ruling and self-per- 
 petuating ministry. They cannot leave these 
 congregations to be isolated or autonomous, nor 
 can they leave to each one the erection of its 
 own ministry. So they unite them, have common 
 legislative bodies, approve and qualify the clergy 
 by clergymen, thus doing exactly what the old 
 Church has done. This would seem to show 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 141 
 
 that it is the very law of the life of Christianity 
 that for its work there must be organized union, 
 and a directing ministry that passes upon the 
 fitness, and confers the title, of those who seek 
 to enter its ranks. Anything that is thus the 
 law of the life of Christianity is a part of it, and 
 must have been in intent, as ail our data show it 
 was in fact, and as the Church has ever said it 
 was, the teaching of the Apostles. 
 
 But this is not all. The Church is found, at a 
 time when it could only have been due to Apos- 
 tolic origin, legislating in regard to its ritual and 
 customs and ordinances, and doing so with the 
 expectation that such rules should be obeyed. 
 That is, the ideal Church has the right to reg- 
 ulate its life according to indications of expedi- 
 ency. This is denied by those who say that 
 nothing is binding which is not laid down in 
 Scripture. But that is not only an absurdity for 
 a society that was founded to work in all times 
 and all places ; it is that bondage which St. Paul 
 had to rebuke as the leaven of Judaism, the re- 
 turn from the New Testament to the Old, im- 
 parting into the New what is not there, but is 
 in the Pentateuch only, minute directions for all 
 things. It is one of the curiosities of human ec- 
 centricity that they who say so much about lib- 
 erty in Christ, and assail us Churchmen as vic- 
 tims to legalism, base their whole argument and 
 action upon that very principle, and deny to 
 Christendom the freedom to legislate for its 
 
142 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 needs. For this is Christian liberty, the right to 
 adapt measures to emergencies, under the guid- 
 ance of God ; and it carries with it the duty of 
 the individual to submit, unless he can say that 
 any law is against the written word of God. 
 
 But it may be added, as regards this question 
 of liberty, that it is as impossible under the In- 
 dependent theory as under that pure democracy 
 that it imitates in the state. Liberty means 
 protection of rights, safeguards against tempo- 
 rary or local tyrannies, and this can only come 
 with constitutional forms, which in turn come 
 with concerted organization and established 
 order. An unorganized Christianity might be 
 endurable if all Christians were saints. It would 
 be intolerable as they are, intolerable to the laity, 
 and utterly so to the ministry, as so many are 
 finding out ; who either modify this Indepen- 
 dency while nominally adhering to it, or leave 
 it for the generous shelter of such a condition as 
 the usual form of Christianity affords. " The 
 liberty wherewith Christ has made us free " is not 
 found where numbers rule immediately, where 
 transient majorities produce the most galling 
 tyrannies ; but it is only found, if at all, where 
 settled principles, recognized rights, and organic 
 forms of law, in church or state, can be appealed 
 to and enforced against the local or widespread 
 despotisms of the hour. 
 
 For reasons thus given, all but a slight fraction 
 of Christendom has lived without the suggestion 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 1 43 
 
 of so crippling an idea as the erratic and provin- 
 cial principle of Independency. But, while all 
 the Church with this exception holds to organi- 
 zation perpetuated through its ministry, there is 
 a part of Protestantism which holds to a theory 
 that it is perpetuated through the Presbyters, 
 than whom it is claimed that no higher officer 
 is allowable. This is Presbyterianism, or the 
 polity of the Protestants in some countries, — 
 France, Switzerland, the Rhinelands, and Scot- 
 land, as well as those among us who are con- 
 nected with them. To it, the general usage of 
 Christendom replies that there was established in 
 the Apostolic Church a higher office, called the 
 Episcopate, to which alone is committed the 
 prerogative of ordaining. Both sides, let it be 
 noted, hold to the "Apostolic Succession." That 
 is a term criticised as often ignorantly as intelli- 
 gently. It really means only this, that the order 
 of ministers in the Church does not and cannot 
 begin by any one taking the ministry upon him- 
 self, or by any layman giving it to him, as Inde- 
 pendency holds ; but was begun by the Apostles 
 appointing the first ministers, who appointed 
 their successors in turn. That is, the ministry, 
 rightly and truly, is a succession of a corpora- 
 tion, or clerical body, in the Church, initiated by 
 the Apostles. Now, the Presbyterian theory, of 
 course, involves this when it says that only pres- 
 byters can make presbyters, and that laymen 
 cannot. But it differs from the usual position of 
 
144 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 Christendom in denying that this succession is 
 to be kept up through ordination by bishops. 
 
 Our reasons for holding to this are, first, that 
 the principle is, we believe, found in the Apos- 
 tolic writings. We find there, not that any min- 
 isters could ordain, but only designated and qual- 
 ified ones. If it is said that this interpretation 
 is not clear, we then add that it is made so to us 
 by what we find to be the rule of the primitive 
 Christians. As soon as we find a local church 
 equipped in any land, it has a bishop. As, one 
 by one, the various parts of Christendom come 
 out of the misty days of their origin, and have a 
 literature and institutions, they are all found with 
 this office, to which ordaining and ruling are re- 
 stricted. It is the only kind of ministry known 
 in those days when the voices of men like John 
 and Paul and Peter were hardly still. 
 
 This is explained by some as being only a 
 growth. Suppose it was so. Does not the 
 growth of a tree show the intention of the tree ? 
 If it bear apples, then it was planted to bear ap- 
 ples ; and so, if the Church developed into Episco- 
 pacy, it must have been so shaped that it would. 
 The only alternative is to say that Episcopacy 
 is a corrupt growth, a violation of the Apos- 
 tolic intention. This is to us inadmissible, for 
 two reasons : on the one hand, we do not see 
 any warrant for accusing those Christians of fall- 
 ing into a corruption so general and so notable 
 in less than half a century after St. John's 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 1 45 
 
 death ; and on the other, it would have been not 
 only a corruption, but a revolution ; which, as 
 has been said regarding organization, cannot rea- 
 sonably be believed to have taken place with no 
 known resistance, no recorded appeal from it. 
 So devoted and so widely extended a body of 
 men, as Christians were then, do not become sub- 
 jects of an unwarranted usurpation, which Epis- 
 copacy was, if not of original intention. 
 
 However, whether a growth, or wholly or in 
 part an imposition by Apostolic authority, Epis- 
 copacy is the law of the Church's life as much 
 as organization is. Suppose any outsider were 
 asked this question, What is the peculiarity of 
 the Christian ministry, as distinct from that of 
 the Jews or Mohammedans or any other religious 
 system, when all its extent is considered ? Would 
 he not have to reply that its peculiarity is that it 
 has bishops ? The exceptions are too local and 
 temporary to affect the fact that such has been 
 the historical characteristic of the Christian min- 
 istry. But beyond this, in another sense, it is 
 the law of the Church's life. It is necessary to 
 efficiency. Just as it is difficult to see how Chris- 
 tianity could have survived its foundation if not 
 organized, so is it difficult to see how it could 
 have been spread without any appointing and 
 directing office. " What is everybody's business 
 is nobody's business " is as true in religious as 
 in other matters. And it has never been spread 
 save on this principle. Even they who deny it, 
 
I46 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 or its extreme application, come back to it when 
 they appoint superintendents of districts, or di- 
 rectors of missionary work, — that is, set clergy- 
 men over clergymen. The most signal instance 
 is that of the great Methodist body, whose noble 
 work for Christ has been efficient because of 
 what its originators saw to be necessary, — supe- 
 rior and ordaining officers, whom they call bish- 
 ops, though others who do the same thing do 
 not use the term. The difference between our 
 idea of Episcopacy, as a supervising order, and 
 theirs, is that we hold that these officers can 
 only be appointed by those of the same rank, 
 who have power to do so, derived in succession 
 from the Apostolic source of the ministry as the 
 only adequate one. They hold that this order 
 can be created at any time without that condi- 
 tion ; that is, that " the greater can be blessed of 
 the less," the superior commissioned by the infe- 
 rior, which to us seems illogical and inconsistent. 
 
 So far we have seen that the Apostolic idea of 
 the Church is that of an organization united by 
 a ministry perpetuated from Apostolic initiation 
 through an order set apart for the purpose. If 
 this is so, then to that idea we should conform, 
 in that succession we should be, such a ministry 
 we should have. 
 
 But how is it with those Christians that are 
 not so situated? Here we meet a perennial and 
 a much -vexed question. It is important, and 
 candor will not allow it to be ignored. Nor is it 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 147 
 
 right to do so when we know how many saintly 
 lives are lived under other forms of Christian pol- 
 ity, how great and unsurpassed a work their ad- 
 herents have done for God's glory and for man's 
 welfare. In this land, as far as visible effects go, 
 that work is beyond what has been done by those 
 who adhere to the Apostolic principle, as we have 
 defined it. 
 
 Now, on the one hand, it will not do to say 
 that this is a matter of no consequence. A 
 newly originated body, due to merely human ac- 
 tion, cannot occupy the same position as one 
 that traces its organic life back to the action of 
 inspired Apostles at Pentecost ; nor can depar- 
 ture from a divine standard ever be a matter of 
 indifference. So, if this idea of the Church's 
 organization is the norm, only the superficial can 
 say that we might as well not have bishops as 
 have them. If it is the wish of Christ, learned 
 through the Apostolic action, there must be a 
 reason for Episcopacy. As a distinguished re- 
 cent defender of the new departure has said, it 
 was "a revolution" when some Protestants gave 
 it up ; and a revolution, however justifiable when 
 necessary, means, at the best, that which should 
 not have been, if avoidable. 
 
 Yet, while ethics forbid us to admit that this 
 departure is a matter of no consequence, before 
 we can tell what the consequences are we must 
 take into consideration some important facts. 
 
 First, we must ascertain how far we know the 
 
148 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 object and value of this normal form of ministry. 
 Unless we know exactly all its functions, and all 
 that depends upon it, we cannot tell what is lack- 
 ing where it is absent. Surely, we must not 
 hastily claim to know this. Only God knows 
 all the reasons for anything He does, and there- 
 fore no one of us can tell exhaustively what He 
 makes dependent upon the matter of polity, and 
 what He does not. 
 
 Again, we need to consider the reasons for de- 
 parture from the norm, and to give to them their 
 proper weight. Revolution is sometimes clearly 
 justifiable ; and so, in the circumstances of any 
 revolt against established order, there may be an 
 element of justifiability in God's sight. Perhaps 
 the order revolted against has to bear some of 
 the blame in the matter, if blame there be. 
 
 Still further, we must consider how far the his- 
 tory of such bodies may have vindicated their 
 right to exist. They who have saved many souls 
 and evangelized a land are not to be set aside as 
 having no standing in court. Again, we must 
 look at them in the light of the saints that hal- 
 low their history, of the men among them who, 
 whether ordained or not, are yet prophets of God, 
 in the light of their success in doing just what 
 the Church was sent to do ; and in that of the 
 favor of God, when He has, as St. Peter says, 
 "given unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as 
 unto us." 
 
 Now, in presence of these and still other con- 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 149 
 
 siderations that might be adduced, we cannot, so 
 summarily as some imagine, define the results of 
 that departure, which is so prevalent about us, 
 from the regular polity of the Church. But all 
 this includes a wider truth, that we can never de- 
 termine the results of departure from any norm 
 set forth by God or Christ, or the Apostles. The 
 fact is that life is wider than logic, and that we 
 cannot mete out condemnation or praise by a 
 process of syllogisms. There are too many un- 
 known factors, too many indeterminate ones, in 
 any problem of human conduct, for us to reduce 
 it to terms of mathematical precision. We can 
 only make positive affirmations of what should 
 be. We cannot define the consequences of the 
 disregard thereof. For instance, as to the very 
 fundamental matter of belief in Christ, the wis- 
 est and soundest differ as to the results of its 
 absence in the cases of heathen, or ignorant or 
 blinded men. How absurd, then, to dogmatize, 
 as so many Christians do, in respect to the con- 
 sequences of disregard of some ordinance or cus- 
 tom ! All of us must learn to see that in fact 
 we know nothing about negatives. The message 
 of Christianity is to say what will happen if cer- 
 tain conditions are met, not to define what will 
 happen if they are not. The Church is like a 
 herald sent to announce good news. It is not 
 commissioned to announce the results of not 
 heeding it in any particular case. It cannot do 
 this, since in each case the decision turns upon 
 
1 5 O WHA T DID CHRIS T FO UND ? 
 
 facts known only to " God who searcheth the 
 heart." 
 
 Thus has the Church spoken, and thus does 
 our branch of it speak. The creeds only make 
 positive statements : they make no reference to 
 alternatives ; and the other standards only say 
 what we believe to be right and true and normal. 
 Consequently, any Churchman who knows the 
 spirit and letter of his Church will, by his strong- 
 est affirmations, mean only to say what he be- 
 lieves to be the ideal, and will not presume to be 
 wiser than the Church by defining the degree of 
 loss incurred by those who revolt against any 
 rule, or dispense with any ordinance, or deny any 
 tenet. It is for no one less than God to settle 
 that : no one less can do it ; and He may know 
 of reasons for approval when we should condemn, 
 or of condemnation when we might approve. 
 " Many that are last shall be first, and the first 
 last." So, our claim can only be, that we stand 
 in this land for a form of Church life which is 
 that of a fully equipped Christianity. We dare 
 not say, for we have no authority for it in the 
 Church's utterances, that we stand for an abso- 
 lute condition of the divine favor. But we do 
 say that we stand for what is necessary to eccle- 
 siastical efficiency and completeness. We be- 
 lieve in adhering to the ideal, since we can ; and 
 we mean to do so, convinced that, whether we 
 know its value or not, it is the safe and the ob- 
 ligatory way ; and for the sake of this principle, 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 151 
 
 and not out of narrowness, we cannot compro- 
 mise this position, nor lower our standard. 
 
 Passing over other elements in the Apostolic 
 norm, as not so disputed, we now come to the 
 basis of confessional union which it sets forth. 
 We believe it to be, in conformity with our pre- 
 vious definition of Christianity, union upon a 
 creed of facts. We have seen how this is nec- 
 essary to make our faith a Gospel. Let us now 
 see how it is necessary to any union among be- 
 lievers. 
 
 Creeds . arose from the necessity of defining 
 the Gospel which the Church preaches. Origi- 
 nally, it was stated in the baptismal formula. 
 That God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is the 
 Good News. But dissensions and errors called 
 for more definiteness if there was to be any real 
 harmony. It is ever so. Yet here we must dis- 
 tinguish. 
 
 It has been held, and generally is held around 
 us, that this amplification of the baptismal re- 
 quirement must be a detailing of doctrinal defi- 
 nitions. This is so deeply ingrained in the minds 
 both of believers and of unbelievers that it is 
 difficult to make it clear how undesirable, how 
 un-apostolic it is, and how different is the posi- 
 tion of those who repudiate it. 
 
 Its prevalence is due to the prevalence of the 
 idea at the bottom of sectarianism. That is the 
 idea of which we spoke when dealing with the 
 nature of Christianity, namely, the exaggera- 
 
T 5 2 WHA T DID CHRIST FOUND t 
 
 tion of the importance of correctness of opinion ; 
 and an equally prevalent conception that this is 
 attainable, and therefore obligatory. It has led 
 to the idea that a Christian ought to hold fault- 
 less doctrines, or correct inferences from the 
 faith once delivered, and that believers must be 
 united in that manner. Hence arose sects or 
 bodies of believers who thought that they had 
 reached ultimate correctness upon this or that 
 point ; and who, because the Church around 
 would not accept its formulas, set up their own 
 tabernacles, formed their own societies, to pro- 
 tect and advocate these peculiar tenets. Of 
 course, each one devised its own creed, to form 
 the basis of its peculiar membership as the body 
 that held the true message of Christianity to the 
 world. This same process has also worked in 
 churches, or ancient and national organizations, 
 which, in measure as they follow it, assume the 
 sect position. This is the case eminently with 
 Rome, whose creed and catechism are elabo- 
 rately doctrinal, and consist of theological prop- 
 ositions that define its particular dogmas. This 
 process has been so general that it has come to 
 be usually regarded as the law of religious organ- 
 ization, the justification of separations among 
 Christians. It has led friends and foes to think 
 that Christendom is, and should be, committed to 
 the principle of unity in opinion among those 
 who worship together. 
 
 But there is about this position the insuper- 
 
WHA T DID CHRIST FOUND ? 153 
 
 able difficulty that it makes catholicity impossi- 
 ble. Men will not agree in opinion. That is 
 evident, and it is not wrong. Since God has 
 constituted us differently in respect of mental 
 powers and characteristics, we cannot be ex- 
 pected either to look at admitted facts in the 
 same way, or equally to emphasize different ele- 
 ments in a common belief. This latter is per- 
 haps the most fruitful source of variations in 
 opinion, and it simply cannot be avoided ; for 
 men are so made that one will attach more im- 
 portance to this factor, another to that, in a 
 Christianity that all may hold alike. 
 
 And beyond this, the principle of agreement 
 in doctrinal confessions not only renders catho- 
 licity impossible at any given time, but also pre- 
 vents it in succeeding generations. Christians 
 surely make progress in their doctrines, or their 
 apprehensions of their faith, with advance in edu- 
 cation and spiritual life ; and what is thus true 
 of an individual is just as true of the whole body 
 of believers. So, on the basis of doctrinal defini- 
 tions being the bond of unity, the Church would 
 be resolved into a series of rising and falling 
 bodies ; for, if they who believe could agree at 
 any one time, still there would be, of necessity, 
 a process of successive dissolutions and reform- 
 ations. No union formed on that principle can 
 outlive the prevalence of transient phases of re- 
 ligious thought. This is the reason why no sect 
 can endure, for a sect means an organization 
 
154 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 based on agreement in some local and tempo- 
 rary notion. 
 
 But all this should not be. We should expect 
 that one essential feature of the Church would 
 be catholicity. Surely Christ meant His disci- 
 pleship for all sorts and conditions of men and 
 for all the ages. Then we should expect that 
 the basis of union would be acceptance of His 
 Gospel, independently of differences as to em- 
 phasis of its parts, or as to inborn tendencies in 
 its apprehension. There would seem to be no 
 reason why they should not worship together, 
 and use the same ordinances, who accept Him 
 and His work, though they may vary in opinion. 
 To put this concretely, some men will always 
 make more of God's sovereignty, others more of 
 man's freedom. Some will make more of sub- 
 jective religion, others of its outward aspects. 
 Some will emphasize the personal element, oth- 
 ers the institutional. Some will make more of 
 feeling, others of action or conduct, others still 
 of intelligence. The divisions have usually oc- 
 curred on matters like these, and so Christianity 
 has been broken up. But certainly there is no 
 more warrant for destroying its unity because of 
 such differences than there would be for divid- 
 ing the state because of differences of parties, 
 or the family because of varieties of opinion 
 there. In one case as in the other, comprehen- 
 siveness would seem possible and necessary. 
 
 And likewise should the Church be catholic 
 
WHA T DID CHRIST FOUND ? I 5 5 
 
 in successive stages of progress. It ought to be 
 a body which could continue to proclaim one 
 message of Christ and His Apostles from cen- 
 tury to century, and join in one changeless con- 
 fession, without dissolution when fuller thought 
 should come, or new glimpses of the meaning of 
 the Gospel ; a body that should have room for, 
 and be adaptable to, larger and deeper realiza- 
 tions of what is meant in the Gospel of Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost ; a body which could live 
 on without any necessity of disintegration and 
 reconstitution, as the Spirit leads its members 
 more and more into the truth. But this is im- 
 possible if you insist that the confessional unity 
 among Christians shall be on the basis of a com- 
 mon explanation of the gospel facts, or of an 
 agreement upon theories of that redemption in 
 which we all believe. 
 
 But it is possible if based on a confession of 
 facts in which all can agree, though they differ 
 in doctrines ; and that this is the idea of the 
 Church, that Apostles so preached Christianity, 
 and that Paul so summed up the Gospel, we have 
 seen in our second lecture. Let it now suffice 
 to add a few more words. As we have seen, it 
 soon became apparent that converts, as well as 
 others, needed some closer statement of the facts 
 of the Gospel than only the baptismal formula, 
 and since, because of local influences, one place 
 called for one detail, another for another, many 
 creeds arose. Yet all were short, and merely 
 
I56 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 statements of simple verities regarding Christ's 
 work. But a process of unification speedily be- 
 gan, and at length all Christians came to unite 
 upon that statement which we call the Apostles' 
 Creed, which was expanded into the so-called 
 Nicene, as an enumeration of facts in which, 
 without imposing any explanations of them, the 
 Church united as the embodiment of the Chris- 
 tianity taught by Apostles, and to be held in all 
 lands and ages. Upon it believers have been 
 agreed ever since, with unimportant exceptions. 
 In its place there can be none other devised. 
 There is a good deal said about new creeds. 
 Many cry for them. A distinguished man has 
 said there should be a new one every seven 
 years. This is all based upon the idea that 
 creeds for Christians are to express their opin- 
 ions about the Gospel. In that case, of course, 
 a new one would be needed, not only for every 
 day that a new light comes, but for every new 
 Christian made. But to a creed of the facts of 
 Christianity there can be no additions, in it no 
 change ; for, while our apprehension of these 
 facts may be enlarged, they remain changeless. 
 If, as the Church founded by Apostles holds, 
 these creeds which it has used for ages are a 
 true summary of Christianity, then they will 
 suffice to the end of that Church's history, for 
 Jesus Christ is " the same yesterday, to-day, and 
 forever." 
 
 It is true, we are speaking of an ideal that has 
 
WHA T DID CHRIST FOUND ? 1 5 7 
 
 been rarely realized, if at all, since long-distant 
 days. Yet it is the ideal set forth by Apostles, 
 and it is of value to show what it is, as aiding 
 us in our search for an ecclesiastical home in a 
 divided Christianity. We believe that our own 
 Church meets the norm thus presented, and that 
 it alone thus conforms to the Apostolic intention, 
 owing to the kind Providence of God. 
 
 For baptism or admission to Church member- 
 ship, it only asks assent to that confession which 
 is an epitome of the gospel facts; and surely a 
 Church's idea of essentials may be found in what 
 admits to its privileges. For the supreme priv- 
 ilege of the Holy Communion it is still the same, 
 except that they who come to it are expected 
 to be able to join in the fuller statement of the 
 Nicene Creed, which adds nothing to the other. 
 To show still further how the matter is regarded, 
 we are told only that excommunication, or exclu- 
 sion from Church privileges, is to be visited 
 upon evil livers and unforgiving persons. That 
 is, it only punishes moral error, not mental mis- 
 takes. As long as one lives consistently, joins 
 in the service, and in the confession of the veri- 
 ties held to constitute the Gospel, he cannot be" 
 touched for his differences of opinion from oth- 
 ers on any point. 
 
 Now this is significant enough to detain us a 
 moment, for it shows the position of our Church 
 as to what should be the ground of separation, 
 if separation there, must be. It is not disagree- 
 
158 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 ment in convictions, as has usually been main- 
 tained, but sinful and unworthy conduct. The 
 former principle has led to the exclusion from 
 privileges and to the persecution of many who 
 adorned the Gospel of God our Saviour by their 
 lives, and broken up the fellowship of those who 
 had in common " the mind which was in Christ 
 Jesus ; " while it has also led to tolerating and 
 honoring as many who were utterly unworthy, 
 simply because of their zeal for an imagined or- 
 thodoxy. Not that errors of opinion are under- 
 estimated by us, but they are not regarded as so 
 serious as errors of life. That is, vagaries of be- 
 lief on the part of sincere followers of Christ are 
 not to be allowed to sever ties half as soon as 
 cruelty, or sordidness, or dishonesty, or mean- 
 ness, or untruthfulness, in those who only are 
 His followers in profession. Is not this, the po- 
 sition of our Church, the true one, the one Christ 
 would have taken ? Is it not the way in which 
 Apostles looked at the matter ? See how the 
 Christians of their day were divided. They were 
 far more divided than Christians are now. They 
 disagreed as to circumcision, and Sabbath obser- 
 vance, and many other fundamental points of 
 ceremonial. They disagreed as to very impor- 
 tant doctrines, and even as to St. Paul's Apostle- 
 ship. Yet they lived together. They that erred 
 in opinion were instructed ; but it was they who 
 sinned, as the man in Corinth, who alone were 
 excluded from communion and fellowship. That 
 
WHA T DID CHRIST FOUND ? I 59 
 
 is, the practice of the Church at that time shows 
 that, in an Apostolic Church and in a Scriptural 
 Church, immorality is the fundamental reason 
 for the rupture of brotherly relations ; that 
 " Bible Christians," as some call themselves, 
 have no warrant in their own position for their 
 schisms and their separations ; and that the New 
 Testament idea of comprehensiveness of opinion 
 is wider than they seem ever to remember, wider 
 indeed than Christians at the present day seem 
 able to attain in practice. Would that Chris- 
 tians had always remembered this, and instead 
 of separating from others because of their dis- 
 sent from this or that doctrine, or their different 
 estimate of this or that ordinance, had been ever 
 willing to kneel side by side with those who held 
 the same Gospel and used the same means of 
 grace, allowing only sin and enmity, that is, 
 moral heresy, to be a bar to fellowship and sym- 
 pathy ! 
 
 As to the Thirty-nine Articles, which may be 
 thought to contradict this assertion in regard to 
 the position of this Church, suffice it to say that 
 they are not terms of membership or conditions 
 of privilege. They are only for the clergy in 
 their work as teachers. They are to guide them 
 in their utterances, to mark limits that individual 
 opinion is not to transcend, and are also their 
 protection against the tyranny of waves of local 
 or temporary opinion. Beyond this, they can be 
 changed at any time. Instead of being doctrinal 
 
l6o WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 creeds, they are not creeds at all ; are never re- 
 cited ; are not part of the Prayer Book, but of 
 the Ordinal ; and are no more the Church's con- 
 fession than they are its message. They are 
 transient regulations for our ministry in their in- 
 struction. 
 
 This is the reason why we believe that the po- 
 sition that we occupy is the only possible basis 
 of Christian union. There is a healthy desire 
 for a cessation of divisions among those who are 
 so really one in spirit and in faith. Our Church, 
 through its chief pastors, has set forth its idea 
 of reunion, as based upon these two features of 
 Apostolic Christianity, — the normal form of the 
 ministry, and agreement in the ancient creeds, 
 We do not mean to say that all must be swal- 
 lowed up by us, as some think ; but that as to 
 polity, if there is to be organic union, it can only 
 be upon common acceptance of the old ways. 
 This would seem obvious, since no general agree- 
 ment can be expected upon any newer or any 
 local form. But what lies back of that, and is 
 more important, because more fundamental, is 
 that unity can only be upon an agreement of 
 confession as to the Gospel, of which these 
 creeds are the only general and undisputed 
 statement. Any other agreement is impossible 
 and not to be desired, for it would mean sup- 
 pression of convictions, and ignoring of unavoid- 
 able differences. But all Christians can agree 
 upon the facts of the Gospel. All bodies, or all 
 
WHA T DID CHRIST FOUND ? 1 6 1 
 
 important ones, do hold them in common. And 
 there is no reason why they should not come to- 
 gether upon them, agreeing to disagree on minor 
 matters, and loving each other none the less. 
 This will be the first great step ; after that we 
 think that organic union should ensue in com- 
 mon acceptance of the ancient and original min- 
 istry, against which some have revolted for rea- 
 sons which, as we think, no longer hold good, 
 however cogent they may once have been. 
 
 Whether this will happen, however, we know 
 not. It is hardly to be expected, in view of the 
 tenacity of human opinions, the strength of 
 many bodies, and other difficulties that arise. 
 Yet, whether it happens or not, this is our mis- 
 sion in this land, as we are persuaded, to rep- 
 resent and commend the normal regimen and 
 creed of Apostolic Christianity. Others have a 
 great work behind them, and are doing a great 
 work now. But we believe it our duty to adhere 
 to our position of upholding, not only the full 
 equipment of a Church, but also that manner of 
 agreement among followers of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ which alone was intended in the Church, 
 is the only hope of the reunion of true followers 
 of the Saviour, and the only way in which one 
 Gospel can be preached to all sorts and condi- 
 tions of men. 
 
 Stand up bravely for this, the idea of the 
 Church. ft is not always understood. Many 
 within the Church fail to understand the nature 
 
1 62 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 of their union and the fullness of their freedom. 
 They, too, seem to think that all must agree. 
 They want all to hold their particular shibboleths, 
 belong to their especial party. But this is akin to 
 wishing that all citizens be compelled to be Dem- 
 ocrats or Republicans, which is a sin against the 
 idea of the state. Yet it is no more absurd than 
 the endeavor to make all in the Church of one 
 school of thought. Unity is only feasible upon 
 common institutions and undisputed facts, out- 
 side of which are allowed wide divergencies. Let 
 no one narrow this liberty. Resist all who would 
 narrow it, whatever be the ground they take. 
 While all others are free to look at things in 
 their own way, each is as free in his way ; and 
 the Church and all its ways and the creeds be- 
 long to each as much as to all. Among those who 
 use them and are loyal to them, no one has the 
 prerogative of judging or setting up a standard 
 for another. Repudiate such an attempt as a 
 tyranny that violates Church principles. 
 
 But especially is this peculiarity of our Church 
 misapprehended by those without. They can- 
 not understand how we, High Churchmen and 
 Low Churchmen and Broad Churchmen, can sin- 
 cerely regard each other as brothers. They do 
 not believe we are really united, and think us un- 
 candid, or indifferent to great principles. Out- 
 siders ask : " How can you expect us to come to 
 you as a relief for our divisions ? Settle your 
 own differences first." To which the Churchman 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 1 63 
 
 answers : " We do not propose to settle our dif- 
 ferences. It is our glory that we can be breth- 
 ren and work together without obliterating them. 
 What we hold in common unites us. What we 
 differ upon does not separate us." It is some- 
 times trying to us if some brother Churchman is 
 carried away by what seems, to the general senti- 
 ment of our communion, to be superstitious or 
 rationalistic ; and our principle is undoubtedly 
 put to severe tests. But men who are trust- 
 worthy and devoted, living but to do Christ's 
 work, we cannot exclude from our sympathy. 
 What is far more trying, and tests more violently 
 the bond of unity, is such things as deceitfulness 
 or bigotry or self-righteousness. These, to a true 
 Churchman, cause the most regret, the strongest 
 aversion, and exert a repulsion stronger than any 
 party ties or theological lines can overcome. He 
 who looks at the question in this way will find 
 that it is no disadvantage, as some imagine, but 
 is on the contrary a satisfaction, to be in a 
 Church where issues, on which so many else- 
 where separate, cause no divisions among true 
 followers of the one Lord ; where deep questions 
 that are closed elsewhere are regarded as open 
 to study ; and where we can not only hold fellow- 
 ship with diverse Christian minds as well as with 
 kindred ones, but also can peaceably discuss 
 great themes in allowable controversy. So it is 
 that we, of all shades of thought, holding to all 
 forms of opinion, widely differing on deep things, 
 
164 WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 
 
 can yet live and worship and work in the unity 
 of a common creed, and can in sincerity, as with- 
 out enmity, join in the same Supper of the Lord, 
 in the same hymns of praise. We would not 
 have all think alike, nor require silence upon 
 matters that are open, within the Church's limits ; 
 for by so doing we should lose many whose fel- 
 lowship we prize, suppress many a mental activ- 
 ity that enriches piety, and secure uniformity 
 only by a process of impoverishment. 
 
 What do you agree in, then ? is asked. We 
 agree in that which is enough to bind any men 
 together, in that which has bound the Church 
 together through the ages in the common creed 
 of Christendom. This question was once asked 
 at a discussion among some clergymen and lay- 
 men of the Church of England when wide di- 
 vergence was displayed among the former. At 
 length a layman said, " How can you expect us 
 of the laity to heed you when you are so much at 
 variance ? Do you ministers of the Church agree 
 in anything? If so, on what are you really 
 united ? What do you believe ? " Then up rose 
 that great prophet, Frederick Denison Maurice, 
 and impetuously but solemnly said : " We be- 
 lieve in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of 
 Heaven and Earth ; and in Jesus Christ, His only 
 Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy 
 Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary ; suffered under 
 
 ntius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried ; 
 He descended into Hell ; the third day He rose 
 
WHAT DID CHRIST FOUND? 165 
 
 again from the dead ; He ascended into Heaven, 
 and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father 
 Almighty ; from thence He shall come to judge 
 the quick and the dead. We believe in the 
 Holy Ghost ; the Holy Catholic Church, the Com- 
 munion of Saints ; the Forgiveness of sins ; the 
 Resurrection of the body ; and the Life everlast- 
 
 ing. 
 
 And this answer, which was sufficient for that 
 inquirer, is sufficient answer to whomsoever asks 
 us for what we, who differ on so many points, 
 hold in common. It is that Gospel in which we 
 are one, and in which all may be one ; the suf- 
 ficient summary of what Apostles founded the 
 Church to confess and to preach to every crea- 
 ture ; sufficient to guide and to sustain us as we 
 walk by faith and not by sight in " the way that 
 leadeth unto life." 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 WHAT IS THEOLOGY ? 
 
 "Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Sav- 
 iour Jesus Christ : to Him be glory." — 2 Pet. hi. 18. 
 
 The Church of Christ has a twofold duty to 
 fulfill. On the one hand is its practical duty : 
 to spread the Gospel through the world, and 
 build up the Kingdom of God in the hearts of 
 men. On the other is its intellectual duty : to 
 apprehend more and more fully the wealth that 
 is in that Gospel, to gain a deeper insight into 
 the significance of the facts that constitute it. 
 This is Theology. 
 
 It is not the aim of this lecture to teach The- 
 ology, which is a subject not only too extensive, 
 but also one that can hardly be expected to re- 
 ceive in detail the attention of those addressed, 
 since it requires a training and a study that can 
 only be looked for in those who are especially 
 called thereto. The laity may be, but need not 
 be, theologians in this Church to which we be- 
 long. The reasons for this will be manifest as 
 we proceed. 
 
 But the purpose of this lecture is to state what 
 Theology is, its nature, its aim, and its achieve- 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? \6f 
 
 ments, as well as possible within the limits at 
 our command. In so doing, we must recur 
 again to the truth dwelt upon in defining Chris- 
 tianity, for, as was then said, all other topics are 
 affected by that definition. We saw that Chris- 
 tianity is a collection of facts, and that faith is 
 resting upon them. Now it is to be expected 
 that men, constituted as they are, would en- 
 deavor to understand these facts which were 
 committed to the Church for proclamation by 
 the Apostolic men who founded it. The mere 
 power of curiosity, the desire for intelligent 
 faith and clearer knowledge, would make this 
 certain to occur. They who would oppose this 
 desire only fight against the wind. Men will 
 not cease to inquire, and though some may, in 
 unnecessary despair, say that it is of no use, 
 and others, in a spirit of skepticism, that it is 
 dealing but with words or dreams ; the Christian 
 will ever strive after a full and systematic under- 
 standing of his faith, not from mere curiosity, 
 for this inquiry will always be pushed, as it 
 always has been, from a higher motive, — from 
 duty. A sense of duty has been at the bottom 
 of all theological labor in the earnest and holy 
 minds of the past. And this duty is twofold. 
 In the first place, it is a duty, for God's sake, 
 to fathom more deeply the revelation in Christ. 
 This is a treasure to be prized and all its beauty 
 known. If it be a disclosure of God and His 
 ways, honor to Him requires us to learn all that 
 
l6S WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 it can tell us. In the second place, the proper 
 preaching of the Gospel demands the study of 
 Theology. That preaching must be as clear and 
 as harmonious as possible, made adaptable to 
 varied minds and ages, fitted for those of ad- 
 vanced, as well as those of undeveloped stages 
 of culture. But this means that the Gospel, to 
 be thus proclaimed, must be thought upon, its 
 factors developed by reflection, its implications 
 discovered by investigation. 
 
 Therefore, in any event, this study of the veri- 
 ties of the faith would have been obligatory. 
 Whatever the career of the Church, however 
 normal or unruffled, still the very inherent spirit 
 of Christianity would have led of necessity to 
 theological inquiry. 
 
 But the history of the Church has not been 
 normal. It has been a history of conflict without 
 and within ; of antagonism with those who have 
 rejected it, and of peril at the hands of those who 
 have misinterpreted it. The faith has needed 
 defining for its protection, and the exercise of 
 solicitude to avert corruptions, whether by denial 
 of the true, or by addition of the false. This 
 means laborious study. No one's opinion who 
 has not considered the matter in issue is of value 
 on any subject. The study of theology has been 
 the effort to protect and expound those Christian 
 verities which are " the power of God unto salva- 
 tion." Christian thinking and living — for living 
 is based upon thinking — have gone astray, far 
 
WHA T IS THEOL OGY? 1 69 
 
 enough and often enough, and perhaps theolog- 
 ical effort has at times done the same ; but who 
 can tell how far this wandering would have gone 
 if there had been no Theology ? This is, then, 
 the intellectual task of the Church, as distinct 
 from its practical one, a work parallel and con- 
 current with its labor in the world and in the 
 hearts of men ; and it is not surprising that, as 
 in these other respects, so in this one, the work 
 has not been perfectly done. Yet who will say 
 that it were better had none of these tasks been 
 undertaken ? 
 
 In approaching the theme, there comes at 
 once before our minds the vastness of the field 
 denoted by the word " Theology." Its literature 
 is of such extent that it is almost appalling. It 
 probably exceeds that of any other department 
 of human activity. For ages it was almost the 
 only literature produced. To-day it is that 
 branch to which more volumes are annually 
 added than to any other. Some tell us that re- 
 ligion is dying out, and that interest in it is on 
 the wane. It does not look so, when we see the 
 proportion of work done by the printing-press in 
 its behalf in every land. 
 
 This literature may be divided into several 
 great departments. These are : Exegetical Theol- 
 ogy, which deals with the documents of Chris- 
 tianity ; Historical, which deals with its prepara- 
 tion and its career ; Practical, which treats of the 
 application of it, including the pastoral work and 
 
170 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 worship ; Evidential, or that which defends and 
 vindicates the faith ; and Doctrinal, or that which 
 discusses its tenets. This last is what is usually 
 meant by the term Theology, and is often called 
 Systematic Divinity or Dogmatic Theology. In 
 this department, also, the work achieved has been 
 the most extensive, and the most intellectually 
 eminent. There the greatest minds have done 
 their greatest work, and have won an almost peer- 
 less distinction. Whatever may be said of other 
 human activity in the realm of thought, or how- 
 ever we may agree with them, such men as Ori- 
 gen and Athanasius, Augustine and Anselm, have 
 few fellows and no superiors. They have dealt 
 with the highest themes to which the mind can 
 address itself ; and, however successful we may 
 think the effort, we must admit that its partici- 
 pants have been giants. It has had workers of all 
 schools of thought, and among all sorts of men. 
 It has made serviceable to itself every tongue 
 that has been capable of serving it, every gift that 
 man possesses, every science that he has devised, 
 every art that progress has evolved. Now, what 
 is it all worth ? Has all this work been in vain ? 
 Is all this literature only of such stuff as dreams 
 are made of ? Some tell us so. But perhaps a 
 few words about it may show it to be not so 
 valueless as they suppose ; and -may also show 
 that it has not all the value that some others 
 may have ascribed to it. For, perhaps the exag- 
 geration of its worth is at the bottom of a good 
 
WHA T IS THE OLOGY? 1 7 1 
 
 deal of its depreciation. Let us see just what it 
 is, and so shall we see what it is worth. 
 
 Theology is a science. What is a science ? 
 It is the work of investigating the facts in the 
 field under consideration, classifying them, and 
 generalizing from them. It is the effort to ad- 
 vance in the real knowledge of things, beyond 
 what mere observation discerns. There are two 
 kinds of sciences. The so-called exact ones deal 
 with precise data and inexorable sequences, and 
 lead, if properly pursued, to sure and necessary 
 conclusions. But, as the word is generally used, 
 it refers to another kind of work altogether, that 
 of the inexact sciences. Their work is the in- 
 vestigation and correlation of data that are not 
 precise, like the axioms of mathematics, but only 
 matters of observation, such as the rocks, the 
 flowers, the animals, or the acts and experiences 
 of men. Now, of course, no observation is com- 
 plete or precise in any case, nor is any number of 
 observations ever exhaustive. We do not know 
 all about any one flower, and still less about all 
 flowers. Consequently science must be always 
 inexact when it is thus dealing with facts. 
 
 Theology is a science of this sort, and just as 
 truly a science as any other on the list. It is 
 the study of the facts in the Christian field, with 
 all the helps available. These are primarily, of 
 course, the Apostolic and other sacred writings 
 whence we chiefly get the data of our study. 
 But this is not all. There are also the Apostolic 
 
172 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 traditions and institutions. Then there are the 
 aids of spiritual insight, and of the experience of 
 those who have lived in the light of the facts that 
 are studied. And we also have philosophy in 
 its many forms, history, and other sources still to 
 which we may go. All these are the equipment 
 for this labor to which God calls His people. 
 But the labor has three aims. One is, to gain 
 ever deeper apprehensions of the significance of 
 the verities of the faith. What does it mean 
 that God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? 
 What does it mean that the First creates and 
 cares for us, that the Second saves, and that the 
 Third sanctifies ? What does the Forgiveness 
 of Sins mean ? What does the promise of Resur- 
 rection mean ? Such are a few out of countless 
 questions that are raised by the Creed which the 
 Church repeats in every service. Secondly, this 
 science seeks to classify these facts, to show 
 their relations to one another ; for any one truth 
 must involve all other truths, and cast light upon 
 them. Third, — and this is the practical object 
 of the science, — it seeks to proclaim or apply 
 these facts, the better to learn their value and 
 their use. Geology or chemistry or anatomy are 
 pursued, or should be, in order to use the results 
 attained for the benefit of mankind and the glory 
 of God. There is no justification of any study 
 unless this is the object. And so Theology has, 
 as its aim, not only the fuller possession of divine 
 truth, but also greater efficiency in bringing that 
 truth to bear upon the hearts and lives of men. 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 1 73 
 
 This statement assumes, of course, that we 
 have such facts to work upon ; that the Creed of 
 Christendom, regarding the person and work of 
 Christ, is true. 
 
 Our premises may be denied in different ways. 
 There may be, in the first place, a flat repudiation 
 of the reality of the Christian facts. This objec- 
 tion is met by the evidences of Christianity. 
 We have treated this, and have seen that these 
 facts are involved in the reality of Jesus Christ ; 
 for, if real, no one questions His veracity. We 
 have also seen that His reality is, perhaps, the 
 most undeniable event in human history ; not a 
 matter of the remote past, but one in which we 
 and the world are living and moving to-day ; a 
 present, actual factor in our daily life, from the 
 time we get up until we return to our bed, since 
 all about us, and even within us, is what it is be- 
 cause of Christ. We have seen that one might 
 more easily doubt the actuality of any other fac- 
 tor in current affairs than that of Him whose 
 existence and agency all Christendom manifests, 
 whose name is stamped on the brow of our civil- 
 ization, as far as it is good or elevated. 
 
 Again, the denial of our premises may be based 
 upon the a priori objections of agnosticism, 
 which says that God cannot communicate any 
 truth to us, or that we could not apprehend it if 
 the effort were made to give it. That is, this 
 denial says in limine that, whatever may be the 
 case with the verity of the events we believe in, 
 
174 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 there is in them no real knowledge of God, and 
 therefore no real basis for a theological science. 
 Such facts as we claim to have are either utterly 
 imaginary, or else so affected by human limita- 
 tions and preconceptions as to have no value to 
 argue from. Even if there have been disclosures 
 of the divine disposition and purposes, even if 
 God has sent us communications through Christ, 
 yet they are so modified in the process of their 
 presentation, or so modified in their apprehension 
 by us, that we know not what they are worth. 
 
 Of course, if in Christianity " things are not 
 what they seem," then our beliefs are false and 
 there can be no Theology, any more than there 
 can be a science of botany based upon obser- 
 vation through discoloring or distorting lenses. 
 But is this true ? To admit it means manifestly 
 the surrender of all we rest upon. If what we 
 call the love and the holiness and the mercy of 
 God are not what those words convey to us, then 
 it is difficult to see any value in them. They are 
 counterfeits, and we have not what we want for 
 our redemption and comfort, nor any actual 
 knowledge of God at all. Then Christianity falls 
 to pieces. Of course all faith must cease ; and 
 at last all religion, even mere reverence, goes by 
 the board, for we can hold no relations with an 
 unknown object. But we are hardly prepared 
 for this. It lands us where no one will go, in the 
 position that we know really nothing about any- 
 body or anything : for there is as much reason 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 1 75 
 
 to be sure of the correctness of divine facts as 
 of any other ; as much reason to believe that we 
 can know God as that we can know a friend, for 
 the one can reveal Himself to us if the other 
 can. The facts about God are really more, and 
 and not less, certain than those of other sorts ; 
 at any rate they are so to some of us, whose cer- 
 titude is found in inward, not in outward tests. 
 For as we only know of any person what he 
 manifests by his word or deed, so we believe 
 that the self-revelation of God is the only one 
 which is full, faultless, and free from all possibil- 
 ity of error. The best of men and the fondest 
 of friends may shrink from telling the secrets of 
 his heart, may under strong temptation deceive ; 
 but whatever comes from God must disclose Him 
 exactly as He is. 
 
 There is still a more conclusive argument than 
 this. The whole matter of the trustworthiness 
 of the facts regarding God that are included in 
 the Creed of Christendom, turns upon the verac- 
 ity of Jesus Christ. There are two things which 
 He clearly said. One was that we can know 
 God ; the other that He correctly revealed Him. 
 His entire mission implied the possibility of our 
 receiving divine disclosures : that is to say, He 
 who is the highest authority among the sons of 
 men on things spiritual and religious, affirmed 
 the falseness of agnosticism. Carlyle, whom we 
 quoted once before, said that " no man's opinion 
 is worth anything when it conflicts with that of 
 
i;6 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 Jesus Christ." This is perfectly true. There- 
 fore if any one tell us that revelation is not pos- 
 sible, or that our reception of it is not possible, 
 though he be some wise and learned son of cul- 
 ture, we can simply reply that Jesus taught other- 
 wise. After that, it makes little difference what 
 any one else says. We need not trouble our- 
 selves to resort to arguments for the knowability 
 of eternal and absolute truth, though there are 
 plenty of them, when that One who is wiser than 
 any sage, profounder than any philosopher, de- 
 clared it. To contradict Him in the realm of 
 religious and metaphysical thought, is presump- 
 tuous, and marks the folly of the man who does 
 so. For, if not a Saviour, He is, at least, a wiser 
 teacher than any one else who has undertaken 
 to teach mankind. How much more is He, to 
 those who regard Him as the Incarnate Word 
 of God ! But He went beyond this. He said 
 that what He disclosed of God was correct : not 
 divine truth so affected by human conditions as 
 to be untrustworthy. He said, " He that hath 
 seen Me hath seen the Father ; " " The words 
 that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they 
 are life ; " " No man cometh unto the Father 
 but by Me ; " "I am the way, the truth, and the 
 life ; " " He that is of the truth heareth my 
 voice." These are only a few of many utter- 
 ances that affirm or imply that the revelation 
 that we have in Him is one of real, actual truths 
 regarding the nature and the character of God, 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? IJJ 
 
 that which is highest and most essential in God ; 
 and that we, as made in His image, are capable 
 of appreciating and receiving them. 
 
 Agnosticism has done the good work of show- 
 ing that we cannot, through philosophy and spec- 
 ulation, reach a knowledge of the attributes and 
 inner life of God, of His infinite qualities as the 
 Self-existent One wherein He is unlike us. But 
 it has not shown, and it is not within its power 
 to show, that what He is, in His personal life 
 and characteristics, Cannot be known by faith in 
 His Son. And these are the facts with which 
 Theology deals. The verities of the Creed we 
 hold and live by are verities regarding them. 
 The rest is of little moment. The important 
 thing is, that we have in Christ an actual disclos- 
 ure of God as to His heart, His character, and 
 His relations to His creatures. So Theology is 
 a science of facts as certain, to those who be- 
 lieve, as are the facts which are ascertained by 
 the senses. It is real knowledge, not accommo- 
 dated or conventional, or incomprehensible for- 
 mulae of God and His ways. 
 
 But it is not complete, we are told. What of 
 that ? What knowledge is complete ? Who will 
 claim that any fact in any science is fully known, 
 either in itself or in its relations ? Who has an 
 exhaustive acquaintance with a single insect or a 
 single rock ? It may be that these facts of the 
 Gospel are even less known than those of nature. 
 Their very character may leave a larger fringe 
 
I78 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 of mystery about them. This is not certain, 
 since, in the fringe about the lowliest fact of na- 
 ture, or the simplest one of experience, there is 
 included all of God, if we may so speak; and 
 when we pass into the higher spheres of inquiry 
 and deal with life, we deal with a still larger ele- 
 ment of the unknown. Biology brings us facts 
 more remote from our grasp than chemistry. 
 So, while it is true that it is difficult to determine 
 the comparative degree of mystery in any case, 
 yet we may say that, when we deal with the na- 
 ture and acts of God, there are still more un- 
 solved questions, there are still more reserved 
 possibilities of disclosure. This may be a disad- 
 vantage for Theology when contrasted with the 
 sciences of the phenomena that the senses ap- 
 prehend, and may cause us to feel a greater de- 
 gree of possible error in our inductions. It 
 should undoubtedly make us more cautious and 
 less dogmatic in our inferences. 
 
 But, on the other hand, there is an advantage 
 peculiar to this science, which is the power to 
 verify our processes, the possession of standards 
 by which to detect errors. These are found in 
 the person and teachings and spirit of Christ, as 
 recorded in the New Testament. As all science 
 consists in the combination of the data reasoned 
 from with the process of reasoning, so, while our 
 data may be more incomplete than those of other 
 sciences, we yet possess what none of them have, 
 and what their devotees would give anything to 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 1 79 
 
 acquire, — a criterion by which we can tell what 
 is inconsistent and inadmissible in our processes. 
 The manifestation of God in Christ will, if borne 
 in mind, save us from what may at any time hap- 
 pen to the student of any other science — from 
 falling into conclusions that are antagonistic to 
 the very truth that is the subject of our study. 
 
 That this has not always been remembered, is 
 most evident. Forgetfulness of the principle, 
 that anything affirmed of God must be in har- 
 mony with the spirit and words of Jesus, has led 
 to conclusions that are abhorrent. Logic has 
 maintained them, and partisanship has accepted 
 them, but they are nevertheless condemned by 
 the norm which ought to be supreme to the 
 Christian. As evident is the injury that this for- 
 getfulness has produced. Believers have been 
 perplexed ; the head and the heart have been 
 placed in conflict. Many have turned away from 
 all definite belief because, as it has been pre- 
 sented too frequently, it seemed incompatible 
 with the supremacy of conscience. Unbelievers 
 have been given a plausible argument in the af- 
 firmation that such conclusions are identical with 
 Christian truth ; for, their overthrow being easy, 
 Christianity goes with them. Many a man, un- 
 able to discriminate between the faith and false 
 inferences from it, has been alienated from the 
 Gospel because of harsh and immoral doctrines 
 that were alleged to be part of it. This could 
 not have happened had the standard of Christian 
 
l8o WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 study been observed, that nothing can be true of 
 God which does not harmonize with His mani- 
 festation in Christ. It is in measure as this has 
 been adhered to that progress has been made, 
 and in that measure alone. 
 
 Let it be so with us. Let us say nothing, be- 
 lieve nothing, that Jesus would not have said, 
 that is not in accord with His life and utterances. 
 Let no authority nor any reasoning gain our sub- 
 mission in such an issue. Let others see that 
 we can make " the mind of Christ " supreme, 
 and so shall we commend the Gospel to many a 
 bewildered mind. Thus alone can the Church 
 do this same thing. The world may not regard 
 Christ as it should, but it has at any rate that 
 idea of God which He has given to it ; and it 
 justly says that such doctrines as a stern or an 
 unmerciful or an unethical Theology would teach 
 are ipso facto false, because dishonoring to Him 
 who is above all things tender, just, and loving. 
 
 Whitefield and Wesley were once arguing for 
 and against the system called Calvinism, the for- 
 mer being an unshrinking advocate of it. The 
 latter pushed the former until he consistently ad- 
 mitted that God acted only for His own glory, 
 with no assignable reasons for His dealing dif- 
 ferently with different men. Then Wesley ex- 
 claimed : " Your God is my Devil." And he was 
 right ; for that idea of God which some have 
 taught, though few have held it in their hearts, 
 is just what the ethical mind, the one taught of 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? l8l 
 
 Jesus, means by Satan, — a being who acts arbi- 
 trarily, without reason and without love. 
 
 So we come back to our definition of Theol- 
 ogy, that it is the science of Christian facts, the 
 process of their elucidation in accord with the 
 spirit of Christ. 
 
 Here we meet two classes of critics. On the 
 one hand, there are those who tell us that the 
 conclusions of Theology are of no real validity, 
 and then, pointing to its conflicting utterances, 
 say that this shows how all Christianity is guess- 
 work after all : if there is all this uncertainty in 
 one part of it, there is no certainty anywhere. 
 But this is to say what would be ridiculed in 
 other matters. There is just the same certainty, 
 and there is just the same uncertainty, as in any 
 other department of study. There is no cer- 
 tainty in your science, whatever it be, we tell 
 such a man, nothing settled and final. There is 
 not a scientific proposition of any sort or kind of 
 which that can be affirmed. A scientific state- 
 ment means only that which is the best formula- 
 tion of facts up to date. To-morrow may bring 
 new facts which will demand a totally different 
 formula, or it may bring new light on old ones 
 which will revolutionize any generalization in ex- 
 istence. Inductions are but working hypotheses. 
 All that is fixed is the facts themselves, the flow- 
 ers, the stones, the stars, the living creatures, 
 the events, that are studied. They are certain, 
 but nothing is certain in what the science may 
 
1 82 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 teach about their meaning and their relations. 
 And so Theology has the same certainty in its 
 facts and the same uncertainty in its inferences. 
 There may be no more reason for accepting its 
 results than those of any other science, but if no 
 more, there is at least as much, for they are due 
 to the working of the same human intelligence. 
 But there is no more reason for rejecting its data 
 because our reasonings are fallible, or because 
 former positions are abandoned, than there was 
 for denying that the planetary system was real 
 when Copernicus overthrew the astronomy of pre- 
 vious ages. It may be, and probably is, the fault 
 of Christians that so many seem involved in this 
 confusion of thought ; but at any rate many an 
 opponent of our faith needs to learn to distin- 
 guish between the sure and redeeming facts of 
 the Church's Creed and the tentative or scien- 
 tific efforts to explain them. We can live on, 
 sustained, comforted, saved by the Gospel, apart 
 from any theologizing ; just as well as the hungry 
 man can find nourishment in food without any 
 acquaintance with organic chemistry, or the pro- 
 cesses of nutrition. 
 
 But others will now retort, from a different 
 quarter, no certainty in Theology ? Do you dare 
 affirm this ? I dare affirm what your Church 
 and my Church teaches. If anything is evident, 
 it is that the Church does, as it must, indorse no 
 Theology, commit itself to no scientific results, 
 and therein it shows that it is Apostolic and 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 1 83 
 
 Catholic. There are many systems or schools 
 of Christian thought within the allowable limits 
 of adherence to the Creed and Prayer Book. 
 There are many theories of particular subjects, 
 such as sacraments, ministry, atonement, escha- 
 tology, and others more or less important, many 
 theories even of the very organization of the 
 Church. But the Church identifies itself with 
 none, regards all as only approximate at the best, 
 and authorizes no man to speak for it as to the 
 final definition of anything. It is the same as in 
 the State. This is committed to no theory or 
 explanation of its organic facts, no science of 
 government, no formula of social or political sci- 
 ence. There are men, it is true, who say that 
 their party is the only allowable one, and the 
 authorized definer of constitutional data ; and so 
 there are men who say that their ism or their 
 theological affirmations are the voice of the 
 Church, their doxy is orthodoxy. But as the 
 State, so the Church frowns or smiles on such 
 people according to their importance, and goes 
 on, with no syllable of sanction for their claim, 
 keeping itself clear of responsibility for the stam- 
 mering and transient utterances of presumptu- 
 ous men. 
 
 It leaves all that to sects. The idea of a sect, 
 as has been stated elsewhere, is, that it is com- 
 mitted to some form of Christian thought, or to 
 the especial emphasis of some particular Chris- 
 tian verity. There may have been some good 
 
1 84 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 resulting from such bodies, especially when they 
 think it their duty to testify to forgotten or ob- 
 scured truths. But the Church idea is to allow 
 no form of thought to be made binding upon its 
 members. It says that they all are but scientific 
 efforts to arrive at truth, and therefore not final 
 attainments. It does this for two reasons. One 
 is that, ever mindful of the limitations of human 
 capacity in any sphere of study, it is especially 
 so as to this study of the divine verities of its 
 Creed, and consequently insists that no formula, 
 no generalization, is ultimate, or ever can be, on 
 the lips of creatures speaking of their Creator. 
 That is, the Church allows no autocracy of logic 
 in theology. Perhaps the greatest evil in the 
 history of Christendom has been the claim to 
 argue to irreversible conclusions with binding 
 effect. For instance, because God's sovereignty 
 is a truth, therefore immoral doctrines of predes- 
 tination and thinly disguised fatalism are made 
 matters of faith ; because baptism is of divine 
 appointment, therefore there is no salvation with- 
 out it ; because Christ died for our sins, accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures, therefore it was to ap- 
 pease a wrathful God. Such are specimens of 
 the use of that little word ergo, which has led to 
 intolerable tenets and to cruel persecutions and 
 unchristian schisms. But this is all due to for- 
 getting that, as in any other science that deals 
 with facts, logic is of imperfect obligation or 
 value ; since, the data being but imperfectly 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 185 
 
 known as far as we have them, and only partial 
 also, we cannot reach certain conclusions. We 
 can never draw perfect conclusions from imper- 
 fect premises ; yet such are all our premises 
 when we deal with divine things, even more than 
 in the realm of nature. Before we can draw a 
 binding inference from the verities of our faith, 
 we must have a certainty that we comprehend 
 the latter in all their relations, which the Church 
 never presumes to affirm. 
 
 Sometimes this claim to pursue inferences un- 
 erringly assumes grotesque forms in serious 
 men's utterances. Not only in works of system- 
 atic theology, as they are called, but in single 
 statements, we meet with an assumption of ac- 
 quaintance with deep things that is appalling. 
 Perhaps the climax was reached by an eminent 
 New England divine who said that, with his sys- 
 tem of doctrine, he could answer every question 
 that could be asked. Compared with this, the 
 assumptions of the Pope of Rome are modest and 
 moderate. 
 
 The other reason why the Church holds no at- 
 tainments in theology to be final is that which 
 Christ has given, both directly and through the 
 teaching of His Apostles. He said that the 
 Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all the 
 truth ; that there was to be a growth in the 
 knowledge of its Lord and Saviour in the entire 
 body, as really as in the individual ; and He 
 never said that this leading should at any time 
 
1 86 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 reach its completeness and there stop. The 
 Romanist and the sectarian have alike a belief 
 that, at some date, that guidance ceased upon 
 this or that line because a goal was reached, and 
 so they think that the formula then obtained 
 may and must be accepted as a final crystalliza- 
 tion of a truth. But the Church that is Apos- 
 tolic, and, thank God ! our own, believes that this 
 leading is to go on and on, with ever deepening 
 vistas into " the mystery of godliness," ever 
 greater gains in purity of apprehension, ever 
 larger perceptions of the fullness and richness 
 of its every divine fact, whether dogma or sac- 
 rament or ordinance or promise. This must be 
 so in the nature of the case. 
 
 But we need definite doctrine. This is the 
 cry of many unable to understand the position of 
 the Catholic Church, or to appreciate "the lib- 
 erty wherewith Christ has made us free." It 
 has always been the wish of unthinking men. 
 The simple fact is, that in their sense they can- 
 not get it, and our spiritual mother declines to 
 give it. She will leave room in her fold for those 
 who are to come after, and whom, with maturer 
 thought, the definite doctrines of to-day would 
 not satisfy about such things as God's sover- 
 eignty, or man's ability, or the theory of atone- 
 ment by Christ, or the working of the Holy 
 Ghost. He is hardly kind who would so tie her 
 up that his descendants will have to feed on his 
 limited conceptions, or tune their voices to his 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? I 8? 
 
 shibboleths, however sweet to his own ear they 
 may be. And if he want this definite teaching, 
 which will he take ? Will he take that of the 
 Eastern Church, or of the Western ? Will he 
 take that of Italy or of England ? Will he take 
 that of Aquinas or of Scotus ? Will he take that 
 of Hooker, or of Cosin ? Will he choose to- 
 day that of a Pusey or of a Maurice ? A recent 
 dignitary, referring to two eminent divines, said 
 that he daily prayed that he "might live like 
 a Taylor and die like a Bull." This apparently 
 grotesque desire meant that all schools may 
 teach us something, each so-called definite doc- 
 trine that some one has been satisfied with may 
 help some of us somewhere. But let no one 
 dare to say that conclusions which he has 
 reached are definitive, in the sense of being bind- 
 ing upon other disciples of Christ, when they 
 utter their belief in Him in their creed. The 
 Church says to us, " Definite teaching is found 
 in these facts upon which Christianity stands. 
 Rest upon them, live by them, preach them. 
 Beyond them, you have liberty to think and ad- 
 vise and suggest, and to express your convic- 
 tions. But I decline to warrant your committing 
 me, the Church that embraces all kinds of minds 
 and must have room for all the ages, to any of 
 your theological conclusions as final. Faultless 
 conceptions of Christ and His work you cannot 
 have and never will have. For, to finite crea- 
 tures, there will ever remain an inexplorable re- 
 
1 88 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 gion on the other side of every fact, and al] your 
 imagined definiteness is, at the best, but the im- 
 perfect result of scientific effort. I have enough 
 to answer for without being accountable for, and 
 making my message identical with, the conclu- 
 sions of any man or any set of men at any time." 
 That is, the Church repudiates the idea of in- 
 fallibility. There is a frequent confusion of 
 thought about this term. Infallibility, as Rome 
 claims it, and as it really means, is inerrancy or 
 perfectness in doctrinal definition. Rome as- 
 serts this, and so in principle does every body of 
 men that commits itself to any theological sys- 
 tem or theory of the Gospel ; for, if honest, it 
 must believe itself right and others wrong in 
 what it stands for. The strength of this posi- 
 tion is the unwillingness or the incapacity of 
 many to discriminate between facts and our con- 
 ception of their relations ; and to see that, while 
 we can be sure of the former, we cannot in any 
 way be sure of the correctness of the latter. 
 Yet this is the attraction of Rome to many, that 
 to those who regard true Christianity, not as a 
 life of trust, but as assent to a set of accurately 
 stated dogmatic propositions, that system says, 
 " Come unto me and I will give you rest," rest 
 from controversy over matters of belief. Rome 
 alone makes openly such an absurd and vain pre- 
 tension, yet every sect makes it by implication. 
 But for those who see that the peace of the 
 Christian is not the rest of final settlement of 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 1 89 
 
 all deep questions, but confidence in Gospel 
 facts, this invitation has no relevancy. It is seen 
 to be an offer of what is not at all essential to 
 peace of mind, and of what is only given in coun- 
 terfeit, never in reality. For infallibility is a 
 dream never to be realized, a hallucination if be- 
 lieved in. It is impossible to the Christian who 
 believes in the leading of the Spirit as a contin- 
 uous thing. All history contradicts it, in the 
 cases where it has been claimed. Roman so- 
 called infallible utterances have been changed 
 and corrected ; and sects that began to be be- 
 cause of some tenet of which their founders 
 were so sure that they left the Church, perhaps 
 at cost of heroic sacrifices, to witness to it, have 
 come to give up their very raison d'etre by ad- 
 mitting that those founders were, after all, mis- 
 taken. That the Church will not actually fall 
 away from its message or die out, we must be- 
 lieve, since Christ has promised this ; but that it 
 can or ever will infallibly utter the fullness of 
 any part of that message, there is no reason to 
 expect, no reason to desire. 
 
 And now we see the value of the theological 
 work of the past, and of the vast literature which 
 it has given us, and which records the progress 
 of Christians in apprehending the Gospel upon 
 which they lean, the Christ in whom they trust. 
 The progress has not been so slow, nor the re- 
 sults so small, as some perhaps imagine. The 
 element of mystery in this science is somewhat 
 
190 WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 
 
 larger than in some others ; and so we should 
 expect that, apart from the influence of feeling 
 and prejudice, which are naturally more involved, 
 it should advance towards its goal more slowly 
 than they. The inorganic sciences have ad- 
 vanced with very halting steps, and the organic 
 ones even more slowly ; and their schools of 
 thought are so various and opposed as seriously 
 to confuse us, who do not understand their re- 
 condite discussions much better than they seem 
 to understand our own. But there has been that 
 progress in theology which we should expect 
 from the efforts of human intelligence, and the 
 guidance of the Spirit of God. Clearer views of 
 the divine truth have been gained, and the limits 
 of our capacity more clearly perceived. There 
 has been advance in seeing what may be said, 
 and what may not, about the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost, and their respective oper- 
 ations. Those parts of Christendom that have 
 been capable and alive have made advance in 
 proportion to their conditions ; an advance felt 
 in the life and thought of their people, shown in 
 the utterances of the clergy, lending color to lit- 
 erature and assistance to conduct. Especially 
 marked has this advance been in the century 
 now drawing to its close, perhaps more than in 
 any of its predecessors, except the fourth. The 
 various ancillary sciences, with whose aid alone 
 this one can make progress, have been devel- 
 oped to a marvelous degree. First comes the 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 191 
 
 interpretation of the Bible, for which we have 
 unprecedented assistance in improved critical 
 apparatus, and in our wider acquaintance with 
 every branch of knowledge that bears upon the 
 elucidation of the sacred pages. Then there is 
 the advance made in historical study, in psychol- 
 ogy with its light on spiritual facts, even in phys- 
 ics which discloses so much as to God's methods 
 in creation and preservation. These are all, 
 with many others, achievements of this century, 
 and contribute what our fathers longed for, — in- 
 dispensable assistance to the queen of all sci- 
 ences ; that which she awaits, and which they 
 can give. The consequence is, that they who are 
 willing to seek it will find an advance of which 
 others little know, and which is often denied by 
 some who are called learned in theology, and 
 who would have been so a century ago, but whose 
 position is as representative of this noble science 
 to-day as would be that of a contemporary of a 
 Hutton in geology, or of a Kepler in astronomy, 
 or of a Galvani in physics. Our very children 
 now learn, as commonplaces, what our grand- 
 fathers died without seeing, and reject as abhor- 
 rent what the latter fed upon as precious. We 
 now wonder at what the best and wisest saw no 
 difficulty in holding ; and, in our devotions and 
 conduct, we are guided by what they may only 
 have dreamed of as unpractical vagaries. Prob- 
 lems in thought and action, in the world of sub- 
 stance and of phenomena, in Church and State, 
 
1 9 2 WHA T IS THEOLOG Vf 
 
 in polity and dogma, once perplexing, are now 
 easily solved by the progress made in theology. 
 Many of the implications and the bearings of the 
 Gospel of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, amplified 
 in the facts of the Apostolic message, are ap- 
 prehended now as, a hundred years ago, there 
 seemed little hope that they ever could be. 
 
 That is, this vast literature, which is so often 
 regarded as of little value, has the same value 
 as that of other sciences. True, there is many 
 a musty tome that records forgotten teachings, 
 and many a volume now unopened that contains 
 the results of years of labor. Yet, after all, those 
 books tell the progress in steps of earnest 
 thought, the contribution of each worker to the 
 cause, the special path pursued by each school of 
 toilers, the best thought of each time up to the 
 point attained in our own day. There is much 
 that has been left behind forever ; yet there is 
 much that can never be outgrown, much that is 
 too profound or too holy for us to say that it has 
 nothing for us. The fathers in this science, like 
 the fathers in others, — the Galileos, the Buffons, 
 the Newtons, the Lamarcks, — may have said 
 many things that are antiquated, but they had a 
 grasp upon principles and a vision of vistas that 
 are rarely possessed now. And so we are all 
 richer for this theological labor, and this lore of 
 other days. All share in its results. They are in 
 the air. Churchman and Sectarian, High and Low 
 and Broad Schools of thought, men that know 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 1 93 
 
 nothing about the matter as well as those who 
 know, — all are enlightened and better for this 
 progress in theological study. This growth in 
 the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ brings blessing to all, though they never 
 read its volumes, just as all are partakers of the 
 benefits of many another line of human inquiry, 
 who are unacquainted with its steps, know noth- 
 ing of its struggles, have no honor for its heroes. 
 
 But we must not overrate these results of the- 
 ology, great as they are. We must remember 
 how much more is undisclosed, how many more 
 questions are unanswered still. Upward progress 
 renders the horizon ever larger, and shows us, 
 not less but more of the wide, wide world of na- 
 ture. It is so with the wider world of truth and 
 things divine. Each new elevation we attain, as 
 we seek to scale the height of any of these lofty 
 verities of the faith, which, like majestic peaks, 
 soar upwards towards the heavens and are bathed 
 in sunlight, not only shows us, as any one who 
 tries it knows, new views of the truth possessed, 
 but also new demands for effort, new distances 
 to traverse ere the top be reached, — that sum- 
 mit which never shall be gained, since to all eter- 
 nity we shall be approaching, without attaining, 
 that full understanding which only God has of 
 what He has told us in His Son. For that sum- 
 mit is at His throne. 
 
 So theology is only a science, but a very holy 
 and a very precious one, and one to which the 
 
194 WHAT IS THEOLOGY* 
 
 Church and the world, and each one of us, owe 
 more than is often realized, because of what, 
 under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it has 
 drawn from the Gospel of the Son of God. 
 
 Each one ought to some extent to make him- 
 self familiar with it. The laity are not required 
 to be theologians in this Church, and it is a 
 blessed thing that only the simple Apostles' 
 Creed is asked from their lips in baptism. That 
 reproach often made against our laity, that they 
 know so little of doctrine, is not so much to their 
 discredit as some think. We are very glad that 
 they are not, and are not expected to be, com- 
 mitted to any transient shibboleth or dominant 
 idea, nor to define " the plan of salvation," as it 
 is called, in all details, upon the basis of some 
 assumption to which all the rest must conform, 
 and by which every nook and corner of truth is 
 thought to be illumined. Yet it is true that the 
 laity can and should make themselves better ac- 
 quainted with theological progress than they gen- 
 erally do. If the matter is put in a novel it is 
 read, and a great deal of theology, often correct, 
 yet more generally extremely crude and incorrect, 
 is absorbed because sugar-coated with fiction. 
 But there are plenty of volumes which are within 
 reac'h of those who are not experts, which will 
 help them, teach them correctly, enrich their reli- 
 gious thinking, and show them a wealth of acqui- 
 sition and a reach of discovery which they would 
 deeply enjoy. 
 
WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 1 95 
 
 For, with all that may be said as to differences 
 of opinion, and all that may be charged as to the 
 defect of fallibility, yet, when we consider that 
 the loftier the field of study, the greater is the 
 element of mystery ; the higher the phenomena, 
 the greater the liability of investigators to reach 
 varying conclusions, — we can affirm that, in this 
 age of the sciences, none has made more advance 
 than this sovereign of them all. As the bright- 
 est lives of history are found in the calendar of 
 the Church's saints, so the loftiest intellects are 
 found in the list of its students, and the richest 
 contributions to the world's light come from 
 their consecrated inquiry. And to-day, little as 
 some appear to be aware of it, the keenest inves- 
 tigators, and the profoundest seers into myste- 
 rious things, are found among those who are la- 
 boring in that science which has as its aim the 
 making known of "the unsearchable riches of 
 Christ." 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 THE BIBLE. 
 
 u They received the word with all readiness of mind, and 
 searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." — 
 Acts xvii. ii. 
 
 What is the Bible, and what is its place in 
 Christianity ? Some may wonder why this in- 
 quiry was not considered first, and before the 
 other questions, but, as has been partly seen, and 
 will be yet more fully seen, the answer to it de- 
 pends upon those that have preceded it. It is in 
 accordance with our conceptions regarding them 
 that our view of the Sacred Volume will be 
 formed. 
 
 By the first question, What is the Bible ? is not 
 meant merely what it is as to its contents. It is 
 a volume consisting of writings by men taught of 
 Christ, or by their disciples, and embracing biog- 
 raphies of Him, a history of the foundation of 
 the Church, some general letters and some other 
 letters to individuals and local churches, and a 
 book of predictions as to the future of Christendom 
 and the world. There is also added to that collec- 
 tion the sacred writings of Israel, which received 
 the indorsement of the Lord and His Apostles as 
 
THE BIBLE 1 97 
 
 fit to be included in a book for the Church's use. 
 Concerning the history of the formation of this 
 volume it is not necessary to speak ; nor are we 
 called upon to go into discussions which, how- 
 ever pressing and important, yet do not involve 
 what we are now to notice, and do not affect 
 what this lecture will endeavor to set forth. 
 
 The question, What is the Bible ? means, What 
 estimate are we to make of it ? where are we to 
 place it among the books of the world ? what 
 deference are we to give it ? We shall be guided 
 in our reply by considering certain features that 
 stand out as we look at it. 
 
 At the outset, we notice its unity. In reality 
 it is a library, a collection of writings made dur- 
 ing an interval of nearly fifteen hundred years 
 by about seventy authors in different lands, and 
 who, in many cases, never saw one another. 
 Further, these men never knew that their writ- 
 ings were to be collected in a volume. Yet 
 really it is one book. Although so diverse in 
 origin, it is so much a unit that many readers do 
 not seem to know it is not the work of one man ; 
 and most readers peruse it without thinking of 
 its varied authorship, if aware of it. For all dif- 
 ferences are lost in the sense of the prevailing 
 unity that is felt as one reads it. It is a unit in 
 its theme : the redemption of man, and prepara- 
 tion for that result. It is a unit in its temper 
 and tone : a holy book. It is a unit in its teach- 
 ing : it does not contradict itself. It is a unit in 
 
198 THE BIBLE. 
 
 its progress : does not speak a different utter- 
 ance as years go by, nor revert to stages that had 
 been passed. 
 
 Now, this unity of so many writings by so 
 many men, during so many years, would seem to 
 indicate a superintending mind. When we see a 
 number of blocks of stone, upon being brought 
 together, combine into a symmetrical edifice, we 
 conclude as evident that some one directed their 
 preparation who had the structure in view. So 
 this harmonious book, resulting from the combi- 
 nation of so many factors, indicates the superin- 
 tendence of an intelligence that guided all the 
 work towards that intended goal. This can have 
 been no human mind. A superintendence over 
 so wide a field can only mean the Providence of 
 God. Thus has the fact that the labors of so 
 many men result in a handbook for God's people, 
 which is so consistent, symmetrical, and adapted 
 to the end for which the ages since have used it, 
 always indicated to reasonable men the presence 
 of a divine element in its canon, made them feel 
 that the collection has been more than the re- 
 sult of merely human selection and preservation. 
 Define it as you please, there is nowhere else 
 any greater instance of the working of Provi- 
 dence than in the history of the Bible. 
 
 But this is not all. There are some other facts 
 that must be taken into the account, in forming 
 an estimate of this strange book, bearing upon 
 other questions than its origin as a collection. 
 
THE BIBLE. 1 99 
 
 Consider its exhaustlessness. No other book 
 has been so much studied. The treatises and 
 commentaries devoted to it exceed enumeration. 
 Biblical literature is equal in quantity to that of 
 any other department, perhaps greater than any. 
 That study has been varied. It has been devo- 
 tional, to stimulate piety ; practical, to guide con- 
 duct ; and doctrinal, to develop theology. It has 
 been prosecuted by all kinds of minds , — by the 
 most acute as well as by the most commonplace. 
 Men in the front rank of intellectual power have 
 gone to it for ages, as to a mine for explora- 
 tion ; preachers, as to a spring for themes and 
 thoughts ; poets, as to a garden for flowers of 
 imagery and illustration. Yet it has not been 
 exhausted, and shows no sign of exhaustion. It 
 is studied to-day as much as ever, more critically 
 than ever before, yet it yields as much as ever 
 that is fresh and precious. Instead of having 
 been outgrown by human progress, on the con- 
 trary all that progress only ministers to its study. 
 Other books are one by one laid away upon the 
 shelf, superseded in the flight of time, however 
 valuable they may once have been ; but this one 
 lives on in perennial value. It sees ambitious 
 literature pass into forgetfulness, just as the 
 Church sees empires rise and pass away that had 
 threatened its supremacy. 
 
 Again, consider the effects of this volume on 
 life and conduct, — a subject needing the history 
 of Christendom and the history of civilization to 
 
200 THE BIBLE. 
 
 cover its ground. Its perusal has been the cause 
 of revolutions in countless characters ; its distri- 
 bution, the source of the strength of the strong- 
 est nations ; its reopening, the awakening of peo- 
 ples from the sleep of ages. This can be said 
 of no other volume. In counting up the factors 
 that have contributed to make the world what it 
 is to-day, in enumerating the forces potent for 
 good in this land, the powers that have shaped 
 our lives, our homes, our surroundings, this is 
 one of the few controlling elements, and the only 
 book that is to be included in such a list. 
 
 Consider its effects upon literature. This is 
 especially noticeable in our own, while it is also 
 great in that of other lands and tongues. One 
 can hardly open a page of prose or poetry, of fic- 
 tion, of history, or of philosophy, without finding 
 what would not have been there had there been 
 no Bible. This is true of writings by men who 
 do not esteem it as we do. It is so ingrained 
 in our thought that it is a question whether it 
 would be possible to write a volume on any sub- 
 ject that should owe nothing to the Scriptures. 
 It would, at any rate, be extremely dull or im- 
 poverished in style. Skeptics and infidels do not 
 seem able to escape incurring indebtedness to it. 
 They have to use its metaphors, refer to its con- 
 tents, recognize its prestige. Its version is the 
 English classic, and occupies a place in our liter- 
 ature that no other book occupies in any other 
 language. But, apart from this matter of style, 
 
THE BIBLE. 201 
 
 take out of the pages of Shakespeare, or Tenny- 
 son, or Browning, or out of Gibbon or Macaulay, 
 yes, out of those of an unbeliever like Shelley, 
 or a creature of self-indulgence like Byron, all 
 that they owe to the Bible, and the result would 
 be pages white with hiatuses, and as void of se- 
 quence as of illustration. And as to Milton, 
 what would be left of him ? Yes, take him who 
 stands at the head of human literature, the peer- 
 less Dante, and see there how even the supreme 
 poet, because the loftiest prophet, was what he 
 was, wrote what he wrote, because of the influ- 
 ence of this wonderful book. 
 
 Consider its superiority in dignity to other 
 books. They all seem commonplace and earthly 
 in comparison. They may be more exciting, 
 more interesting even, yet no one would say 
 they are so lofty. They may be beyond our imi- 
 tation, yet not inconceivably so. That is, we 
 can imagine men able to write the Ethics of 
 Aristotle or a play of Shakespeare, without ab- 
 surdity, but no sensible man will claim that he, 
 or any one else, could ever write the Book of 
 Isaiah, or the Epistle to the Romans. It is not 
 what we expect of any genius or any learning. 
 We regard it as no reproach to compare any 
 other work with it unfavorably, since it is known 
 to be, of course, inimitable. 
 
 Notice its superiority to its own contempo- 
 rary literature. We have plenty of writings of 
 the days of the New Testament, and are finding 
 
202 THE BIBLE. 
 
 more and more belonging to the period covered 
 by the Old. Yet none of them approach the 
 Sacred Scriptures. The Greek and Latin clas- 
 sics, with all their wealth, have nothing to lay 
 hold of the heart as do these books by lowly 
 Jews ; and as to the others, compared with the 
 Old Testament, all ancient volumes of India or 
 Chaldea are " flat, stale, and unprofitable." As 
 Max Muller said, when criticised for publishing 
 versions of the Sacred Books of the East, Chris- 
 tians should court the comparison, for it shows 
 how inferior these are to the Sacred Books of 
 Israel. 
 
 But it is chiefly with regard to the moral and 
 religious element that these books show their su- 
 periority to old literature. This is the supreme 
 test of a book, that which must fix its rank, the 
 measure of the value of any volume. And here 
 the Bible shows an unapproachable elevation. 
 Now these writers, though living in different 
 epochs and in varied lands, were yet always sur- 
 rounded by crude and low ideas of God. Their 
 contemporaries are full of statements and ideas 
 that we spurn, and of ethics that are intolerable ; 
 they have no reproof for hideous vices, and teach 
 unworthy views of life. But out of such times 
 and such surroundings this Bible emerges clear 
 as the sunlight, pure as the snow. This is es- 
 pecially marked where it treats the same themes 
 as other writings. Take, for instance, the story 
 of creation and of the early days of the world. 
 
THE BIBLE. 203 
 
 On Chaldean monuments and tablets that story 
 is all found, but there it is mixed with polythe- 
 ism and puerilities and worthless rubbish. Here, 
 however, as in all the rest of its pages, the stand- 
 ard of the Bible can endure the tests of our 
 mental and moral progress. Its ethics conform 
 to the taste of these latest times, for it is read 
 as helpful unto true godliness by the holiest in 
 their holiest hours, in this evening of the nine- 
 teenth century. 
 
 For consider, lastly, how it has been loved. 
 To say that it has been supremely treasured, and 
 copies of it valued as relics ; that it has been the 
 only volume prized by the sick and the suffer- 
 ing, the only one cherished in the most sacred 
 moments of life, — is all too trite to dwell upon. 
 The earnest opponents of the faith have done 
 their best to shake its hold upon human affec- 
 tion, have used many a plausible argument, many 
 a keen weapon, but they have not succeeded. 
 Never were so many Bibles sold as to-day, never 
 so many distributed. If we were to poll the list 
 of the holy and intelligent people of any commu- 
 nity, who doubts that this would be found to be, 
 of all the volumes in the world, the most valued ? 
 Other books are read with intense interest, but 
 we cannot say that men love them. Others may 
 be regarded by some as more important, yet 
 none has such a hold upon the hearts of those we 
 most revere. There is no other book for which 
 men will die, without which life would be so 
 
204 THE BIBLE. 
 
 dark ; none else that could not be replaced if 
 the world's libraries were burned by some new 
 Omar. 
 
 Now, how are we to account for a volume not 
 only so strange a unit, but so exhaustless to 
 study, so wide in its influence, so superior to 
 others, and so beloved ? This question cannot 
 be put aside. This book is unique. There is no 
 other that can be put on the same shelf. Great 
 and vast as is the literature of this world, the 
 books of the Bible form a class separate from it 
 all, because superior in value to mankind. There 
 must be some adequate explanation of such a 
 fact. What is it ? 
 
 The only reasonable one is that which has 
 ever been given by the best thought of the most 
 advanced lands, and by the Church, which repre- 
 sents the efflorescence of human opinion, — is 
 that God gave it to the world. It is manifestly 
 His book ; as clearly His bestowal as creation or 
 redemption are His work. It cannot be man's 
 gift, for it is beyond his capacity, because it does 
 for God's people what only God can do, — brings 
 a message that bears the divine stamp, shows the 
 divine mind. But this is not only true regard- 
 ing its compilation, of which we have spoken ; it 
 is true of its contents and matter, so exhaustless 
 and so exalted. That is, a divine element in the 
 component parts can alone account for these pe- 
 culiarities that have been noticed ; and that ele- 
 ment is Inspiration. 
 
THE BIBLE. 205 
 
 At once this word awakens opposition, and 
 perhaps ridicule. Many say that it is only an 
 antiquated notion of credulous folk. But it is 
 pretty safe to say, as observation shows, that 
 they who speak thus either do not know what 
 inspiration means, or else are not sufficiently 
 familiar with the Book to pass any opinion upon 
 its peculiarities. 
 
 By " inspiration " we mean that influence of the 
 Spirit of God which gives discernment in spir- 
 itual things, whether moral or religious. Surely 
 this is the mark of the Bible, for this has made 
 it precious. Its value has not lain in its historic 
 lore, nor in its poetic beauty, nor in its literary 
 isolation ; but in the light that comes from 'it for 
 the dark hours of life, the deep hours of thought, 
 and the soaring hours of holy meditation. It is 
 "The Book," — which is its name translated into 
 English, — just because it is alone authoritative 
 on supreme things. It is solitary as the volume 
 of religious and ethical teaching. But whence can 
 such illumination come, if not from the " Father 
 of lights " ? Some would tell us that its inspira- 
 tion is the same as that of poets and painters, 
 who have been given that attribute in common 
 parlance ; that its superiority is the result of 
 genius. But there is no evidence that these 
 writers were all geniuses, or that any were such 
 extraordinary men as to be capable in themselves 
 of giving such light to the world. Moreover, 
 this afflatus is not that which results in aesthetic 
 
206 THE BIBLE. 
 
 or in imaginative excellence ; it is of a kind that 
 genius does not possess ; it is a spiritual inspi- 
 ration. The Bible speaks to men of loftier 
 things than art. Its power, its excellence, per- 
 tain to a different sphere. It speaks to the 
 heart, of God and holiness, of right and truth, of 
 eternity and of the way to gain it. Men prize it 
 beyond all other books because in it they hear, as 
 in no others, the voice of God, — find in it what 
 they seek from Him, and what can only come 
 from Him. But, some will retort, Wherein then 
 is this different from the inspiration of saintly 
 preachers, or of such books as the Pilgrim's 
 Progress, or the Imitation of Christ ? They are 
 indeed akin, we admit, for they all show the 
 divine afflatus. But the difference is, that the 
 latter owe to the Bible all the value they possess, 
 gain thence their inspiration. It stands to them 
 as the spring to the water, as the original to the 
 copy, at the best. Other men might write, like 
 an a. Kempis or a Bunyan, by drawing upon the 
 same source, but not like a John. We quote the 
 pages of the latter as finally authoritative, as 
 well as supremely precious. But no one would 
 probably so quote the former, which at once 
 shows that in their cases inspiration means a 
 different thing in kind as well as degree. 
 
 So we see that there are three possible views 
 of this marvelous volume. One is, that it is 
 only human, the pious work of gifted men. We 
 reply to this that, if it could account for the ele- 
 
THE BIBLE. 2C>7 
 
 vation of the Bible, it could not explain its unity ; 
 and as to its elevation, if one see no more than 
 human illumination, no more than what is feas- 
 ible to men, by comparison with what men have 
 otherwise done, if one see not that the Bible 
 occupies a solitary position over against the 
 other books in the world, — it is a matter of judg- 
 ment, about which, like one of taste, we cannot 
 argue. It is like saying that one sees no more 
 than humanity in Christ, or human wisdom in 
 history ; things which cannot be demonstrated, 
 any more than one can demonstrate the excel- 
 lence of a picture, or the beauty of a flower. 
 Such a man lacks the development of his reli- 
 gious perceptions, and that is all we can say. As 
 was remarked, this denial of any divine element 
 is usually due to a misapprehension of what it 
 means, — a reaction from the exaggerated state- 
 ment of it, to which we now turn. 
 
 The usual position regarding the Bible, the 
 principal error to be met, has been the other 
 extreme, or holding its inspiration to such a de- 
 gree that the human element has been entirely 
 denied. The chief danger to its real value has 
 been making it only a divine dictation, where the 
 penmen had no part beyond the writing of the 
 words. This is the same heresy as Docetism 
 regarding Christ, for it is affirming that the hu- 
 manity in the written word is only a semblance. 
 It shows, in the one case as in the other, how 
 intensely patent the divinity is when it has been 
 so difficult to keep its affirmation within bounds. 
 
208 THE BIBLE. 
 
 But this theory is as much contradicted by 
 facts in Inspiration as in Incarnation. The hu- 
 man element in the Scriptures is as real as that 
 in the life of Jesus ; and it is as absurd to 
 thought, and as dangerous to religion, to deny it 
 in one case as in the other. It is seen every- 
 where, — in the differences between the writers 
 and between their productions ; in the expres- 
 sions that mark the working of real minds, the 
 actual thinking of living men. It may seem su- 
 perfluous to speak of a matter so obvious, yet 
 every day we see that it is necessary. This ex- 
 treme position has alienated, and is alienating, 
 many from the Bible itself, who think that to 
 accept this book requires the acceptance of so 
 indefensible a view of it. Yet even this error 
 has a singular strength for men. Many lives and 
 careers, saturated with the idea, have had a mar- 
 velous force because of it. This is seen in the 
 case of General Gordon, whose letters show what 
 a mighty power it was in his heroic life. How 
 true that inspiration must be which, in an inde- 
 fensible form, yet makes men as holy and fearless 
 as he ! How shallow they must be who deny it ! 
 
 A sensible and a sound view of all the facts, 
 then, leads us to see in this book both a human 
 and a divine element ; therefore our effort must 
 be to seek some formula of their relation. It is 
 easy here, as elsewhere, to solve the problem by 
 eliminating either factor, but a wise man would 
 rather leave it unsolved than gain such an un- 
 
THE BIBLE. 209 
 
 candid solution ; and unsolved it must ever re- 
 main, just as the problem of the union of the 
 human and divine in history or in life, or in the 
 person of the Redeemer. 
 
 And herein is this Church of ours found to be 
 wise. It has never given any definition of In- 
 spiration, allows no one to commit it to any. In 
 the Prayer Book and Ordination Services, as in 
 the Articles, the Sacred Volume is said to be a 
 standard, an ultimate rule of faith and practice ; 
 which is giving to it an authority that cannot be 
 given to human utterances. But the word "in- 
 spiration" is not mentioned; the whole subject 
 as to how the Volume has come to possess such 
 an authority is studiously avoided. God is said 
 to speak in it, but it is not said how that is true. 
 The Church is too prudent to use any term or 
 state any theory which is sure to be outgrown, 
 and to be forever insufficient. When one can 
 tell me how the divine and human were related 
 in Christ ; how God sanctifies a mind ; how God 
 guides the lives of men ; yes, how God sustains 
 the world : — when he tells me the formula of 
 any connection between God and the creature, I 
 will tell him the formula of an inspiration that is 
 just as patent as these other facts. 
 
 This much, however, we must abide by : the 
 inspiration was of the men, not of the books. 
 What we see is, not the light from the pages, but 
 that from the writers who wrote them. They 
 were illumined in such measure as each needed 
 
 
210 THE BIBLE. 
 
 for his task, whether to avoid saying the unfit, or 
 to say that which was needed. Call it the inspi- 
 ration of a people or of a Church, which is behind 
 the books, yet it is the same thing. If it be the 
 result of the inspiration of Israel, or of the Chris- 
 tian brotherhood, yet that inspiration culminated, 
 as nowhere else, in these writers of the Bible. 
 
 Again, this was real inspiration, not physical 
 compulsion or dictation. It was the free and 
 real work of thinking men, but of men whose 
 minds had an illumination we do not find in oth- 
 ers, a gift so to perceive spiritual things as to 
 render them our guides and authorities. It is 
 that which no education, no talents can confer, 
 which makes us ready to learn of them what we 
 cannot learn of others, willing to sit at their 
 feet when we would be taught of God. It is 
 that which makes men who will call no man mas- 
 ter, their disciples. 
 
 Such, then, being the Bible, a divinely given 
 and divinely inspired Volume, what is its place in 
 Christendom, its relation to the Church ? This 
 is a very different question from the one just 
 considered. The statement of its divine charac- 
 ter does not settle its use. It is also a very im- 
 portant question ; for some answers to it have 
 been the source of much error and confusion, 
 and, as we shall see, have led to complications 
 that rendered difficult the vindication of essential 
 Christianity. It has been touched upon before 
 this, and the correct reply indicated. But let us 
 
THE BIBLE. 211 
 
 now address ourselves to it directly, that the issue 
 may be clear. We do not refer to the devotional 
 use of the Scriptures. About this there is no 
 dispute, as to its being a means of grace, a help 
 in the spiritual life. It is rather their use in 
 matters of belief and practice that we would con- 
 sider, about which there is great dispute, and a 
 common view of which is, as we shall see, en- 
 tirely wrong and utterly impracticable. 
 
 The position that is true and consistent with 
 the idea of Christianity may be shown by an ex- 
 perience which set it forth in a way that was 
 new and effective. 
 
 It was once my lot to be storm-stayed for a 
 week in Syracuse, waiting for the turbulent 
 Mediterranean to calm itself sufficiently for us to 
 pass to Tunis. There was plenty to occupy us 
 during the day in such a place, where we could 
 visit the deep quarries in which seven thousand 
 Athenian captives were starved to death, as re- 
 lated by Thucydides ; the fountain of Cyane, 
 where Orpheus found entrance to the lower 
 world in search of Proserpine ; the beautiful blue 
 Anapo, fringed with nodding papyrus ; and other 
 places interesting to the classical student. 
 
 But the evenings offered no such diversions, 
 and so my companion and I passed them at the 
 cafe or club, where the officers of the garrison, 
 the professors in the university, and whatever 
 there was of aristocracy in that dead city, were 
 wont to gather, and where we met that courtesy 
 
212 THE BIBLE. 
 
 in which Italians excel. On the second evening, 
 while we were enjoying the bright scene and 
 watching the games and conversations in pro- 
 gress, a gentleman approached to invite us to 
 join one of the circles, supposing us to be Eng- 
 lish tourists. Upon learning that we were 
 Americans, he became interested, for he had 
 never before met those from beyond the sea. 
 We spoke of the themes in which intelligent Ital- 
 ians are so much concerned, liberal institutions, 
 and educational and material advance. It be- 
 came necessary for me to let him know that I 
 was a clergyman of the Anglican communion in 
 America ; and immediately he launched out into 
 inquiries regarding religion, the great topic of 
 the thoughtful among his peophs, who believe in 
 an historic Church and ancient institutions, yet 
 wish them free from abuses and corruptions. 
 He displayed an unusually clear apprehension of 
 the great truths of Christianity, such as the 
 Trinity, the Incarnation, the example of Christ, 
 and others still, which he understood better than 
 the average layman whom we meet in our own 
 land, together with a perception of the truth of 
 criticisms upon the Romish system that he had 
 met in books and periodicals. He pushed in- 
 quiry after inquiry with such a comprehensive 
 knowledge of Christianity that I remarked that 
 he was unusually familiar with the Bible and its 
 contents. With a tone of sadness, he replied, 
 "I have never seen a Bible, They were not 
 
THE BIBLE. 213 
 
 permitted in Sicily until our revolution, and since 
 then we have been able to purchase them no 
 nearer than at Naples." I took from my pocket 
 an Italian Testament, which I carried for philo- 
 logical as well as religious purposes, after the ex- 
 ample of Kossuth, who testified that it was the 
 best book to learn any language from, and said it 
 was a pleasure to show it to him. He handled it 
 with reverent interest, looked at its pages, and 
 gave it back. Upon being told that he must 
 keep it as a souvenir of our meeting, he ardently 
 asked whether I really meant it, and, upon being 
 assured thereof, embraced me with characteris- 
 tic effusiveness. Then he arose and went from 
 group to group, arresting games and conversa- 
 tions, to say : " See this Testament ! An Amer- 
 ican priest has given it to me ! " It was a scene 
 to be remembered, to see those moustachioed 
 and uniformed men passing the little volume 
 from hand to hand, as if it were some gem, look- 
 ing at it as if the sight were an epoch in their 
 lives, and then thanking me for so great a priv- 
 ilege. We resumed our conversation, and my 
 friend, a nobleman, mentioned many things con- 
 cerning which he had long wished light from the 
 Sacred Volume ; asking me to show him what it 
 had to say upon such matters as the position of 
 the ministry, the character of confession, the 
 truth about the Lord's Supper, the nature of the 
 family, and so forth. This discussion lasted sev- 
 eral evenings, and the assembly resolved itself 
 
214 THE BIBLE. 
 
 into a sort of Bible class, a new thing in a very 
 old town. For instance, while speaking on one 
 occasion of the question of the celibacy of the 
 clergy, to which he rightly attributed many of 
 the evils of the Church's condition, I asked why 
 they who felt as he did, did not use in this con- 
 troversy the argument from the marriage of St. 
 Peter. " Peter married ! " he exclaimed, " where 
 did you get such an idea ? " It was easy to 
 show him where that Apostle's mother-in-law's 
 illness was spoken of, and her healing narrated ; 
 and he then eagerly imparted to all in the room 
 the astounding piece of information that the 
 Pope's alleged predecessor was not a celibate. 
 This was news to them. They would not be- 
 lieve it until each had read it for himself, and 
 they went home that night with a new and gen- 
 erative idea in their heads. 
 
 And so our evenings passed in this strange 
 Bible study, until the ship could sail that bore 
 me away from where, there is reason to be- 
 lieve, some seed had fallen into ground that wel- 
 comed it. 
 
 This incident, by a concrete illustration, casts 
 light upon our inquiry as to the place of the 
 Bible in the Church. 
 
 It shows, in the first place, that it is not the 
 transmitter of the Gospel through the ages. 
 This is the popular idea : that it is the one 
 means, divinely appointed thereto, of perpetuat- 
 ing the facts which Christ chose His Apostles 
 to proclaim for human salvation. 
 
THE BIBLE. 21 5 
 
 But this man had received Christianity with- 
 out it, and a very complete and helpful Christian- 
 ity. . He was as well informed, concerning what 
 really gives it its value, as persons whom we 
 meet in our more favored land. And does he 
 not represent the great majority of Christians ? 
 How many have lived and died without possess- 
 ing the Sacred Volume, or who perhaps could 
 not read it if they had it ! But not only is this 
 true of past centuries when it was more or less 
 inaccessible : many live by the Gospel now who 
 do not receive it from that source. As a rule, 
 people do not become Christians because the 
 Bible persuades them, but only study its pages 
 after they have believed. The Bible itself prob- 
 ably makes few believers. Its preciousness is 
 seen when faith has preceded it. 
 
 How, then, is the Gospel transmitted ? How 
 do the succeeding generations receive their Chris- 
 tianity ? Just as that Italian had received his, — 
 through the Church ; by the creeds, the services, 
 the sacraments, the feasts and fasts, the holy 
 days, of that Church ; through the Christian 
 family; through * literature ; through tradition; 
 through that whole stream of life and thought 
 which are found in Christendom, maintained by 
 its activities, and from which our life cannot be 
 separated. The Church, that body of baptized 
 people of which the historical organization is the 
 background even where ignored, the permanent 
 and sustaining factor, however rejected, — this is 
 
2l6 THE BIBLE. 
 
 that which brings the Gospel to us, first and im- 
 mediately ; in our Bible countries, as much as in 
 that island of Sicily where, corrupt as it was, it 
 has made those whom this man represented 
 familiar with the redeeming verities that are in 
 Christ Jesus. 
 
 And was not this organization or brotherhood 
 intrusted with just this commission ? Was it 
 not founded to preach the Gospel ? Were not 
 Apostles sent to send others to spread what they 
 received from Christ ? No mention is made of 
 the Bible in the foundation of Christianity ; 
 nothing is said' about it to the Apostles ; neither 
 Jesus nor they ever spoke of it as the means to 
 save men. That is said to be effected through 
 " the foolishness of preaching ; " that is, through 
 the ministry of the Church, which came into 
 being to be the transmitter of the Gospel through 
 the centuries. 
 
 And the history of this precious Book shows 
 that it could have no such intention. We have 
 seen that it was a collection of Apostolic writrngs 
 composed after the Gospel had begun to be 
 preached, and when the work was well under 
 way. It was several hundred years before the 
 Bible as we have it was in existence. How, then, 
 can it be claimed to be the transmitter of Chris- 
 tianity, the one divinely intended means to that 
 end, when not only has the Gospel been trans- 
 mitted since without it, but when it did not exist 
 at the time that transmission was commanded 
 
THE BIBLE. 21 7 
 
 and begun ; when another means was provided 
 for that purpose ; when the Bible was in a sense 
 the Church's creation, not at all its creator ? 
 
 What, then, is the place of the Bible ? Again, 
 our Sicilian helps us to decide this. He knew 
 and saw that there were corruptions in the 
 Christianity about him, and in the Church to 
 which he owed so much, and he wished some- 
 thing by which he could detect and correct them. 
 This is still our constant need. The Church 
 that hands down the faith, and was founded to 
 that end, is composed of fallible and erring men, 
 and it was to be feared that the light which it 
 started out to bear would be dimmed. Tradition, 
 while living on, is liable to become impure as its 
 stream flows through the circumstances of time. 
 Again, as we have seen, Christians would and 
 should pursue the task of theological inquiry 
 into the faith committed to them as facts to be 
 fathomed. But the human mind is imperfect in 
 its processes ; its best reasoning is precarious ; 
 the deeper its speculations the larger the liabil- 
 ity to stray. Therefore, for these as well as for 
 other reasons, some standard would be needed 
 whereby to detect deviations from the path that 
 leads into the knowledge of the truth as it is in 
 Jesus. This truth may be classified as the truth 
 regarding the Church's foundation ; the explana- 
 tion or amplification of the Saviour's work ; and 
 the prophecies of the future of the world, of the 
 Church, and of the individual. 
 
2l8 THE BIBLE. 
 
 Now what should be the standard regarding 
 such matters ? It can only be what Apostles 
 taught, preserved in the changeless form of docu- 
 ments. Then, if that which they had taught, 
 being preserved in other ways, in tradition and 
 in institutions, became mingled with error, com- 
 parison with this that they had written would 
 show the fact. So came about the compilation 
 of the New Testament, and therewith the use of 
 the Old, which these men endorsed and said that 
 Christ endorsed. 
 
 For Christians soon found out two things. 
 One was that the career of the Church was to be 
 longer than they had supposed, when, at first, 
 they had anticipated the speedy return of the 
 Lord. The other was that as the years of this 
 career should succeed, and primitive days grow 
 more remote, there would increase an already 
 perceptible tendency to introduce foreign ele- 
 ments, to draw dangerous inferences, to add un- 
 warranted doctrines, joined with a lessening ca- 
 pacity to detect such aberrations, owing to the 
 allurements and influences of the world. So 
 they desired, with yearly increasing intensity, 
 such a picture of Christ and such statements of 
 His work, such a setting forth of the Gospel of 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, such utterances 
 about the facts of that Gospel, as would form an 
 unchanging standard of comparison. Christian- 
 ity must always, as we have seen, agree with the 
 conditions of its beginning. The edifice must 
 
THE BIBLE. 219 
 
 always be consistent with the foundation. It 
 may grow, and new features and new factors 
 may be added, but there must be no violation of 
 the original design. Clearly, the only way to be 
 sure of this agreement is ever to refer to written 
 words of such men as were charged to found the 
 Church, and start it on its career with the Gospel 
 received from Him on whom it is built ; for what 
 is written down is not subject to adulteration, as 
 that which is not must always be. 
 
 So Christians soon began to collect all such 
 writings as they could gather from the various 
 churches and individuals that had received them. 
 Care was exercised in accepting such alleged 
 documents. Some were found earlier than oth- 
 ers. Some were not received as authentic so 
 soon as others. But the Gospels and the chief 
 Epistles were collected and generally used after 
 a hundred years or less ; the remaining books 
 were accepted gradually by Christendom, and at 
 length, after about five centuries, the process 
 was finished, and that Volume which we have was 
 completed, as the result of effort to gain as com- 
 plete as possible a presentation of Christ and His 
 work, in the written words of Apostolic men. 
 We see in this result the undeniable evidences 
 of the Providence of God superintending this hu- 
 man work, and in the component parts we dis- 
 cern that inspiration which can only come from 
 Him. 
 
 Now to this end, the detecting of deviations 
 
220 THE BIBLE. 
 
 and corruptions in the Church's transmission of 
 the faith received, it has ever served. It has 
 led to every reformation that has taken place, by 
 showing when it was required and what was 
 needed. It was the power in the great Reforma- 
 tion, and was used to lead Christians back to 
 conformity with original Christianity. It ena- 
 bled them to discriminate as to what should be 
 retained and what rejected out of the growths 
 and modifications of fifteen centuries. It is 
 doing that work now. Its use is not over. 
 Thinkers and students are asking whether there 
 may not yet remain unwarranted elements in 
 Christian life and thought ; and they are finding 
 that there are things received that are not as 
 harmonious with the unchanged Apostolic teach- 
 ing as has been supposed by the popular reli- 
 gionism of the day ; that perhaps the Reforma- 
 tion, which some think completed three hundred 
 years ago, was after all, in unsuspected directions, 
 unfinished. Beyond this, the application of this 
 standard is causing searchings of heart among 
 Protestants, and showing that, in their theology 
 as in their polity, they cannot rely upon their 
 traditions ; that they may be involved in depar- 
 tures from the Apostolic norm as truly as the 
 Romanists whom they have been regarding as 
 alone open to the charge of unscriptural doc- 
 trine. To some of us, it is as difficult to see 
 how many who claim to be Bible Christians are 
 any less violating New Testament indications 
 
THE BIBLE. 221 
 
 than the veriest and extremest Papist. Many a 
 sect that calls itself Evangelical has yet to learn 
 that its traditions are not more sure than the 
 papal, being only what its people have received 
 from their fathers ; not drawn from the Bible, as 
 they claim, but injected into it : the interpreta- 
 tions of prejudgment. 
 
 But this position of the Bible, as the divinely 
 given norm to keep the Church true in the ut- 
 terance of its message, has not been sufficiently 
 remembered, and several serious consequences 
 have resulted thence. 
 
 One is that it has been so identified with 
 Christianity that belief in it has been made syn- 
 onymous with belief in Christ. It has been put 
 in His place as the object of faith. It has come 
 between the soul and Him, as really, though not 
 as disastrously, perhaps, as sacerdotalism has 
 ever done. But, whatever value this Volume 
 may have, whatever our estimate of it, our rela- 
 tion to it must not in any degree supplant our 
 relationship to our Lord. Christianity is trust 
 in Him, living discipleship of Him ; and the only 
 value of anything else can be that it helps us 
 in that discipleship. To believe in the Bible's 
 every word does not make us believers in the 
 Gospel. Never to see it, and so not to believe 
 a word of it because unknown, or not to believe 
 this or that part of its narrations, does not nec- 
 essarily render us unbelievers in Jesus Christ. 
 
 Again, this abuse of the Bible, as practically 
 
222 THE BIBLE. 
 
 identifying belief in it with belief in Christ, has, 
 it is to be feared, stood in the way of many a 
 conversion to Christ. Because of misinforma- 
 tion, or the influences of unwise teachers, some 
 have accepted this identification as true ; and, 
 not being able to accept this or that thing in its 
 pages, this or that book even, as what they think 
 divine, they have given up their belief in it, and 
 then their Christianity. They could be Chris- 
 tians, but are not able to agree with their de- 
 nomination or their Church about this Volume. 
 Others have been turned away by the very idea 
 that faith is to rest upon a book at all, to which 
 they had thought Christianity committed ; for 
 this is evidently not the meaning of faith, to an 
 intelligently religious man. 
 
 Again, this identification of Christianity with 
 this precious book has led assailants to think 
 that, in destroying its credibility by controverting 
 some of its contents, they overthrow the faith it- 
 self. This is the position of the ordinary infidel 
 orator. He shouts Victory ! when he has made 
 some audience believe that he has destroyed the 
 trustworthiness of the Bible by an attack upon 
 some of its parts. And the trouble is that many 
 Christians accept the issue. They cannot help 
 it, since, not believing in any other pillar and 
 ground of the faith, any argument against the 
 Bible is one against all belief in Christ. But 
 this is all a mistake. Many Christians, like my 
 Sicilian friend, never saw a Bible, and we must 
 
THE BIBLE. 223 
 
 not make Christianity stand or fall with it. It 
 not only is a false position, it makes the defense 
 of our faith difficult. We can defend that Vol- 
 ume, we are not afraid to meet that issue, but 
 we must not admit that reasons for belief in 
 Christ are dependent upon and identical with our 
 ability to conduct so learned and so intricate an 
 argument as that for a collection of many docu- 
 ments of ancient times. Nor must we admit 
 that, when some eloquent caviler has overthrown 
 the literal accuracy of some incident in the Old 
 Testament, or shown that Jael was wrong in kill- 
 ing Sisera, or that perhaps St. Peter did not 
 write the second epistle that bears his name, or 
 that St. John did not write his Gospel, — that 
 then he had destroyed all reasons for believing in 
 the Gospel of the Son of God, preached in sac- 
 rament and holy season, in ordinances and insti- 
 tutions coming to us by a different and an in- 
 dependent channel. 
 
 Another consequence of imagining that the 
 Bible is the sole container and intended trans- 
 mitter of Christianity is, that we are not to hold 
 or believe anything not therein found, a position 
 touched upon in another lecture. If it were 
 such, and if that position had such a basis, the 
 results would be very inconvenient. It would 
 leave us, as we have seen, without explicit war- 
 rant for infant baptism, or Sunday observance, or 
 admission of women to either Sacrament, and 
 other customs. But, when we consider that 
 
224 THE BIBLE. 
 
 the New Testament consists of books and let- 
 ters written for special purposes to certain Chris- 
 tians, we see that, after all, it may be possible 
 that there were Apostolic practices and original 
 teachings or generally known principles, which 
 did not happen to be referred to in an occa- 
 sional correspondence. And when we take the 
 evidently true position, that the function of the 
 Bible is, not to transmit the Gospel, but as a 
 norm to regulate its transmission by the Church, 
 because composed of written utterances of the 
 Church's founders, together with ancient docu- 
 ments which they endorse as sacred and inspired, 
 then we are not wholly dependent upon the letter 
 of its contents. 
 
 This is the position taken by the German and 
 the English Reformations, as distinct from the 
 Calvinistic ; which latter, not indeed in practice, 
 yet in theory, confines Christianity to Bible lim- 
 itations. The former is not only clearly the true 
 one, but it is alone the position that can meet 
 many objectors, and spare us many difficulties in 
 our defense of essential Christianity. For when 
 we consider that the Bible is not Christ, and be- 
 lief in the Bible is not identical with belief in 
 Christ, we need not feel anxious as to assaults 
 upon His faith that are only based upon criti- 
 cism of its pages. We can say to the ordinary 
 assailant, Why do you attack our handbook ? 
 What has that to do with our faith ? There are 
 plenty of Christians who know nothing of it, in 
 
THE BIBLE. 225 
 
 other lands and in our own, whose faith in the 
 Gospel rests on another basis. Now deal with 
 that faith. We give you all you ask, for the 
 sake of argument, and tell you that we believe 
 in the Gospel because it reaches us through the 
 preaching, the sacraments, the institutions, the 
 life, the services, the creeds of the Church ; a con- 
 tinuous stream of holy life ; the tradition passed 
 on through the centuries from saint to saint, and 
 minister to minister. What have you to say to 
 that ? Your task has only begun, you have done 
 nothing, until you give us reasons for not believ- 
 ing in this Gospel which thus reaches us. De- 
 stroy that Book if you will and can, but still tell 
 us why we should not rest upon this Christ, 
 whose story, and whose Good News, is no more 
 dependent upon it than the story of a Washing- 
 ton is dependent upon some biography of him. 
 We prize that Volume, we will defend it, but 
 your disbelief in its alleged character, or your 
 assaults on it, do not touch the faith in Christ 
 which began before it existed, and has blessed 
 many without it ever since. 
 
 And so we see the value of that divinely given 
 Book, as we hold it. It preserves in undimmed 
 clearness the picture of that Christ who lives in 
 the Church, who is its foundation and its theme. 
 It preserves, in changeless form, utterances of 
 inspired men who gave to the Church the story 
 of its Lord, the explanation of His work, the 
 prophecies of its future, the assurances of His 
 
226 THE BIBLE. 
 
 triumph, and the hope of a glorious immortality 
 for His people. Therefore it is precious beyond 
 all other books conceivable. It is the standard, 
 the criterion by which the Church is ever to try 
 its fidelity to its mission. It is the test which de- 
 tects adulteration in the food man feeds on. Or, 
 rather, it is the compass which detects and cor- 
 rects the deviations of the ship, the ark of the 
 Church, in which we voyage towards our rest ; 
 that without which men in their ignorance 
 might and would be borne far astray ere they 
 reached the goal of their voyage. It is the book 
 that alone can keep true the melody of that mes- 
 sage which the people of God are to proclaim in 
 this world, — the handbook on earth for those 
 whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of 
 Life. This is well expressed in the ancient seal 
 of Harvard. Across an open Bible is written 
 the word "Veritas." To the credit of the found- 
 ers of that honored institution, this ever reminds 
 its members that, amid all activity of thought 
 and all progress of learning, however sound, the 
 only truth that is free from liability to human 
 error, unmixed with the results of human limita- 
 tions, is that regarding Jesus Christ, the Truth 
 Incarnate, which is found in that Volume where 
 we have it in the written words of Apostolic 
 men. 
 
 One evening, as I walked to my hotel after 
 one of my Sicilian Vespers, I tarried awhile in 
 the moonlight by the fountain of Arethusa. It 
 
THE BIBLE. 227 
 
 welled up murmuringly under the waving palms, 
 surrounded by the tufted papyri that tell of the 
 sojourn of the Saracen in this often conquered 
 and reconquered island. 
 
 When the Greek colonists first came to settle 
 here, back in the dawn of history, they made 
 their home about this crystal spring. But as it 
 rises on a little island, separate from the main- 
 land of Sicily, the present though not the an- 
 cient limits of the town of Syracuse, they won- 
 dered whence could come this fresh and limpid 
 water, about which the salt waves beat so close 
 at hand. In their love of home, and in their 
 fondness for poetic fancy, these colonists dwelt 
 upon the mystery, until it came to be believed 
 that this fountain had flowed beneath the sea 
 from distant Hellas, and that in it they drank of 
 water fed by the rains and dews of Elis, that 
 home whence the fathers had come forth, and 
 where Grecian life was truer, purer than ever it 
 could be elsewhere, though fair were the skies 
 and rich the fields of Sicily. 
 
 And so, it seemed to me, is it with these Scrip- 
 tures of which we had been speaking, and which 
 my friend had welcomed. As the Church wan- 
 ders on through the ages, and spreads through 
 distant lands, ever more remote from its birth- 
 place, its members, however favored their abodes 
 or great their progress, wish to keep in touch 
 with the days and the life of its origin, ever be 
 nurtured by the dews of its birth. They know 
 
228 THE BIBLE. 
 
 that there is the ideal of Christian living and 
 thinking, which, though simpler than their own 
 may be, must yet never be departed from, in the 
 changes that time may bring, or the larger light 
 that experience and thought may give. This 
 ideal is preserved in the Bible, which, like that 
 mysterious fountain, has come beneath the sea of 
 time, unaffected by the billows of history, un- 
 changed since it issued from the scenes of the 
 home whence we came out. In it can we be re- 
 freshed by draughts that have the invigorating 
 power of sources that rose on the mount where 
 Apostles sojourned with the now unseen Lord. 
 By it can the Church be kept from error in its 
 task of reproducing, upon every shore and in 
 every age, the spirit of the days of its youth. 
 
 Therefore nothing can take its place. Before 
 it, all must bow in reverence. In conflict with 
 it, no voice, no authority is valid. While we 
 hear the Church, the commissioned preacher of 
 the Everlasting Gospel, yet we must, like the 
 Bereans of old, even in presence of its utterances, 
 exercise our privilege to search the Scriptures to 
 see whether those things are so. 
 
Date Due 
 
 — ~* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 <f 
 
 
 
■r 
 
 
 
 ■■■■I 
 
 KW 
 
 
 
 
 
 ra£f 
 
 
 
 *3r 
 
 ■BFk 
 
 
 ShS 
 
 ECmSh 
 
 
 iSfl 
 
 Huj 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 ' 
 
 mEw 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■■■■■■■EHi— 
 
 mBHHHF 
 
 aB |B|p. 
 
 HI I B BBfl 
 
 1 I ■ >.'/ ■■■■■1 . 
 
 ■sIbbsT 
 
 ra&s 
 
 ■■■■■■1 
 H 
 i Si - 
 
 ■■■bvbvI 
 
 ■■■■■■■1 
 
 
 1HL