jfrom the Sitbrary of 
 
 | Professor Benjamin Irerkinrtfcge Barftelfc 
 
 L Ueyueailjeh by lym to 
 
 ttje Bihrary of 
 
 Prinreton (Ulteologiral Seminary 
 
 BX 8 .K56 
 Kinross, John, 
 
 Dogma in religion and creeds 
 in the church ■ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
“ For now we see through a glass, darkly; hut then face to face : now I know 
 in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known "—St Paul, 1 Cor. 
 xiii. 12. 
 
 Yet I doubt not thro' the ages one increasing purpose runs, 
 
 And the thoughts of men are widen’d with the process of the suns." 
 
 —Tennyson. 
 
DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 AND 
 
 CREEDS IN THE CHURCH 
 
 BY 
 
 / 
 
 JOHN KINROSS, D.D. 
 
 Principal of St Andrew's College , University of Sydney 
 
 WITH 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT FLINT, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 Professor of Divinity , University of Edinburgh. 
 
 (Edinburgh 
 
 JAMES THIN, Publisher to the University 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/dogmainreligioncOOkinr 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Chap. Page 
 
 Introduction ..... 1 
 
 I. Dogma ..... 7 
 
 II. The Church ..... 45 
 
 III. The Sacraments .... 57 
 
 IV. Predestination .... 69 
 
 V. Original Sin . . . .104 
 
 VI. Divine Grace .... 145 
 
 VII. Perseverance of the Saints . . 157 
 
 VIII. The Atonement .... 165 
 
 IX. Creeds ..... 194 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 
 
 By Professor Flint 
 
 My highly esteemed friend, the author of this 
 volume, has asked me to preface it with a few 
 words of introduction, and I very willingly comply 
 with his request. 
 
 It will need no introduction in Australia where 
 Dr Kinross occupies the influential position of 
 Principal of St Andrew’s Presbyterian College in 
 the University of Sydney; where he has in 
 various capacities faithfully and successfully 
 laboured in the service of the Church and of the 
 community for thirty-nine years ; and where he is 
 regarded with respect and affection by men of all 
 classes of society and of all denomiuations of 
 religion. Its own merits should ensure it a 
 favourable reception also in this country. It is 
 no hastily extemporised production. It embodies 
 the results of the patient, earnest, and prolonged 
 thought of an exceptionally fair-minded and well- 
 informed theologian. That these results have 
 been reached by one living in a somewhat 
 
 vii 
 
Vlll 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE 
 
 different spiritual atmosphere than our own and 
 under other ecclesiastical conditions, must make it 
 all the more interesting and instructive to su. 
 
 The aim of the work is the promotion of a 
 cause which its author has much at heart—the 
 great cause of Church union and reunion wher¬ 
 ever they are to be desired, and especially in his 
 native land where the foolishness and the hurt¬ 
 fulness of disunion are so apparent. His views in 
 this reference deserve to be carefully appreciated. 
 They may not always be correct, but they will 
 always, I think, be found well worthy of con¬ 
 sideration ; and certainly they could hardly be 
 presented in a better spirit than they are. 
 
 I must, however, ask “ the benevolent reader ” 
 not to assume that I recommend to him this work 
 because of the coincidence of my own opinions 
 with those of its author. The coincidence is only 
 general. 
 
 Far from considering that excessive regard for 
 dogma is a prevalent fault in the present day, I 
 deem the lack of doctrinal inquiry and thought¬ 
 fulness one of the chief causes of the ineffective¬ 
 ness of the preaching and of the superficiality of 
 the spiritual life of the present day. I hold that 
 the great historic creeds of the Christian Church 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 
 
 IX 
 
 have done far more to heal divisions than to 
 cause them; and that the (Ecumenical Creeds, in 
 particular, preserved the peace and unity of the 
 Christian Church, and met the requirements of 
 Christian faith to an extent which no creeds ex¬ 
 pressed in the simple popular language of Scripture 
 could have done. I think the union of Protestaut 
 Churches may lead to their satisfactory revision 
 of, or right adjustment to, their confessions; hut 
 not that any general revision of their confessions 
 will help them towards union. Dr Kinross’s 
 criticism of particular dogmas seems to me to be 
 always of a kind which should tend to a better 
 understanding of the doctrines criticised, but it 
 does not always seem to me to be conclusive. 
 
 The work is, nevertheless, one which in my 
 judgment does much honour to its author and 
 which cannot fail to profit its readers. I shall 
 rejoice to hear of its success. R. Flint. 
 
 Johnstone Lodge, Craigmillar Park, 
 
 Edinburgh, 28 th January 1897. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PREFACE 
 
 As the title of this book may give rise to some 
 misconceptions, I may say that it is not to be 
 regarded as a contribution to the Philosophy of 
 Religion. The foundation on which theology 
 rests—its grounds in reason and Scripture—the 
 historical development of Christian doctrine and 
 its relation to the thought or philosophy of each 
 epoch—such subjects, although most important to 
 the Scientific Theologian, are not here discussed. 
 The Philosophy of Religion is a subject on which 
 the profoundcst thought of each generation will 
 be exercised, and any help that can be derived 
 from any source — Philosophy, Science, and 
 History—ought to be heartily welcomed. I 
 confine myself to a humbler, but not less neces¬ 
 sary task, viz., to show that undue importance 
 has been attached to the dogmas of the Church, 
 and that a firm belief in their precise statements 
 is not absolutely necessary to the highest type of 
 Christian living. I wish also to state, that I do 
 not regard Dogma as useless, far less as pernicious ; 
 nor do I agree with those who assert that Chris¬ 
 tianity is a life and not a doctrine. There is no 
 valid reason why doctrine aud life should be 
 
 XI 
 
Xll 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 placed in antagonism to each other, or why the 
 Sermon on the Mount should be opposed to the 
 Epistles of St Paul. I believe, however, that the 
 cause of pure religion would lose nothing, but 
 gain much, if doctrine had a subordinate place 
 assigned to it in the Church. 
 
 The extracts from the different creeds are 
 taken from Dr Schaff’s “ Creeds of Christendom,” 
 or from Winer’s “ Comparative View.” In 
 addition to the works mentioned in the text, 1 
 am under special obligation to Prof. Bruce’s 
 “ Chief end of Revelation,” and also to Principal 
 Rainy’s “ Delivery and Development of Christian 
 Doctrine,” Dr Denney’s “ Studies in Theology,” 
 and Kaftan’s “ Truth of the Christian Religion,” 
 and on “ Dogma.” 
 
 I hope the reader will excuse any errors that 
 occur in references, &c., as the revision of the 
 MSS. was undertaken during a voyage from 
 Australia to Great Britain for the sake of health, 
 and the corrections of the press were made in 
 different parts of Scotland, where necessary 
 references were not at hand. 
 
 Prof. Flint, of the University of Edinburgh, 
 has honoured me by contributing an Introductory 
 Note in recommendation of this book; but it is 
 right to state that, while doing so, he is not 
 responsible for the views contained therein. 
 
 John Kinross. 
 
 Edinburgh, 28 tli January 1897. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The divisions of Christendom form a subject 
 worthy of serious consideration. The Greek and 
 Roman churches have been separated for upwards 
 of a Millenium. Three hundred years have passed 
 since the revolt of Protestantism from Romanism. 
 A divided church has to face a heterogeneous mass 
 of heathenism abroad and a large amount of 
 unbelief at home. If we res^rd the number of 
 agencies at work, the different churches devote 
 most of their energies to maintain and extend 
 their influence over their own members, and only 
 a small amount of the same to the proclamation 
 of the gospel to those enveloped in heathen dark¬ 
 ness. Our Saviour declared before he was taken 
 from the world : “ I, if I be lifted up from the 
 earth, will draw all men unto me,” but the millions 
 of China, India, and Africa, have not yet submitted 
 to His authority or accepted His gospel. Although 
 the success of the Missionary enterprise has been 
 as great as could reasonably be expected, consider¬ 
 ing the efforts put forth and the zeal manifested 
 
2 
 
 INTRODUCTION' 
 
 by the various branches of the church of Christ, 
 it is still a melancholy reflection that not half of 
 the human beings on the face of the globe have 
 yet been won for Christ. It is, however, satis¬ 
 factory to find that heathenism or idolatry gains 
 no converts from Christianity. The religions of 
 Greece and Rome have been dead and buried for 
 many centuries ; and no victory could have been 
 more complete than that of Christianity over 
 them. There may have been relapses into 
 idolatry here and there, but they have been so 
 few as not to be worth reckoning. Whilst the 
 Christian churches have nothing to fear from the 
 aggressive efforts of the heathen world, the pro¬ 
 gress of unbelief among those who once professed 
 the religion of Christ, is fitted to cause real 
 anxiety. In dealing with heathenism the church 
 is brought into contact, almost without exception, 
 with a civilization of a lower type than her own ; 
 but in the case of unbelievers, they have been 
 nurtured in the same kind of civilization as 
 herself. They acknowledge the same kind of 
 science, are familiar with the various forms of 
 philosophy, and participate in the general intel¬ 
 lectual progress characteristic of the foremost 
 nations of the world. The upholders of other 
 religions are ignorant of the nature, grounds, and 
 effects of the Christian religion, but unbelievers 
 have usually been brought up in the Church, have 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 3 
 
 associated with her members, and are generally 
 aware of the reasons of Christian belief. 
 
 Perhaps in Christian countries there have 
 always been some who refused to accept the Bible 
 as a Revelation of God, or Christ as the Saviour 
 of men ; hut seldom have there been so many as 
 at the present time. Although thorough-going 
 Atheism has never been extensively prevalent, yet 
 the number in our present era who refuse to 
 acknowledge the existence of a personal God is 
 very considerable. Positivism and Agnosticism, 
 while repudiating Atheism, nevertheless refuse to 
 acknowledge Theism. Several writers of eminence 
 belong to one or other of these schools of thought; 
 and likewise many contributors to the daily and 
 monthly press. 
 
 The influence which these systems exercise on 
 those who do not actually accept them but even 
 remain within the church, is considerable. A 
 feeling of great uncertainty prevails regarding 
 Christian verities. During the whole period that 
 has elapsed since the recognition of Christianity 
 by the State, there probably have existed in 
 Christian lands secret or open enemies to the 
 truth as it is in Jesus ; but it seems to me that 
 never before have the first truths of natural and 
 revealed religion been so extensively called in 
 question as they are to-day. Greater liberty is 
 now allowed to unbelievers, so that they may say 
 
4 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 anything and use any arguments they please, 
 against the truth of the Christian religion. At 
 the same time, it may be admitted with satisfac¬ 
 tion that there is an absence of that bitterness 
 and scurrility on their part which was formerly 
 general; and there is also a strong tendency 
 manifested not to part with all religion : and 
 even the name “ Christian ” is claimed by many 
 who have renounced most of those doctrines that 
 have usually been associated with the Christian 
 faith. 
 
 Whilst the views of many unbelievers have 
 been more extreme than they have generally been, 
 the same may be said of some of the churches. 
 Rome, if somewhat more tolerant in practice, 
 retains in full force the dogmatic system of the 
 Council of Trent, and has added thereto the 
 dogmas of the “ immaculate conception,” and the 
 “ infallibility of the Pope ” ; so that the advocates 
 of the Gallican liberties have been completely 
 vanquished. The Greek Church is as immovable 
 as ever. The Church of England has still within 
 her pale, the High, Low, and Broad parties. 
 Sacramentarianism seems to be the most influential 
 system in that church, so that there is less and 
 less inclination to hold out the hand of welcome 
 to Dissenters, but a strong tendency Romewards. 
 Within all the churches of Britain and America 
 there have been considerable changes in doctrinal 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 5 
 
 opinion. In almost all there is a conservative 
 and liberal or progressive party. Views respecting 
 the inspiration of Holy Scripture are now tolerated 
 in most of them, which fifty years ago would have 
 been tolerated in none. Not a few claim to be 
 members and remain ministers of the Church, who 
 deny the miraculous and supernatural. 
 
 It is believed by many that the Bible and 
 Christianity are to be saved oirly by giving up the 
 miraculous, by renouncing the dogmatic element, 
 and devoting exclusive attention to the humanity 
 of Christ as expressed in his sublime teaching and 
 in his matchless character. 
 
 In this divided state of the churches, and 
 amidst the prevalence of various phases of un¬ 
 belief, and the spirit of unrest existing both inside 
 and outside the churches, it is the path of wisdom 
 to inquire, what is the cause of this state of 
 things ? I have no hesitation in replying that one 
 cause has powerfully operated in the past to 
 produce the divisions of Christendom, and to 
 prevent the full and harmonious development of 
 Christian life, and that is the dogmatic spirit. 
 It has hitherto been the chief agent in splitting 
 up the branches of the Christian church into 
 fragments, and is still powerful enough to keep 
 them apart. The remedy for this unfavourable 
 position of religion is, with some, to fall into the 
 arms of an infallible church; to go back to the 
 
6 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Fathers and Creeds of the undivided church ; 
 with others, to go back to the Reformers ami 
 Confessions of the sixteenth century ; and others 
 would throw aside Fathers, Reformers, Creeds and 
 Councils, and rest upon the moral teachings of 
 Jesus alone. In my view were a subordinate 
 place assigned to dogma, the effects upon the 
 spiritual life of the Church and the world at large 
 would be most beneficial. 
 
DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 DOGMA 
 
 Tiie word “ dogma ’’ is very frequently found in 
 the popular and periodical literature of the day, 
 even in the daily or weekly newspaper, as well 
 as in the more elaborate treatises on Science 
 and Philosophy. We hear of the “ dogmas ” 
 of philosophers, the “ new dogmatism of Science,” 
 and the “ dogmas ” of theologians. In this work 
 we have nothing to do (except for the purpose 
 of illustration) with the two former, but our 
 attention will be directed exclusively to the 
 latter. The term “ boy^a. ” is frequently used 
 in the Greek classics, especially in Demosthenes. 
 In the great Greek orator, it has, for the most 
 part, the signification of “ decree,” something 
 decided by a public body. It is also found in 
 the New Testament, St Luke,*—“. . . there 
 went out a decree ( boy/j-u ) from Caesar Augustus 
 that all the world should be taxed.” After 
 
 '* ii. 1. 
 
 7 
 
8 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 Apostolic times it is frequently used, e.g., by 
 Justin Martyr, and that in the sense of 
 " opinion,” when he speaks of the dogmas or 
 opinions of philosophers. Both of these sig¬ 
 nifications are attached to the word dogma as 
 employed in the theological literature of the 
 day — opinions or judgments of theologians 
 respecting truths contained in Holy Scripture, 
 and the decrees, judgments, or decisions of the 
 Church regarding that truth. Those who wish 
 to trace more fully the history of this term 
 as employed by theologians, are referred to 
 Principal Fairbairn’s valuable work, “ The Place 
 of Christ in Modern Theology.” * 
 
 The history of the word is important, 
 only so far as it enables us to understand its 
 present application in the discussion of those 
 questions in religion which are exciting attention 
 on the part of believei’s and unbelievers in 
 Christian truth. As now generally understood 
 it means much the same as doctrine—doctrine 
 more on its theoretical than its practical side. 
 It has a more distinct reference to belief than 
 to conduct, to the creed than to the decalogue. 
 Questions pertaining to the line of conduct which 
 a Christian ought to pursue, and the affections 
 he ought to cherish, belong, according to the 
 common division of theology, to the science of 
 
 P. 30, note. 
 
DOGMA 
 
 9 
 
 Christian ethics, and those that refer to the 
 knowledge and belief of the truths contained in 
 Scripture, belong to the science of dogmatics. As 
 an example of particular dogmas we may take the 
 Nicene and Athanasian creeds. We need have no 
 hesitation in asserting that the decrees of the 
 council of Trent, the “ Formula Concordiae ” of 
 the Lutheran Church, the XXXIX Articles of the 
 Church of England, and the “ Westminster Con¬ 
 fession ” of the Presbyterian Churches, are all 
 dogmatic formularies. Although it will appear 
 superfluous to those acquainted with the subject, 
 I will adduce a few sentences from the Nicene 
 and Athanasian creeds as translated in the Book 
 of Common Prayer, to indicate the sense in 
 which I use this word :—“I believe in one God 
 the Father Almighty . . . and in one Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, 
 begotten of his Father before all worlds, God 
 of God, Light of Light, very God of very God , 
 begotten, not made, Being of one substance with 
 the Father, By whom all things were made. . . . 
 And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and 
 Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father 
 and the Son, Who, with the Father aud the 
 Son, is worshipped and glorified. (Extract 
 from the Nicene Creed.) Whosoever will be 
 saved, before all things it is necessary that he 
 hold the CatholicJe Faith, which Faith, except 
 
10 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 every one do keep whole and undefiled, without 
 doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the 
 
 Catholick Faith is this :—That we worship one 
 
 God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither 
 confounding the Persons, nor dividing the 
 substance. For there is one Person of the 
 
 Father, another of the Son, and another of the 
 
 Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all 
 one, the glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. 
 
 Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and 
 such is the Holy Ghost. . . . He, therefore, 
 that will be saved must thus think of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting sal¬ 
 vation, that he believe rightly the Incarnation of 
 oar Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, 
 that we believe and confess ; that our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God, is God, and Man; God of 
 the substance of the Father, begotten before the 
 worlds, and man of the substance of His mother, 
 born in the world. . . . 
 
 Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead, 
 and inferior to the Father, as touching His man¬ 
 hood. Who, although He be God and man, yet He 
 is not two but one Christ; one, not by conversion 
 of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the 
 Manhood into God; one altogether, not by con¬ 
 fusion of substance but by unity of person. For 
 
DOGMA 
 
 11 
 
 as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man so 
 God and man is one Christ. 
 
 (Athanasian creed.) 
 
 The attention of the reader is particularly 
 directed to the words in the above extract printed 
 in italics. They form the strictly dogmatic state¬ 
 ments of the creeds. Some portions of these 
 creeds are expressed in the words of Scripture, 
 others iu words identical in meaning, and others 
 in terms not identical in meaning, with those of 
 Scripture. To every one who sincerely accepts 
 the Holy Scriptures as containing a revelation from 
 God, there is no difficulty in accepting the first 
 two, because in the first we have the very words 
 of the Bible, in the second, if not the words, we 
 have the thing denoted. In the last, however, 
 we have neither the words nor the thing. There 
 are no expressions equivalent to “ God of God,” 
 “Light of light,” "Very God of very God,” 
 “ Begotten not made,” “ Being of one substance 
 with the Father,” &c. If the thing denoted by 
 these expressions is there, it is so only by impli¬ 
 cation. Accordingly, the aim of dogmatics is to 
 render explicit what in Scripture is only implicit, 
 to bring out more clearly and distinctly what is 
 only implied or indefinitely expressed ; and to 
 draw out the consequences which legitimately 
 follow from its statements. This it endeavours 
 to accomplish by the- processes of definition and 
 
12 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 inference. If the definitions are accurate and the 
 inferences valid, the dogma is true ; if they are 
 not, it is false. 
 
 The question before us is not whether it is 
 legitimate to apply these logical processes to 
 divine truth ? It will not be denied that it is 
 perfectly legitimate and, to a certain extent, neces¬ 
 sary, to use our reasoning powers in the defence 
 of the Bible, to elucidate what is obscure, to show 
 its harmony with the conclusions of right reason, 
 and to set forth the inferences that follow from its 
 statements, so as to render manifest its application 
 to the complex varieties of human life. The 
 intellect of man could have no nobler employ¬ 
 ment than the explanation of the divine word and 
 the unfolding of its adaptation to satisfy the 
 deepest cravings and loftiest aspirations of the 
 human soul. But we have rather to consider the 
 function which the decisions of the Church on 
 matters of doctrine, i.e., dogma, perform in the 
 spiritual life of the Christian. Is the knowledge 
 of the definitions and inferences of the Church 
 helpful to men in their efforts to lead a religious 
 life, or is belief in them even necessary to 
 salvation ? To answer these questions satisfac¬ 
 torily, it may be of some use to refer to the 
 manner in which ethical or moral subjects are 
 treated. 
 
 Every one would admit that erroneous teaching 
 
DOGMA 
 
 13 
 
 which clearly contradicts any of the precepts of 
 the decalogue, would be fraught with danger to 
 morals. 
 
 To affirm the lawfulness of deceit, of hypocrisy, 
 of perjury, and such like, would have a disastrous 
 effect upon the morality of the community. In 
 these instances one may perceive that doctrine 
 will be influential for good or for evil; and that, 
 although a correct statement and earnest inculca¬ 
 tion of honesty, truthfulness, and purity, may not 
 always secure the practice of these virtues, yet 
 false teaching wdth regard to them is all but 
 certain to lead to the opposite vices. If a teacher 
 of political science were to indoctrinate his followers 
 with the idea that every landed proprietor is a 
 robber, and that every plot of ground may be 
 seized and kept by any one who can, men would 
 generally admit that such teaching would have a 
 pernicious tendency with respect to the best 
 interests of society. The lawfulness of war, during 
 which it becomes the duty of one side to kill as 
 many of the other as possible, and to spare the 
 life of the enemy becomes a crime, may, it is 
 supposed, be affirmed or denied without detriment 
 to the welfare of humanity, inasmuch as it is a 
 matter of doubtful disputation. While this is 
 admitted by the partizans of doctrinal creeds as 
 well as by those who would inculcate conduct as 
 alone necessary, no .one advocates that correct 
 
14 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 notions on morals should be drawn out into a 
 minute system of casuistry, expressed in precise 
 terms and propositions, and imposed as a test 
 upon teachers of morality. 
 
 The source and test of all dogma are the Holy 
 Scriptures. It rests on the general assumption 
 that truth is attainable by the human mind, that 
 the meaning of Scripture can he ascertained, and 
 may he expressed in words different from those of 
 the sacred writers. In every dogma there is 
 inevitably a certain amount of human inference 
 added to or mixed up with the divine element. 
 It is supposed to contain the kernel of divine 
 truth in the husk of human opinion on such 
 subjects as the nature of God, the person of Christ, 
 and the nature and effect of His work, as well as 
 the state of man. Every one will admit that 
 accurate knowledge of all these subjects is desir¬ 
 able ; most will grant that a certain amount of it 
 may be indispensable to the formation of the 
 highest type of Christian character. The extent 
 of this knowledge may be considered afterwards. 
 
 Great stress is laid upon the fact that dogma 
 is truth, and that the pursuit of truth is one of 
 the noblest employments of the human mind. 
 This is so in other regions of inquiry as well as 
 in religion; truth, in science, in philosophy, in 
 history is good, and must be sought with sincere 
 mind. But no one affirms that it is obligatory to 
 
DOGMA 
 
 15 
 
 pursue it in every field of research. Life is too 
 short and the work is too arduous for that. To 
 an overwhelming majority of mankind, it must be 
 impossible to acquire anything beyond the merest 
 fragments of knowledge in any department of 
 inquiry. A considerable portion of that which is 
 within reach of most, is not particularly instructive 
 or elevating. When known, the influence which 
 it exerts over human conduct is almost imper¬ 
 ceptible. May the same thing not be said of 
 much that is contained in the dogmas of the 
 church ? Knowledge is, of course, necessary in 
 religion, as well as in morals and politics; but 
 neither in morals nor in politics, is there so much 
 importance attached to the propositions in which 
 it is expressed as in religious subjects. Definition 
 helps in all matters of investigation, but when 
 rigorously applied to certain branches of knowledge, 
 it is apt to degenerate into unnecessary distinc¬ 
 tions or verbal quibbling. We do not affirm that 
 error with regard to doctrines defined is a matter 
 of indifference, or soundness of doctrine, unworthy 
 of pursuit, but we contend that undue importance 
 may be attached to the former and unnecessary 
 dread entertained regarding the latter. I admit 
 that it is difficult for one with the conviction of 
 the present writer to maintain this thesis consist¬ 
 ently, inasmuch as he holds substantially the creed 
 of Christendom, as accepted by the Reformed 
 
1G 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 Churches. It must be acknowledged that a similar 
 view is held by those who are opposed to the 
 dogmas of the churches, not because they err in 
 excess of definition and inference, but because 
 they are radically untrue; the latter I do not hold. 
 There may be clear and accurate views of divine 
 truth as revealed in Scripture without a corre¬ 
 sponding state of heart and life; and there may 
 also be a high standard of Christian living 
 combined with appreciation of the great facts of 
 our religion, without a clear, precise, and consistent 
 system of doctrine. 
 
 The undue importance attached to dogma has 
 arisen, to a great extent, from confusion of thought 
 respecting belief and faith. Every reader of the 
 New Testament must have observed that the 
 greatest importance is assigned to faith ; and as 
 faith is frequently used in the same sense as 
 belief, all the qualities implied in the former are 
 often attributed to the latter by the advocates of 
 stringent dogma. Faith in Christ justifies, but 
 belief in the doctrine about Christ does not there¬ 
 fore justify. 
 
 This confounding of faith with belief has been 
 productive of great mischief in the course of 
 ages. The Reformation was an epoch of revival, 
 both in doctrine and life. Afterwards, in the 
 seventeenth century, there was an undue develop¬ 
 ment of mere doctrine, too often to the neglect of 
 
DOGMA 
 
 17 
 
 practical duties and the formation of the Christian 
 character. This again led to another sort of re¬ 
 action, when doctrine was unduly depreciated and 
 religion was often represented as a mere system 
 of morality, and that rather of a low type. There 
 was neither enthusiasm for the defence of 
 Christian truth nor for the cultivation of Christian 
 life. The history of Christian theology and of 
 Christian life clearly proves that an exaggerated 
 idea of the importance of accurate doctrinal state¬ 
 ments is certain to be followed by a reaction more 
 or less violent, in the age that succeeds, and 
 attended with many features inconsistent with 
 genuine Christian character. One becomes an 
 offender for a word ; the unity of the church or 
 sect will be broken up on the slightest difference 
 of opinion ; and the hatred which ought to be 
 directed against the heresy alone, is directed 
 against the heretics themselves. Of the millions 
 of the human race, some may live for centuries in 
 heathenism and savagery ; others in poverty, 
 degradation, ignorance, and vice, without any but 
 the feeblest effort being put forth for their 
 amelioration ; while the energy of the churches is 
 vigorously directed to uphold their respective 
 doctrines and oppose those who hold contrary 
 opinions. These baneful effects arise mainly from 
 the undue place which dogma holds in their 
 estimation. It is true that some of them are 
 
 u 
 
18 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 more dogmatic than others; and it is also true 
 that the evil effects of dogmatism are counteracted 
 by other influences at work. In the history of 
 the church of Christ it is to be observed that, like 
 other phenomena, the action of dogma upon the 
 character of its adherents cannot always be ac¬ 
 curately tested, in as much as its baneful effects 
 may be exaggerated in certain circumstances and 
 diminished in others. 
 
 It is earnestly to be desired, therefore, that the 
 distinction between belief in doctrine or dogma 
 and faith in Christ, should be clearly perceived 
 and constantly observed. Even a superficial 
 reader of the New Testament must perceive that 
 great importance is attached to faith, and that 
 unbelief is a deadly sin ; but it would be a gross 
 error to conclude that' every one who believes 
 dogmas accepted in the Christian church, is there¬ 
 fore exempt from the charge of unbelief; and that 
 all who entertain erroneous beliefs on matters of 
 doctrine must be destitute of saving faith. It may 
 be true that faith in Christ necessarily implies a 
 certain amount of belief about Him, but, if we are 
 to place any reliance upon the facts of experience, 
 the testimony of the Christian consciousness, and 
 even upon the admission of the generality of 
 Christian churches themselves, it is false to affirm 
 that all who have faith must possess the same 
 amount of belief, even in matters pertaining to 
 
DOGMA 
 
 19 
 
 Christ himself—but especially regarding other 
 subjects embraced in Scripture remote from 
 central truth. Belief or trust in Christ is 
 assumed in the New Testament to be the way of 
 salvation, and unbelief, as the antithesis of this, 
 is represented an obstacle to salvation. There is 
 no statement to the same effect with regard to 
 belief in articles of faith. In this respect there is 
 a marked contrast between the New Testament 
 and the creeds. The distinction between essential 
 and non-essential articles of belief is not alluded 
 to in the Bible. The Church of Rome does not 
 recognise the distinction, but demands that every 
 dogma decreed by her shall be implicitly received 
 by all her members. Protestants admit the 
 reasonableness of the distinction ; but when 
 listening to some zealous advocates of particular 
 churches or particular dogmas, one might naturally 
 suppose that they deny the distinction in practice, 
 and regard their own dogmas as possessed of such 
 importance that they deem them necessary to 
 salvation. 
 
 This is done on the plea of zeal for the truth 
 of God. Such conduct on the part of the ortho¬ 
 dox, has a very prejudicial effect upon pronounced 
 unbelievers as well as upon those whose views of 
 divine truth are still in an unsettled state. There 
 is often unreasonable opposition to faith on the 
 part of scientific men, which is caused, in no 
 
20 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 small degree, by the undue importance attached 
 to dogmas on subjects felt to be beyond the reach 
 of human intellect; and even if the subject could 
 be satisfactorily understood and clearly expressed 
 in propositions, it would have very little influence 
 upon human character for good or for evil. It is, 
 doubtless, very unscientific for scientists to act in 
 this manner. In all subjects of investigation it 
 is absurd to judge systems by their advocates and 
 a body of men by a few extreme individuals; to 
 argue from the abuse, against the use, of anything. 
 But many persons who are not scientific are often 
 in a state of doubt both with respect to the claims 
 of the Bible itself and as to the fact of certain 
 dogmas being grounded on the Bible. 
 
 Is it wise, is it Christian, to insist upon such 
 persons receiving, not only the truth as it is in 
 Jesus, but as expressed in words of human selec¬ 
 tion ? If the rejection of human dogmas is not 
 necessarily a mark either of a weak and untrained 
 intellect or of a bad and depraved heart, it is 
 surely not consistent with the religion of Christ 
 to insist upon the assent of each individual to 
 such dogmas. It is not those who insist most 
 peremptorily upon an exact creed, upon an all 
 round Christian belief, or upon a faithful obser¬ 
 vance of the precepts of an external morality, who 
 are most remarkable for a hearty obedience in the 
 weightier matters of the law. Bigid adherence 
 
DOGMA 
 
 21 
 
 to minute precepts, especially on matters not of 
 vital moment, is too frequently associated with a 
 lax performance of the higher duties of Christian 
 morality. The same danger is incident to nice 
 distinctions in matters of belief. This is not, of 
 itself, decisive against minute and subtle dis¬ 
 tinctions, either in matters of duty or doctrine, 
 but it is an aspect of the case that ought never 
 to be lost sight of. Perfection in life is not 
 demanded of entrants into the Church or her 
 ministry; why should it be so in the case of 
 belief ? 
 
 To every Christian, however, this matter would 
 be settled if Scripture clearly laid down the 
 necessity of belief in certain doctrines. No proof 
 can be adduced that it has done so. Belief in 
 Christ is constantly inculcated ; unbelief in him 
 is forcibly condemned. It is altogether un¬ 
 warrantable to transfer what is ascribed to this 
 belief and apply it, in all its extent, to belief in 
 doctrine. There is among all Christians (the 
 Church of Rome included) a considerable number 
 of doctrines which are not considered as possessed 
 of fundamental importance. They ai'C not “ de 
 fide," but are to be regarded as possessing the 
 characteristics of open questions. Many doctrines 
 which are not open questions to the teachers of 
 certain churches, are still, by these churches, not 
 regarded of such vital moment that those deny- 
 
DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 iag them are deprived of a just claim to the 
 name “ Christian.” No Presbyterian or Con¬ 
 gregational ist would pronounce a man an un¬ 
 believer, simply on the ground that he maintains 
 the divine right of Episcopacy, or one who denies 
 that the Christian church ought to be organized. 
 In the opinion and practice, therefore, of a very 
 large majority of Christians, error on many points 
 is consistent with the Christian life. Most 
 members of the various branches of the Church 
 would each probably acknowledge that there are 
 many in the other branches as holy, as Christ- 
 like, as devoted to the interests of truth, and as 
 influential in promoting the cause of Christ, as 
 any members or teachers in their own. To all 
 intents and purposes, error on many matters does 
 not interfere to any appreciable extent with a 
 high standard of Christian living. 
 
 May we not affirm that their effects should 
 be one of the tests of those dogmas which 
 may be said to be necessary for religious life ? 
 Religion is a practical matter, and this applies 
 with special emphasis to the Christian religion. 
 Its primary aim is to make men like Christ, to 
 produce holiness of heart and life in all members 
 of the human race. Unlike all other forms in 
 which the religious sentiment expresses itself, it 
 claims the homage of every man, professing to 
 be the universal religion. It is of vast import- 
 
DOGMA 
 
 23 
 
 ance that this aspect thereof—its adaptation to 
 all sorts and conditions of men.—should be kept 
 steadily in view. It not only demands the sub¬ 
 mission of all, but it holds out a message of help 
 and consolation to all, in whatever state of 
 civilization it finds them. The essentials of 
 religion are therefore within the reach of the 
 uncultured as much as of the most highly- 
 advanced intellects. Love to our neighbour in 
 all its varieties and manifestations ; reverence 
 towards a supreme, ever-present and benevolent 
 power; gratitude to Jesus for the inestimable 
 value of His life and death ; and the constant 
 effort to reach a high standard of character, may 
 be exercised by every responsible being. 
 
 It is not too much to assert that many of 
 the dogmas maintained by different churches are 
 not understood by a very large number of those 
 who are in the habit of attending their services. 
 They hear the same formulas repeated again and 
 again, and these are illustrated or enforced in 
 the various discourses to which they listen, and 
 yet the meaning and application of these doctrines 
 are but very dimly apprehended. It may be 
 replied that this is the result of the indifference, 
 inattention, or carelessness of the hearers, and is 
 neither an argument against the competence of 
 the teachers of the Church nor against the truth 
 of the dogmas. This is doubtless true in part; and 
 
24 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 it may be admitted that lecturers ou chemistry, 
 botany, logic, or philosophy, might do their work 
 faithfully year after year, and the result of their 
 labours would be almost nil, unless they received 
 more attention from their audiences than is often 
 given to ministers of the gospel. It cannot be 
 said that this inattention is always to be ascribed 
 to indifference either to the fundamental truths 
 of our holy religion, or to the claims of the gospel 
 upon the assent of the human heart. In some 
 cases, it may be in many, this is true; but in all 
 the churches there are many members possessed 
 of a fair measure of intelligence as well as of 
 genuine zeal for the progress of the gospel, who 
 are indifferent to those doctrines which separate 
 their own communion from others. This in¬ 
 difference frequently arises from the abstruse 
 character of the peculiar dogmas in question, or 
 from their not being clearly revealed as possessed 
 of practical importance in the Christian life. The 
 doctrine of Predestination, is one that many 
 members of Calvinistic churches seldom think of, 
 aud they do not know the difference between that 
 system and Arminianism, and vice versa. In 
 times of controversy, the attention of those in¬ 
 terested is of necessity directed to the opposite 
 views, and there will be many zealous partizans 
 on either side who may be said fairly to under¬ 
 stand the points in debate, and who will uphold 
 
DOGMA 
 
 25 
 
 manfully that view with which they have been 
 identified. "When the controversy has subsided, 
 and the general claims of practical religion are 
 being regarded, such questions soon drop out of 
 sight and excite little or no interest on either 
 side. It would be unfair to assert that con¬ 
 troversialists are always more zealous in the 
 defence of their distinctive principles and in the 
 refutation of those opposed to them, than for 
 the progress of pure and undefiled religion. 
 Rowland Hill and Whitfield, Wesley and Fletcher, 
 while each was eager in the defence of the scheme 
 of truth to which he had given his assent, were 
 pre-eminent in their laborious and self-denying 
 efforts, in order that the gospel of Christ might 
 produce its due effect upon men’s lives. It 
 should be remembered on the other hand, that 
 great zeal may be manifested in behalf of par¬ 
 ticular doctrines or forms of Church Government, 
 while there is a sad lack of vigorous and per¬ 
 severing effort for reaching the ignorant, the 
 immoral, and the profane. It is also just as 
 necessary in these days to bear constantly in 
 mind that mere opposition to supposed worn-out 
 dogmas, effete systems of theology, or antiquated 
 and intolerant ecclesiasticism, will do no more 
 for the elevation of humanity, than zeal in behalf 
 of these systems. Pulling down, although often 
 necessary, will not edify the humble believer. 
 
26 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 The Church can win the world for Christ only 
 by holding fast fundamental truth, and from love 
 to Him, carrying on aggressive work against the 
 powers of darkness. 
 
 Dogma is assumed to be a defence of the faith. 
 Men are naturally inclined to put their own 
 interpretation upon, and draw their own conclu¬ 
 sions from, the truth revealed in Scripture. 
 Many of these interpretations are wrong; the 
 truth of God is corrupted, or perverted to a use 
 for which it was never intended. The Church 
 being the divinely appointed guardian of His truth, 
 comes forth to correct the erroneous interpretations 
 that have been given, and to refute the false 
 conclusions which have been drawn. Heretics 
 have been the cause whence dogma originated. 
 Such is the origin usually ascribed to Christian 
 doctrines as defined in the creeds. That dogmas 
 are the effect of controversy will not, I should 
 think, be denied; but that the Church always 
 confined herself to the necessary defence of the 
 truth and the requisite refutation of error, is 
 rather too much to assume. Dr Chalmers said 
 on the subject, “ The heretics were the cause of 
 so many controversies, but the Church was not 
 always free from blame.” Isaac Taylor asserted 
 in reply that we ought rather to say :—“ The 
 Church was generally in the wrong, but the 
 heretics were not always free from blame.” It 
 
DOGMA 
 
 27 
 
 would take us too far out of our way to give a 
 historical account of the origin of various Christian 
 dogmas, so as to pass an intelligent judgment on 
 the matter. A careful examination of the creeds 
 of the churches and of the systems of divines, 
 which have been given to the world, would lead 
 us to the conclusion that a desire to apply philo¬ 
 sophy to the exposition and defence of Christianity, 
 and to prove the harmony that subsists between 
 the two, have been the chief cause that gave birth 
 to these productions. It is admitted that the 
 terms have been coined in the philosophic mint, 
 and thence borrowed for use in the human state¬ 
 ment of divine truth. If the terms exactly 
 correspond to the reality set forth in Scripture, 
 good and well. If something additional is im¬ 
 ported with the terms, it may not do much harm, 
 provided that the fact is always remembered by 
 those who make use of them in giving or 
 receiving instruction. The addition, however, 
 may in some measure, modify the doctrine which 
 it is designed to express, even to such an extent 
 as to place on a level the divine truth revealed 
 and its human interpretation, so that it often 
 becomes a hindrance, instead of a help to those 
 who are in perplexity regarding the claims of 
 revelation in general or of some doctrine in 
 particular. Take one dogma (already referred to) 
 which is held by all the churches, at least so far 
 
28 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 as their symbolical books are concerned (the 
 Unitarians excepted), that of the Trinity. The 
 words, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are found 
 associated together in Scripture, and certain 
 operations are ascribed to each of them; while 
 the teaching, both of the Old and New 
 Testaments, uniformly represents God as one, and 
 strongly denounces everything tending to idolatry. 
 The Bible thus clearly teaches the unity of the 
 God-head, and far more effectively than any book 
 of the philosophers. The word “ Trinity,” how¬ 
 ever, does not occur; indeed neither does the 
 term “ Unity,” as applied to the God-head: but 
 unquestionably the thing is there. When we 
 come to express in language in what respect God 
 is “ one,” in what respect “ three,” we have 
 neither in Scripture the “terms” nor the “thing” 
 —“ Unity ” of “ substance ” and “ Trinity ” of 
 “ persons.” Nowhere does Scripture say that the 
 God-head is only one in substance, nor that the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are persons. So far 
 as I know these terms are as appropriate as any 
 that could be selected ; but it cannot be affirmed, 
 and should not be demanded of any one to affirm, 
 that they are adequate to express this sublime 
 mystery. 
 
 It is evident that “person ” cannot be applied 
 to the Blessed Trinity in the usual acceptation 
 of the term. In common speech, a person is a 
 
DOGMA 
 
 29 
 
 separate substance, so that, if we were to use 
 these expressions in their ordinary signification, 
 we should be guilty of teaching Tritheism, which 
 is as clearly contrary to reason and Scripture as 
 any doctrine can be. Since these terms have 
 been imported into the creeds and into common 
 ecclesiastical language, the controversies in philo¬ 
 sophy with which they are associated, have been 
 imported also ; and the expressions will undergo 
 the changes in meaning incidental to all language 
 as well as to technical terms. The controversy 
 respecting substance and personality continues 
 to the present day. Monism and Dualism have 
 their respective adherents, even among those 
 who profess to receive the Christian faith. A 
 Christian doctrine based upon such distinctions, 
 must in the nature of things, be of unstable 
 character. This is not an argument against the 
 use of such terms ; but it is sufficient to warrant 
 us in rejecting the idea that finality attaches to 
 any human mode of stating or explaining divine 
 truth. The Bible gives no theory respecting sieb- 
 stance, essence, 'personality, freedom, or necessity. 
 These are terms of the schools; like all such 
 terms they are liable to excite debate, and to be 
 modified in meaning by the changes of time. 
 Accordingly, the inevitable result is, either that 
 the terms must be used in a different sense from 
 their ordinary use, or. according to the meaning 
 
30 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 of different schools; or the doctrine itself shares 
 in the change. Through changes in the mean- 
 ing of the terms and the corresponding change 
 in the ideas denoted thereby, many important 
 modifications of dogmas have arisen in the 
 Church. It is a commonplace in the history 
 of theology that Christian doctrine is powerfully 
 influenced by the prevailing philosophy of the 
 period. During the Middle Ages scholastic 
 theology was profoundly influenced by Aristotle 
 as understood and modified by the school¬ 
 men. 
 
 It may be said that the chief creeds that have 
 dominated the religious thought of Europe and 
 America during the last two hundred years, viz., 
 —the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of 
 England, the Westminster Confession of the 
 Churches of Scotland, the Lutheran and Re¬ 
 formed Formularies of the Continent, and the 
 Canons and Decrees of Trent, were composed 
 before Modern Philosophy, inaugurated by Des¬ 
 cartes, had begun to influence religious thought; 
 and the Protestant formularies are only, so far 
 as particular dogmas are concerned, a modifica¬ 
 tion of the scholastic, in the direction of a more 
 biblical theology. Since these creeds were 
 formulated, Locke, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, and 
 Hegel, have given their systems of philosophy 
 to the world ; and the two last have powerfully 
 
DOGMA 
 
 31 
 
 influenced the most advanced thought of Europe. 
 Then in another field of rational inquiry— 
 science—which now exercises a more potent 
 influence in popular literature than philosophy, 
 has appeared the “ Origin of Species ” by Darwin. 
 Is it to be supposed that, after these leaders of 
 thought have given their works to the world, 
 the views of men with regard to the creeds of 
 the Church will remain the same as they were 
 before ? It is not for a moment to be imagined. 
 It would be a marvel in the history of human 
 progress should this turn out to be the case. 
 Cardinal Newman somewhere states that those 
 who were instrumental in urging on the Trac- 
 tarian movement, which issued in so many clergy¬ 
 men of the Church of England joining the Church 
 of Rome, had probably never read a word of 
 Kant. This fact will not tend to convince those 
 desirous of taking a rational view of human 
 progress that this movement will possess a per¬ 
 manent character, but rather that it is of a 
 retrograde tendency, i.e .,—towards authority and 
 scholasticism. Religion is to a great extent 
 independent of these and all other systems of 
 philosophy; but when it passes into the stage 
 of accounting for itself, of justifying its existence, 
 of indicating its claims at the bar of reason, of 
 clothing itself in the garb of human speech, it 
 passes from facts to theories, from the permanent 
 
32 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 to the transitory—it becomes theology, and 
 theology is always a mixture of the genuine 
 truths of religion with the thoughts and words 
 of men. This may be necessary ; it may be an 
 inevitable step in the progress of the individual 
 and of the Church ; but, nevertheless, it should 
 never be forgotten that the explanation of Scrip¬ 
 ture facts; inferences deduced from Bible state¬ 
 ments ; reasons given for divine commands; 
 solutions of religious difficulties; and especially, 
 the language in which these are expressed, are 
 all human, and, like everything human, partake 
 of the character of the imperfect and transitory. 
 
 The above remarks proceed on the assumption 
 of the common distinction between religion and 
 theology. It may be said that the religion of 
 Christ is practical and not theoretical—more a 
 life than a doctrine. In the New Testament as 
 well as in the Old, there is very little given or 
 revealed, merely for the sake of knowledge or 
 belief, but revelation seems always, or at least 
 generally, to have in view what is practical; 
 something to help us to become what we ought to 
 be, and to do vvliat we ought to do. On this 
 there are many erroneous conceptions entertained 
 in all the churches, but to the greatest extent, in 
 the Church of Rome. This has arisen chiefly, 
 though not exclusively, from the fact already 
 referred to, that in Scripture belief is frequently 
 
DOGMA 
 
 33 
 
 inculcated, represented as a duty to be performed, 
 and unbelief as a sin to be avoided. Even con¬ 
 demnation is attached to the act or state of un¬ 
 belief. Both believers and unbelievers have too 
 frequently failed to observe the distinction which 
 ought always to be kept in mind, between belief 
 and faith. We believe a statement by a person, 
 but we trust or have faith in a person. All faith 
 implies belief, but all belief is not faith. 
 
 I think it may be affirmed without exaggera¬ 
 tion that there is nothing given in the Bible, 
 simply for the sake of being believed, as if there 
 were any virtue in the mere mental operation of 
 believing. This would make faith an arbitrary act 
 —trusting God for the mere sake of trusting. 
 There is no such teaching in the New Testament. 
 Neither does it teach directly or indirectly that 
 the more incredible the doctrine, the greater the 
 exercise of faith, although something not unlike 
 this is sometimes found in treatises on theology. 
 There is no merit in believing absurd or irrational 
 propositions or alleged events in history attested 
 by insufficient evidence. This would be to ex¬ 
 tinguish the light of reason in order to exercise 
 blind faith. It is always felt that moral worth 
 does not depend upon intellectual vigour, and 
 that salvation in the Christian sense of the term, 
 is not secured through a firm belief in proposi¬ 
 tions, however true those may be. Accordingly, 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 it is often declared by the upholders of the creeds 
 of the church that the rejection of these is a 
 proof of the corruption of human nature and of 
 the moral perversity of those refusing to accept 
 them. They are right to this extent that faith 
 has a vital relation to the moral character of the 
 believer, i.e., to the state of his heart, but not so 
 much to the exercise of the intellect or the 
 validity of the reasoning process. This, however, 
 does not apply to belief. It is not consistent 
 with fact to allege that the difficulties of belief in 
 a logical theology are chiefly of a moral kind, i.e., 
 that men find them difficult to accept because 
 high demands are made upon their obedience and 
 self-denial. It is not solely because men are 
 unwilling to deny themselves and take up the 
 cross and follow Christ, that they refuse to 
 believe in the dogmas of the Church. That self¬ 
 gratification is pleasant, and self-sacrifice dis¬ 
 agreeable, cannot be denied ; nor can it be 
 affirmed that they have nothing to do with the 
 rejection of Christianity. But it is questionable 
 if they are the chief factors in the repudiation of 
 many dogmas. 
 
 Take for example the doctrine of original sin— 
 the corruption of human nature. We make bold 
 to say that for one who rejects the scriptural 
 statements as they occur in the Bible, you will 
 find hundreds who first stumbled over the doctrine 
 
DOGMA 
 
 35 
 
 as stated in the creeds, which are expressed in 
 human language, and designed to be more specific 
 and inferential. Apart from the theory of impu¬ 
 tation (on which all Christians are not by any 
 means agreed) the doctrine has often been so 
 expressed as to imply that the unconverted are 
 absolutely incapable of doing anything good, 
 either in thought, word, or deed. This appears 
 to conflict with the experience of everyday life. 
 When we proceed a step further and endeavour 
 to account for the unquestionable fact of the 
 corruption of human nature, and insist upon the 
 doctrine of imputation; of Adam being the 
 federal head of the human race; and that human 
 beings may, although not guilty of actual sin, be 
 punished eternally for the sin of Adam, our 
 nature rises in revolt against such a doctrine, as 
 it seems to do violence to our deepest moral 
 convictions. Of course it is possible that the 
 generality of people may be mistaken in this. 
 After longer meditation upon the faults of human 
 nature and a clearer perception of the meaning, 
 grounds, and limitation of the doctrine, they may 
 change their views of its moral relations. Even 
 granting that this is the case, it does not prove 
 that the common revolt against the dogma of 
 original sin, as often stated, is due to the corrup¬ 
 tion of human nature, since it is no mark of a 
 corrupt heart to refuse to call justice, truth, 
 
36 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 fairness and generosity, by whomsoever exhibited, 
 sins. Conscience is as safe a guide as reason; 
 and reason, in drawing inferences, is more likely 
 to err than conscience, in passing judgments on 
 the injustice involved in an action. We don’t, 
 of course, maintain the thesis that the intellect, 
 in its conclusions, is never biassed by the feelings 
 of the heart. The phenomena of human life 
 testify to the truth of such a statement with 
 sufficient clearness, according to the adage : “ A 
 man convinced against his will is of the same 
 opinion still.” 
 
 If our inclinations are strongly in favour of a 
 particular course of action, this instinct will 
 strengthen the wish to believe it right; and the 
 same principle leads us to believe favourably of 
 our friends, whether in church or state, and view 
 with opposite feelings those who are opposed to 
 us. That many truths and facts of Christianity, 
 especially many of its demands upon the uncon¬ 
 ditional surrender of all our powers and possessions 
 to the will of God, are opposed to the corrupt 
 tendencies of the human heart, is undeniable. 
 
 This, however, is related more to religion as 
 
 practical than as doctrinal. 
 
 A curious, or rather sad, compromise is often 
 had recourse to, namely, to admit fully the 
 
 doctrine as a theory and deny it in practice. 
 
 High, austere, and precise, doctrine is often 
 
DOGMA 
 
 37 
 
 accepted, advocated, and enforced, while there is 
 considerable laxity in life. “ A long creed makes 
 a short decalogue,” although an exaggeration is 
 not without some truth. To silence the natural 
 questionings of the human heart when a doctrine 
 is presented for our acceptance, must necessarily 
 prove injurious to our moral nature. This does 
 not mean that we are to reject a doctrine or fact, 
 which we don’t like and don’t understand, but it 
 certainly implies that we are not to believe in the 
 truth of a doctrine or the reality of a fact, unless 
 the chief objections have been removed. 
 
 Difficulties have to be encountered in the 
 pursuit of all kinds of truth—religious, scientific, 
 and philosophic ; and if we reject a truth simply 
 because of a difficulty, the number of truths 
 believed will be small indeed." If we are told 
 that a certain dogma is to be believed on pain 
 of losing our souls, we should require very strong 
 evidence before we can credit the fact of its beimr 
 a truth sanctioned by God, and imposed by him 
 as a condition of salvation. Are these truths 
 represented to be such in the Scripture ? Is 
 this the idea of Revelation given there that it 
 consists of a number of statements, doctrines, 
 and facts to be believed ? 
 
 This brings us back to the question of belief 
 as related to the Bible. These truths are given, 
 not merely to be believed, but to influence the 
 
38 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 heart, and not primarily for belief as an end 
 in itself, but as a means toward an end ; for a 
 practical, not a theoretical end, is in view. No 
 sane man would deny that anything which God 
 has revealed for the sole purpose of being be¬ 
 lieved, could, without peril, be consciously re¬ 
 jected. Ignorance or misconception of what has 
 been revealed does not necessarily imply a state 
 of rebellion against the God of Revelation. Un¬ 
 less some such idea as this is accepted, I don’t 
 see how we can avoid affirming, that every 
 statement in Scripture must be fully and in¬ 
 telligently received — e.g., the tenth chapter of 
 Nehemiah and the Genealogies of our Saviour 
 must be read, understood, and accepted by every 
 genuine Christian. Few people, I should think, 
 would maintain such a paradox; yet the language 
 of many w r ho speak of the authority of Scripture 
 and the necessity of belief therein, commit them¬ 
 selves to something like it. 
 
 Much of the loud talk employed in ecclesi¬ 
 astical meetings and in the religious press, in 
 defence of the pure truth of God, and in opposi¬ 
 tion to deadly error, rests upon such an assump¬ 
 tion. The utterances of certain parties in the 
 Church of England regarding the views on 
 Scripture propounded in “ Lux Mundi,” and 
 of some Presbyterians in Scotland and America 
 on the inerrancy of the Bible, derive their chief 
 
DOGMA 
 
 39 
 
 strength from an implied belief in its validity. 
 It is now, as it has always been, the imperative 
 duty of those who cling to the freedom that 
 is in Christ, to demand that the words of men, 
 however good and learned, are not to be placed 
 on a position of equality with the word of the 
 Eternal God. These strong statements and 
 forcible denunciations derive their chief im¬ 
 portance from the fact that they are often 
 apparently more in harmony with the standards 
 of the church to which they and their opponents 
 belong. In such circumstances, it is compara¬ 
 tively easy to show with much plausibility that 
 they who profess to be contending earnestly for 
 God’s truth, are stedfastly adhering to that 
 truth as it has always been understood in the 
 Church ; and that those who ’are modifying the 
 language or assigning a different relative position 
 to certain doctrines, are really unfaithful to God’s 
 truth. In other words, human statements, ex¬ 
 positions, and inferences, are placed upon the 
 same level as the unchanging word of God. 
 
 This is strikingly exemplified in the following 
 statement of Dr Pusey , 1 in answer to a corres¬ 
 pondent :—“ What are the essential doctrines of 
 saving faith ? The one (Puseyist, Catholicism) 
 says, those contained in the creeds, especially 
 what relates to the Holy Trinity, the other 
 
 1 Life, 'II. 140, p. 20. 
 
40 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 (Calvinists), the belief in justification by faith 
 alone.” The last is a misrepresentation (uninten¬ 
 tional doubtless) of the Calvinist, who would not 
 affirm that belief in the doctrine of justification 
 by faith alone is essential, but he would affirm 
 that faith itself would justify. To talk of the 
 essential doctrines of saving faith is a most 
 incorrect way of speaking. Properly speaking, 
 saving faith has no essential doctrines, although 
 there may he fundamental articles of the faith, it 
 must have some foundation to rest upon—Christ 
 himself, as Julius Muller says in his work, “ Die 
 Evangelische Union,” “ the faith which saves does 
 not consist in the acceptance of a series of 
 articxdi fidei funclamentales prlmarii, but in 
 the absolute confiding surrender to the personal 
 saviour of which the simplest child is capable.” 
 That is very different from belief in articles of 
 religion, fundamental or non-fundamental. The 
 latter is almost a purely intellectual operation, an 
 act of judgment following upon the presentation 
 of certain evidence for the truth of a given pro¬ 
 position. Accordingly, many men have given in 
 their assent to a series, of propositions similar to 
 the so-called Athanasian creed, whose lives bear 
 testimony that they have not been influenced by 
 the truth believed. Whereas, faith in Christ as 
 the living saviour, who will deliver us from the 
 power and effect of sin, will not be exercised by 
 
DOGMA 
 
 41 
 
 one who is indifferent to the evil existing in his 
 heart and manifesting itself in his life, and to 
 whose soul Christ is not revealed as worthy of all 
 acceptation. The individual who is thus led to 
 surrender himself to the living personal Saviour, 
 is often unable to trace the various steps of the 
 process by which he has been led to renounce 
 confidence in himself and rely upon Christ as his 
 Saviour. This is the usual kind of experience in 
 acts which are the result of moral influences. In 
 many cases this faith is “ small as a grain of 
 mustard seed,” but it may grow 7 into a large tree 
 fruitful in every Christian grace. The w r ant of 
 faith is a moral, the want of belief is chiefly an 
 intellectual, defect. To affirm that, “ we must 
 perish everlastingly,” if we believe not the two 
 creeds, is surely most unlike the language of the 
 New Testament. The words in the creeds, both 
 Nicene and Athanasian, as applied to Christ and 
 to the Trinity, were unknown to the Christian 
 Church for well-nigh three hundred years, and we 
 make bold to say that at the time they were given 
 to the world, thousands of Christians w r ere singing 
 the praises of Christ in heaven who had never 
 heard them thus applied when here on earth. It 
 is rather too much to assert that any decision of 
 the Church, at any period of her history, can 
 make belief in any doctrine necessary for salvation, 
 which was not necessary before. Of course, if 
 
42 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 infallibility is conceded to the Church, and the 
 right of private judgment is denied to the 
 individual, such a view may be consistent, as in 
 the case of the church of Rome, Dr Pusey, if I 
 understand his position, seems to renounce the right 
 of private judgment. It can only be by the 
 sacrifice of this inalienable right that such a 
 position can be maintained. The Athanasian 
 creed goes on further and says, “ Before all things 
 it is necessary to hold the Catholic faith." This 
 gives some cause for the remark often made that 
 belief is exalted above practice, not belief even in 
 Scripture, but in articles of faith. The Bible 
 says: “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, 
 without which no man shall see the Lord.” 1 The 
 vast expenditure of strength in writing books 
 on polemical theology, in assembling Church 
 Councils to decide controversies of faith, in the 
 prolonged, fiery, and sometimes rancorous debates 
 on conti’overted points, seems very different from 
 what might have been expected from Christianity 
 as delineated in the New Testament. Too often 
 the zeal of churches has been flowing in channels 
 different from those commended in the sermon on 
 the Mount. If the same amount of energy had 
 been expended in inducing men to give up all 
 manner of sinful indulgence and to devote them¬ 
 selves more unreservedly to the cultivation of 
 
 1 Hebrews xii. 14. 
 
DOGMA 
 
 43 
 
 personal holiness and to serve each other in things 
 pertaining to their temporal and eternal welfare, 
 the Church and the world would have been in a 
 better condition in this 19th century of the 
 Christian era. In many matters of conduct all 
 the churches rely upon the common sense, 
 Christian feeling, and religious zeal of their 
 teachers, to secure the observance of the weightier 
 matters of the law, without imposing upon them 
 a belief in human deductions from the decalogue 
 or in hair splitting distinctions on difficult points 
 of casuistry. One might affirm that the latter is 
 as much entitled to this consideration as the 
 other. This we don’t claim for either. Let 
 freedom be secured for the intellect in its search 
 after truth, as well as for the conscience with 
 respect to the doctrines and commandments of 
 man. 
 
 A thorough treatment of this subject in all its 
 length and breadth would involve an examination 
 of Christian doctrine, first as expressed in 
 Scripture, and then a fair comparison made 
 between the Biblical doctrine and the statement 
 of the same in the creeds and confessions of the 
 Christian churches. This would be to write a 
 treatise on Biblical as compared with Dogmatic 
 Theology, which I do not attempt. I shall 
 confine my attention chiefly to those doctrines 
 which now divide the Church of Christ into 
 
44 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 separate fragments and which have been a bone 
 of contention in the ages that are past, such 
 as those pertaining to the Church, the Sacra¬ 
 ments, and Predestination with its related 
 doctrines. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE CHURCH 
 
 As already remarked, some dogmas relate to 
 matters which are, in themselves, difficult to 
 understand, and still more difficult to express in 
 language; others relate to matters which involve 
 no such difficulty. If precision of statement and 
 complete apprehension of what is stated, had been 
 the chief aim of our Lord’s discourses and of his 
 apostles’ letters, the Gospels and Epistles would 
 have been very different from what they are. 
 
 If every pin in the tabernacle is of supreme 
 importance we should expect some clear indica¬ 
 tions as to how each one is to be distinguished 
 and have its proper place in the Church of God. 
 If failure to connect ourselves with the true 
 Church of Christ deprives us of inestimable 
 privileges and exposes us to great spiritual 
 dangers, we should think that there would have 
 been clearer indications in Scripture of what the 
 Church is, than those we find here. If there is 
 no salvation beyond the pale of that church, it 
 might be expected that, if we have a revelation 
 
 45 
 
46 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 from God at all, it would be clearly manifested 
 what the true Church is, and how it is to he 
 recognised. 
 
 Mr Gore makes the affirmation that it is be¬ 
 coming increasingly difficult to believe in the Bible 
 without believing in the Church. It is possible 
 that this may be explained satisfactorily, but 
 much depends upon what is understood by the 
 Church; very often when used by a member of 
 the Anglican, Greek, or Roman Church, it denotes 
 his own. By what grounds of reason and Scrip¬ 
 ture can his own be included and the others 
 excluded ? Still more how can these three be 
 included, and all Protestant Churches be ex¬ 
 cluded ? The exclusive claims to recognition as 
 the Church of Christ, of any one of these 
 organizations mentioned, or of any other, is 
 utterly baseless, and on any other subject would 
 be treated with small respect. Very often the 
 astounding claims, the intolerant denunciations, 
 and fierce anathemas, are in the inverse ratio to 
 their validity. On very slender foundations a 
 huge edifice of doctrine is erected. 
 
 Much has been said of late, as if it possessed 
 fresh importance, with respect to the Historic 
 Episcopate. To non-episcopal bodies, this, even 
 if established, would not possess much force. 
 If we find that there is no one form of Church 
 government set down in Scripture as of exclusive 
 
THE CHURCH 
 
 47 
 
 authority, it would not be of much use to prove 
 that the episcopal form could be traced up to 
 the generation immediately after the apostles, 
 unless it could be clearly proved that this form 
 prevailed in all parts of the world where Christi¬ 
 anity had taken root, and that succeeding genera¬ 
 tions are bound to accept the constitution of the 
 Church then existing as their exclusive model, 
 from which they are not permitted to deviate in 
 the slightest degree. This cannot be proved 
 either by express statement or by the character 
 which its organization assumed in the apostolic 
 age. There is no such command or statement 
 contained in the words of our Lord or of any of 
 his apostles. We are told what offices were 
 given to his Church at that time, but it is not 
 stated that every one of these offices shall exist 
 in the churches in all parts of the world to the 
 end of time. As a matter of fact, no church of 
 the present day adheres in every respect to the 
 model of the apostolic days. In every one of 
 them there are considerable additions ; and these 
 additions are felt to be advantageous and have 
 generally arisen from some want that has been 
 experienced. 
 
 Every one will admit that all arrangements or 
 offices instituted by any of the apostles, with the 
 design that it should be observed by the followers 
 of Christ till His second coming, ought to be 
 
48 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 sacredly adhered to. Every one who believes 
 in the authority of Scripture must accept this 
 position. 
 
 There are, it is well known, three forms of 
 church government—the Episcopal, Presbyterian, 
 and Congregational. The adherents of the first 
 frequently unchurch those belonging to the Pres¬ 
 byterian and Congregational forms, but the latter 
 are seldom so intolerant. As the subject of 
 church government is, perhaps, the most fruitful 
 source of division and more than any other cause 
 prevents anything like what may be called an 
 incorporating union of the churches, it may be 
 advisable to discuss the matter briefly, although 
 volumes have been written in advocating the 
 exclusive claims of each. It is perfectly evident 
 that a Congregationalist, who believes that it is 
 the divine will that each congregation has within 
 itself all necessary powers for government, and 
 must be independent of all authority external to 
 itself, whether that authority be Pope, Bishop, or 
 Presbytery, could not unite with either of the 
 other two systems. He would sacrifice his prin¬ 
 ciples, and would thereby go into relations with 
 adherents of other systems which he now repu¬ 
 diates with respect to his own. A thorough 
 believer in what is called the “jus divinum ” of 
 Presbytery, could not submit to the authority of 
 Pope, Prelate, or Bishop, since he regards, and by 
 
THE CHURCH 
 
 49 
 
 his principles must regard, the claim of such to 
 submission in any form as mere usurpation. 
 Every adherent of the episcopal system who 
 sincerely believes that the three orders—Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons—are of divine institution, 
 necessary to the existence of the Church, designed 
 to be continued to the end of time, and as a 
 matter of history, have continued in uninterrupted 
 succession from apostolic days down to the present 
 age—such a one cannot acknowledge the ordina- 
 tion of those on whom the bishop’s hands have 
 not been laid, and would necessarily require of 
 those who enter the episcopal body, to submit to 
 reordination if they wish to minister at her altars. 
 It is easy enough for those who have never 
 examined the question carefully, or who have 
 arrived at the conclusion that none of the systems 
 mentioned possess exclusive divine authority, to 
 talk of the bigotry and intolerance of those who 
 are sincerely attached to one or other of these 
 forms of government and believe that the one 
 which they advocate is alone possessed of divine 
 sanction. Those holding such views cannot act 
 otherwise than they do. They are carrying out 
 in practice the logical conclusion of their prin¬ 
 ciples. As long, therefore, as such ideas dominate 
 the minds of Christians, it is vain to expect a 
 union of the different churches. If such a mean¬ 
 ing is always to be attributed to the teaching of 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 Scripture by the different bodies, the present 
 divisions must necessarily be permanent, and the 
 re-union of Christendom will always remain an 
 idle dream. If the consummation so devoutly to 
 be wished is ever to be realized, it can be 
 brought about only in either of two ways : one 
 of the three systems must come to be held as 
 exclusively possessed of divine authority; or 
 Christians must come to believe that none of 
 them possesses this authority. The present 
 tendency of theological thought would lead us to 
 suppose that the latter is likely to be the prevail¬ 
 ing sentiment. 
 
 There is not one passage of Scripture in 
 which it is stated that the three orders. Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons, shall exist in the Church. 
 “ Bishops” are mentioned; “Presbyters” are 
 mentioned; “ Deacons ” are mentioned, in the 
 
 New Testament. No one can deny, no one 
 does deny, this fact. It is certain that bishops 
 are also called presbyters; the words are two 
 names for the same office. When the apostle 
 in 1 Timothy enumerates the qualifications of 
 bishops and deacons, he makes no ’'eference to 
 those of presbyters. This is just what we should 
 expect if bishops and presbyters are different 
 names for the same office; but if the offices are 
 different, it is unaccountable why he should 
 describe the qualifications of the deacon, the 
 
THE CHURCH 
 
 5 1 
 
 inferior officer, and omit all reference to the 
 presbyter, the superior. Again it may be said 
 that in the New Testament we have the office 
 of apostle. That must be superior to all others. 
 We cannot imagine any elder or deacon rejecting 
 the teaching of an apostle or refusing to submit 
 to his authority. We find one apostle rebuking 
 another, but we do not read of any presbyter 
 or deacon presuming to do so. It is possible 
 this may have been done; but the reason of 
 our not believing that anything of the kind ever 
 took place is, that we attach ideas of greatest 
 sacredness to the office, because of the peculiar 
 spiritual gifts which the twelve possessed. They 
 under Christ the head, were the inspired founders 
 of the Church; and as such they had no suc¬ 
 cessors. The fact that the name does not survive 
 is a pretty strong presumption that the office did 
 not survive either. It is rather difficult to prove 
 that the authority or function of the apostle 
 passed over to the bishop or presbyter. To seek 
 for it ip antiquity is to pass from the clear to the 
 obscure, or from the obscure to the more obscure. 
 Even should it be found there, can it claim 
 greater deference than is conceded to Scripture ? 
 
 Some would claim authority for any doctrine 
 on the ground of its being sanctioned both by 
 Scripture and the ancient undivided church. 
 Why should the ancient undivided church receive 
 
52 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 greater homage from us than the church at the 
 Reformation ? Is there any magical charm in 
 the fact of being ancient and undivided ? There 
 are many things taught by the Fathers of the 
 ancient church which are questionable, not to 
 say foolish, enough ; and when we have to under¬ 
 take the process of sifting the wheat from the 
 chaff, we are in no better position as regards 
 certainty than we were before. So far as in¬ 
 terpretation is concerned, their advantages and 
 qualifications are not superior to our own; and a 
 hundred years after the resurrection they are not 
 much more to be depended upon in matters of 
 historical fact. 
 
 The principal of Pusey House in his work 
 on the “ Mission of the Church,” (with admirable 
 and Christian spirit, however) asserts the full 
 claims of the old apostolical succession and the 
 necessity of its preservation, to secure a valid 
 ministry and valid sacraments. Here again, 
 where is the scriptural warrant for the dogma ? 
 Surely a principle possessed of such sweeping 
 application, ought to be founded upon clear 
 warrant of Scripture. To our mind at least, 
 such warrant has never been produced. It is 
 based on general reasoning and on the supposition 
 that God would not leave us in such a matter 
 to our own devices, but would necessarily furnish 
 us with a model, from which vve are never to 
 
THE CHURCH 
 
 53 
 
 depart. This a priori reasoning is exceedingly 
 common in the history of theology, and too 
 frequently does duty for solid scriptural proof. 
 
 The infallibility of the church, the inerrancy of 
 Scripture, and the jus divinum of church 
 organization, all rest upon the same kind of 
 basis—the supposed desirableness or necessity 
 for what is attempted to be proved. Ap¬ 
 parently it is acknowledged that the Anglican, 
 Roman and Greek churches, have all this suc¬ 
 cession. The fact that the Church is rent into 
 three fragments, provided that they have the 
 succession, although the ground of separation be 
 unwarrantable, does not destroy the validity of 
 the Church and its sacraments. If each fragment 
 has bishops, then all is valid ; if only presbyters 
 then there is no true church. Here then, we 
 have to ask, are bishops always, as a body, better, 
 more godlike or more learned than presbyters ? 
 The only difference in favour of the former, is of 
 a physical nature, their descent back to the 
 apostles. What is its value ? Surely we ought 
 to have recourse to the teaching of Scripture on 
 the one hand and to that of experience on the 
 other. The necessity of this succession is not 
 inculcated in Scripture ; but the general principle 
 is assumed by its advocates and then remorse¬ 
 lessly applied to distinguish the valid from the 
 invalid ministry. In' other words, the method 
 
54 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 adopted to ascertain the genuine branches of the 
 Church of Christ is the reverse of what ought to 
 be. The general principle employed is stated 
 clearly; when it is admitted, conclusions logically 
 follow. There is no doubt about the conclusion, 
 as it necessarily follows from the premises, but 
 the latter have been assumed without adequate 
 proof. We may also have recourse to the teach¬ 
 ings of experience. We may examine the general 
 effects of different systems of church organization 
 upon the intellectual and moral condition of the 
 communities in which they prevail. Is it a fact 
 that where episcopal government exists, there the 
 moral and intellectual condition of the people is 
 superior to that of those countries in which the 
 other forms prevail ? Is England superior to 
 Scotland, or churchmen to dissenters in England ? 
 Are Catholic countries superior to Protestant ? 
 
 The matter may be viewed in another light. 
 We cannot enter into details, but we may glance 
 at the state of Christendom at the great epoch of 
 the Reformation. The Protestants revolted from 
 Rome. Such a revolt must be justifiable in the 
 estimation of an Anglican since they themselves 
 have revolted. Where there were no Bishops 
 who had been previously ordained according to 
 the rites of the Roman Church, among those who 
 had renounced her authority, the latter must 
 apply to Rome for ordination ; which she must, of 
 
THE CHURCH 
 
 55 
 
 course, refuse. What are they to do ? They set 
 up an organisation, which in their own view, is 
 according to the mind of Christ. Is it therefore 
 invalid, because it wants the external succession ? 
 There is no such statement in Scripture with 
 respect to this point; but such a sweeping dogma 
 would require for its validity very distinct state¬ 
 ments in the word of God. Through the good 
 Christian feeling of many defenders of apostolical 
 succession, they do not deny the Christianity of 
 individuals, outside of the churches having the 
 succession, who give good evidence of genuine 
 religion by the fruits they exhibit. This they do, 
 however, at the expense of their logic. If you 
 admit the fruits produced by individuals as a 
 warrant for regarding them as true Christians, 
 you are compelled also to acknowledge the 
 organization which leads to the production of 
 these fruits. It is one thing to affirm that one 
 particular system is apostolical and that the 
 others are not apostolical; quite another that one 
 system is apostolical and the others are invalid. 
 
 Does every error render the system in which 
 it is formed invalid ? This is not maintained by 
 any party or sect. According to the Anglican 
 view the Church of Rome is guilty of serious 
 error, e.g., in affirming the infallibility of the 
 Pope and the immaculate conception of the 
 Blessed Virgin, but it is not denied that the 
 
56 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 Roman is a branch of the Church of Christ. 
 Why then should those churches, in which three 
 orders do not exist, be denied the same position, 
 since they hold the truth on the other doctrines 
 which the Anglican, Roman, and Greek Churches 
 hold, and repudiate the errors of Rome and Con¬ 
 stantinople with as much distinctness as the 
 Anglican ? 
 
 Is an error in Church organization more 
 serious than in doctrine or morals ? Have we 
 any guarantee, either from Scripture or experi¬ 
 ence, that truth is always on the side of the 
 majority ? Let the state of the Jewish Church 
 in the days of our Lord answer the question. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 (I) Baptism 
 
 This word does not occur in Scripture. The 
 reasonings that have been founded upon the idea 
 of a sacrament have been exceedingly various, 
 and many of them have very little bearing upon 
 the Christian life, so far as stimulus or direction 
 is concerned ; and they illustrate very forcibly 
 the oft-recurring phenomenon in the history of 
 Christian dogma, that huge structures have been 
 frequently raised upon excessively slight and 
 narrow foundations. What is a Sacrament ? 
 What is their number ? What purpose do they 
 serve in the Christian economy ? To a consider¬ 
 able extent, the answer to the other two questions 
 depends upon that given to the first; but there 
 is no definition or explanation of the thing more 
 than of the word in Scripture. The lt.C. Church 
 affirms that there are seven; most Protestants 
 that there are only two; Catholics and Anglicans 
 affirm that baptism duly administered confers 
 the grace of regeneration, and the vast majority 
 
 57 
 
0 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 of Protestants deny it ; the Baptists affirm that 
 the rite is to be administered to adults only on 
 profession of faith ; almost all other Christians 
 that it may be administered to infants also. 
 
 It is not to be expected that a thorough dis¬ 
 cussion of the subject should be given in such a 
 work as this,—since many volumes have been 
 written on the mode, subjects, and effects of 
 baptism. One should think that there is no 
 peculiar difficulty in settling such a question as 
 the lawfulness of Infant baptism. There is 
 nothing of a profound or intricate character 
 connected with this part of the subject such as 
 there is regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 Predestination, Freewill, or Original Sin. It is 
 simply a question of fact. Did the apostles 
 baptize infants, or command them to be baptised ? 
 If it is necessary to possess a clear divine precept 
 or indubitable example for the administration of 
 this ordinance, then it should be at once admitted 
 that there is no such evidence in the New 
 Testament. The phrase “ Disciple all nations, 
 baptising them,” 1 apparently includes children, but 
 not necessarily so. In other portions cf Scripture 
 statements are made which would render it 
 necessary to take “ all ” with limitation. Then 
 as regards express examples of children being 
 baptised, these are also uncertain. We have got 
 1 Matt, xxviii. 19. 
 
THE SACRAMENTS 
 
 59 
 
 households certainly, blit then the mode of state¬ 
 ment with respect to them is reconcilable with 
 either view, although it seems to me that the 
 frequency with which households were baptised, 
 renders it more probable that children were 
 included. It is only a probability, however, not 
 a certainty, and therefore this subject ought to be 
 a matter of forbearance in the Church of Christ. 
 It evidently was not the design of our Lord that 
 every rite of worship or regulation for the well¬ 
 being of the saints should be laid down so clearly 
 that mistakes should be next to impossible. One 
 or two words additional would have settled the 
 question for ever; but these two or three words 
 are not there. 
 
 Then an argument on behalf of the Baptist 
 position is deduced from the qualifications which 
 the apostles demanded of candidates for admission 
 to this ordinance. As regards belief or faith 
 being a necessary qualification for baptism, it 
 must be admitted by every one, I imagine, that 
 faith is quite as necessary for salvation ; so that 
 if the want of faith excludes infants from baptism, 
 it will as certainly exclude them from salvation. 
 
 Faith, however, is not definitely laid down as a 
 condition of baptism. “ He that believeth and is 
 baptised shall be saved.” 1 There may be some 
 ground in this verse for the necessity of baptism 
 1 St Mark, xvi. 16. 
 
60 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 to salvation, but to affirm that it (even were it 
 genuine) teaches belief as a necessary qualification 
 for baptism is to build on a very unstable founda¬ 
 tion. As a matter of fact, in apostolic times, 
 those who applied to be baptized would be 
 believers. There was no inducement for either 
 a heathen or a Jew to have this ordinance ad¬ 
 ministered to him, except that he regarded it as 
 a duty which ought to be performed. While it 
 is probable that all applicants were believers (in 
 some sense or other), we have equal warrant for 
 affirming that all who applied were accepted. 
 There is no instance of any applicant being 
 refused. Holding, as we do, the validity of infant 
 baptism, we yet hold with equal firmness that it 
 ought not to be a source of division among 
 brethren. Uniformity of belief in every particular 
 is not required, even in the narrowest sect of 
 Christendom : why should uniformity of ritual or 
 practice be insisted on ? 
 
 As to the effect of baptism, opinions are equally 
 various and conflicting. Some contend that the 
 due reception of the rite necessarily confers re¬ 
 generation, others that it only signifies this, or 
 other blessings. Among the former, there are 
 serious differences as to what is meant by the 
 term “ regeneration ” ; some maintaining that it 
 denotes a change of state ; others, a change of 
 character. The change of state has more 
 
THE SACRAMENTS 
 
 61 
 
 particular reference to external privileges. The 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not one 
 merely of a theoretical character, but involves 
 important practical consequences. In the view of 
 a Calvinist, it must prove very pernicious to the 
 Christian life, provided those who maintain it 
 hold the same views as he does, both as to re¬ 
 generation and to the perseverance of the saints. 
 
 If one really becomes a Christian at the moment 
 of baptism, then he is certain of everlasting life. 
 To an Arminian, on the other hand, it would not 
 appear to involve the same consequences, as he 
 contends that a man who is a true Christian 
 to-day, may to-morrow fall into sin and perish 
 everlastingly. To a sincere Calvinist, therefore, 
 the experience of every day contradicts the doc¬ 
 trine of baptismal regeneration. Every one truly 
 regenerate, according to his view, will persevere 
 in a Christian life, die a Christian death, and 
 thereafter enter into glory. According to him, 
 and indeed according to every Christian view of 
 life, many baptised persons never give any evi¬ 
 dence in their lives that they are animated by 
 Christian motives of any kind. Accordingly, the 
 defenders of Baptismal Regeneration, must either 
 hold the possibility of the regenerate perishing, 
 or give a different signification to the term “ re¬ 
 generation.” Both methods have been adopted. 
 Whatever may be the success of either, a prior 
 
62 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 question has to be answered. “ Is the grace of 
 regeneration, whatever that may be, invariably 
 conferred by the ordinance when duly adminis¬ 
 tered ? ” Let us look at the strongest scriptural 
 evidence adduced in its favour. 
 
 In Acts (xxii. 16) “ arise, be baptised, and wash 
 away thy sins; Acts (ii. 38) “Repent, and be 
 baptised every one of you for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost’’; Mark (xvi. 16) “He that believeth and 
 is baptised shall be saved” ; John (iii. 3) “except 
 a man be born again of water and of the spirit, 
 he cannot see the kingdom of God.” These are 
 the strongest passages that can be adduced to 
 prove baptismal regeneration. In the first we 
 have three acts to be performed “ arise,” “ be 
 baptised,” “ wash away thy sins.” Of course no 
 one can assert that there is any causal connection 
 between the first and the second; why should 
 there be such a connection between the second 
 and third ? In the passages from Mark and St 
 John iii., all that could be inferred from them 
 is the necessity of baptism to salvation. This 
 necessity even* one can freely concede, inasmuch 
 as every command of God is necessary, but the 
 well-known distinction is applicable here, viz. :— 
 e necessitate precepti and e necessitate nxedii. 
 Every command of the decalogue is necessary in 
 the former sense. None, even of the saints, have 
 
THE SACRAMENTS 
 
 63 
 
 kept these commands perfectly ; surely submission 
 to an external rite cannot be regarded as more 
 essential to salvation than the moral commands 
 of the decalogue. 
 
 The interpretation of the passage from St John 
 is not at all certain. Born of water, may refer to 
 this ordinance, or it may not. At all events it 
 was uttered before this sacrament was instituted. 
 "What could Nicodemus understand of an ordin¬ 
 ance not yet instituted ? He evidently miscon¬ 
 ceived the nature of the new birth altogether. 
 That, however, was owing to its spiritual char¬ 
 acter ; but to refer to an ordinance not yet 
 instituted in explanation of a spiritual truth 
 seems inexplicable. It is evident that regenera¬ 
 tion and remission of sins are mentioned in 
 connection with baptism, but more as a symbol 
 by which these truths are conveyed than as 
 blessings which the ordinance confers. Why 
 should the church of Christ be rent into two 
 parties on this question, one affirming, and the 
 other denying, baptismal regeneration ? A simple 
 acceptance of the truth, in the w r ords of Scripture, 
 should be sufficient to secure the reverend observ¬ 
 ance of this holy ordinance of our Lord. 
 
 (II) The Lord’s Supper 
 
 As already indicated, Baptism and the Lord’s 
 Supper are classed under the same genus— 
 
64 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION' 
 
 Sacrament. This word is not applied to either 
 of these ordinances in Scripture. It is a human 
 invention ; certain ideas have been attached to 
 it : and the ideas, as it were, carried over into 
 these two ordinances instituted by Christ, and 
 always observed in the Church from Apostolic 
 times down to the present day. The sacraments 
 are said to be signs and seals of Christian bless¬ 
 ings. Very few would question the statement 
 that they are symbolical ordinances; but when 
 we come to the seals, differences soon emerge. 
 We have the Zwinglian, C'alvinistic, Lutheran. 
 Anglican, and Roman Catholic views, especially 
 with regard to the Eucharist. 
 
 Transubstantiation, the Lutheran consubstantia- 
 tion, are regarded as most important, if not funda¬ 
 mental, doctrines by their respective advocates ; 
 and the former has always been regarded with 
 strongest aversion on the part of Protestants. 
 The teaching of Rome on this subject is a 
 very good example of the course which dogma 
 usually runs. The Scripture statement, “ This 
 is my body ” is taken as the foundation, and a 
 huge pile of speculation is built upon it. It is 
 a figurative expression, says the Protestant; no, 
 it is literally true, says the Catholic. The 
 dogma, however, adds a very great deal to the 
 simple scriptural statement. It is asserted that 
 the change takes place on the “substance ” of 
 
THE SACRAMENTS 
 
 G5 
 
 our Lord’s body, but not on the “ accidents .” 
 Here is the application of tlie Aristotelian 
 philosophy to the elucidation of Christian truth. 
 Scripture mentions neither substance nor acci¬ 
 dents; and yet it is demanded that this dogma 
 must be believed on pain of exclusion from the 
 pale of the Church. Of course, it is allowable 
 to have recourse to any valid explanation in 
 order to remove an apparent contradiction. 
 Certainly, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 
 transubstantiation of the substance of our Lord’s 
 body does not necessarily involve a contradiction, 
 i.e., it does not contradict the senses. If it 
 affirmed that the accidents as well as the sub¬ 
 stance are changed, then it would necessarily 
 contradict our senses, as it is certain that the 
 wafer has all the appearance of a wafer, and the 
 wine all the appearance of wine, after consecra¬ 
 tion as it had before. So far as our senses are 
 concerned, not the slightest difference is made by 
 the act of the officiating priest. The change is 
 on the substance which does not come under the 
 cognizance of the senses. Accordingly they (the 
 senses) cannot decide whether any change has 
 taken place on the substance or not. There is 
 no contradiction, therefore ; this much must be 
 conceded. But what authority have we for 
 asserting that there may be a change of sub¬ 
 stance without a change of accidents ? Such 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 an occurrence is entirely contrary to experience. 
 Tlie only way we can judge of substance is by 
 its qualities or accidents; where the qualities 
 remain the same, the substance remains the 
 same ; and where the qualities are changed, the 
 substance is changed. Our whole reasoning on 
 the nature of substance and accident rests upon 
 the assumption that the relation between the two 
 is always the same. 
 
 Then this distinction between substance and 
 accidents is a philosophical one ; we do not inquire 
 whether true or not ; so as usual, the dogma 
 results from an application of philosophy to 
 religious truth. Looking at the probabilities 
 of the case, is it probable that a doctrine, which 
 is said to be so very important, should be ex¬ 
 pressed as it is in Scripture ? The Bible does 
 not make use of philosophy, but it abounds in 
 figurative language. In the Old Testament and 
 in the New, in the parables of Christ, and in 
 the epistles of the apostles, we have figurative 
 language in great variety. Why should these 
 words, “ this is my body,” be an exception to the 
 rule ? Take them figuratively, and everything 
 is simple, rational, and instructive. Take them 
 with absolute literalness and it is the opposite. 
 The change of substance is no more consistent 
 with the strict letter than the other mode of 
 interpretation. 
 
THE SACRAMENTS 
 
 67 
 
 It is true, this change is not beyond divine 
 power to effect; that is not denied, but it is 
 denied that Scripture affirms that God will put 
 such power into force, or that we are called 
 upon to believe in the exercise of such power. 
 
 It is also said that this divine power is put 
 forth at the moment of consecration. Any one 
 may see that Scripture says nothing whatever 
 about consecration or respecting the channel in 
 which his grace flows in the administration of 
 this sacrament or that of baptism. All churches 
 have gone beyond the Bible in restricting the 
 administration of either sacrament to ordained 
 ministers. This is proper enough as a matter of 
 order, but not essential to the very nature of 
 either ordinance. 
 
 We do not affirm that, in the case of the 
 priesthood or of ordained ministers generally, this 
 doctrine is maintained in order to increase their 
 power over the consciences of men ; but there can 
 be no doubt that such a doctrine tends to give 
 such influence to a much greater extent than 
 its opposite. 
 
 Why should we not consider the practical effect 
 of the sacrament ? Can Christians not agree in 
 stating what good is derived from the celebra¬ 
 tion of this ordinance ? All must admit that 
 some good is designed to be conveyed by the 
 ordinance. 
 
68 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 What are those blessings ? Can the body— 
 the physical body or the substance of that body—- 
 benefit the soul ? Then it may be asked, is the 
 benefit of the ordinance dependent upon the belief 
 of the partaker in the objective presence of the 
 Saviour’s body and also upon the validity of the 
 ordination of him who administers it ? This may 
 be asserted, but it requires to be proved, and this 
 proof may be derived from the two sources of 
 Scripture and experience. Scripture says little or 
 nothing on the point. Are Catholics, Anglicans, 
 and Lutherans, who are regular communicants, 
 better in life and character than other Christians 
 who do not hold their belief, and who have not 
 the privilege of receiving the bread or wine from 
 those who can trace their apostolic succession ? 
 To this test theological dogmas, to a much greater 
 extent than heretofore, will have to submit. 
 Verification by experience is one of the watch¬ 
 words of the day. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 PREDESTINATION 
 
 We have already remarked that the differences of 
 view and practice regarding church government 
 and the sacraments are much more easily under¬ 
 stood by the common mind than those on the 
 more abstruse matters of the Christian faith. A 
 few more definite statements in Scripture on these 
 subjects might have prevented many of the 
 divisions of the church which have taken place in 
 the past, and which have often been attended 
 with disastrous effects upon the cause of religion, 
 by a vast expenditure of strength on subjects of 
 inferior importance, which otherwise might have 
 been directed against the common foes of irreligion 
 and worldliness. As long as the three theories 
 of church government are deemed of primary 
 importance, it is vain to expect any union of a 
 corporate character between their respective 
 adherents, even although there should be a 
 general agreement on most, or even all, other 
 Christian doctrines. 
 
 These, however, are not the only differences 
 
 69 
 
70 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 which cause separation and opposition among 
 Christians. There are others which have proved 
 a fruitful source of controversy in days gone by, 
 and which keep Christian communions apart at 
 the present time. 
 
 The Calvinistic doctrines have had their ardent 
 supporters and zealous opponents, and are the 
 means of keeping apart some communions. The 
 Wesleyan body possesses essentially the Presby¬ 
 terian form of church government, as it has a 
 ministry of presbyters without bishops, and 
 congregations united together under a common 
 rule, but they are as strongly attached to 
 Arminiauism as other presbyterians are to 
 Calvinism. It may be said, therefore, that 
 Wesleyans are kept in their separate position by 
 attachment to their system of doctrine, and 
 Calvinists by an equally strong attachment to an 
 opposite system. 
 
 At one time the majority of the Protestant 
 churches both in Britain, America, and the 
 continent of Europe, were Calvinistic in doctrine : 
 this cannot be said now. The majority is rather 
 the other way, not so much through these 
 doctrines having been publicly renounced and 
 Arminianism adopted, as by attaching less 
 importance to these doctrinal differences, and 
 allowing them to remain open questions in the 
 respective communions. Arminianism has not 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 71 
 
 obtained the same position of authority which was 
 formerly held by Calvinism ; but when Calvinism 
 has been explicitly renounced, those doing so have 
 often gone further away from the system than 
 Arminianism itself does. In the Church of 
 England (whatever view' may be taken of tbe 
 articles) this subject is treated as an open 
 question ; and even in the Church of Rome, w'e 
 believe, the opinions or doctrines of Augustine 
 and Aquinas are still held by several orders, 
 although the Jesuits have always thrown in the 
 weight of their powerful influence into the 
 opposite scale. 
 
 The first Calvinistic doctrine that demands 
 attention is Predestination. 
 
 According to the Westminster Catechism, “ The 
 decrees of God are his eternal purpose w r hereby, 
 for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatso¬ 
 ever comes to pass.” This answer of the catechism 
 to the question : “ What are the decrees of God, ’ 
 possesses the usual characteristics of dogma. The 
 language is of human origin ; a divine warrant is 
 supposed to lie at its foundation ; and it is de¬ 
 signed to be more precise than Scripture. All 
 Arminians will cordially subscribe to every express 
 statement of Scripture ; but no Arminian would 
 subscribe to that answer in the catechism. 1 
 desire again to state that I am not professing to 
 examine thoroughly the doctrine of predestination 
 
72 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 either in the light of Scripture or in its develop¬ 
 ment iu the history of the Church. Looking at 
 the doctrine therein expressed, apart altogether 
 from its scriptural warrant and the necessity of 
 giving a counter statement to serious error, it 
 refers on the face of it, to a subject of a very 
 obscure and mysterious nature. We know what 
 a purpose is amongst men, but when applied to 
 the Deity we have to do with something very 
 mysterious. It is said to be “ eternal.” It was 
 not formed in time, but before time began, and 
 must therefore have been in eternity. There is 
 not much difference between the opposing parties 
 on this point. It is felt that the Scripture state¬ 
 ment, “ known unto God are all his works from 
 the beginning,” necessitates such an affirmation. 
 To refuse assent to the expression “ eternal 
 purpose ” would, in effect, be to ascribe limit or 
 defect to the power and knowledge of God. The 
 divine being does not require to change his plans 
 on something new emerging, inasmuch as he 
 knew always every possibility and everything that 
 would actually take place. There is not much 
 difficulty in admitting this with regard to the 
 physical universe, where everything is under the 
 strict dominion of law. Buckle asserts that if 
 we knew the whole condition of any mind, we 
 should be able to predict with certainty what 
 that mind would do. This is a mere supposition, 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 73 
 
 and is a very good example of a professed man 
 of science, or at least of one who holds firmly 
 the doctrine of necessity, reasoning from our 
 ignorance, as to what would happen under cir¬ 
 cumstances which we can never realize. The 
 proper conclusion ought rather to be, one should 
 think, that as we cannot be placed in such 
 circumstances, and as we cannot in our present 
 state acquire such knowledge of any mind, we 
 should refrain from dogmatizing at all. To assert 
 that in such circumstances we should be able to 
 predict with certainty, is to take for granted the 
 very thing which has to be proved. 
 
 In our treatment of this subject we shall first 
 adduce the statement of the dogma as given in 
 some of the chief Confessions, contrasting the 
 opposing views ; and comparing them with 
 some Scripture texts; and then set forth some 
 inferences that follow from such a comparison. 
 
 Calvixistic. Synod of Dort. Xox-Calvixistic. 
 
 1. “As all men have sinned in Council of Trent. 
 Adam, lie under the curse, and are Sess. vi. Justifica- 
 obnoxious to eternal death, God b° n - Canon 17 :—If 
 would have done no injustice by an y one saith that the 
 leaving them all to perish, anil grace of Justification is 
 delivering them over to condemna- 0I dy attained to by 
 tion on account of sin.” those who are pre¬ 
 
 destined unto life; but 
 that all others who are 
 
 “And that men maybe brought called, are called in¬ 
 to believe, God mercifully sends the deed, but receive not 
 messengers of these most joyful grace, as being by the 
 
74 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 tidings to whom He will, and at divine power, pre- 
 wliat time He pleaseth ; by whose destined unto evil, let 
 ministry men are called to repent- 1 him be anathema, 
 ance and faith in Christ crucified.” The (Lutheran)For- 
 Art. 7. Election is the unchange- mula Concordde. Art. 
 able purpose of God, whereby, xi. 1. First of all it 
 before the foundation of the world, ought to be most 
 He hath, out of mere grace, according accurately observed 
 to the sovereign good pleasure of: that there is a distinc- 
 His own will, chosen from the tion between the fore- 
 wliole human race, which had fallen ] knowledge and the 
 through their own fault, from their predestination or eter- 
 primitive state of rectitude, into sin nal election of God. 
 and destruction, a certain number 2. For the foreknow - 
 of persons to redemption in Christ, ledge of God is nothing 
 Art. 8. There are not various else than this, that God 
 decrees of election, but one and knows all things before 
 the same decree, respecting all I they come to pass, 
 those who shall be saved both under J This foreknowledge of 
 the Old and New Testament. . . . God extends both to 
 Art. 9. The election was not founded good and evil men, but 
 upon foreseen faith, and the obedi- nevertheless it is not 
 ence of faith, holiness, or any other the cause of evil, nor 
 good quality or disposition in man is it the cause of sin 
 as the pre-requisite cause or condi- compelling men to 
 tions. . . . Therefore election is the crime. For sin arises 
 fountain of every saving good. . . . from the devil and 
 Art. 15. What peculiarly tends to from the depraved and 
 illustrate and recommend to us the evil will of men. Nor 
 eternal and unmerited grace of is this foreknowledge 
 election, is the express testimony of the cause why men 
 Scripture, that not all, but some 1 perish, for this they 
 only, are elected, while others are ought to impute to 
 passed by in the eternal decree, I themselves. But the 
 whom God, out of His sovereign, foreknowledge of God 
 most just, irrepreliensible, and un- disposes evil and sets 
 changeable good pleasure, hath ; bounds to it how far it 
 decreed to leave in the common ; may proceed and how 
 misery into which they have wil- longend ure, and directs 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 fully plunged themselves, and not 
 to bestow upon them saving faith 
 and the grace of conversion, but 
 permitting them in His just 
 judgment to follow their own way ; 
 at last, for the declaration of His 
 justice, to condemn and punish them 
 for ever, not only on account of 
 their unbelief, but for all their 
 other sins. And this is the decree 
 of reprobation which by no means 
 makes God the author of sin (the 
 very thought of which is blasphemy) 
 but declares Him to be an awful, 
 irreprehensible, and righteous judge 
 and avenger. 
 
 West. Confession, Chap. iii. sec. 1. 
 
 “God from all eternity did, by 
 the most wise and holy counsel of 
 His own will, freely and unchange¬ 
 ably ordain whatsoever comes to 
 pass; yet so as thereby neither is 
 God the author of sin, nor is 
 violence offered to the will of the 
 creatures, nor is the liberty or 
 contingency of second causes taken 
 away, but rather established. 
 
 Sec. 2. 
 
 Although God knows whatsoever } 
 may or can come to pass upon all 
 supposed conditions, yet hath He 
 not decreed anything because He 
 foresaw it as future, or as that 
 which would come to pass upon 
 such conditions. 
 
 Sec. 3. 
 
 By the decree of God for the I 
 
 7 5 
 
 it in such wise that, 
 though it be of itself 
 evil, it nevertheless 
 turns to the salvation 
 of God. 4. But the 
 predestination or eter¬ 
 nal election of God 
 extends only to the 
 good or beloved chil¬ 
 dren of God, and this 
 is the cause of their 
 salvation. For it pro¬ 
 cures their salvation, 
 and appoints those 
 things which pertain 
 to it. 5. This predes¬ 
 tination of God is not 
 to be searched out in 
 the hidden counsel of 
 God, but is to be sought 
 in the Word of God, in 
 which it is revealed. 
 
 The following errors 
 are negatived :—that 
 God is unwilling that 
 all men should repent 
 and believe the Gospel. 
 4. That the mercy of 
 God and the most holy 
 merit of Christ are not 
 the sole cause of the 
 divine election, but 
 that there is also some 
 cause in us, on account 
 of which cause, God has 
 chosen us to eternal 
 life. All these dogmas 
 are false, horrid, and 
 blasphemous. . . . 
 
76 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 manifestation of His glory, some 
 men and angels are predestinated 
 unto everlasting life, and others 
 fore-ordained to everlasting death. 
 
 Sec. 4. 
 
 These angels and men, thus pre¬ 
 destinated and fore-ordained, are 
 particularly and unchangeably de¬ 
 signed, and their number is so 
 certain and definite, that it cannot 
 be either increased or diminished. 
 
 Sec. 5. 
 
 Those of mankind that are pre¬ 
 destinated unto life, God, before the 
 foundation of the world was laid, 
 according to His eternal and im¬ 
 mutable purpose, and the secret 
 counsel and good pleasure of His 
 will, hath chosen in Christ unto 
 everlasting glory, out of His mere 
 free grace and love, without any 
 foresight of faith or good works, or 
 perseverance in either of them, or 
 any other thing in the creature, as 
 conditions or causes moving Him 
 thereunto, and all to the praise of 
 His glorious grace. 
 
 Sec. 6. 
 
 As God hath appointed the elect 
 unto glory, so hath He, by the 
 eternal and most free purpose of 
 His will, foreordained all the means 
 thereunto. Wherefore they who 
 are elected, being fallen in Adam, 
 are redeemed by Christ, are effectu¬ 
 ally called unto faith in Christ by 
 His Spirit working in due season, 
 are justified, adopted, sanctified, 
 
 The Five Arminian 
 Articles. 
 
 Art. I. That God, by 
 an eternal, unchange¬ 
 able purpose in .Jesus 
 Christ His son, before 
 the foundation of the 
 world, hath determined 
 out of the fallen, sinful 
 race of man, to save 
 in Christ, for Christ’s 
 sake, and through 
 Christ, those who, 
 through the grace of 
 the Holy Ghost, shall 
 believe on this His son 
 Jesus, and shall per¬ 
 severe in this faith and 
 obedience of faith, 
 through this grace, even 
 to the end ; and on the 
 other hand, to leave the 
 incorrigible and un¬ 
 believing in sin, and 
 under wrath, and to 
 condemn them as alien¬ 
 ate from Christ, ac¬ 
 cording to the word of 
 the Gospel in John iii. 
 36. 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 aud kept by His power through 
 faith unto salvation. Neither are 
 any other redeemed by Christ, 
 effectually called, justified, adopted, 
 sanctified and saved, but the elect 
 only. 
 
 Sec. 7. 
 
 The rest of mankind God was 
 pleased, according to the unsearch¬ 
 able counsel of His own will, where¬ 
 by He extendetli or withholdeth 
 mercy as He pleasetb, for the glory 
 of His sovereign power over His 
 creatures, to pass by and to ordain 
 them to dishonour and wrath for 
 their sin, to the praise of His glori¬ 
 ous justice. 
 
 Sec. 8. 
 
 The doctrine of this high mystery 
 of predestination is to be handled 
 with special prudence and care, 
 that men attending the will of God 
 revealed in His word, and yielding 
 obedience thereunto, may, from the 
 certainty of their effectual vocation, 
 be assured of their eternal election. 
 So shall this doctrine afford matter 
 of praise, reverence, and admiration 
 of God, and of humility, diligence, 
 and abundant consolation to all 
 that sincerely obey the gospel. 
 
 XXXIX ARTICLES. 
 
 Art. 17. 
 
 Predestination to life is the ever¬ 
 lasting purpose of God, whereby, 
 before the foundations of the world 
 were laid, He hath constantly de¬ 
 creed by His counsel, secret to us, 
 
78 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 to deliver from curse and damna¬ 
 tion those whom He hath chosen in 
 Christ out of mankind, and to bring 
 them by Christ to everlasting salva¬ 
 tion, as vessels made to honour. 
 Wherefore, they which be endued 
 with so excellent a benefit of God 
 be called according to God’s pur¬ 
 pose by His Spirit working in 
 due season; they through grace 
 obey the calling ; they be justified 
 freely ; they be made sons of God 
 by adoption; they be made like 
 the image of His only begotten Son 
 Jesus Christ; they walk religiously 
 in good works, and at length, by 
 God’s mercy, they attain to ever¬ 
 lasting felicity. 
 
 In comparing the statements of the Confessions 
 with each other we are struck with the fact that 
 there is general agreement in some statements 
 and decided discrepancy in others. That there is 
 an election of some kind, the Confessions are all 
 agreed ; and in this, they are at one with 
 Scripture. The word election occurs too fre¬ 
 quently and is applied on such different occasions 
 in the Bible, to admit of a flat contradiction on 
 the part of anyone accepting it as a rule of faith. 
 All professed Christians speak of “ decrees,” “ the 
 elect,” “ predestination,” “ predestinated.” No 
 wonder that an ordinary church member feels 
 surprised when told that any Christian denies the 
 doctrine of election ; as he finds it prominently 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 79 
 
 brought forward not only in his own catechism 
 and confession, but also with as much apparent 
 certainty in the Scriptures. To deny this 
 doctrine is to deny an evident and certain 
 doctrine of the divine word. But he may be 
 told in reply by his opponent that the latter is 
 not denying or opposing the Scriptural doctrine 
 of election, but only the dogmatic statement of it 
 given by the other. In this, as on other matters, 
 there is no absolutely clear statement in the 
 Bible of the whole doctrine as maintained by 
 either of the opposing parties. 
 
 There are differences as to the cause or ground 
 of election. Is it in the individual himself as 
 foreseen, or does it rest entirely upon the will of 
 God, irrespective of faith or works on the part of 
 the elect ? Is it an election of individuals or of 
 nations ? To what are they elected ; to eternal 
 life, or to external privileges only ? Stanley 
 Faber, in his work on “ Election,” makes an 
 elaborate attempt to prove that the election of 
 individuals within the pale of the Church for the 
 enjoyment of its privileges, which election is to 
 be ascribed to the sovereign will of God alone, is 
 the doctrine alike of the primitive Church and of 
 Scripture. Antiquity, as well as Scripture, 
 according to him are opposed both to Nationalism, 
 Arminianism and Calvinism. It is no part of our 
 plan to trace this doctrine through its history in 
 
80 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the primitive Church, or at any other period ; but 
 rve have given extracts from the various confes¬ 
 sions of the Reformation era and of the seventeenth 
 century. Although there may be great changes 
 now amongst individuals in the churches which 
 then adopted these confessions, they may still be 
 regarded as their symbolical books; and it is 
 difficult to say what can be legitimately taken in 
 the present day as their substitute. As the 
 Westminster Confession and the Thirty-nine 
 Articles are still the recognised standards of the 
 State Church in England and in Scotland, the 
 former being adopted by almost all the Presby¬ 
 terian bodies in Britain and her colonies, as well 
 as in America, I shall confine our attention chieliy 
 to them. 
 
 1. The XXXIX Articles are much the more 
 general of the two formularies. This can be more 
 distinctly perceived on comparing their 17 th 
 with the Lambeth Articles, which were drawn up 
 by the Calvinists who wished to have a more 
 definite expression of their views than were con¬ 
 tained in the XXXIX. They add :—quosdam re- 
 qirobavit acl mortem .” Reprobation is passed 
 over in the I 7th Article but is explicitly asserted 
 in those of Lambeth. 
 
 2. Faith, perseverance, .good works or anything 
 else in the elect, are expressly negatived by the 
 latter as the moving or efficient cause of their 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 81 
 
 election; whereas the other simply says, “ he 
 hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to 
 us.” 
 
 3. The number of the elect is predestined and 
 certain, which number can be neither increased 
 nor diminished. 
 
 4. They who are not predestinated to salvation 
 will necessarily be condemned on accouut of their 
 own sins. 
 
 5. It was also proposed that to the article, 
 “ after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may 
 depart from grace given and fall into siu,” should 
 be added “ Yet neither totally nor finally.” 
 
 The Lambeth Articles were never received by 
 the Church of England, but they may be regarded 
 as expressing the sentiments of a large portion of 
 the clergy at that period (1595) when they were 
 drawn up by Whitaker. It must be acknowledged 
 by every one who examines them that they are 
 much more specific in their statements than the 
 40 articles of Cranmer in 1551 or those of 1502. 
 The latter may possess this more general or less 
 precise nature, because the more serious discussion 
 of the subject had not yet taken place in the 
 Protestant churches. The controversy at Geneva 
 had not yet been determined, nor had some of the 
 leading confessions of the Lutheran and Reformed 
 Churches yet been framed. The chief controver¬ 
 sial opponent was then the Church of Rome, and 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the opposition of parties within the Protestant 
 churches was not so pronounced. 
 
 When we turn to the Westminster Confession, 
 we find a very different document. Eighty years 
 or so have passed away since the date of the 
 XXXIX Articles, and these had been years of pro¬ 
 longed and fierce controversy. During that period, 
 those violent disputes between the Lutheran and 
 the Reformed were carried on, and on the Lutheran 
 side had issued in the formation of the “Formula 
 Concordise.” In the Netherlands a fierce contest 
 took place on the subject of Predestination, which 
 ended in the Synod of Dort (1618), when the 
 decrees of that Synod were adopted. Although, 
 after the latter event, the struggles in Britain 
 were more of a political and ecclesiastical, than 
 of a theological character, still the latter was not 
 altogether neglected, as both the Calvinistic and 
 Arminian systems had their respective partisans. 
 Laud and his followers were opposed to the 
 Augustinian or Calvinistic view; but the Puritans 
 and most of those opposed to the High Church 
 claims, were its strong supporters. The West¬ 
 minster Assembly met at a period of intense civil 
 and religious excitement, and there were repre¬ 
 sentatives of various religious parties in that 
 Assembly. 
 
 When we take into account all the circum¬ 
 stances of the time, it must be admitted, I think, 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 83 
 
 that its decisions are characterized by a consider¬ 
 able degree of moderation. Like most Councils 
 or Ecclesiastical Assemblies they felt bound not 
 only to state Christian truth in its Scriptural 
 simplicity, but also to exhibit its bearings upon 
 questions originated by the inquiring spirit of 
 man, especially in condemnation of erroneous 
 deductions of heretics. The condemnation of 
 error has generally been an important, if not the 
 most important factor in influencing the conduct 
 and decisions of such assemblies. 
 
 The first statement on Predestination is as 
 follows: — “God from all eternity did, by the 
 most wise and holy counsel of his will, freely and 
 unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ; 
 yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, 
 nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, 
 nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes 
 taken away, but rather established.” 
 
 According to this statement, Predestination 
 extends to all events. Whatsoever is done by 
 man, and happens in the external world, is pre¬ 
 ordained by God. That Cain should slay his 
 brother Abel, that Judas should betray our Lord, 
 that Patrick Hamilton should be burnt at the 
 stake, and that Admiral Coligny and his fellow- 
 Protestauts should be massacred on the eve of 
 St Bartholomew, as well as the emancipation 
 of the slave, the progress of the Reforma- 
 
84 
 
 DOGMA IS RELIGION 
 
 tion, and the spread of the Gospel are pre¬ 
 destinated. 
 
 Important events as well as the most in¬ 
 significant, great national and far-reaching actions, 
 as well as the most trifling deed of the most 
 obscure man that breathes, are subject to this 
 decree. Every clap of thunder, the earthquake 
 that overwhelmed Lisbon, as well as every wave 
 of the sea, all have been foreordained of God. 
 Isot only so, they are “unchangeably ordained.” 
 Good and evil, bad and virtuous actions, are 
 equally ruled by this decree, in that they are 
 “ unchangeably ordained.” 
 
 In the meantime, we may ask, what warrant is 
 there in Scripture for the phrases “ whatsoever 
 comes to pass ” and “ unchangeably ordained ? ” 
 They seem designed to oppose some error that 
 may be entertained regarding the will of God ; 
 and in order to effect this, the confession is made 
 more explicit than the Bible. “ God works all 
 things according to the counsel of his own will,” 
 “ a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without 
 your father,” are rather slender foundations, one 
 might think, on which to rear such a huge 
 structure. It may be that, if there is any pre¬ 
 destination or foreordination on the part of God 
 at all, it must extend to every person, every 
 object, and every event, and that unchangeably. 
 That mav be the legitimate conclusion from 
 
 J o 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 85 
 
 certain statements in Scripture ; it is certainly 
 not explicitly asserted, but only drawn by way of 
 inference from the meaning of Bible statements. 
 It is added, “ Yet so as thereby God is neither the 
 author of sin.” It will appear strange to many 
 that two such statements should appear in juxta¬ 
 position in the same article, as, at first sight, at 
 least, they appear contradictory. They will 
 naturally ask, can God unchangeably ordain a 
 sinful action without becoming in some sense the 
 author of sin ? The next clause introduces us at 
 once into the language and thought of the schools. 
 What does Scripture know or say about violence 
 offered to the will, or the liberty or contingency 
 of second causes being taken away ? Here we 
 are at once plunged into the controversy regard¬ 
 ing free will and divine grace. How can there 
 be freedom in man if his actions are necessarily 
 or unchangeably ordained of God, and how can 
 contingency in events coexist with unchangeable¬ 
 ness in the divine purposes ? The next section 
 is of the same character ; “ although God knows 
 whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all 
 supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed 
 anything because he foresaw it as future, or as 
 that which would come to pass upon such con¬ 
 ditions.” 
 
 Is the above a statement of divine truth as 
 revealed in Holy Scripture, or rather a decision 
 
86 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 on a question originating in the speculative 
 tendencies of human nature ? Is it more the 
 result of scholastic subtilty than a truth ex¬ 
 pressly revealed for the guidance of human 
 conduct, and a doctrine stamped with the impress 
 of divine authority ? 
 
 So far as regards foreknowledge, no one (except 
 perhaps the old Socinians) would find any diffi¬ 
 culty in assenting to all that is said respecting 
 it, as it may be called an analytic proposition, 
 in which omniscience is set forth, or a more 
 explicit statement of what is implicitly contained 
 in the proposition —“ God knows all things.” 
 When it goes on to state, “ Yet hath he not 
 ordained anything because he foresaw it as 
 future,” we get into another region—not the 
 question of fact, but of cause. 
 
 According to this section of our Confession 
 we are not only bound to believe that God 
 has unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes 
 to pass, but also that this ordination is not 
 caused by anything foreseen, or by any knowledge 
 of these conditions on which any event should 
 come to pass. We are here upon very delicate 
 ground. One would think that on a subject 
 so far removed from our comprehension, we ought 
 to be extremely cautious not to go beyond the 
 express statements of holy writ. Fore-knowledge 
 and fore-ordination are themselves difficult of 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 S7 
 
 comprehension. We can understand the terms, 
 but do we really know the “ reality ” denoted by 
 them ? In conveying our thoughts respecting 
 truths imperfectly understood, we are always 
 in danger of drawing up propositions of too 
 sweeping a character. We are apt to say 
 “ all ” instead of “ some,” “ always ” instead of 
 “ generally.” Theologians have too frequently 
 dealt in these universal propositions; they have 
 assumed them without valid reason, and accord¬ 
 ingly, their conclusions have possessed a more 
 universal character than the facts of the case 
 warrant. 
 
 Some wonld say that predestination is the 
 cause of foreknowledge, and not foreknowledge 
 of predestination. Some would even assert that 
 without preordination there could be no fore¬ 
 knowledge. This is surely a rash, as well as 
 most unfruitful kind of speculation. To shut up 
 the foreknowledge of God to one method of being 
 reached, is a most presumptuous meddling with 
 things beyond our ken. Matters of science 
 are within the reach of human inquiry; and 
 what is unknown to-day may, by continued 
 investigation, become known to-morrow. There 
 are no conceivable circumstances that can arise, 
 in our present state of existence, much more 
 likely to bring such a subject within the reach 
 of human comprehension, than what we experience 
 
88 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 now, or have experienced in the past history 
 of humanity. Why should we presume to 
 dogmatize in such a condition of knowledge ? 
 Moreover, what practical effect would clear 
 notions, as to the relation of divine foreknowledge 
 and predestination, have upon the hearts and 
 lives of men ? It is surely worthy of serious 
 consideration for us, will the inculcation of what 
 is called “ correct views ” on such a mysterious 
 subject, advance the glory of God and tend to 
 secure the salvation of mankind ? What reason 
 can be given why we should weigh seriously 
 such a question, and when we have settled it 
 to the best of our judgment, to impose it upon 
 others ? 
 
 The only warrant for so doing can be derived 
 from the fact that it is a revealed truth of God 
 and revealed so as to be believed. It is at 
 most only a human inference, probably following 
 from certain scripture statements. It adds, “ or 
 as that which would come to pass on such con¬ 
 ditions.” It is not very clear to me, what is the 
 meaning of this clause. In repelling Arminian 
 objections we are accustomed to say, that while 
 God ordains an end he also ordains the means to 
 that end. Theologians, especially of the Calvin- 
 istic type, as well as men of science, will generally 
 admit that there is no such thing as chance in 
 the Universe. Everything that comes to pass is 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 89 
 
 the necessary effect of what preceded it. In so 
 far as the physical world is left to its own natural 
 operation, the law of cause and effect invariably 
 operates. It is only when that constitution is 
 interfex-ed with (if such an expression is allowable) 
 by a free agent such as man, that the connection 
 between one event and another may not be traced, 
 i.e., that the causal nexus cannot be perceived. 
 According to all experience, the power of man 
 over natui’e is of a very limited kind. The 
 movements of the heavenly bodies, and everything 
 connected with them, are entirely beyond his 
 reach; so that it could be said with perfect con¬ 
 fidence that the laws of natui'e being always the 
 same as now, the present state of the heavenly 
 bodies is the necessary outcome of all that pre¬ 
 ceded it. The eruption of volcanoes, the occur¬ 
 rence of earthquakes, and peals of thunder, are all 
 the necessary effects of previous conditions. We 
 have already referred to Buckle’s view that, if we 
 knew with perfect accuracy the present state of a 
 man’s mind and all his surroundings, we should 
 be able to predict with infallible certainty, all his 
 future actions. Most people, we imagine, would 
 be surprised at the simplicity of the saying, so 
 far as man — a free agent —is concerned ; but it 
 would not be so wide of. the mark, if the dictum 
 were applied to external nature. 
 
 Applying this to the subject in hand, all must 
 
90 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 admit that God foresaw every event—and all the 
 conditions of each event. God is the author or 
 creator of nature’s laws, the originator of all the 
 qualities possessed by every object in nature, and 
 the preserver of the same through his all-pervad¬ 
 ing providence ; so it may be said, that at the 
 moment when all things came into existence, he 
 ordained all that would come to pass. But are 
 we warranted in affirming that God did not have 
 respect to these conditions ? Must they not have 
 formed a part of the divine plan as well as the 
 events themselves ? Are we to regard the same 
 ordination as having reference only to events in 
 an isolated character, irrespective of their relation 
 to each other ? Is it not much better to regard 
 the whole as the outcome of a rational plan, or 
 rather shall we say, of infinite wisdom ? This is, 
 so far as I can see, the only rational ground on 
 which Predestination can rest. To make every 
 event an isolated expression of the inscrutable 
 will of God does not appear to do honour either 
 to the wisdom or goodness of deity. 
 
 No doubt it was the strong conviction that a 
 denial of the orthodox doctrine of predestination 
 should be opposed in all its consequences, and 
 that the various positions of its opponents should 
 be faced by a counter statement which led to the 
 dogma being drawn out in detail. Such zeal may 
 be carried too far, and lead those under its influ- 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 91 
 
 ence to make assertions without sufficient warrant 
 from Scripture, and to accept positions nearly as 
 antagonistic to divine truth as the system which 
 they oppose. We have little hesitation in affirm¬ 
 ing that such jiropositions will not give man a 
 clearer insight into the divine method of govern¬ 
 ment, but may alienate the mind of not a few 
 from truth of primary importance, which all 
 Christians admit to be taught by the religion of 
 Jesus. Where the members of the church have 
 been left free by Revelation, they ought not to be 
 bound by the decision of men, however good, who 
 for the purpose of defending divine truth, go as 
 far as possible to the opposite of the errors to be 
 condemned. 
 
 3. “ By the decree of God for the manifesta¬ 
 tion of His glory, some men and angels are 
 predestinated unto everlasting life, and others 
 foreordained to everlasting death. 4. These 
 angels and men, thus predestinated and fore¬ 
 ordained are particularly and unchangeably de¬ 
 signed, and their number is so certain and definite 
 that it cannot either be increased or diminished.” 
 
 As we have already remarked with regard to 
 the XXXIX Articles, the latter clause of the 
 “Westminster” respecting reprobation is entirely 
 excluded. Whatever may be the cause of this 
 omission, and whether election to life does not 
 necessarily imply foreordination to death, I do 
 
92 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 not stop to inquire; but there can be no doubt 
 of the omission itself, and to that extent these 
 Articles are less precise than the other standards. 
 This want of definiteness was supplied by the 
 Lambeth Articles, and also in the Synod of Dort. 
 It may be said that the two—election and repro¬ 
 bation—are involved in the statement of the 
 previous section that God has foreordained “ Avhat- 
 ever comes to pass.” 
 
 If that is true there will not be much difficulty 
 in assenting to the last clause, which seems very 
 strong—“their number is so certain and definite 
 that it cannot be either increased or diminished.” 
 This clause or rather the idea contained in it, is 
 found in most of the Reformed Confessions of 
 the Continent and in the Lambeth Articles. 
 Indeed, to use the language of Stanley Faber; 
 “ if the ‘ ideality ’ of election is to everlasting 
 life, whether the ground of the election be the 
 sovereign will of God, or the good works and 
 perseverance of men foreseen, the expression is 
 equally applicable in both systems.” 
 
 The number foreseen is equally certain, equally 
 incapable of addition or diminution as the number 
 predestinated. The decree also in both systems 
 is eternal. It was also asserted long before by 
 Augustine that the number of the elect is in¬ 
 capable of diminution or increase. While it 
 may be asserted that if there is an eternal decree 
 
PREDESTINATION' 
 
 93 
 
 by which some are predestinated to everlasting- 
 life, it necessarily follows that the number of the 
 elect is a definite number, hence not susceptible 
 of increase or diminution, it may be still asked, 
 is there such a statement, expressed or implied, 
 in Scripture ? It is certainly not stated in that 
 particular way ; we may go the length of saying, 
 that not only is there no such assertion, but 
 also that there is no equivalent to the assertion. 
 Were a text found in the Bible unambiguously 
 affirming the idea, its production would finally 
 settle the whole matter, but the question is still 
 under debate between the opposing schools of 
 theological thought. It is only a probable in¬ 
 ference from certain statements contained in the 
 Bible. On a subject so remote from the possi¬ 
 bility of applying the test of verification, would 
 it not be well to halt, and refuse to go beyond 
 the clear statement of infallible authority and 
 to add to its definiteness by human infer¬ 
 ences expressed in precise language. “ Secret 
 things belong unto God, but unto us, those that 
 have been revealed.” But remarks upon the 
 place of inference in theology, and the expres¬ 
 sion of these inferences in the language of philo¬ 
 sophical schools, will be more appropriate farther 
 on. 
 
 5. “ Those of mankind that are predestinated 
 unto life, before the foundation of the world was 
 
94 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 laid, according to His eternal and immutable 
 purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure 
 of His will, He hath chosen in Christ unto ever¬ 
 lasting glory, out of His free grace and love, 
 without any foresight of faith or good works, or 
 perseverance in either of them, or any other thing 
 in the creature as conditions or causes moving 
 Him thereunto and all to the praise of His 
 glorious grace.” 
 
 Again it must be evident how much more 
 precise the above statements are than anything 
 contained in Scripture. They even go far beyond 
 the general expressions on the subject contained 
 in the Articles of the Church of England. Doubt¬ 
 less there is a reason for the greater distinctness 
 of expression. 
 
 What may be called the “ Calvinistic ” contro¬ 
 versy as distinguished from the “ Augustinian,” 
 was only beginning, when the Articles were 
 drawn up. The Lutheran, or rather Melanc- 
 thonian, and Arminian views had been afterwards 
 propounded, advocated, condemned, and again 
 defended. In religious controversy especially, it 
 is often regarded as an act of cowardice or un¬ 
 faithfulness to stand aloof from the contending 
 parties and refuse to give a deliverance on either 
 side. Accordingly, the Westminster Divines, 
 many of whom had been trained under the 
 influence of Cartwright and Whitaker, felt called 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 95 
 
 upon to take part in the controversy originated 
 elsewhere and give a deliverance on the disputed 
 points, taking of course the right side in then- 
 view, and passing condemnation on the opposing 
 errors. The Arminian controversy was chiefly 
 occupied with the subject of predestination, while 
 the dispute between the Lutheran and the 
 Reformed has reference as much to the sacra¬ 
 ments. It may be said that the section of the 
 Westminster Confession condemns almost every 
 point of the Arminian doctrine on this mysterious 
 subject. 
 
 The Article of the Remonstrants or Armiuians 
 on election is given above. The following is from 
 the Apology :— 1 
 
 “ It is not surprising that the Remonstrants 
 rejected the doctrine of Calvin and openly 
 condemned the impieties and blasphemies which 
 follow from it. For doing this they had the 
 strongest grounds, for that heretical opinion of 
 Calvin had been already known even to boys . . . 
 its patrons had not only condemned the opposite 
 truth but had even decided that it should not be 
 tolerated in their churches. It was necessary that 
 the Remonstrants should depict that opinion to 
 the life in its proper colours, and all the more 
 because they believe it to be, wherever it extends, 
 the ruin and poison of all religion, with which 
 1 Winer’s “Comparative View, etc.” (Eng. Transl.) p. 171. 
 
9G 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 perhaps no other heresy deserves to be compared, 
 and yet notwithstanding it seems to be regarded 
 and defended as almost the foundation of the 
 whole Christian religion.” 
 
 From the above extract it will be seen that 
 denunciation is not confined to the Calvinistic 
 school, as their Arminian opponents can match 
 them in this mode of warfare. Nor is this con¬ 
 fined to the Arminians or the seventeenth 
 century. We find a paragraph equally strong- 
 sanctioned by their successors in the Wesleyan 
 church, in which Calvinism is said to be “ More 
 destructive than all heresies, especially uncon¬ 
 ditional perseverance.” This is a most unfair 
 aspersion. Calvinists maintain the necessity of 
 good works with as much distinctness and 
 earnestness as Arminians, and are as much averse 
 as those opposed to them, to what the Wesleyan 
 conference designates “ unconditional persever¬ 
 ance.” It is -wonderful how frequently opposing 
 parties in theological conflicts misrepresent, un¬ 
 intentionally, each other’s opinions. The above 
 reference has about the same degree of fairness as 
 a Calvinistic representation of the Arminian view 
 that it denies the doctrine of grace. This 
 generally arises from the fact that contro¬ 
 versialists charge their opponents with holding- 
 certain consequences which they think necessarily 
 follow from the doctrines controverted. Both 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 97 
 
 sides in this controversy have resorted to this 
 expedient, and the attack upon each system is 
 felt to be strongest when directed against the 
 supposed consequences that follow from the 
 doctrine itself. To the Arminian, the Calvinistic 
 scheme seems clearly to make God the author of 
 sin and to deprive man of free agency; to the 
 Calvinist, the Arminian doctrine seems to deny 
 the power of God and of His grace, and unduly to 
 exalt the free will of man. If the consequences 
 with which the Arminian charges the Calvinist 
 necessarily follow from that doctrine, it would be 
 indignantly rejected by all Christians, certainly 
 by Calvinists themselves. A doctrine which calls 
 in question the omnipotence of God and the 
 necessity of divine grace for salvation, would also 
 be rejected by the whole Christian Church— 
 Arminians included. 
 
 It is a plain Christian duty not to charge 
 opponents with consequences which they dis¬ 
 tinctly and strongly repudiate ; but it is perfectly 
 consistent with Christian charity and with the 
 legitimate laws of controversy, to show that such 
 consequences necessarily follow from certain 
 doctrines, although their advocates disown them. 
 It may be said, speaking generally, that the 
 consequences which have' been charged against 
 Predestination, from the days of Augustine, if not 
 of St Paul, are the same which are brought 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 against it in the age in which we live ; and the 
 same is true with regard to the view kindred to 
 the Arminian, from the days of Pelagian and 
 Semi - Pelagian controversies. The conclusion 
 which ought to be drawn from this undeniable 
 fact is, not that either the one or the other 
 system contains the whole truth, but rather that 
 each has some measure of imperfection clinging 
 to it, either exaggerating some particular aspect 
 of the doctrine, or thrusting into the background 
 one that ought to have more prominence assigned 
 to it. Another inference that may be drawn 
 from these opposing views and which possesses 
 as much force as the other is—the subject itself 
 is of a most mysterious character, a full compre¬ 
 hension of which is beyond the grasp of the 
 human faculties. 
 
 Surely this ought to be borne in mind by the 
 combatants on both sides of the question, and 
 each should feel that the other is striving to 
 defend a revealed truth of God, overlooked or 
 not sufficiently recognised by the other side. Of 
 course, every one on first hearing the Calvinistic 
 view, stated, viz.—“ that God has foreordained 
 whatsoever comes to pass,” and “ that a certain 
 number only have been elected to everlasting 
 life,” would draw the conclusion that God is 
 thereby the author of sin, since he has ordained 
 it ; and that man’s efforts to obtain everlasting 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 99 
 
 life must be in vain, inasmuch as that has been 
 determined from eternity without any reference 
 to these efforts. The Calvinist, however, has 
 a reply to this objection, which, if it does not 
 rebut it, is at least strong and forcible. 
 
 Permission involves the same consequences 
 with regard to the divine character as Pre¬ 
 destination. We have to do with a being of 
 infinite power, who can do what He wills ; if 
 He wills that “ man shall be good and inherit 
 eternal life ” His power is such that it can with 
 certainty bring about such a result. If you 
 deny that God can save the whole human race, 
 you at once limit His power ; if you grant that 
 God has the power, but does not exercise it, 
 then He is lacking in benevolence. For an 
 omnipotent being not to act in the way of pre¬ 
 vention is much the same thin£r as to brin" the 
 action objected to into existence. Permission 
 and ordination both affect the divine nature ; 
 and an argument resting upon the assumption 
 of divine benevolence, may cut both ways into 
 the heart of each system. The Calvinist docs 
 not assert that the foreordiuatiou of an event 
 is the sole cause of that event coming to pass. 
 Prof. Crawford maintains that divine foreordina¬ 
 tion does not exercise a causal influence upon 
 human action, and does not amount to much 
 more than mere permission. 
 
100 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 The other consequence is, that this doctrine 
 renders entirely useless every kind of effort to 
 check the progress of sin, and to acquire that 
 righteousness without which we cannot enter into 
 the Kingdom of God. If I am to be saved, why 
 should I trouble myself about salvation ? If I 
 am to be lost, I shall be lost whatever I do. 
 
 Here, the certainty of a future event is 
 adduced as an argument to prove the useless¬ 
 ness of human activity to bring it about. The 
 Calvinist has a twofold reply to this. The 
 objection implies a thorough misconception of 
 his doctrine. The salvation of men or of an 
 individual man, is not an isolated event, but on 
 the contrary is indissolubly bound up and con¬ 
 nected with what goes before. There is no 
 salvation without effort, inquiring, believing, 
 hoping, persevering, even unto the end. The 
 means form as essential an element as the end, 
 and each individual is as near to the end as he 
 is to the means. He cannot possibly have the 
 one without the other. It is a gross misrepre¬ 
 sentation of Calvinism to represent it as affirm¬ 
 ing that the non-elect cannot be saved, however 
 diligent they may he in leading a holy life. 
 On the contrary, every one striving in this way 
 is as certain of everlasting life on Calvinistic 
 principles as on any other. Every one truly 
 striving to crucify the lusts and affections of the 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 101 
 
 flesh and trusting in Christ for salvation, gives 
 the only possible proof of being elected. He 
 can also retort upon the Arminian and all who 
 admit the divine foreknowledge, that foreknow¬ 
 ledge, as necessarily demands the certainty of 
 future events as does Predestination. Certainty 
 leads to necessity in the one case as much as in 
 the other. If God foresees that I shall sin, T 
 shall certainly sin. The cause of the certainty 
 makes no difference as regards human activity. 
 It may make a difference as regards the divine 
 character, but it certainly makes none as to the 
 actions of men. Knowledge is not the cause of 
 the object known; but there is no knowledge 
 without an object any more than there is without 
 a subject. If I saw St Paul’s Cathedral in the 
 past, it must necessarily have been in existence 
 at the time seen ; if God foresees an event in the 
 future, that event will certainly, or if you will, 
 necessarily, take place accordingly. The necessity 
 or certainty of human actions follows with as 
 cogent an inference from divine foreknowledge 
 as from divine Predestination. The Arminian, 
 therefore, if he is to carry out consistently this 
 argument as to the necessity or certainty of 
 actions, must abandon his case against Calvinism 
 or go over to the ranks of the Socinians. 
 
 Thus then both sides in this controversy are 
 surrounded with insuperable difficulties respecting 
 
102 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the character and operations of God and the 
 nature and freedom of man. To limit either 
 the power or goodness of the Deity, and to 
 make man a mere machine in the hands of the 
 Almighty, would prove fatal to religion, if such 
 views were consistently carried out in practice. 
 The problems involved in this question are more 
 speculative than practical. In practice they are 
 not so difficult of solution. Every Calvinist, 
 living in communion with God, engaged in the 
 diligent use of all the ordinances of the Gospel, 
 and leading a life of devotion to the will of God 
 and the welfare of men, is the practical solution 
 of the objections raised by the Arminians as to 
 the doctrines of Calvinism paralyzing human 
 effort; and the humble trust in God’s grace 
 and devout recognition of an all wise and con¬ 
 stantly present superintending providence, mani¬ 
 fested by the pious Wesleyan Methodist, are also 
 practical solutions of the difficulties raised by 
 the Calvinist against undue exaltation of free 
 will. Why not let go the speculative solution 
 on both sides, retaining them of course as pious 
 opinions, but no longer insisting upon them as 
 necessary to church fellowship ? To give up 
 insisting that others should adopt our views, 
 does not at all imply that we renounce them 
 ourselves. While I believe that Calvinism, not¬ 
 withstanding the difficulties with which it is 
 
PREDESTINATION 
 
 103 
 
 surrounded, is the more consistent system of 
 the two, and to be preferred to Arminianism, 
 which also has difficulties to face of so formidable 
 a character, that I could not subscribe an 
 Arminian creed; still I see no reason why all 
 that is good in both might not be embraced in 
 a higher truth, and the advocates of both be 
 joined together in the bonds of Christian fellow r - 
 sbip, and heartily co-operate in promoting the 
 cause of Christ in the world. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 There is more general agreement among the 
 various sections of the Christian Church regarding 
 this subject than with respect to Predestination. 
 The corruption of human nature is all but uni¬ 
 versally admitted. “There is not a just man 
 upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not,” 1 
 are words which may be said to express the 
 general feeling of Christians with regard to the 
 prevalence of evil in the world. “ Sin is as 
 universal as the race,” may be almost said to be 
 alike the creed of the philosopher and the 
 Christian. “The heart is deceitful above all 
 things and desperately wicked.” 2 According to 
 the universal sentiment of humanity, not only 
 does sin prevail, but it seems to have taken 
 a deep hold of human nature, so that it manifests 
 itself frequently in the case of those who are 
 regarded by their fellows as men of thoroughly 
 upright and benevolent character. The path of 
 virtue and piety is rough and steep, and the 
 1 Eccles. vii. 20. 2 Jeremiah xvii. 9. 
 
 104 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 105 
 
 road of vice, leading to destruction, is broad 
 and easy. This fact of universal sinfulness 
 presents itself to the observation of the states¬ 
 man as the cause of disorder and suffering ; 
 to the philosopher as intellectual and moral 
 error; and the Christian takes in all these views 
 and adds a good many more, as the philosopher 
 might also do. 
 
 Another fact connected with sin, and that 
 chiefly in its outward aspect as it comes under 
 the observation of society—it is most difficult 
 to cure. Notwithstanding all the remedies which 
 have been applied for the extirpation of the 
 one vice of intemperance, how widespread is 
 that evil still, and how disastrous its conse¬ 
 quences ! The same is true with respect to 
 all other forms of evil which appear in human 
 conduct. 
 
 But all who take a serious view of human life 
 maintain that these outward forms of evil do not 
 embrace the whole of the disease, but that it 
 penetrates into the thoughts and affections of the 
 soul. It is from the heart that evil words and 
 deeds spring, so that many of the methods adopted 
 to improve society are nothing better than ex¬ 
 pedients to get rid of the symptoms and leave the 
 real seat of the disease untouched. Change of 
 environment, early trailing, the severe iuffiction 
 of pains and penalties, and the sanctions of 
 
106 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 religion with regard to future rewards and 
 punishments, are not, according to the lessons of 
 experience, efficacious in deterring men from 
 crime, not to say sin. The judgment of the 
 ancient world and of subsequent ages has led man 
 to the conclusion that the heart of man is corrupt. 
 There is inherent in human nature, as it exists 
 under all forms of government and in all stages of 
 civilization, a tendency to sin. This idea, though 
 expressed in different forms, is adopted more or 
 less by all inquirers after truth, whether Christian 
 or non-Christian. The Bible and philosophy are 
 essentially at one in this respect. Unless there 
 were such a tendency as here represented, we 
 should assuredly have had some specimens of 
 sinless humanity in almost every degree of social 
 progress. 
 
 It becomes then an important question, how 
 are we to account for this striking phenomenon ? 
 What is its origin ? Can reason or Scripture 
 throw any light upon the origin of sin in the 
 world, and upon its taking possession of the whole 
 of humanity ? The answer of the Church is 
 contained in the dogma of original sin. We shall 
 state this dogma in the words of the leading 
 confessions :— 
 
 Council of T.^ent, Sess. v. sec. 1. If any one does not 
 confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed 
 the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the 
 
ORIGINAL SIX 
 
 107 
 
 holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted ; and 
 that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, 
 the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, 
 with which God had previously threatened him, and, together 
 ■with death, captivity under his power, who henceforth had 
 the empire of death, that is to say, the devil , and that the 
 entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was 
 changed in body and soul for the worse; let him be 
 anathema. 2. If any one asserts that the prevarication of 
 Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity ; and that 
 the holiness and justice received of God, which he lost, he 
 lost for himself alone, and not for us also ; or that he, being 
 defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transferred death 
 and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but 
 not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be 
 anathema. 
 
 Sess. v. sec. 5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in Baptism, the 
 guilt of original sin is remitted ; or even asserts that the 
 whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is 
 not taken away, but that it is only raised or not imputed, 
 let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again , 
 there is nothing that God hates ; they are made innocent, 
 immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, so 
 that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance 
 into Heaven. But this Holy Synod confesses and is sensible, 
 that in the baptized there remains concupiscence or an 
 incentive (to sin) ; which, whereas it is left for our exercise, 
 can not injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by 
 the grace of Jesus Christ, yea, he shall have striven lawfully 
 shall be crowned. This concupiscence which the apostle 
 sometimes calls sin, the Holy Synod declares that the 
 Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as 
 being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because 
 it is of sin and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a 
 contrary opinion let him be anathema. 
 
 XXXIX Articles, 9. “Original sin standeth not in the 
 following of Adam (as the Pelagians do verily talk), but it 
 is the fault or corruption of the nature of every man that 
 
108 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby 
 man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of 
 his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh always 
 lustetli contrary to the spirit, and therefore in every person 
 born into the world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damna¬ 
 tion ; and this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them 
 that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in 
 Greek <ppbvrnj.a aapKb s, which some do expound the wisdom, 
 some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the 
 flesh, is not subject to the law of God ; and though there is 
 no condemnation for them who believe and are baptized, 
 yet the apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath 
 of itself the nature of sin.” 
 
 Westminster Confession, vi. 23. By this sin they fell 
 from their original righteousness and communion with God, 
 and so became dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the 
 faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root 
 of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the 
 same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their 
 posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. 
 From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly 
 indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and 
 wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual trans¬ 
 gressions. 
 
 The Five Arminian Articles, iii. That man has not 
 saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, 
 inasmuch as he, in the state of apostacy and sin, can of, and 
 by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly 
 good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is 
 needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through His 
 Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or 
 will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly under¬ 
 stand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according 
 to the word of Christ, John xv.' 5 : “Without me, ye can do 
 nothing.” 
 
 Canons of Dort, cap. iii. art. (1) “ . . . But revolting from 
 God by the instigation of the devil, and abusing the freedom 
 of his own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts, and on 
 the contrary entailed on himself blindness of mind, horrible 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 109 
 
 darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment; became 
 wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in lieart and will, and 
 impure in (all) his affections. 3. Therefore all men are 
 conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, 
 incapable of any saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and 
 in bondage thereto, and, without the regenerating grace of 
 the Holy Spirit they are neither able nor willing to return 
 to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, nor to 
 dispose themselves to reformation.” 
 
 The Lutheran Formula Concordia;, Affirm. Art. 1. 
 “ "We believe . . . that there is a distinction between the 
 nature of man itself, not only as man was created of God in 
 the beginning pure and holy and free from sin, but also as 
 we now possess it after our nature has fallen ; a distinction 
 namely, between the nature itself, which even after the fall 
 is and remains God’s creature, and original sin ; and that 
 this difference between nature and original sin is as great as 
 between the works of God and the devil. 3. But on the 
 other hand, we believe . . . that original sin is no trivial 
 corruption, but is so profound a corruption of human nature 
 as to leave nothing sound, nothing uncorrupt in the body or 
 soul of man, or in his mental state.” 
 
 In every one of these creeds there is a state¬ 
 ment as to the original innocence of Adam, the 
 progenitor of the human race, as to his fall, and 
 the effect of that fall upon all his descendants. 
 It must strike every one, we should think, that 
 the fall of Adam occupies a much more prominent 
 place in the creeds than it does in Scripture. 
 The terms “ original sin, original righteousness, 
 fall,” do not occur in the latter. If the thing is 
 there, that is sufficient; hut we require to see 
 that nothing has been surreptitiously, although 
 unconsciously, added. The first condition of the 
 
110 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 human race, the state of innocence iu Eden, the 
 golden age of humanity, are frequently dwelt 
 upon in the creeds of the churches, but they are 
 not prominently treated in the Bible. Its state¬ 
 ments are general, but the dogmatic decisions of 
 the church are specific enough, and the con¬ 
 clusions of many individual theologians, in most 
 churches, are more precise still. The character of 
 man fallen, is painted in the darkest colours, as 
 “ wholly inclined to cdl evil ; ” so bad that he could 
 not be worse. On this, as on all other topics 
 within the range of Christian truth, it is well 
 that we should derive all the light we can from 
 the two books—the Bible and experience. Ex¬ 
 perience has something to say of the matter; the 
 Bible is certainly not silent. May not the one 
 throw light on the other ? If attention is directed 
 exclusively to Scripture, our doctrine regarding 
 human nature and its corruption, runs the risk of 
 becoming a theoretical solution of man’s condition 
 as the creature of God ; and if we look at experi¬ 
 ence without using the light given us in the 
 Bible, we may also err seriously from our in¬ 
 ability to read accurately the facts presented by 
 the experience of men in different stages of 
 intellectual and moral advancement. As a matter 
 of fact we find great differences, even amongst 
 Christian men, as to what sin is. Its definition 
 is difficult to frame ; and if we reason from our 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 111 
 
 definition as if it were perfect and complete, error 
 will necessarily result. But independently of its 
 definition, there is general agreement as to the 
 fact of sin, i.e., as to its existence in the world 
 and as to its universality. It is found in all 
 stages of civilization. It manifests itself in those 
 states where education of the best type is uni¬ 
 versally diffused, and in individuals who have 
 reached the highest stage of culture. It is 
 chargeable against public acts of all nations, as 
 well as against the character of all individuals. 
 Men, both in their corporate and individual 
 capacity, are tainted by this corruption. 
 
 To account for this striking characteristic of 
 human nature by evil example, is a most in¬ 
 adequate explanation. When accepted, the ques¬ 
 tion at once arises, whence this evil example ? 
 Even though a correct answer were given to this 
 query, it still remains to be shown how example 
 can be an adequate cause for such a general 
 effect. Example is not always operative in the 
 production of character, but of itself it is not 
 a sufficient cause for what is good or bad in 
 human life. The virtuous man is generally able 
 to resist vicious example, and the vicious too 
 often fail to be inllueuced by virtuous actions. 
 
 It is also the lesson of experience that men far 
 more readily yield to what is evil than to what is 
 good. Evil example and good are therefore not 
 
112 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 equally balanced in their influence. Whence 
 arises this inequality ? Children have to be 
 taught, threatened, chastised, frightened, to do 
 what is right, but they do the wrong without any 
 teaching, just when left to themselves. How are 
 we to account for such a state of things ? Must 
 there not be a greater tendency or inclination to 
 the evil in purpose and action than to the good ? 
 Thus we come round again to the corruption 
 inherent in the nature of man. This is a disease 
 of a wide-spread, universal character; one that 
 baffles human ingenuity to remedy. This is 
 assuredly a most important fact in human experi¬ 
 ence-—one that no lover of the species can afford 
 to pass over with indifference. Any religion, 
 or system of doctrine, or code of morality, which 
 leaves this fact out of its reckoning, or, while 
 formally admitting yet practically ignores it, must 
 be radically defective. 
 
 The question—whence did sin originate—is 
 not of equal importance with the other,—how is 
 it to be cured ? The Church, generally, has not 
 concerned herself with the origin of evil absol¬ 
 utely, but only so far as the human race is 
 concerned. It originated with Adam, the first 
 man, and has been transmitted from him to all 
 mankind descending from him by ordinary genera¬ 
 tion. Here, it will be affirmed, that it is not for 
 us to say what view of doctrine is likely to be 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 113 
 
 productive of the highest good in our experience, 
 but to ascertain what view is founded upon 
 Scripture, since that is the source whence we are 
 to derive our knowledge of Christian truth. 
 Whatever God has been pleased to reveal, man 
 is bound to believe. We have already remarked 
 that it is questionable whether anything has been 
 laid down simply and solely for the sake of being 
 believed, apart from its necessity or utility for the 
 purposes of the Christian life. As to how sin 
 originated in the human race, human conscious¬ 
 ness of itself could never discover. The know¬ 
 ledge of this might possibly be derived from the 
 teaching of history and from a comparison of 
 human nature in various stages of progress, but 
 the individual consciousness could never inform 
 us as to how it entered the life of man. It is 
 altogether different with regard to the prevailing 
 sinfulness or corruption of a man’s own nature. 
 Conscience everywhere bears indubitable testimony 
 to this fact. There may have been defective, 
 superficial, or exaggerated convictions regarding 
 this truth, but it is one which no individual can 
 really deny. What then does Scripture teach on 
 the matter of sin’s origin ? In the Old Testament 
 very little is said on the subject, apart from the 
 narrative of Adam eating the forbidden fruit. 
 Even should the narrative be taken literally, very 
 little is affirmed respecting the effect of his traus- 
 
 II 
 
1 ] 4 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 gression upon his posterity. He was “driven out 
 of Eden,” “ he begat a son in his own image.” 
 We have to read our own ideas into the story of 
 Eden to bring out any very distinct relation 
 between the fall of Adam and the sinfulness of 
 his descendants. Cain disobeyed God ; but what 
 connection does the Bible assert this disobedience 
 to have had with the fall more than the sins of 
 a bad son with the sins of a good father ? 
 
 There must, however, be a difference between 
 our relation to the sins of our ancestors and to 
 the sin of Adam, as it is said “ By one man sin 
 entered the world.” Is sin then to be ascribed 
 unto Adam as its cause ? Or is it only as Cole¬ 
 ridge, e.g., asserts, because Adam was the first that 
 sinned ? Then the comparison is drawn between 
 Adam and Christ; sin and death as well as 
 condemnation came by the one, so righteousness, 
 life, and justification, by the other. It must be 
 observed that this statement of Paul is not given, 
 as it were by the way, but the question in one 
 aspect at least is really before him, discussed, and 
 decided. It is true that his epistles are the only 
 part of Scripture in which there is any allusion 
 to Adam, but in his case there can be no doubt 
 of the reference, and that it is dwelt upon by the 
 apostle in more than one aspect, and forms an 
 important part of his argument. But it must 
 also be acknowledged that the subject directly 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 115 
 
 treated by the apostle is the relation of Christ to 
 His people, and it is only for the sake of illus¬ 
 tration that reference is made to Adam. As the 
 race derives good from Christ, it derives evil from 
 Adam. “ By one man sin entered the world, 
 and death by sin, and so death passed upon all 
 men for that all have sinned.” 1 Do men sin 
 because Adam sinned ? Do the words mean 
 more than that he was the first that sinned ? 
 They must mean more than that, else there 
 would be no foundation for the comparison 
 drawn by the apostle between Adam and Christ. 
 “ By the disobedience of one many were 
 made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall 
 many be made righteous.” Sin entered through 
 Adam, and death through sin. In 1 Cor. 2 the 
 apostle says, “As in Adam all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive.” Death is 
 also said to “pass upon all men, because all 
 men have sinned,” so that it is attributed both 
 to his sin and to that of the individual. Death 
 was the penalty threatened; but if it means natural 
 death, it was not executed on the day of transgres¬ 
 sion. Another effect attributed by Paul to the sin 
 or fall of Adam : “The judgment was by one to 
 condemnation.” “ Death,” “ sin,” “ condemna¬ 
 tion,” “ made sinners,” are thus attributed to 
 the first man. There is very little in all these 
 1 Romans v. 12. = 1 Cor. xv. 22. 
 
116 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 expressions to warrant the strong language used 
 in the writings of some divines, or all the dog¬ 
 matic statements employed in the confessions. 
 The connection of the corruption of human 
 nature, of total depravity 7 , of the loss of free¬ 
 will with the fall, is not by any means clearly 
 stated. 
 
 Books have been written on the condition 
 of man before the fall ; there have been long 
 discussions as to whether the goodness manifested 
 by T him in the state of innocence was due to his 
 natural powers, or whether it is to be ascribed 
 to supernatural influences ; for an answer to 
 these questions there are no direct statements in 
 Scripture ; but, as usual, the dogmatist supplies 
 the want. In Genesis : “ God said, let us make 
 men in our image, after our likeness.” 1 Ecclesi¬ 
 astes : “ God hath made man upright, but they 
 have sought out many 7 inventions.” 2 The “ image 
 of God,” according to the Roman Catholic theo¬ 
 logian, Mohler, 3 means the “ religious faculty ” 
 and “ likeness to God,” “ the pious exercise ” 
 of that faculty. In order to gain accurate and 
 sound doctrine, easily intelligible, and (from a 
 certain point of view) easily defended, there must 
 be some statement or definition as to what Adam 
 was before he fell. So Rome maintains that 
 
 1 Gen. i. 26. 2 Eccles. vii. 29. 
 
 3 Symbolik (Eng. Trans, p. 29). 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 117 
 
 he had certain natural faculties, and certain 
 supernatural. When he fell, he still retained 
 the former, but lost the supernatural. All his 
 descendants are born without the supernatural 
 blessings, and must therefore be in a much more 
 unfavourable position for resisting temptation 
 and performing duty. The difference between 
 those who contend for these supernatural aids, 
 and those who affirm that all the endowments 
 of the first man were strictly natural, i.e., be¬ 
 longed to his very being, is not very great, so 
 far as the indication of the method of divine 
 government and direct Scripture warrant are 
 concerned. Then in contrast with Christ, Adam 
 is (1 Cor.) 1 “ a living soul,” and “ of the earth, 
 earthy,” but Christ is a “ life-giving spirit,” and 
 “ is of heaven.” The argument in this chapter 
 refers apparently to the body, but still it is the 
 “ first man ” who is earthy. 
 
 So in, 1 Cor. 2 : “ But the natural man (-vj/u^/xo? 
 uvdpuTog) receiveth not the things of the spirit 
 of God, because they are (tmu/iurixus) spiritually 
 discerned, but he that is spiritual Orvtvfianxhs) 
 judgeth (discerneth) all things.” The natural 
 man seems to refer to Adam in his original state, 
 as well as to him fallen. The first man was 
 made a living soul. 
 
 Accordingly, these references to Adam do not 
 1 1 Cor. xv. 45. 2 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
 
118 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 clearly indicate in what respect his original state 
 differed from the fallen. It is possible that 
 evolution may throw some light upon this 
 mystery more than the Platonic speculations 
 of the fathers, the Aristotelian distinctions of 
 the scholastics of the Middle Ages and of the 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The philosophy 
 reflected in most of the symbolical books is chiefly 
 Aristotelian and scholastic, as modern philosophy 
 was only in the dawn when even the West¬ 
 minster Confession was formulated. These con¬ 
 fessions, Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and 
 Reformed, alike partake of the general character 
 of the scholastic philosophy, in the determina¬ 
 tion to express truths of Scripture in precise 
 definitions ; these definitions not being always 
 founded on a careful exegesis, and no resolute 
 attempt being made to test the truth of these 
 definitions by reference to experience. Evolution, 
 at least in the hands of some of its advocates, 
 is too often blind to any other truth than that 
 which belongs to the category of the biological ; 
 but it has this good point in contrast with the 
 old method, that it looks to the phenomena of 
 experience, which is always a wholesome cor¬ 
 rective to mere speculation and inferences derived 
 from general statements which have not been 
 verified. What Adam was and what he be¬ 
 came, can be known only from Scripture. The 
 
ORIGINAL SIX 
 
 119 
 
 latter gives us little insight into this matter ; 
 and what it does give, is more by scattered hints 
 than by direct statement. It is the duty of the 
 Church to collect these hints, form them into a 
 connected whole, and, if possible, express them in 
 plain language. In making this attempt the 
 churches have added to the doctrine of Holy 
 Writ, by making it precise where it is indefinite, 
 by striving to reconcile its statements with the 
 conclusions of reason—which, in some cases, 
 means with the dicta of a particular philosophy, 
 and in others, with previous dogmatic decisions. 
 Neither the definitions, nor explanations, nor 
 inferences, nor the technical language in which 
 these are expressed, are to be placed on the 
 same level with the clear and simple statements 
 of Scripture. These considerations are applicable 
 to all dogmas, but they are of special importance 
 with regard to the one under review. I cannot 
 enter fully into the whole subject, as this would 
 be to write a treatise on sin, which I am not 
 attempting. 
 
 We have been examining the connection of 
 the present condition of man with Adam, the 
 parent from whom the whole race has sprung. 
 Now we may look at the confessional statements 
 on the extent of that corruption, and take some 
 of the passages of Scripture to compare them 
 with these statements. 
 
120 
 
 DOGMA IV RELIGION* 
 
 P-- li- 5 ; Bom. viiL West. Coxf. vi. 23 :—Wholly 
 Gen. vi. 5. defiled in all the faculties of 
 
 Behold. I was shapen hjhI and ' •Ay. They being the 
 in iniquity, and in sin root of all mankind, the guilt 
 did my mother conceive of this sin was imputed. . . . 
 me. (Ps. li. 5.) From this or iginal corrup- 
 
 AtwI God saw- that the non whereby we are utterly in- 
 wickedness of man was disposed, disabled, and made 
 great in the earth, and opposite to all good and sdsoUy 
 that every imagination of inclined to all evil, do proceed 
 the thoughts of hi- heart all actual transgressions, 
 was only evil continuallv. 
 
 (Gen. vi 5.) 
 
 Till- p tagrap:. is about as strongly expressed 
 as human language is capable of. Men are not 
 only inclined to evil and averse to good, but 
 t choUy inclined to all evil, and utterly indisposed, 
 and as if that were not enough, disabled, and even 
 made opposite to all good. On calmly reading 
 these sentences, clause by clause, we can scarcely 
 arrive at any other conclusion than that the 
 Westminster Assembly intended to depict human 
 nature as it now is, in the darkest colours which 
 language can supply. It is so bad that it cannot 
 be worse; and if this description of the state of 
 man after the fall is intended to be fuily applic¬ 
 able to every individual of the race, it is very 
 hard to see how one man can be worse than 
 another. I have no doubt that the motives 
 which influenced the authors of all the confessions 
 were in the main good, such as to lay a firm 
 foundation for the work of Christ, seeing that the 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 121 
 
 hold which evil had over human nature is so firm, 
 that it is utterly impossible to extricate itself 
 without help from divine power. This is a 
 worthy end to keep in view ; although the means 
 selected to attain a given end must harmonize 
 with our moral sentiments as well as the end 
 itself. But we can also perceive, I think, that 
 they were influenced by other motives, which the 
 exigencies of controversy suggested. Pelagianisin 
 had caused much disturbance to the Church during 
 the time of Augustine and afterwards, and it was 
 the source of much evil to the cause of pure and 
 undefiled religion. Socinianism, so far as its 
 anthropology was concerned, was unmitigated 
 Pelagianism, and both the Roman Catholic 
 doctrine and the Arminian were believed to have 
 a tendency at least in the same direction. Accord¬ 
 ingly, it was felt that not only must the truth of 
 God revealed in Scripture be faithfully and clearly 
 expressed, but the opposing error, both in its 
 foundation and superstructure, be fully exposed. 
 Error in doctrine is a poisonous plant, which 
 must be pulled up root and branch. The Church 
 must be kept pure from every taint of heresy, 
 so that none who have imbibed heretical views, 
 in whole or in part, should be allowed to minister 
 at her altars. Hence a test, sufficiently thorough 
 and minute to detect the tortuous windings of 
 error, must be devised. This view, probably, 
 
122 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 influenced the leaders of the Church during the 
 period of her history when she was busy in 
 formulating her schemes of doctrine. 
 
 No encouragement is to be given to error, how¬ 
 ever trivial it may be, but what is really the best 
 method of dealing with it when it has appeared, 
 or of preventing it from making its appearance ? 
 It is surely not by expressing the truth more 
 stringently than Scripture does. If the word of 
 God does not decide the matter, why should the 
 Church ? If one refuses to assent to every state¬ 
 ment on this subject contained in the confession, 
 by the adherents of that confession, he will be 
 accused by some of denying original sin, or the 
 corruption of human nature; whereas it may he 
 to only one or two extreme and unwarrantable 
 expressions that objection is offered. On such a 
 subject, the utmost caution and circumspection 
 ought to be observed. Full justice must be done 
 to divine truth, but it may be injured by adding 
 thereto as well as by taking from it. This may 
 be done by adducing texts containing apparently 
 universal statements when taken by themselves, 
 but when looked at in connection with the context, 
 seem to be general, not universal. We ought 
 especially to be on our guard against interpreting 
 figurative expressions, not only literally, but even 
 exactly and with the same rigour as if they were 
 strictly logical statements. We do not expect 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 123 
 
 precision of statement in a poetical or rhetorical 
 production ; and many of the biblical books are 
 of this character. Even although the writing 
 should be plain history or exhortation, we ought 
 always to consider whether the subject in question 
 is realty before the mind of the writer, or whether 
 the words are only expressed by the way. This 
 principle is of constant application, e.g., in the obiter 
 dicta of judges, as compared with their decisions 
 on the precise point submitted to them for de¬ 
 cision. Indeed, it is applicable to the interpreta¬ 
 tion of all literature. But the reasons are 
 stronger when we apply them to some doctrines of 
 Scripture which, as interpreted, apj^ear to conflict 
 with reason and conscience. It is most proper 
 that we should endeavour to interpret the Bible, 
 so that it should be consistent with itself, and 
 that one statement should not contradict another. 
 Such a general rule is applicable to all writings 
 sacred and secular. It is also legitimate to draw 
 out in regular and systematic order the conse¬ 
 quences which necessarily follow from these 
 statements. We may evolve what is necessarily 
 involved in a text of Scripture, after due com¬ 
 parison of the same; and, of course, these 
 inferences may be expressed in those terms which 
 seem best fitted to convey the truth contained or 
 implied in them. False interpretations of par¬ 
 ticular texts, and of those generally relating to 
 
124 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the same theme are carefully to be avoided ; and 
 illegitimate conclusions drawn from these must be 
 rejected without hesitation. These principles of 
 interpretation are generally admitted as truisms. 
 Controversialists and defenders of particular 
 systems of doctrine, very frequently charge their 
 opponents with the neglect or violation of such 
 principles. But are we not bound also to use 
 every precaution, lest our conclusions from 
 Scripture should be opposed to the dictates of 
 reason and conscience ? Are we to allow human 
 reason a certain place in deciding that a given 
 interpretation of a particular passage, or of numbers 
 of passages ou the same topic, is strictly correct, 
 but refuse it the same province when determining 
 whether that interpretation is in harmony or in 
 contradiction with the dictates of the human 
 heart ? 
 
 As far back as the patriarchal age Abraham 
 asked, “ Shall not the judge of all the earth 
 do right ? will He destroy the righteous with 
 the wicked?” Can human reason be trusted 
 in drawing conclusions respecting the consistency 
 of one passage with another, but not its con¬ 
 sistency with the principles of moral truth ? It 
 is true that our conclusions as to the first princi¬ 
 ples of belief may be mistaken; but it is equally 
 true that they may be mistaken as to interpreta¬ 
 tion. Unless some authority is assigned in both, 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 125 
 
 universal scepticism will be the proper attitude 
 of the human mind toward truth. 
 
 Let us apply these observations to the question 
 of original sin. It is to be traced to Adam, 
 through our connection with him we are wholly 
 inclined to all evil. This surely goes beyond 
 the assertions contained in the Bible, and such 
 an assertion or doctrine ought not to be given 
 forth without warrant, without even the strongest 
 warrant. What does it involve with regard 
 to the effects of sin ? We are not in a position 
 to say what one sin deserves in the case of 
 the individual himself. It may deserve “ the 
 wrath and curse of God,” and it may involve 
 moral deterioration; but it is going beyond 
 the teaching of experience as well as of Scripture 
 to affirm that one sin so corrupts our nature 
 that thereafter that nature is wholly inclined, 
 not only to the particular sin committed, but to 
 all evil. 
 
 The sin of Adam not only affects him person¬ 
 ally, but so affects all his posterity, that the 
 corruption propagated by him exposes them to 
 everlasting destruction, and is the source of all 
 their actual transgressions. In short, this sin 
 of his is the cause of all the sin and suffering 
 that is and shall be in the world. It is very 
 much worse in its effects than the sins of Herod 
 and Judas. Does Scripture affirm that any 
 
12 G 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 human being, infant or adult, shall be punished 
 everlastingly because of the sins of one man, 
 even though he be the progenitor of the race ? 
 The punishment threatened or the sufferings 
 indicted are said to be for their own sins, not 
 for those of Adam. 
 
 The conscience of man revolts at the idea 
 of any rational creature having his everlasting 
 destiny entirely determined by the act of another 
 committed long before he was born. That this 
 is the general conviction of Christians now is 
 manifested by the fact that the salvation of all 
 infants dying in infancy is held by a very large 
 majority. There would be little warrant for 
 holding this if all the effects attributed to the 
 fall were held to apply to every human being. 
 The unconscious babe is equally incapable of 
 homologating the act of Adam or accepting the 
 work of Christ. The Bible is equally silent on 
 both ; so that infant salvation, so far as par¬ 
 ticular statements are concerned, has no more 
 ground in Scripture than infant corruption. 
 The logical effect of the dogmatic view is 
 witnessed in the doctrine of Romanists and 
 Ritualists respecting baptism washing away the 
 guilt of original sin. Unbaptized infants dying 
 must either go to perdition or heaven. They are 
 not good enough for the latter, as being tainted 
 by original sin ; not bad enough for the former, 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 127 
 
 as they have not been guilty of actual sin, so 
 they remain in limbo. Protestants have con¬ 
 clusively shown that there is no authority in 
 Scripture for purgatory or limbus ; but they 
 should feel that there is not much more for their 
 teaching that infants may enter heaven or be sent 
 to hell. Let reason and conscience have their 
 legitimate function assigned to them in deciding 
 whether it would be wrong to be thus treated by 
 their fellowmen. Does the same law hold good 
 in forming judgments upon the action of the 
 Creator of the universe ? If not, ■we cannot with 
 strict propriety talk either of the justice, wrath, 
 mercy, or goodness of the Deity. The judge of 
 all the earth will do right—to the innocent babe 
 who has, in the opinion of all, been guilty of no 
 actual sin, as well as to the man whose reason, 
 will, and conscience have been fully developed, 
 hut who has debased them by the most cruel con¬ 
 duct imaginable. It may he that the germ of evil 
 exists in the child in an undeveloped state, but it 
 is hard to see the justice of that government which 
 assigns eternal death to it aud the unconscious 
 criminal alike. Undoubtedly there is here a con¬ 
 flict between the innate sense of justice inherent 
 in all men, and the doctrine of hereditary guilt 
 as generally taught in the confessions. If we are 
 “ utterly indisposed and disabled, and made 
 opposite to all good,” and “ wholly inclined to 
 
128 
 
 DOGMA IX REL1GIOX 
 
 all evil,” it becomes a veiy difficult matter to 
 see room left for mending our ways and turn¬ 
 ing to the Lord. It is perhaps from a feeling of 
 this difficulty that Lutheran divines opposed the 
 doctrine of Flacius that sin has corrupted the 
 substance of the soul Whatever was the cause 
 of their opposition, at all events, this doctrine was 
 rejected by them. In other words, they would 
 not affirm that the substance of the soul was 
 affected by the fall, but only the powers, faculties, 
 or operations of the same. If the confessional 
 doctrine gets rid of one difficulty in this way, it 
 becomes involved in another. Cardinal Newman, 
 in defending the Roman doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation asks—What of subst 
 
 Substance was a very important word in the 
 scholastic philosophy, which was in reality the 
 prevailing philosophy in the confessional period ; 
 and it is also employed by Locke in much the 
 same sense. The question arises, is it possible 
 that the qualities or operations of the substance 
 can be entirely corrupt while the substance 
 remains intact ? One reason why we affirm that 
 mind and matter are radically distinct is, that the 
 qualities or phenomena of these substances are 
 entirely different Just because thought, feeling, 
 willing, are so utterly different from extension, 
 length, hardness, softness, we refer them to a 
 different substance. Now-a-days not quite the 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 129 
 
 same view, perhaps, is taken, but then this view 
 of substance and its properties or accidents was 
 implied in all the philosophy of the confessional 
 period ; and their theology was, to a great extent, 
 an application of their philosophy. It is im¬ 
 possible to prove that a corruption of the under¬ 
 standing, the will, and the affections, can take 
 place in man without, at the same time, the 
 substance itself being in some way involved in 
 that corruption. The man is “ wholly defiled in 
 all the faculties of soul and body.” According to 
 this assertion the body is not only defiled but 
 wholly defiled. I shall say nothing as to 
 whether this strong assertion applies to every 
 individual of the race or only to the race 
 as a whole. In. any case it seems needlessly 
 extreme and not essential to conserve the 
 Scripture doctrine of human corruption. The 
 intellect or understanding is wholly defiled. 
 That the understanding is absolutely perfect, 
 none would assert; that it is entirely unaffected 
 by the fall, is also a gratuitous assertion ; that it 
 is ivholly defiled or disabled is just as gratuitous. 
 
 This is a matter that can to a great extent 
 be brought to the test of experience. Most 
 people in civilized countries can add a sum 
 correctly ; they are not wholly inclined to error 
 in the processes of arithmetic, geometry, and 
 other blanches ; they are more frequently right 
 
 I 
 
130 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 than wrong. So in every matter to which the 
 intellect can apply itself, the same state of 
 things exists. Where error is more frequent, 
 it will be found that it arises more from the 
 character of the truth investigated than from the 
 corruption of the investigator. Moreover, we 
 do not find that good people—good in the 
 judgment of those upholding the doctrine—* 
 converted, if you like the term—are less liable 
 to error, and more successful in reaching truth 
 than those of a different character. This should 
 modify extreme statements, which only injure 
 the cause which they are designed to serve. 
 
 So also the same with regard to the affections. 
 It is not correct to affirm, that parents cannot 
 love their children, or children their parents, or 
 that a person cannot cherish disinterested love 
 to his friend, when, as a matter of fact, this 
 love is exercised daily by those who cannot be 
 said to be influenced by true Christian principle. 
 This is admitted by those at least who maintain 
 that in regeneration new faculties are not com¬ 
 municated to the soul, but only a different 
 direction given to those that already exist. Then 
 with regard to the will it may be affirmed that 
 it has some power in the choice of what is good. 
 By some it has been asserted that it has no 
 power to choose what is good but only to choose 
 between greater or less evil. Such a state of 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 131 
 
 will seems an impossibility. Indeed, a power 
 so restricted is scarcely worthy of the name, as 
 consciousness seems to testify that in all our 
 actions there is the power of contrary choice. 
 We could have acted and willed otherwise than 
 we have done. Here I am not to enter upon 
 the vexed question of freewill and necessity. 
 Those who maintained the latter do not affirm 
 that it is applicable to bad actions only, but to 
 good as well. So whether we hold philosophical 
 liberty or philosophical necessity, it will not 
 help us to maintain with greater cogency the 
 thesis that man has no power to choose between 
 good and evil, but only between one degree of 
 evil and another. If we are to interpret these 
 words of the Westminster Confession strictly, 
 I do not see how any room is left for the dis¬ 
 tinction generally received between natural and 
 moral inability. More than forty years ago I 
 heard Dr Ward law assert, in a sermon delivered 
 in Edinburgh, that man’s unwillingness to receive 
 the gospel was his only inability. It seems to 
 me that, if all the faculties are wholly defiled 
 . . . and we are utterly disabled and made 
 opposite to all good, the intellect must be utterly 
 incapable of understanding the gospel, the will 
 of receiving it, and the affections of loving Him 
 whom it reveals. The same confession says 
 “ The light of nature and the works of creation 
 
132 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, 
 wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men 
 inexcusable.” If we are to take the former 
 words as strictly true, how can man have any 
 knowledge of either the goodness or wisdom of 
 God ? This knowledge is acquired by the in¬ 
 tellect, but the intellect is utterly disabled and 
 therefore must be incapable of perceiving the 
 character of God revealed in His works. Should 
 there be a special revelation, in which truth is 
 more clearly and distinctly made known, man 
 will be just as incapable of perceiving it there 
 as in nature and providence. No revelation, 
 according to the doctrine of depravity thus 
 expressed, could make known the truth of the 
 divine existence and of his moral attributes, to 
 an intelligence utterly corrupt, until the nature 
 itself is changed or renewed. Whether the truth 
 of God’s power and goodness is taught by the 
 firmament of heaven and by the works of creation 
 around us, or in a book, intelligence radically 
 corrupt must fail to perceive it. If it does per¬ 
 ceive it in either case then the other statement 
 cannot be strictly interpreted. There are two 
 other propositions in the confession to which I 
 will refer, viz. :—Conf. ix. 1, “God hath indued 
 the will of man with that natural liberty, that it 
 is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of 
 nature determined to good or evil.” 3. “ Man by 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 133 
 
 his fall into a state of sin hath wholly lost all 
 ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying 
 salvation.” The first section apparently refers to 
 man unfallen. If not, it is very hard to reconcile 
 the third with it. If he has wholly lost all 
 ability of will to any spiritual good, he must by 
 absolute necessity will what is evil. So far as I 
 can see the words “ accompanying salvation ” 
 make little difference in the meaning or lessen 
 the consequences that may be deduced from the 
 statement. Is it possible, or rather, 1 should say, 
 is it probable, that man has the power of willing 
 some good, but not that accompanying salvation ? 
 That man cannot save himself must be admitted 
 by all, so far as satisfaction and regeneration are 
 concerned. It was no doubt the conviction, that 
 these essential truths could only be conserved by 
 a thorough-going doctrine of human weakness and 
 corruption, which led to such strong language 
 being employed. So far as ability of will is con¬ 
 cerned it seems necessary to grant much more 
 than is here conceded. If there is ability for 
 some spiritual good—such as love of truth—may 
 there not also be love of good men, benevolence 
 towards the fallen and suffering, and also, if there 
 may be actions done by unconverted men good as 
 to their matter, there is no strong reason why 
 they should not be capable of good motives as 
 well. To talk of the virtues of some as only 
 
134 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 splendid vices is surely to transgress the bounds 
 both of reason and Scripture. It is the applica¬ 
 tion to human life of a doctrine expressed in the 
 strongest and most precise language possible, with 
 a view to bring out with greater distinctness the 
 teaching of Scripture on the present state of man 
 as the result of the entrance of sin into the world. 
 There is a very great difference between saying, 
 men cannot pray aright, or repent, or believe in 
 Christ, and men do not pray, repent, or believe. 
 They have the natural power to perform all these 
 acts, just as much as to love their parents, obey 
 the civil ruler, and investigate truth. 
 
 The power of performing these actions is felt to 
 be inherent in men, and unwillingness is the cause 
 of their not being performed. The apostle Paul 
 says (Romans viii. 7), “ Because the carnal mind 
 (the minding of the flesh) is enmity against God 
 for it is not subject to the law of God, neither 
 indeed can be.” This may be said of anyone 
 living in sin, or negatively, of one who does not 
 live unto God. It carries us beyond mere acts, 
 and takes into account the tendencies, inclinations, 
 and dispositions of our nature. There is no 
 doubt, as the confession put it, an action may be 
 materially good, and not formally. A common 
 example of this is that of helping the poor or 
 relieving the distressed. Two men give one 
 pound each for the relief of the poor. The 
 
ORIGINAL SIX 
 
 135 
 
 amount given is the same, the immediate end is 
 the same. The matter of the action is good—a 
 benevolent act. But these are not sufficient to 
 determine the moral character of the action. We 
 can conceive a great variety of circumstances that 
 would very naturally influence our decision re¬ 
 garding the moral character of each individual. 
 The one might give the amount for securing 
 his own popularity or that of the political or 
 religious party to which he belongs, or simply 
 because he would have an uneas}' feeling if he 
 did not bestow the gift. The other might do so 
 without a thought of himself but solely from a 
 desire to do his duty. Anyone can see that in 
 the former case the action was not really good 
 but only a form of selfishness. Then another 
 consideration may be derived from our Lord’s 
 reference to the mite of the poor widow. She 
 gave all she had, the others gave of their abund¬ 
 ance and had to spare. Materially, many gave 
 twenty times more than the widow, but really, 
 in the sight of God, she gave more than they all. 
 The motive or end in view must always be taken 
 into account in passing judgment upon an action. 
 
 But this has reference to the particular motive 
 or motives of an individual act, which has always 
 some principle of activity, whether it is consciously 
 experienced by the actor or not. Men, however, 
 may be influenced in their whole conduct by one 
 
136 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 or two principles. Self-interest, vanity, benevo¬ 
 lence, sincerity, and so on, may be said to be 
 general motives or principles of action, so that a 
 man’s conduct must be judged by these, and by 
 the place which they hold in the regulation of his 
 life. Actions are not to be separated from their 
 motives ; they are not isolated, but stand neces¬ 
 sarily related to the man’s general character. Can 
 the benevolence of tbe drunkard, the temperance 
 of the selfish, external acts of devotion on the 
 part of the self righteous, be acceptable to God ? 
 Such aspects of human life as these must be taken 
 into account in dealing with the subject of original 
 or birth sin. The general aim in life must have 
 some influence in determining the moral character 
 of his actions, or, at least, each individual act 
 cannot be isolated from that aim or judged apart 
 from it. Do all men by nature, as a matter of 
 fact, aim at some end that is bad or selfish ? and, 
 should this be admitted, have they the power of 
 choosing good ends, although they do not thus 
 choose ? Some reason must be assigned why the 
 choice is universally made on the wrong side. 
 This fact is to be ascribed to the corruption of 
 human nature. If it necessarily ends in actual 
 sin, and if the individual has not acquired it by 
 his own act, either in the way of positive commis¬ 
 sion or negative omission, the difficulty arises as 
 to the responsibility of the agent. The responsi- 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 137 
 
 bility of man for his actions is a truth absolutely 
 necessary to be held fast, both in ethics and 
 theology. If men are not responsible for their 
 actions all discussion is at an end. It would be 
 unjust either to blame or to punish them; and if 
 men must necessarily be punished, although 
 blameless, the foundations of all morality and 
 religion are destroyed. How to reconcile the fact 
 of responsibility which is acknowledged both by 
 consciousness and Scripture, is a difficulty pressing 
 upon all systems. If all the laws of the divine 
 government are both right and rational, we must 
 believe that some reconciliation is possible. Want 
 of knowledge—knowledge that takes in all the 
 facts of the case—may be the cause of the failure 
 of all attempts heretofore made to effect such a 
 reconciliation. The impossibility of arriving at a 
 reconciliation in our present state of limited 
 knowledge should teach us that we do not fully 
 grasp either truth ; and as Mozley 1 would say, they 
 are not absolute truths; and therefore we are not 
 warranted in drawing from them—when expressed 
 in terms of human invention—the conclusions 
 which would otherwise be valid. It is the part of 
 Christian prudence not to push either to an 
 extreme by the language we employ in their 
 statement or defence. To affirm that Adam, after 
 his first sin, had all his mental and moral faculties 
 
 1 On Predestination. 
 
138 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 unimpaired, is going beyond the warrant of 
 Scripture, and the opposite that they were wholly 
 inclined to all evil, equally so. To say that all 
 the members of the human family are born as 
 good as the first man was created, or if it be 
 preferred, with no more tendency to the commis¬ 
 sion of sin than he had, is surely in opposition to 
 the statements and implications of Scripture; so 
 also is the affirmation that the sin of the first 
 man has had no injurious influence upon those 
 descending from him. 
 
 One can scarcely close the discussion of such an 
 important and fundamental question as that of 
 sin without referring to the effects of evolution 
 upon the doctrine. As it would be absurd to 
 attempt a full discussion of the corruption of 
 human nature, still more would it be to discuss 
 the doctrine of evolution. Supposing it proved, 
 with ordinary probability, that man has been 
 evolved from the animal, and that he has had a 
 common progenitor with the ape, would that fact 
 change our views respecting sin, either as regards 
 its origin, nature, or extent? For my part, I 
 cannot perceive, either that the theory can throw 
 much light on the subject or add to its difficulties. 
 Without referring to the question whether the 
 whole human race now on the face of the earth 
 has descended from one pair (as this was discussed 
 before evolution obtained much recognition) there 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 139 
 
 arises the difficulty of determining how it was 
 possible for the transition, from the merely animal 
 into the rational existence, to take place. How 
 can it be discovered in what manner the first pair 
 came to be endowed with reason and conscience, 
 and thus had conferred upon them the “ image of 
 God ? ” The theologian who embraces the evolu¬ 
 tion theory of the origin of man is no more bound 
 to show the possibility of which we have been 
 speaking, than the one who denies it, because it 
 is difficult or impossible, in our present state of 
 knowledge, to ascertain when the child before 
 birth becomes rational. The old controversy 
 regarding the conflicting claims of traducianism 
 and creationism are a standing proof of the 
 difficulty. The gap between the embryo and the 
 rational creature is not less than between an 
 animal ancestor and a rational infant. In either 
 case, the matter is shrouded in mystery ; and the 
 counter theses of creationism and traducianism are 
 available on either supposition. It seems to me, 
 therefore, that the difficulty of accounting for 
 rationality in the human race is not greater in the 
 case of the new theory than of the old. As 
 regards the help which this theory lends to a 
 rational explanation of the present condition of 
 the human race, not much can be expected. It 
 places much weight on heredity, which plays a 
 very important part in evolution, not only in the 
 
140 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 case of man but also of all living creatures. All 
 its advocates are agreed that, if no qualities are 
 transmitted by heredity, there has been no evolu¬ 
 tion. Heredity reigns throughout the whole 
 animal kingdom, and the same law holds good in 
 the human species. Although the law has always 
 more or less been acknowledged bv divines and 
 men in general, it has been emphasized by the 
 scientist. Whatever difficulties, therefore, are 
 involved in the case of men, are also involved in 
 the whole of animate existence. 
 
 No doubt heredity as a scientific fact comes 
 before us chiefly in the relations of offspring to 
 immediate parents and a few generations back ; 
 but this truth is also recognised both by divines 
 and in Scripture. The Arminian theologian, 
 Limborch, e.g., refers to inheriting from their 
 immediate parents even more than they did from 
 Adam, so that what we may call “ general ” 
 heredity, which all derive from the common 
 progenitor of the race, and “ special ” from their 
 nearer ancestors, was a recognised fact before 
 modern evolution was heard of. 
 
 It is alleged, however, that the desceut of 
 man from the animal may account for the origin 
 of sin. We sin, because of the remnants of 
 animal nature within us which taints every man 
 because of this inheritance. This attempt, I 
 think, signally fails as other efforts of a similar 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 141 
 
 kind have failed in the past, such as the Gnostic 
 and Manichiean idea that “ matter ” is essenti¬ 
 ally evil; or the notion that all sin is to be 
 traced to the soul’s connection with the body. 
 Relationship with the animal would not account 
 even for those sins which spring chiefly from 
 the lower tendencies of our nature. It is very 
 doubtful if intemperance in eating and drinking 
 prevails to such an extent among animals as 
 among men. There are certain desires common 
 to them and us without which sin could not be 
 committed ; but these desires are good in them¬ 
 selves, and without them, neither the well-being 
 of the individual nor the permanence of the 
 species could be secured, but sin arises from their 
 excess, not from their mere existence, and it is 
 questionable whether their excess is not more 
 general in man than in beast, or that the latter 
 do not fulfil their end better than man. Be 
 that, however, as it may, the animal in man fails 
 to account for the prevalence of some kinds of 
 sins to which it might apparently be traced ; 
 but there are several with which it has no con¬ 
 nection. Pride, ambition, vanity, and so on, 
 have no foundation in the animal nature. To 
 derive all sin from sensuality (as Schleiermacher 
 does), is unwarrantable. Indeed, it is not possible, 
 I think, to trace it up to any one principle, such 
 as selfishness (Julius Muller), unbelief, &c. 
 
142 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 Whilst this is so, still it is well that we 
 should search for all the light we can obtain in 
 this region of knowledge. Mere psychological 
 or metaphysical inquiries, apart from the solid 
 facts of experience, are not of much use in the 
 solution of the problem of sin. A theory which 
 is influencing all branches of inquiry so ex¬ 
 tensively as evolution is now doing, cannot be 
 ignored by the theologian. There is little 
 ground to hope that any fresh discoveries will 
 be made by those who are now carefully investi¬ 
 gating the origin of man, which will satisfactorily 
 solve the problem of sin’s existence, of its per¬ 
 sistence through all generations, and in the midst 
 of all degrees of civilization; but, if the present 
 tendencies of scientific inquiry continue amongst 
 the more advanced nations of the world, some 
 light may penetrate the thick darkness in which 
 the origin, transmission, and progress of sin in 
 the world is enveloped. A determination to 
 shut our eyes as to what is going on in the 
 world, and a fixed resolution to adhere rigidly 
 to the doctrine of original sin as defined in the 
 creeds three hundred years ago, in spite of all 
 that may be said or discovered to the contrary, 
 is not the proper attitude to be assumed by those 
 “ who see through a glass darkly.” A dogma 
 or definition of this all important subject, adapted 
 to our present knowledge of the facts of science 
 
ORIGINAL SIN 
 
 143 
 
 and of the interpretation of Scripture, would 
 no doubt be of some service to the cause of 
 religion, but a final and unchangeable doctrine on 
 the whole topic is both unattainable and undesir¬ 
 able. What the Church needs, what humanity 
 is crying out for, is the cure for sin rather than 
 knowledge of its origin. Theories are useful and 
 ought to be sought after only in so far as they 
 help to secure this most desirable end. We have 
 little sympathy with those who accuse the Church 
 of wasting all her energies upon the settlement 
 of abstruse points of doctrine to the neglect of 
 the practical matters of delivering our fellow-men 
 from the sins in which they indulge, and urging 
 them to greater and more persistent effort in the 
 cultivation of holiness in heart and life. Through 
 worldliness and sloth the Church has at certain 
 periods been chargeable with the neglect of both 
 these duties, and at great crises in her history, 
 renewed attention has generally been given to 
 both ; but there can be little doubt that the 
 cultivation of the graces of the Christian character 
 in the individual, and the production of Christian 
 communities possessed of high spiritual force, 
 and acting as a purifying leaven on those outside 
 her pale, is too much neglected at the present 
 time. The conflicts between capital and labour, 
 the sad prevalence pf dire forms of suffering 
 amongst large masses of the people, have 
 
144 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 generally been treated by the leaders of our 
 churches as subordinate to the settlement of 
 doctrinal differences. There is an awakening to a 
 sense of the urgent claims of the practical; present 
 sinners, present sufferers, present unbelief; and 
 a conviction that a definition of truth expressed 
 in definite forms of man’s devising is of sub¬ 
 ordinate importance to the other. I believe that 
 much of the present discontent with the condi¬ 
 tion of the churches, and many of the greatest 
 dangers with which we are now assailed, arise 
 from the fact that they have assigned too high 
 a place to dogmatic deliverances, and have been 
 too easily satisfied with a low' standard of Christian 
 life. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 DIVINE GRACE 
 
 Sin is a fact of human nature, and all history is 
 a record of its operation among the nations of 
 the world. Moreover, it is universally acknow¬ 
 ledged, in every nation and in every clime as 
 a matter of painful experience. The admission 
 that the spiritual disease of sin is firmly rooted 
 in the human race, is not confined to the 
 Christian Church ; and the problem, how to 
 arrest its progress in the human soul, presses for 
 solution upon all systems of philosophy and all 
 religions. But with the subject of “Grace” it 
 is different. It is a doctrine peculiar to Christi¬ 
 anity. “ By grace are ye saved; through faith, 
 and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God ” 
 (Kphes. ii. 1). The gift of Christ to the world 
 is of grace ; the work of the Holy Spirit in the 
 regeneration of the natural man and in the 
 sanctification of the regenerate, is also of grace. 
 Justification is by faith, not by works. The 
 salvation of men is not to be ascribed to their 
 own merits, but to the unmerited grace of God. 
 
 K MS 
 
146 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 Most Christians would agree with each other 
 up to this point. 
 
 If man could save himself, there would have 
 been no necessity for the advent of Christ, nor 
 for the work which He performed, or the suffer¬ 
 ings which He endured; neither would the 
 presence and operation of the Holy Spirit be an 
 essential requisite for the conversion of the 
 world and the regeneration of the individual 
 and society. “ Without Me ye can do nothing.” 
 “ No man can come unto Me, except the Father 
 which is in Me draw him.” When the Philippine 
 jailer asked the apostle Paul, “ What must I do 
 to be saved ? ” the answer was, “ Believe in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” 
 Another apostle, Peter, addressing the multitudes 
 on the day of Pentecost said, “ Repent, and be 
 baptised every one of you, for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost.” 
 
 In considering this subject, we may view it 
 as a question of belief, i.e., what does Scripture 
 say concerning it ? Having ascertained this, 
 we may know what we ought to believe concern¬ 
 ing its nature and operations. We may also 
 view it as a matter of experience, i.e., what does 
 the consciousness of the Christian testify as to 
 the work of the Spirit on his soul ? A full dis¬ 
 cussion of this, either in its biblical or dogmatic 
 
DIVTNE GRACE 
 
 147 
 
 aspect, as in previous doctrines, is out of the 
 question, but in so far as certain views respecting 
 it are a ground of division among the churches, 
 we shall make some remarks concerning it. 
 
 Not satisfied with the general declarations of 
 Scripture, divines have done their best to render 
 them as specific as possible. This they have 
 done to make them consistent, not only with 
 other doctrines as expressed in the Bible, but 
 as expanded in the creeds. In this, as in 
 other subjects, it becomes manifest that where 
 a system of theology is consistently carried out, 
 each doctrine hangs upon the other, so that the 
 removal of one may lead to the rejection of all. 
 Grace may be said to be the good-will of God, 
 operating so as to secure the salvation of the 
 sinner, and (apart from the consideration of the 
 work or atonement of Christ) leading him to do 
 all that is required of him—believe, repent, love, 
 and obey. But churches have not been satisfied 
 with these general truths; they must be rendered 
 more particular. Hence, the question was pro¬ 
 pounded, even as early as Augustine, if not 
 before, can man resist the grace of God—the 
 working of the Spirit on his heart ? As a 
 matter of experience, he is resisted, both bv 
 believers and unbelievers. If there were no 
 such resistance on the part of believers, none of 
 them would remain imperfect; and as regards 
 
148 
 
 DOGMA IN KELIGJON 
 
 unbelievers, none of them would remain in a 
 state of unbelief. Sin in the regenerate, and 
 distinction in the finally impenitent, must be 
 traced to the resistance offered by the human 
 will to divine grace. This would indubitably 
 lead to the assertion that the choice of the will 
 determines the salvation or condemnation of 
 men ; and this is true. We have both of the 
 following declarations in Scripture: “0 Israel, 
 thou hast destroyed thyself, but in Me is thy 
 help.” “ Who maketh you to differ ? ” 
 
 We can look at the subject from another 
 point of view. Could not God lead all men to 
 repent, believe, love, and obey, if He willed ? 
 If you deny this, you necessarily limit the divine 
 power ; and to do this, would have even more 
 serious consequences in religion than the injury 
 done to free will by the opposite doctrine. To 
 affirm that the power of divine grace could not 
 produce the result of all men becoming true 
 Christians, with as little violation to freedom in 
 their case as in that of those who are true 
 believers, is just as unwarrantable as the Socinian 
 dogma, that God cannot foresee the actions of 
 free agents. Both assertions go beyond the 
 warrant of reason and Scripture. 
 
 Wlien we come to decide, in the light of 
 Scripture, not what God can do, but what God 
 does, that is another matter, and must be settled 
 
DIVINE GRACE 
 
 149 
 
 on its own evidence. It seems to be in harmony 
 with the teaching of the Bible that the Spirit 
 of God strives with all men, and even most of 
 those who contend for what is called irresistible 
 grace, concede that there is such a thing as 
 common grace—that common operations of the 
 Spirit urging to goodness,—are experienced by all. 
 Those who remain impenitent and unbelieving 
 to the last, therefore, have resisted this common 
 grace. There is little foundation, either in 
 Scripture or experience for this distinction. How 
 can one distinguish e.g., between the conviction 
 of sin, the desire felt to escape from the power 
 of evil, the resolutions frequently formed to lead 
 a better and more Christian life, experienced by 
 those who, as far as man can judge, remain 
 bound by the fetters of sin to the last, and by 
 those who seem genuine believers and truly 
 penitent ? We arrive at the conclusion that 
 the latter experienced irresistible, and the former 
 only common grace, because of the result in each 
 case. , We cannot distinguish in ourselves or 
 others, by a strict examination, between common 
 and efficacious grace. I have heard an Arminian 
 affirm that he was once converted, and led a 
 Christian life for a time, but afterwards fell away 
 from this state and became ungodly in thought 
 and action, and was again converted. I said 
 in answer to this statement, that his former 
 
150 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 experiences (or his conversion) were not genuine ; 
 his rejoinder was that he had the “ testimony 
 of the Spirit,” “ the assurance of salvation.” Such 
 a phenomenon is by no means uncommon in 
 the history of religious experience; and the 
 phenomena of religious revivals and Christian 
 life in general, are perfectly sufficient to prove 
 (were such proof necessary) that there is neither 
 infallibility in the interpretation of Scripture 
 nor in that of religious experience; and yet many 
 reason as if such infallibility were found in both. 
 Certain dogmas are held, inculcated, and even 
 imposed upon the office-bearers of churches, not 
 because they are clearly taught in the Bible, 
 or attested by Christian experience, but because 
 they appear to follow as probable deductions 
 from other truths sanctioned by reason and 
 Scripture. 
 
 This seems to be the case respecting the 
 question of grace. It is worthy of all praise 
 to strive to the utmost of our power not to 
 disparage grace but to exalt it, but it is equally 
 our duty to abstain from adopting any view 
 that would detract from the power and responsi¬ 
 bility of man. The question of free will has 
 occupied the attention of philosophers and divines 
 for ages, and the problems raised respecting it, 
 are up to this moment unsolved. The recon¬ 
 ciliation of that freedom with the power of Deity, 
 
DIVINE GRACE 
 
 151 
 
 both in the providential government of the world, 
 and in the operation of grace on the hearts of 
 men, involves serious difficulties, most of which 
 however, are speculative rather than practical. 
 
 Religion is practical, although like all matters 
 practical, it involves a certain rational basis for 
 its exercise. This rational basis is difficult to 
 discern, perhaps still more difficult to define 
 in adequate terms ; and when defined by the 
 theologian, it is still beyond the comprehension 
 of the ordinary Christian. But men are called 
 upon to repent of sin, to believe in Christ, to 
 love God and their neighbour, to strive to 
 enter in at the strait gate, to pray without 
 ceasing, to be reconciled to God, and so on. 
 They are told also, “ I can do all things through 
 him that strengtheneth me ; ” “ Without Me ye 
 can do nothing ; ” “ Ask, and ye shall receive, seek, 
 and ye shall find, knock, and it will be opened 
 unto you.” Here duties are plainly enjoined, 
 and grace is promised to help in the time of 
 our need. The enquiring soul may be troubled 
 with the metaphysics of the question, and say, 
 “ I cannot believe of myself, my best works are 
 vanity; why should I strive until I feel the 
 operation of the Spirit within me ? If I can do 
 nothing of myself, why should I attempt to do 
 anything ? My best works are only specious 
 sins.” Here is the difficulty, and neither the 
 
152 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 defenders nor opposers of irresistible grace can 
 escape it. Both acknowledge grace and responsi¬ 
 bility, both urge the acceptance of the gospel as 
 regards its glorious privileges and the performance 
 of all its duties, and he who strives to carry out 
 both, experiences the blessedness of the man whose 
 sins have been forgiven. As to whether grace 
 begins first and human effort follows ; as to what 
 he might do if left to himself without the Spirit, 
 he is not called upon to decide. He is called upon 
 to act, not to speculate or solve curious questions. 
 If his works, even the best, are imperfect, he is to 
 ask help of God for every duty. If even asking, 
 although sincere, is sinful, what is the creature 
 to do ? Such questions only perplex, and do not 
 help those anxious to serve God. Leave the 
 perplexing questions to be solved in the schools, 
 if solved they can be, and let men urgently deal 
 in a practical manner with the working out of 
 their own salvation, knowing that it is God that 
 worketh in them both to will and to do. The 
 only solution of the problem of grace and free 
 will is a practical one—it can only be solved like 
 the problem of motion, ambulando. Those who 
 are in right earnest in the service of Christ and 
 humanity are conscious of the fact that it is not 
 from want of power that they have not reached 
 higher attainments, but from want of watchfulness 
 and effort ; and when they really trust in the 
 
DIVINE GRACE 
 
 153 
 
 "race of God—the influences of the Spirit—they 
 do not trust in vain. It strikes us that fre¬ 
 quently injury is done to the cause of the gospel 
 by the way it is exhibited in connection with 
 dogmas. Believe in Christ, but remember you 
 cannot believe of yourself; abstain from all 
 appearance of evil, but without the Spirit you 
 are bound hand and foot with sin. Plain 
 commands, gracious promises, glorious privileges, 
 are fenced round by limitations of man’s devising, 
 so as not to run into heresy. The dogmatic 
 method of declaring the gospel is utterly different 
 from the biblical. The latter is not afraid to 
 give forth truth unambiguously without quali¬ 
 fication to preserve consistency ; but in the former 
 the qualifications, reservations, and limitations, too 
 frequently bulk more largely than the truth itself. 
 Let God’s truth in all its simplicity, in all its 
 generality, have free scope, and when received, 
 it will of itself prevent apparent inconsistencies 
 from doing injury to the Christian life. It is 
 shocking to think that God’s love should be 
 limited in our formularies when it is free in His 
 word. That system which, on the plea of con¬ 
 sistency, would make us think hard thoughts 
 of God, degrade man from being a rational and 
 responsible soul, with noble capabilities, into a 
 block of wood or stone, must be rejected as alike 
 inconsistent with conscience and Scripture. Both 
 
154 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 are God’s gifts to us, and neither of them is to 
 be sacrificed to the dogmas of ecclesiasticism. 
 
 Again, we must insist that while all religion is 
 practical much more than theoretical, the doctrine 
 of grace is particularly so ; and while error in all 
 concerns is to be avoided as much as possible, 
 a mere theoretical understanding of the dogma 
 of grace and regeneration will not suffice for those 
 anxious to become good and acceptable to God. 
 This knowledge springs quite as much from the 
 doing as the doing from the knowing. It is the 
 same on this important topic as in all moments 
 of practical life. The knowledge of the hoiv is 
 not necessary for the experience of the fact. We 
 are every hour of our lives performing operations, 
 sometimes consciously and sometimes uncon¬ 
 sciously, which we can neither comprehend nor 
 explain. Of those who walk across the room or 
 from their home to office and back, not one in a 
 thousand could explain the co-operation of muscle, 
 nerve, spinal cord, brain, and will, in every step 
 taken. You may describe the process of swim¬ 
 ming with the utmost accuracy, but one will never 
 learn the art unless he enter the water and 
 through his repeated efforts acquire the art for 
 himself. Living, the exercise of the Christian life, 
 is found only on putting forth the requisite efforts ; 
 strength is found in the forth-putting of our 
 energies, and we may not be able to tell how it 
 
DIVINE GRACE 
 
 155 
 
 comes. “ Once I was blind, now I see.” The 
 old state of blindness is vividly remembered, the 
 new state of sight is also vividly enjoyed, but the 
 process of transition from the one to the other, 
 one may be able neither fully to trace nor 
 accurately to express. 
 
 It may be pertinently asked : What aid to 
 practical religion, what guidance to those longing 
 to be delivered from the power of sin and to 
 attain purity of heart, have the controversies 
 waged in the Church respecting prevenient, 
 co-operative, and irresistible grace ? The arro¬ 
 gance, uncharitableness, aud intolerance which 
 too frequently characterized the combatants on 
 both sides, do not say much for the effect of 
 these doctrines upon Christian charity. Yet they 
 all professed (no doubt sincerely) that they were 
 striving to do the work of Christ in opposition to 
 error—they were the champions of Christ against 
 the works of the Devil. The only proofs of 
 Christian conduct which many of these contro¬ 
 versialists have left behind them, are their works 
 in opposition to what they call the error or heresy 
 of their opponents. Decline in the devotion of a 
 people to the work of Christ, iu the cultivation of 
 the graces of the Christian character, has often 
 been ascribed to laxity of doctrine. We are far 
 from denying that serious error iu teaching may 
 lead to the decline of religion in practice, and 
 
156 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 almost to a mild epicureanism of living. Such 
 declension, however, is seldom to be traced to any 
 one source ; but I have not the slightest doubt 
 that one of the various causes that contributed to 
 the decline of religion in Britain and the Continent 
 towards the end of the seventeenth century and 
 during the eighteenth, was the controversy carried 
 on during several generations regarding doctrinal 
 matters of subordinate importance, and regarding 
 the imposition of subtle and fine-spun distinctions 
 upon the consciences of Christian men. Undue 
 importance attached to doctrine in one generation, 
 very often leads to the opposite extreme in the next. 
 It is only humble reliance on the presence of the 
 divine spirit in the Church, and active work in 
 the cause of Christ and of philanthropy, that 
 can save men from serious heresy and declension. 
 Zeal for doctrine will never be accepted for the 
 work of “denying ourselves, taking up the cross, 
 and following Him.” 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 
 
 Another point much contested among Christians 
 and which forms a ground of division among the 
 churches, is that of perseverance in grace. As 
 this is a matter that appeals to experience, and 
 has a distinctly practical aspect, similar to that of 
 grace, it will be as well to take it up now. Some 
 affirm that once a Christian, always a Christian. 
 If one believes in Christ, repents of sin, and, for 
 a time, leads a good or holy life, he will, by the 
 grace of God, persevere in good conduct and 
 purity of heart till the close of his earthly life, 
 when he will enter into the world of glory, and be 
 made perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment of 
 God to all eternity. It is maintained in opposi¬ 
 tion to this, that man may be in a state of grace 
 to-day and in one of condemnation to-morrow ; 
 that those who have believed in Christ, renounced 
 evil habits, and have conducted themselves in a 
 manner worthy of disciples of Christ, may fall 
 away from this state of goodness and perish ever¬ 
 lastingly. We shall insert here the deliverances 
 
 »57 
 
158 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 on this doctrine, which are contained in one or 
 two confessions of churches opposed to each other 
 on this subject 
 
 Perseverance of the Saints. 
 
 Council of Trent 
 vi. C. 15. In opposi¬ 
 tion also to the subtle 
 wits of certain men, it 
 is to be maintained 
 that the received grace 
 of Justification is lost, 
 'not only by infidelity 
 whereby even faith 
 itself is lost, but also 
 by any other mortal 
 sin whatever, though 
 faith be not lost. 
 
 Lutheran (For. 
 Concordle, p. 705). 
 "We condemn the 
 dogma that faith in 
 Christ is not lost, and 
 that nevertheless the 
 Holy Spirit dwells in 
 a man, even though he 
 sin knowingly and 
 willingly, and that the 
 saints and the elect 
 retain the Holy Spirit 
 even should they fall 
 into adultery and other 
 heinous offences, and 
 continue in them.” 
 
 Armenian (Conf. 
 Remonst. xi. 7). It 
 may really happen we 
 believe, and, indeed, 
 
 
 Synod of Dort (Canons). 
 
 5th Kind of Doctrine. 
 
 Art. 3. By reason of these re¬ 
 mains of indwelling sin, and the 
 temptations of sin and of the world, 
 those who are converted could not 
 persevere in a state of grace if left 
 to their own strength. But God is 
 faithful, who, having conferred 
 grace, mercifully confirms and 
 powerfully preserves them therein, 
 even to the end. 
 
 Art. 6. But God, who is rich in 
 mercy, according to His unchange¬ 
 able purpose of election, does not 
 wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit 
 from His own people, even in their 
 melancholy falls, nor suffer them to 
 proceed so far as to lose the grace of 
 adoption and forfeit the state of 
 Justification, or to commit the sin 
 unto death, nor does He permit them 
 to be totally deserted, and to plunge 
 themselves into everlasting destruc¬ 
 tion. 
 
 Westminster Confession. 
 
 Chapter XVII. 
 
 I. They whom God hath accepted 
 in His Beloved, effectually called 
 and sanctified by His Spirit, can 
 neither totally nor finally fall away 
 
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 
 
 159 
 
 from the state of grace ; but shall 
 certainly persevere therein to the 
 end, and he eternally saved. 
 
 II. This perseverance of the saints 
 depends, not upon their own free 
 will, but upon the immutability of 
 the decree of election, flowing from 
 the free and unchangeable love of 
 God the Father ; upon the efficacy 
 of the merit and intercession of 
 Jesus Christ, the abiding of the 
 Spirit, and of the seed of God 
 within them ; and the nature of the 
 covenant of grace ; from all which 
 ariseth also the certainty and in¬ 
 fallibility thereof. 
 
 III. Nevertheless they may, 
 through the temptations of Satan 
 and of the world, the prevalency of 
 corruption remaining in them, and 
 the neglect of the means of their 
 preservation, fall into grievous sins ; 
 and for a time continue therein, 
 whereby they incur God’s dis¬ 
 pleasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit; 
 come to be deprived of some measure 
 of their graces and comforts, have 
 their hearts hardened, and their 
 consciences wounded, hurt and 
 scandalize others, and bring tem¬ 
 poral judgments upon themselves. 
 
 These extracts from the symbolical books are 
 sufficient to show clearly the views of the con¬ 
 tending parties on the question of the defectibilitv 
 of grace. Just as we might have expected, there 
 is no lack of courage on either side in pushing 
 their views to their strict logical consequences. 
 
 not infrequently hap¬ 
 pens, that those born 
 again relapse gradually 
 into their former pro¬ 
 fanity of life, and at 
 length, plainly fall 
 from their former faith 
 and love ; and having 
 left the way of righte¬ 
 ousness, return into the 
 old iniquities of the 
 world which they had 
 really abandoned, and 
 thus totally, and at 
 length finally, fall from 
 divine grace. 
 
160 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 In my view the 'practical difference between the 
 two is not great, even although there is a clear 
 and unequivocal contradiction, e.g., between the 
 West. Conf. Cap. XVII. They . . . sanctified 
 by His Spirit can neither totally nor finally 
 fall away from the state of grace,” and “ the 
 (renati) we believe may totally and at length 
 even finally fall away from divine grace. Al¬ 
 though the difference between the two state¬ 
 ments amounts to a contradiction, the contra¬ 
 diction arises from the use, or addition rather, 
 of two -words not sanctioned by the Scriptures. 
 There is agreement between them both, so 
 far as the interests of vital godliness are con¬ 
 cerned, and the difference emerges when they 
 push their respective theories on curious questions 
 to their logical result. The extent of agreement 
 reaches to the fact that Christians, i.e., those truly 
 converted, may fall even into scandalous sin. 
 The statements of Scripture and the teachings of 
 experience are, we might say, clear and un¬ 
 ambiguous on this subject. No one in his senses 
 would ever think of denying it. Neither is the 
 practical method of dealing with backsliders 
 different, certainly it does not require to be 
 different, on the part of those who hold the 
 Calvinistic and Arminian views. Both will urge 
 upon the backslider the necessity of humble 
 confession of sin to Almighty God, the exercise of 
 
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 
 
 1G1 
 
 true penitence of soul on account of liis heinous 
 offences, and both will also commend him to the 
 mercy and love of God who will cast off none who 
 come unto Him in sincerity and truth. If 
 genuine repentance and humble trust in Christ 
 result from such exhortations or otherwise, both 
 will cheerfully admit that the penitent backslider 
 will be received of God and all his sins be freely 
 forgiven. Both parties are also agreed that, 
 should the backslider survive for a season in this 
 life, after the expression of true contrition of 
 heart, the genuineness of that contrition will be 
 manifested by consistent living, and especially by 
 a victory over the sin or sins by which he fell and 
 brought scandal upon the religion of Christ. 
 Should the relapse into sinful courses not be 
 followed by this repentance of which we have 
 been speaking, but, on the contrary, these courses 
 of iniquity be persevered in, there will again be 
 agreement as to the dire result, viz., the impeni¬ 
 tent backslider will perish everlastingly. Then 
 the difference will emerge, not as to the tiual 
 destiny of the lapsed, but as to his previous state 
 or character. The one will say that his previous 
 conversion, repentance, faith, and obedience were 
 not real but only apparent. They may have 
 been sincere or they may have been hypocritical ; 
 they may have been the result of excitement, of 
 slavish fear, or of some other causes, even of the 
 
 L 
 
162 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 common operations of the spirit, but the result 
 proves that they were not truly regenerated. The 
 other party in the controversy would affirm that 
 their conversion may have been as genuine as 
 that of Cornelius the Centurion or Saul of Tarsus, 
 although he has thus fallen into sin, remained in 
 a state of apostacy and reaped the fruit of his 
 iniquity in the place of punishment. The 
 Calvinist can also plead that character is generally 
 permanent, and that falling from virtues long 
 practised, is exceptional, j r et for all practical pur¬ 
 poses they are agreed ; they differ as to what is 
 beyond the reach of experience in our present im¬ 
 perfect state of existence. So far as their knowledge 
 extends, the contending parties are at one. Calvin¬ 
 ists admit that many whom they and their op¬ 
 ponents alike regarded as true Christians, have 
 fallen into sin, and may now be living without God 
 in the world ; and both would practically resort to 
 the same method of treatment in endeavouring to 
 bring the fallen to repentance. The Calvinist 
 scheme gives no encouragement to any one 
 remaining in a state of sin and impenitence, 
 because in so doing he gives the strongest evi¬ 
 dence that he has not been truly regenerated. It 
 is a very unfair representation of the view gener¬ 
 ally held by the reformed, as distinguished from 
 the Lutheran and Arminian churches, regarding 
 the perseverance of the saints, as involving 
 “ unconditional perseverance.” 
 
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 
 
 163 
 
 So far as I know, none of the chief Calvinistic 
 Confession uphold what is called “ unconditional 
 perseverance.” That means, I suppose, that a 
 genuine believer will be saved, even though he 
 should go on sinning to the last and die im¬ 
 penitent. Such a doctrine as this would be 
 viewed with horror by every Calvinist worthy of 
 the name ; and the latter are quite as strict as 
 Arminians in their views of the conduct and 
 character necessary to be possessed by every one 
 who will enter glory. Why then should difference 
 on a point practically indeterminable, be a bone of 
 separation and contention among Christian men ? 
 There are many such points which may be raised 
 by the ingenuity of men, especially of those who 
 are prone to speculate on matters of mere curiosity 
 which afford room for the play of logical see-saw. 
 How far and how long may a man go in sin and 
 yet remain a true Christian ? How many 
 heretical opinions may a man entertain, and yet 
 possess true faith in Christ ? What imperfections 
 are consistent with a man believing himself to be 
 in a state of salvation ? Such questions cannot 
 really be settled. We might affirm that any one 
 who would consciously act upon the principle that 
 he will go as far in sinful conduct and erroneous 
 belief as he can safely do, without forfeiting his 
 interest in Christ and the reward of glory, can 
 neither be a sincere nor genuine believer. So far 
 
164 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 as we have to do with what man knows, and with 
 what he ought to do, Christians are sufficiently- 
 agreed already ; but as these matters are known 
 unto God in all their nature and relations, we 
 ought to leave them there, with complete resigna¬ 
 tion, assured that the “judge of all the earth will 
 do right.” 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE ATONEMENT 
 
 This is properly regarded as one of the most 
 important doctrines of the New Testament. 
 Bishop Warburton pronounced it to be the very 
 essence of the Christian religion. The sacrifices 
 offered from Abel to Moses, the sacrificial rites of 
 the Mosaic dispensation, and the terms applied in 
 the New Testament to the work and death of 
 Christ, clearly show that great importance is 
 attached to this subject and its related truths. 
 
 With the exception of the Socinians, all the 
 churches of the Reformation epoch and of the 
 generations succeeding, up to the rise and spread 
 of Rationalism on the Continent of Europe towards 
 the close of last century, as well as the Catholic 
 Eatiu, and the orthodox Greek churches have 
 held and taught this doctrine. Absolute unani¬ 
 mity is, of course, not to be expected in all the 
 details or explanations of this truth, either amongst 
 the Protestant bodies themselves, or between them 
 and the Council of Trent; but still it may be 
 
166 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 affirmed that there is a general consensus of 
 opinion among all Christian churches. 
 
 As this dogma occupies a prominent place in 
 the Bible it could not fail to be noticed in the 
 earliest ages of the Church ; but until the whole 
 question had been subjected to a thorough contro¬ 
 versial discussion, it might reasonably be expected 
 that the deliverances of the Christian fathers 
 would not only he fluctuating, or even contra¬ 
 dictory to each other, but frequently inconsistent 
 with the creeds of modern Christendom. Contro¬ 
 versy leads to fresh distinctions being drawn ; new 
 aspects and bearings of the truth being taken into 
 account, and the whole doctrine being rendered 
 more consistent in itself, and its opposition to 
 erroneous views made more manifest. It seems 
 to have been generally held that the ransom for 
 the redemption of man was paid to the Devil—a 
 view which seems particularly strange to us. But 
 the whole question was considered anew by Abp. 
 Anselm in his well-known treatise, “ Cur Deus 
 Homo,” which exercised great influence upon 
 subsequent thought. Again it was brought into 
 prominence in the Socinian controversy. Dr 
 Cunningham used to say that all the modern 
 objections to the orthodox theory of the atone¬ 
 ment are found in Sociuus, De Scrvatore. Crellius 
 on the Socinian side, Grotius and Stillingfleet, 
 appeared on the other. The “ de satisfactione ” 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 167 
 
 of Grotius exercised great influence on Christian 
 thought for a considerable period. In Britain, 
 both the apologetics and the satisfaction theory 
 of Grotius were opposed by Coleridge, and 
 the theological essays of the late F. D. Maurice 
 aroused fresh interest in the subject, and have 
 strongly influenced the churches of Great Britain, 
 both Established and Dissenting. This being so, 
 a few remarks must be made upon the dogmatic 
 aspects of this doctrine, as represented in the 
 creeds. 
 
 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Council of Trente.—Session vi. C. 7. 
 
 Of this Justification the causes are these : the final cause 
 indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life ever¬ 
 lasting ; while the efficient cause is a merciful God, who 
 washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing 
 with the holy spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheri¬ 
 tance ; hut the meritorious cause is His most Beloved, only 
 begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were 
 enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, 
 merited Justification for us by His most Holy Passion on the 
 wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the 
 Father. 
 
 AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 
 
 Art. III. They teach that the Word, that is, the Son of 
 God, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile 
 the Father unto us, and might be a sacrifice, not only for 
 original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men. 
 
 Art. IV. Also they teach that men can not be justified before 
 God by their own powers, merits, or works ; but are justified 
 freely for Christ’s sake through faith, when they believe that 
 
168 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 they are received into favour, and their sins forgiven for 
 Christ’s sake, who, by His death hath satisfied for our sins. 
 
 Westminster Conf. c. viii. s. 5.—The Lord Jesus by His 
 perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He, through 
 the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully 
 satisfied the justice of His Father, and purchased not only 
 reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the Kingdom 
 of Heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto 
 Him. 
 
 According to the above all are agreed that 
 Christ died for our sins, and that in His death, 
 He made satisfaction to the justice of God. 
 Most of the above are Scriptural expressions, and 
 are implied in the epithets descriptive of Christ 
 and His work, such as, “ Saviour,” “ Mediator,” 
 “ Redeemer.” “ The Lamb of God that taketh 
 away the sin of the world,” and so on. Satisfac¬ 
 tion is the word used in most of the confessions, 
 and in the writings of divines in defence of 
 the doctrine, e.g., Grotius, “ de satisfactione,” and 
 Turretine, “ de satisfactione .” In the Augs¬ 
 burg Confession, God is said to be “ reconciled 
 to men through Christ.” In the Westminster 
 it is not said that He reconciled God to man, 
 but “ purchased reconciliation for all those whom 
 the Father had given unto Him.” The former 
 expression is not to be defended, but ought rather 
 to be condemned. 
 
 The whole work of human salvation is to be 
 ascribed solely to the love of God. The Scrip¬ 
 tural declaration is: “ God so loved the world, 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 169 
 
 that He gave His only-begotten Son,” 1 and this 
 should rule all our notions and determine the 
 language employed in setting forth the work of 
 redemption. It is a gross perversion of Scripture 
 to affirm that it represents God Almighty as 
 unwilling to forgive the sinner and bestow upon 
 him the gift of eternal life, until he was made 
 willing by the sufferings of Christ, the innocent 
 and just one, and that He took delight in inflict¬ 
 ing pain and misery upon His creatures who 
 transgressed His holy law. Not only is this 
 representation of the doctrine of the atonement 
 flagrantly unjust to the teaching of Scripture, 
 but it is also unfair to the orthodox doctrine on 
 this vitally important matter. One of the most 
 recent misrepresentations on this subject which 
 I have met, is contained in Dr Momerie’s tract 
 on “ The Corruptions of the Church.” He there 
 traces the origin of the common doctrine to the 
 primitive savage, somewhat in the following 
 fashion. The savage had familiar experience of 
 pain or trouble caused by floods, drought, mildew, 
 wounds in war, and so on. “ The only certainty 
 in his life was trouble.” When he could not 
 trace this trouble to his fellow-men, he ascribed 
 it to the gods. The question with him then 
 was how could the gods be made amiable? 
 “ Presents would most likely render the gods 
 
 1 John iii. 
 
170 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 innocuous, perhaps beneficent.” Thus arose the 
 idea of sacrifice. The priest then intervened, 
 and suggested blood as the most fitting ; and 
 to “ the primitive savage, this would seem a 
 perfectly natural device.” “ He could readily 
 believe therefore, that if he offered a little of 
 In’s own blood, or, what was more convenient, 
 a good deal of somebody else’s, the gods would 
 be propitiated.” 
 
 The doctrine of the atonement, according to 
 this writer, is a survival from this early savage 
 doctrine. Whether this is a correct account of 
 the origin of sacrifice, we need not stay to 
 inquire ; but if one were so inclined, he might, 
 with as much success and with as much fairness, 
 ascribe religion itself to the same source. The 
 idea of a future state might thus owe its origin 
 to the dreams of the savage ; the belief in God 
 as creator to the savage’s ideas as to how nature 
 came into existence ; and the act of prayer to 
 primitive supplications to the powers above. 
 It is perfectly legitimate to appeal to the worship 
 of the savage as a testimony to the fact that 
 human nature requires a religion, and that the 
 rites of prayer and sacrifice, even as observed 
 by those in primitive times, are a striking testi¬ 
 mony to the necessity of these acts to the soul, 
 burdened with a sense of guilt and sorrow. It 
 is to be expected that the views of the savage 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 171 
 
 on supernatural powers, on the nature of prayer, 
 and the rites of sacrifice, should bear traces of 
 their origin, both in their crude, inconsistent, 
 and absurd character, as well as in their cruel 
 tendency. 
 
 That anger is attributed to the Deity in the 
 Bible is undeniable. “ He is angry with the 
 wicked every day; ” but it is acknowledged 
 that anger as manifested by Him, is essentially 
 different from every human feeling bearing that 
 name, in which there is the faintest trace of 
 a vindictive or malevolent character. Divines 
 affirm that in God there is vindicatory, but not 
 vindictive, justice. Whatever may be the founda¬ 
 tion of the orthodox doctrine of atonement in 
 reason or Scripture, it should not be represented 
 as if it attributed to the Deity the imperfections 
 of human passion. In the nature of things it 
 cannot be supposed that the perfectly Holy One 
 can look upon good and evil, obedience, and 
 disobedience, with the same feeling ; there must 
 be disapprobation in the one case, and approval 
 in the other. Dr Momerie himself says:— 
 Punishment no doubt, is a necessity in a rational 
 universe, as a means of education, and discipline, 
 and progress. Now punishment is pain, in some 
 form or other; and with Dr Momerie’s strong 
 statement as to pain, it is hard to see how it can 
 be reconciled with the idea of education, or dis- 
 
172 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 cipline, or progress. It is beyond the scope of 
 this work to enter minutely into the nature of 
 punishment and the grounds of its being inflicted 
 upon rational creatures ; but, at all events, the 
 question is not to be so easily settled as this 
 writer would have us believe. 
 
 That the reformation of the individual sub¬ 
 jected to suffering is its only ground, is far from 
 being a truth in morals or sanctioned by Scrip¬ 
 ture. The government which the divine being 
 exercises over his rational creatures in this life 
 does not countenance this idea, or rather, does 
 not lead us to the conclusion that the good of 
 the individual punished, is its only reason. We 
 can see that it regards the welfare of others, as 
 well as the individual—the interests of righteous¬ 
 ness in the whole universe,—but what these 
 interests are, it is beyond the power, either of 
 the orthodox or heterodox to define. “ Accord¬ 
 ing to that (the orthodox) doctrine, blood was 
 necessary, not to make men better, but to make 
 the Deity less fierce.” Again, one may think, 
 that the consequences which legitimately follow 
 from the orthodox view are as above stated, but 
 he has no right to make it a part of the doctrine 
 that blood was necessary to make the Deity less 
 fierce, and not necessary to make men better. 
 Such a representation of the doctrine, as either 
 the negative or positive part of his statement, 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 173 
 
 is not found in any of the creeds, Catholic or 
 Protestant. The desire of making a pointed and 
 telling representation may have unconsciously 
 influenced him in making it. 
 
 All unite in affirming that Christ was called 
 Jesus, because He was to save His people from 
 their sins, and that the “ blood of Christ cleanseth 
 from all sin.” In the opinion of all, Christ came 
 to save men from this evil, as well as from the 
 punishment which sin deserves; but it may 
 sometimes be alleged, that in the representations 
 of the doctrine given by individual divines, or 
 in popular discourses, the deliverance from punish¬ 
 ment is more prominent than salvation from 
 moral evil. When this is the case, injury— 
 serious injury is done to the proportion of truth 
 and to the ultimate end of our Saviour’s advent, 
 while also some colour is given for such carica¬ 
 tures of the doctrine as we have been considering. 
 
 On this subject the same tendency manifests 
 itself which we have often mentioned in treating 
 of other doctrines, viz., that of striving to be wise 
 above what is written, and endeavouring to solve 
 problems which arise from speculative curiosity. 
 The truth of atonement must be expressed under 
 certain categories, such as its necessity, nature, 
 and extent. Was the death of Christ necessary 
 for the salvation of man, or to put the matter in 
 a somewhat different style, could Cod, consist- 
 
174 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 ently with His attributes of holiness and justice 
 forgive the sins of men and confer upon them 
 eternal life without an atonement ? It seems to 
 me that a correct answer to this question cannot 
 be given, except in the way of a practical solution. 
 God has seen fit to grant us this forgiveness 
 through Christ who suffered for the salvation of 
 mankind, and we may be certain that, like all 
 His modes of operation, this is the best mode of 
 securing forgiveness. What omnipotence can 
 accomplish and omniscience suggest, is beyond our 
 power to express. Analogies drawn from the 
 relation of father and son, of ruler and subjects, 
 may afford some help in realizing God’s way of 
 dealing with the sinful, hut it is not to be 
 imagined for one moment that they can enable us 
 fully to grasp this mysterious subject in all its 
 relations. To a certain extent it is still a mystery 
 (in the modern sense of the term), mysterious in 
 the depth of divine love which planned it, and in 
 the love of our Redeemer who carried it into 
 effect. 
 
 As to the nature of this atonement, whatever 
 may be affirmed as to its absolute necessity, there 
 seems to be some ground for diversity of opinion 
 and of statement, so far as it is represented in 
 Scripture, although it seems to me that creeds 
 of the Church embrace most fully the truth set 
 forth in Revelation. The names most frequently 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 175 
 
 applied to Christ—such as “ Saviour,” “ Re¬ 
 deemer,” “ Captain of our salvation made perfect 
 through suffering,” and others, indicate unmis¬ 
 takably that the work which He came to accom¬ 
 plish, and actually did accomplish, was, at least, 
 in behalf of—for the sake of man. He suffered 
 the just for the unjust. “ He bore our sins in 
 His own body on the tree.” " He died for our 
 sins and rose again for our justification.” The 
 connection, therefore, of Christ’s work both with 
 sin and salvation is of the very closest kind. The 
 fact of our Lord’s self-sacrifice for sin is brought 
 before us again and again, in a great variety of 
 ways, but as to the ground or reason why His life 
 and death have become efficacious for forgiveness 
 and freedom from the power of sin, the matter is 
 not so clear. This is just what we might have 
 expected from the general analogy of divine truth. 
 It gives us a practical solution of the gravest 
 problems, but not a theoretical one, to satisfy 
 rational curiosity. Forgiveness is offered, grace 
 to help us in the time of our need is promised, 
 and the power of the promises is realised in 
 experience, when the glorious gospel of the grace 
 of God is heartily accepted. 
 
 But the truth which verifies itself in the experi¬ 
 ence of those pressing ipto the kingdom of heaven, 
 gives rise to several questions not easy of solution. 
 How can the sufferings and death of one man 
 
176 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 avail for the forgiveness of another ? What is it 
 that gives its value to the blood of Christ ? How 
 can His death prove the life of humanity ? Such 
 questions naturally arise in the mind of most 
 men, and the orthodox theory is designed to be 
 an answer. The explanation which it gives of 
 Christ’s sufferings is, that they were endured as 
 the substitute of sinners, and that the guilty 
 human race are saved both from the power and 
 punishment of sin by the suffering of the innocent 
 Christ. The idea of substitution is thus an 
 important element in this doctrine, as it is to 
 some extent in the doctrine of original sin. In 
 the latter, those innocent of Adam’s first trans¬ 
 gression suffer for it, in the former, those who had 
 no share in the work, sufferings, and death of the 
 innocent, reap the benefits that result from them. 
 
 With regard to the question of substitution or 
 that of vicarious atonement, it must be evident 
 that there cannot be substitution in every respect. 
 Christ did not endure the sa.me sufferings which 
 men who receive the fruits of sin suffer. He did 
 not go to the place of woe for ever. If every sin 
 deserves God’s wrath and curse for ever, what 
 must all the sins of all men have deserved. The 
 amount of the suffering and the period during 
 which it had to be endured, could not, therefore, 
 be vicarious. Accordingly, in expounding the 
 nature of the atonement, most of the orthodox 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 177 
 
 maintain that the sufferings or satisfaction of 
 Christ were a full equivalent for those of sinners; 
 so that while they are different in kind they are 
 the same in value, as those of sinners would 
 have been. It is no fatal objection to this that it 
 partakes of a commercial character, and is exposed 
 to the charge of anthropomorphism. That charge 
 is often laid even at the door of theism, which is 
 accused of representing the Deity as an architect. 
 It may be the case that the advocates of theism 
 have sometimes given too just cause for repre¬ 
 senting it in such a way that the charge of 
 anthropomorphism might be established, but that 
 is no reason why either the principles of theism 
 or the dogma of the atonement when properly 
 stated, are exposed to this objection. 
 
 Although the argument against the Church 
 doctrine may not be conclusive on this ground, 
 still it is worthy of consideration, whether or not 
 it goes beyond what Scripture necessarily demands. 
 The doctrine as formulated in confessions and by 
 divines draws a sharp distinction between the 
 death of Christ in its relation to the punishment 
 of sin and the removal of sin. When Christ is 
 said to have died for our sins, it may mean either 
 that He died as a punishment for them or for 
 taking them away from the hearts and lives of 
 men ; but such a sharp distinction is by no means 
 observed in the Bible. Creeds and catechisms 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 are often precise enough as to what sin deserves, 
 and as to what Christ suffered, but not so the 
 sacred Scriptures. The former would represent 
 the sufferings of Christ as being endured, that 
 men should not suffer the due reward of their 
 iniquity, e.g., everlasting punishment. The design 
 of the Redeemer was to save them from eternal 
 death ; just as Adam by his fall brought men into 
 a state of condemnation, so Christ by His death 
 brought them into a condition of justification. 
 Why should the blood, or sufferings, or death of 
 Christ, have such value ? Several ideas are intro¬ 
 duced for the clearing up of this matter. Jesus 
 became man because it was necessary for forgive¬ 
 ness that the same nature should suffer which had 
 sinned. The victim offered to God in the way of 
 sacrifice always required to be without blemish, if 
 it would prove acceptable to God : accordingly, 
 it was absolutely necessary that Christ who was 
 offered to bear the sin of many, should be perfectly 
 free from every taint of transgression. The sin¬ 
 lessness of the mediator is an essential requisite 
 for effectually performing the work which He had 
 undertaken. Whilst Christ thus became a man 
 and not an angel, a sinless and not a sinful man, 
 He yet could not render a sacrifice to the injured 
 justice of God of sufficient value to atone for the 
 sins of men. The sacrifice of one innocent man 
 could not procure forgiveness for a whole world. 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 179 
 
 Accordingly, Christ the mediator must be divine 
 as well as human—partake of the nature of man 
 as well as of God. The incarnation of the eternal 
 word and the Godhead of the mediator, are 
 absolutely necessary to give sufficient value and 
 efficacy to the sacrifice offered on Calvary. The 
 dignity of the sufferer gives infinite value to his 
 sufferings. Thus the ground of all these doctrines 
 is to be sought in the character of redemption ; 
 the incarnation, the sinless humanity, and the 
 divine nature of Christ, are all necessarily implied 
 in the orthodox doctrine of the atonement. . 
 
 This may be the best mode of showing the 
 organic connection between these doctrines of the 
 Christian faith, but it does not appear to be clearly 
 sanctioned by Scripture. The vicarious nature of 
 His sufferings is not specially dwelt upon ; they 
 were unmistakably endured “ in behalf of,” or 
 “ for the sake of,” or “on account of” men, but 
 no particular emphasis is laid upon the fact of 
 substitution, as distinguished from their being for 
 the benefit of mankind. There are some advan¬ 
 tages in including both ideas with respect to the 
 death of Christ, which the doctrine of the Church 
 certainly does, as it fully recognises the truth that 
 Christ died in behalf of men, and that He had 
 in view throughout the whole of His life on earth 
 their emancipation from the power of evil. The 
 danger of taking cither view by itself, which those 
 
180 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 do, who advocate the moral influence theory, is that 
 the theory fails to account for all the facts of our 
 Lord’s life and death, and for what Scripture 
 asserts respecting them. This view would repre¬ 
 sent it as the only ground for the self-sacrifice of 
 Christ, that it was to lay the foundation for self- 
 denial and self-sacrifice on the part of the sinner, 
 and thus prove an incentive to the cultivation of 
 spirituality. The reformation of the creature and 
 his restoration to the likeness of God, is the chief 
 aspect in which the atonement is thus regarded. 
 If men can be delivered from the power of sin, 
 then the great end of his mediatorial work has 
 been attained. The laws of the universe, the prin¬ 
 ciples of eternal rectitude have been fully con¬ 
 served when those who have been doing evil have 
 been led to abandon their sinful courses and devote 
 themselves heartily to the service of God. The 
 gospel would thus be a declaration to men of 
 God’s infinite love in the gift of His only begotten 
 Son for their salvation, as well as of Christ’s 
 absolute surrender of Himself to this same work, 
 in voluntarily undertaking to suffer all which He 
 did suffer, and to perform all the work which He 
 did perform for them. Unquestionably, this would 
 be an end worthy of the love of God and of the 
 ministration of Christ. No end conceivable can 
 exceed this, either in grandeur or benevolence. 
 To deliver from sin is more glorious, shall we say, 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 181 
 
 than deliverance from suffering. I have no 
 sympathy, therefore, with those who maintain that 
 a denial of the penal character of our Saviour’s 
 suffering, and of the vicarious character of His 
 death, would render that work unnecessary, or less 
 worthy of our most tender regard. Rather should 
 we say that this is the ultimate end of the Father’s 
 love and the Son’s life and death. To diminish 
 the amount of sin in the universe is surely a work 
 worthy of the divine operations, even more worthy 
 than lessening the amount of misery in the world. 
 
 On the other hand, we have no just warrant for 
 affirming that this—the moral reformation of 
 mankind—was the sole end of Christ’s glorious 
 work. There are other aspects which both reason 
 and experience teach us to take into account. 
 Has the man who has led a life of rebellion 
 against the authority of God, recklessly squandering 
 precious time, abusing noble powers, and not only 
 neglecting precious opportunities of doing good 
 to his fellow-creatures, but inflicting upon them 
 incalculable injury, nothing to do with his past 
 sins, but only to lead a better life in future ? 
 
 Then it will be answered, that he must repent 
 of his sin. Repentance is a necessary condition 
 both of forgiveness and salvation. This is too 
 frequently inculcated in Scripture to be denied by 
 any Christian, and is admitted to be necessary by 
 many who would not call themselves Christians. 
 
182 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 Everyone admits that penitence on the part of 
 the wrong-doer is an indispensable condition of 
 forgiveness. Is there nothing else due to the 
 vindication of justice in the universe ? This is a 
 question that cannot be set aside. There is some¬ 
 thing else required in the dealings of men with 
 each other and of the state with individuals. 
 Our courts of law require some kind of satisfac¬ 
 tion. Everybody maintains, as Dr Momerie does, 
 that punishment is necessary, i.e., some satisfaction 
 is required in the interests of justice, and not only 
 in those of the individual. This is demanded in 
 all states, even those in the very van of human 
 progress. There may be, there are, differences in 
 the degree or mode of satisfaction demanded. 
 Some modes of punishment are dictated by humane 
 principles, others are characterised by barbarous 
 cruelty. But humane and barbarous alike demand 
 some satisfaction. It is a fallacious mode of 
 reasoning to appeal to the barbarous cruelties 
 that have been perpetrated upon men, guilty, it 
 may be, of minor offences, in order to discredit 
 altogether the idea of satisfaction to justice. Im¬ 
 perfection in the mode, excess in the degree of 
 punishment, is uo argument against the thing 
 itself. Accordingly, the practice of all nations in 
 imposing fines, imprisonments, chastisements, and 
 death itself, is to be taken into account, in con¬ 
 sidering the deserts of sin. 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 183 
 
 It is objected that all courts of justice, all laws, 
 all modes of punishment, are imperfect. That is 
 true, though no valid objection to the necessity of 
 satisfaction, but only to its kind or degree. In 
 demanding punishment of some sort at the hands 
 of perpetrators of wrong, law-givers are acting 
 according to the universal instincts of human 
 nature. It is a question to which an off-hand 
 answer is not to be given. Does crime deserve 
 punishment only for the good of the individual 
 and of society, as a deterrent from the commission 
 of wrongs in time to come, or is there something 
 in the nature of things which requires that it 
 should be followed by suffering, without reference 
 to the future conduct of the guilty and of those 
 who may be incited to evil by his example ? 
 That these are necessary elements in the infliction 
 of suffering upon evil-doers is indubitable, but 
 that they are the sole ends to be kept in view, is 
 far from being evident. Even granting, however, 
 all these demands, and excluding the idea of 
 satisfaction to justice as in itself necessary, the 
 vicarious character of the atonement is not thereby 
 rejected. Those who hold what is called the 
 “ Governmental theory of the atonement,” admit 
 that satisfaction is rendered to divine justice by 
 the death of Christ, in behalf of those believing 
 on Him. On this view the sufferings of Christ 
 were endured as a solemn warning on the part of 
 
184 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 God regarding the heinous nature of sin, and the 
 dreadful results that must follow indulgence there¬ 
 in. Without dwelling further on the subject so 
 far as it bears upon the truths of reason and 
 experience, it is essential ever to bear in mind, 
 that the work of Christ was voluntarily under¬ 
 taken. He so enjoyed the prospect of men being 
 snatched from the grasp of evil, that He willingly 
 laid down His life in their behalf. The voluntary 
 character of His undertaking removes the charge 
 of injustice brought against the substitution of 
 the innocent for the guilty. 
 
 It is often objected, however, that the principle 
 which demands satisfaction on account of sin, 
 necessarily involves the punishment of the guilty 
 party, and does not admit of any transference 
 of guilt or substitution of suffering. No nation or 
 court on earth would accept the offer of a father 
 to die for his son convicted of murder, or of one 
 friend to pay whatever penalty another has to 
 endure. That is true ; but there are differences 
 between the two cases. The state does not re¬ 
 gard sin as sin, but only as crime. One man in 
 forgiving another does not forgive the sin, but 
 only the injury done to himself. Sometimes he 
 will forgive the son of a dear friend, not for the 
 son’s sake but for the father’s sake. There is not 
 complete identity, shall we say, between the 
 position of the Eternal Father in dealing with the 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 185 
 
 sinner, of the state in dealing with the criminal, 
 and of a friend dealing with an offence committed 
 against himself. The offence may be both an 
 injury to him and a crime against the state, as 
 well as a violation of the law of God. The 
 relation in which the guilty one stands to friend, 
 state, and God, is different. Some offences the 
 individual can settle, independently of the state, 
 some pass into courts of law in spite of him; 
 but everything wrong, in thought, word, and 
 deed, comes before the divine tribunal. So far as 
 public justice is administered in a court of law, no 
 substitution is or ought to be accepted after the 
 sentence of condemnation has been passed, nor 
 would it stay proceedings were it offered before. 
 
 The chief reason for this refusal is danger to the 
 community, probably of a twofold character—the 
 loss of a good subject or injury done to him, and 
 the danger to society of allowing a wicked man 
 at large and affording him fresh opportunity of 
 following his former evil ways. In the atonement 
 of our Lord, provision is made against both of 
 these abuses. Christ is not destroyed by His 
 sufferings. “ I have power to lay down my life, 
 and I have power to take it up again.” He still 
 goes forth conquering and to conquer, as He is 
 possessed of all power in heaven and on earth. 
 Then, as regards the conduct of those for whom 
 He suffers, they are to be freed from the dominion 
 
186 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 of sin. This was the main end of His coming into 
 the world, of His labours and toils, suffering and 
 death. None participate in the exemption from 
 punishment who are not also delivered from the 
 power of sin. There is full and glorious provision 
 made, not only or chiefly to deliver Adam’s race 
 from the effects of sin, but, equally so, from sin 
 itself. These two considerations place this trans¬ 
 action on a footing entirely different from the 
 dealings of men with each other as individuals, or 
 with the state as the guardian of justice. 
 
 The opponents of the orthodox view ought at 
 least, when they profess to give a representation 
 of it, to state it correctly, and not to give a part 
 as if it were the whole. A very important part 
 is that the work of our Lord is not merely to 
 satisfy divine justice by suffering in behalf of 
 the guilty, but also to promote the moral and 
 spiritual reformation of mankind. The forgive¬ 
 ness of sin is to be procured for Christ’s sake and 
 it is through Him that victory over evil is attained. 
 It is this double provision that renders this view 
 of truth so precious to those who are longing for 
 deliverance from an accusing conscience, and who 
 are anxious to reach that purity of heart which 
 both conscience and Scripture demand. 
 
 There is no doubt a certain mystery attach¬ 
 ing to some aspects of this doctrine, but the 
 mystery arises from the greatness of the subject, 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 187 
 
 from the fact that it regards not merely the good 
 of the individual, but the preservation of harmony 
 in the universe. The human mind may well 
 ponder the question:—Can God forgive sin ? 
 Can the great ends of all existence be conserved 
 when it is forgiven ? Those who are most deeply 
 concerned about evil, are hardest to be persuaded 
 that it may be forgiven ; and I believe one will 
 scarcely ever find a person truly anxious to obtain 
 its forgiveness who is not, at the same time, 
 equally anxious to be delivered from its power. 
 Whilst it may be admitted that salvation is some¬ 
 times represented as if it were mere deliverance 
 from punishment in the future life, and that de¬ 
 liverance from suffering bulks too largely in appeals 
 made to sinful men, still this is accidental and 
 unintentional. It frequently arises from the fact 
 that salvation is used in religious language to de¬ 
 note both exemption from punishment and freedom 
 from the power of evil; so that when apparently the 
 former only is meant, the latter is really included. 
 
 As regards the extent of the atonement, there 
 is greater diversity of sentiment among what 
 are called evangelical denominations, than with 
 respect to its nature. In Reformation times, 
 and two or three generations after, all, with the 
 exception of the Socinians, held its vicarious or 
 propitiatory character. The Remonstrants of 
 Holland fully admitted this part of the doctrine, 
 
188 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 in common with other sections of the Reformed 
 Churches. But some who agree with the con¬ 
 sensus of the Reformed Churches, even on the 
 subject of predestination, maintain what is styled 
 the universality of the atonement of Christ. 
 
 This universality is, to all ajipearance, asserted 
 in Scripture, almost with as much distinctness 
 and frequency as the fact of its being rendered 
 to God in behalf of men. “ He is the propitia¬ 
 tion for our sins, and not for ours only, but for 
 the sins of the whole world.” 1 “ Who delivered 
 
 Him up for us all .” 2 “ He should taste death 
 
 for every man.” 3 Then as to the origin or 
 fountain whence issues human salvation, we have 
 got the favourite text of John iii. 16, “God so 
 loved the world that He gave His only begotten 
 Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not 
 perish, but have everlasting life.” So far, there¬ 
 fore, as the letter of Scripture is concerned, it 
 seems to assert unambiguously that the death 
 of Christ was designed to benefit all men. This 
 is so evident that all classes of interpreters and 
 dogmatists admit the fact. Even many Calvinistic 
 divines, such as Davenant and the Saumur school, 
 contend for this universality, in the ordinary 
 sense of the term ; but the rigid Calvinist who 
 adheres to the doctrine as set forth in the sym¬ 
 bolical hooks of the early Reformed Churches, 
 
 1 1 John ii. 2. 2 Rom. viii. 32. 3 Hebrews ii. 8. 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 189 
 
 restricts the death of Christ to the elect, so that 
 according to him, the expression, “ all men,” does 
 not signify every individual of the human race, 
 but all in the sense of all kinds or nations of 
 men. This interpretation is designed to render 
 passages of Scripture having a universal aspect 
 consistent with particular election. It is the 
 love of system, which very often means, the love 
 of consistency, that has led to the adoption of 
 this mode of explaining, or rather, of explaining 
 away, the universal reference of the death of Christ. 
 Doubtless, consistency has to be maintained if 
 we are to have a thorough system of theology 
 set forth as the teaching of Holy Writ. The 
 systematic theologian must show the consistency 
 or harmony subsisting between the doctrines he 
 sets forth, both with the truths of reason and 
 conscience, and with other truths taught in the 
 Bible. Scripture truths must be consistent with 
 each other, and with the conclusions of the human 
 understanding legitimately arrived at. The advo¬ 
 cates of opposing or even contradictory views 
 frequently agree in this admission. Accordingly, 
 an apparently universal statement may be taken 
 in a particular sense, and one that seems to be 
 of a restricted character may require to be taken 
 as of universal application. It becomes, there¬ 
 fore, an important question, which of the views 
 is to yield to the other ? Have both statements 
 
190 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 not to be taken into account before our opinion 
 is advanced on either side ? Should a doctrine 
 of election be formed into shape without first 
 having arrived at some understanding as to the 
 universal expressions respecting the death of 
 Christ? And on the other hand, should men 
 proceed to draw up and express in ordinary 
 language, statements restricting the universal 
 aspect of the atonement, without having previ¬ 
 ously come to terms with the doctrine of election ? 
 It is possible that a comparison of the evidence 
 adduced from Scripture may modify our views 
 both on election and redemption. 
 
 As regards the arguments of those who contend 
 for the broader view, one is that the gospel is to 
 be offered to all. “ Preach the gospel to every 
 creature.” How can salvation be proclaimed to 
 those for whom it was never intended ? This, 
 certainly, has great weight. "We should expect 
 absolute sincerity on the part of God Himself and 
 His ministers, in making to all men an offer of 
 salvation. If Christ did not die for all men and 
 procure for them the forgiveness of all their sins, 
 why should they be mocked by an offer of that 
 salvation which was never intended for them ? 
 While this argument in behalf of the universality 
 of the atonement is possessed of great force, yet it 
 is not absolutely conclusive. The principle, if 
 applied to other facts or doctrines, would appear 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 191 
 
 inconclusive, but a principle to be of any use in 
 theology, must be of universal application. Apply 
 it to the divine fore-knowledge, and it will lead 
 to consequences which the opposing theorists on 
 this question would repudiate. The omniscient 
 God knows everything that comes, or will come, 
 to pass in the whole universe, especially all the 
 actions of His rational creatures; consequently, all 
 those who will receive and all who will reject the 
 salvation offered in the gospel. Yet He has 
 commanded the gospel to be offered to multitudes 
 who, He knows, will reject it. This difficulty, 
 although perhaps not equal in force to that 
 inherent in a limited atonement, adheres to the 
 universal aspect of this doctrine. To this objection 
 must be added another; if G'hrist died for all, and 
 if many perish for whom He died, then His death 
 must haA r e been in vain so far as the latter is 
 concerned. Would the all-wise God, who knows 
 the end from the beginning, have entered into a 
 plan for the redemption of the human race, which 
 would prove in a multitude of cases, a complete 
 failure ? There is much weight in this argument, 
 but like that adduced on the opposite side, it is 
 not conclusive, and just for the same reason, viz., it 
 is not susceptible of universal application. Would 
 God never command anything if He knew it were 
 to be disobeyed ? Would He ever commission a 
 prophet to proclaim His will to the people, if He 
 
192 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 knew that the people, or a part of the people, 
 would not obey ? Would He inspire the writers 
 of Revelation, if He knew that many would 
 remain unbelieving still ? 
 
 Thus, even on the central truth of the New 
 Testament, indeed of all Revelation, we encounter 
 difficulties—difficulties involving moral and intel¬ 
 lectual elements—which for the most part arise 
 from the limitation of human knowledge, and from 
 the attempt to render limited knowledge adequate 
 to the solution of divine things, or to solve 
 problems which originate in the speculative under¬ 
 standing. It is the path of wisdom to accept 
 these difficulties at the beginning, and not have 
 recourse to theories which in the end only half 
 solve the problem, and give rise to as many fresh 
 difficulties as those which it was intended to avert. 
 Of certain facts in human experience there is no 
 manner of doubt; such as the universal prevalence 
 of sin, its clinging to all phases of human nature 
 under every variety of civilisation or environment; 
 the numerous and persistent efforts of philosophers, 
 statesmen, educational and philanthropic reformers, 
 to eradicate it, or diminish its virulence, which 
 have all to a greater or less degree proved failures ; 
 and these, taken along with the Scripture declara¬ 
 tion, “ The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from 
 all sin,” and the marvellous success of the gospel 
 in changing the lives of men, are a striking testi- 
 
THE ATONEMENT 
 
 19*3 
 
 mony to its moral and spiritual power. But why 
 some heartily welcome the glad tidings of salvation, 
 and others reject the same with hatred, scorn, or 
 indifference, belongs to the same class of questions 
 as: Why does not the almighty and infinitely 
 good and wise Father of the human race, by an 
 act of omnipotence, regenerate the hearts and 
 change the lives of all His rebellious children ? 
 As Professor Caird says, “ we don’t know anything 
 perfectly.” We don’t know adequately the 
 infinite, neither does our imperfect and limited 
 knowledge enable us to understand the ways, 
 thoughts, or plans of the infinite God. In other 
 words, we don’t see the reasons or grounds of the 
 divine procedure in redemption, so as to satis¬ 
 factorily answer all the questions which human 
 speculation suggests. We do not affirm that such 
 questions should not form the subject of inquiry, 
 and that meditation upon them may not be 
 attended with spiritual good when prosecuted in a 
 devout spirit; but what we have to guard against 
 is, the imposition, upon the whole Church, of the 
 decrees of couucils—whetheruniversal or particular, 
 which have been framed so as to render more 
 explicit matters which are only taught in Scripture 
 in general terms or as common truths. 
 
 N 
 
Ouk little systems have their day ; 
 
 They have their day and cease to be ; 
 They are but broken lights of Thee, 
 And Thou, 0 Lord, art more than they. 
 
 We have but faith : we cannot know ; 
 For knowledge is of things we see ; 
 And yet we trust it comes from Thee, 
 A beam in darkness : let it grow.” 
 
 Tennyson. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 Creeds 
 
 I. Creeds as Tests .—The subject of creeds opens 
 up many interesting and difficult questions. To 
 trace the origin and development of the ecclesi¬ 
 astical creeds now accepted in Christendom, to 
 investigate the function which they are calculated 
 to perform in the work of the Church, and to 
 discuss the articles which Confessions of Faith 
 ought to contain, are always important, and not 
 less so now than at any period in the history of 
 the world. 
 
 Some deny the lawfulness of what they call 
 “ human creeds,” so far as they are imposed by 
 church authority, whilst some of these might not 
 object to state their own creed, or ask a minister 
 to state his, before being ordained over a con¬ 
 gregation. Others admit the lawfulness of such 
 standards, but might object to most or all of those 
 now in use, on the ground that they inculcated 
 error, or that the truth embodied in them is 
 expressed in technical language and in too minute 
 definitions. Evidently, all that the individual or 
 the body of Christians believes, is not expressed in 
 
19G 
 
 DOGMA IN KELIGIOX 
 
 the public confession of faith, and very few have 
 been so intolerant as to insist that every truth 
 believed should form part of the authorized con¬ 
 fession. If not the whole, then a selection must 
 be made, and what principle or pi’inciples must 
 rule in this selection ? There has also to be con¬ 
 sidered the use to which creeds are to be applied, 
 whether they are to be regarded as testimonies 
 in behalf of truth which has been opposed or 
 against errors which have been promulgated, or 
 whether also they may be applied as tests, either 
 of membership or of holding office in a Christian 
 Church. Reference must be made to most of 
 these topics but they cannot all be discussed with 
 the necessary fulness. 
 
 The creeds of Christendom may be regarded as 
 bonds of union among the members aud office¬ 
 bearers of each particular church. That such a 
 bond may be formed, no one can doubt. Every 
 body, from an agricultural society to an associa¬ 
 tion for the advancement of science, must have a 
 constitution of some sort, in which its objects are 
 set forth and the regulations according to which 
 its operations are directed. Certain ends are 
 held out as the reason for the society’s existence, 
 and these ends are to be sought only in the way 
 sanctioned by the regulations. An inherent right 
 exists in every association to manage its own 
 affairs according to its best judgmeut. There is 
 
CREEDS 
 
 107 
 
 one limit beyond which no body of men in a 
 state can go, i.e., the law of the land must be 
 obeyed, so that no society can be formed for 
 attaining an illegal object, or even a legal object 
 by the use of illegal means. Every church has, 
 at least, the same right to frame her constitu¬ 
 tion as any other society, and to carry on her 
 work within the same limit. Her province is 
 that of faith and conscience, and should the state 
 encroach upon that, it steps beyond its own 
 sphere, and is guilty of intolerance and persecu¬ 
 tion, as much as the Government of the empire 
 would be, were it to prohibit the British Associa¬ 
 tion from holding the doctrine of evolution or 
 from discussing it at its annual meeting. The 
 common-sense—the prevailing sentiment of the 
 British people—would lead them to view such a 
 course of procedure as a gross interference with 
 that liberty which has been bought at a very 
 costly sacrifice. So far as the body politic is 
 concerned, therefore, the Church (on the very 
 lowest view of her claims as a society) is entitled 
 to adopt such a bond of union among her members 
 as she sees fit, and to carry out her work in the 
 way that to her seems best adapted to effect the 
 regeneration of humanity. The Church, however, 
 is bound by a higher law than that of the country 
 in which she fulfils her sacred mission, even the 
 word of God, and by allegiance to an authority 
 
198 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 higher than all the powers that be, that of her 
 divine head. So far as all external authority is 
 concerned—magisterial, parliamentary, or impe¬ 
 rial,—she is free and independent, but as regards 
 Holy Scripture and her divine head, her position 
 is that of absolute dependence and perfect obe¬ 
 dience. Her own authority is not lordly but 
 ministerial. So the problem which has to be 
 solved in the relation of the Church to its 
 members is, how best to secure the legitimate 
 authority of her rulers and the due liberty of her 
 members. We may disguise the matter as we 
 may, but this problem in the Church, although 
 not identical, is at least kindred, with that of 
 the state. If there is such a thing as church 
 authority, there is also such a thing as Christian 
 liberty. Both are held in subjection to our Lord 
 and Master, and this is the only guarantee that 
 authority shall not degenerate into tyranny, and 
 liberty into licence. The rulers of the Church— 
 Councils, Assembly, Synods—are not by an arbi¬ 
 trary exercise of power, to draw the bonds as 
 tightly as possible, nor are the members to reject 
 that authority by a pure exercise of self-will. 
 
 Such principles have been usually recognised 
 in general terms, but very frequently violated in 
 practice. The early creeds, such as the Apostles’ 
 and Nicene, are accepted by the Roman, Greek, 
 and Protestant Churches as a whole. When we 
 
CREEDS 
 
 199 
 
 come down to the era of the Reformation, what 
 do we find ? Numbers of new symbols of faith 
 sprang into existence. The Church of Rome, 
 as w T ell as the Reformed Churches, took active 
 part in constructing articles of faith. The result 
 of all this eagerness to defend the faith committed 
 to the custody of the Church, and to fence it 
 round with definitions and limitations for its 
 better preservation, was that each church formed 
 a confession as a bond of union for its own 
 members, and as a ground of exclusion for all 
 outside her pale. The “ Canons and Decrees ” 
 of the Council of Trent set forth the doctrines of 
 Rome, and anathematize those of the Protestants, 
 so that none but a Romanist could subscribe to 
 the creed of Pius IV., which is founded on the 
 Tridentine decrees. Originally, the Augsburg 
 Confession was designed to show the rulers and 
 representatives of the empire what Luther and 
 his followers believed ; but subsequently the 
 Formula Concordim was constructed, and its 
 definitions were such that neither a Romanist, a 
 Creek, or a Calvinist, could subscribe it. There¬ 
 after, the Synod of Dort met, aud passed its 
 decrees, which none but a Calvinist could 
 accept. In most of these examples, the creeds 
 adopted were designed to exclude from their re¬ 
 spective churches — union for all who accepted, 
 exclusion for all who rejected, them. In 16G2 
 
200 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 two thousand ministers of the gospel left the 
 Church of England, because they were required 
 to declare their assent and consent to the 
 Book of Common Prayer. Blither than violate 
 conscience, they gave up their livings. There 
 can be no doubt that, since the Reformation, 
 the creeds of the churches have acted as a 
 disintegrating influence, causing division and 
 separation, and also binding more closely those 
 who remain together. Occasionally, they have 
 also formed a sort of rallying ground to those 
 who had been separated for a time by some 
 matters outside the symbolical books, or supposed 
 to be outside ; and when the occasions of separa¬ 
 tion had passed away, the different parties again 
 united on the basis of the old standards. 
 
 The Westminster Confession is a very lengthy 
 document to form the creed of a church ; but 
 long as it is, it has generally been added to, 
 when a split has taken place on some question or 
 questions hotly contested. Reunion has taken 
 place by dropping the addenda, and returning 
 to a simple adoption of the original standard. 
 Few bodies of Christians have been more dis¬ 
 tinguished than the Presbyterians of Britain and 
 America for hair-splitting distinctions in their 
 theoretical views of divine truth, and for breaking 
 up into separate denominations, in consequence 
 of different opinions respecting doctrine or 
 
CREEDS 
 
 201 
 
 discipline ; but it is equally noteworthy that 
 there have been more reunions among them 
 than among any other churches. The United 
 Presbyterian Church of Scotland is the result 
 of a reunion of at least three bodies divided 
 from each other for many years, on points so 
 microscopic that, I suppose, many of the ministers 
 of the present generation could not accurately 
 tell what they were. The large and influential 
 Presbyterian Church of the United States was 
 formed by the reunion of the Old and New School 
 Churches. It is right that reunions should be 
 mentioned as well as disruptions and divisions, 
 and that creeds have had great influence in pro¬ 
 ducing both. 
 
 When we look at the effect of creeds in the 
 present day, all must admit that they tend to 
 separation, to keep the respective churches apart 
 from each other, and exclude many from holding 
 office, and some from being members, in any 
 church. If a minister of the gospel, trained in 
 a particular church, who has many tender associa¬ 
 tions connected with it, and to which he is 
 attached with strong affection, should, through 
 earnest inquiry, arrive at the conclusion that 
 some of the statements in her creed are unten¬ 
 able, and that he cannot, therefore, subscribe them 
 with a clear conscience, he must renounce the 
 ministry of the church which he loves, and in 
 
202 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 all probability, there is no other body to which 
 he can betake himself. He may find one which 
 does not insist upon the doctrine which he has 
 come to disbelieve ; but then it demands assent 
 to others which are even more objectionable. He 
 must either give up the ministry of the Word 
 altogether, or set up some sort of sect for him¬ 
 self. Isolated examples of this kind have not been 
 uncommon ; and it is surely a duty incumbent 
 upon the Church to prevent such an occurrence, 
 if it be possible so to do, because it has generally 
 been in this way that new sects have started 
 into existence, and churches that have done good 
 work have been rent in twain. 
 
 The usual answer of those who maintain that 
 the bonds of the creed are not to be relaxed is, 
 that individuals must conform to the general 
 body, and that the Church is not to adapt her 
 public confession of the faith to the varying 
 moods of her ministers or members. If men will 
 not receive the truth of God, they have no right 
 to minister at her altars. This is the argument 
 of all rigid upholders of things as they are—the 
 Church of Rome demands implicit acceptance 
 of all her doctrinal decrees; the Church of 
 England to her formulas, and the Presbyterian 
 Churches to the Westminster Confession. The 
 Church of Rome is the most thorough-going. 
 She possesses the whole truth contained in Scrip- 
 
CREEDS 
 
 203 
 
 ture and tradition, and she is the only infallible 
 interpreter of that truth. If such claims were 
 valid, she would be acting consistently in demand¬ 
 ing assent to every one of her definitions of faith, 
 as they are actually and certainly possessed of 
 divine authority. Protestant Churches, on the 
 other hand, affirm that councils may err, and 
 have erred, and each of them must admit this 
 possibility with respect to its own councils or 
 synods, as well as with regard to others. This 
 acknowledged liability to error as pertaining to 
 the united decisions of ecclesiastical rulers as¬ 
 sembled together, must always be kept in mind 
 and not completely forgotten, as has been often 
 done by those who, on the front of their declara¬ 
 tions, affirm that all councils have erred, and 
 then demand an ex animo assent to their 
 own decrees with as much strictness as if these 
 were possessed of infallible authority. As has 
 been more thau once stated, the doctrines taught 
 in the creeds of the Church are expressed in 
 human language and are the result of human 
 inferences from the truth contained in the 
 divine oracles. An individual who does not 
 believe in Revelation at all, has no right to 
 demand entrance into the Church whose very 
 existence rests ou the truth that God has re¬ 
 vealed Himself to humanity in the Bible. Such 
 a man could not expect to derive good for himself 
 
204 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 or to do good to others, by assuming the office 
 of teacher in a body for the existence of which 
 he can find no valid authority. It is altogether 
 different when one who most cordially receives 
 the Scriptures as containing a revelation of the 
 love of God and as the supreme guide for the 
 regulation of human life, and who, at the same 
 time, feels impelled by the most intense desire 
 • to honour his Lord and benefit his fellow-men, 
 by consecrating himself to the work of the Holy 
 ministry, asks admission within the pale of a 
 particular church. 
 
 It is at this point where the difficulty arises, 
 of adjusting the respective claims of church 
 authority and private judgment. It goes with¬ 
 out saying, that truth, and truth only, can 
 express authority or demand assent. The Church 
 which imposes, and the private individual who 
 accepts the creed, must both believe in its truth. 
 Should this belief be absent on either side, the 
 most disastrous moral results would be inevitable. 
 Harmony between the state of the heart and the 
 truth taught, is a necessary condition of moral 
 and spiritual progress. A suspicion even, of 
 insincerity on the part either of those whose 
 function it is to impose a form of belief on 
 entrants into church offices, or on that of those 
 who accept these forms, inflicts serious injury 
 upon all classes of men—on the indifferent or 
 
CREEDS 
 
 205 
 
 hostile outside the Church, as well as upon the 
 truly serious or undecided within. We cannot 
 prevent suspicion on the part of unbelievers on 
 the one hand, or of censorious people on the 
 other, but the Church is bound to adopt all 
 lawful measures to secure that sincerity and 
 truthfulness shall characterize the conduct of 
 those to whom she commits the work of instruc¬ 
 tion and the pastoral care of the flock. It is, 
 accordingly, the duty of the representatives of 
 authority to demand nothing that is unreason¬ 
 able of those who offer themselves to engage in 
 the Lord’s work, under their jurisdiction, and 
 of the latter to be in full sympathy with the 
 office which they are about to undertake. 
 
 The old familiar question then arises: How 
 are the authority of the Church and the liberty 
 of the individual to be conserved ? The Church 
 as a Christian society, is prevented by the fact 
 of her institution by Christ from framing articles 
 of belief according to her mere arbitrary will— 
 they must be in entire subordination to the will 
 of God as expressed in the sacred volume, and 
 may be regarded as the sense in which she under¬ 
 stands that will. A Christian man, who desires 
 to become a Christian teacher, must be convinced 
 that the interpretation of the Church is the 
 correct one. This implies that he has examined 
 the Bible for himself, and that he has compared 
 
206 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the creed of the Church which he is called upon 
 to subscribe with the teaching of that revelation, 
 on which her authority depends. This is a very 
 difficult task for any one to perform. Accord¬ 
 ingly, few, or none of the churches have demanded 
 assent to every doctrine or fact contained in 
 Scripture, but only to those deemed of the 
 highest importance in themselves, or which may 
 be important owing to the state of the Church 
 or the world at the particular time. In other 
 words, only the fundamental doctrines should be 
 imposed, and a large number left as open questions. 
 
 The nature of the latter is a very important 
 subject, but the matter now under consideration is 
 rather the effect of a lengthy creed upon the 
 individual who is called upon to accept the same. 
 There may be some truth in the saying, “ A long 
 creed and a short decalogue.” It is not, however, 
 so much the mere length that has to be considered, 
 as the number of propositions contained in it, and 
 these being on a great variety of doctrines— 
 doctrines which have been keenly contested in the 
 course of time. 
 
 II. Subscription of Creeds .—It is not to be 
 supposed, according to Dr C. Hodge, that four or 
 five thousand men should be able to give their 
 cordial assent to every proposition contained in 
 the Westminster Confession. Most people, now- 
 a-days, would be inclined to agree with him. If 
 
CREEDS 
 
 207 
 
 this is true in its application to four or five 
 thousand, it is just as likely to be true with regard 
 to four or five hundred—probably even to forty or 
 fifty. Difference of training, of religious experi¬ 
 ence, of mental constitution, may account for the 
 difficulty of obtaining a considerable number of 
 men of diverse gifts and attainments to give their 
 assent to a great number of doctrinal propositions 
 with intelligence. It becomes, therefore, a very 
 serious question for all who have to impose tests 
 upon those who desire to enter the service of the 
 Church, how far they are to permit liberty to 
 such in forming their own opinions. If the right 
 of private judgment is allowed to degenerate into 
 licence, the claims of truth are compromised ; and 
 if that right is unduly restricted, the Church may 
 be deprived of the services of men who would 
 become most efficient labourers in the Lord’s 
 vineyard ; or the tests applied may become snares 
 to the souls of many who declare their willingness 
 to accept them. Both results every one would 
 deprecate, yet both have frequently taken place; 
 and it would be hard to say which is the more 
 injurious to the interests of truth and the cause of 
 Christ. 
 
 When Articles of Faith are applied as tests, 
 the design is to exclude from the ministry all 
 who hold opinions contrary to or inconsistent 
 with these tests. Can it be said that, as a rule, 
 
208 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 this has generally been the case ? The history 
 of all churches conclusively shows, that the re¬ 
 sults anticipated have not been realized. The 
 doctrines of the symbolical books have been 
 professed by all entrants into their respective 
 churches, while very often a considerable number 
 of these doctrines are never preached by many of 
 its ministers. Sometimes they are only quietly 
 ignored, at other times views inconsistent with 
 them are openly maintained. Occasionally the 
 rulers of the Church are slow in the application of 
 the test ; when excitement arises, they rush to 
 the opposite extreme of undue rigidity. 
 
 III. Prosecutions for Heresy. Tests are not 
 a sufficient guarantee that they will be always, 
 or even for any great length of time, cordially 
 received. To the ordinary mind they seem the 
 best, if not the sole preventive of heresy, just as 
 at one time it was held that persecution was the 
 best mode of preserving religion. Frequently at 
 critical periods, they have failed when their help 
 was most required. During the rise of the 
 Oxford movement, this was well illustrated by two 
 examples, which have become memorable. Di¬ 
 ll ampden, then Professor of Divinity at Oxford, 
 was accused of teaching heretical doctrines in 
 his Bampton Lectures on the Scholastic Philosophy, 
 and although a vote of censure was passed upon 
 him, he still retained his office, and was after- 
 
CREEDS 
 
 209 
 
 wards elevated to the see of Hereford. He 
 maintained that he had not contradicted the 
 Articles of the Church. Dr Pusey, who had been 
 one of the active spirits in calling Dr Hampden 
 to account, was himself charged with heresy on 
 the subject of the Eucharist, and was suspended 
 for a year from preaching in connection with the 
 University. What renders his case peculiarly 
 interesting and instructive, in relation to public 
 creeds, is the idea of subscriptions entertained 
 by the heads who were instrumental in silencing 
 him. They called upon him to subscribe the 
 Article his sermon was said to contradict, which 
 he was prepared to do in its strict grammatical 
 sense, but they intended to take a further step in 
 the case of Mr Ward, according to the following: 
 —“ Every such person was to declare that he 
 subscribed the Articles in the sense in which he 
 believed them to have been originally drawn up 
 and to be imposed by the University at the 
 present time.” One can easily see that this is 
 grossly unfair, and amounted, in fact, to an 
 addition to the Article more difficult than the 
 Article itself. It might be, it generally is, a 
 very difficult thing to ascertain what was the 
 sense which its composers designed it should bear, 
 and it would be still more difficult to ascertain 
 the meaning of those who imposed it, on any 
 particular occasion. 
 
210 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 As long as there is no dispute as to the 
 doctrines, there is not so much use for the test; 
 but when discussion has taken place, and opposing 
 views have been advocated, then its use one 
 might think would be of great service in settling 
 the matter one way or other ; but that is the 
 very time it fails. Creeds are designed to 
 interpret Scripture, to be particular where 
 Scripture is general, to be more precise and 
 definite where it gives no distinct deliverance. 
 We don’t deny the lawfulness of attempting 
 precision in doctrinal statement, but we deny that 
 ecclesiastical formularies are always calculated to 
 secure precise belief on the part of those who 
 subscribe them. The formularies are often 
 ambiguous themselves—intended to be so origin¬ 
 ally—as a compromise between two or more 
 contending factions, or they become so through 
 the changing use of theological terms, or through 
 other topics of controversy emerging which were 
 unknown or not anticipated when they sprung 
 into existence. When subscription becomes a 
 difficulty, when doubts have been raised as to 
 their meaning—as to what they include or 
 exclude, approve or disapprove, in such circum¬ 
 stances stringency is apt to lead to the same 
 result as that arrived at by Mr Ward, to subscribe 
 them in a non-natural sense . 1 
 
 1 Dr Puscy's Life, II., 110, 426. 
 
CREEDS 
 
 211 
 
 In the case of the XXXIX Articles of the 
 Church of England it has been manifested in 
 various periods of her history that they cannot 
 be interpreted precisely as they stand, but some 
 principle of interpretation must be applied by 
 those who subscribe them. Dr Pusey {Life, II., 
 417) says, “I sign the Articles as I ever have 
 since I have known what Catholic Antiquity is 
 (to which our church guides us) in their ‘ literal 
 grammatical sense ’ determined w 7 here it is 
 ambiguous, by ‘ the faith of the whole Church ’ (as 
 good Bishop Kerr says) ‘ before east and west were 
 divided.’ It is to me quite plain that in so doing I 
 am following the guidance of our church.” 1 Here 
 we have the statement made by a representative 
 man—w r e may say the leader, of the most aggres¬ 
 sive and influential party now in the Anglican 
 Church—that he subscribed these Articles in their 
 literal grammatical sense (which, we should say, 
 ought not to be very difficult to determine) but 
 then he confesses that sometimes the sense is 
 ambiguous. Their framers either did not intend 
 that they should be free from ambiguity or failed 
 to secure this. This being so, one should think 
 that any person can subscribe them in the sense 
 which he honestly believes them to possess. Dr 
 Pusey, however (although he does not directly 
 affirm that his way is the only one), declares that 
 1 Life , II., 417. 
 
212 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 where the sense is ambiguous, it is determined by 
 the faith of the whole Church before east and 
 west were divided. I have nothing to do with 
 the question whether this is the proper principle 
 to be applied to the Articles, but it is surely 
 worthy of inquiry: How will the faith of the 
 undivided church help us to understand a 
 document framed many centuries after ? Only 
 in the same way as the history of any subject 
 may cast some light on the views that are held 
 respecting it in the present day. To let that 
 pass, the surprising thing about this mode of 
 interpretation is the difficulty of ascertaining what 
 it really is. One would think that the plain 
 meaning of these Articles is much more easily 
 ascertained than the faith of the ancient church. 
 What is the faith of the ancient church ? Does 
 it consist of the creeds now generally received in 
 the Roman, Greek, and Protestant Churches ? The 
 Nicene and Athanasian creeds are, to say the least, 
 rather difficult of interpretation, but their contents 
 do not touch on present matters of controversy. 
 Then, must we also take into account the views 
 of individual fathers on these creeds, and on 
 other subjects not embraced in them ? These are 
 all important questions, and, answer them as we 
 may, a Herculean task is before us, even before 
 we reach the principle itself, viz., the faith of the 
 ancient church. Verily, if we are to prosecute 
 
CREEDS 
 
 213 
 
 such an inquiry as this, before we can sign our 
 ecclesiastical formularies, the course of theological 
 education will require to embrace subjects to 
 which little attention is given by candidates for 
 the ministry, and several years would require to 
 be added to the theological curriculum at the 
 present time. 
 
 It seems also that Abp. Laud suggested another 
 mode of interpretation, which he styled “ The 
 Analogy of Faith,” and some of the Low-church¬ 
 men still another, “ The Consent of Divines.” 
 These instances are sufficient to show how power¬ 
 less formularies are to keep men of the same 
 opinion in matters of doctrine, and that, by the 
 progress of the Church in Christian knowledge 
 and other graces, creeds made in our age will give 
 rise to serious difficulties in after times. It may 
 be affirmed, however, that these considerations are 
 applicable to the XXXIX Articles because of their 
 indefiniteness, and because there have always been 
 what we may call the Puritan and Catholic views 
 within her pale. No doubt there is some force in 
 this, as the English Church is comprehensive in 
 some things, and embraces elements which other 
 churches would not tolerate. If the Church 
 herself, or the State, insisted upon a more definite 
 creed, either in the direction of Rome or Geneva, 
 we might possibly have a repetition of St 
 Bartholomew’s day in 1662. This is not likely 
 
214 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION" 
 
 to occur, nor would the cause of religion gain 
 by it. 
 
 Time was when persecution was the order of 
 the day. The horrors of the Inquisition are not 
 forgotten yet by the Protestant countries; the 
 burning of heretics, whether perpetrated in Spain 
 or at Geneva, are still remembered by the 
 advocates of Free Thought; and the history of the 
 cruelties inflicted in the name of religion and for 
 the glory of God, ought to prove a solemn warning 
 to all of us who live in more peaceful and more 
 tolerant times. The motives that influenced those 
 who took an active part in punishing heretics 
 were, in most instances perhaps, good. They 
 thought that they were doing God service, and 
 their conduct in severely punishing those who 
 were in serious error, was the legitimate effect 
 of the principles which all the churches, Catholic 
 and Protestant, embraced. Heresy was a deadly 
 sin, and more destructive in its effects than even 
 murder, as the latter injured only the body, but 
 the former destroyed the soul. If punishment is 
 to be proportionate to the heinous character of the 
 crime, heresy deserves a punishment of the 
 severest type, as if they said, “ Hanging is too 
 good for the heretic, let him be burnt.” It must 
 be stamped out as tve stamp out the plague. In 
 those days less than now, punislnneut was not 
 regarded so much as a deterrent from evil, as the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 215 
 
 desert of the evil doer. But even when regarded 
 as a sin, physical suffering was deemed the most 
 effectual antidote to the progress of heresy. 
 Through the fierceness of contending parties, those 
 in authority had not the power to punish as 
 formerly, although generally, when the court and 
 the Church were thoroughly united in the one 
 cause of religion, the strong arm of the law was 
 mercilessly applied to the extirpation of heresy. 
 It is true, and it ought to be remembered, that 
 seldom was persecution directed against a form of 
 religion purely for its own sake, but often political 
 or other motives had a share in the infliction of 
 penalties. This was so in the slaughter of the 
 Huguenots, during the thirty years’ war in 
 Germany, as well as in the time of Henry VIII. 
 
 Without dwelling at greater length on this part 
 of the subject, except to remark that the principle 
 on which fines, imprisonments, banishment, and 
 death, were inflicted by the State, was, in some 
 respects the same as that on which the churches 
 have acted in expelling from their Communion 
 members and office-bearers tainted with heresy. 
 We might almost say the old method of treating 
 heretics when allowed full swing was to put them 
 out of the world, the more modern is to expel 
 them from the Church. Just as in olden time 
 the officers of the State were enjoined to keep a 
 sharp look-out for heretics, and to take prompt 
 
216 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 measures to bring them within the meshes of the 
 law, so in subsequent times, in various Protestant 
 churches, there were many heresy hunters, with a 
 keen scent for heretical doctrine. Witness the 
 controversies that sprang up in the Lutheran 
 Church, e.g., on Synergism and Cripto-Calvinism, 
 when some of the best men, who had rendered 
 signal service to the truth and the cause of the 
 gospel, were treated with suspicion and obloquy. 
 Even Melanchthon did not escape from these 
 suspicions, and George Calixt, one of the most 
 learned and peace-loving men of his age, shared 
 the same fate. When the Duke of Alva was 
 recalled from the Netherlands, he was compelled 
 to own that his rule had been a failure, notwith¬ 
 standing his merciless wars, putting thousands to 
 death, giving up the country to fire and sword, 
 and the defenceless inhabitants of captured cities 
 given up to the brutal violence of the Spanish 
 soldiers. What, in his opinion, was the cause of 
 his failure ? Was it that his measures had been 
 too severe, or that they had been characterized by 
 inhuman cruelty ? Not at all. They had not 
 been severe enough. Repeated failures in their 
 attempt to suppress revolt, and stifle freedom, 
 seldom open the eyes of cruel tyrants and lead 
 them to a more rational and humane mode of 
 dealing with their subjects. The dealings of 
 churches with those of their number who depart 
 
CREEDS 
 
 217 
 
 from the commonly accepted standard of orthodoxy, 
 is often analogous to this. Of course I do not 
 impute to them the same or any moral turpitude 
 or inhuman cruelty so often manifested by tyrants 
 in all ages of the world. The resemblance lies in 
 the methods which they adopt to attain their 
 ends. Instead of leading them to question the 
 wisdom and utility of the means which they have 
 used in their effort to secure purity of doctrine 
 and protect the Church from the contagion of 
 error, they have only recourse to the same methods 
 as they have used before, but carry them out with 
 greater stringency than ever. If a heretic lias 
 escaped through the creed being general, it is 
 rendered more particular; if some statements are 
 indefinite, logical definition is applied to them, and 
 every door through which a heretic may escape is 
 firmly shut. We think the truth of these state¬ 
 ments is illustrated in the Formula Concordiai of 
 the Lutheran Church, aud in the manner in which 
 that formulary was adopted in Germany. There 
 was fruitless controversy, conducted with great 
 acrimony, on matters to a great extent beyond the 
 reach of human thought, and of very little moment 
 in the interests of piety, on whichever side they 
 are settled. It is said that Colovius, the zealous 
 Lutheran and the bitter opponent of Calixt, used 
 to pray every morning, “ Domine, imple vie odio 
 hcereticorum.” Thus men come to believe that 
 
218 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGIOX 
 
 they are doing God service by leaving no stone 
 unturned in order to drive out of the Church of 
 God all who, in their opinion, have swerved from 
 the path of strict orthodoxy. 
 
 It is very seldom that any church has been 
 long without stern upholders of things as they 
 are, or on the other hand, certain innovators 
 who wdsh to get rid of antiquated dogmas. The 
 innovators have frequently been as intolerant as 
 the conservatives. This is illustrated in the case 
 of the Church of Scotland during the eighteenth 
 century. It is a well known fact that many, 
 probably the majority, of the General Assembly 
 were out of sympathy with the Westminster 
 Confession, and with the practice of the Church 
 in the settlement of ministers. When they had 
 the power, they exercised it in a manner as 
 intolerant as had ever been done by the upholders 
 of the original constitution of the Church. Be¬ 
 cause some eminently pious and conscientious 
 men would not obey the decision of the Assembly 
 enjoining them to ordain ministers over reclaiming 
 congregations, these men were deposed from the 
 holy ministry. The highest censure, the severest 
 punishment, which the men who favoured laxity 
 of doctrine could inflict, they did inflict upon 
 those who were zealously attached to the doctrines 
 and constitution of the Church. It should be 
 borne in mind by all who have regard to the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 219 
 
 origin of divisions in the Church, and who wish 
 to prevent them in time to come, that the two 
 divisions which took place in the Church of 
 Scotland last century, and the two new bodies, 
 which consequent upon that, came into existence, 
 the Secession and Relief, are to be ascribed to 
 the intolerance of the so-called liberal party in 
 the Church ; a party neither over zealous for 
 the purity of doctrine, nor for a high standard 
 of Christian living. Although the Secession 
 Church was brought into existence, one might 
 say, through intolerance, she herself fell a victim 
 to the same disease. Before the century had 
 expired, she was split in two, and each of the 
 two—Burghers and anti-Burghers—split in two 
 again, so that there were four bodies formed 
 out of the one Secession Church. On the causes 
 of these divisions, and the merits of the points 
 
 in debate among them, I have no reason to say 
 
 anything, but the old leaven of intolerance is 
 
 working as effectually, and with results as 
 deplorable, as in the previous cases to which 
 I have alluded. The number of testimonies 
 emitted, and the replies, were characteristic. To 
 refer only to one case. Perhaps there was no 
 more distinguished minister in Scotland, about 
 the beginning of this century, than the elder 
 M'Crie. He is the author of the standard life 
 of Knox and of Melville, and his historical 
 
 writings gained for him the respect and esteem 
 
220 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 of such men as Lord Jeffrey, Dugald Stewart, 
 and Sir William Hamilton. Yet that man, who 
 was head and shoulders above his accusers, was 
 deposed from the holy ministry. Just as noted 
 persecutors like T. Cromwell and the Duke of 
 Alva struck at men of mark, when it was in 
 their power, so too often the prosecutors of 
 heretics have followed in their wake. The 
 Erskines and Fisher, the fathers of the Scottish 
 Secession, although inferior in literary culture 
 to Robertson the historian, Jupiter Carlyle, and 
 Blair, subsequently leaders of the party which 
 extruded them, were yet far superior to them as 
 theologians, and still more as men of piety and 
 ministers devoted to the cause of Christ. 
 
 The history of prosecutions for heresy and their 
 results is a very instructive one. They have 
 generally been conducted with great keenness, and 
 often with equal bitterness and uncharitableness. 
 Look at the Calvinistic Church of Holland. At 
 the Synod of Dort, Calvinism was triumphant, 
 and Arminianistn was cast out. After the lapse 
 of more than two centuries, what is the state of 
 that church in the present day, as regards re¬ 
 ligious belief ? It would be hard to say what 
 proportion of her ministers and people now hold 
 the doctrines accepted and imposed by the Synod 
 of Dort; but I suspect, they are received only by 
 a small minority, and the views of the old 
 
CREEDS 
 
 221 
 
 Arminians would be held comparatively orthodox, 
 when placed side by side with those which are 
 popular now. At all events, the teaching of 
 Kuenen in Leyden, as well as of Scholton and 
 others, not only denies the doctrines of grace, but 
 even questions the supernatural altogether. The 
 discipline exercised upon the Arminians has not 
 prevented a more serious heresy from spreading 
 extensively within the Church. 
 
 All the bitter controversies carried on so long 
 in the bosom of the Lutheran Church in Germany, 
 and all the logical acumen brought into play in 
 the composition of the Formula Concordiae, have 
 not preserved the faith in that land. On the 
 contrary, Rationalism of every variety of type has 
 prevailed, and the hearty defenders of the truths 
 embraced in the formula are few and far between. 
 Even Dr Pusey asserts that the prevalent Ration¬ 
 alism of Germany might be traced to the disputes 
 that arose on matters of belief, and the minute 
 precision with which Church authorities endea¬ 
 voured to secure sound doctrine. I am not, how¬ 
 ever, arguing that minute definitions of matters 
 of belief tend to bring about a state of unbelief 
 or total indifference to truth (although I think 
 that is true), but rather that such definitions have 
 failed to preserve purity of doctrine. The end in 
 view is, of course, to exclude men from the Church 
 who are seeking admission, or to expel those with- 
 
222 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 in her pale, when guilty of heresy. The creed is 
 the standard by which heresy is tested, and the 
 clearer and more precise its statements, the more 
 easily will the guilty party be convicted and 
 expelled. Indeed, most formularies have been 
 constructed on this very principle, to bring home 
 most successfully to the guilty the charge of con¬ 
 tradicting or corrupting the truth. To many 
 persons it is a sure sign of a vigorous and pure 
 church where writers, speakers, or preachers are 
 speedily called to account for any error they have 
 taught; the charge is carefully drawn up and 
 clearly proved ; and the party may at once be 
 deposed from the ministry and expelled from the 
 Communion. This is a game at which men of 
 little knowledge, little piety, and little regard for 
 the right of private judgment, can easily play. 
 The feeling seems to be, that the sooner we get 
 rid of the heretic the better. To such persons 
 everything seems plain. They have been accus¬ 
 tomed to the old words, the meaning of these 
 words is obvious; the teaching of him who is 
 being prosecuted, evidently does not harmonise 
 with the standards which the Church has adopted, 
 and which he himself has subscribed. Let him 
 be thrust out that he may no longer corrupt the 
 body by his unsound teaching. Just as perse¬ 
 cutors always thought that they had got rid of 
 their troubles when their opponents were sent 
 
CREEDS 
 
 223 
 
 out of the world, so many believe, when you once 
 expel a man from the Communion of the Church, 
 that they will no longer be troubled either with 
 him or his doctrines. 
 
 History contradicts this idea, as may be shown b}’ 
 one or two examples. Take the case of what was 
 called in Scotland, the “ Row Heresy.” M'Leod 
 Campbell was prosecuted for heresy (especially on 
 the subject of the atonement), found guilty, and 
 deposed from the holy ministry. His voice was 
 silenced, so far as the Church of Scotland was 
 concerned, and all within her pale were warned 
 against the unsoundness of his teaching. Since 
 then he has exercised great influence on theo¬ 
 logical thought iu England as well as Scotland. 
 There can be no doubt that he has a .following 
 ten times as great as when he was a minister of 
 that church. Expulsion, consequent on convic¬ 
 tion, may prevent a man from propagating his 
 views from the pulpits of the Church, but he will 
 have free scope to do so anywhere else, and he 
 will have all the greater effect, in that, rightly or 
 wrongly, he will gain the reputation of a martyr. 
 Take another case also from Scotlaud, that of the 
 late Professor Robertson Smith. His views on the 
 Old Testament were regarded by many as contrary 
 to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The 
 College Committee, composed of some of the 
 leading men of the Church—men who were best 
 
224 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 acquainted with theology iu general, and with 
 the subject in question in particular—decided 
 that, though some of his views were disquieting, 
 there was not sufficient ground for a prosecution. 
 This decision did not commend itself to the more 
 ardent spirits of the Church. The result was—he 
 was tried for heresy, and after alternate acquittals 
 and condemnations, was ultimately removed from 
 his chair. The rejected of the Free Church of 
 Scotland became the accepted Professor of Cam¬ 
 bridge. Within the pale of that church at the 
 present time, those most competent to form an 
 opinion say, that if the Smith case were to be 
 tried in that Assembly now, there would be an 
 overwhelming majority in favour of toleration. 
 Not only so, but the whole case has exercised 
 considerable influence in England as well as Scot¬ 
 land. So far as the prosecution of him who 
 advocated certain views, supposed to be antago¬ 
 nistic to the confession is concerned, it tended 
 to increase the prevalence of these views, both 
 within and without the church to which he be¬ 
 longed. If, therefore, the end to be kept in view 
 in the formation of ecclesiastical formularies, and 
 in applying these formularies as tests, is to secure 
 the maintenance of the doctrines embraced in 
 them, prosecutions have very frequently failed to 
 attain this end. Quite as often they have had 
 the contrary effect. 
 
CREEDS 
 
 225 
 
 It will be said, in reply to this, that such pro¬ 
 ceedings on the part of the Church prove her zeal 
 for the truth, her opposition to error, and that 
 erroneous teaching does not take place under her 
 sanction. Certainly, this is generally secured. 
 But it is rather a roundabout and troublesome 
 road to take for such an insignificant result. 
 That a heretic should be sought out, faithfully 
 tried, duly condemned, and at length excelled, 
 is the end of such prosecutions, and this effected, 
 all has been done that can be done. With what 
 result ? Perhaps the heretic has acquired greater 
 influence than ever he had before. Some would 
 reply that his evil influence is exercised outside 
 the Church, and the injury done is not to 
 members of the body he has left, but to those 
 whom he has gathered around him. But we are 
 not to confine our attention within our own 
 narrow sphere, regardless of all consequences 
 upon those outside. 
 
 Looking at the effects of prosecutions for heresy 
 upon the individual himself, these are not likely 
 to be of a salutary description. Apart from the 
 feelings which the prosecution itself is calculated 
 to kindle within his breast (which are not likely 
 to be of a favourable character whether he is right 
 or wrong), he is thereby cut off from the soothing 
 and restoring influences to which he was subjected 
 in the church to which he belonged. So far as 
 
 p 
 
22G 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 probabilities are concerned, he is likely to go much 
 further astray in his new surroundings. This 
 seems to be in part an explanation of a very 
 common phenomenon in error or supposed error. 
 The original views are subjected to a process of 
 development under new conditions, and generally 
 become more radical or retrograde. The same 
 fact is illustrated in the case of bodies that have 
 been split in twain. Witness some of the smaller 
 sects once, or perhaps still, existing in Scotland. 
 They have become more conservative than ever, 
 are more angular in their peculiarities, and their 
 distinctive principles are more accentuated, because 
 they are shut up within their own little world 
 without coming into contact with liberalizing 
 influences, and thus become good specimens of 
 doctrinal fossils. On the other hand (which 
 providentially is not always the case), when the 
 liberal side is left to work out its problems by 
 itself, wdthout any mixture of the conservative, it 
 is apt to advance at too rapid a pace and wax 
 wanton in the enjoyment of unrestricted liberty. 
 All churches, and the different liberal and con¬ 
 servative parties in such, ought to remember that 
 these events have manifested themselves in the 
 history of the past; and the knowledge of these 
 events ought to moderate the zeal of those in 
 the present day who are striving to suppress new 
 views or new statements of old views, as well as of 
 
CREEDS 
 
 227 
 
 those who are intolerant of the old, and embrace 
 the new simply because they are new. If the 
 history of human thought in general, and of 
 theological doctrine in particular, teaches us any¬ 
 thing, it is this : we should not inordinately oppose 
 what is new, lest haply we shall be found fighting 
 against God, neither should we suddenly or 
 violently break with the old. The real truth 
 is very often the via media, to which violent 
 partizans on both sides are equally opposed. It 
 is not for the interest of Christian truth or 
 Christian life that the liberal and conservative 
 elements should be separated and each have its 
 own way. It seems to be the method of divine 
 providence to bring together a number of opposing 
 elements which restrain and limit each other, and 
 through the restraining influence of one upon the 
 other, the highest interests of things are conserved. 
 The same law seems to prevail in the Church, 
 composed as it is of these two elements; and the 
 more these different tendencies of human nature 
 are preserved and allowed to balance each other, 
 the greater will be the spiritual prosperity of the 
 church in which this state of things exists. 
 
 The tendency, or rather the express design of 
 minute formularies of faith, is to exclude the 
 opposing element. The end in view is unity, 
 and by unity is understood “ uniformity of belief.” 
 Unity is a reality ; and it becomes a very neces- 
 
228 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 sary question for us to consider in this part 
 of our subject—how far does the unity of the 
 Church as represented in Scripture demand uni¬ 
 formity of belief ? Although this matter has been 
 referred to before, we must take it up again. 
 
 III. Fundamental and Non-fundamental 
 Truths .—The unity of the church is held by all 
 professing Christians. In some sense or other it is 
 one; but the ideas of this oneness are almost as 
 diverse as the number of sects. As usual, Rome 
 is both definite and consistent on this subject. 
 According to her, the Church is one because she 
 is under one common visible organization, con¬ 
 sisting of bishops and priests, the primacy over 
 whom is held by the Pope or Bishop of Rome. 
 The members of the Church are bound to receive 
 the authoritative teaching or doctrinal decisions of 
 the Pope in Council, and therefore, any individual 
 or body who refuses to submit to the doctrine and 
 discipline of that church, is thereby excluded from 
 the body of Christ. Others affirm that while 
 communion with the Church of Rome is not 
 necessary to constitute either a Christian man or 
 a Christian church, yet a body can legitimately 
 claim that name only by possessing the apostolic 
 succession through the government of bishops, and 
 by accepting the creed of the Church on matters 
 of faith. Others again hold that identity of organi¬ 
 zation is not necessary to constitute a church, 
 
CREEDS 
 
 229 
 
 but the unity of faith is the one essential charac¬ 
 teristic. 
 
 What then is this unity of faith ? We should 
 bear in mind that certain doctrines are held in 
 common by an overwhelming majority of Christian 
 bodies. The first part of the creed of Pius IV. 
 most Protestant Churches accept, and most reject 
 the latter. We can look at the matter histori¬ 
 cally, and are not necessitated to consider it only 
 in a theoretical manner. Are we to take the 
 doctrinal Articles which are accepted by the great 
 historical churches—the Catholic of the West, 
 the Orthodox of the East, the Anglican, the 
 Lutheran in Germany, the Reformed in France, 
 Holland, Scotland, and Switzerland, and the 
 great bodies of Methodism ? After the manner 
 of eclectics we might assume as true all the 
 doctrines held in common by these churches, 
 and allow those on which their views are dis¬ 
 cordant to remain matters of forbearance. Are 
 we to take as our criterion of fundamental truths, 
 that they are held in common by all Christians ? 
 The apostle’s creed would be universally received 
 by all who accept the symbolical books of the 
 churches now in existence. Neither a Jew, a 
 Mohammedan, a Buddhist, nor an idolater of any 
 kind, would accept it jis a part of his belief. As 
 a test against heathenism, and an exhibition of 
 Christianity to the heathen mind, we might say 
 
230 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 that this creed is admirably adapted. But it 
 is now nearly two thousand years old, and many 
 controversies have arisen during the lengthened 
 period that has elapsed since its composition. It 
 might be objected that truth does not change, nor 
 is it affected by time or space. That is no doubt 
 true. What was fundamental then, in the time 
 of the apostles, must be fundamental now. What 
 really constituted a Christian—what was essential 
 to his very existence—then, must be essential 
 now, and what was sufficient then must be 
 sufficient now. I am not speaking of the well¬ 
 being of a Christian, but only of his essential 
 character, without which he would not in truth 
 be worthy of the name. There may be some 
 additional actions obligatory now, through the 
 advance of knowledge or change of circum¬ 
 stances, but the essentials of Christianity must 
 ever be the same, and remain unaffected by 
 intellectual, moral, or spiritual changes that have 
 taken place through the ages. Men may have 
 changed intellectually, morally, and physically, 
 during the past centuries, but man himself is 
 still essentially the same. A correct definition 
 of man now would be applicable to man then. 
 What constituted the essence of Christianity 
 then, constitutes it now. There is no change in 
 fundamental truths, the change can only be in 
 circumstantials. We must have some idea of 
 
CREEDS 
 
 231 
 
 fundamental truth, and we must further consider 
 whether other truths than fundamental should 
 enter into a church’s confession. 
 
 That all truths are not equally important is 
 almost self-evident. In nature there are all but 
 innumerable gradations. Some objects are of 
 inestimable value, others are so insignificant that 
 their utility can scarcely be perceived. Strength, 
 permanence, beauty, and utility in the service 
 of humanity, may be all taken into account in 
 estimating their relative worth. We should 
 expect the same phenomenon in the spiritual 
 world as described in the Bible. No one could 
 consistently maintain that the question of the 
 proper posture in prayer and praise, whether we 
 should stand or sit in the singing of psalms and 
 hymns in public worship; whether we should 
 kneel or stand in offering prayer to God, is of 
 the same vital moment as that respecting the 
 benefits secured by the death of Christ. Some 
 truths are more central, more vitally related to 
 the foundation, than others. This is expressly 
 recognised by the Apostle Paul in his epistle to 
 the Romans. “ Let every man be fully persuaded 
 in his own mind,” 1 “ We ought to bear with the 
 infirmities of the weak,” and “ not to put a 
 stumbling block in our brother’s way.” 2 Our 
 Lord Himself speaks of the “ weightier matters 
 1 Rom. xiv. 5, 13. 
 
 Rom. xv. 1. 
 
232 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 of the law .” 1 If these sayings of our Lord 
 Himself and His apostles had been duly pondered 
 by the Church in all ages, and a sacred regard 
 paid to them in the formation of creeds and the 
 exercise of discipline, the world would have been 
 spared the exhibition of much uncharitableness. 
 Many of the controversies that have been carried 
 on with such bitterness, and yet with such slender 
 results, as regards even the preservation of sound 
 doctrine, would have been prevented. 
 
 The fact, however, that there are doctrines 
 fundamental and others circumstantial, does not 
 settle the matter as to which class any doctrine 
 belongs. The Church of Rome does not acknow¬ 
 ledge the distinction as to any Article in the 
 creed, or with respect to any one defined by the 
 Church. In matters of discipline, whilst conformity 
 is insisted upon, positive belief is not required, 
 and those that have not been defined, are allowed 
 to be freely discussed. The Greek Church occupies 
 a somewhat less rigid position. All Protestant 
 bodies acknowledge the distinction, although it 
 was questioned by such a distinguished author as 
 Dr M'Crie. Most Protestants regard the form of 
 church government as non-fundamental. The 
 Presbyterian does not unchurch the Episcopalian, 
 Congregationalist, or Methodist, or even the 
 Roman Catholic, although the government of all 
 
 1 Matt, xxiii. 23. 
 
CREEDS 
 
 233 
 
 these differs considerably from his own. He 
 admits that the adherents of these different 
 systems may be as truly Christian and as devoted 
 to the salvation of men as those of his own. The 
 other Protestant bodies, a certain section of the 
 Episcopal excepted, look upon each other and 
 upon him in the same light. The latter regard 
 church government by bishops, through whom 
 the apostolical succession is secured, as essential 
 to a true church. They admit, for the most 
 part, that individuals in bodies without Episcopal 
 succession may be true Christians, but such bodies 
 themselves are not true churches. 
 
 Most churches regard the doctrine of the 
 Holy Trinity as fundamental, and many of them 
 would refuse to apply the term Christian to the 
 old Socinian, or the modern Unitarian. Some 
 would concede the name to all who believe in Christ 
 as the great teacher who came from God, and who 
 sincerely strive to regulate their lives in accord¬ 
 ance with His precepts and example, whether such 
 persons believe in His divinity and the reality of 
 the atonement or not. Dr Marcus Dods affirms 
 that the name Christian may be applied to such 
 persons, although they may believe that the 
 body of Christ is still in the grave. Faith in 
 Chriat is surely necessary to constitute a Christian, 
 but how much a man must believe about him, 
 what he must believe concerning his person and 
 
234 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGIOX 
 
 •work, before be can exercise saving faith in him, 
 seems to us to be both insoluble and unnecessary. 
 We have no right to go beyond Scripture, which 
 has not clearly defined the matter or given us 
 sufficient materials for arriving at an absolutely 
 certain conclusion respecting it. It is of the same 
 class of questions as :—How far may a man go in 
 sin and still remain a Christian ? Confessedly, 
 all Christians are imperfect ; how much imper¬ 
 fection, therefore, must adhere to an individual, 
 before we can say that he is not a Christian and 
 must perish everlastingly ? We can see good 
 reason why such a question should never be 
 answered in Scripture, because the state of mind 
 indicated by it would manifest a spirit inconsistent 
 with that of genuine Christianity. It would mean 
 something like this : How little faith, how little 
 goodness, how little knowledge, is sufficient for 
 salvation ! We need not have much hesitation 
 in pronouncing him who would act upon this 
 principle as no true Christian. The desire of a 
 genuine disciple is to be all and do all for Christ, 
 however far short he may come in practice. How 
 great the discrepancy may be between the desires 
 for perfection and its attainment can never be 
 settled, so as to be expressed in a clear and 
 certain proposition, because the peace of mind 
 sought after is not found in a syllogistic manner, 
 or in weighing the amount of desire or devotion 
 
CREEDS 
 
 235 
 
 expressed or felt, but is obtained only in the way 
 of earnest striving after holiness. Religion is a 
 practical matter, and perception of its truths and 
 application of them to the heart of the individual 
 can only be found in the way of obedience and 
 self-surrender. Hence the danger of too minute 
 definitions of what truths are absolutely necessary 
 to be believed, unbelief of which excludes from 
 salvation. It is moreover unnecessary to do so. 
 Those who are in doubt of their spiritual con¬ 
 dition are not generally brought to the enjoyment 
 of spiritual consolation through reasoning, explana¬ 
 tions, or even the removal of misconceptions, but 
 only through the use of the appointed means. 
 What is practical can never be acquired from 
 theoretical instruction alone. A child never learns 
 to walk or speak, by a mere explanation of the 
 process of walking and speaking, nor can a man 
 acquire the power of riding or swimming by 
 reading a treatise on each of these arts. “If 
 auy man is willing to do the truth, he will know 
 of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether 
 I speak of myself.” 1 
 
 That is the secret of practical knowledge, and 
 only in the way of purity of motive and active 
 obedience can it be obtained. It is in this way 
 that unbelief is really a sin—because it denotes 
 in some way or other (which probably we cannot 
 
 1 John vii. 17. 
 
236 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 point out in each individual case), moral perver¬ 
 sity. Yet it must be observed again that this 
 does not apply in its full extent to belief in 
 articles of religion, but only to faith in Christ. 
 It is not intellectual error but moral perversity 
 that exposes to condemnation. Here again it is 
 extremely difficult to separate error in the head 
 from perversity in the heart, or to show how the 
 one is the cause of the other. As regards the 
 man who conducts an enquiry into truth with 
 perfect honesty, not neglecting any opportunity 
 of ascertaining all the facts of the case, but 
 bestowing upon it the requisite attention, without 
 prejudice, if the conclusion is erroneous, we may 
 assert that he is chargeable with intellectual error 
 and not with moral obliquity; but we may affirm 
 with equal confidence that such honesty and thor¬ 
 oughness of investigation are about as rare as moral 
 perfection itself. The love of self or of party, and 
 of many other feelings, betray themselves in 
 almost all controversialists. The one side has no 
 right to charge the other with these defects, but 
 impartial onlookers can often perceive less worthy 
 motives than the love of truth operating in both 
 parties. 
 
 We must still endeavour to find out, if we can, 
 some of these fundamental truths which ought to 
 be included in the Confession of the Church. 
 The Incarnation is recognised as such by most of 
 
CREEDS 
 
 237 
 
 the churches of Christendom. The Trinity may be 
 said to be bound up with the Incarnation, both logic¬ 
 ally and historically. So the remarks that follow 
 shall refer chiefly to the latter. Unlike many other 
 doctrines embraced in the creeds, this has a most 
 practical bearing on the conduct of life. This is 
 admitted by many of those who reject, as well as by 
 those who receive it. “Grant the incarnation,” says 
 Blarno White, “ and the whole devotional system of 
 life follows from it.” 1 In the judgment of friends 
 and foes, therefore, it is not a mere exhibition of 
 some speculative truth which may be received or 
 rejected without benefit or injury to the life which 
 we ought to lead. Did God become incarnate ? 
 Is Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God ? are 
 surely questions as important as can be enter¬ 
 tained by the human mind. The views we 
 
 entertain of the person of Christ must influence 
 us powerfully as to the way in which we are to 
 regard His words and works. His miraculous 
 
 works are only the natural expression of His 
 nature, if He is truly God ; His sayings are to 
 be received with profound submission, since He 
 possesses the divine attribute of omniscience, and 
 His work must derive inestimable value from the 
 fact that all “ power in heaven and on earth has 
 been committed to Him.” There must be a 
 radical difference between those who affirm and 
 1 Mozley's Essays, II., 139. 
 
238 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 those who deny this, and one which will materi¬ 
 ally affect their views of other truths contained 
 in Scripture. 
 
 Christ, in the one view, holds the exclusive 
 supremacy over all the founders of other religions 
 and over all teachers of religious truth, and to 
 Him is due the homage of the whole human race. 
 The only plea by which He can claim the un¬ 
 divided homage of the human heart, is the fact 
 that He knows all things, even the secrets of the 
 eternal counsels of the Father. On the other 
 hand, those who refuse to accede to this claim, 
 can only regard Him as a prophet, not a saviour ; 
 as the best of all teachers, but not infallible; as 
 the most morally and spiritually pure of all men, 
 but not beyond the reach of imperfection. The 
 reverence of many unbelievers in the present day 
 is certainly very different from the opposition of 
 scribes and Pharisees in His lifetime here upon 
 earth. Many of them say that He is a good man, 
 and would strenuously deny that He “ deceived 
 the people,” and most of those who hold such 
 sentiments would deny that He Himself claimed to 
 be more than they heartily yield to Him. How 
 much of this halting between two opinions may 
 be owing to mere intellectual error caused by an 
 adherence to what they regard as first principles 
 in philosophy, is not for us to say ; neither ought 
 we to sit in the judgment seat of God and confi- 
 
CREEDS 
 
 239 
 
 dently affirm that their belief excludes them from 
 any place in the kingdom of heaven. But we 
 must affirm that they appear to he perilously near 
 the rejection of gospel salvation ; yet as I have 
 already stated, we do not require to sit in judg¬ 
 ment upon individual cases. To his “ own 
 master he standeth or falleth.” We must regard 
 the position occupied by such as one which the 
 Church of Christ dare not occupy. It would 
 involve a compromise of the claims of her head 
 and a surrender of the distinctive character of our 
 religion. No rival can be admitted to share his 
 authority. Although we ought to hear with the 
 infirmities of the weak, we cannot reduce the 
 system of divine truth to the dimensions of those 
 who take the lowest view of his person, character, 
 and work. We do not intend to go into the 
 evidence of our Lord’s divinity, in such a brief 
 discussion of the subject as that to which we are 
 restricted. We may say, however, that it has all 
 the characteristics of a fundamental truth. As 
 regards its natural influence upon other doctrines 
 as well as upon the Christian life, it is one of the 
 most important in holy Scripture. It affects the 
 object of worship ; it deeply touches the springs 
 of moral activity. The love of Christ has been 
 one of the strongest principles of action in the 
 history of the Christian Church. To it we owe 
 the noble band of martyrs and confessors. It has 
 
240 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 been the comfort of the poor, it has sustained the 
 persecuted, reclaimed the erring, and powerfully 
 stimulated to the higher attainments of the 
 Christian life. As regards its relation to other 
 truths, we have seen that our views of it will 
 modify materially our conceptions of other doctrines. 
 It is not like some portions of Scripture which 
 might be removed, and the -whole edifice would 
 remain in its original stability, but it removed the 
 very foundation as undermined. 
 
 Another characteristic of a fundamental doctrine 
 is its being clearly set forth in Scripture. This 
 is generally admitted in the present day. The 
 rationalist very often concedes that the incarnation 
 is taught in Scripture, although he does not feel 
 called upon to believe it on that account. “ In 
 the beginning was the word, the word was with 
 God, and the word was God.” “ The word was 
 made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld 
 His glory as the glory of the only begotten of the 
 Father, full of grace and truth .” 1 The incarna¬ 
 tion was evidently believed in by the twelve ; it 
 agrees with the statements of the gospels, with 
 the apostolic epistles, and also with the views 
 which the Jews entertained regarding Christ’s 
 own claims. They accused Him of making Him¬ 
 self equal with God. The prominence therefore 
 which this doctrine received in Scripture, and 
 
 1 John i. 1, 14. 
 
CREEDS 
 
 241 
 
 the frequency to which it is referred, entitles it 
 to the name of a fundamental doctrine. 
 
 There is another aspect of the matter which 
 must be regarded. The fact of the incarnation 
 is clearly taught, hut not the nature or mode of 
 that incarnation. Many questions may, and have 
 been raised as to this, which the Bible does not 
 clearly answer. What the Bible has not done 
 the Church has felt constrained to do. The 
 relation of the human personality to the divine, 
 of the man Christ Jesus to the eternal Son of 
 God, are questions on which Scripture gives forth 
 no very certain sound; but the Church, in order 
 to secure the doctrine, has drawn out certain 
 statements, rendering them more precise than 
 they would otherwise be, but it may be questioned 
 whether these definitions have had the desired 
 effect. They may help in some measure to guard 
 against misconceptions, but I cannot see that they 
 do much more towards this end than is expressed 
 in the saying, “ The word was made flesh, and 
 dwelt among us.” Then we have “ two distinct 
 natures,” and “ one person .” 
 
 Personality, as already remarked, is a very 
 obscure word, obscure, I suppose, from the nature 
 of the thing. Philosophers are not agreed as to 
 what constitutes personality in the case of man. 
 Then with respect . to divine personality, the 
 difference is greater still. These definitions may 
 
 Q 
 
242 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 help us in the reception of this mystery. Hence, 
 to deny the doctrine itself is one thing, to question 
 or even deny the propriety of the terms selected 
 for the expression of the doctrine, is another. 
 
 An objection may be raised not only against 
 the human and ecclesiastical terms used in its 
 expression, but also against the doctrine itself 
 as contained in the gospels and epistles. It is a 
 mystery, it is said, and what good does a man 
 derive from belief in a mystery ? A mystery of 
 itself may or may not exercise effectual influence 
 upon human conduct. A mystery is that which 
 we partly know and partly are ignorant of. In 
 this sense we are surrounded with mystery, both 
 in the natural and spiritual worlds. There is 
 scarcely one object which we can be said to know 
 perfectly. Partial knowledge, instead of being 
 rare, is the most common experience of man. 
 The question arises, is it that part of knowledge 
 which is perfect, that proves most important in 
 carrying on the work of life ? Are we to subscribe 
 to the dictum that religion ends where mystery 
 begins ? It is true that there have been foisted 
 upon the mind of man many absurd and con¬ 
 tradictory theories in the name of mystery, but 
 that is no argument against a legitimate place 
 being assigned to it within the sphere of religion. 
 Authority may degenerate into tyranny, freedom 
 into license, and faith into credulity, but the abuse 
 
CREEDS 
 
 243 
 
 of a thing is no argument against its legitimate 
 use. The fact that this word has been grievously 
 misapplied in religion, ought not to exclude it 
 from this sphere, but to make us careful in 
 investigating its legitimacy. Mystery attaches 
 even to the very first article of religious belief, 
 “ I believe in God the Father Almighty.” The 
 greater part of this statement is mysterious. We 
 do not know what almighty is. We have the 
 idea of power, and measure it from the character 
 of its effects. We can observe or know only a 
 small part of this universe; we can in some 
 measure understand that what we do know owes 
 its existence to the Almighty God, but we could 
 not affirm from that, that we know the infinite. 
 It may be said that it is the mysterious part 
 here that is the most influential in the domain 
 of human thought, and feeling, and action. Strip 
 the character of the deity of its infinity ; reduce 
 it to the level of our knowledge, then we have 
 lost our God, and gained only a Demiurge in 
 His stead. He is beyond our comprehension 
 because of His greatness. It is that which is 
 beyond the sphere of our knowledge here, which 
 is the most valuable part of this article in the 
 creed of natural religion. If we encounter 
 mystery, and acknowledge its existence in natural, 
 what objection is there to the same admission in 
 revealed, religion ? The person of Christ, His two 
 
244 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 distinct natures, and His personality remaining one 
 for ever, are assuredly mysterious. Strip them 
 of the mystery, and we rob the truth of the 
 incarnation of its majesty. Even after we have 
 denuded the nature of our Lord of its infinity 
 and of its union with the finite, there is still 
 left a residuum of mystery in the character and 
 life of Christ; and our superficiality leads us to 
 suppose that we fully understand His influence 
 on the world when we only know it “ in part.” 
 The danger of these rationalizing processes is, 
 that we are deprived of a truth most elevating 
 in its influence on devotional life, we are led 
 to believe that we understand the whole, when 
 in fact, we only comprehend a part of the sublime 
 truth. This is the invariable effect of all attempts 
 to reduce great realities to the limit of the com¬ 
 pletely intelligible. 
 
 As already stated, the terms employed by the 
 Church in her definitions of these doctrines are 
 difficult of comprehension in their application 
 to the divine and human nature. Personality, 
 humanity, divinity, are somewhat indefinite when 
 used separately, but when combined in one the 
 difficulty becomes greater still. Are we to give 
 up the use of the word personality because it is 
 hard to define ? are we to affirm that there can 
 be no union of the human and divine in Christ 
 because we cannot understand hoiv it has been 
 
CREEDS 
 
 245 
 
 effected ? Unless we adopt the principle of 
 Monism (and it is rather too much to expect 
 this in the present state of opinion among philo¬ 
 sophers) we admit that soul and body, mind and 
 matter, are somehow united in the one personality 
 of man. There is nothing contradictory, therefore, 
 to the first principles of intellectual truth in the 
 doctrine of the incarnation, even as stated in the 
 terms of the Church doctrine, and there is no valid 
 reason why the Church should exclude that doc¬ 
 trine from the articles of belief which her author¬ 
 ized teachers are to accept. We must regard, 
 then, the doctrine of the divinity or deity of 
 Christ and the incarnation of the eternal word 
 as fundamental to the faith of the Church, and 
 no tenns in explanation of the same should be 
 employed that would compromise the truth ex¬ 
 pressed in holy Scripture. 
 
 Another truth also must be included among 
 those that are reckoned fundamental, i.e., that 
 respecting the work of Christ. This is usually 
 called the doctrine of the atonement. On this, 
 as well as on other matters, strong tendencies 
 have been manifested to over-refinement in defini¬ 
 tion, and to state with precision what has been 
 set forth in Scripture only in general terms. We 
 have already alluded to this, in treating the 
 doctrines under the head of “ Atonement.” If 
 the Church is to have a creed at all, there must 
 
246 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 be some reference therein to such an important 
 subject as the work which Christ came into the 
 world to accomplish. This is, unquestionably, one 
 of the peculiarities by which Christianity is dis¬ 
 tinguished from all other religions. We have, 
 therefore, to be on our guard against the tendency 
 to minimize as much as possible the peculiarities 
 of the Christian faith, either in the way of 
 making it only a republication of natural religion, 
 or making it approach nearer the other great 
 religions of the world, such as Buddhism. The 
 religion of Christ is an exclusive religion, and 
 we must not be ashamed of the cross. “ God 
 forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our 
 Lord Jesus .” 1 “We preach Christ crucified unto 
 the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks 
 foolishness, but unto them that are called both 
 Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and 
 the wisdom of God.” 2 Even should we assume a 
 low degree of inspiration on the part of the 
 apostle of the Gentiles, we must at least credit 
 him with a high appreciation of the value of that 
 to which he consecrated his whole lite, viz., the 
 person and work of his divine Master, whose 
 “ he was, and whom he desired to serve.” It 
 was not for nought that he renounced the religion 
 of his fathers—dear to him as ever his religion 
 was to any man—and he must also have had a 
 
 1 1 Gal. vi. 14. 
 
 2 1 Cor. i. 23. 
 
CREEDS 
 
 247 
 
 clear discernment of its central truths and funda¬ 
 mental principles. In all the epistles, as well as 
 his speeches reported in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 the person and work of his Lord are brought 
 prominently forward. To Christ he owes all that 
 is dear to him, and the effects flowing out from 
 the Saviour to the world, have an important 
 connection with his death. “ Who was delivered 
 up for our offences and raised again for our 
 justification .” 1 It must be admitted, I think, 
 that the atonement, as taught by the Church, was 
 that held by the apostle, and the truth which 
 bulked so largely in his view that it made him 
 give vent to the impassioned energy of his soul in 
 commending the preciousness of Christ to others. 
 Many are willing to acknowledge Christ as a 
 great teacher who came forth from God, even 
 the greatest the world has ever seen, and Renan 
 thinks “ the world will never see His like again.” 2 
 It is something to have this admitted—indeed a 
 very great matter—to have such a concession 
 made on the part of many outside all the churches. 
 Even a fragment of truth is better than entire 
 absence of the whole, and may lead to something 
 better. But never in any case, least of all in the 
 vital matter of religion, are we to consent to the 
 admission of a fragment as if it were the whole. 
 The Church must teach the essential peculiarities 
 
 2 Life of Christ, Conclusion. 
 
 1 Rom. iv. 25. 
 
248 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 of the religion of Christ, and demand of her 
 accredited teachers an intelligent assent to these 
 peculiarities, in order that they may be promul¬ 
 gated in the world, and her members be fully 
 instructed in them. Mere eclecticism in religion 
 will be powerless to influence the world, stem 
 the tide of wickedness, and advance the cause of 
 goodness among all classes of society. We should 
 not give unnecessary offence to inquirers or out¬ 
 siders by any additions of human device to the 
 truth, but we must equally guard against the 
 tendency to pare off from the gospel those matters 
 that prove offensive to men of taste or philosophic 
 habits, lest the essence of Christianity should be 
 sacrificed and nothing left with which the human 
 mind can be elevated. We must not be ashamed 
 of the offence of the cross. Harnack somewhere 
 remarks that it was not the high morality incul¬ 
 cated by Christ or even the necessity of self- 
 sacrifice that was an offence to the Gentile world 
 and heathen philosopher, but salvation through 
 the crucified one. To surrender all ideas regard¬ 
 ing the work of Christ, would be to capitulate to 
 the enemy, nor should we ultimately gain those 
 for whom we might make such a sacrifice. 
 
 In opposing the Scripture truth on the work of 
 Christ, as with respect to other truths, many are 
 accustomed to justify the attitude they assume, 
 by representing such truths as resting upon ex- 
 
CREEDS 
 
 249 
 
 ternal authority. The denial of external authority 
 in religion is a denial of all revelation. We are 
 firmly persuaded that such denial cannot be 
 justified at the bar of reason. As revelation 
 in Scripture and the creed of the Church rests 
 upon authority, we may as well consider this 
 question at this stage of our inquiry. 
 
 A full discussion of this subject belongs to 
 apologetics, but questions are continually cropping 
 up in all theological investigations which require 
 to be referred to, since they belong to the region 
 of first principles. The nature of revelation 
 must be settled as far as it can be settled at the 
 earlier stage of theological inquiry. The idea 
 most commonly entertained respecting it is, the 
 communication of truth to the mind by some 
 authority external to that mind ; and in reference 
 to the truth revealed, we believe because we have 
 been told it by external authority. The subject 
 may assume this aspect. Can we receive any 
 truth which we have not discovered ourselves ? 
 Apart from the utility of such truth, it must be 
 admitted by every human being that an over¬ 
 whelming number of the truths which we believe, 
 and on which we act every day of our life, have 
 not been discovered by ourselves, but have reached 
 us by the testimony or instruction of others. 
 Indeed the whole basis of society rests on the 
 principle that men may be helpful to each other 
 
250 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 in the acquisition of knowledge. If every man had 
 to find out for himself all the events related in 
 one morning newspaper, his knowledge would be 
 on a very limited scale. The existence of teachers, 
 the publication of books, and private correspond¬ 
 ence, proceed on the assumption that man can he 
 helped by his brother man in the discovery of 
 truth. Every author writes under the idea that 
 he has something important to communicate to 
 his fellowmen. What reason can be given why 
 the same thing should not hold good within the 
 sphere of religion ? Why should this be the only 
 region in which a barrier has been erected to 
 prevent help reaching a man from any or all of 
 his fellows ? This help (viewing it in this aspect 
 at present) comes to us in a great variety of modes. 
 It may he in the prosaic way of a dry statement 
 of facts, or in indirect suggestion, or in detecting 
 the errors in which we have been involved, or in 
 giving us more living acquaintance with matters 
 familiar, or in opening up glorious vistas of truth 
 which had remained entirely unknown to us. 
 These are ordinary experiences within all the 
 spheres of human life. The agents through whom 
 these benefits are derived are also diverse. 
 Parents to their children, teachers to their pupils, 
 authors to their readers, and preachers to their 
 flocks. We may assert that very few human 
 beings acquire truth without aid from others. 
 
CREEDS 
 
 251 
 
 This aid is not, however, given so as to supersede 
 the efforts of the individual himself, but rather to 
 prevent these efforts proving fruitless. If man can 
 help his brother man in the search for truth, can¬ 
 not God help humanity ? To deny the possibility, 
 at least, of revelation, is the greatest presumption, 
 and as unreasonable a dogma as any contained in 
 the creeds; and yet people very easily slide into 
 this idea, generally in obedience to the dictum of 
 some philosophic system. The influence of such 
 systems upon the cultured is often as potent and 
 as irrational as popular belief upon the vulgar 
 crowd. That God cannot, is a presumptuous 
 assertion ; that God has not, or will not, is to beg 
 the question. To those who deny the super¬ 
 natural, and affirm that miracles never happen, 
 such questions may appear scarcely worthy of 
 examination. Indeed, all such questions belong 
 to the same class, and the answer to one contains 
 an answer to all. The prophets and apostles 
 claim to have had revelations from God ; that 
 God has spoken through them. This is the way 
 in which God cairies on His providential govern¬ 
 ment of the world. Some are endowed with 
 talent, others have been blest with genius, aud 
 many with common-sense ; and from the con¬ 
 stitution of things all derive benefit more or 
 less from the gifts' of others. God speaks to 
 men through men, “ to our fathers through 
 
252 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 the prophets, in these last clays through His 
 son.” 
 
 One kind of representation given of revelation 
 has tended to excite opposition in the minds of 
 many, viz., that it is a communication of truths 
 which man could not discover for himself. We 
 have only to take a superficial glance at the Bible 
 to be convinced that this is not a correct view. 
 It is not merely a communication of new truth, 
 but there is much that is old—not merely of 
 truths peculiar to the Jew r s, but also of those 
 common to them and the Gentile nations ; and 
 much of it has no evident token of being given 
 for instruction, but rather for impressing, en¬ 
 couraging, and stimulating. The mechanical 
 conception of revelation leads to many erroneous 
 ideas in various fields. In the Bible, we have not 
 only truths conveyed in commands, promises, 
 warnings, and distinct propositions, but as practi¬ 
 cally exemplified in the lives and actions of men 
 who impress the human heart both by their 
 nobility of character in obedience, or by their 
 perversity in disobedience. The good a man 
 derives from the perusal of a biography is none 
 the less real, though it cannot be accurately 
 defined. In matters of great import there is 
 always something that eludes the power of exact 
 description. 
 
 This has to be kept in mind in discussing 
 
CREEDS 
 
 253 
 
 articles of faith. Language is a vehicle into which 
 the whole reality cannot always be compressed ; 
 and it may happen that its most valuable aspect is 
 that which cannot be expressed. While this is 
 so, we must also remember that a direct negative 
 to what is proposed as an expression of a sublime 
 truth is more likely to be false than the affirma¬ 
 tive to which it is opposed. The endeavour to 
 render a truth intelligible to the logical under¬ 
 standing often leads to the rejection of what is 
 both sublime and mysterious. 
 
 In applying these remarks to the subject of the 
 atonement, we may put the question, does God 
 forgive sin ? Is there such a thing as forgiveness 
 in the method of divine government ? Does 
 punishment find a place in God’s dealings with 
 mankind ? Or is it always self-acting, as in 
 natural law ? Intemperance in eating and drink¬ 
 ing produces disease; exposure to impure air 
 poisons the constitution; a fall may cause a 
 fracture ; envy, jealousy, anger, are accompanied 
 or followed by painful feelings. Error in judg¬ 
 ment often leads to suffering or death, and 
 that irrespective of the moral character of the 
 agent. Is there no other punishment in store 
 for men in this life or in the life to come ? 
 There is often, at least, what is called an uneasy 
 conscience. There is a sense of demerit on account 
 of sin committed. Is there to be any additional 
 
254 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 punishment inflicted in the future life ? Such 
 questions have often been asked, in the history 
 of human thought; and it must be admitted that 
 they have a most vital bearing upon the happi¬ 
 ness and welfare of the human race. Whence can 
 an answer be obtained? Must each individual 
 find it out for himself; and if not, will the reply 
 of another be of any use or authority ? Surely 
 this is a matter on which the most gifted and 
 intelligent of the race may be of service to those 
 less highly favoured ; and even the most gifted 
 may be helped to find a solution to these dark 
 problems by an intelligence superior to their owu. 
 We believe this very thing has been done in the 
 revelation through and by Jesus Christ. We 
 obtain this forgiveness for which the human 
 heart craves through Him. He is both the 
 revealer and the agent through whom it has been 
 obtained for mankind. He is our Saviour as well 
 as the prophet who came forth from God. We 
 conclude our prayers with the words, “ for Christ’s 
 sake.” This we regard as a fundamental part of 
 the Church’s creed. It is as clearly made known 
 in Scripture as words can make it. Christ died, 
 rose again, offered a sacrifice for the sins of man, 
 and through Him forgiveness has been proclaimed 
 to the race. If there is forgiveness, and that 
 forgiveness comes through Christ, then Chris¬ 
 tianity differs fundamentally from all other 
 
CREEDS 
 
 255 
 
 religions. Its founder occupies a different position 
 in the system, and he stands in a more vital 
 relation to all men, than does the founder of any 
 other religion. This truth the Church regards as 
 vital, and to secure it has formulated the doctrine 
 of the atonement. 
 
 While this is so, it does not follow that we 
 ought, in the expression of the dogma, to go 
 heyond what the words of Scripture clearly imply: 
 We may say (to use words, perhaps not alto¬ 
 gether appropriate) that the fact of the atone¬ 
 ment but not the theory, ought to be inserted 
 in our symbolical books. That Christ died for 
 our sins is one thing, but how forgiveness is con¬ 
 nected with that death is another. The great¬ 
 ness and glory of His work in human redemption 
 are not dependent upon any theory we may form 
 as to the mode in which His work becomes 
 efficacious for the sinner’s acceptance with God, 
 and for His moral reformation. Many of the 
 terms employed and the arguments used to 
 recommend the truth to men are calculated to 
 raise difficulties cpiite as much as to solve them. 
 Did the divine person of Christ give infinite 
 value to His sufferings—are these sufferings a 
 full equivalent for the sufferings which otherwise 
 we should have endured, and were these suffer¬ 
 ings strictly penal and vicarious? The intelligence 
 of man prompts such questions; but we cannot 
 
25G 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 answer, either with satisfaction to ourselves or 
 others, all the inquiries to which curiosity leads. 
 Speculative questions and theoretical solutions 
 are by no means necessary for the efficient 
 regulation of the religious life; nor are they 
 for practical life of any kind. For almost all 
 the questions involved in the great verities of 
 the Christian faith, only partial solutions are 
 possible. On this very subject of the atone¬ 
 ment, there are analogies in the political and 
 social life of mankind. The innocent often suffer 
 for the guilty ; good men are self-sacrificing, and 
 this helps their fellows. “No man liveth, no 
 man dieth to himself.” There is what may be 
 called representative responsibility; but such 
 ideas only go a certain length, and do not solve 
 the mystery. To impose them in the way of 
 a formal creed upon all, may frequently raise 
 objections in the minds of men, so as to lead to 
 the rejection of the doctrine itself. A survey 
 of the past will lead us to the conclusion that 
 the cause of pure and undefiled religion has 
 scarcely ever suffered from lack of definition, but 
 very frequently from excess of definiteness and 
 precision. The simple truth is almost all con¬ 
 tained in “Jesus died for the salvation of man¬ 
 kind.” 
 
 We think, therefore, that the incarnation and 
 the atonement must be included in the Church’s 
 
CREEDS 
 
 257 
 
 creed, but the Biblical teaching ought to be 
 strictly adhered to, care being taken that nothing 
 is added, except by way of necessary inference 
 to what is stated by Christ and His apostles. 
 The progress of thought and the advance of 
 exegesis have brought most interpreters to the 
 admission that the incarnation and the atone¬ 
 ment are taught in Scripture, although, on 
 account of the views of inspiration which many 
 of them hold, they don’t feel called upon to 
 believe these truths. All branches of the Church, 
 however, still hold Scripture to be authoritative, 
 and that authority finds a response in the human 
 heart. 
 
 IV. Non - fundamental Doctrines .—When we 
 come, however, to other doctrines which are not 
 held in common by all the churches of the Re¬ 
 formation, and on which some differences exist 
 even in the Church of Rome, the matter assumes 
 a very different aspect. The Calvinist and Ar- 
 minian, the Baptist and the Paedobaptist, the 
 Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist, 
 while each may hold tenaciously his own par¬ 
 ticular tenets as being founded on the warrant 
 of Scripture, yet they all admit that the doctrinal 
 opinions of their opponents are not of such a vital 
 character as to exclude those who hold them 
 from the pale of Christianity, or prevent them 
 from leading holy lives or devoting themselves 
 
 u 
 
258 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 heart and soul to the service of Christ and the 
 elevation of men. Luther and Calvin, Pascal 
 and Fenelon, Arminius and Witsius, Usher and 
 Rutherford, Wesley and Whitfield, Chalmers and 
 Simeon, do not belong only to their respective 
 churches, but to the Church LTniversal. A living 
 Christianity is not so narrow as to be confined with¬ 
 in the bounds of any one sect, or be restricted 
 to the adherents of any one creed. Thanks be 
 ascribed to the living and divine head of the Church, 
 this fact is now more generally recognised in all 
 her branches than at any period of her history. 
 It is not only admitted in theory, but it re¬ 
 ceives more practical recognition in the various 
 ways of co-operation among members of different 
 churches, in works of practical utility for the 
 advancement of the cause of Christ. This phase, 
 characteristic of the present state of Clmstianity, 
 is a recognition of the fact that all truths are 
 not equally important ; that those which still 
 divide Christians from each other and have caused 
 them to establish separate organizations, are non- 
 fundamental, and not so vital as those on which 
 they are agreed. This is now so generally ac¬ 
 cepted that it almost amounts to a truism. If 
 this view, so widely received, and when only 
 very partially carried out, is productive of so 
 much good and prevents so much evil, it seems 
 to be a loud call of duty to consider more 
 
CREEDS 
 
 259 
 
 frequently than we do, the real unity that exists 
 in the Church amidst all the differences in 
 doctrine and organization, and how we may best 
 give effect to this unity in jn-actical work. We 
 admit that mere discussion of unity and differ¬ 
 ence, mere dwelling upon it in sermons from 
 the pulpit and speeches from the platform, will 
 not accomplish the end so devoutly to be wished. 
 Private intercourse and public co-operation on 
 the lines already entered upon will be much 
 more effectual, under the guidance of the Divine 
 Spirit; but still such topics must be considered 
 and earnestly discussed in a spirit of humility, 
 forbearance, and Christian charity. 
 
 Since it is admitted, if not in the very creed of 
 the churches, yet at least in the practice of them 
 all, that the questions in debate between the 
 Calvinists and Arminians are non-fundamental, 
 why should these respective systems be imposed 
 upon all candidates for the ministry, as a con¬ 
 dition of labouring for Christ under the sanction 
 of the body which they are desirous of entering, 
 and not left as open questions on which every 
 one must exercise his intellect to the best of 
 his ability, and as he is answerable to the great 
 head of the Church himself? Such a proposal 
 would be resented by many on both sides as 
 an act of unfaithfulness to principle. Many years 
 ago, as we were riding together in Australia 
 
260 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 on a Sunday, to preach to our respective con¬ 
 gregations in the same small township, I said to 
 the Wesleyan minister, “ Why could not we be 
 in the same church, although you are an 
 Arminian in doctrine and I a Calvinist ? ” He 
 did not think such a union desirable or possible. 
 Most of my Presbyterian brethren then (perhaps 
 not now) were of the same opinion as my 
 Wesleyan brother. I fear that this is still the 
 general feeling, viz., in the Wesleyan bodies in 
 England, and in the Presbyterian bodies in Europe 
 and America. Union is not to be thought of 
 between those who differ in doctrines which were 
 so eagerly discussed in Holland at the time of the 
 Synod of Dort, and more recently in the lifetime 
 of Wesley and Whitfield. Many a book and 
 pamphlet were issued by the respective adherents 
 of the opposing views, and a considerable amount 
 of gall, mingled in the productions of both sides. 
 Toplady and the Hills, Wesley and Tomline, were 
 not sparing in the use of opprobrious epithets 
 against each other. Fifty years ago, it was a 
 common occurrence to be warned from the pulpit 
 against the errors of Arminianism, as being most 
 serious and dangerous. Hence there very gener¬ 
 ally prevailed in Scotland, a dread of that system 
 as being injurious to the best interests of man. 
 When this feeling extensively prevails, and 
 dogmas of Calvinism are regarded as first prin- 
 
CREEDS 
 
 261 
 
 ciples in religion, it is not a matter of surprise 
 that a feeling of aversion is acquired which 
 sometimes leads to the condemnation of the 
 opposing view, without it being known as to its 
 nature, and still less as to its grounds in reason 
 and Scripture. The same state of things probably 
 exists in the school of John Wesley. The course 
 of thought during the last half century has com¬ 
 pelled those who value highly the great truths of 
 the gospel, to look at other matters which, during 
 that time, have been called in question. Things 
 that were most surely believed among us, Cal¬ 
 vinists and Arminians alike, have been subjected 
 to adverse criticism. Both with like tenacity and 
 earnestness, hold the one rule of faith, others 
 asserting that there is no rule of faith ; they dis¬ 
 puted whether the atonement was made for all, or 
 only for the elect, others are denying that there is 
 any atonement for sin at all. The more these 
 “ life-questions ” have forced themselves upon the 
 attention of those belonging to both of these 
 sections in the Christian Church, the more they 
 have been led to perceive that those truths for 
 which they fought so keenly are not possessed of 
 the primary and essential character which they 
 had, in their controversial moods, attributed to 
 them. It is also apparent that there are still 
 many who look upon them with the old feelings, 
 and assign to them the same important place in 
 
262 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 their creed. We assume that none on either side 
 have given up their respective tenets, but onty 
 assign them to a different niche in the temple of 
 truth. 
 
 It seems to be very generally taken for granted, 
 from the Church of Rome down to the smallest 
 sects, that when a dogma has been left out of its 
 creed, the Church so doing, abandons belief in 
 that truth and embraces the corresponding error. 
 It is on this assumption that the excited rhetoric 
 rests which is called forth by any proposal for 
 modifying the creed, not in the way of adding 
 anything thereto, but only by explaining state¬ 
 ments liable to misconception, or which may seem 
 to bind men’s consciences to an interpretation 
 which many, even of those who oppose all change 
 in the formulas, repudiate. The value of sound 
 doctrine, unfaithfulness to the truth, the danger 
 of heresy, the contendings of our forefathers and 
 the reformers for truth, and the necessity of 
 holding fast the form of sound words, are the 
 topics usually dwelt upon on such occasions ; in 
 addition to which, insinuations are often thrown 
 out as to the honesty of those who propose any 
 change, and hints are frequently given that such 
 proposals are only a covert attack upon the truth 
 contained in God’s Word and propounded in the 
 Confession. The opposers of all innovations and 
 the uncompromising upholders of things as they 
 
CREEDS 
 
 2G3 
 
 are, claim for themselves the honourable title of 
 defenders of the faith, and accuse their opponents 
 of unfaithfulness to the truth, and disloyalty to the 
 Church’s head. In reading such excited utterances, 
 one could not help being struck with the fact, that in 
 them there are very few references to the Scriptures 
 themselves, but the Confession is regarded as the 
 final court of appeal, any departure from which, 
 especially in the way of omission, is regarded as 
 a renunciation of the truth of God. Truth is 
 unchangeable,—the same for all times and all 
 lands and all people ; and as it is contained in 
 the Confession, it is not to be tampered with, or 
 in any way rendered less stringent. One might 
 well ask, are we to confound God’s truth, with 
 man’s apprehension of it ? The former is always 
 the same, the latter is subject to change, decay, 
 revival, and progress. Assuredly human progress 
 must affect everything—the most valuable as well 
 as the least, religion, as well as science. The 
 truth of God as it exists in the eternal mind is 
 beyond human grasp, but we may say of it as of 
 its author :—“ It is the same yesterday, to-day, 
 and for ever.” To apply the same to creeds which 
 are only human apprehensions of divine things, 
 expressed in the imperfect vehicle of language, is 
 altogether beside the mark. We do not deny 
 that all Protestant -Churches admit their liability 
 to error, both in the comprehension and expression 
 
264 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 of divine truth ; but frequently at the very next 
 breath, they make assertions which imply the 
 opposite. The salvation of the Church and the 
 conservation of the truth seems to many to be 
 secured only by going back to the Eeformation, 
 and returning to the old modes of expression and 
 the old ways of conducting religious operations. 
 But apart from the assumption of retaining the 
 expression of the Confession, there is also to be 
 affirmed that the omission of an article from the 
 Church’s creed does not necessarily imply that all 
 its members and teachers, or indeed any of them, 
 have renounced their belief in it. To drop an 
 article is not to disbelieve it; and by a simjjle 
 omission thereof, any office-bearer or member is as 
 free to hold it as he was before, not only to hold 
 it as a matter of private belief, but to advocate it, 
 in the pulpit or elsewhere, as a correct representa¬ 
 tion of the divine reality. It is marvellous that 
 any other idea could ever be entertained as to the 
 effect of such a change in the public confession, 
 than that the Church does not deem it wise to 
 impose the doctrine omitted as a test on all seek¬ 
 ing admission to any office ; in short, it is a 
 change in the direction of liberty. In almost 
 every body in existence there are open questions, 
 and this fact apparently exercises no deleterious 
 influence upon church life or upon belief in the 
 doctrines which are not allowed to remain open 
 
CREEDS 
 
 2G5 
 
 for discussion, but must be accepted as a permanent 
 part of the Christian faith. Some in all the 
 churches hold that the Second Advent of our 
 Lord will be premillenial, others hold that it will 
 not. The premillenialists have not attempted to 
 impose their views upon the rest of the Church, 
 nor have any attempted to prevent them from 
 holding theirs. Has freedom on this question com¬ 
 promised the churches in any way ? Would this 
 view be put down and completely banished, if it 
 were condemned, or would it spread more rapidly 
 and extensively, if insei’ted in the articles of faith ? 
 It seems to us that the mode of treatment meted 
 out to those who maintain this view respecting 
 the Second Advent, should be of use in guiding 
 those who wish to adapt themselves to the currents 
 of present thought. It has not been imposed 
 upon any body ; free discussion, for, and against, 
 has always been allowed, and these discussions 
 have been as free from acrimony and abuse as 
 those on any other subject. It is open to question 
 whether a doctrine will better find its way into 
 the hearts of men, when left free to discussion, 
 or when imposed by authority upon all who are 
 to exercise the office of teacher. We admit, 
 that some doctrines must be placed beyond the 
 reach of this, so far as a particular church is con¬ 
 cerned, but we are persuaded that in the case of 
 many others, it would be better for the reception 
 
2G6 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 of the doctrines themselves, if they were left to be 
 freely examined in the light of reason and Scrip¬ 
 ture. If a man becomes a heretic, you can cast 
 him out of the Church, but you cannot put him 
 out of the world. Truth cannot be forced. We 
 all admit that it cannot be propagated by the 
 sword ; but we should acknowledge with equal 
 readiness that it cannot be propagated by disci¬ 
 pline—discipline even ending in the expulsion of 
 those who have steadfastly opposed it. “ Under 
 our present conditions,” says Dean Church— 
 “ necessary conditions as it seems to me, with 
 which I for one do not quarrel—of vast liberty, 
 and inevitable compromise, I should be sorry to see 
 even such things [Mr Bell Cox goes to prison for 
 having lighted candles, and mixed water with the 
 wine, and refusing to give up such things] put down 
 by courts of law. Their true enemies, their true 
 antidotes, are not judicial sentences, but Christian 
 ideas, not only in discussion but in life and action ; 
 as long as these ideas can command enthusiasm 
 aud self-sacrifice, they will do what arguments 
 cannot do, and much less, force ” (Life, p. 324). 
 To maintain that truth will suffer by open and free 
 discussion is to mistake its character altogether. 
 “ The more it’s shook it shines.” 
 
 It seems taken for granted that the only way 
 of preserving a doctrine in its purity, is to place 
 it in the formulary, insist on its being taught, and 
 
CREEDS 
 
 267 
 
 expel all who openly oppose it. No doubt this 
 will produce some effect in that direction, as it 
 will prevent many from hearing it opposed or 
 becoming acquainted with the arguments on the 
 other side. This is like the method of isolation 
 in the treatment of disease. Sometimes it is 
 successful, but the difficulty is to carry it out 
 successfully. There is no necessity for the ordi¬ 
 nary citizen to come into contact with disease ; 
 but no one can be said to know a truth thoroughly, 
 unless he knows also the reasons in its behalf 
 and, implicitly, at least, those adduced against it. 
 There can be no genuine belief nurtured in the 
 dark. Suppression of error can never be effected 
 by mere exclusion from contact therewith. But 
 the granting of freedom to the teachers of any 
 church with regard to a particular doctrine, does 
 not prevent her from using in its defence the 
 only weapon that ought to be effective in spiritual 
 things, viz., cogent reasoning. Error, as well as 
 truth, is often propagated through prejudice. 
 The proper antidote to this is not prejudice on 
 the opposite side, but the clear statement of the 
 truth and its rational vindication. The nature 
 of the opposing error can be clearly exposed ; the 
 arguments employed in its defence can be con¬ 
 clusively refuted ; and all the injurious conse¬ 
 quences that legitimately follow can be fully 
 enumerated and pressed upon the hearts and 
 
268 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 consciences of men. These are the most favour¬ 
 able conditions for the growth of a reasonable 
 faith and an intelligent reception of Christian 
 truth ; but the opposite method is too apt to be 
 regarded as the effect of a lurking doubt as to the 
 power of truth to defend itself, and of the fear 
 that, in its contest with error, it will be van¬ 
 quished. We are very far from denying that 
 those who oppose any revision of church formu¬ 
 laries, and advocate the use of discipline to expel 
 from Communion those who openly deny any of 
 their doctrines, rely upon this method alone for 
 the preservation of sound doctrine and the 
 suppression of error. They have had recourse to 
 argument as well ; and it may be freely admitted 
 that during the course of the great controversies 
 that have agitated the Church Universal, and 
 when the great decisions have been given respect¬ 
 ing aspects of truth, at one time opposed, but 
 now generally accepted in all the divisions into 
 which she has been split, that the preponderance 
 of argument was on the Church’s side, and not on 
 that of her opponents ; but we think also that 
 truth would have fared better, if her decisions had 
 been less precise, and greater freedom had been 
 conceded to private judgment. The impartial 
 verdict of history will be that there has been too 
 much of the former and too little of the latter. 
 
 It must strike every one who observes the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 269 
 
 state of feeling which arises in a church when an 
 individual, or a combination of individuals, pub¬ 
 lishes opinions contrary, or supposed to be contrary, 
 to its standards, that the first thought that strikes 
 her rulers, and even many outside her communion, 
 is not that the supposed erroneous teaching should 
 be carefully examined and thoroughly refuted, but 
 that discipline be forthwith exercised, and the 
 offending party thrust out. The zealous friends 
 and the bitter foes of the Church alike urge her 
 not to allow her sons to attack the creed and 
 pervert the truth. Such times are very often 
 seasons of panic ; men’s minds are excited to the 
 utmost pitch, and the cry is raised, “ the Church is 
 in danger ; ” “ heresy should never be tolerated,” 
 “ God’s truth must be vindicated and the abettors 
 of error silenced.” Those who are charged with 
 the duty of guarding her interests are sometimes 
 accused of dilatoriness, or by-and-bye of unfaith¬ 
 fulness to her divine head. Such have generally 
 been the circumstances in which prosecutions for 
 heresy have taken place — certainly the most 
 unfavourable for a calm and searching examina- 
 tion and a well-balanced judgment. When Dr 
 Hampden, who had delivered the Bampton 
 Lectures on “ The Scholastic Theology,” was ap¬ 
 pointed Professor of Divinity at Oxford, great ex¬ 
 citement was produced by the appointment, on the 
 ground of alleged heresy contained in the Lectures. 
 
270 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 Many clergymen, it was proved, signed petitions, 
 requisitions, etc.,—the usual accompaniments of 
 excitement—against them, who had not even read 
 the book. The same was the case in the prosecu¬ 
 tion of Prof. Robertson Smith, many sitting as 
 judges in the charges against him, who had never 
 read the articles in which his unsound teaching- 
 appeared. The great thing in both cases was to 
 get the man condemned and his voice silenced ; 
 then error would be rebuked and truth vindicated. 
 The subsequent events of both churches proved 
 that no such effect was produced. Probably all 
 the positions of either author are not now accepted 
 by a large number of persons among the different 
 churches, but I feel certain that the general 
 principles of both are much more widely accepted 
 than when the adverse decisions were given. The 
 nature of the case itself, as well as the after 
 effects of the prosecutions, ought to be a sufficient 
 warning not to rely much upon them for the main¬ 
 tenance of truth, but to appeal rather to reason 
 than to authority, to argument than to discipline, 
 to Holy Scripture than to the Confession. 
 
 An objection might be adduced against this 
 method of dealing with truth and error, from 
 the effect likely to arise from the great diversity 
 of belief that would prevail, in the same body, 
 upon many doctrines. This Sunday a congregation 
 would listen to a minister upholding manfully the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 271 
 
 doctrines of Calvinism ; on the following, another 
 would be strenuously arguing against the divine 
 decrees, a limited atonement, and efficacious grace. 
 That there would be diversity of teaching we 
 readily admit, but that consequences injurious to 
 truth or to the cause of Christ would necessarily 
 or probably ensue, we deny. These are much 
 more imaginary than real. There might, and 
 probably would be, discussion on such questions 
 as now divide the churches, were these left to 
 the freedom of private judgment. Discussion 
 might lead even to sharp controversy. But it 
 should be remembered that such controversy exists 
 now, and would be perpetuated by the continuance 
 of present divisions, caused by the doctrines in 
 question, and it is intensified by the fact that 
 sectional interests are involved. Other feelings 
 than the pure love of truth are very apt to be 
 called into exercise. Discussion of itself is not a 
 bad thing, it is rather good, even the only means 
 by which truth can be separated from the error 
 with which it has been associated. What has 
 rendered controversy so disastrous to the peace 
 and prosperity of the Church, is not the thing in 
 itself, but that it has been waged respecting 
 matters of trivial moment, or conducted in an 
 unchristian spirit. As long as men are imperfect 
 in knowledge, discussion will be required to re¬ 
 move misconception, to present arguments in a 
 
272 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 more favourable light, and to remove foreign accre¬ 
 tions that have gathered round the truth. As long 
 as imperfection and sinfulness characterize human 
 nature, these will manifest themselves in carrying 
 on the defence of the truth against its impugners, 
 after the model of the world rather than that of 
 Christ. There is already far too much of this 
 spirit in all branches of the Church of Christ, 
 and none of them, on this ground, can cast a 
 stone at each other. It is humiliating to think, 
 on what slender grounds grave charges of doctrinal 
 error are brought against members of other 
 churches as well as those belonging to the same 
 church. Insinuations are thrown out, doubtful 
 expressions are taken in the worst sense, and 
 unguarded statements are twisted so as to assume 
 a meaning which their authors never intended. 
 Unfairness in dealing with opponents has been 
 too characteristic of party religious warfare, 
 whether carried on in the pulpit, the press, or 
 on the platform. We think if many of these 
 questions were left open in the churches, and 
 men were not called upon, from their position, 
 to take a particular side, that much of the un¬ 
 charitableness of the past would disappear, and 
 truth would not lose, but gain by the change. 
 
 We are not left to mere conjecture as to the 
 effect of freedom with regard to many doctrines, 
 but we have the present state of all the churches 
 
CREEDS 
 
 273 
 
 with regard to diversity of views on particular 
 subjects prevailing within them. Take the pre- 
 millenial advent, which is an open question, I 
 suppose, in them all. The discussion thereon has 
 been considerable, both in books, pamphlets, aud 
 serials, but no one, I imagine, can affirm either 
 that the amount of discussion has been greater, 
 or the spirit in which it has been conducted worse, 
 than what has been manifested on other topics 
 of religious interest; most would rather say that, 
 on both sides, it has been much better. In 
 apologetics, there are great differences also, some 
 hold firmly the a posteriori argument, some the 
 a priori, some reject both, and rely upon the 
 intuitional. Some place chief reliance upon 
 miracles in the defence of faith, others maintain 
 that they are as much a hindrance as an obstacle 
 to faith ; and some hold that a miracle can be 
 performed by omnipotence alone, and others that 
 demoniacal power is competent for the task. 
 Truth has been preserved safe in the midst of 
 this freedom, and unchristian bitterness has 
 been reduced to a minimum. So with regard to 
 many other questions, the authorship of Old 
 and New Testament writings—such as Job 
 in the former, and Hebrews in the latter, 
 the interpretation of particular passages or 
 parables, etc., etc. All such questions have 
 been discussed, progress has been made in 
 
274 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGIOX 
 
 various ways, and in these regions the laws of 
 Christian charity have comparatively seldom been 
 violated. Should the idea prevail, however, that 
 any dogma of the Church’s creed is involved on 
 either side of these questions, then a different kind 
 of feeling is at once called forth. This may be 
 illustrated by a reference to the state of matters 
 that has, for some time, prevailed in the Church 
 of England. The XXXIX Articles are supposed 
 to be neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, but may 
 be conscientiously subscribed by the adherents of 
 either system. Whether this is true or not, it is 
 not our business to enquire, nor is it necessary 
 for our purpose. It is understood by all parties, 
 that a clergyman of that church can preach a 
 sermon, publish a review article, or send forth 
 through the press a large book, in which the 
 points of difference are discussed and the prin¬ 
 ciples of Calvinism are vindicated or refuted, 
 according to his view of the matter. The con¬ 
 troversy within the Church has not been carried 
 on with much bitterness, at least in recent times, 
 but when this has shown itself it has been when 
 the attempt has been made to prove that the 
 question is not an open one. It is well known, 
 that the subjects of “ Baptismal Regeneration,” 
 and the “ presence of Christ in the eucharist,” 
 have given rise to an immense amount of dis¬ 
 cussion, and that the literature of these subjects 
 
CREEDS 
 
 275 
 
 is very extensive. There has been acrimonious 
 writing in abundance, and the charges of bad 
 faith and dishonest subscription, the usual 
 manifestations on such occasions, have been freely 
 indulged in. There has been freedom allowed 
 on the controverted subjects; and these two 
 schools at least, have always existed within the 
 Church—but how has it been allowed ? Not 
 by the contending parties themselves, but by the 
 decision of the supreme tribunal, when a case 
 or cases of criminal prosecution came befoi’e it. 
 On such occasions the court acts upon the 
 principle (and justly so) that the charges, being 
 of a criminal character, must be proved beyond 
 a doubt. In this way Mr Gorham, prosecuted 
 by the Bishop of Exeter for denying Baptismal 
 Regeneration, escaped, which was a victory for 
 the Evangelical part)"; but the decision was felt 
 by some High Churchmen to be such a defeat, 
 that Manning and some others joined the Church 
 of Rome. In the case of Mr Ben net of Frome, 
 the judges of the Privy Council decided that, 
 although his teaching, in their opinion, was peri¬ 
 lously near doing so, yet it did not necessarily 
 contradict the formularies of the Church of 
 England. A great deal of the bitterness of these 
 disputes arose from the fact that each side wish 
 to exclude the other from the Church — in other 
 words — they wanted to close the questions which 
 
276 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 had been oj)en. The formularies were ambiguous ; 
 both sides affirmed they were not so, but ought 
 to be taken in the sense which each side accepted. 
 Each party accused the other of being out of 
 harmony with the teaching of the Church. The 
 bad feeling -which originated in the belief of 
 each party that there was want of loyalty on 
 the other side will, to a great extent, cease, when 
 both views are recognised as tenable within the 
 Church. Here again, it is not the open question 
 that gives rise to all the writing, and discussing, 
 and prosecutions, which assume an unseemly 
 aspect to all who value Christian charity, but it 
 is the belief that they are not open. 
 
 V. The need of liberty in non-fundamentals. 
 —Let us now look at the urgent necessity that 
 exists for a large measure of liberty being granted 
 to those who are to hold office in the Church of 
 Christ. Should candidates for the ministry be 
 treated with confidence or with suspicion ? 
 Should we suppose that, from love of novelty, 
 or from some other cause, they will embrace 
 every opportunity of deviating from the creed, 
 or should we not rather regard them as Christian 
 men, loyally attached to the truth of God, and 
 who will not forsake the doctrinal paths in 
 which they have been accustomed to walk, unless, 
 through reading, close study, and prolonged ex¬ 
 amination, they are compelled with reluctance 
 
CREEDS 
 
 277 
 
 to accept views inconsistent with those which 
 they have cherished all their lives ? The latter 
 state of mind is the one which generally 
 characterizes the majority of aspirants to the 
 work of the sacred ministry. We believe that 
 men who have entered this work have been 
 animated, not only by the desire of advancing 
 the cause of Christ, but also by that of pre¬ 
 serving due fidelity to the Church’s creed, and 
 that, as a general rule, they have no desire 
 to become innovators in doctrine or practice. 
 For their own sake, for the Church’s sake, and 
 for the truth’s sake, they ought to be treated 
 with confidence at the outset and with forbearance 
 throughout their career. It must be regarded as 
 the highest attainment in the Church when her 
 teachers have been trained in the formation of 
 studious habits and in the careful investigation 
 of. truth ; and as a result of this training to be 
 inspired with loyal attachment to her creed, 
 combined with genuine tolerance and Christian 
 charity to those who may differ from them. Two 
 dangers incident to all ecclesiastical bodies must 
 be guarded against, viz., that of half-hearted allegi¬ 
 ance to their own body, and that of intolerance 
 or contempt towards others. There is doubtless a 
 risk of undervaluing their distinctive principles, 
 and of thus opcnirig the way for the spread of 
 indifference, even with regard to matters con- 
 
278 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 fessedly of highest moment ; but there is a risk 
 also of elevating mere circumstantials into the 
 place of fundamentals, and thus to injure the 
 unity of the Church. The most effectual protec¬ 
 tion against both of these dangers is a short creed, 
 in which the questions of doubtful disputation are 
 reduced to a minimum, and as much freedom as 
 possible is given to individual thought. The 
 more numerous the articles of a controversial 
 character embraced in the formulary, the more 
 difficult it will be to secure cordial unanimity and 
 a hearty reception of the same. We advocate a 
 brief creed, not only in the interests of Christian 
 union, but for the sake of obtaining a loyal 
 attachment thereto among those who are to 
 minister at the altars of the Church. There can 
 be no doubt that the stringency of subscription 
 insisted upon in most churches, debars many 
 young men of ability and culture from entering 
 the ministry, and proves a source of anxiety and 
 mental anguish to many who do enter. The 
 stern advocates of things as they are, and the rigid 
 opponents of change in a more liberal direction, 
 sometimes say; “ Are we to change our position 
 and renounce our testimony, in order to open 
 the door for doubters and sceptics, who are too 
 often wise in their own conceits, a state of mind 
 frequently begotten bv undue devotion to some 
 system of philosophy.” It is not well to answer 
 
CREEDS 
 
 279 
 
 such applicants in this fashion, as the retort may 
 be made that the opponents of all change are 
 actuated by a blind adherence to old opinions, and 
 by a bigoted aversion to all systems of philosophy 
 of which they are ignorant. Such retorts ought 
 to be avoided on both sides, since in the case of 
 those who have difficulty in subscribing, there is 
 often as much humility and as strong attachment 
 to Christian truth as in that of their opponents, 
 and there is often extensive knowledge and 
 genuine liberality possessed by those who oppose 
 any liberalizing of pmblic formularies. 
 
 VI. Calvinism an open question .—Would it 
 not, therefore, be conducive to the end of securing 
 an intelligent, loyal, and devoted ministry, if the 
 question, for example, of Predestination were left 
 open ? As a matter of fact, it is left open in the 
 Church of England, in Congregational and Baptist 
 churches. What injury has resulted to these 
 denominations from this exercise of liberality ? 
 Of course, if you lay it down as a necessary mark 
 of a true and living church, that strict regard 
 shall be had to sound doctrine, that doctrine being 
 of the Calvinistic type, and that any one deviating 
 in his public teaching from that type, should 
 speedily be called to account, and, if persevering 
 in that course, be at once silenced, then such 
 churches as mentioned are guilty of great un¬ 
 faithfulness ; but if you regard, on the other hand, 
 
280 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the whole working of the organization, in its 
 effects upon the morality and piety of its 
 members, and their faithfulness in proclaiming the 
 great verities of the Christian faith, a very different 
 answer would be given. We should expect the 
 Calvinists in their communions to be a little more 
 liberal than Presbyterian churches, and the 
 Arminians also more liberal than the Wesleyan 
 Church. So far, then, as this question is con¬ 
 cerned, it is not to be settled in the light of 
 theory and speculation only, but we have a 
 practical exemplification of the matter, in the 
 present condition of these churches which we have 
 mentioned. This is not conclusive to those who 
 regard this union as unlawful, and who are not 
 swayed by any steps that have been taken in 
 the way of greater comprehensiveness. What is 
 there in Predestination itself, that it should 
 occupy such a prominent place among Christian 
 doctrines, and prove a source of division among 
 Christians ? Is it necessary to the holding of 
 other doctrines—such as the Trinity or Atone¬ 
 ment ? If it is so logically, it is not so historically, 
 for many, or rather the majority of those' who 
 hold these doctrines, reject this. The Western 
 Church, although paying great honour to St Augus¬ 
 tine, the great defender of the doctrine among the 
 fathers, does not require her teachers to accept it, 
 but tolerates within her bosom the most influential 
 
CREEDS 
 
 281 
 
 of all her orders, the Jesuits who have been for 
 centuries the leading opponents of Predestination; 
 the Greek Church, which includes in her ranks 
 some of the leading Church fathers, and which is 
 often represented as affording a more liberal 
 theology than the Western, does not accept the 
 doctrine so ably taught by Augustine and Aquinas, 
 and reasserted by the Reformers generally, and 
 especially by Calvin. Whatever view may be enter¬ 
 tained as to the correct and only legitimate inter¬ 
 pretation of the XXXIX Articles, it is commonly 
 admitted that a majority of the clergy of the 
 Church of England reject the Calvinistic doctrine 
 of Predestination. It may be said that this is 
 owing to the High sacramentarian tendencies so 
 manifest of late in that church. Although I 
 believe that Calvinistic views are more anta¬ 
 gonistic to sacramentarianism than Arminianism 
 is, still many in that church who were not sacra¬ 
 mentarian, such as Archbishop Sumner, S. Faber, 
 Whately, and others, rejected that system, while 
 also disclaiming the name of Arminian. There can 
 be no doubt that the Wesleyan body in England 
 and the colonies, as well as the Methodist Episcopal 
 in America, is thoroughly Arminian, but all these 
 bodies are as strongly attached to the great 
 central truths of the Incarnation and the Atone¬ 
 ment, as any denominations in Christendom. 
 The Congregational and Baptist bodies have to 
 
252 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 some extent, given up their attachment to Cal¬ 
 vinism, but they maintain with as much firmness 
 as ever the fundamental truths of the faith. Any 
 changes they may have experienced from the 
 present currents of theological thought, have been 
 in common with most other branches of the Church 
 of Christ. Freedom of thought on this subject 
 appears to have produced no bad results, so far 
 as other doctrines are concerned. It may also be 
 asserted, I think, that the effect of this freedom 
 upon the life of these churches has been beneficial. 
 The influence which any doctrinal system exerts 
 upon the piety of its members and upon their 
 activity in works of Christian usefulness, ought to 
 be taken into account in the formation of a 
 creed adapted to the wants of the communion. 
 We ought to call to mind the unquestionable fact 
 that in the Wesleyan bodies, the truths respecting 
 sin and salvation are held as extensively, i.e., 
 by the overwhelming majority of ministers and 
 members as well as intensively, i.e., with genuine 
 conviction and ardent zeal, as in any body of 
 Christendom. For warm religious fervour, for the 
 feelings of the heart being called into exercise, 
 and for perseverance and assiduity in missionary 
 operations among the heathen, if they are equalled, 
 they are certainly not surpassed by any Calvinistic 
 body in existence. For the publication of books 
 calculated to foster the spirit of piety, to touch 
 
CREEDS 
 
 283 
 
 the heart with a sense of indebtedness to divine 
 love, and of compassion to men suffering from 
 physical or moral causes, it cannot be affirmed 
 that those denying this doctrine have been 
 inferior to those who receive it. 
 
 When we regard this doctrine theoretically, 
 apart from the influence which it exerts upon the 
 churches receiving it, is it possessed of such 
 importance that every individual asking admission 
 into the number of its accredited church teachers 
 should be required to have studied the subject so 
 thoroughly, that he can ex cinimo express his 
 belief therein, and promise that his teaching is 
 not directly or indirectly to contradict the same ? 
 In answer to this question, I would remark ; 
 it involves very serious difficulties—difficulties 
 which seem inseparable from it. Apparently, it 
 means that God has foreordained whatsoever comes 
 to pass, not only the events which happen in the 
 external world, but all the actions, good and bad, of 
 rational creatures, the fall of Adam, as well as the 
 pious actions of Abraham, the father of the faithful. 
 
 If the evil as well as the good must equally 
 come under the influence of this decree, and if 
 evil actions as well as the good must necessarily 
 take place, the credit ascribed to the good man 
 for his benevolent- actions, and the blame that 
 rests upon the wicked for his evil actions, must 
 be equally undeserved. God is thus apparently 
 
284 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the author of sin. This latter inference is re¬ 
 pudiated by all Calvinists, who would regard it 
 with horror. It is, as it were, a pendant to the 
 doctrine, that God is not the author of sin. The 
 opponents of the doctrine ought not to ascribe to 
 its defenders this idea, since the latter expressly 
 repudiate it. It is perfectly legitimate to point 
 out that one ought, consistently, to hold that 
 which he repudiates, because the consequences 
 charged necessarily follow from the doctrine as 
 stated. Indeed, this is the only possible way of 
 showing the untenable character of any proposi¬ 
 tion, that it is inconsistent with certain other 
 propositions held in common by the contending 
 parties. It must be admitted that it is a most 
 difficult task to reconcile the doctrine with the 
 responsibility of man. The contradictory of 
 predestination is not human freedom, or the free 
 agency of man, but non-predestination; and of 
 free agency not predestination, but the agency of 
 man in bondage; man reduced to an automaton— 
 a mere machine moved by the divine will to all 
 his actions, good and bad alike. Such a result, 
 as already stated, is repudiated alike by each of 
 the contending parties. 
 
 We might naturally conclude, judging from the 
 history of all controversies in philosophy, theology, 
 and science, that each system is contending for 
 some important truth, with greater emphasis on 
 
CREEDS 
 
 285 
 
 some aspects of it than the opposite one does. 
 The question is one of extreme difficulty on both 
 sides, so that there is great danger of the truth 
 contained in the one view being overlooked, if 
 we are to give exclusive prominence to the other. 
 Predestination relates to the eternal decrees of 
 God, to the succession of the divine thoughts or 
 purposes, and to the causes or grounds of these 
 purposes. It must be admitted, one would think, 
 that such questions are beyond the reach of man 
 to solve ; and a question involving such difficul¬ 
 ties ought not to be prematurely settled, as it 
 must be by those who are required, at the outset 
 of their career, to accept a number of definite 
 propositions setting forth the predestinarian 
 doctrine and condemning the opposite theory. 
 On the other hand, the subject of Free Will has 
 been discussed for nearly two thousand years, and 
 distinguished names have been arrayed on opposite 
 sides. In the present day, it cannot be affirmed 
 that it has yet been settled, or indeed that it is 
 much nearer a satisfactory solution than it has 
 ever been. The same is true to a considerable 
 extent in relation to the theological aspects of 
 the subject. Mr Balfour, in his recent work on 
 the “Foundations of Belief,” remarks, that there 
 has not been such an amount of discussion, and 
 for the most part, useless discussion, as on the 
 subject of miracles, except that of Free Will. 
 
286 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 And yet, notwithstanding of this unquestioned 
 fact, in most of the Presbyterian churches of Scot¬ 
 land and America, it is still required of all their 
 ministers, at the very threshold of their ministry, 
 to adopt one side of the controversy, to declare 
 their assent to the doctrine as expressed in the 
 Westminster Confession, and of whom it will 
 be expected that they will defend the doctrine 
 where it is opposed. Need we wonder that very 
 many men have hesitated to declare their accept¬ 
 ance of a doctrine expressed in terms designed to 
 be as precise as possible in setting forth one side 
 of the truth and in excluding the opposite error ? 
 Are not many lost to the Church because of 
 this stringency ? Are not these the very men 
 whom we can least afford to lose at the present 
 time, in the conflict with unbelief ? They know 
 that it has been a dogma hotly contested in the 
 Church in Patristic, Scholastic, and Reformation 
 times, as well as more recently. They fre¬ 
 quently feel insuperable difficulties in coming to 
 any definite conclusion at all ; they do not per¬ 
 ceive any necessity, either in the interests of 
 Christian truth or of the Christian life, for coming 
 to any decision. Unfortunately for the purity 
 of truth and for the progress of genuine but 
 humble freedom of thought, the majority of 
 church courts, ministers and laymen, have not 
 very carefully examined the foundations in reason 
 
CREEDS 
 
 287 
 
 and Scripture on which the doctrine rests ; they 
 have been indoctrinated therein from their youth, 
 and taught to regard it as resting upon the 
 clearest warrant of Scripture ; they are familiar 
 with the ordinary arguments urged in its favour, 
 and with the passages of Scripture adduced in 
 its support, and they cannot conceive the possi¬ 
 bility, or at least the reasonableness, of other 
 minds being tossed about with serious mental 
 conflicts on a matter which they see no reason 
 to doubt. We believe that the majority of all 
 these churches are sincerely attached to the 
 Calvinistic system (which is not dead, as some 
 people imagine) ; and many of them also are 
 honestly of opinion that, to leave it an open 
 question and permit views inconsistent therewith 
 to be taught, would be an act of unfaithfulness 
 to the Great Head of the Church. We are not 
 of those who pronounce all such persons bigots, 
 old fossils, and hide-bound defenders of antiquated 
 dogmas. We have even less sympathy with those 
 who hurl these opprobrious epithets against the 
 upholders of truths held in their own church for 
 centuries, than with those who Rpply abusive 
 terms to those who advocate views that are recent 
 and opposed to current thought and feeling. 
 Truth must be spoken, but spoken in love, so that 
 the representative of the new has no right to sup¬ 
 pose that all the thought and learning are on his 
 
288 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 side, nor of the old that fidelity to Christian truth 
 and holiness of life are his peculiar possessions. 
 But we should inquire, have they all, however 
 sincere their belief, examined their own dogmas 
 with that care which is necessary ? Have they 
 read many or any of the works written in opposi¬ 
 tion to them ? Have they, after a careful bal¬ 
 ancing of evidence, arrived at the conclusion that 
 the Calvinistic system of doctrine is the only one 
 taught in Scripture, and that every view contrary 
 thereto or inconsistent therewith, must be rejected ? 
 That this intellectual operation has been care¬ 
 fully performed by the leading theologians and 
 prominent men in these communions, we fully 
 believe, but that the rank and file have subjected 
 the doctrines to such a scrutiny we have serious 
 doubts. This state of things is just what might 
 be expected, as we find the same in all churches 
 and in all political parties. We should have a 
 similar experience in the different Methodist 
 bodies on the side of Arminianism and in the 
 Conservative, Liberal, and Radical parties in the 
 State. Some of the leaders have carefully in¬ 
 vestigated the matter for themselves, and have 
 adduced what appears to them conclusive argu¬ 
 ments ; the vast majority follow their leaders, 
 being satisfied with the traditional reasons assigned 
 for their belief, and seldom taking the trouble 
 to make themselves acquainted with what has 
 
CREEDS 
 
 289 
 
 been urged from the opposite side. Accordingly, 
 one of the effects of this state of mind is, that 
 members of different denominations live very 
 much apart from each other; their intercourse 
 (though, thank God, much more general than 
 at former periods) is one of constraint so far as 
 their distinctive principles are concerned ; and 
 each one, to a considerable extent, confines his 
 reading to the literature of his own denomination. 
 We do not find much fault with this condition 
 of things, as it is on the whole, most conducive 
 to that peace which w r e ought to follow with 
 all men. The inference, however, to be drawn 
 from it is, that the points in controversy between 
 the various denominations of Christian men are 
 not of vital importance, and therefore that they 
 ought to be treated as matters of mutual forbear¬ 
 ance. Dr William Cunningham, one of the ablest, 
 fairest, and most learned defenders of Calvinism 
 during this last half-century, somewhere says, that 
 after his prolonged investigation of the points in 
 debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, he 
 held his own views more firmly, but had greater 
 tolerance for those who differed from him. It 
 is this toleration of those who differ from us 
 which is of great moment at the present hour ; 
 the tolerance that- proceeds from a thorough 
 kuowledge of the subject, reached after long and 
 careful investigation, and not from indifference 
 
290 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 to all Christian truth. The same tendency, when 
 allowed to operate with unimpeded energy, will 
 issue, I think, in the removal from our formulas 
 of subscription, the dogmatic statements in which 
 Calvinism is stringently and precisely set forth, 
 and the opposite severely condemned. This will 
 do no harm to the doctrines themselves, nor to 
 the members of the Church, and certainly not 
 to those who have to subscribe them. 
 
 The fact that a doctrine finds a place in the 
 creed of the Church, no doubt predisposes in its 
 favour those who cling reverently to the decisions 
 of their fathers, and who listen with deference to 
 the voice of the Church, but it too often pro¬ 
 duces a contrary effect upon those of a different 
 disposition. The latter are tenacious of liberty, 
 jealous of the rights of private judgment, and, in 
 order that they may bow with reverence before 
 the authority of divine truth alone, desire to be 
 as free as possible from binding obligation to the 
 words of men. Some people imagine that those 
 who earnestly desire to be free from the bondage 
 of strict subscription, are influenced by the desire 
 of freedom from every kind of belief, and to be 
 allowed to hold any doctrine which is agreeable, 
 whether that doctrine is divine or human. It is 
 not for such we plead. Such persons are not 
 likely to knock at the door of any church for 
 admission; if they did, I fear they would swallow 
 
CREEDS 
 
 291 
 
 any test that might be proposed. Scepticism and 
 superstition are frequently allied; and therefore 
 we ought to have no sympathy with those who, it 
 may be from a superficial examination, despair of 
 reaching truth at all, but will receive any formula 
 as a substitute for genuine and hearty belief. 
 We ought to have the utmost sympathy with 
 those who are inspired with the love of truth, 
 and with zeal to serve our Lord in the work of 
 the ministry, but who find very serious difficulty 
 in assenting to precise definitions of human in¬ 
 vention with respect to truths the most mysterious 
 with which the human mind can grapple, and of 
 which only a very inadequate idea can be formed, 
 even by the deepest thinkers. Is it necessary, 
 therefore, that every one’s mind must be made 
 up, and inquiry foreclosed ? If it is necessary for 
 the Christian life to have this truth presented to 
 the congregation, the generality of ministers have 
 been very negligent in the discharge of their duty. 
 During an experience of nearly half-a-century, I 
 have no recollection of having heard a sermon 
 preached on Predestination; wholly taken up with 
 it, and, in which the evidence in Scripture was 
 adduced. It was often implied in statements 
 made, and its opposite denounced, but frequently, 
 in the way of guarding the speaker against mis¬ 
 conception or suspicion. It is characteristic of 
 those bound by a stringent creed that they 
 
292 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 habitually add saving clauses, limiting modifica¬ 
 tions, as if they were afraid to express the truth 
 of Scripture in its full force, and be found 
 promulgating something contrary to the received 
 standards. The people come to entertain a 
 similar idea, from having a superficial knowledge 
 of the subjects, and a certain familiarity with 
 the words and phrases current in the particular 
 denomination ; and when certain forms of words 
 are absent from a sermon they begin to suspect 
 that their teachers are not sound in the faith. 
 Persons of little knowledge and less piety are able 
 to engage in this work, and help to circulate 
 rumours unfavourable to the doctrinal soundness 
 of some young preacher who may be independent 
 in his mode of expressing himself. Some regard 
 such manifestations as proofs of religious in¬ 
 telligence on the part of the people ; it is certainly 
 preferable to that blank ignorance of doctrine, 
 combined with indifference to truth and life, 
 which also prevails in some churches, but it is 
 not a proof either of intelligent acquaintance with 
 Scripture or of strong attachment thereto. It is 
 often merely a superficial familiarity with words 
 and phrases which pass as current coin in the 
 denomination, the absence of which, in oral dis¬ 
 course or published sermon, is regarded as a sign 
 of lurking heresy. In discussions originating in 
 proposals to effect a union between sections 
 
CREEDS 
 
 293 
 
 hitherto separate from each other, this is often 
 clearly brought out. The opponents of union, and 
 the zealous upholders of things as they are, have 
 generally this vantage ground that they can rely 
 firmly on the formularies which all have accepted. 
 Accordingly, they accuse all who would fraternize 
 with those who differ from them, of denying some 
 of the acknowledged doctrines embraced in these, 
 and renouncing their principles. The advocates 
 of comprehension are frequently tempted to make 
 out that the difference between the contending 
 parties is not great, and that unity of heart and 
 conviction is much greater than their opponents 
 believe. Accordingly, vigorous efforts are made 
 to have some statement put forth (generally of 
 a colourless character) in which those holding- 
 different views can agree. In our opinion the 
 interests of truth would be much better secured 
 by a frank admission of difference of opinion, 
 and a clear statement of the extent of agree- 
 ment attained, before the subject of discussion 
 is considered with a view to union. This 
 would remove the ground from both sides, either 
 of exaggerating or minimizing points of differ¬ 
 ence. These general considerations are applic¬ 
 able to the abstruse subject of predestination. 
 Hence, how very seldom do we hear bold and 
 unambiguous declarations of these truths ! There 
 is generally some limitation or saving clause 
 
294 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 inserted, apparently as much to safeguard the 
 speaker as for the benefit of the hearer, and 
 every one must admit that this characteristic is 
 almost entirely absent from the Bible. The 
 sacred writers seem never afraid of strong, sweep¬ 
 ing statements, and are never conscious of the 
 danger either of contradicting themselves or any 
 other statement of holy writ. How this dogma 
 will hamper men in the declaration of the gospel 
 may easily be conceived . 1 “ Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” yet you 
 cannot believe of yourself, as faith is the gift of 
 God. The gospel is offered unto all, freely, 
 without money and without price ; but unless of 
 the elect, you cannot accept it. Christ's blood 
 cleansed from all sin ; but that blood was shed for 
 the elect only. Pray without ceasing; but you 
 cannot pray right until you have been converted. 
 “ The prayers of the wicked are an abomination 
 in His sight.” Be diligent in business, fervent in 
 spirit, serving the Lord; “ without the spirit’s help 
 we can do nothing.” Works avail not for our 
 justification ; hut we are everywhere commanded 
 to work diligently while it is day ; the night 
 cometh when no man can work. Salvation is to 
 be proclaimed to all; but the elect only shall be 
 saved. Now, of course, I do not maintain that 
 the Calvinist is uttering contradictions in these 
 1 Tliis has already been referred to. 
 
CREEDS 
 
 295 
 
 statements, but lie is uttering dogmas which are 
 apparently contradictory , or at least contrary to 
 each other ; which have repelled mauy from 
 religion itself; and, through the conflicts they 
 have been obliged to pass through in the work of 
 harmonizing conflicting statements, such persons 
 have been paralysed in their efforts to grasp 
 divine truth ; have been led to suspect the good¬ 
 ness of God, and to believe that this system 
 makes of God a hard taskmaster—a tyrant and 
 not a God of infinite love. Surely it will not be 
 asserted that this opposition to a human state¬ 
 ment of divine truth, proceeds mainly from pride 
 and the carnal mind. This would make short 
 work of this controversy and indeed of all others, 
 as it would render all argument unnecessary. It 
 would be rather too much to assume that all who 
 differ from Calvinism are under the influence of 
 the carnal mind, as opposition thereto is not con¬ 
 fined to worldlings and evil-doers, but such men 
 as Wesley and Benson, Melanchthon and Bengel, 
 have felt called upon to reject its doctrines. As 
 already stated, I am not now attempting to 
 subject these opposing views to a thorough ex¬ 
 amination, but am striving to show that they 
 ought, on both sides, to be treated as matters of 
 Christian forbearance. On all the points in 
 debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, there 
 is a considerable amount of agreement already. 
 
DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 2D6 
 
 which it is most desirable should be emphasized. 
 Both parties admit an election , original sin, an 
 atonement, the necessity of divine grace, and that 
 most of the saints persevere in grace unto the 
 end. With respect to election, they differ as to 
 the cause or ground of the divine decree, although 
 both admit the decree to be eternal. Now what 
 necessity is there to come to any decision as to 
 the cause of this mysterious decree ? A cause in 
 general is a somewhat fluent idea, but as influ¬ 
 encing' the divine mind it is still more intangible. 
 (It is of God’s mere good 'pleasure .) The 
 Arminian affirms it is found in man, in his fore¬ 
 seen good works. It does not add to our know¬ 
 ledge or to our willingness to accept the doctrine, 
 that it is referred to the arbitrary will of God. 
 In one sense, everything doue, planned, and 
 executed, ultimately rests upon the mere will of 
 God. It is arbitrary, so far as we are concerned ; 
 we don’t see the reasons of it; but because we 
 fail to perceive the reasons, it does not follow 
 that none such exist. Then it is not impossible 
 that God may have had regard to the good works 
 of those elected, as one of the grounds of the 
 decree. But the Arminian has no right to 
 affirm that these are the only grounds thereof; 
 but it must be left, after all, to the wise and 
 inscrutable will of God. It would make an act 
 of the creature the ground or cause of the divine 
 
CREEDS 
 
 297 
 
 decree, and would in effect render it only 
 tantamount to a general statement of God’s will ; 
 that whosoever believes in Jesus Christ and 
 perseveres in good works unto the end, will be 
 saved ; and it could, in no proper sense of the 
 term, be tbe cause of salvation. If a cause, then 
 it must depend upon man himself and not 
 upon God. It is an attempt to remove all 
 mystery from a subject inherently mysterious. 
 Therefore, tbe path of wisdom seems to be 
 that which leaves the question as open as 
 possible to the Christian prudence of the indi¬ 
 vidual, so as not to compel the minister of tbe 
 Church to choose either the Arminian or the 
 Calvinistic position. For my own part, I could 
 never assent to the Arminian view, if compelled 
 to choose between them. I would select the 
 Calvinistic, but I should, even for myself, prefer 
 to be left free. Those who have been differently 
 brought up, and whose associations and sympathies 
 have been of an opposite character, or even con¬ 
 nected with a neutral theology on this point, 
 would have a strong repugnance to accept a more 
 specific statement than that to which they have 
 been accustomed. I believe it is such associations 
 and hallowed memories in connection with which 
 they have been trained, as well as the permanent 
 good which they have derived from the body to 
 which they belong, more than a thorough exami- 
 
298 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 nation of the point in dispute, that have won 
 their assent to the more speculative part of the 
 system which they have embraced and which 
 they have agreed to defend. This accounts for 
 the fact that comparatively few ministers or 
 members of one church leave its communion and 
 enter that of another. How few Presbyterian 
 ministers pass into the Wesleyan Communion, and 
 how few Wesleyans into the Presbyterian ! Yet 
 this sometimes takes place on both sides. The 
 same is true with regard to the Church of Eng¬ 
 land, and even to the Church of Rome. Newman 
 and Manning left the Church of England and 
 entered that of Rome, but Pusey and Keble 
 remained and died in the communion of the 
 Church of England. Capes and Foulkes joined 
 the Roman and returned to the English Church. 
 Gavazzi and Campello left Rome and became 
 Protestants. Still the fact remains the same, the 
 number that pass from one communion to another 
 is hut small. We can scarcely affirm that those 
 who change their religious position are both in¬ 
 telligent and honest, and that those who die in 
 the communion in which they were born were 
 the reverse. Neither can we maintain that those 
 who have changed their views, have examined the 
 subjects in debate between rival churches, and 
 subjected these to a more thorough and impartial 
 investigation than those who have not. With 
 
CREEDS 
 
 299 
 
 regard to those who leave, it will very often 
 be found that the change has been caused by 
 differences of taste, by dissatisfaction with some 
 practical grievance, by social position, or through 
 receiving some spiritual good not connected in 
 any special manner with the body joined. In 
 other words, the heart has as much to do with 
 the transformation effected as the head. The 
 same principle operates in those who remain. 
 Genuine attachment to the church of their fathers, 
 because it is that of their fathers ; the experience 
 of real good derived from her ministrations ; and 
 satisfaction with the ordinary arguments which, 
 from their earliest years, they have heard urged 
 in her defence (although, in very many cases, 
 these have not been probed to the bottom), keep 
 them where they are and render them disinclined 
 to all changes. This state of feeling I regard as 
 a good, not a bad, thing, when the state of man 
 and the Church is what it is ; and therefore I 
 draw the conclusion from this fact also, that the 
 doctrines, assent to which is required of all 
 aspirants to the ministry, ought to be as few as 
 possible, and these ought not to be of a speculative 
 character, involving the necessity of prolonged 
 examination and careful balancing of evidence. 
 1 am certainly of opinion that the points of Cal¬ 
 vinism are of this character, although 1 also hold 
 that they may be as successfully vindicated as 
 mysterious matters can be. 
 
300 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 We have already spoken of Predestination, 
 aud the principles applicable to that doctrine 
 are applicable to the others embraced in the 
 controversy. There is a considerable amount of 
 agreement between the contending parties, and 
 those matters in which they differ are confessedly 
 of less importance. As regards the question of 
 original sin there is more unity than difference. 
 Both sides equally admit the fact of the actual 
 corruption of human nature, and that that corrup¬ 
 tion is total, i.e., extends to the whole man—the 
 understanding, the affections, and the will. There 
 is difference among Calvinists themselves as to 
 the terms in which this corruption should be ex¬ 
 pressed, but the fact is admitted. There is a 
 decided opposition between them on the subject 
 of imputation, while even among Calvinist theolo¬ 
 gians, there are those who hold mediate imputa¬ 
 tion, such as Jonathan Edwards and the Saumur 
 Divines, and the majority holding immediate 
 imputation. The latter contend that it accounts 
 in a more satisfactory manner for the corruption 
 of human nature. This whole question of impu¬ 
 tation, however, is more of a speculative than a 
 practical character, and rests upon somewhat 
 doubtful interpretation of one or two passages of 
 Scripture. The question of the natural and 
 federal head of the human race, may surely be 
 left to Christian prudence as to its setting forth 
 
CREEDS 
 
 301 
 
 for the instruction of the people. Ingenious 
 theories respecting representative responsibility, 
 should not be imposed as necessary conditions for 
 the exercise of the Christian ministry, among 
 those who too often fail to realize their own 
 responsibility to the Saviour Himself. 
 
 As regards divine grace, there is also a very 
 considerable amount of agreement among all 
 Christian churches, and it is only where nice 
 theoretical questions are pushed farther back 
 and the conclusions drawn, which are declared 
 legitimately to follow certain positions, that 
 some differences emerge. All are agreed that 
 man is so sunk in sin that he cannot be 
 saved without God’s grace. It is admitted, also, 
 that this grace is bestowed upon all men, and 
 that it is sufficient for the salvation of all, but 
 efficient only for those who repent. Is not this 
 agreement sufficient for all practical purposes ? It 
 is contended by one side that grace is resistible, by 
 the others that it is irresistible. This appears to 
 the ordinary mind a question not necessary to be 
 settled in carrying out the practical work of the 
 Church, the preaching of the gospel, and dealing 
 with souls as to the reception of Christ. They 
 agree — the gospel of mercy must be offered to 
 all — that offer may be rejected by those to whom 
 it is made and, as a matter of fact, has been 
 rejected again and again by many now singing 
 
302 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the praises of God in the sanctuary above. That 
 the elect can finally reject it, is said to be im¬ 
 possible ; but why decide that question theo¬ 
 retically, since we can never settle the matter 
 practically ? It is admitted that many accept, 
 and many reject the gospel offer. It is admitted, 
 also, that all men receive grace. Then it may be 
 asked : Is the grace communicated by God the 
 same in degree to all men ? There is no reason 
 why we should affirm anything of the kind. The 
 same genius has not been bestowed upon all 
 Englishmen which was possessed by Shakespeare, 
 nor upon the Germans which Goethe possessed. 
 There is no absolute equality among human 
 beings, either as regards physical or intellectual 
 endowments. Why should this equality be looked 
 for in the spiritual sphere? We sometimes have 
 spoken of the grace bestowed upon the true 
 believer as saving. This distinction will not 
 help us in the least to distinguish between the 
 nature of that which necessarily saves and that 
 which admits the alternative of perishing for ever. 
 It can only be determined when the man has 
 been fully acquitted on the great day, when the 
 secrets of all hearts shall be revealed. Why 
 trouble ourselves or other people with the ques¬ 
 tion ? Could the man who lived a Christian life 
 and died a Christian death, have acted otherwise ? 
 Is it not a sufficient ground of rejoicing that he has 
 
CREEDS 
 
 303 
 
 thus been saved, and that we all may be helped 
 by the same grace to reach the same goal ? We 
 can judge of men’s state in the sight of God only 
 by taking into account the works which they have 
 manifested in their life. They have the testimony 
 of their own inward experience as to the source of 
 these good works. Many who, at one time mani¬ 
 fested externally the usual conduct following upon 
 faith in Christ, and bore emphatic testimony even 
 to their assurance of being saved, have actually 
 fallen away from the faith and lived in sin. How 
 can man distinguish between the grace given to 
 the one and that withheld from the other ? This 
 had better be left open, as the decision one way 
 or other will not help those who are striving 
 to serve God in their day and generation. The 
 doctrine of the perseverance of the saints ought to 
 be regarded in the same way. Again I am 
 compelled to say, that this is more a speculative 
 than a practical question. Both sides are agreed 
 on what is necessary for a Christian to do. It is 
 the duty of all to strive to be prepared for the 
 coming of the Church’s Lord—that there must be 
 a diligent application of the powers of the soul to 
 working out our salvation ; and that we are to 
 rely upon the promise of the Holy Spirit to work 
 in us both to will and to do. Both admit that 
 God’s grace is promised, without which we can do 
 nothing, and that we must trust Him for all that 
 
304 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 we need in working out our salvation. Both 
 admit that many who have begun well have 
 drawn back unto perdition; both also admit, I 
 think, that the generality of those who truly 
 believe, persevere unto the end. The Calvinist 
 affirms that none truly regenerate ever finally fall 
 away, the Arminian holds the contrary ; so that 
 the difference between them, in a particular case 
 of a man relapsing into sin and continuing in the 
 same, is not that the man perishes, which both 
 admit ; but it is as to what the man was when 
 he was leading a good Christian life. In all 
 practical purposes — in dealing with men respect¬ 
 ing their eternal interests—whether for guidance, 
 warning, or consolation, the teaching of both 
 sides is essentially the same. Why then should 
 differences which cannot be practically determined, 
 and which cannot plead absolute scriptural de¬ 
 cision on either side, be a bar either to co-opera¬ 
 tion in general Christian activity, or to union in 
 the same church fellowship ? 
 
 VII. The Union of Chuvch and State . — Another 
 subject of considerable practical importance is that 
 of the union of “ Church and State." The history 
 of the discussions which have taken place on the 
 subject, very clearly illustrates the dogmatic spirit 
 and the influence which speculative theories exert 
 upon the practical life of the Christian Church. 
 Sometimes the difference of belief respecting the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 305 
 
 nature of the Church, and the relation in which 
 she ought to stand to the State, could not help 
 powerfully influencing the action of national or 
 particular Churches. During the period of the 
 Deformation, almost all the Reformed Churches 
 regarded an alliance between the ecclesiastical 
 and secular authorities as not only lawful but 
 obligatory. Differences, even thus early began 
 to emerge, as to the terms or conditions on 
 which such a union should take place. It was 
 contended that the State was responsible to the 
 Lord Jesus Christ for the exercise of that legiti¬ 
 mate influence within its power for the advance¬ 
 ment of the cause of Christ. Thus far, there 
 was a very general agreement. The province 
 of the respective authorities was not very clearly 
 defined in theory: but in practice it was 
 generally accepted as perfectly legitimate that 
 the State might grant, and the Church receive, 
 pecuniary aid for the support of religious or¬ 
 dinances. Hence, we may affirm that in all 
 countries where the Reformed doctrines took 
 firm root, national churches were established, 
 and ministers of religion were supported, in 
 whole or in part, by the State. In most of 
 them a further step was taken in appointing 
 ministers to particular spheres of labour. In 
 England they went so far as to maintain that 
 the king was the head of the Church. Even, 
 
 U 
 
306 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 there, however, it was admitted that the province 
 of the two was distinct, e.g., Lord John Russell, 
 on one occasion, replied to a clergyman who had 
 appealed to him for his interposition, that Her 
 Majesty would not interfere with a Bishop, in 
 granting or withholding licence or ordination. 
 In Scotland, however, the question was more 
 keenly discussed than in any kingdom in Europe. 
 All the disruptions of the Established Church in 
 that country, originated with respect to the 
 terms on which such a union should take place 
 and be maintained. Before the last great seces¬ 
 sion took place in 1843, the lawfulness of 
 ecclesiastical establishments had been seriously 
 questioned in Scotland, as well as in England ; 
 and a fierce controversy was waged for several 
 years before that period, some of the leaders of 
 the Free Church of Scotland, having taken, before 
 the disruption, a prominent part in defending 
 the alliance between Church and State. The 
 champions of those opposed to all such establish¬ 
 ments, were Dr Wardlaw, a Congregationalist, Drs 
 Brown and Marshall, Presbyterians; and prominent 
 among the defenders of Establishments, were Drs 
 Chalmers, Iuglis, and Cunningham. Many lesser 
 lights contributed to enlighten their countrymen 
 on the subject, of what was then called Volun¬ 
 taryism. It has been already stated that Volun¬ 
 taryism is a practical question, and affects the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 307 
 
 conduct both of churches and individuals, inas¬ 
 much as the opposing views may be carried out 
 in visible action. If a church believes in the 
 lawfulness of state endowments, it may accept 
 them ; and those who hold a contrary view may 
 leave the body accepting them and carry on an 
 agitation for the purpose of inducing the State to 
 withdraw such endowments. In the present day, 
 much the same state of things exists, with some 
 differences certainly. In Scotland the three chief 
 Presbyterian bodies are the Established, Free, and 
 United Presbyterian Churches. The first, of course, 
 holds the lawfulness of a union with the State, 
 because it occupies the position of a State- 
 Church. The Free, holds the lawfulness of 
 such a union in the abstract, but objects to 
 the terms or conditions of Union at present in 
 force; and the United Presbyterian, generally 
 denies the lawfulness of all religious estab¬ 
 lishments, on any terms whatever. As I have 
 been away from Scotland for nearly forty years, 
 I am not in a position to speak of the views 
 which generally obtain among the ministry and 
 members of the respective churches; but what 
 I have just stated is, I think, substantially correct 
 so far as it goes, and so far as necessary for the 
 purpose in hand. I may remark that the phrase 
 now in common use, seems to be, not Voluntaryism 
 but “ Religious Equality.” Both terms are dis- 
 
308 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 tinctly related to some kind of political action. 
 Voluntaryism emphasizes the fact that the ordin¬ 
 ances of the gospel are to be supported by the 
 free will offerings of the people and not on any 
 account by the compulsory action of the State. 
 The other, that all men are equal as citizens, 
 and that a man’s religion ought to have no influ¬ 
 ence for good or evil in his relations to the State. 
 The question of state endowments to religion was 
 considered at the period of the disruption of 1843, 
 by the Free Church at least, as a sufficient ground 
 for her and the United Presbyterian Church, 
 remaining in a separate position. In other 
 words, the fact that most of the ministers and 
 people of that church held voluntary views, was 
 considered by the leaders and great bulk of the 
 people of the Free Church, as a sufficient barrier 
 to union between the two bodies. So far as 
 I know, or remember, there was never any hope, 
 during the years succeeding the disruption, that 
 the Established Church would or could so arrange 
 the terms of her alliance with the State, that the 
 Free Church could consistently return to her 
 bosom. There was no probability, therefore, of this 
 question becoming a practical one, so far as the 
 Free and United Presbyterian Churches were con¬ 
 cerned, notwithstanding which no move was made 
 on either side to open negotiations for a uniou 
 which would do away with their separation and 
 
CREEDS 
 
 309 
 
 isolation. It was considered that different views 
 on the power of the civil magistrate were a suffi¬ 
 cient ground for remaining in this separate, if not 
 antagonistic, position. In 1856 and 1857 an 
 important step was taken by some influential 
 laymen, belonging to both communions, in 
 publicly drawing attention to the desirableness 
 of taking some measures to heal their divisions. 
 Then came the union of churches in the 
 colonies, which fact had to be considered by all 
 the churches in adjusting their relations to the 
 united bodies, formed by the different sections 
 of the colonial churches. I have no doubt many 
 began to think that if union was a good thing 
 in the colonies, it could not be a bad thing in 
 the mother country. At all events, negotiations 
 were soon opened up between the Free, United 
 Presbyterian, and Reformed Presbyterian Churches 
 for an incorporating union. These negotiations 
 were carried on for ten dreary years, and had 
 to be abandoned, because a strong party in the 
 Free Church stoutly opposed all attempts at 
 union. 
 
 The meaning of this failure to accomplish 
 a union, so desirable in itself and likely to 
 be productive of much good, is simply this; 
 a man holding the lawfulness of church estab¬ 
 lishments, although separated from the Estab¬ 
 lished Church de facto, will not unite with those 
 
310 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 who deny the lawfulness of such institutions. 
 Unless there is a hope of such a change in the 
 terms of state alliance, then a principle, which 
 will not affect the practice of the church or 
 the individual, and which is merely theoretical, 
 is to stand in the way of forming one united 
 church. Before a theory, a doctrine, if you will, 
 should have the power of causing and maintain¬ 
 ing division and isolation in the Christian Church, 
 it surely would require to be proved, on strong 
 scriptural evidence. 
 
 To enter fully into this matter, I should have 
 to transfer to these pages the substance of the 
 various arguments used by the authors on oppo¬ 
 site sides, such as Wardlaw and Noel on the one 
 part, and Chalmers and Gladstone on the other. 
 It would, however, be better for our present pur¬ 
 pose to look at the public declarations of churches, 
 which have been agitated by such discussions. 
 In the union negotiations referred to (between 
 the Free and United Presbyterian Churches 
 of Scotland), certain statements were made as 
 regards the views of each body on the contested 
 question of the union between Church and State. 
 These were embodied in certain articles, re¬ 
 presenting the views of each church. I give 
 these articles, published in “ Christian Work ” 
 as representing the churches of that period. I 
 read them carefully at the time, as well as the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 311 
 
 speeches delivered in their support in the Supreme 
 Courts of the respective Churches. As I have 
 not all the documents, some changes may have 
 been introduced in subsequent years; but that 
 matters little as regards our present question, 
 —what articles should be inserted in the 
 Creed of the Church, so as to be bonds of union 
 on the one hand, and of exclusion of all refus¬ 
 ing to accept the bond. The following are the 
 articles of agreement, arrived at by the Com¬ 
 mittees of the negotiating Churches. (Christian 
 Work, April, 1864.) 
 
 1. That civil governments are an ordinance of God, and 
 that magistrates are bound to regulate their conduct in 
 their several places and relations by His Word. 2. That 
 the Magistrate ought to further the religion of Christ, in 
 every way consistent with its spirit and enactments, and to 
 be ruled by it in the making of laws. 3. That while it is 
 the Magistrate’s duty to profess the Christian religion, it is 
 not his office to impose creeds or forms of worship, or to 
 interfere with the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, 
 placed in the hands of Church Officers. 4. That marriage, 
 the Sabbath, and the appointment of days of humiliation 
 and thanksgiving, come under the Magistrate’s cognisance : 
 that his laws on the two former should be in accordance 
 with the Divine Word, and that he is entitled to appoint 
 the latter, though not to regulate the forms to be used. 5. 
 That the Church and State, having two distinct jurisdic¬ 
 tions, ought not, neither of them, to intrude into the 
 province of the others. 6. That, though thus distinct, they 
 owe mutual duties to each other, and may be signally 
 subservient to each other’s welfare. 
 
 The points of disagreement are :— 
 
312 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 Free Church. 
 
 U nitedPresbyterian. 
 
 It holds that it is the duty of the 
 Magistrate to employ the national 
 resources in aid of the Church 
 reserving to himself full control 
 over the temporalities, hut ab¬ 
 staining from all authoritative in¬ 
 terference with the government of 
 the Church, and that the Church 
 may lawfully accept such aid, 
 leaving the question to he judged 
 of, according to times and circum¬ 
 stances. 
 
 It holds in opposi¬ 
 tion that it is not 
 within the Magistrate’s 
 province to legislate as 
 to what is true in re¬ 
 ligion, and that Christ 
 having prescribed to 
 his people to provide 
 for the Church by 
 free-will offerings, 
 State aid is in principle 
 excluded. 
 
 Such was the amount of agreement and such 
 that of disagreement. The negotiations were 
 commenced under favourable auspices, continued 
 for the long period of ten years, and were 
 ultimately abandoned. In this year of grace 
 1896, the Free Church and the United 
 Presbyterian Church are still existing as separate 
 denominations. I imagine that, even those who 
 took a leading part in opposition to the con¬ 
 templated Union, if asked as to the probability of 
 such taking place, would have replied, at least in 
 the early stage of the movement, it might be 
 accomplished in twenty years. Thirty years have 
 elapsed, and the desired consummation seems as 
 far off as ever. The leading and most influential 
 men of the denominations concerned were (and I 
 suppose are) in favour of incorporation : but 
 extreme men on both sides are conscientiously 
 opposed. 
 
CREEDS 
 
 313 
 
 What is the cause of such a state of things, 
 that churches heartily at one regarding the long- 
 creed of the Westminster Confession, including 
 a considerable part of the chapter on the Civil 
 Magistrate (the only disputed point), yet remain 
 separate organizations, and so far as active and 
 hearty co-operation is concerned, are as distinct 
 as are the Episcopal and Presbyterian establish¬ 
 ments of England and Scotland ? The main 
 cause of this isolation is the dogmatic spirit. 
 This asserts itself on both sides of the question, 
 but is most powerful on the part of anti-unionists. 
 The drawing up of these articles referred to, is a 
 proof of this. Instead of agreeing upon a certain 
 line of action to be pursued od the part of the 
 united church towards the State, or at least of 
 proposing such a line of action, they go on to 
 discuss general principles. This is to multiply 
 sources of disagreement and dissension. It is 
 difficult enough to get men to agree to do a 
 certain thing—say to accept or refuse State aid 
 —but it is ten times more difficult to bring 
 about an agreement with respect to the reasons 
 why they should so act. In these articles a laud¬ 
 able attempt is made to shew the grounds on 
 which a certain course of action is based. The 
 first contains a truth which almost every Christian 
 and all who admit the Scriptures to be in some 
 sense the rule of faith, will readily admit. When 
 
314 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 divested of the abstract language in which it is 
 exf>ressed, it is only a very simple and common¬ 
 place truth, which no one thinks of questioning. 
 That there must be government of some sort none 
 but an anarchist would dispute. Is that govern¬ 
 ment to be republican or monarchical ; if the 
 latter, limited or absolute ? It is admitted, I 
 presume, that Scripture does not bind us to the 
 particular form of government which we are to 
 set up, if we have to set it up, or -which we are 
 to obey, if already established. The general truth 
 embodied in the abstract language is much more 
 effectively expressed in the thirteenth of Romans. 
 That magistrates, in their several places and 
 relations, should regulate their conduct by his 
 word, is also, taken in a common-sense way, a 
 mere truism; but a considerable amount of differ¬ 
 ence might emerge, in the interpretation of “ their 
 several places and relations.” Any thing contained 
 in these words beyond what may be called a mere 
 truism (so far as Christians are concerned) is 
 indefinite and would be of little service in the 
 practical affairs of common life or public action. 
 The same remarks are applicable to the second 
 article. For myself, I could cordially accept the 
 whole six, but it seems to me that we deceive 
 ourselves, if we imagine that much is gained by 
 their general acceptance. In the heat of contro¬ 
 versy and by the exigences of keen discussions, 
 
CREEDS 
 
 315 
 
 men have been led to give vent to expressions 
 which could not be defended, and which give rise 
 to the conviction that those taking part in the 
 controversy differ more seriously than they in 
 reality do. It may have been the recollection 
 of sentiments uttered in past days, which were 
 apparently antagonistic to Christian truth, that 
 induced each of these negotiating churches to 
 formulate a certain number of statements to 
 which all might give their assent; and, if I 
 recollect aright, more harmony of belief on the 
 relation that ought to subsist between church and 
 state, was found to exist than was anticipated. 
 This subject has perhaps been more studied in 
 Scotland than anywhere else. The leading con¬ 
 troversies that have agitated the Church from the 
 era of the Reformation down to the present day, 
 have arisen, directly or indirectly, from the action 
 of the state in relation to the Church, or from the 
 theories maintained respecting it. The various 
 secessions or disruptions have been due to it; 
 the largest portion of ecclesiastical literature has 
 been created by it; and the whole membership 
 of the respective churches have taken a deeper 
 interest in such questions and have made greater 
 sacrifices, in common with the ministry, in carry¬ 
 ing out their convictions, than those of any 
 country in Christendom. It is not to be supposed 
 that all this discussion and all this expenditure of 
 
31G 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 strength and activity, involving much self-denial, 
 has been in vain. What has been gained ? Has 
 the stock of ascertained truth been added to ? 
 Can the gains be expressed in so many proposi¬ 
 tions which will become a permanent possession 
 for all time \ It is always difficult to tabulate 
 results, and almost impossible to tabulate those 
 that are spiritual. The danger is, that people 
 should rest satisfied with what has been achieved, 
 and look upon those truths which have been 
 generally received, as a permanent possession, to 
 be handed down intact to each succeeding genera¬ 
 tion. Although battles in every respect the 
 same, have not to be fought over again, still we 
 must lay our account to go over similar ground, 
 contending against old foes, with perhaps new 
 faces. In my opinion, if not the chief gain, yet 
 certainly a very important lesson, to be derived 
 from the disruptions, secessions, and controversial 
 activities of Scotland in the past, is the general 
 admission of the danger of demanding uniformity 
 of religious belief in the church — whether of 
 members or teachers. The great practical 
 problem, pressing upon the churches is, how best 
 to unite the scattered branches, and form one 
 grand united Church of Scotland. To one like 
 myself, outside Scotland and ignorant of the vari¬ 
 ous personal and sectional elements that enter into 
 all such movements, it appears unjustifiable that 
 
CREEDS 
 
 317 
 
 three bodies, differing so little from each other as 
 do the Established, Free, and United Presbyterian 
 Churches, should remain apart, maintain sepai’ate 
 organizations, instead of uniting together in the 
 bonds of fraternal love and bending their united 
 energies to the work of Christ at home and 
 abroad. How can such a union be brought 
 about ? Assuredly, not by yielding to the weak 
 point that has characterized the history of the 
 Scottish Church—demanding uniformity of belief. 
 Unless difference of opinion be clearly recognised 
 and fully permitted at the outset, all attempts at 
 union will prove as abortive as the last. The 
 absence of frank recognition of this fact, has 
 hitherto paralysed many efforts. The friends of 
 Union (conscientiously we firmly believe) have 
 generally attempted to make the agreement be¬ 
 tween the parties appear greater than it was, and 
 its opponents to magnify the differences. Christian 
 candour and scrupulous fairness in representing 
 the views of others, do much to clear away 
 misconceptions. Of course, I take for granted 
 that there is unity, if not uniformity, of belief 
 respecting the other doctrines of the Westminster 
 Confession, in the three Churches named. In all 
 probability, serious difficulties are felt, especially 
 among the younger men, in all the churches, 
 respecting other truths which have little or no 
 connexion with the questions agitated regarding 
 
318 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the union of Church and State. Such subjects 
 as the latter I suspect, have lost much of their 
 interest to many minds in Scotland as well as 
 everywhere else. The influence of Darwin in 
 science and of Kant and Hegel in philosophy, 
 and of what is called the new criticism, is exten¬ 
 sively felt. As prevailing systems of philosophy 
 have always influenced theology, so we must 
 expect them to do, in the present day. The 
 older men, consciously or unconsciously, retain the 
 effect produced by the philosophy dominant in 
 their early and impressive days, and the younger 
 have been trained under very different auspices. 
 But the older should bear in mind that those 
 systems which, in their early days, they welcomed 
 as the solution of the chief problems of thought 
 which engaged the attention of the world at that 
 period, may turn out to be not much more than 
 passing phases of thought; and the younger 
 should remember that the views which are the 
 offspring of recent discussion and which they have 
 heartily embraced, may prove equally transitory. 
 The whole history of dogma impressively teaches 
 that we ought never to relinquish truth that has 
 stood the test of ages for systems of belief resting 
 upon a philosophy which often grows up in a 
 night and withers in a night. While I am fully 
 aware that there may be divergence of view on 
 matters much more vital than the relation of 
 
CREEDS 
 
 319 
 
 Church and State, yet I am firmly persuaded that 
 this ought not to deter these bodies from making 
 a zealous effort to effect an incorporating union. 
 Two reasons seem to me conclusive on this point; 
 one that this divergence of view exists in all the 
 Churches, it may be to a less or greater degree, 
 but still it does exist in all, and the other is, that 
 these will be more effectively and liberally dealt 
 with by a united church, than by bodies in isola¬ 
 tion. We all know what dire effects want of 
 confidence produces in the commercial world, but 
 its results in the religious and ecclesiastical world 
 are not less disastrous. Generous confidence in 
 the upright intentions of each other will do far 
 more to effect the desired union than polemical 
 pamphlets, long and able discussions in Church 
 courts ; and when effected, will render it a signal 
 blessing to the whole country. 
 
 As I have already remarked, difference of 
 opinion ought at once to be duly recognized, and 
 no attempt ought to be made to minimize the 
 difference, so as to lead people to suppose that 
 there is greater unanimity than really exists. Past 
 attempts in this direction should prove a warning 
 for the future. The respective views of these 
 three churches may be expressed somewhat after 
 this fashion. The United Presbyterian holds that 
 the Church ought not, under any circumstances, to 
 accept endowment, in any shape or form, from the 
 
320 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 state; the Free Church holds that the Church 
 may accept such endowment under certain circum¬ 
 stances, but not under the present circumstances 
 of Scotland ; and the Established Church holds 
 that, not only may the Church accept this endow¬ 
 ment under given circumstances, but she holds it 
 lawful to accept and retain the same, on the 
 pi'esent conditions and in the present circum¬ 
 stances of Scotland. So far as I am aware, the 
 above statement accurately expresses the views of 
 the generality of the ministers aud members of 
 those three Scottish churches, on the question of 
 endowments. 
 
 If there is not the fullest liberty in tbe pro¬ 
 posed united church to hold, defend, and act 
 according to, all these views, then union can never 
 take place. There is little hope that the churches 
 in Scotland or any where else, will ever hold the 
 same opinions on the relations between Church 
 and State. To wait for that would be to wait 
 for the Greek kalends. In recent times these 
 questions have been discussed in such a manner 
 that the disputants have been more careful to 
 avoid extremes, and more forbearance is shewn to 
 those of opposite convictions. We dont hear so 
 much of the anti-christian and oppressive character 
 of all state churches, or of the great service that 
 would be rendered to the cause of Christ, if all 
 such establishments were completely abolished ; 
 
CREEDS 
 
 321 
 
 nor do we, on the other hand, hear the defenders of 
 Establishments talk, as if the fall of such institu¬ 
 tions would involve the destruction of Christianity. 
 Occasionally, a tendency to extremes is manifested 
 on both sides, but I think much more rarely than 
 in days gone by. In this, as in so many other 
 subjects, truth, the golden mean, lies between the 
 two extremes. So far as liberty of holding these 
 views is concerned, the United Presbyterian is as 
 liberal as could be desired ; the same might be said 
 of the majority of the Established Church ; but 
 the opposition, we might suppose from past experi¬ 
 ence, would be stronger in the Free Church, though 
 not forming by any means, the majority. But when 
 we come to action, to the carrying out of their re¬ 
 spective views, difficulties would very soon emerge. 
 
 Are these insuperable ? I venture to assert 
 that they are not. This is not a merely theor¬ 
 etical opinion, but one derived from experience, 
 viz., a similar thing has been done in the colonies 
 of Great Britain. Confining myself to Australia, 
 especially New South Wales, a union of Estab¬ 
 lished, Free Church, United Presbyterian, Presby¬ 
 terian Church of Ireland, was consummated thirty 
 years ago ; and was approved, in general terms at 
 least, by all the churches at home. It is true 
 that we had no Established church ; but we had 
 its full equivalent, so far as the question of State 
 aid is concerned. Instead of one Established 
 
 x 
 
322 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 church as in Scotland and Eugland, we had four 
 churches receiving State aid ; Church of England, 
 Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Wesleyan. 
 Of the Presbyterian, only one of the sections 
 received this aid from the government, viz., the 
 Synod of Australia in connection with the Church 
 of Scotland. The Free Church, or Synod of 
 Eastern Australia, had renounced that aid at the 
 disruption of the Church in 1846, as was done 
 in Scotland in 1843. As I have said, there was 
 here no Established church, but four endowed 
 churches, with the internal arrangements of none 
 of which did the government interfere, except to 
 the extent that the money or land granted should 
 be devoted to the purpose for which it is given, 
 e.g., if given for a manse, it could not be applied 
 to a church, if for stipend, it could not be used 
 for any other purpose. Patronage to livings was 
 never claimed by the State. But the peculiarity 
 of the position, as compared with Scotland was 
 the indiscriminate endowment of different forms 
 of religion—of Catholic as well as Protestant. 
 The union of the Presbyterian churches, however, 
 was not consummated till after the abolition of 
 State-Aid ; but the act of abolition secured to all 
 ministers receiving aid, at the time of the passing 
 of the Act, their salaries as long as they officiated 
 under lawful authority. No attempt was made 
 by the other sections of the Presbyterian Church, 
 
CREEDS 
 
 323 
 
 to make the receivers of State-aid renounce it. 
 Most of those receiving it have passed away, but 
 a few do so still, and have been doing so for 
 thirty years. The Church does not receive it, 
 only the individuals, but the Moderator for the 
 time being has to certify that the recipients have 
 been duly officiating. The Church is committed 
 to that ; and so far as I know, the Moderators 
 who have belonged to the United Presbyterian 
 Church have had no scruple in doing so. Why can 
 the churches at home not do likewise ? Unfor¬ 
 tunately they have acted on an opposite principle. 
 The United Presbyterian and the majority of the 
 Free Church have gone on the supposition that 
 the reception of State-aid is not to be an open 
 question. Disestablishment is to be a con¬ 
 dition of union. The Established Church, by 
 this method, must make the sacrifice. The 
 latter believe that it is lawful to accept these 
 endowments; that they hold them in a legal 
 manner; and that they are of service to the 
 cause of religion. If they are taken from them, 
 they must submit with the best grace possible. 
 But, we should suppose, they would never think 
 of imposing upon ministers the duty of accepting 
 this aid ; nor would they wish to have imposed 
 on themselves the duty of rejecting it. There 
 is great danger of union being sacrificed, not to 
 meet the views of the majority, but rather for 
 
324 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 the sake of an extreme minority; and it behoves 
 all sides to assume the most forbearing attitude 
 possible. If the courts of the Established Church 
 should stand upon their dignity, regarding them¬ 
 selves as superior to the other churches, and 
 resolutely adhere to their present position with¬ 
 out making the slightest concession, things will 
 have to be left to their natural course, i.e.. to 
 the political changes that may at any time arrive; 
 and they cannot complain if the other bodies 
 take part in the agitation to secure Disestablish¬ 
 ment. On the other hand, if the others insist 
 upon Disestablishment as a condition to enter 
 even upon negotiations for union, they have no 
 reason to complain if the Established Church 
 should resolutely oppose their efforts in that 
 direction, and oppose union with them besides. 
 They would also furnish the latter with the 
 handle, that the union was frustrated by the 
 intolerance of those who refused to enter into 
 it, unless the rejection of State-aid were, if not 
 a theoretical, at least a practical, term of com¬ 
 munion. To all intents and purposes, this 
 question would be made a term of communion, 
 by the policy of disestablishment before union. 
 In other words, disestablishment is a matter of 
 primary, the union of the divided churches in 
 Scotland, is only of secondary, importance. It 
 seems to me that this is really the practical 
 
CREEDS 
 
 325 
 
 issue. If the non-established churches are to 
 direct their chief energies to secure what is now 
 called religious equality, and the Established, 
 to retain intact their present exclusive privileges, 
 then unquestionably the question of union will 
 get the go - by, and we must submit to the 
 inevitable result of the three or two separate 
 churches existing side by side, with all the evils 
 of disunion, contention, and antagonism adhering 
 to them. The energies which might be con¬ 
 centrated upon the ignorance and unbelief pre¬ 
 vailing at home and the heathenism existing 
 abroad, will all be dissipated in the maintenance 
 of separate and competing organizations. Surely 
 every sacrifice, except that of truth, ought to be 
 made, in order to prevent the continuance of 
 such a lamentable state of things. Instead of 
 fostering their present denominatioualism, it 
 would be a welcome sight for all true patriots 
 in Scotland, to see the leading men in the 
 respective churches exercising their wisdom in 
 devising measures for healing existing divisions 
 and zealously co-operating with each other, so 
 as to secure the outward manifestation of the 
 unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 
 
 If voluntaries in the colonies could consent to 
 join a church, in which many ministers received 
 salaries from the State, why could they not do 
 the same in old Scotia ? I don’t remember the 
 
326 
 
 DOGMA IV RELIGION 
 
 manner in which the United Presbvterian Church 
 approved of our union here, but they have sent 
 out manv ministers who are highlv esteemed among 
 us ; which is certainly a moral approval of our 
 church’s position- It may be affirmed that State- 
 aid has been abolished in this Colony. That is 
 true, but it does not alter the case. The money 
 is still received. As a matter of principle, time 
 does not enter into the calculation. If it is 
 wrong to receive this aid for life, it is wrong 
 to receive it for a day; if it is wrong to be 
 given in perpetuity, it is wrong to be given for 
 one generation. Indeed, if this principle of re¬ 
 sponsibility were to be fully carried out, even 
 though the Church were disestablished to-morrow, 
 there could be no union till the last man entitled 
 to such aid has passed away. I imagine, how¬ 
 ever, that while there might be little opposition 
 to individuals receiving such, there would be a 
 strong feeling on the part of the advocates of 
 religious equality against the Church, as a 
 Church or corporate body, receiving any endow¬ 
 ment from the State. This at once opens up 
 the question of individual and corporate re¬ 
 sponsibility. There must be very considerable 
 difference between the extent and limits of these 
 two kinds of accountability. It is admitted, on 
 all hands, that the Church is not responsible for 
 all the acts and words of every individual minister, 
 
CREEDS 
 
 327 
 
 nor is the individual for all the acts and decisions 
 of the body. Even in the Church of Rome and 
 the Salvation Army, where corporate authority 
 is most fully exercised and individual liberty 
 least allowed, freedom of opinion and liberty 
 of action are recognised, within certain limits. 
 What are the limits of Church authority and in¬ 
 dividual responsibility respectively, it would be hard 
 to say. It would be much better for the welfare 
 of humanity in general, and for preserving the 
 rights of each, that the attempt should not be 
 made to define them with such precision that we 
 should proceed to act at once upon the definitions 
 and draw inferences therefrom, as if it were a 
 statement of absolute truth. This mode of clean- 
 cut definition has done already incalculable injury 
 to the cause of Christ. But still there must be 
 some kind of regulation in every body, religious or 
 other, which will determine, in most cases, the 
 course which the individual may pursue. Every 
 individual of course, is responsible to Cod for 
 everything he says and does, so that the shield of 
 the Church, will be of no avail to him at the bar 
 of God, when he is chargeable with wrong-doing. 
 The individual conscience can never be too sensi¬ 
 tive, either as regards the thoughts and feelings 
 of the heart, or the words and actions of the 
 outward life. Any corporate feeling or action 
 that tends to diminish this solemn feeling of 
 
328 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 responsibility, must in the highest degree be 
 injurious to the cause of religion. First and 
 foremost are we responsible for our own thoughts, 
 words, and deeds. If we say in words, or sign a 
 document, that we believe a certain truth ex¬ 
 pressed in given words which in our hearts we do 
 not believe, then we are guilty of the sin of 
 falsehood, and the guilt is correspondingly 
 heightened with the importance of the truth, 
 and the solemnity of the occasion on which 
 assent thereto has been declared. Anything like 
 equivocation or paltering in a double sense, is 
 disastrous to the purity of the individual con¬ 
 science, and to the truthfulness of the body to 
 which the individual belongs. Truthfulness in 
 statement, and conscientiousness in action, are 
 essential conditions of prosperity in every branch 
 of the Church of Christ. But a member or 
 minister of a church, has to think of others as 
 well as himself, of other individuals as well as of 
 the Church as a whole. A certain restraint 
 ought always to be laid upon us by the thought, 
 that we are members of one body whose feelings, 
 opinions, and interests, ought to be regarded as 
 well as our own. Error is never to be adopted 
 nor truth renounced, at the bidding of any in¬ 
 dividual or corporate body, in Church or State. 
 These are the limits within which all individual 
 effort is to be exercised. Every member of a 
 
CREEDS 
 
 329 
 
 society should so comport himself that no reason¬ 
 able offence, in word or deed, is given to his 
 fellow members. This again brings us back to 
 our old inquiry: — what doctrinal belief, or 
 external line of action may lawfully cause division 
 and produce separation in any branch of the 
 Church of Christ ? and in the case now under 
 consideration, in the Presbyterian church ? We 
 have been going on the assumption, that the three 
 ecclesiastical bodies in Scotland would not forbid 
 their members to hold the same opinions regarding 
 the union between Church and State which they 
 now hold ; and that the united church should not 
 interfere with the action which their respective 
 views would lead them to adopt. It would 
 require to be clearly understood, that the united 
 church, as a church, would pass no deliverance 
 on the controverted topics, so as to compromise 
 any of those holding the views which we have 
 mentioned. Even as things now stand in all the 
 Presbyterian churches throughout the world, the 
 public actions of the Church do not necessarily 
 bind the consciences of the ministers. Were 
 this so, a disruption would take place whenever 
 there was a division on a keenly contested 
 question. The minority would then have to walk 
 out. It is always' understood that the minority 
 can save itself, by entering its dissent upon the 
 records of the house. Without such a provision, 
 
330 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 and such an understanding, the business of the 
 church would, every now and then, come to a 
 dead-lock. 
 
 It must be admitted that this kind of procedure 
 would not be strictly applicable to these bodies 
 uniting together, with the assurance that the 
 question would come up in this practical form. 
 They would enter the union with their eyes open 
 to the fact that the united body would adopt a 
 course of action which they could not approve; 
 they could scarcely plead that they would save 
 their consistency by entering their dissent on the 
 records of the house. Provision must be made to 
 meet such an emergency, and that can only be 
 done by the principle of open questions in the 
 Church, respecting which there is freedom of 
 action as well as of belief, on the part of indi¬ 
 viduals. It must be lawful for each minister to 
 accept or refuse State aid, only the Church as a 
 Church must not be committed to either side. In 
 our negotiations for Union in New South Wales, 
 it was proposed at one time, that an express 
 resolution should be passed that the question of 
 State aid should not be taken up by the united 
 body, but that freedom of action should be 
 allowed to all sides. This proposal was discussed 
 and advocated by some in all the three negotiat¬ 
 ing churches, but was ultimately abandoned. 
 We trusted each other, and during the last thirty 
 
CREEDS 
 
 331 
 
 years, we have never found that this trust was 
 misplaced. Let this freedom be expressly recog¬ 
 nised. Lmless it be so, it would be far better to 
 give up all thoughts of union, until people are of 
 one mind on this subject, which is not likely to 
 be the case till our Lord’s second advent. Differ¬ 
 ences of opinion, imperfection of character, and 
 diverse courses of conduct exist, must exist, and 
 there is no use in people or churches acting on 
 the supposition, that such don’t exist. With a 
 frank recognition of difference on this subject, 
 there must also be the same freedom in action. 
 Ministers of religion will be free to accept or 
 reject the endowments of the State, should they 
 have the offer of them. Not only must there be 
 the power of refusing, but also the permission to 
 oppose the continuance of such endowments. 
 The question would require to be completely 
 excluded from the supreme court of the Church, 
 so that as a body it would never petition in 
 favour or against those endowments, but each one 
 would be left to use his freedom as a citizen in 
 the way he considered most conducive to the 
 welfare of the cause of Christ. What more can 
 we want than such liberty ? To insist that men 
 may hold the lawfulness of receiving such aid but 
 cannot carry out that opinion into practice by 
 receiving it, is not quite consistent. If the actiou 
 itself is so very injurious, then unquestionably, the 
 
332 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 most thorough way of dealing with the matter 
 would be to demand a renunciation of the opinion 
 which leads to the action, as a condition of 
 office. 
 
 It seems to me that there is a strong tendency 
 on both sides, to magnify the importance of this 
 question. Some who do not apparently set a 
 very high value on the questions agitated be¬ 
 tween the Calvinists and Arminians, would yet 
 make the receiving of State aid a bar to 
 ministerial fellowship. There is no reason why 
 this should be magnified into a point of primary 
 importance, and made a source of intolerance. 
 It is just the same as in other cases—intoler¬ 
 ance on either side is apt to insist on having 
 its own way, and this it does by exaggerating 
 the importance of the subject in dispute. It 
 might, and would, appear a very strange thing 
 that ministers of the same body should hold 
 opinions so discordant, viz., some accepting the 
 bounty of the State with gratitude, others rejecting 
 it with disdain. Our surprise might be lessened 
 if we thought for a little that this was only the 
 carrying out of Christian liberty, and would far 
 more effectively promote the cause of Christ, than 
 if they were divided into separate hostile camps, 
 competing with each other, not in sending the 
 gospel to the lapsed masses at home or the heathen 
 abroad, or in defending Christianity against the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 333 
 
 multiform assaults of unbelief, but as to who will 
 gain the new arrivals into the various districts or 
 parishes, and whose finances will be in the most 
 flourishing condition. Difference of opinion 
 generally leads to diverse courses of action; and 
 there is no reason why the latter should not be 
 tolerated in churches as well as the former. 
 Confessedly this question is not one easily to be 
 determined ; and the effect of past controversies 
 is still felt by the present contending parties. 
 “ The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the 
 teeth of tiie children are set on edge.” En¬ 
 deavouring to put ourselves in the position of 
 those who are conscientiously opposed to all state 
 endowments of religion, we should affirm without 
 hesitation, that they should never be called upon 
 to accept these endowments themselves, nor should 
 the church as a body be held either to approve or 
 accept them, but full liberty should be extended 
 to them as citizens of adopting such measures as 
 they deem consistent with Christian principle to 
 obtain their abolition. Precisely the same liberty 
 must be extended to those who as firmly hold the 
 contrary view. 
 
 It may be asked, How is such a state of things 
 possible ? What method can be adopted to secure 
 such an amount of liberty ? Doubtless, much 
 wisdom and great Christian forbearance are 
 necessary. I firmly believe that when the desire 
 
334 
 
 DOGMA IX RELIGION 
 
 to remove the scandal of present divisions and to 
 concentrate the available forces of the church upou 
 the advancement of the cause of Christ and the 
 promotion of the highest form of Christian life, 
 has become intense, the requisite wisdom will be 
 found to suggest ways and means of getting out 
 of the difficulty. The congregations which have 
 now these endowments might still retain them ; 
 should they call a minister who would not accept 
 them, they could support him by voluntary con¬ 
 tributions and give the endowment to some other 
 church object. Supposing there would be no 
 patronage and no state interference with the 
 freedom of the church (indispensable conditions), 
 the evils which often arise from such endowments 
 would be reduced to a minimum. What great 
 good to humanity or to the cause of Christ, would 
 arise from the secularization of the present pro¬ 
 perty of the Church ? In the opinion, I sup¬ 
 pose, of the ministers and people of the Established 
 church, this would be a great evil. It would be 
 to hand over to secular and transitory interests 
 that which was piously dedicated to the advance¬ 
 ment of the kingdom of Christ. If men in the 
 church can conscientiously receive this gift and 
 apply it in the cause of the Christian religion, and 
 over whom she can exercise her authority both as 
 regards the doctrine which they teach and the 
 life which they lead, why should they be prevented 
 
CREEDS 
 
 335 
 
 from so employing it, and why should it be 
 handed over to the civil authority which may 
 apply it to secular education or other agencies 
 which may or may not prove injurious to the 
 cause of truth and righteousness ? One should 
 think that it would be likely to do as much good 
 or more, were it bestowed on any evangelical de¬ 
 nomination, than devoted to any secular purpose. 
 There are abuses connected with endowments 
 of every kind, but much weightier reasons 
 would require to be adduced than have yet been 
 done, to show that those of the State are more 
 likely to degenerate than those bestowed by 
 voluntary generosity. I have refrained altogether 
 from arguing the question as to the lawfulness 
 of such endowments, but I think it right not to 
 take for granted that the evils are all on one 
 side. The members of a wealthy ecclesiastical 
 establishment are strongly tempted to rest on 
 their oars, to look down upon those who are not 
 the recipients of the government bounty, and to 
 plume themselves on the exclusive privileges 
 which they enjoy, especially on the one that they 
 are not dependent for their support upon the will 
 or caprice of the people. That such dangers are 
 not imaginary, the history of all state churches 
 clearly proves. On the other hand, there are 
 abuses connected with churches wholly supported 
 by the voluntary offerings of the people. Both a 
 
336 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 plutocracy and democracy frequently assert them¬ 
 selves in congregations, and the minister is the 
 one who suffers most from the dominancy of one 
 or other, or from the contentions between the two 
 rival factions; and he has frequently great 
 difficulty in asserting and maintaining his in¬ 
 dependence. Indeed, in all congregations, es¬ 
 tablished and nou-established, there are frequently 
 glaring abuses of which Christians ought to be 
 ashamed. The various schemes adopted to raise 
 money for Christian purposes, often partake 
 more of worldly policy than Christian liberality. 
 The contentions that have prevailed on financial 
 matters, on cases of discipline, and so on, ought 
 to fill us all with profound regret. They exist in 
 all bodies to a greater or less degree, and more 
 than false doctrine retard the progress of the 
 truth as it is in Jesus. It is the same spirit that 
 has caused divisions in the past, and which pre¬ 
 vents union in the present. 
 
 As one strongly attached to his native land, 
 and to all the churches now charged with the 
 spiritual oversight of the people of Scotland, the 
 writer takes the liberty of pressing on them all 
 the necessity of using every lawful effort to secure 
 one united, free, devoted, and enlightened church, 
 worthy of their country and of the Reformation 
 church from which they have all sprung. Christian 
 men in other countries and belonging to other com- 
 
CREEDS 
 
 Q Q>7 
 
 00/ 
 
 muuious, cannot understand wliat keeps them 
 all apart The difference between them, seems 
 altogether too insignificant to keep them apart. 
 Whilst leading men in all these bodies have 
 recommended us colonists to unite with our 
 brothers of other Presbyterian bodies, and have 
 approved the principles on which our Union rests, 
 why can they not apply these principles to their 
 own positions in Scotland, and with full confi¬ 
 dence in each other and humble faith in our 
 common Lord, unite heartily to form a United 
 Church for Scotland, which will at once afford 
 encouragement to the highest forms of Christian 
 thought, provide full scope for the exercise of 
 Christian liberty, and prove a living force in the 
 suppression of evil aud in the promotion of the 
 higher Christian life ? 
 
 What shall we say of a union on a far greater 
 scale and far more important in itself—the union 
 of Christendom ? This subject has been exciting 
 a deep interest even in quarters where it might 
 have been least expected. The idea of only one 
 Christian church in the world, seems captivating 
 to many minds. Under existing circumstances, 
 i.e. in the present condition of the churches viewed 
 intellectually, morally, and spiritually, as well as 
 in the present state of the kingdoms of the world, 
 such a church, comprehending all Christian people 
 of every country, under every kind of government, 
 
 Y 
 
338 
 
 DOGMA IN RELIGION 
 
 and of so different degrees of civilization, seems 
 neither possible nor (to my mind at least), desir¬ 
 able. That all should be united together under 
 the same ecclesiastical organization, if the reins of 
 government were to be held tightly in the hands 
 of church rulers, would be a serious menace to 
 human liberty. To some the beau ideal of a 
 church appears to be one which governs firmly, 
 exercises discipline with rigour, and especially casts 
 out without scruple all who err in doctrine and 
 swerve from the paths of righteousness. With 
 human nature, in its present imperfect condition, 
 this would prove as great a tyranny as the world 
 has yet seen. 
 
 The adoption of the principles I have been 
 endeavouring to establish, would go some way in 
 preparing the churches for such a consummation 
 in the best sense of the term. If a higher average 
 of intelligence were reached among the mass of 
 men belonging to the church ; if a loftier standard 
 of morality were attained amongst all classes of the 
 people; if a purer and more ardent zeal were 
 manifested for the cause of Christ, which is really 
 the temporal and everlasting welfare of humanity ; 
 and if greater freedom were allowed for the cultiva¬ 
 tion of the higher forms of thought, especially in 
 the Christian ministry, such a union would be both 
 possible and desirable. Till then we can only 
 wait with patience; but still hope that, by the 
 
CREEDS 
 
 339 
 
 blessing of the great head of the church, such an 
 improvement in the intelligence and spirituality 
 of the churches now divided will take place, that 
 the body of Christ may externally, as it is already 
 spiritually, be one. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Arminian Articles, 76, 108. 
 
 -on Original Sin, 108. 
 
 -on Perseverance, 158. 
 
 Articles, XXXIX., 80, 210, 212, 
 273. 
 
 -on Predestination, 77. 
 
 -on original sin, 107. 
 
 Atonement, 165. 
 
 -nature of, 170, 174. 
 
 -moral influence, theory of, 
 
 180. 
 
 -extent of, 188. 
 
 -a fundamental truth, 244. 
 
 Augsburg Confession, 167. 
 
 Balfour, Mr, 284. 
 
 Baptism, 57. 
 
 - Infant, 58. 
 
 -and Regeneration, 60. 
 
 Calixt, G., 215. 
 
 Calvinism and Anninianism, 
 Non-fundamental, 258, 278. 
 Church, the, 45, 46. 
 
 - Government of, 48. 
 
 Church, Dean, 265. 
 
 Creeds, — Athanasian, 10, 42. 
 
 - Nieene, 9. 
 
 - as Tests, 194. 
 
 - of Christendom, 195. 
 
 Cunningham, Dr William, 166, 
 288. 
 
 Definition, 15. 
 
 Dogma, the word, 7. 
 
 - source of, 14. 
 
 - and Life, 22, 23, 24. 
 
 Dogmatics, 11. 
 
 Doi t, Synod of, on Predestina¬ 
 tion, 73. 
 
 Dort, Synod of, on Original Sin 
 108. 
 
 -on Perseverance, 158. 
 
 Election, its ground, 79. 
 Evolution and Sin, 138. 
 
 Faber, S., 79. 
 
 Faith, 39, 40. 
 
 -and belief, 16, 18, 33, 37. 
 
 Formula concordiee, 246. 
 
 -on Predestination, 74. 
 
 -on Perseverance, 158. 
 
 Fundamental doctrines, 227, 
 237, 238. 
 
 Gore, Canon, 46, 52. 
 
 Grace, 146. 
 
 -irresistible, 149, 301. 
 
 Hampden, Dr, 207. 
 
 Harnack, 247. 
 
 Heresy, prosecutions for, 207. 
 Hodge, Dr C., 205. 
 
 Lambeth Articles, 80. 
 
 Liberty in non-fundamentals, 
 275. 
 
 Limborch, 140. 
 
 Lord’s Supper, 63. 
 
 - and Transubstantiation, 
 
 64. 
 
 Momerie, on the Atonement, 
 169. 
 
 Mozley, Dr., 137. 
 
 Mystery, 241. 
 
 Non - fundamental doctrines 
 256. 
 
 341 
 
342 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Open questions, 21, 263. 
 
 Perseverance of the saints, 157, 
 163. 
 
 Predestination, 71. 
 
 —— and foreknowledge, 86. 
 Private judgment, 42. 
 Prosecutions for Heresy, 209, 
 210, 217, 224. 
 
 Pusey, Dr, 39, 210. 
 Remonstrants’ Apology on Pre¬ 
 destination, 95. 
 
 Revelation, 248. 
 
 Scholasticism, 30, 118. 
 
 Second Advent, 264, 272. 
 
 Sin, Original, 104, 107. 
 
 -its relation to Adam, 114. 
 
 -extent of corruption, 128, 
 
 132 
 
 Smith, Prof. R., 222, 269. 
 Subscription to Creeds, 205. 
 
 Transubstantiation, 64. 
 
 Trent, Council of, on Pre¬ 
 destination, 73. 
 
 -on Original Sin, 106. 
 
 - on Perseverance, 158. 
 
 -on Atonement, 168. 
 
 Trinity, 27. 
 
 Union, 199. 
 
 - in Scotland, 316. 
 
 - in Australia, 322. 
 
 -of Church and State, 304. 
 
 -of Church and State, views 
 
 of Free and United Presby¬ 
 terian Churches on, 307, 311. 
 
 Ward, Dr., 209. 
 
 Westminster Confession, on 
 Predestination, 75, 82, 199. 
 
 -on Original Sin, 108. 
 
 -on Perseverance, 158. 
 
 -on Atonement, 168. 
 
PRINTED BY 
 
 TURNBULL AND SPEARS 
 
 EDINBURGH