BX 7327 .Al 1891 Garrison, J. H. 18A2-1931, The old faith restated I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/oldfaithrestatedOOgarr The Old Faith Restated BEING A RESTATEMENT, BY REPRESENTATIVE MEN, OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS AND ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY AS HELD AND ADVOCATED BY THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST IN THE LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE AND OF BIBLICAL RESEARCH. ^ EDITED BY J. H. GARRISON, A. M., Author of "Heavenward Way," "Alone With God," etc., and Editor of The Christian-Evangelist. ST. LOUIS: CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPAIfY. Copyrighted, 1891, BY Chkistian Publishing Cosipany. PREFACE. On a chill autumn evening in 1889, the editor of this Volume sat alone n front of a cheerful grate, at his home, pondering over the state of current religious thought and the condition and needs of the religious movement with which his life and labors have been identified. His meditation at length took the form of an anxious inquiry as to what he could do to promote the welfare of the Current Eeformation and to assist in guiding it safely through the perils which beset it from within and without. After much serious thought over this problem, and after availing himself of the promise, " If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him," he took up liis pen and at once outlined the work substantially as it is herein presented. In such a mood of soul, superinduced by such conditions, this work, in its purpose, plan and scope, was conceived. The eminent men to whom was committed the several parts, all accepted the work assigned them, and, in God's good providence, were all spared to complete the same. The series of articles thus planned ran through the entire volume of the Christian- Evangelist for the year 1890, awakening deep interest and exciting general comment. They have since been carefully re\ised by their respective authors, and are now presented to the public in the present form, as originally contemplated. The underlying thought of the book, as its title indicates, was to present a fresh and independent re-statement of the great truths and principles of Christianity as they are apprehended, held and advocated by representative men of the Current Keformation to-day. It is believed that now, after the lapse of three-quarters of a century since the inauguration of this movement for the restoration of New Testament Christianity and the unity of Christians, when the bitterness engendered by the intellectual conflicts incident to our earlier history has been removed or greatly assuaged, and when there has been time to test the value of the doctrine, and to learn much in the school of actual experience, it is possible to present a calm and dispassionate statement of the whole ground of our movement, wliich will more fully and fairly represent tlie genius and spirit of our plea than any presentation made at an earlier date in our history. (3) 4 PREFACE. Furthermore, it was felt that such a restatement wonld be peculiarly timely, just now, when discussion of the fundamental points of Cliristian doctrine is rife in the religious world, and when thoughtful people, wearied with the uncertain and unprofitable speculations of the various conflicting creeds, are asking, as never before, for the vital, the essential and the permanent in Christianity. Such a state of wide-spread religious unrest, is, in itself, an instructive commentary on the futility of all human formulations of doctrine, designed as bases of Christian fellowship, and affords a striking proof of the wisdom and absolute need of a movement whose aim is the restoration of the original and only inspired Confession of Faith — a confession on which the church originally stood, united, tree and victorious. The very best minds in all the religious bodies to-day are looking away from the doctrinal speculations which constitute so large a part of modern creeds, toward a simpler statement of faith, as offering the only remedy for a divided church. Many would go back to the Xicene creed, others to the Apostles' creed, so called, wliile not a few discerning spirits are beginning to see, what Alexander Campbell and his co-laborers saw three quarters of a century ago, that the only practicable basis for a united church is the heavenly-revealed creed of Simon Peter — " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the liAing God." At such a time, and in such a state of religious thought, we would be recreant to a very sacred trust, not to use every opportunity for bringing the principles we hold to be so vital, in contact with the awakened public mind. Beyond question, the discussions in this volume have a most important bearing on the great theological issues of our day. An additional fact which emphasizes the need of such a restatement as is herein published, is that a generation of younger disciples has come upon the stage since the fathers fell asleep, and since the issues which they made with the religious world have ceased to be common themes of pulpit discus- sion. There is reason to fear that many of these are not familiar with, nor well grounded in, the great distinguishing principles, which, in so short a period of time, have wrought such marvelous results. They will be more likely to study these principles and aims, presented as a whole, in a fresh modern statement by living men, than in the earlier fragmentary literature among us. If the time shall ever come when the bulk of our membership shall fail to have an intelligent grasp of the meaning, aim and value of our mission, as advocates of pure. New Testament Christianity, and shall become indifferent to those truths which it has been given us to defend, our work as reformers will have ended, and God will carry out his purposes through other agencies. The subjects treated, herein, will be found to embrace the faith, doctrine, ordinances, organization, work, worship and growth of the Church of PREFACE. 5 Christ, as held and advocated by representative men in the Reformation, together with a statement of its relation to other reformations in the Church. A closing chapter gathers up some of the lessons which our past experience has taught us, and draws some conclusions as to our present duty and responsibility. The essential agreement of all these writers in all matters of fundamental importance demonstrates the practicability of main- taining unity of faith and doctrine without any other authoritative creed than that presented in the New Testament. In treating the various subjects assigned them, these writers were placed under no restrictions as to conformity with any former writings or statements among us, but had perfect liberty to investigate for themselves and to publish the results of their latest and best thought, in the light of ail the pi'ogress which has been made along the lines of Biblical research. And yet, with all this freedom, it will be found that their teaching is marked by a degree of unity and consis- tency that it would be difficult to equal and impossible to surpass, in any creed-bound body of Christendom. This fact, at the present time, is of great importance, and its significance will not escape the attention of tlioughtful minds in all religious bodies. The editor congratulates himself on being able to present, under one cover, the maturest thought of so many of our ablest minds on the profoundest themes of the gospel, and feels that he is not prompted by mere partisan pride in saying that the group of writers, whose productions are lierein offered to the reading public, is, with the single exception which modesty compels him to make, one of which any religious body in Cluisten- dom might well be proud. They are men who have been trained to think for themselves and who do not accept their theology at second hand. Believing the great mass of readers would be glad to look upon the features of men so widely known, we have prevailed upon most of them to permit us to present a photo-engra\ing of them in connection with their articles. A very condensed biograpliical sketch of each writer will be found in connection with his picture. This book was conceived, and is now published, in the conviction that the religious movement wliose aims and principles are herein set forth, has not yet completed its providential mission in the world, but that, wisely guided so as to avoid the dangers which have wrecked or limited the usefulness of other reformations, it is destined yet to be used of God in the consummation of his glorious purposes — the imity of his Church and the conversion of the world. That this volume may contribute, in some humble measure, to such a destiny is the sincere prayer of The Editor. Rose Hill, St. Louis, July 4, 1891. CONTENTS. PAGE I. GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD, AND THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. Prof. J. W. McGaevey 11 1. The Narrowest Ground of Belief .... 12 2. Broader Grounds of Belief ...... 15 3. The Broadest Grounds of Belief .... 23 4. ■ The Grounds on which we Receive the Bible as the Only Rule of Faith and Practice ..... 44 II. GROUNDS Ox. WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS AS THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF GOD AND SAVIOR OF THE WORLD. G. W. LONGAN ......... 1. Jesus' Conception of God ..... 2. Jesus as Mediator ....... 3. Did Jesus Create a New Religion? .... 4. Jesus the Creator of a New Religion .... III. THE GROUND OF MAN'S NEED OF SALVATION,— or, SIN AND ITS REMEDY. J. S. Lamar 1. The Entrance of Sin into the World .... 2. The Banishment of Sin from the World .... 3. Actual Sins ....... 4. The Remedy ........ IV. THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION, or, THE THREE DISPEN- SATIONS,—THEIR LIMITS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS. J. J. Haley ........ 120 1. Revelation Progressive ...... 120 2. Unity of the Dispensations ..... 130 3. Dispensational Distinctions ..... 135 4. Results of Ignoring a Change of Dispensations . . 143 (7) 49 55 61 82 89 98 98 104 109 114 8 CONTENTS. V. THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. Prof. I. B. Gkubbs 149 1. Fundamental Idea in Justification .... 149 2. Bearings of Legal Justification .... 150 3. The Method of Faith 152 4. Bearings of this Jlethod ...... 153 5. The Two Methods in Contrast ..... 155 6. Paul and James ....... 162 VI. REPENTANCE— ITS NATURE, CONDITIONS AND NECESSITY. H. W. Everest, A. M., LL. D. . . . . . . igg 1. The Nature of Repentance . . . . . .169 2. Conditions and Consequences of Repentance . , 176 3. Necessity of Repentance ...... 184 VII. BAPTISM, — ITS ACTION, SUBJECTS AND IMPORT. J. B. Beiney ......... 192 1. Its Action ....... 192 2. Lexical Authority ....... 199 3. Circumstantial Evidence ..... 203 4. Evidence from Histoiy ...... 205 5. Its Subjects ....... 209 6. Its Import ........ 2i8 VIII. THE LORD'S SUPPER. D. R. Dungan .... 231 1. The Elements Used in the Supper .... 233 2. The Cup, or Fruit of the Vine ..... 234 3. For Whom was the Supper Intended? .... 241 4. When Should the Church Break Bread? . . . 245 5. But What Time of the Day Should we Break Bread? . . 248 6. The Posture in which it Should be Received . . 249 7. What Name Should be Given to the Ordinance? . . 250 8. What of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation? . 250 9. The Purpose of the Emblematic Loaf and Cup . . . 252 IX. CONVERSION,— WHAT IS IT AND HOW PRODUCED? A. I. HoBBS .......... 254 1. Change of Opinions ...... 255 2. Outer Moral Habits ....... 256 3. Benevolence — Good Will to Men .... 256 4. Getting Religion ....... 257 5. Regeneration ....... 258 6. Passivity in Conversion . . ... 262 CONTENTS. 9 7. Begotten 266 8. Born Aarain ....... . 267 9. Dead, Quickened, Raised ..... 268 10. New Creation ....... 270 11. Adoption, Naturalization, Translation . , • 272 12. How is Conversion Produced? ..... 272 13. Tradition ........ 274 X. THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT. W. K. Pendleton, LL. D. ....... 275 1. Prophetic Promise of the Holy Spirit .... 278 2. John Announces It ..... . 27S 3. Christ Refers to It 270 4. Emphasized at Close of Christ's Ministry . . . 280 5. Repeated After his Resurrection ..... 281 6. Manifested at Pentecost ..... 283 7. Continuous Manifestations in Acts .... 285 8. Mission of the Holy Spirit ..... 292 XI. REFORMATION IN THE CHURCH,— SOME OF ITS RESULTS. Prof. J. M. Trible ....... 294 1. The Right of Reformation . . . . . .296 2. The Rule of Reformation ..... 297 3. The Reason of Reformation ..... 300 4. The Reformation of the Campbells and their Compeers . 303 5. • The Next Reformation 308 XII. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH,— HOW BROKEN, AND THE CREED-BASIS ON WHICH IT MUST BE RESTORED. Ceorge Plattenbueg ........ 310 1. Denominationalism and Its Creeds .... 311 2. The Work Proposed ...... 319 3. On What Ground 321 4. Protestantism and its Creeds ..... 322 5. Tlie Lambeth Conference ...... 3.34 6. The True Ground ...... 336 7. Jesus is the Christ ....... 340 8. Conclusion ....... 348 XIII. ORGANIZATION. B. B. Tyler, D. D. . . . . 351 XIV. THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE WORLD. A. McLean, LL.D. 365 1. The Eternal Purpose . . . . . .365 2. What Has Been Accomplished .... 369 3. The Mission of the Church . . . . .382 10 CONTENTS. XV. MEANS OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH. F. D. Power , . 390 XVI. CHRIST AND THE FUTURE LIFE. B. W. Johnson . . 398 1. The Hope of the Ancient "World .... 398 2. Life and Immortality Brought to Light .... 402 3. The Basis of Our Hope ...... 406 4. The Hope of the Saints . . . . . .411 5. Heaven ........ 415 XVII. LESSONS FROM OUR PAST EXPERIENCE, or, HELPS AND HINDRANCES. J. H. Garrison 421 1. Preliminary ....... 421 2. New Wine in Old Bottles . . . . . .425 3. Perils of a Separate Existence ..... 428 4. An Abused Motto ; or, Loyalty and Liberty . . . 432 5. A Right Principle Wrongly Applied .... 435 6. Doctrinal Extremes ....... 439 7. Extreme Church Independency .... 446 8. The Controversial Spirit . . . . . .449 9. What this Reformation has Contributed to Religious Thought 452 John W. McGarvey was born in Hopkinsville, Ky., March 1, 1829. His father was a native of Ireland, and did not move to this country until he was grown, lie located in Hopkinsville, Ky., where he was married to a Miss Thompson, who was born and reared near Georgetown, Ky. When J. W. McGarvey was four years old, his father died, and his niotlier afterwards married Dr. G. F. Saltonstall. In 1839 tlie family removed to TreuKjnt, Ta/.t-wrll ciiinty, 111., where our fnlure teacher, preacher and author ^^■as trained to habits of iiKkis- try, and thorounhly instructed in the priiiiaiy and academic branches by Mr. James K. Kelloirir, a successful educator of the jilace. In April, 1847, in his eightocut h ycai-, he entered Bethany Colleoje, and grad- uated with honors in the year 1850, dclivcrini; the Greek sjifccli. While at Bethany he confessed faith in Christ, and w as bapti/cd by I'rof. W . K. Pendleton. Innnediately upon his conversi<)n, his mind turneil towaid the ministry, and it was not lung before he gave good evidence of titness for the work. In the mean- time his family had removed to Fayette, Mo., at which place, soon after leaving college, he taught a male school for ten months. His step-fatlier died of cholera in June, ISol, w hile on his way to attend Commencement at Bethany College, of which he was a warm friend, leaving it a child's part in his estate, besides having given §2,")00 while he was living. At the call of the chui ch in Fayette, Bro. McGarvey gave up the school there, and in September, 1851, was ordained to the work of the ministry, and cuntinued his labors for the church there and in neighboring county churciies until Fel:)- ruary, 185.3, when he removed to Dover, LaFavette county. In March, 1853, he was married to Ottie F. Hix, of Fayette. He resided at Dover nine years, dividing his time with the hi.ime chun-h and preaching extensively over the 8tate of ]\Iissouri. He also held live religious discussions with represt'utali ves of various religious parties during this pei iod, and collected money to erect a board- ing school in his village, which lie conducted two years. In the spring of 18()2 he accepted the pastoral care of the chui-ch in Lexing- ton, Ky., where a laige field of usefulness was open to him. During the same year he published his "Commentary on Acts," which had been in course of preparation for more than three years — a work which yet ImMs its place in our litei-ature as a work of superior merit. On the removal of Kentn. ky University to Lexington in 18()5, he accei)ted a chair in the Collcije of the Bible, but still maintained his labors for the Church, which had greatly prospered umler his care. In 1866, he resigned his place in the Church to give his whole time to the work in the L'niversit\-, but continued to share its pulpit for a time with President Graham, until L. B. Wilkes was chwsi^n as bis successor. He then preached three years for country churches in cimnei ti.in with his other lab(U's. When in 18()i) the growth of the Lexingt(jn Church reijuired the organization of a second one, he was called to serve that congregation, which he did for eleven years. During that time the Church iiu-reased its membership from 126 to "4(X). He tlien resigned his work in the city, on account of his college duties, and resumed coun- try preaching. In order to better qualify himself for his college work, the teachinu' of sacred history, he matle a tour of Pale>iin<- in IsTft, and in b^sl jinblisleMl tlu; result of his observations in " Lands of the Bilile," a work whieh for its pains-taking accn- racy, and clearness of description, has received high commendation from P.iblical scholars. In 1886 he published Volume I. of a work on Christian Evidence, entitled "Text and Canon;" and this was followed in 18<)1 by Volume IL, " Credibility and Inspiration of the Bible." These works bear the marks of con- scientious and careful investigation, and received favorable notice from various sources. Bro. McGarvey is too well known, even if it were within the jun-pose of these sketches, to require "any analysis of his jiowers." lie r< still cnnnecled with the College of the Bible, and we trust may be spared man\' years in which to prose- cute his useful labors. .1. W. (iAltVKV. GEOUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD, AND THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. PROF. J. W. m'GAEVEY. DEFINITIONS. IiT order to free the terms in which 'our theme is expressed from all apparent ambiguity, and to make perfectly clear its meaning, we commence with a few definitions. In saying that we receive the Bible as the word of God, we distinguish between the word of God and the words of God. We do not mean that all of its words are words of God; for some of them are recorded as the words of angels, some as the words of men, some as those of demons, and some as those of Satan. We mean that it is God's word in the sense that God, by the inspiration of its writers, caused to be written this record of things that were said and done by himself and certain of his creatures. In saying that we receive this book as the only rule of faith, we mean, first, that we receive all of its utterances as true in the sense which properly belongs to them, and therefore as objects of belief; and second, that nothing else, as a matter of religious belief, is to be required of us. Of course this does not bind us to any book now printed in the Bible which may prove to have been improperly inserted, or to any passage in any book which may prove to be an uninspired interpolation. In receiving it as the only rule of practice, we bind ourselves in conscience to observe all that it appoints for us to do, distin- guishing what it appoints for us from what it appointed for others in former dispensations ; and we refuse to be bound by anything which it does not thus appoint. (11) 12 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. By the "we" in our proposition, is meant, not the writer of this essay, nor the writers of the essays in this volume, nor the particular body of disciples with which these writers are identi- fied; but all, everywhere, who do thus receive the Bible. Many, it is true, receive the Bible as the word of God who do not receive it as the only rule of faith and practice ; and we shall accordingly divide the question, discussing first the grounds on which the book is received in the former sense, and afterward the grounds on which it is received in the 1 atucr sense. There is siill another distinction which must be noted before we enter upon our principal theme. While the "we" whose grounds of belief are to be stated, includes all believers, all do not receive it on the same grounds. There is a great diversity in this respect. In order that all may be properly represented in the statements which are to be made, it is necessary to present these various grounds, and to consider them separately. Believers may be divided, in reference to their grounds of belief, into three classes ; first, the uneducated, who have never made a study of the evidences of Christianity ; second, the more intel- ligent class, who have paid more or less attention to the subject, but have never studied it systematically ; and third, those who have investigated the subject exhaustively. This classification of believers shall guide us in marking divisions in this part of our essay. /. THE NAUBOWEST GROUND OF BELIEF. A large majority of the believers of this age, and of every age except the earliest, have received the Bible as the word of God on the one and only ground that they have been so edu cated. They have been trained from their earliest childhood to look upon the Bible as a sacred book ; to reverence it as a most precious gift from God ; to abhor unbelief in reference to it as a deadly sin, and to tremble when the least shadow of doubt GROUNDS OX WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 13 concerning it passes across their minds. They have learned to estimate the truth of all other writings by their agreement or disagreement with this ; and they fully expect to be judged by it in the day of final accounts. If they are called upon to give a reason for this implicit faith^ they seldom go farther than to answer, " We have been brought up to believe the Bible ; our fathers and mothers before us have believed it ; and we have never thought of doubting it." This ground of faith has not received the respectful consid- eration to which it is entitled. It is often stigmatized as purely traditional and unreasoning ; and so it appears to be. But is it any the less valuable on this account ? On what de- pends the value of faith in anything that is of a practical nature ? On the reasons which the believer can give for his faita ? or on the firmness with which he maintains his faith, and the exactness with which he puts it into practice ? Faith in the genuineness of medicines, in the skill of physicians, in the honesty of men of business, in the accuracy of interest tables and of logarithms, in the constancy of friendship and of marital vows, in everything on which life and well-being de- pend, derives its value from the latter consideration, and not at all from the former. If the religion taught in the Bible is true, the blessings which it offers to men are bestowed on those who believe, and who live in accordance with their faith, without the slightest regard to the reasons or the causes which induced them to believe. This is true not only of the blessings which it offers as the special gifts of Grod, but also of those noble traits of character which this faith brings forth as its natural fruits. Not one of these is dependent on the reasons which induce men to believe. This fact cannot be emphasized too strongly. This ground of faith has been pronounced not only tradi- tional and unreasoning, but insufiicient for the trials to which faith must be subjected. For some persons it has proved insuf- ficient ; and these have either abandoned the faith, or found 14 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. better ground for believing ; but it has proved sufficient for the majority of believers in ages past, and it Avill for ages to come. If the good results of faith are dependent, not on the causes of it, but on its steadfastness and its fruits, it follows that a faith which does not waver, and which brings forth these fruits to the end of life, has a sufficient basis in which to rest. The faith of the class now under consideration does remain steadfast to the end, and it does bring forth the required fruits. Myriads of them are now living, and myriads more have gone to rest, the shield of whose faith was never pierced by a single dart of un- belief. These believers met the arguments of infidelity, so far as they encountered them, with a smile or a frown, according to the temperament of each ; they pitied the infidel as an unfortu- nate and wayward man ; they turned to their Bibles with greater confidence and affijction in proportion as it was as- sailed; they walked humbly with their God, and truly with their neighbors ; and in the hour of death they were not afraid. It is offered as an objection, that the same may be truly said of faith in other books, supposed to be sacred, and in other religions which are conceded to be of human origin. As re- spects the ground of faith, this must be admitted ; but what follows ? It does not follow that all books and religions thus received are equally true and equally beneficial to their ad- herents. The claims of each to be true depend on the evi- dences which can be adduced in its favor ; and this is sup- posed to be beyond the ken of the humble believers of whom we now speak. If any one of these religions is true and divine, the believer in it reaps all the good fruits of it ; and if any is false, the believer in it reaps all the good that is in it, if any, and he also just as certainly tastes all the bitter fruits which a false system must necessarily bear. The objection, then, is without weight ; and the ground on which a countless host of God's children have rested their faith is vindicated. It has proved sufficient for them, though many of them have OBOUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 15 passed through mach tribulation to the region in which they had laid up their treasures. II. BBOADEB GBOUNDS OF BELIEF. The preceding ground, satisfying as it is to the mass of un- educated believers, has proved insufficient for those who, either from the natural questionings of awakened thought, or from the attacks of unbelievers, have been constrained to ask whether education has guided them aright. All these inquire for the grounds on which their teachers have taught them, and they pass into the second or into the third class mentioned above, according to the extent of their subsequent investigations. 1. Most commonly, the first new ground to which these awakened minds advance, is this : they look to see who the teachers of their faith are ; and they find that they constitute the overwhelming majority of the good, the wise and the learned, of this and of all past ages up to the age in which the Bible became a completed book. They see that these men constitute the class best informed on the subject, and most likely, both on this account and on account of their goodness of heart, to decide the question correctly. They ascertain, too, that many of these men were converted from unbelief to belief, as the result of their investigations ; and although they find that some have reversed this process, the number of the latter is so small in comparison as not to seriously afiect the evi- dence. That this is solid ground on which to stand is made more obvious when we reflect that it is the very ground on which the deductions of science are received by the mass of mankind. We accept what we are taught concerning the geography of distant lands, concerning geology, astronomy, chemistry, and the facts of all history, because we have confidence in our teachers ; and if their deductions are called in question by a 16 GJROUXDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. man here and there, it is sufficient for us that his objections amount to nothing in the estimation of the great majority of those who are competent judges. It is only the very few who are competent to investigate these sciences for themselves ; and the rest of us are never reproached because we accept our faith from their hands. Scientific men who are thus credited by their less-informed neighbors, should be the last men on earth to censure Christians for receiving the Bible on similar ground. It is said, however, that this ground of faith depends en- tirely on the circumstance that in the past the majority has been on the side of belief, and that should the majority at some future time turn the other way, the argument would be reversed, and would become equally strong in favor of unbelief. This is unquestionably true. The argument would be reversed, and the state of opinion among the common people would be reversed with it. This would be true on any ground of faith, for the common people always have been and always will be governed in their opinions on all subjects by the conclusions of the great majority of those who are known to be more compe- tent judges than themselves. Should infidelity ever secure this majority, the Bible, having lost the officers of its army, would of course be deserted by the rank and file. But we need not anticipate such a day. If the Bible is from God, it can never come. 2. Others of the class now under consideration, while hold- ing firmly to the ground of faith last mentioned, look still farther, and, considering the effects which faith in the Bible has had on all true and consistent believers, they find that these effects are good and only good continually. They find that only those believers who have not conformed their lives to the requirements of the book have failed to realize these good effects ; and that those who have conformed to it most neai-ly have been the purest and best of men. They cannot believe GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE TEE BIBLE. 17 that such traits are wrought iuto human character by the belief of a book whose writers are impostors, and whose distinctive claim for itself is a falsehood. They cannot believe this, be- cause they have learned by their own experience, and by that of those who have gone before them, that the belief of false- hood is injurious to men, while the belief of truth alone is truly and permanently beneficial. Many eminent unbelievers have themselves admitted that the highest ideal of human life would be attained if men would live according to the require- ments of this book, and thus out of their own mouths we con- firm the solidity of this ground of belief. A feeble attempt has been made to ofiset this argument by pointing to a very few men in heathen lands who have lived very noble lives and taught a very pure morality, though they never saw or heard of the Bible ; but to this it is truly an- swered that the life of the noblest man who ever lived in heathen lands cannot compare to those of thousands who have believed the Bible ; and that only so far as the lives and pre- cepts of these noble heathens are in harmony with the teach- ings of the Bible, is there anything in them to be admired. The fact, then, instead of being an objection to our argument, only confirms it by furnishing additional proof of the ennobling effects of that which our Bible teaches. 3. A third ground for the faith of the second class of be- lievers is one not so easily defined, but fully as substantial as either of the preceding. It is the stamp of truthfulness which is felt rather than seen as they read the Bible and reflect on its contents. They have observed that false narratives, even when most plausible, have an indefinable air or tone about them which awakens suspicion and causes us to pause and hesitate about receiving them ; and that, on the other hand, there is an air or tone about truth which asserts itself and dissipates doubt. It is comparable to the ring of a sound bell, or of a piece of sound porcelain, as distinguished from that of one 2 18 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE EECEIVE THE BIBLE. slightly cracked. More profound thinkers may be able to analyze and define the characteristics of truth and error alluded to, but our second class of believers make no such attempt. The human mind is made for the reception of truth, and when it is uncorrupted it has a natural susceptibility to truth, an- alogous to that of the eye to light, and of the ear to sound, which enables it within certain limits to recognize both truth and falsehood. This instinct is no guide in matters of a purely scientific character; but in matters of history and morals it will assert itself, and its promptings are often irresistible. A juryman is often led by it to decide cases of property and life, when the explicit testimony would have led him in the op- posite direction. Now those of whom I speak feel, as they read their Bibles from day to day and year to year, that they are in mental and spiritual contact with narratives and pre- cepts which have the ring of truth about them. They feel this so distinctly, and it impresses them so deeply, that they can- not shake it off if they would, and they cannot attempt to do so without doing violence to their moral nature. It will be admitted that if God were in any proper sense the author of the Bible, it would bear these marks of its own truthfulness. Indeed, if he inspired its authors, he must have desired that his creatures should believe its statements and ob- serve its precepts ; and he would certainly impart this very quality to it. The fact, then, that the Bible has the identical eflect on a vast multitude of its readers which its author must have designed if that author is God, is no mean proof that God is its author. This evidence can have but little effect on those who are as yet unbelievers, and who consequently do not re- ceive the impression we refer to ; but it is solid and satisfactory evidence to all those who have for this and other reasons com- bined received the book as true, and studied it for the good that is in it. 4. The next ground on which we plant our feet is found in GROUNDS ON WEIGH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 19 the incomparable character of Him who is the central figure in the panorama which the Bible spreads out before us. Friends and foes alike admit that Jesus who is called the Christ oc- cupies this position. He is the centre and soul of the New Tes- tament, and, whether unbelievers will have it or not, the law and the prophets all pointed to him as their end. Now when we consider who the writers of the Bible were, what they were in their education, in their prejudices, in their hopes, and in their conceptions of humanity, we are driven to the conclusion that it was impossible for them to either conceive or depict such a character as Jesus. This argument has been set forth by eloquent writers in whole volumes ; and it has often been said that the conception and portrayal of such a character by these writers without divine inspiration would have been a greater miracle than any which Jesus is said to have wrought. Of course the word miracle is here used in its etymological sense of a mere wonder, and not in its scriptural sense of an imme- diate act of God. Though so often and so confidently pub- lished to the world, this argument has never met with a serious answer, so far as the present writer is informed. Until it shall be proved to be without force, we must be allowed to still be- lieve that the Bible is the book of God, for this reason, even if we should be compelled to lay aside all others. 5. As a result of mature reflection on the last two grounds of faith, there spreads out before the believer another field of evidence, in which he beholds a wondrous adaptation of this book to the spiritual wants of our fallen race. That we are sinners before God, is the profound conviction of every thought- ful soul who realizes the existence of a divine being to whom we are responsible for our conduct. Every such person feels the need of something to impress upon him a keener sense of his unworthiness, to deliver him from the guilt which he has already incurred, and to give him ability to resist the entice- ments of sin. He looks in vain for deliverance and strength to 20 GBOUNDS ON WUICn WE RECEIVE TEE BIBLE. all the systems of human philosophy, and to all the religions of earth except that of the Bible. In the revelations of this book he finds what he desires ; or rather, he finds that which, whether consciously sought or not, meets and satisfies the longings of his soul. He finds in this book, as he thoughtfully and believingly reads it, power to subdue his stubborn will, and to bring him in humble penitence to the foot-stool of the God whom it reveals. He finds in the tender mercy there offen^d to him through the atoning blood of a wondrous Redeemer, whose work is the characteristic and the glory of this religious system, the only conceivable release from the burden of his guilt ; for only in forgivenesss, free and final, can the guilty soul find peace. Receiving "this heavenly gift, he enjoys a peace of mind which passes all understanding. Starting forward afresh in the journey of life, he finds the same good book furnishing him with hopes, and gratitude, and courage, which enable him to control himself as no other man can, by maxims of wisdom and holiness which gradually transform him into the spiritual image of his God, and fit him to dwell with God forever. With this experience, he cannot doubt that the book which has en- abled him to attain it, and which claims to be the Avord of God, is all that it claims to be. 6. Some of the class of believers now under consideration have extended their readings into general history and the his- tory of the church. All such have learned that the claim of the Bible to be the word of God has passed through fiery trials in the course of its history, such as would long since have brought it into contempt had it not been too well grounded to be overthrown. If the book had come down through the ages unchallenged, the continued hold which it had on the confidence of men would argue little in its favor ; but instead of this, its claim has been hotly contested by men of genius and learning from the second century after Christ until the present time. All manner of literary weapons have been wielded against it, GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 21 including the sneers of scoffers, the ridicule of the giddy and profligate, the criticisms of men of letters, the deductions of philosophers, and the researches of historians. ^Decipherers of manuscrij)ts and hieroglyphics, students of archaeology, delvers in the bowels of the earth, explorers of the solar system and of the stellar universe, analyzers of historical documents, and ex- perts in comparative philology, have unitedly and separately assailed the Bible, many times proclaiming that they had put all of its friends to flight, and that soon it would have no in- telligent man to uphold its claims ; bat through all these con- flicts it has passed without loss in the number of its friends, and not only without loss, but with an ever-increasing number who insist that it is the word of God. The enemies of the book are boldly challenged to tell how this can be, if the high claim set up for it is false, or even doubtful. This challenge is answered \)y the statement that the tena- cious hold which the Bible has on the minds of men is the re- sult of superstition, and of an obstinate conservatism w^hich is natural to our race. The answer is refuted by the fact that it is not the superstitious part of our race, nor the part most given to blind conservatism, that has thus clung to the Bible. That portion of the race most given to these two weaknesses is found where the Bible is unknown, or is made subordinate to other rules of faith, as among Mohammedans and Buddhists. On the other hand, those nations which have shown themselves freest of all from superstition, and quickest of all to cast aside old errors and to seize upon new truths, are the very nations which have clung most tenaciously to the Bible. Not only so, but the class of men in these nations most noted for faith in the Bible, includes in it leaders in human thought in every depart- ment of learning. To such an extent is this true, that when unbelievers of real learning and talent have for a time become leaders of great bodies of men, they have, as a rule, soon lost their leadership as a result of defeat in the conflicts which 22 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. their attacks on the Bible have provoked. More than two or three might be named, who, in the memory of persons now liv- ing, have attained to such leadership and then lost it. Now this whole series of battles has been fought over the single question, whether the Bible is the word of God, in the sense of our proposition. The proposition has thus far been so triumphantly maintained as to inspire us with the strongest conviction that it is true, and that it will continue to be maintained in the estimation of an ever increasing number of persons, until at last there shall be none to call it in ques- tion. The Bible has to-day an immensely wider recognition among men than at any previous period in its history. More copies of it are now annually published and sold than ever before ; more, perhaps, than of any one thousand other books combined. It is printed and read as no other book ever has been or ever will be, in all the languages of the earth which have an alphabet, while many of these languages have been provided with alphabets for the very purpose that the Bible might be printed in them. It is one of the most won- derful events of this present century of wonders, that on May 1st, 1881, when the Revised Version of the English Jfew Testament was published, more than one million copies were sold in a single day, and this among the people of all the earth who already had in hand the largest number of New Testa- ments. There is nothing comparable to this in the history of books. These facts guarantee that its power over the next gen- eration will be far greater and more world-wide than it is now. Indeed, if we judge the future by the rules of ordinary foresight, the facilities which now exist for the free circulation of this book throughout the world, and the multitude of rich and pow- erful friends who esteem it a high privilege to expend fabulous suras of money to put it into the hands of every human being, argue a future for it which is far more glorious than its most enthusiastic friends have dreamed, or Christian poets have sung. OROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 23 A book with such a history and such prospects, all due to the fact that it is believed to be the word of God, cannot be standing on a false claim, if there is any such thing as distin- guishing between documents that are false and those that are true. On this ground we rest our faith ; and we feel that in doing so we would be standing on a rock, if there was nothing else beneath our feet. But we stand not on this alone. We step backward and forward on the six different grounds which WB have enumerated, with no uncertainty in our tread ; and when we think of them all, we realize that the believer has within his reach, if he will reflect soberl}^, and read but a little outside of his Bible, abundant evidence to satisfy an honest soul, and to defend his faith against the assaults of unbelief. III. THE BROADEST GROUNDS OF BELIEF. The third class of believers is composed of those who have made a thorough, systematic and scientific investigation of all the grounds on which an intelligent faith can rest. They have pursued the following lines of inquiry, though not always in the order in which we name them. 1. Knowing that all books written so long ago as the books of the Bible, were transmitted to posterity for many centuries by means of manuscript copies not always made with proper care ; and that some ancient books have undergone changes from this cause such as to render the latest copies extremely inaccurate ; they have first inquired as to the preservation of the text of the sacred books, so as to know whether they have suffered in like manner. They are aware that even Avere the Bible originally the word of God, it is valueless now, if human hands have changed it to such an extent that we cannot know what parts remain as they were first written ; and they also know that if any part remains unchanged, this much is still the word of God if it was so at the beginning. If this in- 24 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. quiry ends in proving that the books have lost their essential character in transmission, we need to proceed no farther witli our investigation ; but if otherwise, we then take another step, and inquire into their origin and original character. It is perhaps impossible to copy a book of considerable size with a pen, without making some mistakes ; and the more fre- quently it is thus copied, each copyist using the work of his predecessor, the greater the number of mistakes in the later copies. The multiplication of copies is the multiplication of errors. Not so with printing. On the contrary, when the types are once correctly set, all copies printed from them are exactly alike, and they may be multiplied to any extent without mis- takes. As a consequence, the inquiry as to the preservation of the text of the Bible is limited in time to the period between its first composition and the invention of printing, or, at the latest, to the time when printing became an accurate art. This was in the early part of the sixteenth century, the first printed copy of any part of the Bible having been put to press about the middle of the century previous. Errors of copyists then came to an end, and our question is, how many and how serious were the errors introduced previous to that time ? The investigation of this question was begun in earnest about the close of the seventeenth century, and it has been pro- secuted with great diligence till the present time. Many emi- nent men have devoted their whole lives to it, and others, the labor of many years. They have ransacked the ancient libra- ries of Europe, Africa and western Asia, in search of manu- script copies of the New Testament, and have found more than two thousand of them, some containing the whole New Testa- ment, but the great majority only parts of it. These they have compared with one another, word by word, and letter by letter, noting every variation. They have also taken up the ancient translations of the book, determined the Greek words from which the renderings in them were made, and compared these GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 25 with the words of the manuscripts. In most instances the translations thus used Avere made from Greek copies of an earlier date than that of any manuscript now in existence ; and thus they represent a Greek text nearer to the autographs of tlie sacred penmen. They have also gathered out of the writings of early Christian authors, authors who lived anterior to the date of existing manuscripts, the quotations which they made from copies in use in their days, and have compared these with the same passages in versions and existing manuscripts. Hav- ing thus exhausted the sources of information as to how these books have read, in every line and word, and in every age of their existence, they have qualified themselves to state with the certainty of exact knowledge, to what extent the text of the New Testament has been preserved in its original form. The results may be briefly stated as follows : a. The manuscripts, versions and quotations agree to such an extent as to leave no doubt as to the original reading of seven-eighths of the whole text, in word and letter. In other words, seven-eighths of the words originally written in these books have been preserved in existing copies precisely as they were at first. This much is unquestionably the word of God now, if it ever was. b. So large a number of the variations between copies con- sist in mere mistakes in spelling, which do not obscure the identity of the misspelt words, that when these are taken out of the account, as they should be, fifty-nine sixtieths of all the words are found to be unchanged. c. The number of changes in the text which affect the meaning, and require the skill of the critic to determine the original reading, is only about one-thousandth part of the whole, and these have been so marked in printed copies by text- ual critics, that a scholar can put his finger on every one of them. d. By combining the results of these investigations, and 26 OBOUNDS ON WHICH WE BECEIVE THE BIBLE. throwing out from the text known errors, textual critics have now presented us with a Greek Testament which contains the exact Avords written by its authors, and this without the least doubt, except in specified instances. e. An examination of the few passages of which the read- ings are still doubtful, reveals the fact that if we should erase from the book all of these passages, we would lose from our New Testament not a single precept, promise, or fact, of mate- rial importance ; for all such which might be affected by the erasure are found in other passages, w^hich are undoubtedly genuine. f. These results are accessible not to the learned alone; but they have been placed within the reach of all who can read the English language, by means of the Revised English version. This version is not only translated from the corrected Greek text, but it exhibits in marginal notes, intelligible to the un- learned reader, every word in regard to the genuineness of which there remains the least doubt, and it indicates the de- gree of doubtfulness which attaches to each. On the question, then, of the preservation of the original text of the New Testament, a question which was once regarded as fraught with extreme danger to the cause of the Bible, all apprehension has passed away ; the enemies of the book are silenced, and its friends are satisfied. For all time to come, unless the art of printing shall be lost, the question will never be raised again. It is, indeed, one of the marvels of this mar- velous age, that now, after the passage of seventeen centuries, we have a purer text of the Greek New Testament than has ex- isted since the second century after Christ. In regard to the original text of the Old Testament, the inves- tigation has not been completed, and the results are not so defi- nite. Enough has been accomplished, however, to justify the following statements : a. From the second to the sixth century after Christ, a sue- GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 27 cession of learned Jews, some living in Palestine and some in Babylon, devoted themselves to the critical study of the text of their Bible, and brought into use such rules to govern copyists that the variations between copies made at that time are fewer and more insignificant by far than in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. b. So far as can be judged from quotations made from the Old Testament previous to the time mentioned, and by the translations into other tongues, the text had not suffered mate- rially before these stringent rules were adopted. c. While this is true, it is ascertained that in some of the books there are interpolations and verbal alterations made by editors and copyists, but of such a character that they are easily separated from the text, and that they do not materially affect the meaning of the passages in which they occur. There are also mistakes in names and figures, many of which are corrected in the context. d. It is liighly probable that there are other changes of the text which have not been detected and pointed out ; but it is highly improbable that these are any more serious than those mentioned above in the New Testament. We therefore feel safe in the present state of our knowledge, and can patiently await the results of further investigation. 2. Having thus ascertained that the text of the Bible has been preserved to us with all the accuracy necessarj^ to practical purposes, we have next inquired whether the several books can be traced back to the authors to whom they are ascribed. This task has been accomplished with respect to the New Testament by evidence so incontestable that even the most hos- tile critics admit it in regard to the Apocalypse and four of the most important Epistles, viz., Romans, First and Second Cor- intliians, and Galatians. While denying the genuineness of Luke's Gospel, Acts of Apostles, Hebrews, Colossians, and Ephesians, they assign these to dates near the close of the first 28 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. century ; and they place all the others between the years 115 and 150, except Second Peter, which they bring down nearly to the year 200. As the period within which all of the books pur- port to have been written is the second half of the lirst century, unbelief is crowded into very narrow ground by the evidence which has extorted from it these admissions. This evidence is that of ancient manuscript copies of the Greek Testament, of which we have two still existing that were written in the fourth century ; that of catalogues, or lists of the books, made out by early Christians, of which Vv'e have a succession reaching back into the second century ; that of translations into other tongues, of which we have two reaching to the middle of the same cen- tury, which was in the life time of men who knew the Apostles; that of quotations made from them by early writers, of which we have some from most of the books and made by men who knew some of the Apostles ; and that furnished by the contents of the books themselves, which, in the case of every book, is satisfactory, and is very strong for some for which the external evidence is comparatively weak. With this evidence, so nearly overcoming the resistance of the most determined foes of the Bible, we are satisfied; and we believe that all the books in our New Testament were written in the apostolic age ; and that they were written by the men whose names they bear, with the excep- tion of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as to the authorship of which there is difference of opinion among believers. In regard to the Old Testament, the evidence on this branch of our inquiry, like that in regard to the text, is not so complete, owing to the remoteness of the period into which the inquiry leads us, and the consequent scarcity of documents from which to derive evidence. In the time of Christ all of these books unquestionably existed, and constituted, as they do now, the sacred Scriptures of the Jews. Furthermore, they had all been translated into Greek, and had been circulated in the version called the Septuagint, or Alexandrian version, for at least one GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 29 hundred and fifty years before Christ : for it is now conceded that this version was completed not later than the year 150 B. C, and that the first part of it was made as early as 280 B. C. This is demonstrative proof that the books existed far back toward the time when the latest of them was composed. This much is universally conceded by unbelievers, and our field of inquiry, in point of time, lies back of that period. All the historical books of the Old Testament, together with the book of Job, are anonymous : that is, they do not name their authors. So far as their authors are known at all, they are known from the testimony of other writers ; and the correctness of our knowledge depends on the reliability of this testimony. The most reliable of these witnesses are unquestionably Christ and his Apostles. They ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses ; the prophets, so far as they quote them, to the men whose names they bear ; and some of the Psalms to David, who is represented in the book itself as the composer of about half of the collec- tion. Concerning the other anonymous books they give no spe- cific testimony ; but they give us a general warrant for receiving all, in that all were parts of the sacred Scriptures which they in a general way cited as the word of God. This usage does not imply the certainty that no book, or part of a book, had been improperly placed in the collection ; but it does imply that no large amount of that kind of work had been done — none which would render improper the general designation of the collection as the word of God. Much controversy has existed over the genuineness of most of these books, and the antiquity of others ; and unbelievers have not hesitated to reject some which are endorsed by Jesus and the Apostles. It would require a large volume to set forth the points of argument in this controversy, and of course it cannot be attempted in this essay. It is sufficient for our present purpose to say that the principal ground on which we receive the Old Testament as the word of God is that named above, the testi- 30 O BOUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. mony of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. This is sufficient for all the demands of the Christian faith ; and if it fails to support any particular book, on that book our faith will be found not at all dependent. 8. Next after the inquiries concerning the preservation of the text of the Bible, and the genuineness of its books, conies the question, whether the facts recorded in it are credible, and its revelations reliable. If they are, we can trust the Bible implicitly as the word of God ; if not, the conclusions which we have thus far reached are without value. There are historical tests by which the credibility of histor- ical documents is determined. We first inquire as to the sources of information accessible to the writers, and used by them. If they speak from personal observation, being honest men, or from the testimony of eyewitnesses, they have the high- est degree of credibility as regards the facts recorded. If they are more remote from the facts, their credibility diminishes pro- portionately. As regards the New Testament writers, if all of them except the author of the Apocalypse, and the author of the four great Pauline Epistles lived after the death of the genera- tion in which the events transpired, as is claimed by unbeliev- ers, their knowledge was traditional, and their records unrelia- ble. This consideration accounts for the unanimity with which this hypothesis is maintained by unbelievers. But if these writings were all composed, as believers have to their own satis- faction made out, by the men to whom they are credited, then they are historical documents of the first degree of credibility, according to accepted rules of evidence. The latter conclusion has been established by the evidences which we have stated above. The second method of testing such documents is to compare them with other histories of the same period, and note the agree- ments and disagreements. This comparison has been made in two ways : first, by comparing the references which other writers GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 31 make to New Testament facts witti the New Testament accounts of them ; and second, by treating in like manner the New Testa- ment allusions to events more fully set forth by these other writers. In both ways the sacred books stand the test ; for although a few contradictions have been alleged, not one has been made out. On the contrary, a remarkable harmony has been found to exist, a harmony which, when we remember that all these other writers were hostile to the religion set forth in the New Testament, is accounted for only on the supposition of the reality of the facts involved in the comparison. The third test is a close comparison of these documents with one another, where they refer to the same matters, to see whether or not their representations are harmonious. This comparison takes into view not only the explicit statements which the writ- ers make, but also allusions made by one to events described by another. The enemies of the book have gone over this ground, from side to side, and end to end, searching as with a micro- scope, for inconsistencies ; and they have paraded alleged incon- sistencies in such numbers as to appall the inexperienced reader when he first encounters them. So confident are they in the cor- rectness of their specifications, that they commonly treat with supreme contempt the man who denies it. Yet believing scholars have followed them step by step, and proved in reference to every specification, that it is either a false charge, or a charge based on some illogical assumption. A contradiction exists only when two statements are made which cannot both be true. If, on any rational hypothesis whatever, both may be true, whether they can both be proved to be true or not, there is no proof of a contradiction. After making a fair allowance for transcriptional errors, no such contradiction has been proved between any two New Testament writers ; and if none has yet been proved, it is not at all probable that one will ever be. Not content with this merely negative result, believers have also gone through the New Testament books, both historical and 32 GROUNDS OX WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. epistolary, in search of internal evidences of their truthfulness ; and they have found a multitude of purely incidental agreements between them, which can he accounted for only on the supposi- tion that they all wrote with the most minute accuracy. Many of these coincidences are found in the midst of apparent dis- crepancies, where they lay hidden until the appearance of dis- crejiancy was dissolved by closer scrutiny, and the unseen agree- ment surprisingly brought to light. The result of the whole inquiry is not only the triumphant vindication of the New Testa- ment writers from the charge of contradiction, but the demon- stration of the fact that they are the most authentic writers known to literature. In regard to one particular class of events, the miraculous, unbelievers contest the preceding conclusion with the most des- perate persistency. It is impossible for a man to remain an infidel and believe the miraculous events recorded in the New Testament ; conse- quently the acceptance or rejection of these is the crucial test of man's faith in Christ. Every argument which philosophy, his- tory and science could suggest has been brought to bear against their credibility, but these have all been refuted again and again by believers. We shall not attempt in this essay to go over the ground of this argumentation, for the two reasons, that it is too voluminous, and that there is a shorter way. After all that has been said on both sides, the question turns finally on the evi- dence for a single miracle, without which all of the others would have occurred in vain, and which, if it be established as real, carries all the others with it. We mean the resurrection of Jesus. No man who believes this event cares to deny any other material fact mentioned in the New Testament ; and if a man denies this, it is a small matter if he denies everything else. The direct evidence for this event is stronger than that for any other event in ancient history. It consists primarily of the GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 33 testimony of men and women who had been intimate with Jesus before his death, and who saw him alive after his crucifixion and burial. We receive the testimony of four of these wit- nesses directly from their own pens ; that of the Apostles Mat- thew and John in their Gospels, and that of John, Peter and Paul in their Epistles, and in the Apocalypse. Paul, it is true, was not familiar with the person of Jesus before his death, but his testimony has peculiar characteristics which render it not less reliable than that of any other witness. The testimony of the other witnesses also comes to us through these men, and through the writings of Mark and Luke, who were companions of all the witnesses, and had every possible opportunity to know what their testimony was. The competency of these wit- nesses, both with respect to their capacity for correct observa- tion and their opportunities for correct knowledge, is so manifest to every careful reader of the accounts, that it is not too much to say that no well informed and candid reader doubts it. Their honesty in giving the testimony was subjected to the severest tests, by the losses, afflictions and persecutions which befell them on account of it ; and each succeeding generation since their own, on considering these tests, declares them honest witnesses by so vast a majority, including many infidels, that the few who doubt it prove by the doubt that their minds are in an abnormal condition. The number of the witnesses has also been found to be sufficient, as is proved by the fact, that no believer thinks his faith would be stronger if the witnesses were more numerous, and that no unbeliever claims, that were the witnesses more numerous he would believe. Forasmuch, then, as the witnesses ;are sufficiently numerous, are thoroughly competent and unques- ; tionably honest, it is impossible to have stronger testimony ; and therefore it is impossible to establish any fact which depends on human testimony more firmly. These considerations present the force of the evidence from a positive point of view. It is equally strong when viewed nega- 3 34 GBOUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. tively, as when we demand of the unbeliever to account for the disappearance of the dead body of Jesus, on any other hypo- thesis than that of liis resurrection ; and when we farther de- mand of him, to account for the unquestioning belief of these witnesses, that they saw him alive, conversed with him, and handled his person, as is recorded. To the former of these de- mands, some of the older infidels have responded, by denying that he actually died on the cross, and by affirming that he died naturally in the tomb, and disappeared by going elsewhere and remaining in retirement until he died like other men. This hj^pothesis encounters so many objections which readily pre- sent themselves to those acquainted with the narratives, that it has been adopted by very few, and it has been refuted by none more successfully than by later unbelievers. With almost one voice, recent infidel writers unite with believers in holding that Jesus was certainly dead when he was placed in the tomb. Most of these have deliberately shunned the question, what be- came of the body ? and Christian Baur goes so far as to declare that the question is outside of historical inquiry,* thus putting outside of historical inquiry the most momentous event, if it be an event, of which history sj)eaks — an event which, whether real or not, has afiected human history more profoundly than any other that ever transpired on the earth. To refuse inquiry into such a fact, and this too, while writing a history of the church, is to acknowledge that no account of it could be given which would not put to shame the man who does not believe it. Other infidels, notably Strauss and Renan, have attempted to account for the disappearance of the body ;f but their attempts are so futile that Prof. Huxley repudiates them, and goes back to the old abandoned theory of a natural resuscitation. This he does in his recent controversy with Dr. Wace. The fact that nothing better than those vain and contradictory attempts have * "The question as to the nature and the reality of the resurrection lies outside the sphere of historical inquiry." Chuixh History, 1: 42. tNew Life of Jesus. 1: 431, 432; Apostles, 78-80. OROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 35 been devised by infidels, a succession of whom for fourteen hun- dred years has been tugging at tliis problem, is conclusive proof, almost equal to the direct testimony itself, that the only way to account for the disappearance of the body is to admit that it was miraculously restored to life. All parties, even those who deny the actual death of Jesus, admit that his disciples became convinced of his resurrection, and believed that they saw him alive repeatedly after his cruci- fixion. Various attempts have been made to account for this belief on the supposition that it was a delusion ; but they are all so shallow and so false to the facts in the case that any tyro in discussion can answer them at sight — so shallow and unsatisfying that Christian Baur, after considering them all, and doubtless desiring, if he could, to accept some one of them, declares that no psychological analysis can account for this be- lief.* We may say, then, 'that it is impossible for an infidel to account for either the belief of the first Christians, or the dis- appearance of the dead body of Jesus ; and as it is impossible to have stronger proof than we have in the way of direct testi- mony, the resurrection of Jesus shall forever stand as one of the fixed events in human history, to be believed more and more till the end of time. This fact being established, the discussion about miracles, either those said to have been wrought by Je- sus, or those wrought by his Apostles, is closed ; and with this question is settled the question, whether the New Testament is a part of the word of Gfod, and its teachings a divine rule of faith ; for if these men wrought miracles in attestation of the truth of their utterances, the truth of these utterances is stamped with the seal of God. The credibility of the Old Testament narratives, like the genuineness of the Old Testament books, is a more difficult question, because of the greater difficulty in applying to these *"ThouKh we assume that an inward spiritual process was possible by which the unbelief of tlie disciphts at tlie time of the death of .Jesus was changed into belief in liis resurrection, still no psychological analysis can show what that process was." Church History, 1 : 42. 36 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. documents tlie tests of historical criticism. We know less about the authors of the books ; far less about the tests of honesty and competency to which they were subjected ; and the contemporary documents which remain to us are few and fragmentary. Still, we have sufficient ground, apart from the inspiration of the writers, for believing that in these books we have a record of facts. The serious and religious character of the books indicates that the authors were aiming to tell the truth ; and there are other internal evidences of honesty of purpose. So far as their statements can be tested by contemporaneous documents, such as Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions, their accuracy is con- firmed. When the same transactions are mentioned in differ- ent books, some discrepancies are found in figures and names ; but these are accounted for by the known liability of transcrib- ers to make more frequent mistakes in such matters than in others. On the other hand, a careful examination of parallel passages in the different books reveals a large number of minute and undesigned coincidences which are accounted for only by extreme accuracy of statement. The geographical and political allusions, too, in which the books abound, are all so exact as to prove not only accuracy of statement, but fullness of knowledge. But above all, the credibility of the Old Testament narra- tions is proved by the testimony of Jesus Christ and the Apos- tles. They cite as real many of the very facts in the Old Tes- tament record, which are pronounced by unbelievers the most incredible. We may enumerate among these, the creation of the first human pair, and the account of the origin of woman ; the temptation and the fall of this pair; the destruction of human and animal life by the flood ; the miraculous destruc- tion of Sodom, together with the rescue of Lot and the fate of his wife ; the call of Abraham, the promises made to him, and his trial by the call to sacrifice his son ; the afflictions and the restoration of Job ; the miracles in Egypt, at the Red Sea and O BOUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 37 in the wilderness ; the fall of Jericho ; the miraculous preserva- tion of Jonah in the bowels of the fish ; the three years' drouth in the days of Elijah, begun and terminated in answer to prayer ; the healing of Naaman by Elisha, and others. Now the acceptance of these events as real by Jesus and the Apos- tles, is sufiicient ground for their acceptance by all who believe in Jesus. But the evidence reaches farther than these particu- lar events ; for unless there were reasons for accepting these which did not apply to other Old Testament events, we must conclude that the latter were accepted also, and that Jesus and the Apostles held all the Old Testament history to be authentic. No such reasons have been alleged ; and certainly such a dis- tinction cannot be based on the greater inherent credibility of the events quoted and endorsed ; for with the single exception of the miracle of causing the sun to stand still in its course, nothing so wonderful as some of these is on record. Moreover, the manner in which the Old Testament was constantly cited by these authorities precludes the supposition that they had in mind any such distinction. It follows that Jesus and the Apostles endorse the Old Testament as real history. More solid ground than this for believing we cannot have, and we do not desire. If the contents of the Bible consisted only in facts which passed under the personal observation of the writers, evidence additional to that already adduced would scarcely be called for. But much of the record has respect to past events, which could not have been witnessed by the writers ; much to matters in the spiritual world which men in the flesh could not know by their unaided powers; much to the will and the thoughts of God, alike inscrutable ; and much to the distant future which no mortal vision can penetrate. In order that the statements of the writers on such subjects may be taken into our creed, we must have satisfactory evidence that they enjoyed supernatural means of obtaining and imparting knowledge. If they did, this not only gives good ground for believing them on these 38 GliOUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. topics, but it also imparts a new element of certainty to their statements on matters of ordinary history. Thus we reach the question of the inspiration of the Bible writers, and we see the necessity for settling this question before our survey of the grounds of faith will be complete. Of the inspiration of the Apostles, those who have accepted the deduction already reached in this essay need no better proof and can have none better than the statements of the Apostles themselves ; seeing they are proved to be reliable in their statements even in regard to miraculous events. Their statements show that Christ, previous to his death, promised to bestow upon the Twelve such an irapartation of the Holy Sjjirit, that when called on to answer for themselves before earthly rulers they should not be anxious as to how or what they should speak ; that they should not even premeditate ; but that the Holy Spirit would give them in that hour what they should say : "For," said he, "^it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaketh in you." He told them also, without special reference to tlieir arraignment before rulers, that the Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance which he had spoken to them, and guide them into all the truth. As sure as those promises were fulfilled, when we read what the Apostles said and wrote after the fulfillment, we must receive it as not coming from them alone, but from the Spirit of God, with whom there can be no falsehood or mistake. To speak of a lapse of memory in the writing is to deny the fulfillment of the promise. That these promises were fulfilled, we are assured by the author of Acts of Apostles, who was a witness of much that he records, and a reliable reporter of all. They began to be ful- filled on the first Pentecost after the resurrection, and the pro- cess continued throughout the lives of the Apostles, the Spirit constantly giving evidence of his continued presence in them by signs a nd wonders which accompanied their preaching. In addition to the evidence of this writer, we have that of some of GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 39 the Apostles themselves in their Epistles. Even in the four great epistles of Paul, which unbelievers acknowledge to be genuine, and to have been written by an honest man, there are repeated allusions to miracles which he wrought by the Holy Spirit, and a most positive declaration that he received directly from the Spirit, in words taught by it, things which he revealed to his fellowmen. These miracles were his own acts, in regard to the reality of which he could not be mistaken, and therefore he either made false representations, which would nullify the admission of his honesty, or the miracles were real, and his claim to inspiration as real as the miracles which attested it. The same is true of the other Apostles. Believers, therefore, stand on the established fact, that the writers of the New Tes- tament, so many as were Apostles, wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and that as a consequence they wrote with- out error on all the subjects within the range of their official utterances. As to those writers who were not apostles, they be- long to the class to which the Apostles imparted a measure of the Spirit which they themselves possessed, and we believe that they also were inspired. It is true that Luke, who is one of these, claims to have acquired knowledge of what he writes concerning Jesus by careful inquiry from the eye-witnesses ; but this, instead of being a denial of his own inspiration, as some have affirmed, only shows that he employed the natural means of gaining knowledge. It does not touch the question as to his guidance by the Spirit in discriminating between the true and the false, and in writing with proper accuracy that which he had learned. The evidence of the inspiration of the Old Testament rests on somewhat different ground. The prophets all assert in some form their own inspiration, and their assertions are abundantly supported by the fulfillment of their predictions. The histor- ical and poetical writers, as a rule, make no such claim, though their books contain many internal evidences of inspiration, which, in an elaborate discussion of the subject, it would be 40 GJROUXDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. proper to set forth. The most conclusive evidence, however, in reference to them all, is found in statements of the New Testa- ment, and in this essay we shall content ourselves with present- ing these : a. Passages from nearly all the prophetic books of the Old Testament are quoted in the New as having been fulfilled by events in the career of Christ or in that of the Church. These citations were made, not to prove the inspiration of the proph- ets, but, being made to persons who believed the prophets, they were intended to show that the events which fulfilled them were brought about in accordance with the predetermined purpose and foreknowledge of God. But while they were made for this purpose, they also prove the inspiration of the prophets, seeing that only by direct insj)iration could the latter have revealed the purpose and foreknowledge of God. So, then, these citations serve the double purpose of confirming the claims of Jesus, and proving the inspiration of the prophets. Some of them, it is true, are not predictions, but sayings of the prophets which found fulfillment as proverbs are fulfilled ; but a sufficient num- ber of them are actual predictions to answer the purpose of our argument. The fulfillments are obvious to our own understand- ing, and the recognition of them by Jesus and the Apostles assures us that our understanding does not mislead us. b. As to the other books of the Old Testament, they are so quoted that their inspiration is either expressly or indirectly affirmed. Jesus quotes from Genesis the concluding verse in the account of the creation of woman, as the word of God (Matt. 19 ; 4, 5,) and this it could not have been if the writer had not been divinely inspired. He quotes from Exodus the fifth command- ment of the Decalogue, as both the word of Moses and the com- mandment of God (Mark 7 : 8-10); and it could have been neither had it not been written by Moses through revelation from God. He quotes a passage from Deuteronomy as the first of all the commandments, and one from Leviticus as the second (Mark 12: 28-31, cf. Deut. 6:4; Lev. 19:8). He affirms that the words in GROUNDS ON WHICH WE BECEIVE THE BIBLE. 41 Exodus, represented as spoken by God to Moses at the burning bush, were the real words of God, and the book from which he quotes them he calls the book of Moses (Mark 12: 26), Some of the Psalms are quoted in the same way. Jesus quotes one with the formula, "David said in the Holy Spirit" (Mark 12: 35), thus affirming both its authorship by David and David's inspiration. Peter quotes another Psalm, says that David wrote it, calls David a prophet, and says that he wrote the pas- sage concerning the resurrection of the Christ (Acts 2: 24-31); while all the Apostles unitedly declare that God spoke through the Holy Spirit by the mouth of his servant David, their father, in the second Psalm (Acts 4: 24-27). c. Besides these citations from particular books with the assertion of their inspiration, both Jesus and the Apostles make general statements of the same import concerning groups of books, and concerning the Old Testament as a whole. Jesus rebuked his disciples for not believing what the prophets had written about himself, and, "beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted in all the Scriptures the things concern- ing himself" (Luke 24: 25-27). He afterward said to the Twelve, "All things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24: 44). But what things could have been written in any of these books concerning him, things which were prophetic and must be fulfilled, unless their authors wrote by divine inspira- tion ? Again, Jesus rebuked his enemies for their unbelief, and said to them, "Think not that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that will accuse you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses ye would have believed me ; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words ?" (John 5: 45-47). Here he not only recognizes certain writings as the writings of Moses, the very writings undoubtedly which his hearers ascribed to Moses ; but he asserts that Moses wrote of him. But Moses could not have written of him fifteen hundred years before he was born, unless 42 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. lie wrote by inspiration. Jesus probably refers in this citation more particularly to the passage in Deuteronomy, which the Apostle Peter also quotes and ascribes to Moses (Acts 3 : 22. 23), and which inspiration alone could have enabled him to write. Passing by other citations which might be made, we content ourselves with a single one from the Apostle Paul, the well known declaration, "Every scripture inspired of God, is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," etc. If this passage were isolated, it would have no special bearing on our proposition ; but it is immediately preceded by the remark to Timothy, "Prom a child thou hast known the sacred writings, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim- 8 : 15-17). This shows that the scriptures of Avhich he speaks are those in which Timothy had been instructed, and these were unquestionably our present Old Testament scriptures. These Paul represents as "inspired of God ;" and that he believed them to be so is obvious not only from this passage, but from the way in which he cites them throughout his writings. Indeed, nothing is more certain than that Paul and all the Apostles regarded the Old Testament as a collection of inspired writings, and this alone should settle the question with all who regard the Apostles as inspired men. In concluding this part of my argument, it may not be amiss to say, that iu nothing which I have read from the pens of crit- ics unfavorable to my conclusions, have I observed more soph- istical reasoning than in their treatment of passages in the New Testament which are relied on to prove the inspiration of the Old. This is notably the case in the works of some writers who claim full faith in the infallibility of Jesus Christ. "We have now stated the grounds on which we receive the Bible as the word of God ; and as we stand on the pinnacle of our last evidence, the inspiration of its writers, and look back over the field which we have traversed, every step which we have taken appears safer, and every part of the ground on which we GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 43 liave stood appears firmer. We can now see, as we could not so clearly see at first, why it is that a mere education in the Chris- tian faith fixes that faith so deeply in the soul that it can sel- dom be eradicated. It is because the sacred books were intended by their author to have just such a power. An emi- nent unbeliever pours out the bitterness of a soul that has lost this faith in these mournful words : "I would gladly give away all that I am, and all I ever may become, all the years, every one of them, which may be given me to live, for but one week of my old child's faith, to go back to calm and peace again, and then to die in hope. Oh, for one look of the blue sky, as it looked then when we called it heaven." * Why did it not appear to the unhappy man that a faith so pure and heavenly must have come from God ? We can now see more clearly why a large majority of the more learned and wise and good of every land where the Bible has been known have believed it to be the word of God, and have so taught their children ; why it is that belief in the Bible has made those who have lived consistently with their faith the best and purest of human kind ; why it is that in reading the Bible there is constantly felt by the good a sense of its truth- fulness ; why it is that its central figure is a character which no man or set of men could have conceived or portrayed without help from God ; and why it is that the Bible, though assailed by powerful foes in a long succession of ages, and often betrayed by those who had been its friends, has come down to our age with a constantly increasing multitude of the good and the brave who proclaim it the word of God, and who send it over land and sea to gladden the nations who have been perishing without it. We can understand why a mysterious providence, mysterious no longer, has so wonderfully preserved its text from corruption ; and why it is that links of evidence, which might have been lost but for that same providence, have been preserved so that we can trace its books, so far as need be, to the very men in remote ages * Nemesis of Faith. J. A. Froude, 27. 44 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE BECEIVE THE BIBLE. who wrote fhem, and that we can test the truthfulness of these writers to our deepest satisfaction. It is all because the Bible is God-inspired. IV. THE GBOUNDS OX WHICH WE BECEIVE THE BIBLE AS THE ONLY BULE OF FAITH AND FBACTICE. We now pass to the last division of our subject, the grounds on which we regard the Bible as the only rightful rule to direct the faith, and to control the conduct of men ; in other words, the grounds on which we hold it to be tlie only rightful creed and book of discipline for the church. We receive it thus, be- cause it was given to us by God for this very purpose. The fact that it is from God makes it our duty to believe it, even though nothing were said of this duty in the book itself; and the same fact makes it our duty to observe all the precepts in it which are addressed to us. But we are not left to inferences, however necessary, for a knowledge of this duty ; it is set forth clearly in the book itself. At the close of the opening sermon of Jesus concerning his kingdom, it is declared that men stand or fall before God, as they hear and do, or hear and do not the sayings of Jesus. He declared to his apostles when sending them forth, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." He also assured them that during the regeneration, while he should be sitting on his throne, they should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel ; and consequently, we find them, from Pentecost onward, speaking as ambassadors of Christ, and re- quiring obedience from all the disciples. Among the last words of the chief man of the Twelve are these: " This is now, be- loved, the second epistle that I write to you, and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remem- brance that you should remember the words that were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles." But why argue a proposi- tion which is not disputed ? All who receive the Bible as the GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. 45 word of God agree that it is a divinely appointed rule of faith and conduct. They agree that if a man denies any part of the Bible, interpolated passages excepted, he is to that extent un- sound in the faith ; if he refuses to obey any precept among those now binding, he is to that extent sinful ; and that in both cases he is to be dealt with accordingly by the church and by individual disciples. Believers differ only as to the parts of the Scripture which should govern us now, and as to their exclu- siveness as a rule of discipline. Because the Old Testament was the God-given law of the old dispensation, and is still binding on the faith of Christians, many have concluded that it is still binding as our rule of con- duct; but the New Testament makes it clear that this conclu- sion is erroneous. The voice of God in the scene of the trans- figuration, proclaiming, in the presence of Moses the lawgiver and of Elijah the prophet, "This is my beloved Son; hear ye him," made Jesus not only the supreme, but the only lawgiver in the new dispensation. In compliance with this proclama- tion, we are taught by the Apostle Paul that while the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, now that faith is come we are no longer under the tutor ; that Christ has abolished, in his flesh, the law of commandments contained in ordinances ; that the first covenant, having been found defective, has vanished away and given place to the second. In this change from the old to the new, much of the old has been re-enacted, including all that was originally intended to be perpetual and universal. This part is binding now, not because it was in the old, but because it is re-enacted in the new. The New Testament is, then, the divine rule of discipline under Christ ; and our final question is, whether it is the only rule, whether it excludes all rules devised by the wisdom of men. All Protestants agree that it is the only infallible rule, but many hold that we are at liberty to frame creeds and rules of discipline based on our own fallible judgment. This question has been decided for us by Jesus in deciding for the Jews one 46 GIWCXDS OX WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BIBLE. which involved the same principle. Their wise men, in the course of ages, had concluded that in addition to the law which God had given them, some other rules were important, if not indispensable ; and they adopted such rules, one by one, until they accumulated a large body of them, which they styled the tradition of the elders. These they enforced on the consciences of the people, and Jesus was himself adjudged a sinner wIkmi he neglected to observe them. He dealt with these rules in a most summary manner. He first pointed out the fact that at least one of them made void a commandment of God ; and, adopting the language of one of their prophets, he indignantly repudiated the whole body of their tradition, and laid down a law to govern all such matters, in these words : "In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." This rule perem^jtorily excludes from the realm of observance and faith in the church of God every precept of men ; and it limits our worship and our teaching to that which God has appointed and taught. We are to stand fast in this freedom with which Christ has made us free, and not be en- tangled in any yoke of bondage under the rules and precepts of men. We are to repel as a usurpation any attempt, from whatever source, to bind on us any rule which our Lord has not given. With this rule of our King agree all the deductions of human reason and experience. If we have an infallible rule which cannot mislead us, it is but a dictate of common sense to say that we have no use for a fallible rule on the same subject. Why should a merchant have two yard sticks, one of the standard length, and one a little longer or shorter ? What honest man keeps two pairs of balances, one which he knows to be correct, and one which may weigh heavier or lighter ? Why, then, should men who wish to please God, both in what they do themselves and in what they enforce on their brethren, make a fallible rule in addition to the infallible one which God has given ? GROUNDS ON WHICH WE EECEIVE THE BIBLE. 47 Is it said that we need fallible rules to aid us in explaining and enforcing the one that is infallible? We answer that it argues a want of faith in God to assume that the rule which he in his infinite wisdom has given demands any such help at our hands. It is certainly as easy to enforce a rule given by God as one given by men ; and in enforcing the former, we have the consolation of knowing that we are enforcing that about the lawfulness of which there can be no doubt. We cannot be mis- led if we follow this rule, or do injustice if we enforce it. If it fail to accomplish some results which appear to us desirable, we shall not be blamed for the consequences ; the Lawgiver takes these on himself. Certainly He will not be displeased with us if we follow as best we can the rule which he has given, and if at the same time we show our faith in his wisdom by refusing to follow any other. Finally, that unity which Christ requires his church to main- tain, and for which he offered a most earnest and touching prayer^ that unity which is now so sadly broken, can never be re-established on the basis of any human creed or book of dis- cipline. The past experience of Christendom, if it has demon- strated anything, has clearly demonstrated this. The "Apostles' Creed," the shortest one ever drafted, proved insuflicient for this purpose, and it was succeeded by others more elaborate. Every one of these has proved insufficient to maintain unity among even its own adherents, as appears from the fact that every sect in Christendom is more or less agitated by teachings that are heretical according to its own standards, and by acrimonious disputes as to the meaning of these standards on important points of doctrine and discipline. Dissatisfaction is everywhere springing up and avowing itself, and many of the earnest men in the creed-boand sects are urging a return to the "Apostles' Creed," forgetting, apparently, that it was tested long ago and proved a broken reed to those who leaned upon it. Surely this bitter experience of fifteen centuries ought to have taught us all that the only way out of present strife and into the unity which 48 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE RECEIVE TEE BIBLE. Christ demands and for which our own hearts cry out, is to return to the creed and book of discipline which Christ gave, and which the church maintained before its unity was broken. This is the only rule which all believers alike acknowledge, and it certainly furnishes the only basis of union which is within our reach, as it is the only one which the Lord of the church has authorized. We should return to it, not with the expectation that even by the common adoption and enforcement of it all heresy or schism will or can be avoided ; for those could not be prevented even when this divine rule was being enforced by inspired apostles ; they are the unavoidable results of human dejDravity, and they will never cease to trouble us till all men shall become subject to the law of the Spirit of Christ ; but if we seek to prevent them by the enforcement, to the best of our abil- ity, of the rule of life which God has given, and lean not to our own understanding, we shall have done our duty, and when the conflict is over the Captain of our salvation will say to us, "Well done." Our final conclusion is, that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice which can be rightly accepted by Christians, and that it is so because it is the word of God, and because it was given by God to serve this purpose. George W. Longan was born in the now defunct town of Chariton, in Chariton county, Mo., on the 31st day of December, IMIO, His parents were Augustin K. and jNIartha B. Longan. His paternal grandfather was Patrick Liongan, a name wliich sutliciently indicates his nationality, though he was born in this country. "I suppose," writes the subject of this sketch in a note to the editor, " there has not been one of his descendants that has not often sent loving thoughts toward the land of his ancestors." Bro. Longan was married in his 21st year to Myra Panesa Reavis, daughter of James A. and Mary B. lleavis, of Cooper county, Mo. His wife, like himself, is a native of Missoiu'i. Concerning their married life, he writes: " We have seen many vicissitudes in our titty years of married life, but the Lord has been good to us, and we are still trusting liim. A\'e have reared seven children (four sons and three daughters), all now married and l^rolessing Cliristians. A\^e lost two children long ago, one three years old, and the other a nursing babe. They sleep sweetly, till Christ sliall come, in the cemetery at Warsaw, on the bank of tlie beautiful Osage, wliich, through all these years, has sung their lullaby in nature's loving strains. The Eter- nal will not forget their resting place." His early ministry, and the struggles incident thereto, at that day, may best be described in his own Avords: " I confessed Christ, and was baptized by Allen Wright, of blessed memory, in June, 1844. I suppose I may say that I began to preach about two years later, though the transition from the leadership of our Lord's day social meetings to the preaching of sermons was so gradual that it would be diliicidt to lix a precise date. I had to pass through many difficulties, difficulties such as young preachers to-day know little about. I do not complain at all. The soul-discipline was healthful, and for it I desire to be sincerely thankful. The dear Lord has gently and graciously led me, and will lead n)e still. jNIy parents were Baptists, thor- ough Baptists, but large-hearted and tolerant. I stood alone among my kindred the day on which I confessed Christ in the primitive way. My wife's people, too, were Baptists. She was herself a member of the Baptist Church. Early in lite, however, she entered tlie Christian Church Avith me, and Ave have fought the battle together till the triumph of our special plea is virtually assured." Few men among vis of equal ability, and so widely known, have confined tlieir labors to so limited a range of territory. His field of labor has been for the most part in South Central ]\Iissouri, Avhere he has seen our brother- hood groAV from a handful to a great nudtitude. He spent nine years in Northwest Missouri, serving as pastor at Liberty and Plattsburg. Kever has he held a pastorate outside his native State. Except lor liis contributions to our periodical literature, chietly to the CItrislian and the Cliri.sliun- EmiKjeJUt^ he Avould scarcely be knoAvn outside the Missouri brotherhood, in Avhose councils he has been a prominent figure for many years. His arti- cles, hoAvever, have given him a Avide reputation as a profound and aggres- sive thinker and a scholarly Avriter. His Avork, "Origin of the ] )iscipk's of Christ," Avritten in reply to Prof. Whitsitt, of the Louisville Baptist Theo- logical Seminary, but containing an independent di.-rnssion of some of the underlying principles of our movement, is regarded by many as one of the ablest statements of our position in our literature. Px sidcs this, and num- erous quarterly articles, he has a sermon in " Tlie Living I'ulpit," and sev- eral able lectures in tlie volumes of the jNIissouri Christian Lectureship, Avith otiiers equally valuable awaiting publication. G. W. LOXGAX. GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS AS THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF GOD AND SAVIOR OF THE WORLD. G. W. LONGAN. IN this paper I have no space for introduction. I assume the entire trustworthiness as to essential substance, not the fault- less accuracy in detail, of the documentary sources of our relig- ion. Criticism has indeed made necessary certain modilications of the traditional apologists, but our sources of knowledge, both of Jesus and the gospel of redemption, have passed the ordeal of criticism, and, as regards substance, are more than ever assured. Something of Protestant scholasticism is doubtless bound to go, but the firm foundation of God still stands. I speak not here for myself alone. The New Testament has a human side, no less than a divine. In saying this, and in the precise meaning I give to the words, I am happy in having the concurrence of many of the ablest scholars and most loyal Christians now liv- ing. The Gospels may not be without mistake in unimportant detail, but in essential facts they are unassailable. They reflect with substantial accuracy the realities of the Master's earthly life. They are the reports of eye-witnesses, or of those who received from such witnesses, in altogether reliable ways, the information which is in them transmitted to us. "Where they do not give us the direct testimony of those who kept company with Jesus, they still faithfully represent that testimony as apprehended by the church of the first Christian century. Of this there can be no rea- sonable doubt. Of the Acts and the Pauline Epistles the same authenticity may be confidently predicated. In the light of all criticism, I judge it perfectly safe to take this position. Further than this my argument does not require me to go. I will 4 (49) 60 GBOUNDS ON IVJIICII WE ACCEPT JESUS. not embarrass my p'ea ^v\th. exploded theories of sacred writ? or weaken it with Uiuid and unwise concessions. If a defender of the faith still feels bound to maintain the mistakes of the past, he has lived in the nineteenth century to little purpose. The ship of Zion will sail more smoothly when the lumber of darker ages shall have been thrown overboard, and swallowed up by the sea. I simply assume, then, the historical trustworth- iness, as to essential substance, of the documentary sources of the Christian faith. This testimony will stand. To assume more than this, as I suppose, is foolish ; to affirm less than this would be treason. Upon the basis of this testimony, thus defined, we must pass upon the claim of the Master to be the Son of God. What then is so witnessed concerning him ? "What of his deeds? What of his words ? We seek to get his wonderful personality fairly and fully before us. What is the testimony ? (1) Jesus speaks loitTi autliority. On opening the Gospels, the first thing Avhich impresses a thoughtful man is the dignity and simplicity with which Jesus speaks. No one, I am per- suaded, can seriously read the so-called Sermon on the Mount without receiving this impression. We do not wonder at all that the listening multitudes were astonished, and that they said he "taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." There is more in this, I am persuaded, than appears on the sur- face. These scribes were the educated men of their day. They stood, as they supposed, for the orthodoxy of the fathers, and woe to the teacher of novel or unpatented doctrine that dared to risk a collision with them. They were thoroughly acquainted with Halicha and Haggada — the glosses of the law and the his- torical traditions which had been received from the elders of many generations. The law, and what the famous Rabbis had said in expounding it, and "hedging" it in against the ignorant commonalty, furnished their subjects of discourse. It was a great change when Jesus opened his mouth to utter the deep, stirring words which came direct from his own loving heart, and found instant contact with all that was best and divinest in the GSOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 61 thoughts and spiritual experiences of his more serious listeners. This difference was itself the sufficient token of a new and better dispensation. It not onl}^ contrasted sharply with the teachings of the scribes, it struck a new note from that even of the inspired prophets of Israel's palmy days. The prophets said they had received the word of Jahve, that the word of Jahve "came to them," but Jesus taught in his own right, and stopped not for a moment to claim other warrant for speech than that of his own perfect knowledge of the truth suited to the hour. He spake, as the multitude rightly said, "as one having authority." "You have heard that it was said by them of old times — but I say unto you," was the formula which introduced his most startling- innovations. Sometimes his ringing deliverances had respect to traditionary exposition of the law, but at other times he struck boldly at the sacred code itself, Moses, he once said, permitted this on account of "the hardness of your hearts," but he added immediately, "It was not so from the beginning." It was never right. There was no prescription, however ancient, no statutory provision by whomsoever enacted, which fettered him for a moment when eternal issues were at stake. On the most import- ant of all human questions, the great questions of life and duty, he never blundered. He never failed to know the truth. AVhence this perfect knowledge of moral truth, which men admit even to-day? Whence the immaculate personal righteousness to which he alone, among all the sons of men, could ever lay even the shadow of a claim ? His miracles had their meanina; and value, but this absolute knowledge of moral truth, this sin- less maintenance of an untarnished soul in the presence of the Eternal, is more than any marvel ever Avrought in the annals of all the centuries. Blessed Jesus, thou only Son of the living Grod, receive the grateful homage of this trusting heart. But Jesus was more than simply a teacher of morals with- out a peer in the world's history. As a teacher, he never tripped anywhere. Take, for instance, his perfect comprehen- sion of the whole nature and genius of the kingdom of heaven, 52 GBOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. which it was his mission to establish among men. From the first, this great conception was distinctly outlined before his spiritual vision. Of this his inimitable similitudes furnish most convincing "proof. Not a single angle of observation seems to have been neglected. The kingdom is pictured from every possible standpoint, and the picture is never false to the reality, as men begin to see it now, in the light of the gath- ered experiences of more than half a hundred generations. " The kingdom of heaven is like yeast hidden in meal." How silently, but certainly, divine truth received into the human heart diffuses its gracious iuliuences over wider and yet wider areas, until the whole inner man is brought under its transform- ing power. And as it is with the individual, so is it also with the great mass of humanity in the world ! The same law holds. The leaven deposited by Jesus in the hearts of a few disciples in Judea and Galilee so long ago has gone on spread- ing its influence in larger and still larger circles, until the whole human mass shall soon, with God's help, be penetrated and permeated, through and through, with the transfiguring and redeeming potencies of the gospel. Can you not see that Jesus was looking through the far away vistas of the future, when he drew this picture of the ever-increasing glory of his kingdom ? He stood at the beginning, and saw plainly what we see only after the lapse of nearly two thousand years. And that parable of the " sower that went forth to sow !" What consummate acquaintance with the human heart ! How absolute the knowledge it reveals of the fortunes of the gospel in all the ages to come ! Kemember that this was the begin- ning. The Great Commissioa was not yet given. The disci- ples had had no experience in dealing with the whims and con- tradictions of men in the matter of preaching the word. No wonder they did not understand, and appealed to the Master for an explanation. He saw the whole outline then, far more clearly than we see it even now. It is impossible to avoid this conclusion, if we do justice to the narrative. GEOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 53 "And he said, The kingdom of God is as if a man should cast seed upon the earth ; and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how — first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear!" How wonderful this prevision of the ever widening and deepening transformation of that kingdom which is " not of this world," but the breath of whose life is from the Spirit of God ! Again : " A certain man sowed wheat in his field, and while he slept an enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went away. The servants, by and by, discover what has been done, and they said to the owner of the field, shall we go and gather out the worthless tares which can only choke and damage the wheat ? He saith. Nay ; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, you root up the wheat with them ; let both grow together till the harvest, and then shall the work of separating be more easily accomplished." Here is a princi- ple never to be lost sight of in the discipline of the kingdom. We must not encourage the growth of noxious plants; we must on the contrary seek to get rid of them by all safe means. We must distinguish constantly in teaching, in admonition and reproof, between what is pleasing to God, and what is not ; we must even declare our want of fellowship with evil-doers, when the safety of the kingdom demands it, but we must avoid, as far as possible, the danger of destroying the wheat, when we are trying to root up the tares. I judge it is often better to let both grow together, than to try in our blundering way to do the Master's work for him. But Jesus saw everything from the beginning. This is the point I press in this argument. To him all this was knowledge before the event. To us, it is the slow and ever imperfect acquisition of experience. How shall we account for this great difference ? Was Jesus only a wiser man than the rest of us ? Only the wisest of his race ? How came he to be that ? we may well ask. In any event, the fact of a knowledge surpassing the human standard as we know it in the history of the world's loftiest and noblest examples, must not 54 GBOUXDS OX WHICH we accept JESUS. "be denied to liim. I grant that there are limitations. This affects not the question before us, for these limitations are the necessary law of the incarnation. There are human limita- tions, let us cheerfully grant, for it is right always to grant truth. But there was divine transcendence of human limita- tions, no less. We must see both sides of this wonderful X3er- sonage, if we would know the truth regarding him. (2) 77ie syuumtJiies of Jesus. AYliat measureless sympathy with the sorrows, the weaknesses and the sinfulness of men do we see in Jesus ! It is the last week in Jerusalem, and he has been busy, all day long, teaching in the temple, and Avherever anxious hearts were ready to listen. The day is declining row, and, with his disciples, he seeks the quiet restfulness of beloved Olivet. In his zeal of warning and admonition, he has just nttered startling words of prophecy regarding the Holy City and the beautiful temple, from whose hallowed courts he was withdi'awing forever, and now, his great heart no longer able to restrain its might}'' yearnings, he looked out upon the scene before him, and nttered in words that cannot be read, even to-day, with tearless eyes, that Avail, deeper than the dirge of a weeping Jeremiah, over the fated city and people of Jahve's ancient covenants : " 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold, your house is left nnto you desolate. For I say unto 3"ou that you shall not see me henceforth, until ye shall say. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord !" What do these deep, impassioned utterances mean ? Evidently, they are the exj)res- sion of an interest mightier than a mere human heart could feel and they are grounded in a knowledge vastly more than human. There is the question of spiritual salvation, the salva- tion of individuals from sin, no doubt, but there is something more than that, or the Master's words mislead me. The city might have been saved. The beautiful temjjle might have escaped the doom of destruction so unwillingly pronounced. Why not GROUNDS ON WIIICJI WE ACCEPT JESUS. 55 SO understand liini ? What hinders the belief that, but for the rejection of Jesus, this final woe might not have come ? It was not necessary to the fulhllment of God's covenant with Israel that the national autonomy should be restored. A spiritual Israel, devoted to the righteousness of a Messianic spiritual reign, would not have invited the legions of Rome. Such a kingdom would have offered no suspicion of treason against Ca3sar, and could not have provoked imperial wrath and hate. Be that as it may, I am persuaded that it is only in the admis- sion of our Lord's knowledge of some mysterious complexity in the issues, that we can see clearly the explanation of the whole historic event. But in any case, we have hei'e more than human knowledge, and an interest deeper and mightier than mere human interest, because it reposes on the foundation of this larger knowledge, and because it springs from the fathom- less spiritual sympathy of a nature which is more than human. The fit expression of genuine human sympathy is always touching, but this wail of God's own Son over fated Jerusalem is the sublimest accent of pathetic appeal that has ever been uttered in human speech. You can only realize fully the mean- ing of this passionate cry, when yonr plummet shall have sounded the mighty depths of the emotional nature of him whom we have learned to call the Son of God, and the Redeemer of the world. JESUS' CONCEPTION OF GOD. We are not living in the dark ages. The time when men believed at the bidding of priests has passed away, and will never return. The sooner we all realize this fact the better. The reformers of the sixteenth century did a grand thing for humanity, when they cut loose from Rome, and left its supersti- tions behind them forever more. But they liberated a force which was full of danger. The mind once free, it was inevitable that freedom should, in many instances, pass into license. The 56 GBOUXBS OX WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. old principle of ecclesiastical authority repudiated, and the God- given rights of the soul asserted, what security — so the timid asked — remained for the dearest beliefs of men? It cannot he denied that this feeling was a natural one. Yet it is better to be free. The advantages of freedom are greater than its risks. The Romanist still bravely upholds the authority of the church, while old-time Protestants rest in the wisdom of confessional definitions and prescriptions, but the best men of our time have broken finally with mere authority, and only ask, What is truth ? The God and the Christ ofi'ered to the men and women of our day must giv^e account of themselves at the bar of the understanding if their claims are to be allowed. This is right. It is granted, of course, that the Finite cannot know thoroughly the Infinite. But so far forth as God reveals himself to us, we may know him, and thus far the understanding can consider his claims upon our faith. The fact of a revelation is, therefore, determinable in part by the character it gives to the Supreme Object of faith which it offers to us. As an adoring believer in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I willingly accept this test. I believe in him, not simply because he is offered to me in a book that is venerable on the score of its antiquity, and hallowed b}" its connection with the spiritual experiences of mul- titudes of the very best people that have ever lived — though I allow that this fact is entitled to great weight — ^but because the representation of him which comes to us in its final form through the words and deeds of Jesus, is such that my whole under- standing and heart can most unhesitatingly accept him as worthy of supreme trust and joyful adoration. He gives account of himself to my poor understanding in a way that is perfectly satisfactory. He commends himself to my moral nature as alto- gether worthy. His perfections are more than equal to the highest demands of my loftiest thought of him. He touches me at every point where there is anything in me that I dare to regard as higher than the earth ujjon which I tread. Now the God that men have thought of, and described in QBOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESIS. 57 books of theology, and in the ceremonials of their religion, does not so give account of himself to me. If I could see no difference in that conception of God which is revealed in the heart and life of Jesus, and that other conception which reveals itself through the logic and metaphysics of Calvinism, for instance — the proto- type which was indeed in Calvin's own nature, and in that of his predecessor, Augustine — I should be confounded forever. My understanding would say "no" — humbly, despairingly, "no," and my heart would cry out its protest in a voice louder than the seven apocalyptic thunders. But there is no mistaking the dif- ference between these two representations of the Divine Being. It is patent to the most superficial view. Believer and unbe- liever alike take cognizance of it. The character of God, as revealed by Jesus Christ, invites our faith, while the view of him reflected in the Calvinian theology repels faith, nay, makes it, to me, impossible. I do not want to speak in terms of exagger- ation. I do not doubt Calvin's ability to believe in the God which he himself pictured, ISTor do I doubt at all the faith of Calvin's followers in his own day. It was not altogether their fault that it was so. It was due, in a great measure, to the lim- itations of their age. Nor was it logic that was wanting, for logic, after a certain fashion, was most abundant. The trouble was chiefly on the ethical side. The elements of moral lovable- ness were not seen clearly in those days. A man, it was sup- posed, might worship tremblingly before an Omnipotent Auto- crat, even though his heart was not attracted to him. T7iaf could be explained on the ground of original sin. That he did not love, was his own fault. Slavish submission seems to have been thought quite sufficient by the framers of these now obso- lescent systems. It is not strange that the men who have inher- ited these old creeds are trying to revise them. I know the power of early training. I know the plastic mind of childhood may be wrought, like the foot of a Chinese girl, into almost any shape which custom requires. But to an uncommitted man of these last decades of our nineteenth century, surely anything 58 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. like a real faith in the Deity of Augustine and Calvin is an out- right impossibility. And this impossibility is not so much a matter of intellectual growth as men are apt to suppose. I wisli to emphasize this statement. The fact is that the race (the best part of the race, I mean) has obtained a surer grasp upon the Moral Ideal which it can reverence and love than it ever had before. Nor is it that we see the matter of simple righteousness so much more clearly than the fathers of the Reformation did. Their view of righteousness, as a legal conception, was not specially at fault. It was the whole scope of the higher ethics that eluded them. Man had not, as a rule, learned to care for his fellow-man. The tyrannous oppression of the people by the privileged classes did not then strike any one as much out of the way. The Fatherhood of Grod was very dimly seen, and not at all felt. The brotherhood of men was practically not in the ac- count. In such circumstances it was not dilScult for men to be- lieve in a God whose chief claim upon them was the possession of unlimited power. It is moral growth, far more than intel- lectiMil, that is causing men to drift away from the old theolog- ical moorings. Man has never been able to rise entirely above himself in framing his conception of the Being whom he wor- shii^s. If the human soul were a transparency, and you could see ideas and moral images pictured within, as God sees them, I am persuaded we should find many Christians worshiping a Deity little less than hideous to a true moral sense. We do not now believe in a God who sends unborn infants to hell by an eternal decree, or damns all heathen souls for want of faith in a Saviour whose name they have never heard. But the conception of God in the mind of the average Christian, even to-day, needs to be greatly exalted. Only Christ's conception of God is absolutely perfect. It is due to him that our conception is what it is. We have not grown up to his ideal of the Eternal Father after all these cen- turies, and in all the aeons of eternity we can never pass beyond it. Depend upon it, Renan is right once, at least. It GROUND H ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 59 is true that "the consciousness of God in the heart of Jesus is the best the world has ever had." We shall never want any- thing better. This concej^tion of God cannot be outgrown. But how came Jesus to have this unequalled consciousness of the perfections of the Infinite One ? As a man, did he attain to this wondrous knowledge? As a man, simply, was his own nature so lofty that this marvelous ideal is only the image of his own moral consciousness objectified? Is the God that Jesus claimed as his Father, that he taught us to claim as our Father, simply the image of the man Jesus thrown out on the canvas as by a stereopticon, for our acceptance and adoration ? How then came Jesus to be such a man ? This question must be answered, and answer to it there is none, save that which Peter gave by revelation from the Fatlier himself, namely: " Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God." All other answers have failed and will fail eternally. It has been said that the disciples of Jesus could not have invented him, as a writer of fiction invents his heroes. This is beyond doubt true. But no more true, than it is that Jesus as a man, could not have invented the God whom he called Father, and whom he wor- shiped with a perfect faith. Now, I grant that Jesus fell heir, as a true Israelite, to the Monotheistic conception of old Israel, and the later Judaism. I do not say one word to detract from the grandeur of that con- ception. It was grand. That is the right word undoubtedly. As a genuine nucleus for growth in human thought, under divine assistance, it was altogether adequate. But if a man says that the one God, over all and in all, was no more to Jesus, or even to Paul and John, than he was to Abraham or Moses, why then I do not believe a word of it. With this divine nucleus the ancient people of God associated insepar- ably, in their thought of him, many things now impossible to intelligent and honest faith. The high-water mark of one's thought, in his very best mood, is not to be taken as the nor- mal standard of his elevation. It is not otherwise in insj)ira- 60 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. tion and revelation. In Jesus alone do we see a perfect equi- poise of tlie soul always at the highest level. He alone is never lower than his highest altitude. Not so Abraham, Israel, Moses and the prophets of the older dispensations. They never rose to the level of Jesirs. They often fall below their own highest attainment. I grant that to the great law-giver in the wilderness, and to the great prophets, like unto him, whom God afterwards raised up, Jahve was always more than a mere national Deity. They grasped clearly his ethical nature, and the ethical character of their covenant with him. To them he was a righteous God, who would reward and pun- ish men according to their moral deserts. It is no doubt mar- velous that their view of him was lofty. I am sure it can only be accounted for by bringing in the idea of revelation to aid us. But we must not suppose that this lofty idea of God was that of the people generally. It would be a great mistake if we should. Only the truest souls in those old days had any such vision of the Eternal. The many followed then, as ever since, at a great distance behind. But concerning the seers themselves, it must be remarked that they had their limitations. Nor were they, as we have intimated, alwaj^s at their best. A mere man can only be held above his normal altitude by the constant pressure of the sup- ernatural. In the prophets, there was no such uniform pressure. In Jesus only was the supernatural an absolutely abiding reality. His life is the sufficient attestation of this fact. In his thought the conception of God was a constant. There was no fluctuation in his ideal of the Divine Being. And this ideal was an immense adv^ance on that of Moses and the prophets, to say nothing of average Israelites. This ought to go without argument. It will go without argument among men who have studied these questions to any real purpose. Jesus alone of all the teachers of men has attained to an absolutely perfect conception of the character of the true God. This fact is sufficient of itself to determine his own rank and dignity. 0 BOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 61 He is the Christ; in a sense true of none other, he is the Son of tlie Eternal. He came to reveal the Father to us, and, in the ratio precisely of our growth into liis similitude, can we ourselves knoio him whose Divinity is reflected in the lineaments of his only begotten Son. Depend upon it, the vmter of Hebrews made no mistake when he declared Jesus to be "the brightness of the Father's glory and the exact rejDresentation of his char- acter." So Paul to the Corinthians: "Seeing it is Gocl, that said. Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the liglit of the Jcnowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.'''' Jesus made no mistake when he said : " I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me." No man knoweth the Father, in the high New Testament sense, otherwise than through Jesus. The only adequate idea of Him is that, which accord- ing to the measure of our own moral and spiritual possibilities, we have derived from Jesus. In this lofty sense, none knew, or could know him till Jesus came. JESUS AS MEDIATOB. The human heart, whenever it has reached any lofty concep- tion of God, has been painfully conscious of the distance which separates him from us. The Eternal is righteous, and we are sinners ; He is infinite in his perfections, while we are finite, frail and altogether imperfect in spite of our most strenuous endeavors. Between this Infinite God and weak, sinful human- ity, the gulf seems impassable. The idea of a Mediator, of some one to come between, and to make a common understand- ing possible, though we rightly regard it as a revelation, is yet in itself most agreeable to the dictates of enlightened reason. We should not therefore be surprised at all that the conception, in a crude form, has found a place in otlier religions than Christianity. Its relation to the consciousness of moral sepa- ration will go far to explain the facts in such cases. It may, 62 GBOUNDS OX WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. however, be thought a little remarkable that men who have at length succeeded in eliminating the idea of mediation entirely from their own view of religion should still be able to see very clearly the rational basis upon which it reposes. Unitarians, who plf-ad for immediacy with God, and reject the idea of mediation altogether, still see, and to some extent respect, the sound moral consciousness which furnishes its vindication to the reason. But, in any case, it cannot be denied that the conception is distinctly embodied in the Christianity of the New Testament. Only those advocates of a " liberal religion," therefore, who no longer feel themselves bound by the primitive Christian ideals, could think of surrendering a feature so clearly regarded as fundamental b}^ the proclaimers of the original gospel. A leader of this Liberalism not long ago exclaimed with great warmth, "The faith of to-day is the birth of to-day, proving itself worthy of its Christian past only by holding as loyally to its own best thought. * To regard them " (the N. T. Scriptures) " as the source from which our best beliefs have sj)rung is one thing ; to pack our beliefs into them, or insist that they shall speak our speech, is quite another." Clearly this means the giving up of the Xew Testament Scriptures as a sufficient form of faith to the men of to-day. Unless one is ready to cut loose in this way from the ideas of the whole primitive church, he must accept Christ's mediation as a fundamental fact in Christianity. The apostles, it must be conceded, were not theologians in our sense of the term. They never sought to inculcate any systematic scheme of speculative beliefs. They did not trouble themselves concerning what are now called the doctrines of the gospel. Their faith was a profounder conception than that of most moderns, and their general aim as teachers was far more distinctly practical. To turn men to Christ, to fill the world with the Spirit of Christ, to beautify it with the life of Christ multiplied a million fold in his disciples — this was the one GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 63 great end never by them lost sight of under any circumstances. And yet, in the great germinant ideas of religion embodied in their teaching, you may find the whole of Christianity. What is not herein taught expressly, or by good and necessary infer- ence, is of such little weight that we need give ourselves slight concern regarding it. The primitive gospel proclamation, and the primitive scheme of thought, certainly left large room for Christian growth in knowledge as well as grace. But the great starting-points were definitely fixed ^ and the lines, along which all growth should take place, were unchangeably determined. All real progress since made has been movement from these fixed points, and along these divinely predetermined lines. There are, no doubt, many true applications of primitive teaching familiar to us to-day that the primitive Christians never thought of, just because the occasions necessary to sug- gest them had not yet come. A great truth goes on multiply- ing itself forever inhuman thought, but all possible multiples were in the original germ. This expresses the true relation of the present to the past in Christianity ; and further than this we do not here need to speak. Concerning the idea of meditation, then, which has not been lost sight of a single moment, I insist most strenuously that, however men may reason, there is no question that it was a fundamental conception in the original gospel ; that, in fact, it runs through the entire primitive way of conceiving things, as a sort of spinal column of support to the whole framework of redemption. In Christ, in the sphere of Christ, and in the relation the believer sustains to him, are all blessings found. He is " made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctifica- tion and redemption." We are " baptized into him," we pray " in his name," give " thanks to the Father through him ; " nay, whatsoever we do, whether we eat or drink, wake or sleep, we are to do all as his disciples. " There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus/' wrote Paul the aged, to his son Timothy. 64 GBOVNJDS OX WEIGH WE ACCEPT JESUS. Xow this Mediatorsllip of Jesus has its necessary implica- tions. It means, in the first place, our separation from God by our sins; it means the loss hy sin of our right of direct approach to the mercy-seat ; it means that our spiritual blessings come to us through Christ, or because of him, that we reach the ears of the Father through him, as the channel of thanksgiving and supplication, and that out of him we are without promise, or hope ; it means that if Jesus had not come, we should have been shut up to condemnation and desj^air, and that the work of Jesus is the reconciliation of man to God. But this work has yet further implications. A ]\Iediator must have adaptation to his office. His relations to the parties in estrangement must be such as to fit him for his task. A mediator between God and men must not, by remotest sus- picion, imperil the honor or interest of either side. Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, is just the person to undertake the Avork assigned him. He is Son of God, he is Son of man. Understanding these expressions as having a ]3arity of signifi- cance, the adaptation of the Mediator to his work is unques- tionable. Taking any other view, the logic of the whole question falls into inextricable confusion. I am not about to go through with the stock arguments of orthodoxy on this subject. I only insist that, as Son of God, Jesus may be safely trusted with the honor of his Father's throne, while as Son of man, his sympathies bind him forever to his brethren of the common humanity. There can be no question that this view of Christ's person, and of his office as Mediator, is found in the New Testament. To dissent here, is to depart from the primitive understanding of the matter, beyond the shadow of a doubt. The problem of the divine sonship of Jesus was explained both by Paul and John as an incarnation. "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of GROUNDS ON WHICE WE ACCEPT JESUS. 65 men ; and being found iu fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." Thus writes Paul to the Philippians. This passage does not stand alone. He speaks again and again to the same effect. John tells us that ''In the beginning was the Word," and that the "Word became flesh." He leaves no doubt as to his under- standing of the sonship of Jesus. To him it meant the incarna- tion. Now of this New Testament conception, we may say, there are only two possible explanations : that of Arius, and that which has been accepted as orthodox by most Christians, through all the centuries. I do not propose to fight this old battle over again. The Arian view has practically^ no adherents in our day. I do not think a single biblical scholar of acknowl- edged reputation could now be found to defend it. Certainly I do not know of one. Our modern Unitarians halted for a very little while in the territory of Arius. They long since gave up that position as untenable, and, in so doing, they gave up the New Testament as their "rule of faith" on the whole question in debate. I do not misrepresent them. Certainly they would maintain that there are some New Testament passages, and among them certain of the sayings of Christ, which will bear quotation on their side. What I insist on is simply that they no longer base their contention on New Testament ground. They no longer claim that Paul and John held, or that their writings can be honestly reconciled with, the doctrine concerning Christ's person which they at present maintain. This simply means that in giving up the Arian explanation, and accepting the notion of the simple humanity of Jesus, they consciously gave up the New Testament Scriptures as a ground of defense. Beyond all doubt, they understood themselves when they made this surrender. As the discussion now stands, it is the simple humanity of Jesus on one side, and his divine sonship, in the sense of an incarnation, on the other. Of course, it cannot be held that the Scriptures represent Jesus as simply a man. If this position is to be maintained, it means plainly a giving up 66 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. of tlie scriptures as the final authority on this most fundamental question of our Christian faith. Now I have been at the pains to make this statement in order to make clear another point in this discussion. I have said that the Christ offered to the faith of men must give a satisfactory account of himself to the understanding, before his claim can be intelligently accepted. The question, therefore, is this : Is the incarnate Son of God, the Christ of New Testa- ment history, able to give such an account of himself to the best intelligence of the nineteenth century? To answer this affirmatively is to take Christian ground ; to answer it nega- tively is to take the side of unbelief; it is to surrender the New Testament as an adequate and trustworthy rule of faith. But let there be no misunderstanding here. It is no part of my contention that the doctrine of Clirist's person set forth in the New Testament must be thoroughly comprehensible by the finite mind in order to an intelligent acceptance of it. Cer- tainly the incarnation, the divine sonship of Jesus, transcends the grasp of our human faculties. But so does the wliole Theistic conception. If, therefore, we are going to reject Christ because we cannot thoroughly comprehend his whole being, we must reject God also, for the same reason. Here is the point: we may apprehend, where we do not comprehend. We may take in a great thought, an infinite thought, let us say, so far forth as it may come within the range of our powers, and, to that extent, we may judge of its conformity to our highest standard of reality, and receive or reject accordingly, with the perfect understanding that there remain certain unexplained elements, which elude our highest powders of comprehension. If the con- ception of God offered to men in the gospel is satisfactory to the understanding, so far forth as the understanding is capable of taking cognizance of it, that is enough for intelligent faith in God. In the same way, if the account of Christ's person given in the New Testament is such that we can distinctly apprehend it, and if this apprehension is sufficiently full for us to be able GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 67 to judge of his adaptation to our human needs, and his ability to meet the demands of our situation as sinners, then there can be nothing to prevent our acceptance of him, as thinking men, in the character and offices assigned to him. It is no reason why we should refuse to accept him, that there are "unexplored remainders " in his nature that are incomprehensible to us. There may be a transcendence of reason where there is no con- tradiction to it. There are many things which we know to be true, and yet do not know how to bring them completely within the forms of the understanding. It is sufficient, then, if the Christ of the Gospel comes so far within the range of our human faculties that we are able to see his fitness for the whole work of mediation and salvation which he offers to undertake for us. It is not necessary that we should be able to explain the mysterious depths of his being in order to believe in him, any more than it is necessary for us to know all the mysteries of our own being before we can admit the fact of our existence, and the reality of our commonest experiences. The God and Christ of the New Testament, then, I hesitate not to say, do give a most satisfactory account of themselves at the bar of human understanding, and any remaining incompre- hensibility in the nature, or modus, of their being is no bar at all to intelligent and devout faith. The God and Father of Jesus is worthy of the adoration of our hearts, and the Christ of Calvary is a Savior equal to the task of our redemption from sin, and final translation to the ineffable glory of his everlasting kingdom. Beyond this, human thought can never go. Beyond this, it does not need to go. And yet there is room for growth even here. The implications of the Christian ideas are practi- cally infinite, and in this illimitable field there is space for end- less progress towards the goal of absolute knowledge, which must still be in the unexplored vistas beyond us. It is enough that the conception of God, and of Christ, to which we have at- tained, meets all the demands of our understandings, and satis- fies the deepest aspirations of our anxious, yet trusting, hearts. 68 GBOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. THE BESUEBECTION OF JESUS. The religion of the New Testament, in its last analysis, is historical, or it is nothing at all. Paul says : "I declare to you the gospel which I first preached unto you ; that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried ; and that he hath been raised the third day according to the Scriptures." 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4. John says : "That which we beheld, and our hands handled" — "that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you also, that you also may have fellow- ship with us ; yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 Jno. 1 : 1-3. Here is a simple statement of facts, outward historical facts, things that had been seen with their eyes and heard with the ears ; nay, even handled with the hands ; and such is the as- sumed relation of these facts to the whole gospel proclamation of the primitive church, that they are represented as carrying in themselves the complete scheme of essential Christian truth. If it be objected that the death of Jesus ^'•for our sins^^ is more than a witness could bear testimony to on the report of his eyes merely, I freely grant it. Paul states here, not the naked fact, but the fact with its spiritual significance in the history of re- demption. But this afifects not the weight of the testimony. The keystone of the Christian arch, historically considered, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus rose from the dead, that settles the meaning of his death in the gospel message to the world. There is no man who believes that he did rise from the dead, that does not believe, on that ground, that he died for the sins of the world. The test question, therefore, is that of the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus rose from the dead, he is the Son of God and Savior of the world, according to the terms of our present proposition. The one historical question of faith, there- fore, is that of our Lord's resurrection. This proved, everything is proved ; this disproved, or shown to be incredible, and Chris- GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 69 tianity as a faith, as a religion falls for want of an adequate his- torical foundation. For the moment, I pass Paul's personal testimony to the res- urrection, and also his epitome of the personal testimony of others, given in connection with the passage I have quoted, for the purpose of calling attention to the collective testimony of the entire primitive church. I do not mean by this that every single disciple in those days was, strictly speaking, a competent witness to testify in this case, but rather that the collective faith of the whole Christian brotherhood, under circumstances which gave them the opportunity of knowing everything, is worth something, as over and above, the direct testimony of those who actually saw the risen Lord, and rested their faith in what they thus held to be infallible proofs. What I mean, if I can make it clear, is that the universal acceptance of the Lord's resurrec- tion by the first Christians shows that the proofs were sufficient to satisfy every one of them at a time, when the assumed fact had just taken place, and the means of correction must certainly have been abundant in case either of fraud, or mistake, on the part of actual witnesses. So that the faith of those who were not eye-witnesses, strictly speaking, is by no means without ev- idential weight to us now in our eiforts to reach a trustworthy conclusion, in the light of all the facts. That the faith of all these men who periled their fortunes and their lives in advocacy of the gospel, in the midst of the very circumstances which gave them the means of knowing whether it was a delusion or a real- ity, is entitled to no small consideration, at the present day, seems, I should say, to be a plain proposition. In point of fact, the position on which I am here insisting is virtually, or per- haps I should say actually, admitted by one of the shrewdest and most thoughtful of the numerous doubters of our day. I al- lude, as many of my readers will knovv^, to William Rathbone Greg, author of the well-known book entitled The Creed of Christendom. I quote from this book the following passage: "It was remarked by a friendly critic of my first edition that 70 GBOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. in approacliing the question of the resurrection of Christ from the side of the Gospels instead of from that of the epistles, I had thrown away the main strength of the case. The criticism is just, and I have since reconsidered the subject from the point of view suggested." He then proceeds to quote the passages from Paul to the Corinthians which I have given above, and to make some just statements regarding the dates of the Gosj^els and the incon- testably earlier date of this epistle of Paul. He afterwards con- tinues as follows : "If this were all — if we had no further testimony to the res- urrection of Jesus from the dead than that it was believed by the whole original Christian church ; that the apostles and early fol- lowers of Christ, who must be supposed to have had the best means of knowing it, clung to the conviction enthusiastically, and witnessed to it by their preaching and death ; and that Paul, not a personal follower, but in constant communication with those who were, made the above assertion in a letter ad- dressed to one of the principal churches, and published while most of the eye-witnesses to whom he appeals were still living to confirm or to contradict his statements — if the case rested on this only and terminated here, every one, I think, would feel that our grounds for accepting the resurrection as an historical fact in its naked simplicity would be far stronger than they ac- tually are. In truth they would appear to be nearly unassaila- ble and irresistible, except by those who can imagine some prob- able mode in which such a positive and vivifying conviction could have grown up without the actual occurrence having taken place to create it." He then mentions the explanation offered by Strauss, by Re- nan and Arnold, by Hanson and others, and says that he has "dispassionately considered" them all, and that "ingenious as they are (especially the detailed one of M. Renan)" he is "bound to say they do not satisfy his mind." "Nor can I," he continues, "with any confidence, ofier one of my own, though I can conceive GIWUNUS OX WHICH Wi: accept JESUS. 71 one more simple and inherently likely than those propounded." It will be distinctly noticed that the feature of the case which specially impresses Mr. Greg is the collective faith, and the evi- dence therein embodied, of the whole original Christian church. It does not positively convince him, as it seems it ought to have done, but it greatly staggers him. His only escape is through imaginary contradictions between Paul's account and the repre- sentations given in the Gospels. It is a mark of frankness and candor, that he accepts so readily the point that was made against him by his critic. It is a good point unquestionably. It is a fact that in approaching the question of our Lord's resur- rection only through the very brief and fragmentary accounts in the closing chapters of the Gospels, he threw away the strongest part of the testimony. It is refreshing to see him admit this when his attention is called to it. Prof. Theodore Keim of Zurich, in his elaborate life of Jesus from the rationalistic point of view, was impressed with the same feature of the argument. Like Mr. Greg, he sees contradictions between Paul and the Evangelists, and, as to the latter, contradictions among them- selves. These assumed contradictions are held to be destruct- ive of their testimony. But the accounts in the epistles are al- lowed to have weight, if they could be taken by themselves. In- deed Prof, Keim does take them as the only real ground to build upon, and constructs his own theory upon the basis of their statements. Of this we shall see more presently. For the moment, however, let us fix our minds upon the single question of contradictions. It is admitted by every one, that slight discrepancies among ordinary witnesses rather strengthen than damage their testimony. If, therefore, it should appear that there are irreconcilable differences in unim- portant detail between the Evangelists and Paul, or between the Evangelists themselves, that fact is for them rather than against them, according to this well-established rule. It is only when a theory of inspiration is maintained which excludes the operation of this rule, that we are not entitled to 72 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. its benefit. / claim the application of the rule. Now are these supposed differences fundamental ? Do tliey affect the essential facts of the history ? Clearly they do not. They are simply variations of statement in matters of slight significance : indeed of no significance at all, if considered in relation to their own weight. Prof. Keira insists that Paul must be understood as giving a full account of all the instances of our Lord's appear- ance after his resurrection to any of the disciples. But this is sheer arbitrariness. I am astonished that Keim should offer such a contention. Bat this groundless assumption duly discounted, and the contradictions between Paul and the Evangelists, for the most part at least, disappear. I will not argue against Prof. Keim's assumption. On the face of the question, it is altogether gratu- itous. Thus far, then, we have clear sailing. But what about the discrepancies among the Evangelists ? They deserve more attention. And it must be said, in beginning, that no perfectly satisfactory Avay of harmonizing all details has ever been sug- gested. I know what this means, but I have no patience with the contrary claim. It is uncandid. I will have none of it. But to say that there has been no complete harmony offered, is not to say there are real contradictions. That is a very dif- ferent question. Touching this question, however, my argu- ment does not require me to affirm or deny. What then ? I say this : The accounts of the Evangelists are confessedly fragmentary. No single one of them can be presumed to have mentioned all the manifestations of our risen Lord concerning which he had knowledge. No one of them hints that his account is meant to be complete. Nor are the collected mani- festations of the Four offered to us as a complete history of everything. These accounts are then beyond doubt fragment- ary, partial, incomplete statements of the case. That difficul- ties should arise in patting such accounts together so as to make a perfectly consistent whole, was to be expected. Noth- ing short of a miracle directed to that particular end could GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 73 have prevented it. Apparent discrepancies without sucli a miracle were inevitable, and apparent discrepancies do exist. The miracle in this case was not wrought. And furthermore, these discrepancies have thus far defied the skill of har- monists. It is simpl ^ honesty to say this. But may not this inability to offer a complete harmony spring from the very brief and fragmentary character of the several accounts without implying that the discrepancies are real ? Certainly I think so. The case then stands thus : (a) It is not certain that real dis- crepancies exist, though we confess that a satisfactory harmony has not been effected, (b) But if there are real discrepancies in mere detail, the united testimony is thereby made stronger, not weaker. It shows there was no conspiracy to practice a fraud. It shows that the accounts were honestly written, though in some matters unessential to the main fact the writ- ers may have been imperfectly informed. In either case the testimony is sincere, the agreement, as to essential facts, com- plete, and the argument conclusive. If, however, the reader is anxious to press the question of harmonistic accuracy of detail to a more satisfactory conclu- sion, I cannot do better than to direct him to Canon Westcott's Commentary on the Gospel of John, as the last and best attempt in that direction vath which I am acquainted. He will find a chronological statement of the events of the first "Easter day," that has been arranged with scholarly care and discrimination, and if it does not fully satisfy, it cannot fail to be helpful to him. For myself, however, I confess an admira- tion for Dean Alford, who, among New Testament commenta- tors, if not the ablest, is still, for unflinching intellectual hon- esty, "the noblest Roman of them all." Summing up on this subject, at the close of his great work on the Gospels, he says: "/ attempt no harmony of the accounts; I hellem all such attempts to be fruitless; and I see in their failure strong corroboration of the truth of the evangelic narratives. '''' A little further on he says, "I believe much that is now dark 74 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. might be explained were the facts themselves, in their order of occurrence, before us. Till that is the case, we must be content to walk by faith, not by sight." In this whole view I do most fully concur. But I emphasize the fact that our inability to construct a complete harmony does by no means establish actual disagreement, and also that^ if actual disagreement in mere incidental circumstances were bej'ond doubt established, the argument would not be thereby weakened. The strength of any case is in the agreement of the witnesses as to the essential facts. Minor differences only go to make the testimony stronger. This rule must stand. But the testimony of the Apostle Paul demands special con- sideration. After saying (v. 4) that "Christ had been raised from the dead the third day, according to the scripture," he adds : "xlnd that he appeared unto Cephas : then to the twelve ; then he appeared to above live hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared unto James ; then to all the apostles ; and last of all, as unto one born out of due time, he appeared to me also." (1 Cor. 15: 5—8.) I desire to note here, in the first place, that Paul's testimony includes much more than what he himself saw and heard on the road to Damascus. It is granted, of course, that he could not, in strictness of legal sjDeech, be said to testify to anything heard and seen by others, but then he could tell what he had heard from the lips of others, so that we get their positive testimony as to the things which they had witnessed, at second hand only, let us say, through Paul. This is all that we need. If Paul's report is trustworthy (a matter that no one doubts), then we have, through him, the testimony of the other ' witnesses whose names he here mentions. For Paul expressly tells us in Galatians (1: 18, 19), that on his return from Arabia to Damascus, three j^ears after his conversion, he went to Jerusa- lem to visit Peter, and that he abode with him fifteen days. He GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 75 saw also James, the Lord's brother. When Paul says, therefore, that the risen Lord appeared to Peter and James, we cannot doubt that he had the fact from their own lips. So also, when he mentions other manifestations, we are fully entitled to hold that he had received his information direct from the eye-wit- nesses themselves, or in such other way as to exclude the possi- bility of doubt. In other words, he had the direct testimony of the Jerusalem circle of disciples, as the basis of the statement which he here makes. Of the five hundred witnesses to the memorable manifestation on the mountain in Galilee, he had seen some who still survived, and could refer to the fact as a matter well-known among the original disciples. In this way, we get a trustworthy historical basis for our faith quite inde- pendent of the Gospels. This is a matter of some importance in this discussion. For, although we do not listen a moment to the objections urged against the accounts in the Gospels, yet there is a great point gained Avhen we are able to appeal to testimony that is not in dispute. That Paul wrote 1 Corinthians is admit- ted. His testimony, therefore, must be considered ; and, as I have said, not only as to what he himself saw, but as to what he reports to us on the jiositive testimony of others, which he had presumably received from their own lips. It is to be regarded as providential, I doubt not, that, in an age when scarcely anything escapes questioning, we still have this confessedly genuine tes- timony to the historical ground- work of our Christian faith. In Paul, we reach back beyond the dates of the earliest Gospels, beyond even the dates of Paul's own epistles, to the beginning of his oral testimony as a preacher, which carries us within lit- tle more than a single decade of years from the occurrence of the resurrection itself. For it cannot be doubted that what Paul here writes to the Corinthians had been, for substance, in his oral preaching from the very commencement of his apostolic ca- reer. We thus reach with unquestioned authority a period when all the original witnesses were still living and bearing unbroken 76 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. testimony to the great facts upon which our historical Christian- ity securely rests. But it is necessary to pay special attention to Paul's personal testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. Paul was himself an eye-witness in the case. "And last of all," he says, "as to one born out of due time, he appeared to me also." This is testimony direct. In his letter to the Galatians he insists on his independent knowledge of the fandamental gospel facts. He had not received them, at first, from the older apostles, but by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. That this refers to his wonderful experience near Damascus cannot be doubted. To the Corinthians, he says: "Am I not an apostle ? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ? Are not ye my work in the Lord ?" (1 Cor. 9: 1, 2.) In his defense before Agrippa he testifies in these words : "Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus, with the authority and commission of the chief priests, at mid-day, O King, I saw a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me, and them that journeyed with me. And when Ave were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me, in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. And I said. Who art thou, Lord ? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou per- secutest. But arise, and stand upon thy feet : for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a wit- ness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee ; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me." (Acts 26: 12-17.) This testimony is certainly remark- able, to say the least. If it is to be taken in an outward, histor- ical sense, there can be no mistake as to its significance. I de- sire to insist here Avith all the emphasis which I can command, that it can only be thus understood. We are not in the region GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 77 of poetry or pictorial representation here. In God's revelation of himself to the world every true thing has its place. This is history. Paul says a light from heaven shone round about him, and about them that journeyed with him. He says he heard a voice speaking to him in the Hebrew language. He heard dis- tinctly the words. He says he answered also in words. He says also, (Acts 22: 9) "And they that were with me beheld in- deed the light, but they heard not (that is, so as to understand,) the voice of him that spake to me." It is expressly said (Acts 9:7) that those who were with him "heard the voice, but saw no man." It is, of course, not to be thought for a moment that Luke, in making his own report, could have contradicted the ac- count which he gives us in Paul's own words only a little further along. So the straightforward account is that Paul's fellow- travelers saw the light and heard the voice, but not so as to dis- tinguish the words which were said. This takes the whole trans- action out of the category of mere subjective "visions," or im- pressions, and puts it distinctly into that of actual, outward re- ality. This cannot be denied. Paul's testimon}^, therefore, is to the actual, outward appearance of the risen Lord to him, so that he saw him in that envelope of celestial light and glor}^, and "heard the words of his mouth." (See Acts 22 : 12-14.) But, if we are right in this view of Paul's account, there can be but little ground for skeptical questioning left. It might be said that Paul was the subject of an optical illusion. And it might be argued that there is a basis for such an explanation in the supposed fact that Paul was always apparently a sufferer from some sort of ophthalmic trouble. Or it might still be insisted that Paul describes the occurrence as a "vision," (Acts 26 : 19) and that it appears from his own words, in 2 Cor. 12 : 1-7, that he was favored with many such "visions and revelations of the Lord." And it might even be urged that, on this ground, as we distinctly learn from the Clementine Homilies,* his Judaizing enemies denied his claim to the apostleship. But no such es- *See quotation in Farrar's Lite and Work ot Paul, p. 109, note 1. 78 GROUNDS ON WEIGH WE ACCEPT JESUS. cape from the plain facts of the case is possible. The term "vis- ion" might be thouglit ambiguous, perhaps, if nothing had been said to remove the possible uncertainty as to its import. But Paul himself settles that question. "Am I not an apostle ? Have I not seen Jesus Christ, the Lord?" Besides, it is not to be sup- posed for a moment that any subjective impression could have afforded a basis for the unstaggering faith which characterized his life from that day till the date of his triumphant martyrdom at Rome. During his long and wonderfally chequered career, he never hesitated, never doubted, in a solitary instance. In perils on land and on sea, by day and by night, among his un- believing fellow-countrymen, and worse still, among tbose who falsely wore the livery of his Divine Master, he was at all times the same steadfast, immovable, devout believer in the Messiali- shijj of the risen Nazarene. The memory of this experience never left him for a single instant. It was no dream, no wild delirium of a heated imagination, that furnished the faith-basis of that wonderful life, I do not see how any one can seriously maintain the contrary view. I am sure that the whole question must have been very lightly touched by John Stuart Mill and John Fiske, or they could not have thought of offering explana- tions so utterly unsatisfactory to a serious inquirer.* But we need to look still more closely at the fact of the Apostle's conversion, if we would thoroughly comprehend its signihcance. I call attention now to its suddenness. It was clearly not the result of ordinary causes. There is no hint of a prior consideration of the claims of the Gospel. There was no such thing in his case as the leaven of divine truth slowly gain- ing influence in his heart. Down to the very moment of Christ's appearance to him he was a bigoted, though devout, Pharisee, and a bitter opponent of Christ and the new religion. His con- victions were deep-rooted and intensely strong. His feelings were thoroughly enlisted. The whole man was on the other side. Take notice that this is true down to the very moment of •Mill's "Essays on Keligion," p. 239. "Unseen World," pp. 130, 131. GROUNDS ON WEIGH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 79 his conversion. The approach of our Lord to Saul of Tarsus was not at all on the emotional side of his nature. Doubtless his experience of the saving power of Judaism had not been satis- factory, but that he was to find in the gospel what he had failed to find in the law, had not once occurred to him. He was on his way to Damascus, with a commission from the chief priests at Jerusalem, to arrest and bring to judgment before the Sanhe- drim the disciples of the Lord. He himself says he was "ex- ceedingly mad against them." The whole account shows clear- ly that no change in his mind, not even the least, had taken place, till the stupendous scene of the divine manifestation burst upon his astonished vision. The first element in his con- version was, therefore, a change of conviction : a change from de- liberate unbelief to unquestioning faith. In this case the dem- onstration was ocular, from without, not from within. I grant that if Paul could have been so convinced by a mere subjective impression (call it vision, if one insists on doing so) that doubt thereafter became impossible to him, the e^&ct on his future life would have been, for the most part, the same. But I deny tliat such an impression could have produced his unstaggering faith. There must, in such case, have come, inevitably, a time of men- tal reaction, followed by questioning and doubt. Paul was too clear-headed to build upon a mere hallucination. Such founda- tion would not have sufficed for all those after-years of toil and trial. No ; the scene was not an illusion ; it was a blessed real- ity. He did see the Lord ; he did hear the music of that divine voice. He never forgot it till the day he was taken home. There is no other sufficient explanation of the wonderful facts of his life. I insist that the whole change was due to what he saw. In its beginning it was a change of the intellect. It was the ac- ceptance of Jesus as the Christ, and the surrender of his Judaic faith, in so far as it might not consist with that new fact. But what a blaze of light this one new fact let into his soul ! In- stantly the process of re-adjustment begins. His life must now be set right, and straightway he says, "Lord, what wilt thou 80 G BOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. have me to do ?" The getting rid of errors in thought, and re- placing them with new truth, the truth as it is in Christ, was nec- essarily a slower work. This work, we say reverently, demand- ed the experience in Arabia, its meditations, its insi^irations, a divine quickening of the potentialities of his whole inner man, in order to a full preparation for the life-toil to which he had now received his heavenly call and commission. Nay, we say this divine process of increasing spiritual illumination continued through his entire apostolic activity, down to the day of his martyr-triumph, in the imperial city of Rome. So, while we ac- cept confidently the testimony of the Gospels, we build with yet greater assurance, if possible, upon the clear-cut, ringing statements of the apostle, born indeed out of due time, but "in labors more abundant," in achievements more renowned, than any of his colleagues in the great work of winning the world to Christ. It is not to be thought strange that Prof. Theodore Keim, thorough-going rationalist though he was, should feel the force of Paul's testimony. He does not believe in a bodily resurrec- tion, he arbitrarily (for when was a German critic not arbi- trary ?) pronounces the Gospel testimony mythical, and, there- fore, of*little value historically considered; but in the presence of Paul, he pauses reverently, and asks, " what are the facts ? " And how does he answer this question ? Strangely enough, as one may say, he maintains that the appearances mentioned by Paul — all of them — were actual, historical — not bodily, but still actual — manifestations of the yet living Jesus, who had indeed been crucified, but was now glorified ! ! This is triumph enough ! Keim begins, as I have said above, by rejecting the doctrine of a bodily resurrection. He then passes in review the various exi^lanations that have been offered. He dwells especially upon the theory of a self-generated, or, otherwise, humanly- generated "vision ; " and though he grants that it has much in GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 81 its favor, he rejects it as unsatisfactory. Aud, now, let us listen to him in a few sentences : " If the visions are not something self-generated or humanly- generated, if they are not blossom and fruit of an illusion-pro- ducing over-excitement, if they are not something strange and mysterious, if they are directly accompanied by astonishingly clear perceptions and resolves^ then there still remains one originating source, hitherto unmentioned, namely, God and the glorified Christ." - A few sentences further along he returns to this point: "Unless we arbitrarily introduce into the reports a fresh element, the production of the appearances is to be ascribed, not to God, but to him whose presence was observed." Again he says : "If it be objected that the dilBculties of the vision-theory are thus in a weakened form renewed . ... it can be replied, that if the power that produces the vision comes, as according to our view it does, entirely from without, and the subjective seeing is merely the reflex-form of what is objective, the immediate cessation of the seeing and the will to see, as soon as the operating power ceases to operate, becomes perfectly intelligible." Once more : " But to have brought to light and unveiled what otherwise exists in the human mind only as an obscure sentiment, a con- fused idea, a mere impression of the immediate consciousness, was the prerogative, the human prerogative, of Jesus, inasmuch as he revealed himself to his followers in an incontestable manner. His prerogative was based upon the pre-eminence of his spirit-nature and upon the strength and power of his will, upon his yearning love for his followers, and for his great cause, and upon the susceptibility of his disciples. But was it necessary ? Had he in reality not yet finished his work ? Yes, his work was finished, and yet not finished. He had nothing to add, nothing to complete, nothing to improve. * Italics mine.— G. W. L. 6 82 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. Therefore, he only showed himself," (the reader will remember that Paul mentions nothing else in the epistle) "showed that he lived, and disappeared again without giving any fresh teaching, any addition to his teaching or to his commissions." (Jesus of Nazara, vol. 6, pp. 361-2-3.) This is enough. When this most elaborate, and not by any means the least able of all the rationalistic lives of Jesus, ends with this " most lame and impotent conclusion," what more can we ask ? Involuntarily we exclaim : " Is it not easier to accept the account of the witnesses, just as it has come down to us ?" There can be but one answer to this question. " The firm foundation of God stands." " The Lord hath risen indeed," and he will come again. " Every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him ! " Gladly we take up the refrain and say : "Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly;" and yet in thine own time ; for thou alone knowest, and we can trust thee ! DID JESUS CBEATE A NEW EELIGIOm To reach what many regard as the most fundamental ques- tion between Christian faith and modern unbelief, I make an extract from Dr. Kuenen's work on " National and Universal Religions." It is long, but it offers the shortest way to the point before us. I quote as follows : " The limit fixed for this portion of our investigation is now reached. We have already traced through its course the ascent of Judaism towards an international religion, the birth of which DOW stands before our eyes as a historical necessity. Yet always, let me say it again, with one important reservation. The elements lie mingled with one another, and ' Let there be light ' must still be spoken. But is not this equivalent to an avowal that our whole undertaking has failed ? No doubt it would be, if I had promised to explain the origin of Christianity independently of the person of its founder. But you will remember that at the outset I declared I could do nothing of the GROUNDS ON WEIGH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 83 kind. What I did undertake to show was that Jesus ought not to be regarded as the ' deus ex macMna ' who suddenly ajDpears to bring order out of the confusion and misery wrought by men, and that he might be strictly demonstrated not to have stood in opposition to the whole Jewish people in every phase and shade of its religion. Have I not satisfied these promises ? ' Chris- tianity,' I read not long ago, 'the person of Jesus Christ, is not the last shoot of the Israelitish nationality, but the completion of the revelation of God which underlies its history.' I say nothing of the contrast, for it would bring us upon a field we are not now treading. But for us the denial here made has fallen away. Christianity not the last shoot (or rather the fruit) of the Israelitish nationality ? But have we not seen how more than one of the components of Judaism pointed forward toward the things which should be, and, as it were, forced the development of that germ which the Israelitish religion had for centuries, nay, from the very beginning borne within itself? Have we not witnessed ' the birth-pains ' — not the imaginary but the real ones of the Messiah?' The intelligent reader will see that we here touch the bottom " issue " between Christianity and modern Rationalism. In the historical coflict everything hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. In the field of scientific explanation everything is wrapped up in this theory of natural development. The reader sees how it stands. Our whole conception of the supernatural, in the biblical revelation in Christ, in redemption, is here denied out- right. The religion of Israel was only a phase of development, like Brahmanism, Zoroastrianism, and all the rest. Chris- tianity was just a growth out of Judaism, as was Buddhism out of the older Brahmanism. Like all the rest, it can be fully explained without the hypothesis of the supernatural. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity stand upon the same ground. The explanation of one is the explanation of all. This is pre- cisely what Kuenen means. Afiirming distinctly the superiority ♦Hibbarb Lectures, 1882, pp. 244-246. 84 GROUNDS ON WEIGH WE ACCEPT JESUS. of Christianity over Islam and Buddhism, he still finds no dis- tinction as to origin. I must state briefly his method. (1) Judaism in its later stages appeared under several dis- tinct forms. Of these he first mentions Essenism. This phase of Judaic life was not due, as some have supposed, to a foreign influence, but sprang directly out of native tendencies. It was purely a Palestinian development. But following its own lines of growth, it became an independent movement, dropped away from the temple service and the ritual, thus renouncing the most central conception of original Judaism, and becoming prac- tically an unconnected ofi'-shoot from the older cultus. Such a development shows, he thinks, that Jewish religious life was not a mere crystallization of Rabbinical traditions. But the Essenic movement, he grants, made no progress toward Chris- tianity, though the contrary has been sometimes maintained. (2) Next is Pharisaism. The Sadducees, he rightly tells us, represented no principle. The Scribes (Sopherim) led the thought of the people, and the Pharisees, their pupils, sought to put their theories into practice. They were not wholly bad. They represented the best side of the Judaism of that day. Many of them were devout seekers after righteousness ; the righteousness of commandment and ritual. There was an ele- ment of hypocrisy, but there were sincerity and genuineness, too. The teaching of the Scribes was not wholly legalistic. They gave emphasis to the heart. Rabbi Hillel came very near to the golden rule of Jesus. His formula ran thus : " What thou wouldst not have done to thee, do not that to others." There were not only conscientious men among the Scribes, but there were also men of talent and imagination. Their moral teaching approached that of the gospel. This phase of Judaism was by no means a mere idolatry of lifeless forms. Besides, the prophets had emphasized the importance of right dispositions, as a condition of divine acceptance, and it is not to be doubted that many upheld their teaching. Thus it appears that Judaism was not altogether dead. The old GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 85 vitality still lingered, and might safely be counted upon for new manifestations under new and favorable conditions. (3) There was Messiariism, and also Proselytism. In these directions there was great activity. The former manifested itself in two forms. Some were passively but hopefully waiting. Others, the Zealots, " thought the day of deliverance might be hastened by heroic deeds." Josephus, the onl}^ witness to be consulted, although he would gladly have concealed it, "reveals the constant growth of Zealotism until it swept the whole people with it in the year 66, A. D.'' "But the passive aspect had a far higher religious significance." " It means something to live in a world where things are not what they ought to be, and to stand against it with a protest, unuttered indeed, but all the more earnest and deep on that very account." As to Prose- lytism, Dr. Kuenen says, that " great numbers, in almost every quarter of the known world, had actually joined the Jews." The movement had " gradually assumed amazing dimensions." " It is not necessary," he says, " to go into details here. It is only the main fact that has any interest and concerning that there is no dispute." But the most striking feature in this movement, he tells us, is that "the question of tlie conditions under which the heathen should be admitted into Judaism had already been asked and variously answered !" Josephus tells of the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene to the Jewish religion, and of the doubt of Izates as to whether he ought to be circumcised ; and also that contradictory opinions had been given by Hananiah and Eleazar. The former said that the observance of the main points of the law would do, while the latter insisted on submis- sion to all its ordinances, including circumcision ! And so Dr. Kuenen says : "The question between national and universal religion had already been, I will not say answered, but at least asked, out there on the banks of the Tigris." "This subject forms," he says, "a sort of commentary on the epistle to the Galatians." If Eleazar should have prevailed, Judaism must 86 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. have remained the religion of a single people. Then what would have become of the universalism of the prophets ? And "what again of the plastic power of adaptation which Judaism had al- ready displayed in foreign countries ?" Compelled to condense to the utmost, I have put this "brief* largely in my own words, making only the direct quotations with the proper points. I must now desist. The reader, no doubt, sees the author's aim. "The conditions of transition,'''' he says, "are present." The materials are "collected for the new edifice." "The problem is set; only the solutionis wanting." "The elements lie mingled one with another, and 'Let there be light,' must still be spoken.*' In other words, as Dr. Kuenen tells us honestly, while he has not proposed to explain the ori- gin of Christianity independently of the person of its founder, he has indeed attempted to show that all preliminary evolutions had taken place, the conditions necessary to a great forward movement had already come into existence, and it was only needed that some mighty genius, another Zoroaster, or Guatama, or Mohammed should appear on the scene to bring order out of this elemental chaos, and speak into existence the most wonder- ful spiritual revolution of all the ages ! This genius came in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It might, indeed, have come in an- other just as well, but, in point of fact, it came in him. Every- thing made ready for him by the progressive evolutions of hu- manity, the man Jesus was adequate to the task which remained to be accomplished ! Here was one of the world's greatest and most original teachers, and what was needed ? As Dr. Kuenen sees it, the problem is fully explained. The hypothesis, as the scientific people would say, of a supernatural Christ is plainly unnecessary ! This may be said to be the one battle-ground of our time. All else is incidental and subordinate.'* As defining this issue still more clearly, let me quote from page 200, as follows : "Before all things let me declare that I have no thought of *The reader is referred to Hibbard Lectures for 1882, pp. 218-245. GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 87 ignoring the person of Jesus, or lowering its high significance. To me, too, the rise of Christianity would be an insoluble riddle were I to set aside him who for eighteen centuries has taken rank as its founder. Whence he sprang — from Israel or from God, as it is sometimes, but I think very incorrectly put — we need not now decide. Our opinions on this subject may possibly diverge widely. But I may rely on the assent of all in declaring that what Jesus founded can only be called a new creation in a very improper sense of the word. 'If there be any such thing as cre- ation out of nothing, then it is the incommunicable prerogative of the Deity, and must be left out of consideration in reviewing any human development.' " I begin by saying that this statement is scarcely candid. No one contends that Christianity is a new creation in a sense which disconnects it Avith all antecedent history. On the contra- ry, it is firmly held that the gospel is the continuation of a reve- lation running from the very dawn of man's life on the earth. It is the culmination of a process which had been advancing for ages. There is, indeed, no absolute breach with the past, but the introduction of a new and divine factor, without which, further progress towards the goal of God's purpose was not pos- sible. The supernatural had been a factor in this development from the beginning, but in Jesus it assumed a yet higher form. God, who had often spoken through the prophets, now conde- scended to speak through his Son. The future in the case is, in a certain sense, grounded in the past, but it transcends it ; is no mere natural offshoot from it. It is not the result merely of forces pre-existing, and supplemented by another remarkable human life, but a new movement whose origin can only be ex- plained by the introduction of a personality higher than that which is highest in our common humanity. Luther is the suffi- cient explanation of Lutheranism, no doubt, but Jesus is the ad- equate explanation of Christianity only when we see in him the Christ, the Son of the living God. Cliristianity is only explained historically by showing its dependence upon the person of a su- 88 GBOUNDS OX WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. perhuman revealer and Savior. Its fundamental and distinctive ideas and aims refuse utterly to accord with any other pre-sup- position. They are higher than the most highly inspired hu- manity in their origin. In this sense "what Jesus founded" is, indeed, a new creation. His kingdom is no borrowed conception. His gospel is no mere modification or enlargement of pre-existing ideals, whether of prophet, or priest, or scribe. The kingdom of heaven as he preached it had never been in the thought of prophet or sage. The power of faith in a great divine personality (yet manifest- ing itself under human conditions) to lift up and spiritualize the life of the world, had never, before Jesus, dawned upon any hu- man heart. He only had seen in his day what wonderful spir- itual achievements are "possible to him that believes." He saw how in the presence of such faith, even as a mustard seed, moun- tains of difficulty should disappear, and the deep-rooted syca- mine tree of prejudice and bigotry be torn up and cast into the sea. No one before him ever dreamed of such wonderful possibili- ties being wrapped up in the simple act of believing in a divine Christ. The relation of Jesus to Christianity is not that of other founders of religions to the systems founded by them. Zoroas- ter, Confucius, Sakyamuni, Mohammed, stand outside and tell us what they would have their followers believe and do. They figure only in the role of teachers, of prophets, if one chooses to put it in that way. Jesus is himself the very substance, essence, vitalizing power of Christianity. You may separate others in thought from the religions whose origin we trace to them, and, so separated, the religions stand out on their own merits, as ideals of faith and conduct. You cannot separate Jesus from Christianity. He is its most pervading presence; its innermost life. He "died for our sins;" was "raised for our justification;" he "lives in us;" and, in turn, we "live in him." He is our "wis- dom, and righteousness, sanctification and redemption." What Jesus did, and still does, for us, even more than what he taught, is of the substance of Christianity. Hence our faith is not the GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 89 "belief of doctrines, but belief in the personal Christ, the Son of God. It is not the intellectual acceptance of a teacher which is fulfilled in believing the things taught by him, but faith in a Sa- vior, a Redeemer, Mediator, whose ofliices are necessary to our salvation both here and hereafter. No, you cannot separate Christ from the Gospel which the apostles preached in his name. Take him out, and there would be no gospel left. You can sep- arate him from the moral truths which he taught, and believe in these truths, as truths, without believing in Christ. As regards these moral truths, his relation to them is identical with that of other teachers to the doctrines taught by them. But Christianity is much more than a body of moral or spiritual truth. And it is this "much more" which constitutes the very core of the gospel. It is redemption, it is salvation from sin, through the personal offices of its Founder, the Christ. It is this, or it is only a sys- tem of doctrines, like the rest, but better, perhaps, because its spiritual ideals are higher and truer to the needs of our human life. JESUS, THE CBEATOB OF A NEW BELIGION. But is it true that "what Jesus founded can only be called a creation in a very improper sense ?" Let us look this affirma- tion boldly in the face. Nay, we must not refuse to face it, for it is the heart of the unbeliever's contention. If he is right here, he is right when he says he only needs a human Christ to ex- plain the origin of Christianity. But I have said above that Jesus neither eflfected nor sought to effect an absolute severance from the historical past of human life. The religion "founded by Jesus" confesses its dependence, in a certain way, upon the older dispensation of lawgiver, prophet and priest. It, indeed, freely admits its inheritance from the past of Israel's history. It claims to be the fulfillment of that which formerly existed only in promise ; the fuller development of germinant concep- tions, heretofore but broadly outlined, and vaguely held, in hu- 90 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. man thought. It is the continuance and conclusion of a revela- tion previously begun. But do these admissions destroy its cre- ative character ? Is it necessary to creation that the existent shall be evoked from the absolute non-existent ? That some- thing shall be made from nothing ? Must we have a creation absolute, or no creation at all ? Dr. Kuenen must mean this, or his affirmation has no significance in the argument. But this is what we deny. We concede that the work of Jesus was ground- ed in the past, but maintain, at the same time, its creative char- acter. Let us proceed carefully. Of course, that which Jesus carried over from Judaism into the new order which he estab- lished could not be said to owe its existence to him. In so far, then, his work was not creative. But what about the things in Christianity which were not in Judaism ? What about its dis- tinctive and differential attributes, of which Judaism contained not even the suggestion ? This is what Jesus created, originated, founded. I go back again to the kingdom of heaven as Jesus conceived it. The thought was, and is, the thought of Jesus only. I do not mean, of course, that the vague idea that there was to be a divine kingdom had not been promulgated before the time of Jesus. I do mean, however, that the kingdom, as Jesus con- ceived it, was an altogether difierent thing from what any one had thought of before him. There can be no denial here that does not imply misapprehension, not to say distortion, of the testimony, I have said, and I hope I may be pardoned if I repeat, that no one ever suggested the idea of a purely spiritual kingdom, a kingdom in the souls of men, until Jesus proclaimed it. So like- wise his doctrine of the Messianic office and work was original to him. If there were germs of these great divine ideas in the prophets, they were so dimly and inadequately represented that they bore slight likeness indeed to the bold, emphatic utterances of Jesus. Whatever he took from the older revelations to Israel underwent such transfiguration and glorification in passing through his thought, that the prophet who may be said in some GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 91 shadowy way to have suggested it would not have been able to see in the formulas of Jesus the slightest dependence upon any- thing he had, at any time, thought or said. So far as Jesus built upon the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament, he seized only the kernel, and discarded the shell which inclosed it. His work was that of an originator, or creator, because it did not take up and appropriate the conceptions of any one who had preceded him. All former ideals fell far below his loftier range of thought and purpose. Even in mere morals, where the near- est approach to him had been effected, there was yet a great dis- tance to be traversed. The golden rule of Hillel and that of Jesus furnish an example in point. The difference between a negative and positive in morals is a difference across the whole heavens. "What you would not have done to yourself, do not that to others," is the merest shadow of the positive formula of Jesus. The difference between "do not the wrong thing to an- other," and "do to him all possible right things," is just the dif- ference between the divine and the human. The one is satisfied when you refrain from doing actual iniquity ; the other will not allow you to stop short of the largest possible beneficence. But in the circle of moral truth there was least need of our Lord's creative power. It was here that the Judaic legalism bore its richest fruit. It was along this pathway that "the pedagogue was leading men to Christ, that they might be justified by faith." The law could give the knowledge of sin, the sense of guilt; but it could not give the consciousness of salvation. This brings us back again to the position taken above, that what Jesus did for us is yet more important for our happiness than what he taught us to do for ourselves ; more important because more entirely above the plane of our human possibilities. The notion of a mere human Founder of Christianity takes Jesus out- side of the interior sphere of his religion and places him in a professor's chair, to discharge only the functions of a teacher of the human race ! The difference is fundamental. Let me particularize. Paul says : " Jesus died for our sins;" 92 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. again, lie says : " " In Mm we liave our redemption, the forgive- ness of our sins." John says : " And the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." Now I am not about to propound a theory of atonement, I am not sure enough of my ground to attempt the task otherwise than provisionally, even if this were the place for such an attempt, and clearly it is not. I am content here with the fact, the unquestionable fact, that, in the apostolical gospel, the death of Jesus, the blood of Jesus, is always placed at the ground of the ofler of the forgiveness of sins. The primitive disciples were taught to regard themselves as forgiven and saved through the death, or blood, of the Lord Messiah, There is positively no denying this fact, however one may try to mini- mize its significance, I dismiss all theory, and build on the simple fact. Again : Our Lord's work of mediation is now going on. It is not a thing accomplished, once for all, in the day of his humiliation. Else, why are we taught to give thanks in his name ? To pray in his name ? Why are we said to " receive remission of sins through his name ? " But his kingdom is the kingdom of a Mediator. When his work, as Mediator, shall have been completed, it is said : " He will deliver up the king- dom to God, even the Father . . that God may be all in all," This Mediatorial kingdom is the kingdom of the present dispen- sation ; his work as Mediator is now going on, and must continue to go on, until every enemy shall have been abolished, or put under his feet. Once more : The priesthood of Jesus, also, must abide till his work shall have been accomplished. " Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek," is the language of the divine call. But Jesus was not a priest while on earth. His office did not impinge upon that of the Levitical priesthood at all. "For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us." Heaven is his sane- GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 93 tuary, the scene of liis priesthood. His priestly office abides of necessity while the dispensation of favor continues. He will exercise his priestly functions, until the work of redemption is completed, and he shall come to gather his people home. This, then, is what we mean when we say that Jesus cannot be separated from his religion. The offices of Jesus are the religion. Take these offices away, and the doctrine may be left, but the religion is gone. When Jesus is lowered to the plane of mere manhood, however exalted, all these higher func- tions must be eliminated from our conception of Christianity. His atonement, his mediation, his priesthood, in any really significant sense, become forever impossible. I am willing to grant that some of these terms may be fairly explained as typical or metaphorical, in the last analysis, but then they stand, at the same time, for enduring realities. The offices of the Christ which they are employed to express are not less signifi- cant functions in the economy of salvation because of the metaphorical element in some of the terms which have been employed to designate them. There is no way of escape from these conclusions, it seems to me, but by the denial of the entire ideal of redemption developed in the New Testament. In New Testament Christianity it is certain that these elements are found. When we speak of Christianity, then, all these things are included. We do not stop with the teaching of Jesus, however wonderful and all-embracing that may be. He is Redeemer, Savior, Lord. He is all this by virtue of his offices — all his offices. Not one of them must be left out of the account. This Teacher, Redeemer, Lord, is the only begotten Son of God. So the New Testament everywhere declares him, and so the task assigned him absolutely requires him to be. Now the conception embodied in Christianity, as herein set forth, is not a mere human product. It is a revelation of God, or it is nothing. It stood complete only in the thought of Jesus. Others, taught by him, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exalted to 94 OBOUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. tlieir loftiest possibilities Iby the brightness of these unspeaka- ble visions, have seen and felt enough to be able to draw near to him in glad, holy fellowship, and to rejoice in the hope of eternal life, because he has graciously promised it. But only Jesus has comprehended the whole sweep of this mighty range of infinite things, because only Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God. He only has so far transcended our human limitations as to be perfectly at home in the deep things of redeeming and saving love. It is a false view of inspiration to suppose that there is no limit to its possibilities. According to this view, God could just as well have revealed his will through idiots, if it had so pleased him, as through men of sense. I put it in this strong way that the absurdity may be more clearly apparent. There is, of course, no limitation, as to knowledge, with God; but there is limitation, that is, inadequate power of receptivity, from different causes, on the human side. The Messianic reve- lations of Jesus transcend such limitations, but transcend them solely because he is the Son of God, and because, as such, the fullness of the Divinity dwelt in him. His knowledge in the kingdom of the Spirit is underived and absolute. Less than such a Christ could not give infinite trust. But the religion of Jesus meets perfectly the spiritual needs of men, thus verifying itself as divine, and attesting its founder to be the Son of God. I single out for use here two points only : (1) Christianity brings re-inforcement to man's moral nature. It gives added power to all that is highest in him, and syste- matically discourages and represses that whole side of him through which come temptation, and all forms of evil and sin. The consciousness of every Christian is witness here. At the bottom of all his highest aspirations, the Christian knows, is the word of God, and the faith in Jesus. That Christianity makes real believers better men and women is, to believers themselves, a fact of consciousness, and to others, an undent- GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 95 able fact of observation. That there are spurious professors of Christianity does by no means invalidate this statement. The existence of counterfeits may make us more watchful, but starts no doubt as to the value of genuine coin. The world under the reign of Christ is a better world than that which pagan deities and philosophies made, and its outlook grows brighter every year. The measure of Christian receptivity is the only limit of progress in the elements of true and noble manhood, through all time to come. (2) But man at his best, man under Christ, and filled with his Holy Spirit, is yet a child of earth, liable to be tempted and to fall into sin. This sad fact all human experience attests. There is no mistaking it. The best men, therefore, fall short. Jesus understood this perfectly. He knew that we should need his mercy, in the forgiveness of our sins, so long as we are here in the flesh. He provided for this need, too. He tells us to come to him, to come to the Father through him, or in his name ; to confess our sins and to receive forgiveness. These provisions cover the whole ground. Christianity creates the highest humanity, but, at the same time, it provides mercy for inevita- ble weakness, this side the resurrection morn. Over there we shall sin no more. Over there we shall realize our best desires. We are made meet for that world in Christ, through whom our shortcomings find forgiveness, and in whom our highest possi- bilities of holy living are attained. Who could have conceived of such a redemption, save the Son of God ? Granted the con- ception possible, who save the Son of God could have achieved it for us ? Indeed the founder of our religion is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Why hesitate and halt here at the threshold of the divine kingdom ? All things are possible to him that can believe. " If weak thy faith, why choose the harder side ? " As we approach the close of this discussion, let us consider for a moment the religious nature of man. We must say that this religious nature is not of itself equal to the task of finding 96 GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. out God. To know God requires aid from heaven. But the religious nature is the condition both of fellowship with God, and of revelation from God. It cannot, unaided, reach the higher spiritual truth, but it furnishes a ground of receptivity for the divine communication of such truth. In the Biblical revelation, God has employed different methods. There have been Angelophanies, Tlieophanies, visions — doubtless of several kinds — and, above all, the personal teaching of God's Son. Be- sides, and indispensable, there have been, throughout the revealing ages, the continuing agency and inspiration of God's Holy Spirit. This last, only, is inspiration in its true Biblical sense. The religious nature has evermore furnished the basis for these divine communications. But Christianity is more than a mere phase of the manifestation of man's religious nature. Why, otherwise, should Israel alone, of all the peoples on earth, have been able to reach the fundamental ideas on which a true and world-wide religion could be grounded? And how else, than through the Son of God could the impassable gulf between Judaism and Christianity have been spanned ? Development is a great reality, but it has its limitations. It does not explain everything. In the natural world, the existence of matter and force is a pre-supposition without which it can explain nothing. But how came matter and force ? Behind these conditions of development, Avhat, or who? Then, to mere development, the chasm between the living and non-living is an impassable one. God alone could bridge it. So in the great movement in human thought and experience which culminated in Christianity, de- velopment has, no doubt, played its part, but that part has ever been a subordinate one. There have been here also, mighty chasms, not to be spanned, save by the power of the infinite God. Beneath this whole wonderful sweep of things there has been ever necessary the immanent presence of the Hol}^ Spirit, while in its final, and, for mere human agency, its most impossi- ble stage, was imperatively demanded the advent and agency of God's only begotten Son. This is true of Christianity consid- GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ACCEPT JESUS. 97 ered merely as a revelation of truth, but vastly more true when we remember that it is a provision to save men from their sins and prepare them for the joys of heaven. Redemption demands more than a teacher. Here, as we have seen, arises the necessity for those other offices of Christ, without which the law of con- duct is a message of slight significance to human souls. Of this whole wonderful conception, Jesus is Originator, Founder, Creator. To be this it was necessary that he should be the Son of the living God. To his name, as God's only-begotten Son, be praise and might, and glory and blessing, forever and ever. 7 THE GROUND OF MAN'S NEED OF SALVATION, OR SIN AND ITS REMEDY. J. S. LAMAR. /. THE ENTBANCE OF Sm INTO THE WOULD. IT is not my purpose to discuss elaborately the doctrine of original sin. While it fills a large place in modern theological systems, in the beginning it was quite subordinate. Previous to the time of Pelagius and St. Augustine no special prominence had been given to the subject of Adam's sin and its conse- quences ; and such views as were held and taught by different fathers, were, as compared with later developments, immature and indefinite. It is certainly a significant fact that the gospel was originally preached with power and success ; that churches were established, educated and edified ; and that Christianity became triumphant throughout the world before any view of original sin had been generally accepted, or any doctrine re- specting it had been fonnulated and imposed. While Origen in the East taught the freedom of the human will and man's con- sequent responsibility, Tertullian and Hilary in the West em- phasized the soul's dependence upon grace ; and these two doc- trines, coalescing in the consciousness of the church, were both received and enjoyed as the harmony of truth. But with the coming of Augustine and Pelagius in the early part of the fifth century, bringing doctrines sharply defined and pointedly antagonistic, discords were introduced, the jar and jangle of which have afflicted the ears of the church for nearly fifteen hundred years. The one taught that the guilt of Adam's sin was transmitted to his posterity ; that man is free only to sin — only to resist grace ; that he comes into being spiritually .). S. LAMAi; James S. Lamar was born in the State of Georgia, May 18, 1829. The place in Georgia wiiifli was lionored by being liis birthplace lie does not tinnk it worth while to mention in the few facts which he furnished us at our request. Kor does he gi\ e us any inforniatioa concerning his early life, not deeuiing it a matter of any interest to the readers of this volume — a mis- take resulting from his extreme modesty, or self-depreciation. He writes : "I was born in Georgia, May 18, 1829, and through the mercy of God I am here still, and that is about all there is of it."" He graduated in Bethany College in 1854, and soon thereafter accepted the pastorate of the Church in Augusta, Ga., which he held until 1874, a period of twenty years. After this he located with the Fourth and "Walnut Street Church in Louisville, Ky., Avhere he remained one j^ear, returning at the end of this time to Augusta. After a few years in liis old field of labor, he made his residence in Atlanta for awhile, and tJien located at Yaldosta, in same State, where he remained until the past year, Avhen he returned to his first love, and is once more a citizen of Augusta. He has settled down in one of its suburbs — Grovetown — and, like Carlyle at Craigenputtoch, is trying to "cultivate literature on a little oatmeal." His work as a minister of the Gospel has been interspersed throughout with numerous contributions to our periodical literature, which have always been highly prized by liis readers. Besides these fugitive articles, he is the autiior of the "Organou of Scriptui-e," and a Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, not to mention some smaller works which have had a wide circula- tion. These articles and volumes have established his reputation as a writer of marked originality of thought, lucidity of statement, and graceful style. At prc-cnt he is a regular contributor to the Cliri.stian Sid to America and supplied for the Christian Church in San Francisco for twelve months, and received an unanimous and urgent call to the permanent pastorate of that congregation, but declined, returning to his native State and taking charge of the church at Midway, near Lexington, the heart of the Bi ue Grass region. While here he became one of the editorial staff of tlie Apos- tolic Guide, now published at Louisville, Ky. At the end of his second year at Midway, he received a call from the Christian Pul)libliing Co., St. Louis, !Mo., to become the office editor of the Christiun-EvaiHjclist — wiiich place he filled with ability until he accepted the call of the Foreign ]\Iission Board to go to Birkenhead, England, Avhere he is now laboring. He retains a place on the writing force of the Cltrislian-Evangelist, and his weekly English Letters furnish a splendid resume of European events. TEE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. that rejects the doctrine of mechanical dictation and the factory theory of a ready made Bible in heaven, and regards it as a great historic movement in which the Spirit of God brooded over humanity as over the ancient chaos of the physical crea- tion, standing behind it as a propelling force, going before it as a directing energy, working through it and with it as a present inspiration, with the ultimate end steadily in view of educating and elevaiing the race into a higher and diviner life — this is the conception that will be assumed and illustrated, but not argued in this paper. Long before the distinct application of the scientific theory of evolution to questions of Biblical criticism, it was well understood that the religion of the Bible was a development along the lines of the national history of a chosen people, a gradually unfolding process of "line upon line, and precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," beginning with the revelation of a personal God to the patriarchs, and ter- minating after thousands of years of redemptive progress in a glorified kingdom, and a redeemed society in a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. In the beautiful unfolding of the divine plan of mercy and grace we have the religion of an individual, the religion of a family, the religion of a nation and the religion of a world, in which is comprehended, in lengthening lines and extending circles, the history of redemp- tion from Eden to the Millennium. It required forty centuries of time and a succession of divine teachers, supplemented by the sacrifice of a host of prophets and martyrs, to educate man's intensely gross and selfish nature up to the point of grasp- ing the sentiment of universal love. From local and national limitations in which the Jehovah of the Hebrews appeared to be a sectional deity, the culmination was reached in the compre- hension of God's unfolding philanthropy when the Holy Spirit inspired the heart and fired the tongue of Peter to give forth the signal word of the New Dispensation in the sublime oracle, "I perceive of a truth that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is 122 THE PBOGRESS OF REVELATION. accepted of Him." Christ's idea of the evolution of religion, based upon the analogy of natural growth, is expressed in the sentence, "First the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear;" and it may be justly remarked that this growth of religious knowledge through a gradual revelation, was not from the false to the true, from the wrong to the right, from a misap- prehension of God to a true representation of Him ; but from the obscure, the fragmentary, and the imperfect, to the clear, the complete, and the perfect. 1. As preliminar}^ and yet an essential part of what I shall have to say on the dispensations and their characteristics, it may be first observed that the chief line of the development of revelation as it runs through the Bible is in respect to larger, truer, and better ideas of God. The God of the history of crea- tion in the first chapter of Genesis, of the patriarchal fathers, of Moses and the prophets, the Jehovah of hosts who led Israel through its long and chequered history, is the God and Father revealed in Jesus Christ, only in more adequate fullness of man- ifestation. The Biblical method of disclosing the divine nature is b}^ taking the highest examples of human excellence and the tenderest human relationships as tj^es and illustrations of it. In early ages, when spiritual truth existed in its most rudi- mentary forms, from lack of culture to comprehend it, men's first feeling toward God was one of reverence and awe. This awe-fulness was best expressed to their minds by likening him to a king. "VVe can hardly imagine how much that word expressed to an oriental to whom "the king" is an expression for irresponsible and boundless power. Then to this conception of God the patriarchal age added the idea of justice. In a rude and violent age the judge who protects the innocent against the oppressor seems the highest type of goodness ; so Abraham gives that title to the Almighty in his grand appeal : "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ?" A gentler and sweeter image was suggested by pastoral life in the watchful care of the shepherd over his sheep. "The Lord is my Shepherd," said THE PROG BESS OF IlEVELATION. 123 Israel's poet-king, in one of the finest inspirations of the ages. Then came in the quickened pulse of the prophetic age a still higher comparison : "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him." Isaiah in a time of spir- itual enlargement in Israel found a yet more tender similitude : "As one whom liis motlier comforteth so will I comfort you." This figure of parenthood which gleams out in occasional flashes of prophetic insi^iration in the Old Testament is woven into all the teachings of Christ as perhaps the most character- istic feature of the last and best of the dispensations. He made " Our Father " the habitual expression for him whom the Jews had been wont to call by the awful name of Jehovah. In one of the most striking passages of the Gospels he intimates that earthly fatherhood and motherhood is only a dim suggestion of the infinite wealth of the divine heart in its filial relation to men: "If ye then being evil" — in all your earthly imperfec- tions— "know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give good things unto them that ask him." The parable of the Prodigal Son crowns the apex of the pyramid of revelation, in the father's unutterable joy and glad- ness in receiving back to his bosom his wayward but penitent boy — in the paternal love that blots out all the past of sin and shame, and confers, in token of forgiveness, more distinguished honors upon his prodigal child than if he had never sinned — in this we have the tenderest and most touching picture of God's paternal heart, and his fatherly affection for the world of " sinners lost." Christ taught this lesson of which his whole life and death was a splendid manifestation: that there is a regnant heart of sympathy and love in the universe, enthroned in light and power unspeakable, yet brooding with infinite ten- derness and patience over the world, not because men are per- fect and good, but because it is the nature of God to love and nourish universal being. This conception, in magnitude and grandeur, in power to exalt and purify the race, surpasses all 124 THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION, Others, and is sinking deeper into men's hearts as knowledge grows with time, and the best minds of the race are finding it more and more difficult to believe that this truth is the discovery of unassisted human thought. The Christ idea is growing upon the world, that the whole vast system of nature and providence is regulated in every part by the one central force of love, and we are learning by slow degrees to make the same force central and sovereign in our own lives. Christ has taught us to recog- nize in our sweetest aflfections, our fairest imaginings, the hopes that soar on boldest wing, the peace vvhose tranquillity is most perfect, manifestations of the divine life flowing into our life — so all that is best in us receives its highest inspiration, and we may walk in light as the sons of God. The Grod of which Christ is the revelation is not a different God from the one made known to the patriarchs and Jews, but the same God more fully and adequately revealed. The conception of God as a King enthroned in majesty and wielding authority, as a Judge hold- ing the scales of justice and equity, as a Shepherd watching over and protecting his sheep, as a Father and Mother nourish- ing their children in love, is essential to a complete revelation of his cliaracter and of his several relations to men. 2. The evolutionary process of revelation manward is seen in the progress of doctrine in the Bible from the outward to the inward, from external restraints to inward principles, from law to Tove. In the moral childhood of the race and the earlier stages of revelation, in pursuance of an educative design, the word and the object lesson came first, the truth of the Spirit afterwards. Outward discipline of moral conduct precedes the renewal of the heart. In adaptation to the necessary limita- tions of human faculties and circumstances religion consists of an outward form and an inward principle, of a negative exterior rule as preparatory to an inward and positive virtue. The shadow goes before the substance, the sign and the symbol prepare for the spiritual and the real. The plan of God's reve- lation, as in the ordinary course of human development, neces- THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 125 sarily begins with external regulations and provisions ; and proceeding by tutors and governors and outward agencies ends at last in the law of liberty and the freedom of the spirit. The Old Testament is a book of compulsory precepts, specific direc- tions, and ceremonial rites, adapted to the race in its spiritual minority. The comprehensive principles of the New Testament, of universal application, and adapted to the highest ends of spiritual manhood, are the product of a later age in this divine revealing process of inspired history. The general method of all primitive revelations was from without with an inward direc- tion in the self-manifestations of Jehovah in audible voices, angelic appearances, dreams and visions, the Shekinah above the Mercy Seat, and supernatural signs and wonders. Tlie con- ception of the Holy S{)irit as an inspiring and regenerating force speaking and working from within the soul outwardly in the development of character and the regulation of conduct, and the manifestation of power for service to God and man, was almost unknown to the Israelites, even of the time of Moses. It has been remarked, and not without significance, that the word, " conscience," without which we cannot conceive of any religion, and through which the white light of revelation shines into our hearts, occurs but once in the Old Testament, and then in a marginal rendering of the book of Ecclesiastes. It was not till the profound spiritual history of the Apostle Paul became a factor in heaven's revealing process that this became a cus- tomary term in Scripture phraseology. Its use marks a new era and the latest development in the historic movement of reve- lation and may be said to transmute the outward lesson and the visible symbol into fuel for the inner light of the spirit; and thus gives a wonderful impetus to the doctrine of individual consecration and the sense of personal responsibility to God. The educational trend of this course of revelation from the outward form to the inward principle, from the letter to the spirit, may be illustrated from the elaborate symbolism of the law of Moses and its antitypical fulfillment in the gospel 126 THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. of Christ. The characteristic of Mosaism was externalisra and ritualism with a deep spiritual intent at the heart of it to be afterwards revealed and understood. It is not to be supposed, nor is it here intimated, that the Jews were without ideas of spiritual religion. The moral element in Judaism, harnessed up with the ceremonial, was conspicuous enough, if instead of confining our attention to its details we take a broad view of its place in the general history of mankind. One of the most interesting problems in the unfolding of the Divine economy of grace was that assigned to the Jews during the long period of their national history. And it was certainly not the least of the providential functions of that remarkable people to embody and preserve in their religious forms the germs of a great after development, which was not so much in the foresight of, even the wisest Jews, as in the after sight of Christ and the Apostles and those who became their spiritual heirs. The intricate sys- tem of types and symbols in the structure and furniture of the Tabernacle and Temple, the object lessons of Judaism in their completest form, adumbrate and represent the spiritual truth of the new dispensation of the Holy Spirit. In all of this elabo- rate symbolization there is not one illustration of an external or material truth. The inward meaning, not at first understood, was distinctly and wholly spiritual. The Court of these sacred inclosures was intended to separate between the holy and the profane, and was hence symbolical of the entire separation of the church from the world. As none but God's people, the Israelites, had a right to enter this court, so none but converted and consecrated men and women have a divine right to enter the sacred precincts of the church. We have here in germ the New Testament doctrine of a spiritual kingdom and a regen- erated church membership. The Laver of consecration, sym- bolical of cleansing, carried the same truth, and hence the daily washing of the hands and feet of the priesthood was typically significant of the moral and spiritual purity required of all Christians. In the initiation and consecration of the Aaronic TEE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 127 priesthood an animal was slain and its blood sprinkled first upon the right ear of the sons of Aaron to sanctify their ears for hearing the voice of God, and then on the thumb of their right hand to sanctify their hands for serving, and then on the great toe of their right foot to sanctify their feet for treading God's courts, typical of the sanctification of the whole man, body, soul and spirit, to the service of God. The holy place and its furniture typified the church and the spiritualities which the gospel represents. The table of shew bread, for instance, was emblematical of the spiritual food of Christians, who are all priests to God. The cup of frankincense, on tlie same table, was typical of praise and thanksgiving. The Candelabrum or Golden Candlestick, with its seven prongs, represents the church as God's appointed means for preserving and dispensing the light of the gospel, the sacred number seven denoting the per- fection of gospel light. The pure olive oil in the lamps of the candelabrum, kept perpetually burning, symbolized the Holy Spirit, the origin and source of spiritual light and power. Finally, as the crown and consummation of this course of sym- bolic teaching in the Holy Place, the burning incense swung in the golden censer above the altar and directly before the vail, was beautifully typical of the prayers of the saints, and of the nearness of heaven to earth under the reign of the Spirit of Christ. Thus the symbols of Judaism contain in solution the substance of the inward spiritual truths of Christianity, to be precipitated and manifested when the consciousness of men under the training of a progressive revelation was sufficiently educated to comprehend and apply its principles. When the lesson was learned the essential outwardness of the old cove- nant gave way to the essential inwardness of the new ; sym- bolical representations, and letters inscribed on tables of stone, and signs in the flesh, went out by the incoming of the life of the Spirit, aptly expressed in this characteristic word of the New Age : " I will put my laws into their mind, and write them 128 THE PE OGRESS OF EEVELATION. in their hearts, and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people." 3. The expanding and deepening course of revelation along certain well marked lines of development is again illustrated in the progress of doctrine from the temporal to the eternal, from the earthly and mortal to the heavenly and immortal. There are no distinct traces in early Hebrew theology of the doctrine of an individual future life for the soul. We seek in vain in the earlier books of the Bible for the conception of personal immortality, unless that doctrine should be held to be legiti- mately involved in the creation of man in God's image and like- ness, and in the relation of a personal God which revelation itself implies. If the germ of the idea can be traced to this source, it did not as a distinct growth root itself in human con- sciousness till after the opening of the prophetic age in the his- tory of Israel. Il^ewman Smyth, in tracing the origin and devel- opment of the doctrine of personal immortality through the Hebrew revelation, sums up the discussion in a passage that so admirably suits my purpose in this connection that I cannot forbear to quote it : " The continual disappointment of their history, and the visions of the judgments impending upon Israel drove the later prophets to more spiritual interpretations of God's great provi- dential purposes, and hence they gained more elevated concep- tions of the future kingdom of God, in which the dead shall live again, and righteousness receive its fitting rewards. The truth involved in the teaching of the Pentateuch, that after death the soul has still some relation to the living God, is developed more clearly and consciously by the prophets ; but still the thought of the overcoming of death for the individual is wrapt up in the more general conception of the final triumph, and everlasting inheritance of the sacred community, the true Israel. It is the chosen people who shall be ransomed from the power of the grave. Ephraim shall be redeemed from death. But within THE PBOGRESS OF REVELATION. 129 tMs hope for the chosen race is quietly enfolded, and growing all the time, the hope of personal immortality. "One great impulse to the further development of this truth was provided by the experience which pressed ever more severely upon the minds of men, that justice is not always meted out in this world, that the wicked often prosper to the last day of their lives, and that the righteous do not receive here the full rewards of their labors. This old riddle of human experience cannot be solved unless we bring to it the key of this truth that the just shall live again. The righteous who have died, overborne by the judgments which fell upon Israel — shall not they have part in the final triumph of the true Israel ? So, in the twenty-sixth chapter of Isaiah, the prophet struggles with this question until he breaks out at last into the triumphal strain, 'Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust.' This is the only possible solution of the problem of life ; and it is the conclusion toward which the history of Israel, with its increasing burden of suffering and death, pressed on to Christ. In the storms of the Maccabsean age, the belief in immortality rose more brightly than ever before. The prophet Daniel, whose words, if not written in that age, were certainly for that age, holds up before the first martyrs of that beginning of per- secutions the hope of shining as the stars for ever and ever. '■ We find, then, the belief that there is existence after death involved in the fundamental religious conception of Israel. But the truth of personal immortality is a truth struggling upward, a growing truth of the Old Dispensation ; it is hardly a fully formed hope, or ripened doctrine. It is in the Old Testament, but in it germinantly and potentially; it is the hope of the prophets in their highest moments of inspiration, but Christ must bring life and immortality to light before it can shine, a steady and transfiguring light of life, for the world." This blessed truth of a future life for man, so vital to relig- ion, which breaks out in faint and fitful gleams, in prophetic 130 THE PROGRESS OF REVELATIOX. flashes of inspiration against the background of prevailing darkness, in the old teaching, shines full and clear in the teach- ing of Christ, and finds in his rising its visible pledge and dem- onstration. I have thus indicated a few, out of many, of the leading lines of development, as illustrative specimens of the progressive character of revelation, that the mind of the reader may be able to follow me in what I shall have to say on the limits and char- acteristics, the points of identity and the points of distinction between the periods of revelation known as the three dispensa- tions of religion. UNITY OF THE DISPENSATIONS. The three dispensations of religion, known as the Patri- archal, Jewish and Christian, are the epochal stages that mark the progress of revelation in the course of its development. The geography of redemption embraces the planet, its chronology all time, its history is moving on towards completion when the words of the apocalyptic angel shall be fulfilled, " time is and time was, but time shall be no more," but the place and time and record of revelation are more limited. The origin and com- munication and gradual unfolding of what we understand to be the word of Grod, were confined to a single nation and to a period of about four thousand j^ears. The Patriarchal Dispen- sation extended from Adam to Moses, and lasted twenty-five hundred years. The Jewish economy reached from Moses to Christ, an 1 embraced a period of fifteen hundred years. The Christian dispensation under which we live, extends from the birth of Christ to his second advent, and up to the present time comprehends in duration a period of eighteen hundred and ninety years. These great religious cycles in the history and progress of revelation have been characterized by important differences, as we shall see further on, and yet in respect to essential and fundamental principles, the truths of an absolute THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 131 religion, a thread of identity and continuity runs through and binds them all together in one. The conception of God in his unity, personality and eternity as co-related to the work of creation, the redemption of Israel and the salvation of the world, is not only " the golden everlasting chain that binds heaven and earth and main," but it binds together all the ages of inspired thought as essentially, and at bottom, one age. The ideal of human character expressed in the thought of con- secration to God and the expression of that consecration by inward holiness and outward separation from sin and sinful men, is the theme of Genesis and the Apocalypse and all the books that lie between. When we look beneath the surface, the fundamental feature of Old Testament religion, the union of devout feeling and righteous living, constitutes the staple of New Testament teaching, the burden of inspired emphasis of Apostles and Prophets, with the higher thought added, that the life of personal consecratio;i is to find its highest manifestation in union with God, in love that goes out to save all men from evil. The inculcation of holiness, the proclamation of right- eousness, the vindication of justice, and condemnation of sin, the purification of human hearts, the elevation of human lives, the medication of all moral diseases by the inworking of God's Spirit, is the theme and the purpose that binds into a glorious solidarity, into a sublime spiritual unity, the ages, the books and the inspired teachers of the Bible. Under each and all of these great religious cycles or ages, three things have been unchangeably necessary to salvation : Faith, Obedience and Sacrifice. The first recognizes God's existence, the second his authority, and the third his justice and mercy. These are fundamental j^rincijiles, and are of the essence of religion itself, and are hence of universal and per- petual application. In themselves they can neither be changed, intermitted, nor abolished. Like three golden bands of light they run parallel, and bind all the ages together in the essential unity of fundamental truth. There are certain great central 132 THE PBOOBESS OF REVELATION. arterial lines of truth running through the whole history and prophecy of human redemption, beginning at the fall and ending in the final glorification of the redeemed in heaven. All that is most vital in revelation clusters about these lines. The unbroken continuity of these truths from one end of the Bible to the other, I have elsewhere illustrated by the course of the Mississippi River through the central valley of the American continent. The great river takes its rise in the North and runs like a silver thread through the New World. In the "West it is bounded by open prairies, in the South it winds beneath pre- cipitous heights, rolls through marshy swamps, and is fringed here and there by dense jungle and heavy forests. It has no regular width, depth, or straightness. In one place it thunders through a mountain gorge, in another it is as calm and tranquil as the upper deep on a summer's day. In one place it is narrow, in another broad. Here it is shallow enough to ford, yonder it is deep enough to float the great Eastern. Yet from its source to its confluence with the Gulf of Mexico, it is grad- ually augmented by tributary streams. So these great truths of infinite love rising in the bowers of Eden, rolled on through the broad expanse of human history, wound their course through the mountains of promise, plunged into the jungles of prophecy, and re-appear at last clothed in glory in the gospel of Jesus Christ. To use another figure, this glorious develop- ment of divine history streaming as bands of colored light across the ages, is resolved back into the original white ray in the person of Him who is the Light of the world, and who, therefore, becomes the all and in all of our faith and hope. Jesus Christ in his Messianic offices as Teacher, Atoner and Ruler ; in his personal functions as the Way, the Truth, and the Life is the culmination of Old Testament prophecy and the peculiar glory of New Testament history. These great pivotal truths that run through the revelation of God — the universal sinfulness of humanity, the necessity of redemption by the grace of God, the possibility of deliverance from sin and death, THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 133 the immortality of man, the resurrection of the dead, and a future world of rewards and punishments — all these find their fullest meaning and profoundest interpretation in the incarna- tion, mission and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, who binds the two Testaments together as one homogeneous revelation, not broken and inten-upted by the dispensations, but only enlarged and varied as they proceed. An intelligent conception of the Christhood of Jesus involves as its first logical result the divine inspiration of the Old Testament. In the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, there are distinct prophetic delineations of his Christly character and functions. The Old Testament is a prophetical and typical representation of the Messiah and of the spirituality of his reign ; the New represents him historic ally as in fact the manifestation of God and the end of old covenant revelations, and the two complement and harmonize. In relation to the former, he is the substance of its shadows, the fulfillment of its prophecies, the consummation of its types, the realization of the hopes that burned in the bosom of patri- arch and prophet, the burden of its song, the soul of its poetry. As the Son of the living God, his peculiar New Testament rela- tionship, Christ is the manifestation of the Divine nature. Confession of his Sonship involves the acceptance of the New Testament as an inspired record of fact and doctrine. " These things are written," says John, " that you might br-lieve." Against the luminous perspective of Messianic prophecy, the historical Christ stands always, and with ever brightening effulgence, as knowledge keeps step with time, stands on the sacred page a perpetual inspiration transcendently higher than any thing human has yet attained, a spotless ideal, before which the best must bow in humility. When Christ is accepted in his true character, we acknowledge allegiance to the matchless ideal, and faith in the hand that draws the picture, the prophetic records of the Old, and the evangelical histories of the New, and all inspired productions, based upon them. Christ is the Son of God in a three-fold sense ; by birth, by adoption and by 134 TEE PROG BESS OF REVELATION. inheritance. He is tlie Son of two kings, and the king of two worlds — the Son of God and the Son of David. In consequence he is the heir legitimate of two thrones — the throne of earth and the throne of heaven. He was as human as Adam, as Jewish as David, as divine as God. To sj'mpathize with us he must be human, to save us he must be divine. Take away his human nature and he is not man ; take away his divine nature and he is not God. In either case he is not the Messiah, the Christ of prophecy and history. It is the mystic union of humanity and divinity', the representation of universal man, and the universal God that makes him both the Son of Man and the Son of God. It is worthy of remark in this connection that the sublime and incomparable structure known as the church of the living God is built upOn this central and all-embracing truth, for whose enunciation Peter was acknowledged and blessed. "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven." The blending streams of history, biography, prophecy, typology, poetry and all of the sublime testimonies to God and righteous- ness in the Old Testament flow into the widening sea of the New Age here at Caesarea Philippi, and the mingling of the waters attests the essential oneness of God's revelation of him- self to man. Much of the New Testament is taken from the Old, and much of the New religion was the outgrowth and fulfillment of that which had gone before. The finest imagery, the boldest meta- phors, the sublimest symbols, the most instructive analogies, and the richest spiritual language of the New Testament were framed after the Old Testament and literally taken from that volume ; in which suggestive fact we find an illustration of the substantial oneness in fundamentals of both religions and both Testaments. The quarry that furnishes the material out of which the divine temple is to be constructed, was opened in the Patri- archal age. The Jewish dispensation enlarged the quarry and THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 135 polished the stones. In the gospel of the New Age we behold the material on the ground, and like men who watch the rising of some great edifice, we grow familiar with the outlines and details of its exterior aspect. In the Acts of Apostles we see the doors thrown open and join the men who flock into it as their refuge and their home. In the Epistles we are actually within it, sheltered by its roof, encompassed by its walls ; we pass, as it were, from chamber to chamber, beholding the extent of its internal arrangements and the abundance of things pro- vided for our use. The Apocalypse witnesses the attempt and the failure to destroy this temple of God, and points forward to the glorious destiny of this house, not made with hands, in the ages to come. While this figure of a temple is used to illustrate the unity of revelation, it gives us a very distinct inti- mation of the differences between the dispensations which are neither few nor unimportant. DISPENSATIONAL DISTINCTIONS. One of the principal issues between our reformatory move- ment and the denominational world has been in reference to the limits and characteristics of the three dispensations. The denominations have ignored and denied the limitations and dis- tinctions that define and separate the different economies of religion revealed in the Bible, and have thus landed themselves into dire confusion on a number of important questions. The underlying unity of revelation and the identity of spiritual truth in all ages has been confounded with the growth of truth along with the growth of men, and its varied forms of manifestation in adaptation to the needs of the world, and its progressive capacity for receiving the word of God. The truth is one but the forms and methods of its revelation and application to human life are not one. The diflerent sections of a progressive revelation are one at bottom and in their final purpose, but there are dispensational distinctions and peculiarities that separate 136 THE PBOGBESS OF BEVELATION. and distinguish these economies from each other. We have pointed out to our denominational brethren that while faith, obedience and atonement by blood have been alike necessary in all ages, there are differences in the manifestation of these prin- ciples that give each one a character of its own. In the truth to be believed in order to salvation, the blood to be offered and the manner of its offering, and the principles involved in the sacrifice, and in the nature and number of the commands to be obeyed, there are dissimilarities both important and striking that Sunday-school pupils of ordinary intelligence ought to be able to mention. Patriarchs and Jews were required to believe in God only ; the Cliristian believes in Christ as the manifesta- tion of God, of which ancients knew nothing except in promise. Judaism was a theocracy, with God as the exclusive sovereign of the nation; Christianity is a Christocracy in which Christ is Lord of all in every nation that fears God and works righteous- ness. "If ye believe in God, believe also in me," said the Savior to his Jewish hearers. Patriarchs and Jews offered the blood of animals in atonement for their sins, and this they did continuously from year to year, the head of the household offi- ciating in the patriarchal age and the sons of Levi among the Jews ; but Christ, the Great High Priest of the Christian con- fession, has for us, once for all, offered his own blood, by which he has perfected forever them that are sanctified. Paul argues that a change of the priesthood necessarily involves a change of the law, and hence the priestly work of Christ necessitated a new dispensation and a new law of admission to its blessings and privileges. Through Moses and the prophets there came to the Hebrew fathers a multitude of legal and ceremonial pre- cepts which they were required to obey ; but happily, we are free from all these, and are calle I upon only to yield submis- sion to certain great moral and spiritual commandments which God has communicated to us through his Son. So far as posi- tive precepts and the externals of religion were concerned, the old statement is certainly true that what would have met with THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 137 divine approval in a patriarch, would have brought condemna- tion on a Jew ; and mce versa, and probably the declaration of a modern writer, that conduct which would have been commend- able in a Jew under Mosaism would send a man to the peni- tentiary under the reign of Christ, will not be considered an exaggeration. These differences were found in the investiga- tions of the fathers of our reformation to be of such importance in a correct understanding of the plan of salvation that it was ascertained to be a fact that Christ by the offering of himself on the cross had abolished the old covenant, and made provision for the introduction of a new and better covenant established upon better promises. (Heb. 8 : 6-13.) The characteristics by which this new covenant was differentiated from the old, made it absolutely certain that Christ was the Lawgiver of a new age, and that Christianity was a new institution. The Pedobaptist assumption that the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Christian covenants are identical, that the church has been the same under all dis- pensations, and that Christians sustain the same relation to the Old Testament that they do to the New, is shown to be utterly false by the following characteristics which distinguish Chris- tianity from all preceding institutions and covenants. It has I. A New Lawgiver. The Jewish economy, as just indi- cated, was a theocracy with Grod as its King, and Moses as the representative of divine authority on earth. Tlie Christian dis- pensation is a Christocracy with Christ as the Prophet, Priest and King, the sole earthly exponent and embodiment of divine authority. The law came by Moses ; but grace and truth by Jesus Christ. The supremacy of Christ as the authorized teacher and ruler of the Christian age was predicted by Moses himself. (Acts 3: 22, 23.) In demonstrating the superior excel- lency of the Christian religion in comparison with Judaism, Paul's central and most telling point was the incomparable superiority of its lawgiver and founder to that of the old economy. (Heb. 1 : 1-13 ; 3 : 1-6.) On the mount of transfigu- ration when Jehovah said from the shining cloud, ^'■This is my 138 TEE PROORESS OF REVELATION. heloved son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him," Moses and Elijah, the great lawgiver and prophet of the old dispensa- tion, formally abdicated the throne of legislation and instruc- tion, casting their crowns of authority at the Savior's feet. Henceforth Christ alone is to be heard. The final transfer of supreme authority and power to Jesus the Christ is on the eve of his exaltation to the right hand of the Father in the prelude to the great commission, the basis of that sublime document, and the foundation of the Christian society : "all authority is GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH.'' Surely We CanUOt regard this difference between the two economies as other than of vital importance. II. A New Priesthood. The writer of the Hebrews declares that with a change of the priesthood, there is of necessity a change of the law. (Heb. 7: 12.) If there is a new priesthood and a new law under the reign of Christ, the old Pedobaptist fiction of the identity of the covenants is not only ridiculous, but as these items comprise all that is vitally necessary to a new covenant, is incomprehensibly stupid. The father of the family was the ofiiciating priest under the Patriarchal dispensation. The sons of Levi discharged the priestly function under the reign of Mosaism. Both off'ered the blood of animals and dis- charged their functions temporarily. But Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest of our confession, who hath an unchangeable priesthood, and avIio by his own blood has made one effectual offering for sin. The new priesthood being fundamentally differ- ent from the old, necessitating a change in the law, the basis of the covenant, it is beyond the range of possibility that the two should be identical, or that the church of Christ should have any actual existence prior to the advent of Christ and the begin- ning of his priestly ofiice. His priesthood did not begin till after his return to heaven, and the acceptance of the offered blood by the eternal Father (Heb. 8 : 4, 11, 14), which was the inaugural act in the High Priesthood of Jesus and the crowning- qualification for the headship of the church which was estab- THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 139 lished immediately afterwards on the Pentecost that followed the ascension. III. New Mediator. A mediator is one who stands between parties at variance for the purpose of effecting a recon- ciliation ; he is hence an interpreter, a reconciler, an internun- cio, an intercessor. " In all the ages and in all parts of the world," says Calmet, "there has constantly prevailed such a sense of the infinite holiness of the Supreme Deity, with so deep a conviction of the imperfections of human nature and the guilt of man, as to deter worshipers from coming directly into the presence of a Being so awful ; and recourse has, therefore, been had to mediators. Among the Sabians, the celestial intelli- gences were constituted mediators ; among other idolaters, their various idols ; and this notion still prevails in Hindostan and elsewhere. Sacrifices were thought to be a kind of mediators, and in short there has been a universal feeling, a sentiment never forgotten of the necessity of an interpreter or mediator between God and man," Under the old covenant the office of mediator was filled primarily by Moses. (Ex. 20: 19-21,24; Gral. 3: 19, 20). After him it appears the high priest discharged the duties of mediator, standing as he did, between God and the people, especially on the day of atonement. (Lev. 24). But under the new and better covenant there is but one mediator, between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 2 : 5). " But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is (present tense,) the mediator of a better cove- nant which hath been (past tense) enacted upon better prom- ises." (Heb. 8: 6). This mediator stands as a guarantee on the part of God that he will graciously fulfill his promises (ch. 7 : 22) and on behalf of man he appears before God not only to plead his cause, but also to make expiation for our sins by the offering of his precious blood. This is another difference suffi- ciently radical of itself to sweep away the false and pernicious assumption that the old imperfect covenant is identical with the new and better one. 140 THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. IV. A New Foundation. The distinctive and peculiar proposition of the Christian religion is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the living God, the Messiah of the prophets, and the promised seed of Abraham. On this funda- mental fact the Christian Church and the new covenant are founded. The church of Christ could never have had existence but for the pre-existence of this proposition as an accomplished reality. " Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16 : 18). " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3: 11). But the Abrahamic covenant, consummated on its natural side in the organization at Sinai, was based on the temporal and fleshly promises made to Abraham in the covenants of circumcision and that of the land inheritance. Has any man the hardihood to affirm that the Sinaic covenant, or any of the preceding developments on the same line, were based on the proposition of the incarnation that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Christed Son of the living Grod ? Surely not. Is there not, then, a wide and irrecon cilable difference between an institution based upon that sub- lime proposition and one founded upon a catenation of temporal and national promises to the fleshly seed of Abraham, incor- porated in a mixed constitution of religion and politics ? If not, there are no two things in the world of which an important difference could be predicated. V. New Subjects. In the eighth chapter of Hebrews, Paul with great clearness points out the peculiar points of distinction between the subjects of the two covenants. The characteristics and provisions of this new covenant are not only radically dif- ferent from the old, but are such as necessarily to exclude infants, the unregenerate, and all irresponsible persons from its membership. 1. Its subjects were to have the divine laws put into their minds, and written in their hearts (v. 10). This is not true of the former covenant, for it contained unconscious infants who THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 141 were incapable of comprehending the law, and bad men who rejected and disregarded its moral provisions, and hence did not have it written in the heart and conscience. 2. The members of this covenant will not find it necessary to teach their neighbors and brethren to know the Lord, for all who are subjects of it shall know him from the least to the greatest, (v. 10). God-knowledge is the first condition of admission to the blessings of this dispensation. But there were infants and irresponsible persons in the old economies who did not know the Lord and had to be taught. They are, therefore, eifectually excluded by this second provision from membership in the new institution. 3. Of the subjects of this new covenant it is said : " I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." (v. 12). But the subjects of the old covenant had their sins remembered every year, and these were not finally and plenarily forgiven, till Christ died on the cross, besides infants and those who were not morally responsible, of which the Abrahamic and Sinaic covenants were full, had no unrighteousness to be merciful to and no iniquities to be forgiven. The covenant of circumcision was in the flesh ; that at Mount Sinai was inscribed on tables of stone ; that from Mount Zion on the fleshly tables of the heart. The members of the new covenant were the subjects of a second birth purely spiritual in its character ; this sine qua non of membership in the church of Christ was never made a qualification for admis- sion to the privileges of any covenant under former dispensa- tions. The only true condition was a birth of flesh in the nat- ural line of Abraham's seed. Here is a passage that cuts up root and branch of the whole Pedobaptist theory of the identity of the dispensations and their representative covenants, if there were nothing else in the Bible on the subject : " He came unto his own and they that were his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become chil- dren of God, even to them that believed on his name, who were 142 THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man ; but of God." VI. New Terms of Membeeship. The conditions of mem- bership to the old covenant were to be born in Abraham's house or be bought with his money (Gen. 17: 12, 13). The basis of membership under all the forms of these ancient covenants was absolutely and purely flesh and blood. Neither faith, nor obe- dience, nor piety was required as a condition of entrance. Spirituality was an accident and not essential to membership in these elder dispensations. On the contrary, the Savior said to Nicodemus, a distinguished member of the old flesh and blood covenant : "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." A birth of water and Spirit, the renovation of the spiritual nature, the purification of the heart and immer- sion into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as an act of obedience to divioe authority, were the conditions on which membership in the church of Christ was to be enjoyed. Taking proselytes and the natural descendants of Abraham together, the only conditions that ever gave membership to the Abra- hamic and Mosaic covenants were : (1) Flesh. (2) Property. (3) Circumcision. The terms of induction into the new cove- nant, the church of Christ, the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, are : (a) Faith, (b) Repentance, (c) Baptism. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16). " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2: 38). "And as many as gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." (Acts 2 : 41). " Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18 : 8). These distinctions touch the most vital questions of salvation and the divine life that follows. Vn. A New Name, a New Life, and a New Destestt. The new creation in Christ, the kingdom of heaven, which was an original conception with Jesus, a unique institution of which the world had had no previous intimation, with its new king, THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 143 new priesthood, new mediatorship, new creed, new subjects, new conditions of membership and new spiritual forces had conferred upon it new and appropriate designations adequately descriptive of its characteristics, while the three R's of the divine plan. Ruin by Sin, Redemption in Christ and Regeneration by the Holy Spirit imparted a new life to the believer with its natural consummation of a better hope and a brighter destiny. The church of Christ, the Christian Dispensation, therefore, is a new institution ; its fellowship is a new fellowship ; its proclamation is a new proclamation ; its spiritual facts and forces are a new manifestation of the truth ; it is the new and living way differ- ing widely from the old, which in its outward forms stood, in meats and drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them till the time of reformation. BESULTS OF IGNORING A CHANGE OF DISPENSATIONS. The tap-root of much of the false theology and many of the unscriptural practices of sectarianism, its misconception of the plan of salvation, and the illogical and discordant methods of interpretation that characterize its most popular forms, is the persistent confounding of the dispensations. The evangelical theologian and preacher of the average type recognizes no dis- tinction between the functions of the two Testaments, acknowl- edges no changes in the divine constitutions and covenants as they run through the ages, knows but one organized religion in all time, but one age, one authority, and one platform of revela- tion ; he regards the promises to the patriarchs, the institutions of Mosaism, the imprecations of the psalms, the positive precepts of the Old Testament and the preparatory instructions of the law and the prophets, as equally authoritative and equally binding on the Christian with the teachings of the new and better covenant under Christ and the Apostles. If he is called upon to give direction to sinners inquiring the way of salvation, he is as apt to answer them from Habakkuk or the 144 TEE PROOBESS OF REVELATION. Song of Solomon, from Leviticus or the book of Ecclesiastes as from the inspired book of conversions under Christ, the Acts of Apostles ! Under such ignorance of the Bible and its dispensa- tional land-marks, so obvious to men Vv'ho have learned to rightly divide the word of truth, the sacred volume becomes an incoherent jumble of fragmentary texts to be disported like balls and hammered by exegetical bats and tossed about by preachers in whatsoever direction their sectarian prejudice and theological bias may dispose them to aim, under whose manipu- lation the books of Chronicles are as likely to become the field for Christian instruction and edification in the duties and privi- leges conferred by the gospel as the Apostolic epistles written expressly for the purpose. The Roman Catholic and the ritualistic high churchman, and all of the advocates of the ceremonial and sacramentarian con- ceptions of religion, in blissful ignorance of the abrogation of the old dispensation, go back to the Old Testament and an effete Judaism for their priest-craft, for the caste spirit of officialism that creates the hateful and anti-Christian distinction between the clergy and the laity. They go back for their scenic worship, ritualistic flummery, priestly exclusiveness in the control of religious affairs, and for the substitution of a hollow externalism in place of the spiritual religion of the New Testament. The priestly conception of the ministry is distinctively Judaic and pagan, and therefore anti-Christian. It displaces the true spiritual ministry of the church with the caste spirit of paganism masquerading in the forms and under the sanctions of Judaism and the Old Testament, and worst of all it entirely destroys the beautiful New Testament doctrine of universal Christian priesthood, in which every disciple of the Lord is a consecrated priest to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (Rev. 1 : 5, 6 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 5-9). Priestism and sacramentarianism are the products of Judaism, and spring from that conception of religion on which its worst abuses were THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 145 founded. Pharisaism, with its love of externals and its disre- gard of the spiritual and the vital in religion, is the ripened fruit of priest-craft. The chief mistake of the Judaizers of Paul's time, who gave him so much trouble, was their belief that Christianity was not a new spiritual creation in Christ, but only an inspired supplement to Judaism, an appendix, simply, to the Old Testament revelation through Moses and the prophets. They found circumcision in both of the old dispensations ; it was sanctioned by divine authority and confirmed by the inspired history of both economies, and they insisted on its incorporation in Christianity, not only as a condition of salva- tion to the Jews, but to the Gentiles also. There was an irrepressible conflict between the new gospel of faith and the old gospel of legalism on this question, between those who believed the kingdom of God to consist of external rites and ceremonies, and those who maintained its essential elements to consist in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The coffin of Judaism was the cradle of Christianit}^, but the cerements of the old Jewish corpse hung around the body of the infant gospel till the natural growth of the latter rendered it no longer possible for it to be holden of the elements of death. Paul's greatest work for humanity lay in his successful resis- tance to the Judaization of the gospel. The great Apostle was the God-commissioned and God-equipped agent, raised up at a critical juncture in the history of the church, the man and the moment coming together as they always do in great providen- tial movements, to force the shackles of a Judaizing bondage and to deliver the truth from its Jewish entanglements, that it might be handed down to future generations unimpaired and unincumbered with dead forms and arbitrary limitations, as Christ himself gave it to the world. Paul's work is not yet done, for the modern Judaizer, igno- rant like his spiritual ancestors of a change of dispensations, is still getting in his work. The union of church and State, the abomination that has made desolate the holy place since the 10 146 THE PROORESS OF REVELATION. supposed conversion of Constantine the Great, is the work of a carnalizing and Judaizing element in whose conception the church of Christ Avas modeled after the politico-religious com- monwealth of the old Jewish theocracy with its mixed national membership of good, bad and indifferent. Judaism had both a political and a moral constitution between whose provisions there was no distinction, and hence all who were born in the State were entitled to membership in the church. A Christian Church constructed on this model opens the Hood gates of car- nality, wipes out the line of demarkation between the church and the world, destroys the spiritual character and basis of its fellowship, puts the dagger to the heart of the New Testament doctrine of an exclusively regenerated and sanctified church membership under the dispensation of the Spirit, and puts the world back thirty-five hundred years in the development of the scheme of redemption. The evil fruits of this monstrous dogma are seen in the State churchism of Europe for the last thousand years, and its religious condition to-day. The Bible cannot be correctly interpreted and its religion rightly understood with such ignorance of the divine movements in history, and the changes that have taken place of necessity in the growth of the ages. Infant rantism, the visible bond between the church and the State where that nefarious and carnalizing union exists, and a meaningless ceremony where it does not, is another inference of the Judaizing logician of Protestantism. The evangelical Judaizer, while eschewing the Romish efibrt to establish an ofiicial priesthood on the basis of Leviticism and sacraraenta- rianism from the old Scriptures, goes back with the Romanist and the Ritualist and the State church advocate, and obtains his infant baptism from Abraham and Moses and the carnal cove- nants of the past. In strictness of speech he goes back to the Old Testament for his infants, and when he has found them comes rejoicing into the New in search of baptism and the church. As the pestiferous Judaizers of Paul's time obtained THE PE OGRESS OF REVELATION. U7 their circumcision from one dispensation and found their Gen- tiles in another and attempted by a smart coicp de main to bring them together in the Christian Church in order to the salvation of both, especially the former — they were more anxious to save circumcision than they were the Gentiles — so the rantizer of infants finding his babes in the carnal and temporal family and national institutions of Abraham and Moses and the ordinance of baptism in the Christian age, endeavors by one of the most inglorious sophisms ever perpetrated on any subject^ to bring them together in the church of Christ. These fundamental errors of Romanism and Protestantism, priest-craft, ritualism, sacramentarianism, legalism. State churchism and infant bap- tism, will never cease to blast the spirituality of the church, to carnalize the kingdom of God, and to make the Bible an unin- telligible book, till the distinctions I have insisted on are clearly perceived, and the newness of the gospel in many of its facts, forces and conditions is more generally understood. No greater service has been performed for the whole of Christendom during this century than the work of our reformatory movement, in pointing out and emphasizing these dispensational difierences in the progress of revelation, as absolutely necessary to a cor- rect interpretation of the Bible and the religion which it teaches. In doing this we have not ignored the claims of the Okl Testa- ment or disparaged its value. Enough has already been said to show our belief in the Old Testament as an inspired book, filled with illustrious examples of faith and piety and heroic devotion to truth and righteousness. The fact is cheerfully acknowledged that types and symbols and great spiritual developments furnish a large amount of pro- phetic and confirmatory evidence of the truth of the New Testa- ment. Its ordinances and positive institutions, however, and much of its historical teachings, are not authoritative under Christ or binding on the Christian. They sprang out of the con- ditions and circumstances of their own age, and ceased to be with its abrogation. The New Testament is pre-eminently the book 148 THE PBOGBESS OF EEYELATION. of authority and guidance under the Christian dispensation, because it contains the constitution and revelation of the New Age. It contains the last will and testament of our Lord Jesus Christ on the question of human redemption, the history of the incarnation, the record of the atonement, the proofs of the resurrection, the ministrations of the Holy Spirit, and the work of the Apostles in building the Christian Church and providing for instruction in all things that pertain unto life and godliness, and is hence the source of religious knowledge, the infallible, spiritual directory, and the only rule of faith and practice for all men from Christ to the millennium. "When the peculiar functions of the Testaments in their relations to each other, and to the Christian world, are thoroughly understood, the Judaizing errors indicated will pass away and both the science of Biblical interpretation and the way of salvation will become so plain that a wayfaring man though he be a simpleton need not err therein. Isaiah Boone Grubbs was the seventh son of John T. Grubbs, Avho mar- ried Susan 1). rurrington, both of whom were of Louisa county, Va. They came to Kentucky about the year liSol, and the subject of this slictch was born May 'M, IHoo, near Trenton, Todd county, but was reared in Christian county, near IIopiiiping him some hundred yards away. JNluch bruised, but receiving no internal injury, he soon recovered sulliciently to return to his home, and in a few W(;eks resume his work. Receiving a call from the Floyd and Chestnut Street Church in Louisville, he commenced there a successful ministry Jan- uary, 187.'), which he prosecuted for three years, when by the urgent request of the former etlitors of the Apostolic Times he agreed to take editorial ciiarge of that paper. I{euio\ ing to Lexington, he commenced that important work in the beginning of l87ti, and associated with hiuiselt the lamented S. A. Kelley and F. G. Allen. These labors he continued about eighteen months, and in the summer of 1877 was elected professor of Sacred Literature ami Homiletics in the College of the Bible, in which important position he has now labored for fourteen years. Prof. Grubbs is of delicate health, but in addition to all the labor men- tioned in the foregoing, he has contributed many able articles to our jjcriodical literature, and has an established reputation as a clear and forcible writer. I. IJ. GKUBBS. THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. PROF. I. B. GRUBBS. FUNDAMENTAL IDEA IN JUSTIFICATION. WHO shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies ; who is he that shall condemn ? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea, rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes interces- sion for us." Rom. 8 : 33, 34. In the form of interrogation it is emphatically denied that any one can successfully bring a charge against the elect of God, can pronounce sentence of condemnation upon them, since it is God himself who justifies them on the ground that Christ by his death, his resurrection and intercession, secures their justification. To be justified, therefore, is to stand without accusation before God and thus be recognized and treated as righteous or just. In whatever conceivable way that state may be reached in which the voice of legal condemna- tion, which is the direct opposite of justification, cannot be heard, the result is justification in its fundamental import. He who, as an angel, could stand before God without accusation on the ground of sinless conformity to his law, would be justified or recognized as righteous on a ground vastly different from that on which one stands without charge as accepted in Christ and " through the redemption " provided in him. Accordingly there are two ways conceivable in which this righteousness may be sought. Only one of these is open to sinful or imperfect beings, while the other alone is applicable to the sinless or morally per- fect. It has been many centuries since Job significantly asked, "How should man be just with God ?" and all these intervening (149) 150 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. ages have not disclosed the possiblity of his standing without accusation in the presence of his Maker on the ground of per- sonal worth, inherent goodness, legalistic morality. On the contrary, " we know what the law saith it saith to those that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world be convicted of guilt before God. Therefore by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3: 19, 20. If the dis- covery of sin thus precludes the possibility of legal justification, the only ground of this method of appearing before God without accusation is absolute moral perfection, sinless conformity to all the requirements of God's moral law. Instead of extending the blessing of justification to the morally imperfect, the law thun- ders its curse in the dreadful sentence : " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things that are written in the law to do them." Embodying thus its essence and its spirit in this dis- couraging formula, it offers no hope to the penitent ungodly, presents no prospect of peace with God to the awakened sinner. Hence says Paul of himself, " I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came sin lived and I died. For sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived me, and by it slew me." What a fatal mistake, then, for any human being to seek justification by the works of the law ! For the law knows no works as a fulfillment of its high demands, save the elements of a life morally perfect. This was precisely the mis- take of Paul's legalistic opponents as brought to view in Romans and Galatians, who, "being ignorant of God's righteous- ness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, had not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God." BEABINGS OF LEGAL JUSTIFICATION. The whole remedial system, the economy of the New Cove- nant, is at once set aside as an impertinence if man could appear before God without accusation on the ground of his per- JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 151 sonal goodness, the moral excellence of developed manhood. "If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Gal. 3: 21. And what tlien would logically follow ? " If righteousness come by the law, then Christ has died in vain." Gal. 2 : 21. Hence the doctrine of the Jewish legalist, which is essentially that also of the modern Unitarian, Socinian and moralist, renders needless the death of Christ and "frustrates the grace of God." Is it any wonder that Paul should combat it with all the energy of his ardent nature ? Never did any one believe more implicitly in the absolute necessity of our Savior's death for the redemption of mankind, and of our imperative need of the rich provisions of grace in him, than did this noble apostle. Hear his own sub- lime description of his deep and abiding trust in this sustain- ing source of his peace and joy : "I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheless I live. Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me ; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." We see no leaning here upon spiritualized manhood, to say nothing of a supposititious merit of moral excellence or personal good- ness. " Christ liveth in me," says this earnest apostle, but Christ as one " who loved me and gave himself for me." It is a crucified and risen Christ on which his faith lays hold, and not merely a beautiful life set before him for pious imitation. The formation of a Christ-like character is all important, but it can never constitute a meritorious ground of human hope. " We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto the called, whether Jews or Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Christ, therefore, and Christ, not as the embodiment of moral beauty, but as an atoning sufferer and a risen Redeemer, was with Paul the sole "power of God" for the justification and eter- nal life of erring men. Now there is no room for this "power of God" for man's salvation in the legal method of justification. It involves a 152 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. complete repudiation of the Messiah and his redemptive work. For " if righteousness can come by the law, then Christ has died in vain." If man can be justified on the ground of legal- istic morality and excellence of personal goodness, then all Messianic services and claims may with safety be ignored. It is thus perfectly clear that the erroneous theory of justification which Paul so vigorously and so successfully assailed was by no means superficial, but vitally touched the very foundations of the Christian religion and would overturn the whole remedial economy. It was not a mistake as to the mere conditionality of justification, but a radical error touching the very ground itself on which is made possible the justification of men. Instead of finding this ground in Christ it would lead us to seek for it in man himself. Under its baleful guidance men under- take " to establish their own righteousness " and thus utterly fail to "submit themselves unto the righteousness of God." THE METHOD OF FAITH. Over against the tremendously false system just described the apostle Paul sets forth in bold and striking contrast the true method of justification, the only possible way in which man can stand without accusation before God and thus be accepted and recognized as righteous. Hear him : " By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight ; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the proph- ets ; even the righteousness of God by faith unto all those who believe. For there is no difference ; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified as a gift* by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God : to declare at this *The best rendering of dorean. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 153 time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus." With great propriety, indeed, did Olshausen pronounce this wonderful passage "the citadel of the Christian faith." It sets forth the real ground, the only foun- dation of the spiritual hopes of humanity. It contains the apos- tle's positive and formal exposition of that " righteousness of God " which he had previously emphasized as the reason why the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes." How much is embraced in the believing here referred to remains as yet to be seen. We notice at present two import- ant features in this "righteousness of God," which is asserted to be "unto all who believe," namely, the universality as to its offer of grace, and the conditionality as to its actual bestow- ment. The reason given why the offer is " unto all " is that " there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." In other words all stand in need of divine mercy as all are involved in the guilt of individual transgres- sion. Hence the only way to justification is the one imme- diately pointed out by the apostle: "Being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Thus justification comes "as a gift," and not as a debt due to moral and legalistic claims ; it comes "by grace," and not by meritorious works of the law ; it comes "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," and not through the moral excellence of man himself. BEABINGS OF THIS METHOD. "Where is boasting then ? It is excluded. On what princi- ple ? of works ? Nay, but on the principle of faith." If men must rely, not on their personal goodness, but on the grace of God in Christ, must trustingly look to the redemptive work of the Son of God as the sole ground of justification, all occasion for boasting is at once swept away in the expulsion of all spirit- ual pride and all sense of self-righteousness. This trusting reli- 154 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. ance on " the redemption that is in Christ Jesus " is the faith of which the apostle speaks as in contrast with the delusive dependence of legalistic moralists on their own supposed per- sonal fitness for divine approbation. The faith method of justi- fication, therefore, shows the ground of this blessing to be alto- gether objective, as "in Christ," and in no measure subjective, as in man himself. Faith itself, being an act or state of the human soul, cannot be regarded as entering into the ground of a righteous acceptance with God, but as belonging only to the conditionality of this blessing. That external acts of faith truly manifesting reliance on the grace of God in Christ, trust- ful acts in which men "submit themselves unto the righteousness of God," may likewise enter into the conditionality of gospel blessings and form elements of the faith method of justification, will be clearly shown hereafter. On this point we merely advert at present to the erroneous supposition of many that man's inner religious states possess a value in the sight of God quite superior to outward spiritual activity. The latter, indeed, is of necessity but a reflex of all that is found in the former. What we would now emphasize, however, is the thought that in neither of these departments of religious experience is the ground of jus- tification to be sought, for our inner spiritual states are just as much ours, just as human in their nature, as our outward acts of real obedience. No, it is not toward man at all, whether his inner or his outer religious life be considered, but to Jesus the Christ, that the eye must be directed when seeking the ground of our hope. Hence the important conclusion to which Paul was led (Rom. 8: 1-2) by his own irresistible logic : " There is, therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." It is clear from the connection of the two verses that the freedom or deliverance here referred to, is not the internal or subjective deliverance from the dominion of sin, the importance of which in its own place cannot well be over-esti- JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 155 mated, but the objective, judicial deliverance from " the curse of the law," deliverance from the legal "condemnation" to which all who are not "in Christ" stand constantly exposed." And the spiritual law of life, Hebraistically called " the law of the Spirit of life," by which this deliverance is secured, and which is here located "in Christ" had previously been described by the apostle (3: 24) as " the redemption that is in Christ Jesus " — the redemptive source of life which is found alone in him. ■ Now as the redemption which is in Christ is twice iden- tified with the remission of sins (Eph. 1: 7 and Col. 1: 14) and as we are "justified by grace through the redemption which is in Christ," it is clear that justification of believers is through the forgiveness of sins. Hence Paul quotes David (Rom. 4: 7, 8) as describing the blessing of justificarion in the following lan- guage : "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered ; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." To enter into Christ, therefore, is to become justified, and this through the remission of sins. How vastly different is this Pauline conception from the Augustiniau conceit which has so largely influenced the Christian world, that justification by faith is an infusion of righteousness into the human soul by the power of " irresistible grace ! " THE TWO METHODS IN CONTRAST. From the development of our subject thus far in the light of Paul's great argument, the utter impossibility of combining the method of justification which he combats with that which he upholds is perfectly obvious. The two stand over against each other in mutual exclusiveness, as thoroughly inharmonious and absolutely irreconcilable. As one cannot be sinless and sinful at the same time, morally perfect and yet ungodly ; so one can- not be justified on legal grounds and yet through faith in Jesus Christ. Compliance with the laws of grace, with the precepts of the gospel, may stand connected with the gracious system of 156 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. justification through Christ, but a justification on the basis of law, bringing a merited reward as due to moral or legal claims, excludes, of necessity, all dependence on Christ and the need of redemption through him. Nor can any blessing come to us as the gift of God, and yet be the payment of a debt due to meri- torious service or deserving works. A mere glance at the fol- lowing tabular view of striking antitheses, brought out in Paul's discussion of this subject, will show us the perfect contrast between the two systems, while a thoughtful and patient study of all the antithetical points presented will bring to light and expose the many mistakes made by disputants in their applica- tions of the apostle's expressions and sentiments. As the argu- ment is found mainly in the epistle to the Romans, reference to that book will be indicated only by chapter and verse, while reference to other epistles will be fully made : JUSTIFICATION. By Works of Law is 1. Meritorious (4:4) as of 2. The sinless (Gal. 3:10) Hence is 1. Withoat pardon (3:20), 2. Without grace (4:4), 3. Without Christ (Gal. 3 :21) , 4. Without faith (4:14), 5. Without the obedience of faith (4:14), Resulting in 1. Occasion for boasting (4:2), 2. Reward as a debt (4:4), By Faith in Christ, is 1. Gratuitous (3:24) as of 2. The sinful (4:5). Hence is 1. Through pardon (4 :6-8) . 2. By grace (3:24). 3. Through Christ (3 :24) . 4. By faith (3:28). 5. Through the obedience of faith (4:12). Resulting in 1. Exclusion of boasting (3:27). 2. Rewai'd as a gift (Eph. 2:8). With the eye resting upon this collection of antitheses, by which the true nature and comprehensiveness of the gospel sys- JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 157 tern of justification can be clearly seen in the thorough contrast with the opposite scheme, we may easily detect and render apparent the erroneous conceptions to which allusion has been made. It will be seen at once that it is not by the acquisition of power through the gospel to reach perfection of personal holi- ness, and thus satisfy the demands of the divine law as " holy, just and good " that we are justified by faith. He who imag- ines that through the aids of grace he has reached this state, may find himself rebuked by the apostle John in the following passage : "If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We may not hope to attain personal perfec- tion under the gospel any more than under the law. And if this could be done, and should be the basis on which men are justified, it would appear at last that the ground of justification is not "in Christ'" but in the believer himself. How very far, therefore, from the true conception of justification by faith are the following statements of Olshausen, who represents herein quite a large class of theologians : " That which is new in the gospel does not consist in a more excellent system of morality, but in this, that the gospel opens a new source of strength by means of which true morality is attainable." No, that which is new in the gospel is neither " a more excellent system of morality," nor yet the opening of a " new source of strength " for attaining " true morality," but " the redemption which is in Christ Jesus " for the cancellation of transgressions and sins. Once more from Olshausen : " The realization of absolute perfection is the highest end of man's existence ; the law could not eflect this any further than the bringing forth of an outward legality, but by regeneration an inward condition is through grace, produced in believers, 'the righteousness of God,' which answers the highest requirements." " That work which was objectively accomplished on the cross, is thus subjectively applied to the individual believer, that germ 158 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. of the new man which exists in Christ is grafted into and born in the old man. This act of transfer is, therefore, a mysterious occurrence in the depths of the soul, a new creation, which none can effect by his own powers, a pure gift of the Spirit who breatheth where he listeth." How utterly foreign all this is to the conception of Paul is perfectly obvious from the tabular view presented above. He never dreamed of resolving justification by faith into " a myste- rious occurrence in the depths of the soul," grounded on " an inward condition produced in believers through grace " and con- sisting of an incomprehensible "transfer" of a moral or spirit- ual "germ" from Christ to the believer for an impossible "real- ization of absolute perfection!" How different the language and the ideas of the apostle, "Being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Yes, in Christ himself "in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." With equal clearness our tabulated antithetical points, as gathered from the apostle's grand argument on justification evince the folly of representing any act of obedience springing from faith in Christ as belonging to the legalistic system. Nothing but sheer thoughtlessness or inexcusable ignorance touching the simple elements of the subject so clearly developed by the apostle, could lead to such an error. Grace has its laws to be obeyed, the gospel requires submission to its command- ments, yet these are not only compatible with faith in Christ Jesus, but manifest, indeed, the believer's confiding trust in him ; whereas, "if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void and the promise of no effect." The law-system and the faith-system cannot be made to mingle their elements. In the thoroughness of the absolute and inextinguishable contrast between them, their irreconcilable antagonism appears. It is not possible for God himself to justify any one without pardon, without grace, without Christ, without faith in Christ, without "the obedience of faith," and at the same time justify him JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 159 through pardon, by grace, through Christ, by faith, through "the obedience of faith." And here let it be carefully noted, that in the great epistle whose object is to prove that man is "justified by faith apart from the works of the law" the apostle twice emphasizes the importance of the "obedience of faith" as the object of the gospel, for which there can be no room what- ever in any system that makes faith itself void. Hear him in the following beautiful passage with which he concludes the epistle : "Now to him that is of power to establish you accord- ing to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest and by the Scriptures of the prophets according to the commandment of the everlast- ing God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith ; to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever." Now that this "obedience of faith," this obedient surrender to the requirements of the gospel as springing from faith in Jesus Christ, was contemplated by the apostle as entering into the faith-method of justification, is evident from his statement in Rom. 4: 9-12: "We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it reckoned ? When he was in cir- cumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of those who believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be reckoned to them also : and the father of the circum- cised in the case of those who are not only of the circumcision, but also walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, while in uncircumcision." Paul therefore teaches that the blessing of justification comes upon those who walk by faith in a loving, trustful submission to the divine will, after the exam- ple of Abraham. For what saith the Scripture? "Abraham, Abraham, lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything to him ; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing 160 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. . . By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thy only son, that in blessing I will bless thee and in multiplying I will multiply thee as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore ; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed ray voice." So, also : By faith Xoah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, pre- pared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." And so likewise, "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying upon (epi) his gifts." And thus we see that a blessing which is conditioned on the obedience which springs from faith is Scripturally represented as conditioned on faith itself, and this from the necessity of the case, for whatever is suspended on an outward manifestation of faith, is thereby suspended on the faith thus manifested. And why should not faith in the form of visible action into which it carries its spiritual qualities, whatever they may be, faith as bodying forth the believer's implicit trust in the saving mercy of God, and, by consequence, a complete renunciation of all self- righteousness, be, at least, of equal value with itself, as a prin- ciple hi lden in the depths of the soul ? Why should the inner sense of dependence on God be in his sight of more value than the impressive embodiment of this reliance on him, in a practi- cal submission to his will? Behold that flower in the bud! Wliat is it ? A rose. See it now again, it is full-blown. What is it now ? A rose still ; nay, rather, a rose in its perfection. Even so, faith, when budding in the heart, is surely faith ; and when blossoming in the life, and bringing forth the fruit of obe- dience to Jesus, is it not faith still ? Yes, as James would assure us, it is " faith made perfect " in its fruitful manifesta- tions. In the further development of this interesting and important JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 161 part of the subject, the writer may perhaps be excused for tran- scribing what he has elsewhere said, with as great clearness as he could now possibly exhibit. I quote as follows : Tbe spiritual value of faith itself, be this what it may, attaches of necessity, to all actions springing from faith. The stream is, in quality, as the fountain whence it issues ; the branches, leaves and fruit, as the tree on which they grow. Paul was never so unwise as to suppose any incompatibility between fa'th and what he calls "the obedience of faith." For in every act produced by faith in Christ, the believer is really looking to him and reposing upon him as the ground of all hope and the source of all life. It is in this and this only, that either faith or 'the obedience of faith" has any real worth as constantly fixing the eye of the soul upon Jesus. But he who relies on legalistic morality for justification looks not toward Calvary, but in another direction, and thus practically repudi- ates Christ himself, and, of course, all personal need of faith and grace. Hence, the apostle says : "If they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void and the promise of no eflfect." Not so, however, does he reason respecting obedience to Christ as springing from faith in him. He "svho "in obeying the truth" is leaning on Jesus for blessing, does not declare faith needless, nor turn away from its great object, but rather from every system of self-righteousness and delusive reliance on human goodness. So thought Paul, or he would not have represented in this argument righteousness as imputed to those "who walk in the Steps of that faith which Abraham had while in uncircum- cision." While, therefore, neither faith nor deeds of faith can constitute the ground of justification, any more than legal works, yet the blessing of God may be conditioned as much on obedient acts produced by faith as on the act of believing itself without any detriment whatever to the remedial system. The public confession of Christ's name (Matt. 10: 32) and "the bap- tism of repentance for remission of sins" (Mark 1: 4; Acts 2: 38 11 1G2 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITB. and 22: 16) are not legalistic pretensions to merit but simple ele- ments of the economy of grace divinely approved. Surely, the need of forgiveness is the need of grace, and he who seeks it by being "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6: 3; Gal. 3: 27) is not looking to himself, but to Jesus, not "going about to establish his own righteousness," but looking for salvation on the feasible condi- tion of trust in his Redeemer. PAUL AND JAMES. In the light of the thorough-going contrast between legal justification and justification by faith, as exhibited in our tabu- lar view of the antitheses involved in Paul's discussion of this subject, we may not only see the perfect harmony of this apos- tle's teaching with that of James, but are prepared to rightly estimate the following statement of Baur who, with the dog- matic confidence characteristic of German critics, asserts an irreconcilable discrepancy between the two apostles : "The main doctrinal position of the epistle of James, 'By works a man is justified and not by faith only,' 2: 14, is the direct opposite of the Pauline doctrine as it is stated in Rom. 8: 28, in the proposition, 'a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.' It cannot be denied that between these two doctrines there exists an essential difference, a direct contradic- tion. It may be urged that James says no more than 'not by faith only,' that he refers justification not exclusively to works, but partly, at least, to faith also. But the Pauline proposition, on the other hand, distinctly excludes works and refers justifi- cation to that very faith of which James says that without works it is nothing, forms no element of the religious life at all. Those works, then, which Paul altogether repudiates, are with James the ground of justification ; and that faith which with James has no religious value whatever apart from works, is with Paul the principle of justification." Now, nothing but an inexcusable disregard of what each JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 163 apostle has said as descriptive of the "works" of which he speaks, can account for the grossly false assertion that "those works which Paul altogether repudiates are with James the ground of justification !" And we do not wonder that a critic who is capa- ble of such misrepresentation should dogmatically declare on the basis of his own perversion of apostolic teaching, that "it cannot be denied that between these two doctrines there exists an essential difference, a direct contradiction!" What he here positively says "cannot be denied," cannot only be denied but demonstrabl}'" shown to be false. What does Paul say of the works which he repudiates, while showing that by legal works shall no one be justified ? Listen: "If they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void and the promise of no effect." What does James say of the works which he inculcates while contending that "a man is justified by works and not by faith only?" Listen: "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac, his son, upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.''^ Whenever, therefore, it can be shown that the works by which "faith is made void," are identical with those by which "faith is made perfect," then, and not till then, can an apology be found for Baur's reckless statement that "those works which Paul altogether repudiates, are with James the ground of justification." The apostle James never dreamed of legal works as constituting "the ground of justification" which would "frustrate the grace of Grod" and render abortive the death of his Son. Gal. 2: 21. And the apostle Paul never claimed justification for one who believes apart from "the work of faith," but for such as would "walk in the steps of the faitli of Abraham." Eom. 4: 12. When James said: "He that look- eth into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing," he had in view a system in which there is no room whatever for legal works as "the ground of justification," with its impossible requisite of sinless perfec- 1G4 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. tion in the personal excellence of the justified. And when Paul repudiated the legal basis of justification, he had in mind a sys- tem in which there is no room whatever for faith in Christ or obedience to him, or for Christ himself, as any ground of our hope ! It is thus as clear as sunlight that "those works which Paul altogether r^^pudiates," and the works which James demands belong respectively to two incompatible systems whose elements cannot by any means be associated. But Baur, whose attention was directed by certain observa- tions of Neander to the kind of works referred to by James as actions connected with faith, endeavors to justify his criticism as follows : "If we are to regard these remarks as actually shedding light on the subject, the chief point in them must be this, that the works of James are different from those of Paul, that he means such works as proceed from faith, and are the fruits of faith." Exactly so. James does mean just "such works as proceed from faith and are the fruits of faith." "But Paul does not distinguish two kinds of works," continues Baur, "he says broadly that it is impossible to be justified by them. This must apply to those that proceed from faith as well as oth- ers ; for if they proceed from faith then faith is there already, and with faith justification ; so that they cannot have been the means of justification. Kern was thus perfectly justified in asserting that the difference between Paul and James is one of principle and cannot be got rid of." This only shows how far this critic falls short of grasping the true import of Paul's argument on justification. The apos- tle does distinguish two kinds of works which differ from each other so radically that they cannot belong to the same system — differ, indeed, so essentially as to mutually exclude each other. He so describes the works which he repudiates as to distinguish them from the whole economy of faith, from the entire system of grace, and, by consequence, from all working required by this system. If it be true, as the apostle teaches, that "faith is made void" through justification by the works which he repudiates. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 1G5 then, of necessity, is the "work of faith" for which he commends the Thessalonians equally made void by that method, and for that very reason, among others, he uncompromisingly opposes the legalistic system. Thus the "work of faith" is not only dis- tinguished by him from works of law, but shown to be so radi- cally different that they cannot co-exist, cannot possibly enter into the same method of justification. As by the legal system faith in Christ is absolutely set aside, it follows that all relig- ious action springing from faith in him, is thereby also excluded. There may be, and there must be an observance of God's moral law as to the main tenor of life in order even to jus- tification by faith through grace, for grace will not bestow justification upon those who persist in immorality. Yet this relative keeping of the law, which is both positive and impera- tive, can only be regarded as a condition and by no means as the ground of our justification. "Were the law itself to justify, it could only do so, not on the condition of a mere relative observance of its requirement, but on the ground of a faultless fulfillment. Its maxim is, "Cursed is every one that continues not in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them." Such a keeping of the divine law, were it possible to man, would truly be the ground, and not a mere condition of justification, and as such would, as we have seen, "frustrate the grace of God," and render needless "the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." Clearly, then, when James asserts that " a man is justified by works and not by faith only," he is not to be construed as insisting that any works, even those that spring from faith, can be regarded as the meritorious ground of justification, but merely that this blessing is graciously conditioned on the "work of faith" as well as on faith itself, on the former, indeed, as the manifestation of faith's perfection. And when Paul insists that "by faith a man is justified apart from works of law," he makes no opposition to " the obedience of faith " which he regards as belonging to the gracious system of justification, 1G6 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. since lie holds that in order to receive this blessing one must "walk in the steps of the faith which Abraham had." With neither apostle does either faith or the "work of faith" enter into the ground of justification, while with each of them, both faith and the "work of faith" stand on an equal footing as the gracious condition of this blessing. Neither of them ascribes to faith a virtue or etRcacy which is denied to "the obedience of faith." There is no ground wliatever in the teaching of either for the following position of Baur : "When James puts justifi- cation by works in the place of the Pauline justification by faith, he ascribes to works that absolute value which faith has with Paul. The reason why Paul denied justification to works was that there was nothing absolute about them, and that they could only stand in an inadequate relation to justification. Now, what does James do but vindicate for works that absolute character which, according to Paul, they cannot possibly have ? They could not have this absolute character except in virtue of their unity with faith, and thus the absoluteness of works would not belong to works, but to faith." Now to suppose that Paul conditioned justification on faith and denied it to works because of an alleged "absolute value" possessed by the former and not by the latter, and to say that James sought to "vindicate for works that absolute character which, according to Paul, they cannot possibly have," is to show again an utter failure to enter into the meaning of either apostle. Has any one ever been able to show that the act of believing possesses an "absolute value" that does not belong to other human acts ? Can faith sustain " an adequate relation to justification" any more than those acts of obedience which are produced by faith and by which, as James informs us, faith itself is "made perfect? " It is this very conceit of a special virtue or efllcacy inherent in faith itself and supposed to be foreign to the practical manifestations of faith that has beclouded this whole subject in the speculations of men. No, " the reason why Paul denied justification to works" and JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 167 insisted on a coming to Christ through faith was not because of any "absolute value" either in this faith in Christ or this coming to him, but because of man's imperfection and the consequent impossibility of his justification on a legal basis which demands nothing less than absolute moral perfection. He must come to Christ for the redemption that is in him, and not rely on any supposed " absolute value " in any act of his own, whether inward or outward. Can any one find perfection in our inner religious states any more than in our external acts of obedience? Faith is emphasized by the Scriptures, not because of standing in opposition to outward religious action, but because it leads through submission "to the righteousness of God" to the only fountain of salvation for men. And neither with James nor with any other sacred writer are " those works which Paul alto- gether repudiates," nor any other works whatever, "the ground of justification." Christ and Christ only is that ground, and all that we can do in believing on his name and in submitting to his will is but the gracious condition of our acceptance. Let us conclude with devout and profound thanksgiving that beings so sinful and weak as we are can find a way through "the exceeding riches of grace" in Christ Jesus to stand without accusation in the presence of God. REPENTANCE— ITS NATURE, CONDITIONS AND NECESSITY. H. w. eat:rest, a. m., ll. d. This subject is to be studied in the light of the Holy Scrip- tures and in harmony with mental and moral science. What any man thinks, what any council may have decreed, or any formula of doctrine may declare, is of little worth compared with the inspired word. We listen reverently to the voice which came from the excellent glory, "This is my beloved son ; hear ye him;" we bow to him who said, "All authority in heaven and in earth is given unto me ;" and to those on the seal of whose apos- tleship is inscribed the legend, "Whosoever heareth you hear- eth me.'' So long as the Savior's declaration shall remain on record, "Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish," we cannot over- estimate the importance of this subject. From the want of thor- ough teaching in this regard, much "hay, wood and stubble" are built into the temple of God, instead of the "gold, silver and precious stones." The workman shall suffer loss ; and if saved, yet it shall be "so as by fire." The writer would state at the outset that he has been a preacher and a professor in the churches and colleges of the Christian brotherhood for more than thirty years, has been a constant reader of its books and periodicals, and that the fol- lowing views on the subject of repentance are in full accord with whatever he has heard or read as coming from the Chris- tian Church. I. THE NATURE OF BEPENTANCE. 1. This may be learned, to some extent, from the meaning (168) n. w. j:vi;::k.st. Harvkt "\V. Everest was born at Xorth ITudson, Essex county, New York, May lU, 1S;51. iSegiiuiing his education in the public sciiools ot liis native village, he afterwartls attended, in succession, Geauga yeniinary, Ohio; tlie AV'estcrn lleserve Eclectic Institute, Hiram, Ohio; Bethany College, W. Va., and Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. He is tridy a " teacher born." At sixteen he taught a common school near North Hudson, and, since reaching nuxnhood, lias spent the larger part of his lite in the school-room. "While a student at Hiram he served as tutor in the Eclectic Institute, and immediately after his graduation from Oberlin, became priut-ipal of the Institute, retaining the position until It'iiiJ, when he resigned to accept the presidency of Eureka College, at Eureka, 111. Leaving Eureka in 1S72, he became pastor of the Christian Chui'ch at Springliekl, 111. In l.'^ri he accepted a professorship in Kciducky University at Lexington, remaining there two years. Then, after serving as pastor of the church at Normal, 111., for one year, he became, in 1S77, a second time, president of I^ureka College. In the spring of l)SSl Jie accepted the presi- dency of Butler University at Indianapolis, Ind., and served there till 18.S(j, when he Avent to AVicliita, Kans., to undertake as Chancellor the responsible and laborious work of organizing Uartield University. Since June, lis'JU, at which time the University, after a three years' career of unprecedented suc- cess, was forced to sus])end in consecjucnce of a failure in the financial man- ageaicnt, he has ser\ ed as pastor of the church at Hutchinson, Kans. It is but half praise to say that Pres. Everest has filled these posts of honor and responsibility, one and all, with distinguished fidelity and success, winning a reputation second to none, for the accuracy, breadth and solidity of his scholarship; for his polish, skill, and power as a teacher, lecturer and preacher; for the ability and wisdom Avith Avhich he lias administered the complex and perplexing affairs of the A'arious executive offices Avhich he has tilled; and crowning all, e\ cry where antl always, for his noble, manly bear- ing, and his iinsellish, consecrated Christian character. Pres. Everest stands in the front rank among us, not only as scholar and teacher, but as preacher, lecturer and Avriter. As a Avriter, especially in late years, he has been a frc(|uent contributor to our various magazines and papers, his articles everywhere and always commanding the dcci)est interest for the ease, simplicity, and elegance of tlieir literary style, and the freshness, wealth and practical Aalue of their thought. We may justly characterize hini as a Avriter by saying that he Avrites always so that the " common peo- ple" may understand him, and ne\er Avrites Avithout the distinct purpose before him of saying something that Avill be of practical bcneilt to his readers. He has published but one book — " The Divine Hemonstration — A Text-Book of Christian Evidence" — Avhich Avas issuetl from the press of the Christian Publishing Company in 1.S.S4, Avhile he Avas president of Butler University. This book Avas at once adopted and remains as a text-book in most, if not in all, of our own Bible schools, and, we notice, has recently been adopted by Center College, Danville, Ky., one of the leading Presbyterian colleges in the United States. BEPENTANCE. 169 of the word. "Worcester defines the verb repeiit as follows : "1. To feel pain or sorrow on account of something one has done or left undone ; to feel remorse ; to be penitent ; to be sorry. 2. To have such sorrow for sin as leads to amendment of life." He gives to the noun repentance a corresponding significance. This twofold meaning of the English word arises partly from the fact that it is made to do double service by representing two very different Greek words, metamelomai and metanoeo, the one cor- responding to the first definition, the other to the second. Metamelomai occurs in seven passages of the Greek New Testament. It properly expresses an after care or concern. It expresses sufiering rather than action, the dissatisfaction and regret which agitate the soul when a past course of conduct is seen not to have been the best. It may denote a change of action as resulting from this regret, but not a change produced by a radical moral transformation. An examination of the pas- sages where the word is found will confirm this definition. " A man had two sons ; and he came to the first and said, Son, go work to-day in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented hiiAself, and went." Matt. 21: 28. Here was regret with a change of action, but no change of moral character. "The Lord sware and will not repent himself, Thou art a priest forever." Heb. 7: 21. "For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance." Rom. 11: 29. The meaning evidently is that God will never regret and recall his appointments. "Then Judas, who had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood." Matt. 27: 3. Here there was regret but no amendment of life. In this sense Esau "found no place for repentance ;" that is, he found no way to cause his father, Isaac, to repent, or to regret the blessing he had pronounced upon Jacob, and to change his action. God is said to have repented, or to have suited his dealings to the changing course of man. That he may be 170 EEPENTANCE. unchanging in his moral character, he changes his providential dealings with men. This Greek word is not found in the imper- ative mood in the Christian Scriptures. "God never commanded any person to repent in the style of Judas, of whom it is said he repented and afterward hanged himself." Tliis word is never found in connection with faith, and is never enjoined as a condi- tion of salvation. The other Greek word, metanoeo, corresponds more nearly to the second definition, though not precisely. It means such a change of purpose as leads to a moral reformation of life. This is the word employed when repentance is commanded, or made a condition of salvation. These two Greek words are sharply contrasted in the revised translation of 2 Cor. 7 : 8, 9 : "For though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it, though I did regret it ; for I see that that epistle made you sorry, though but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance." 2. The nature of Repentance is further seen in the fact that it is commanded of God. It is not something to be known, nor something to be felt, but something to be done. The intellect and the sensibilities are not free. They are changed by causes brought to bear by self, or some other being. Repentance is a moral act, a virtuous act, and hence is an act of the will making a radical choice between right and wrong. 3. Repentance is an act of the soul which takes place between "godly sorrow," on one side, and the "fruits meet for repentance," on the other. "For godly sorrow worketh repent- ance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret, but the sorrow of the world worketh death." 2 Cor. 7: 10. Com- pare this passage with two others : "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them. Ye ofl'spring of vij)ers, who hath warned you to liee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance." Matt. 3: 7, 8. "Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I REPENTANCE. 171 was not disobedient to the heavenly vision ; but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Ju lea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance." Acts 26:19,20. Here "godly sorrow'' is the antecedent, and "fruits worthy" is the consequent of repentance. The order of spiritual experience is first sorrow, then repentance, then turn- ing to God, and then fruits worthy of repentance. Now, what is that act of the soul of which godly sorrow is a necessary con- dition aud an overt turning to God with an amendment of life a sure result ? Is it not that radical change of moral pur- pose implied in an honest renunciation of all sin and a full sur- render of heart and life to God ? And this is repentance. 4. The parable of the Prodigal Son furnishes an illustration on the human plane. The departure into a far country, the ruinous living, the wicked associates, and the want of true friends, brought him into extreme sulfering. As the wretched boy sat or walked among the swine, he had time to think. How often, in thought, he must have revisited the old home where there was "bread enough and to spare," and where he had been blessed with a mother's love and a father's protection ; how often he must have traced his downward career; and how intense must have been his self-disgust and remorse. Long and doubtful must have been the soul-struggle between his wicked heart and his conscience, between his pride and his sense of duty. But when, at length, he said "I perish with hunger" and saw himself, in the near future, dead and torn to pieces by the swine, "he came to himself." He saw there was no need that he should destroy himself and bring his father's gray hairs with sorrow to the grave. He left the sleeping swine and, under the shadows of that first night of moral sanity, made a long journey homeward. Now, when did he repent ? His remembrance of better days and his sorrow were only preparatory to it. When he started home, he had already repented and every homeward step was an added proof that his repentance was genuine. Was 172 REPENTANCE. it not when he changed his purpose, when he said "I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him. Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight : I am no more worthy to be called thy son : make me as one of thy hired servants ?" Then it was that he arose and came unto his father, and then it was that he repented. An illustrative and definitive example, on the plane of divine teaching, will be found in the case of the Pentecostians. First of all, they were powerfully convicted of sin in crucifying Jesus, in crucifying their Messiah — and how terrible a sin was that ! They had heard the sound of the Holy Spirit's coming like the sound of a rushing mighty wind ; they had seen the tongues of seeming fire hovering over the heads of the apostles ; they had heard those Galilean fishermen speaking in all the languages of the gathered multitude ; they had heard and weighed Peter's proof that God had made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ — the fulfillment of prophecy, the character and miracles of Jesus, the testimony of the apostles to the fact of his resurrec- tion, and the miracles transpiring before them ; and as a result they were "pierced to the heart" with a sense of deep guilt, and in anguish of soul they cried out, "Brethren, what shall we do ?" The apostles commanded them to repent, commanded them not to know or to feel something, but to do something. It was something they could do, and could do at once. After doing this they were to be baptized. This repentance, therefore, must have been a radical change of purpose in regard to Christ ; such a change as led to an open confession of his name, to baptism, and to the Christian life, 5, The nature of Repentance is further shown by some things which it always implies. (1) It is, of necessity, the moral act of the one who repents. No one can repent for another. Job could ofler sacrifices for his sons, lest they had committed some wrong, but praying fathers and mothers cannot repent for their wayward children. God cannot repent for us, nor give us repentance in any absolute REPENTANCE. 173 sense, nor compel us to repent. How often would Christ have gathered the people of Jerusalem under His protection, but they "would not." God can turn the search-light of His truth upon our way and warn us of our danger ; He can bring to bear great and soul-stirring motives ; He can command and plead and wait ; but He cannot compel, for repentance must, in its very nature, be the soul's own deliberate choice. The man who is waiting for some power from without to change his purpose, for some great tidal- wave of religious excitement to lift and bear him into the kingdom of Christ, despite his own lack of choice and co-operation, will wait in vain. (2) Repentance must be in the present tense ; "To-day, if you will hear his voice ; " " now is the accepted time," is the language of heaven. This method of making the ' emand is as rational as it is scriptural. To make up one's mind that he will, in some future time, repent, is not repentance. What is this but a determination to continue in sin still other days and years? Such a resolution is an indication of deep seated impenitence, since it asserts the moral obligation, but refuses obedience. It has been said that the way to perdition is "paved with good resolutions." This is not true. Good resolu- tions do not lead away from God, and a resolution to repent at a more convenient season, but not now, is not a good resolution. If heaven should consent to any postponement of repentance, it would become accessary to a sinful life. As soon as the duty of repentance is fully recognized by the sinner, God does and must demand immediate and unconditional submission. (3) Again, it implies a knowledge of the nature and demerit of sin ; its folly, its malignity, its defiance of God, and of its soul-destroying power. It involves an abhorrence of all sin, not merely the sin of Adam, the sins of man as a race, or the sins of the heathen, but the soul's own personal sins ; a recognition of personal guilt before God, and the necessity of repentance. The repentant soul acknowledges the justice of the divine law and its own condemnation by it ; it puts itself in the wrong and 174 BEPENTANCE. God in the right, and utters the prayer of the publican, "God "be merciful to me, a sinner." (4) It implies, still further, the renunciation of all sin. The renunciation of one sin is the renunciation of all sin. There can be no mental reservation, no " darling sins " not given up. It would be but an insult to heaven to make out a catalogue of sins and say, "These I loathe and renounce ; " and then make out another list and say, " These I cannot surrender ; these, my dishonesty, my covetousness, my impurity, my wicked ambi- tion, I love and will not forsake." (5) Of course, it implies the truest and purest moral honesty. To repent with a purpose to continue in sin, any sin, is impossi- ble. To repent with the idea that it is only the sham condition of forgiveness, and that so a life of continued sin and continued repentance may lead to heaven, is but wicked self-deception. To plan a life of sin and to intend that at the close of life a supple repentance shall cheat the Devil and open the gates of Paradise is, if possible, a still greater delusion. (6) Repentance being a decision made in the secret council- chamber of the moral nature, the fact of repentance can be absolutely known to only two beings, God, the searcher of all hearts, and the repentant soul. If we repent we are conscious of it and know it ; and God knows it. " What spirit knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of the man which is in him?" K a man who is well instructed as to what repentance is, says he repents, his testimony is to be received, unless there is evi- dence to the contrary. If he says he has turned about, and yet we see him going on in the same direction ; if there is reason to believe that he professes repentance on account of simple regret or " worldly sorrow," or that he does so in order to escape or mitigate the consequences of the discovery of his wrong-doing ; or if he gives evidence of continued impenitence ; then his actions are decisive rather than his words ; then we have to wait till the fruit shall demonstrate the character of the tree. The BEPENTANCE. 175 evidence of repentance, therefore, throws some light on its nature. 6. Repentance is a great revolution in moral character. It is the result of all that heaven has done for man's salvation, and it will be followed by all that the repentant man can do, with the help of Grod, to save himself. It is the enthronement of conscience and the bringing into subjection of all appetites, passions, and selfish desires. It is the soul's response to the supreme imperatives " Do right," and " Live benevolently because this is right." It is the re-adjustment of the will, and the bringing of it into harmony with nature, law, and God. It is the turning point in the soul's career, the death of the old man and the birth of the new, the transformation of a rebel into a loyal subject, the end of sinful wandering and the beginning of the homeward journey; the turning from the west where the night-shadows are gathering, to the east where the sun will soon arise with healing in his wings. It is the bringing of the soul into relation with all the sources of blessing ; the light of truth, the joy of divine love, the freedom of pardon, the full assurance of hope, and, at last. Heaven itself. It is a purpose " to fight the good fight of faith and to lay hold on eternal life." If such be the nature of repentance, is it any wonder that " God commands all men, everywhere, to repent, and that he is long-suffering, and not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance ? " //. THE CONDITION'S AXD CONSEQUENTS OF BEPENTANCE. 1. The first and fundamental condition is the ability to repent. If man has no ability to repent, it is as cruel as it is unjust and absurd to lay upon him such a command. If, with materialists and agnostics, we shall deny to him. all freedom, including moral freedom, maintaining that all a man does he is caused and made to do ; or, if we shall maintain that man is dead in trespasses and sins in such a sense that, without imme- 173 REPENTANCE. diate divine aid, be can " no more repent than he can make a world," and shall' therefore teach men to wait and pray for this extraordinary power, in either case we shall find no place for repentance in any proper sense. It seems strange that when we come to religion, men should be taught to lay aside their com- mon-sense; and that Christian theologians should unite to throw these stumbling-blocks of inability in the way of the sinner ; but so it has been, and still is in theory. (1) It is admitted that the activities of the mind may be classed into acts of knowing, feeling, and willing ; man there- fore has will, he chooses. The phrase, free-will, is tautological, for will, in its very nature, is free. The testimony of conscious- ness is decisive ; and this testimony is, not that we have the power to choose, nor that the will is free, but that we do choose. Now if we can choose between walking and not walking, eating and not eating, why can we not choose between stealing and not stealing, lying and not lying ? Why can we not choose between rio-ht and wrong? The statement that we are unable so to choose, is worth nothing in the face of the fact that we are con- stantly so doing. The belief that we have the power of moral choice is universal ; it underlies all civil laws and penalties ; it is the source of self-apf)roval and of remorse ; to deny it, is to make man a machine driven by forces to him irresistible ; to deny it, is to deny that there is any sin, or to make God the author of all sin. Besides, the same inability which would make it impossible for man to repent, would also make it impossible for him to sin, and so he would have no need of repentance. This idea of moral inability is absurd and, as a theological dogma, suicidal. (2) Neither psychology nor scripture interposes any obstacle to the full exercise of this power. A motive is a condition, not a cause, of choice ; it is only the reason in view of which the soul chooses. When a man becomes so depraved that he can- not exercise this moral power, then he ceases to be responsible. EEPENTANCE. 177 If all men are by nature thus depraved, then they never had the power to sin and need no repentance. It is true that the unconverted man is spoken of as being "dead in trespasses and in sins." "Let the dead bury their dead." Matt. 8: 22. "But God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through trespasses, quickened us together with Christ." Eph. 2: 5. "And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he quicken together with him." Col. 2 : 13. To interpret these passages to mean that one is so dead that he cannot hear, understand the gospel, and obey it, is to construe a figure of rhetoric as though it were a literal statement. "Awake, thou that sleepest and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee." Eph. 5: 14. This is a similar passage, and yet the death here is not absolute, and does not imply inability to hear the cry, to awake and arise from the dead. Jfor are we to understand the "quickening," or bringing to life, in these passages as necessarily performed without means ; the hearing of the gospel, the belief with the heart, and the repentance unto life. It is a divine work per- formed with divine instrumentalities ; and among these instru- mentalities, the soul's own voluntary renunciation of a sinful life may be found. Does the phrase "dead through our tres- passes" necessarily refer to a supposed total depravity or to a moral insensibility ? May it not refer to the soul's condemna- tion on account of sin, to its being death-doomed for this reason ? (3) Be this as it may, it is everywhere assumed in the Bible that man has the power to repent, and that he is responsible for his continued impenitence. It is commanded in many passages of which the following are examples : "Repent ye, for the king- dom is at hand." "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." "Repent ye, therefore, and turn again that your sins may be blotted out." "Repent of this thy wickedness." "But now he commandeth all men everywhere to repent." Impenitence is a 12 178 BEPENTAXCE. sin and is distinguished from moral insensibility. "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath against the day of wrath." Rom. 2: 5. It is a ground of condemnation: '"Repent, or ye shall all likewise perish." It is an act of submission which God cannot compel, but which he pleads and waits for with all long-suffering and compassion. President Charles G. Finney in his "Systematic Theolog}'-," ipage 509, has the following paragraph, which presents sound doctrine on this subject ; "To deny the ability of man to obey the commandments of God, is to represent God as a hard master, as requiring a natural impossibility of his creatures on pain of eternal damnation. This necessarily begets, in the mind that believes, hard thoughts of God. The intelligence cannot be sat- isfied with the justice of such a, requisition. In fact, so far as this error gets possession of the mind and gains assent, just so far it naturally and necessarily excuses itself for disobedience, or for not complying with the commandments of God." Indeed, one cannot imagine a better justification in the day of judg- ment than to be able to say truthfully, "Lord, thou didst com- mand me to repent, but I was unable to obey thee." 2. A second condition of repentance is the commission of sins to be repented of. The sins which are a condition of repentance must be our own, personal transgressions. We can- not repent for another ; we cannot repent of Adam's sins nor for the sins of the race. If Adam transmitted to us a depraved moral nature, we are sorry for it, but cannot repent of it. "Whatever is done without moral choice, that is, without choice between right and wrong, is neither virtue nor vice. A child, therefore, which has not yet come to years of accountability, a moral imbecile, and one morally insane, can neither sin nor repent. If man has no spontaneity or power of moral choice ; if he is compelled by environment, motives, or anything else, to make what he misnames a choice, then also repentance does not apply to him. If an angel had not sinned, it could not repent. Though it is said that Christ "can be touched with the feeling BEPENTANCE. 179 of our infirmities," and that "he was tempted in all points as we are," still it is added, "Yet without sin." There is one human experience he never had, and that is sin, guilt, sorrow, and repentance ; for he was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners and made higher than the heavens." 3. A third condition is the possession of the kind and the amount of knowledge and faith which are requisite as tlu- ground of each act of repentance. Repentance is not a blind feeling or impulsive act. It implies knowledge, faith, thought, perhaps a mental struggle, and the turning of the will, with the whole nature as a consequence, toward God. It requires that the soul shall be intelligent and luminous with moral truth. To know one's errors and to turn from them ; to know that the life is drifting away from God, and with one supreme and decisive effort to change its direction and fix its eternal orbit, this is undoubtedly the highest spiritual achievement of which man is capable ; surely such an act requires light and deliberation. (1) It requires a knowledge of sin in general and of personal sins in particular. One must know something of the nature of sin, and must recognize his own sins, before his repentance can be deep and genuine ; I do not say he must know all about sin, for eternity alone can develop the malignity of its real nature. He must see how it mars and pollutes his own soul ; fostering corrupt desirp, hardening the heart, blinding the judgment, benumbing the conscience, blackening with guilt, and filling it with unholy memories and all the agonies of remorse ; agonies which may become unspeakably intense in the light of eternity. He m.ust see how his life of sin injures and destroys his brother- man, leading him, by example, into deeper guilt, and at last down to perdition. Oh, the horror of having blasted another immortal soul, brother, friend, dearer than life ! He must see what sin is as related to God ; how it defies his authority, tram- ples on his love, and compels the pouring out of his wrath ; must see it as the only thing that mars God's universe, the only thing that God hates. 180 BEPENTANCE. And not only the nature of sin ; lie needs to recognize the num- ber, the heinousness, and the aggravation, of his sins ; how every- day and hour has increased the long, dark catalogue, and how these sins have been committed in the light of Christian knowl- edge, and against the holiest impulses of his nature ; how they have been committed despite the thunders of Sinai and the pleadings of Calvary ; and that these sins are the return he has made for the multiplied blessings and mercies of the Heavenly Father. This self-knowledge is exceedingly difficult of attainment. It is unwelcome and painful. This knowledge tortures the soul, and we fain would be ignorant of it. Hence the memory comes reluctantly to its work and the past is imperfectly recalled. The law of God is obscured or misinterpreted, and the moral judgment weakened and biased. Weak excuses are formed and the guilty soul seeks to hide itself behind a "refuge of lies." There is need that the sinner shall be made to see himself in the light of God's word "which is quick and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit and joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart ;" there is need that the preacher shall not "daub with untempered mortar," but that he shall do substantial work, and that he shall expose and lay open the wounds that sin has made. He must not flatter and bolster up the sinner in his sins, but lovingly and faithfully tell the truth about it, the unwelcome, but the saving truth. Here the preacher often fails, so that the profession of faith in Christ and repentance is made without a quiver, without a tear, or a prayer for mercy. There is need that the church shall manifest its deep solicitude by its prayers, its repentings, and its heart- prompted efforts to bring men to Christ. It is needed that the sinner shall have time to think on these things ; that his atten- tion shall be secured, the world of business and pleasure be made to stand back, and that the duty of repentance shall be pressed home on his conscience. The providence of God oiten REPENTANCE. 181 co-operates with these efforts. Bereavement may cause a long- ing to join the dear companion who is now a saint walking in the light of heaven ; or the heart may yearn for the sweet child that is now in the arms of Jesus. A long and dangerous illness may give time for thought, may quicken the conscience, may make the world withdraw, and may enable us to see ourselves in the fore-gleams of the judgment day. Or, it may be an incidental matter which arouses attention and causes us to see ourselves as we are ; the remark of a child, a holy memory coming from childhood's days, a warning given by some departing soul. The abject con- dition and pleading of the detected and arrested criminal, carried the officer who made the arrest forward to the time when the hand of God's justice would rest on his shoulder and call him to give account of his stewardship, and the result was the officer's conversion. This work of bringing the soul to a knowl- edge of itself as sinful and guilty before God, is often, in the Bible, attributed to the Holy Spirit. What the Spirit does by these various agencies — the inspired word, the efforts of God's people who possess His Spirit and divine providence, it does itself; and so it continues to convict the world of sin. The use of these agencies seems to give a full measure of meaning to those scriptures which attribute this work to the Holy Spirit, and affords no encouragement to expect, or wait for, an abstract, immediate, and miraculous influence of the Spirit in order to repentance. If there is ever given such influence, it is a power that man cannot wield, and which heaven will be prompt to apply. Repentance presupposes faith in Christ as well as a knowl- edge of sin. Of course repentance can extend no farther than knowledge does. The Jew could exercise repentance toward God, and in this sense the prophets and John the Baptist called the people to repentance. A heathen man can repent of a sinful life, though he may know nothing of the true God nor of Christ. But in the full and gospel sense of repentance, faith in Christ as 182 REPENTANCE. one who offers mercy, is required. "Thus it is written and thus it behooved the Christ to sulfer and to rise from the dead the third day that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusa- salem." Luke 24: 47. What it was necessary to preach in order to repentance and remission, it was also necessary to believe. Faith in Jesus furnishes the knowledge and the chief motives which lead men to repentance. What we want is "repentance unto life," and this we could not have without Jesus as a Savior. It would do little good to preach repentance, if it could not avail anything. In the apostolic preaching, there is, first of all, an effort to supply knowledge and faith as the ground of repent- ance, and these are recognized as existing before repentance is commanded. To this last statement there is an apparent exception, but it is only apparent. "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1: 15, This was an exhortation of John the Baptist, who was preparing the way for Christ. He demanded repentance toward God, without regard to Christ ; and tliis repentance was pre- ceded by their knowledge of sin and their faith in God. This repentance would prepare them to accept Jesus when his claims should be presented and so would be an aid to faith in Him. It is, indeed, generally true, that if men would repent of their sins according to the faith and knowledge they have, it would be easy for them to believe in Christ. Repentance must be as progressive as faith and knowledge are. If the latter increase, then the former must have a wider sphere. With every revelation of our sins to us, there must be a corresponding act of repent- ance; an enlarged repentance is founded on enlarged knowl- edge and faith. In the light of the foregoing it is plain how it is that God gives or grants repentance ; as in the following passages : "Him did God exalt at his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins." Acts 5 : 31. "To the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life." REPENTANCE. 18:3 Acts 11: 18. "If peradventure God may give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth." 2 Tim. 2: 25. When God gives the faith and tlie knowledge which are a necessary condi- tion, and when he makes it possible that repentance and remis- sion of sins should be preached in the name of Christ, then he gives repentance. This is the only sense in which God could give or grant what the soul itself must do, for repentance must be our own act. . 4. The act of repentance will be followed by certain conse- quents, by fruits worthy thereof : (1) There will be a full acknowledgment and confession of sin ; to man, so far as the sin has been against him ; and to God, in whose sight and against whose law, all sin is committed. (2) There will be a prayer, a cry, unto God for mercy. It will be impossible for sin to be seen in its true nature, without deep feeling and earnest prayer for pardon, (3) An experience of unusual peace and joy in this change of purpose will pervade the soul. The conflict is ended and conscience is triumphant. The soul now approves itself, it has turned towards the light, it is adjusted to the law of right and benevolence. The voice of condemnation is no longer heard, the clouds of divine judgment have passed over, and on their awful front is reflected the bow of promise. This end of the war, this surrender of the will, this peace and joy, are often taken for the evidences of pardon, and of the change of heart, the regeneration or the conversion that is required. Now this change of feeling is no proof of pardon. It is an evidence of that state of mind which caused these feelings, an evidence and an efiect of repentance ; while repentance itself is only a part of the evidences of pardon, since it is only a part of the change con- templated in conversion, and only one of the conditions on which pardon is assured. (4) Restitution, so far as possible, will be made. A repent- ance which does not lead to this is shallow and ignorant of what it implies. The slanderer will recall his false words, the 184 REPENTANCE. dishonest man will give up his fraudulent gains, and the repent- ant one will now try to lead to Christ those whom he had before led astray. (5) There will be, at once, an earnest desire and effort to obey all the requirements of the gospel and to keep the soul in subjection to the law of God. (6) These necessary consequences are the means by which the repentant man himself and the world also may know that he has repented. If a man says he repents we have to take his word for it, unless he gives evidences to the contrary. He may himself be deceived. A man, supposed to be dying, may pro- fess repentance, but his subsequent course may show that he did not repent. Often in dealing with men who have frequently deceived us, and in administering the discipline of the church, we liave to await the fruits of repentance as the only reliable proof of the fact. A member of the church commits an infa- mous wrong ; he is discovered and convicted ; but he goes imme- diately before the church and confesses his sin ; the brethren at once forgive him, under the mistaken notion that this must be done at once, and his church relations are undisturbed. Now, in this case there was no repentance, as the subsequent life gave proof, and the church was greatly injured by this settlement of the matter. Evidently the church was not bound to accept his mere profession of repentance, without greater evidence that it was genuine. THE NECESSITY OF REPENTANCE. If necessity can be truthfully affirmed of anything, it can be of repentance. In the gradation of law from lower to higher, through chemical, biological, mental and moral law, the law of duty is the highest genus. Conscience furnishes the supreme imperative. What we ought to do, we must do. For erring and sinful man, repentance is a necessity in a still larger sense ; since it lays the foundation of all right moral action. REPENTANCE. 185 1. For one who is conscious of sin, repentance is the first duty ; it is the only thing that can be rightfully done. Shall he approve and defend the wrong ? Shall he persist and continue to walk in the path to death ? How long shall he continue to press the poison dagger into his bosom ? How long shall he wait after feeling the deadly cobra's fangs before he applies the remedy ? How long shall he stand where the quivering thun- derbolt is ready to fall ? There is but one manly and honorable thing to do, and that is to confess and renounce the sin. Not to do so is to continue in guilt and rebellion. The only thing to do is to drop the hot coals at once ; is to turn at once, nor dare to take another step toward the precipice of death ; is to flee from the serpent already coiling for another blow. And yet, how slow we are to do this ! How often the soul seems stupe- fied, charmed by the glittering fascinations of sin ! Appetite and passion rise against such a course ; pride in a false consist- ency forbids it ; it is humiliating to acknowledge our weakness and guilt, and our stubborn wills refuse to yield. Not to repent is an exaggeration of unreason and folly ; not to repent is the mystery of moral stupidity, the mystery of sin's power to harden the conscience and destroy the soul. 2. The necessity of repentance is evident from the fact that God "commands all men, everywhere, to repent." There is but one thing to do with a command of God, and that is to obey it. It is not to be neglected, trifled with, nor disobeyed. The uni- versality of this command shows its importance. It is empha- sized by a threefold promulgation : in the moral intuitions of the soul, in the penalties visited on wrong doing, and in the holy scriptures. It is a command which all men recognize, and which is enforced by the voice of conscience, a voice more potent and persistent than the thunderings of Sinai. 3. Again, the necessity of repentance is seen in that it is made a part of the gospel proclamation which was to be preached unto every creature, and a condition of pardon and admission into the kingdom. In no dispensation has Heaven 186 EEPENTANCE. ever pardoned and accepted the impenitent. The sacrifices of the impenitent were an abomination to God. The want of peni- tence vitiates every religious institution and service. To such, the word of God was, "Who hath required this at your hands ?" "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? God is as able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones," as from you without repentance. "Thus it is written and thus it behooved the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead that repent- ance and remission of sins might be preached to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." None question the teaching that repentance has a place in the Great Commission, and that it is a condition precedent to the remission of sins and of present and eternal salvation. The apostles, in the first, full gospel sermon, commanded those Avho believed and asked what they should do to be saved, "to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins," and in order to the gift of the Holy Spirit. In order to the knowledge of remission, repentance was just as necessary as baptism, but not any more so ; for they are both comprised in the same command, and made the conditions of the same prom- ises. Under Solomon's porch, Peter said, "Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out and that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord," a command in perfect har- mony with that first given. The gosjDel nowhere promises par- don to the impenitent, and it is distinctly implied that the Holy Spirit will not and cannot dwell in such a soul. Nor can there be any doubt about the order of gospel com- mands. Faith in God, faith in Christ, is a condition of repen- tance unto life ; nor can one truly confess Jesus and be baptized into him without it. Baptism must have in it all that God has has put into it — faith, penitence, confession, prayer and obedi- ence— or it is not haptism, but an empty form, which God has not required. The necessity of repentance is evident when it is seen that any service ofiered to God, in impenitence, must be offensive to Him. If in stating the conditions of salvation, repentance is some- REPENTANCE. 187 times omitted, it is distinctly implied. " He that believetli and is baptized shall be saved" said Jesus; but repentance is implied both in true faith and true baptism. The jailer of Philippi was commanded to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but his repentance was evidenced in his obedience the same hour of the night. The commands of the gospel were always suited to the spiritual condition in which the sinner was found. Was he found in unbelief? the command was to believe. Was he found in belief but impenitence ? the command was to repent. Was he a believing penitent but unbaptized ? the command was to arise and be baptized. 4. The deep necessity of repentance is shown in the fact that salvation, without it, is impossible. This is so because repentance and the new life which follows are an essential part of this salvation. We are to be saved, not in sin, but from sin, from the love of it, its practice, its guilt, its power. This salva- tion implies two things — a change in man and a change in God. The first comprises all that is meant by conversion, and the second all that is meant by pardon, or the remission of sins. Conversion is the turning of the whole man toward God, the intellect, the sensibilities, and the will ; and besides these spir- itual changes conversion includes the outward changes also, as manifested in confession, baptism and the new life. Hence, if there is no repentance, there is no salvation. The soul is still " in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." It is still sinning, guilty, and under the condemnation of Heaven. A man is not saved from death by fire, if he is still sinking amid the flames. While in a state of impenitence, assurance, peace, joy in God, hope, and the bliss of heaven, are utterly impossible. The sinning, guilty, and impenitent soul carries, shut up within itself, the flames of eternal sufiering. Hell must first be in the soul, before that soul can be cast into hell ; before that soul shall go to its own place, before it shall be left to itself. 5, Another reason why we should make haste to repent is 188 REPENTANCE. the fact tliat while we remain in sin we are " treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath and the revelation of God's righteous judgments/' We are commanded to repent because God has appointed a day in which he will "judge the world in righteousness." On that awful day when we shall all stand before God, the wrath of God, manifest in burning worlds and flaming skies, will not be the only punishment ; for then the treasures of wrath, which we were storing up during days, and years, and lives, of unrepented sin, will be poured upon us. Then lost opportunities will return to torment us ; then broken vows and black curses will come back upon our own heads ; then memory will pass her horrid panorama before our tortured souls ; and then the imprecations of those whom we have tempted and lured to perdition will be showered, like fiery darts, upon us. Oh ! what treasures are these, and who would not fear to increase them ? 6. Repent or perish was the stern but loving expostulation of Jesus : " Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." To the drunkard nature says, " Repent or perish," and every year sixty thousand inebriates, in this country alone, verify the warning. " Repent or perish " cries wisdom to the tens of thousands who are spending their patrimony of health and life in ruinous living ; and from beds of pain where debauchery is torturing the body ; from prison cells where young men strive in vain to wrench off their chains ; and from the gallows-stage where the noosed rope dangles and youthful eyes look their last on earth and sky, this warning is repeated with startling emphasis. " Repent or perish," like a voice, from heaven, falls on the ear of one who would push his way into the far north, and is heard above the roar of the cataract by the one who is carelessly floating down Niagara's tide. But nature does not turn backward on its iron way ; still Niagara roars and death is rained from the frozen sky ; still alcohol poisons and maddens blood and brain ; and still lechery, with reeking hand, hurls the rotting soul and body into the grave. Are mental and moral BEPENTANGE. 189 laws less inexorable ? Can earth or heaven afford that they shall be less certain? Intuition, reason, and all human experi- ence catch up and roll onward the Savior's thunder-peal of warning, " Repent or perish,*' " Repent or perish ! " 7. This necessity is seen in the proffered mercy and entreaty of heaven. Think of the long ages of preparation before the Savior came ; of the long lines of patriarchs and prophets who suffered ; of the humiliation and agonies of the Son of God ; of the cross and the grave; of the martyr church and its testi- mony ; and all this " that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in his name among all nations." Think why heaven pleads with men : " Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die ? " how Jesus besought, " Come unto me, all ye who labor and are heavy-laden ; " how the Apostles plead, " We beseech you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God ; " and the last words of God to man, " The Spirit and the bride say. Come ; let him that heareth say, Come ; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." And would all this have been done, if repentance is not a necessity ? Would Heaven wait and entreat, if it could save us without our consent and co-operation ? 8. God having done in our behalf what he has, and genuine repentance being always followed by a new life, it is plain that repentance is the pivot on which the whole matter turns. If the sinner will repent it may all be well ; but if he will not, then eternal banishment from God must await him. On this point Heaven brings to bear all its influence, and to this effect are all the teachings, prayers, and entreaties of the church. It is over this matter of repentance, this submission of the will to the authority of God, that the battle rages most fiercely in the soul of the convicted sinner. When all has been done ; when Heaven has exhausted its means, and human hearts have poured out their sympathy and love and persuasion, then the soul must stand alone with God, then it must confront and decide its own destiny, eternal life or eternal death. 190 BEPENTANCE. 9. And yet even here, God makes a last and highest mani- festation of his love and desire to save, by declaring that a rejection of Christ and a refusal to repent is the only sin that it will not and cannot forgive. A refusal to accept Jesus and to be forgiven cuts the soul off from all means of salvation ; " for there is no other name given under Heaven and among men whereby we must be saved." The unpardonable sin is the final refusal to be pardoned. John B. Briney was born in Nelson county, Ky., Feb. 11, 1839. He lived on tlie farm, and performed the usual work of a farmer's boy until lie was sixteen years of age, attending school at the country log scliool-liouse, wliere many an embryonic statesman, tlieologian and jurist has had his beyiuning. This particular schi)ol lasted only during the winter months, anil the subject of this sketch enjoyed its advantages for three winters. At the age of sixteen, when most boys of spirit think of doing soutetliing for them-elves, he apprenticed hiuiself to a builder to learn the carpenter trade. He served his apprenticeship of llu'ce years, receiving for tiie first year 8-><-', for the second .?-lU, and for the third $50. He was married Sept. 25, 18G1, to Miss Luciatla Halbert, of Nelson county, Ky., and entered Eminence College in that (State one year thereafter, taking a four years' course. He became pastor of the Eminence Church one year before leaving school, and served the congregation three years. From Eminence he went to Millersburg, where he labored two years, removing thence to Winchester, where he was located with the church four years. His next pastorate was Maysville, where he remained six years. His last pastorate in Kentucky was with the church at Covington, where he labored two and a half years. He Avas State Evangelist in Kentucky two years, and edited the Aijostolic Times two years, showing great strength as a writer. In January, 18«ij, he became pastor of the Linden Street Church, Mem- phis, Tcnn., where he labored with great acceptance until his resignation in July, 1888. During his residence in Memphis he conducted a Southern Department in the L'hristiun- Ecu injcli^t ^ Avhicli dealt, in a very vigorous way, with certain erroneous theories which had impeded the progress of our cause in the South. He removed to Springlield, 111., in July, 1888, where iie served as pastor in that capital city until January, 1891, when he resigned to accept a call from Tacoma, Washington, where it was expected lie would render valuable service in developing tiie interest of our cause in that young State. While preparing to go to liis western field of labor, he met with the unfortunate accident of Feb. od, in which his hip was fractured by a fall, and which frustrated all his plans. He is still at Si)ringtield, awaiting liis recov- ery, so far as this may be possible. He Jias held about fifteen oral delmtes and several newspaper discussions Avitli representative men. His brethren clierisii the hope that his accident, thougli it may cripple him for life, may not seriously interfere with his great usefulness in the cause of religi