r*;"

. 1-
¦¦ » *
. ' ''-'ii
¦ '-.'-A
¦'¦'*r."J ¦ **"
":--.V

¦ ¦¦''¦¦?
, . .- . . ii#«
¦ - - .* '--VI
"¦¦¦ a*

D

Gift of
Professor G-eorge Park Fisher
. 1907

PROTESTANTISM.
A- STUDY IN THE DIRECTION OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH
AND CHRISTIAN UNITY.

EDWARD P. USHER, A.M., LL.B.

Wliere ths spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
The truth shall make you free.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus carttas.

BOSTON:
LEE AND SHEPARD PUBLISHERS,
ID MILK STREET,
1S97.

Copyright, 1896,
By Edward P, Usher.

I DEDICATE THIS VOLUME
(So tttij SBtife,
BY REASON OF WHOSE INFLUENCE THE STUDIES WHICH HAVE RESULTED
IN ITS PREPARATION WERE BEGUN, AND WHOSE CONSTANT
SYMPATHY, APPRECIATION, AND ENCOURAGEMENT
HAVE, IN A LARGE DEGREE, INSPIRED
ME TO THE COMPLETION
OF MY TASK.

PREFACE,

This volume is an attempt to show that, under the consti
tution of the English Church and of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States, a member may still be permitted
to be a Christian of the earliest type, with the most simple
creed, without rightl}- being exposed to the danger of expulsion
from the Church as a heretic. I do not mean to say that a
person who held and expressed all the views contained in
this book could at this present time secure or retain a place
as a clergyman, or even live in entire peace and comfort as
a lay member; but what I do mean to say is, that, under the
constitution of the Church fairly and honestly interpreted,
such ought to be possible, and that sometime in the future
it will be.
The theory of the Church is one thing ; but the practice of
the Church is quite another thing. In theory it is inclusive,
while in practice it is exclusive. In theory it exists for all
of the poor, wretched, and degraded; in practice it often
exists as a mere religious club house for the rich. There
are millions of men who deny the truth of Christianity
because they identify it with what they see and hear in the
actual life of the Church. Now, it is a fact that what is
seen and heard in the churches has very little to do with
what Christianity really is. Men do not suspect that the
formularies of the Church all make for freedom when they

6 PRE FA CE.
see before them in practice actual clerical slavery. They do
not suspect that the constitution is democratic when they see
before them an ecclesiastical despotism. They do not suspect
the presence of eternal truth when they see before them so
much that is palpable error. They do not suspect the divine
element in the presence of so much that is merely human.
No candid man of sound mind will refuse his assent to
the claims of the Christian religion when it is placed before
him freed from the accretions of mediaeval times. Educated
thought in modern times has never repelled the genuine
Christianity, but has condemned the conventional statements
of it ingeniously constructed by the wit of men. These
statements have, in a very large measure, taken the place of
the simple truth, and are now so interwoven with social,
political, and financial interests as to furnish, perhaps, the
greatest obstacle in the way of the recognition of the truth
itself. The churches are filled with bitter partisans, who
often forget their allegiance to truth in their intense loyalty
to the Church which tends to overshadow that truth.
This book seeks to maintain these propositions : —
1st. That Christianity rightly understood is the final religion
of mankind ; that it is entitled to every man's loyal allegiance,
and makes for every man's present and future good.
2d. That Christianity has been perverted so that it exists
to-day in conventional forms, of which the various churches
are visible expressions ; that in most of these churches it is
hardly tolerated in its purity and simplicity, so far as actual
practice is concerned.
3d. That this perversion has been the result of selfishness.

PREFA CE. 7
prejudice, and ignorance, which are the three elements with
which Christianity comes into conflict. This conflict goes on
in the very churches themselves, so that they, in a large
measure, stand in the way of real Christianity, and retard
its progress.
4th. That the English Church, whatever its practice may
be, is so organized that, if its laws and formularies were lived
up to, Christianity in all its purity and simplicity would be
at least permissible without exposure to the pains and penal
ties of heresy. By reason of this fundamental breadth, she
covers, includes, and permits every form of Protestant
opinion and thought, ranging from the ritualist or externalist
at one extreme, whose ideas savor somewhat of Rome, to
the Unitarian at the other extreme. This is her sole title
to Catholicity. She has in her communion these various
schools of thought.
5th. That the English Church thus furnishes a nucleus for
the union of all the various Protestant churches. If all who
agreed with the views of this book were to enter that Church,
it would carry into it an army whose influence would soon
make practical a freedom that is now largely theoretical.
To the entrance of such persons there is no technical barrier.
Every such man who enters the Church adds to the force
of the Broad element, and renders more nearly possible a
real harmony between the theory of the Church and its
practice. It is the policy of ecclesiastics to exclude from
the Church all who do not favor their ecclesiastical preten
sions and add to their personal power, dignity, and profit.
My object is to induce those to join the Church who are

8 PREFA CE.
hostile to all ecclesiastical pretensions, believing that ecclesi-
asticism is the enemy of all true and pure religion. I look
not to what is, but forward to what will be when the Church
becomes in practice what it is in theory, — Christian. I grant
that the Church to-day is in its practice narrow, and domi
nated by social and ecclesiastical prejudices and bigotry.
I deny that this is inherent in the Church, its laws, or
formularies. The Church is better than its members, —
broader, freer, nobler. The day will come when its members
will dare, as they do not to-day, to permit that freedom
which is under Church laws the right of every member, lay
or clerical. It is foolish, because men are practically deprived
of this right to-day, to say that the right does not exist. It is
impossible to get it to-day because of the ignorance of the
laity regarding such matters and the usurpation of authority
not truly theirs by the higher ecclesiastics who can control
the patronage of the Church. Grant the Protestant clergy
immunity from the danger of prosecution for heresy, with the
certainty, in the United States, of conviction, in defiance of
all Church law, before a prejudiced board of ecclesiastics, —
grant them the certainty that freedom of expression shall not
imperil salaries, and the theological atmosphere will clear
itself in less than one generation, and go back to the simplicity
of the earliest days. Medijevalism has already gone from the
minds of the better portion of the Protestant clergy. They
will dare to say so whenever it ceases to be involved with the
question of salaries. To secure a place in the Church to-day
demands, in most cases, judicious and intelligent concealment
of certain opinions. To retain the place demands discreet

PREFA CE. 9
silence touching certain matters. This is an open and notori
ous fact, and it is a burning shame and disgrace.
The Church will not be thoroughly Christian until it is
tlioroughly free. If a man does not believe that truth will
emerge victorious from the conflict of opinion in an utterly
free Church, then, in my opinion, he does not believe in
God. To stifle thought and, under penalties, prevent its free
expression is to fight against the truth, and that is to enter
the lists against God. Such a cause is in the end assured of
defeat. The heresy-hunter is indeed the true infidel. He
is the friend of ecclesiasticism and the enemy of true religion.
The day is coming and, indeed, is near at hand when this
will be conceded. The heresy-hunters have disrupted the
Church, — have poisoned the very waters where men drink,
and, in most cases, have done this to further their own selfish
interests. They have treated the Church as a great salary-
paying corporation, and, in their selfish zeal, have sacrificed
religion. If you differ with them, they say, " Go out of the
Church." I reply that the proper arena lies wholly inside of
the Church, and that under the sheltering protection of her
laws and formularies the struggle ought to go on, and will
go on, until absolute freedom is practice as well as theory.
I think the tendency of the best thought in all the Protestant
churches is towards the views set forth in this book. This
tendency, I believe, is irresistible ; for behind it is that mys
terious power which through all the ages men have called
"God." In conclusion let me say with Martin Luther : ' ' The
Church cannot create articles of faith. She can only

lo PREFACE.
recognize and confess them as a slave does the seal of his
lord. The censure of the Church will not separate me
from the Church if the truth joins me to the Church."
Until the members of the English Church do, in good faith
and with sincerity of heart, recognize in their daily intercourse
with their fellowmen the views set forth in this book, as at
least permissible views, the Church can never reach its full
measure of service and usefulness. When the members can
see their great Church as it really is, can see the overruling
hand of God in its history, can accept the real message of
Christ instead of a mere fragment of that message distorted
by their own petty ignorance, prejudice, and selfishness, can
escape from the bondage of human tradition and opinions, —
then, and not till then, will the Church rise to the level of
its sublime mission, and become the recognized household
of faith for all English-speaking men and women.
Such is the mission of Freedom in the English Church.
"Grave mother of majestic works
From her isle-altar gazing down,
Her Open eyes discern the truth;
The wisdom of a thousand years
Is in them. May perpetual youth
Keep dry their light from tears
That her fair form may stand and shine,
Make bright our days and light our dreams,
Turning to scorn with lips divine
The falsehood of extremes."
EDWARD P. USHER.
Grafton, Mass.,
July, 1896.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION,

PAGE

Shall Protestantism Fail.? — Basis of Unity is in the
English Church . .  13
BOOK FIRST.
THE EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
CHAPTER I. The Message of Christ . . . 27
II. Pre-Reformation Period. — Christianity Corrupted
and Displaced by Scholasticism . . 50
III. Reformation Period. — New Principles Stated,
but again Corrupted and Nullified. — Gradual
Working Out of the Truth. — The So-Called
Liberal Theology ....... 64
BOOK SECOND.
TOLERATION AND FREEDOM.
I. The Lesson of Toleration . .... 80
II. The Technical Basis of Freedom in the Church . 88
III. The True Estimate of Doctrinal Differences . 102
IV. The Identity of Religion and Morality . . 114
BOOK THIRD.
THE SCRIPTURES.
I. Inspiration ......... 125
II. Interpretation ......... 141
III. Religion and Science ....... 153
IV. Miracles .......... 164

CONTENTS.
BOOK FOURTH.
CREEDS AND DOCTRINES.

CHAPTER

EXPLANATORY INDEX OF AUTHORS CITED
GENERAL INDEX

PAGE

I. The Creeds . . • 178
II. God . . . 190
III. The Miraculous Conception 20J
IV. Christ 214
V. The Holy Ghost. — The Supre.macy of Conscience 251
VI. The Trinity . . . 297
VII. The Resurrection . .... 317
VIII. The Holy Communion . . 337
IX. Future Punishment . ..... 350
X. Prayer ....... • • 357
XI. Sin and the Devil .... . 364
XII. Baptism . .... 370
XIII. The Atonement ... . 376
BOOK FIFTH.
CHURCH AND CLERGY.
I. The Church . . . 381
II. The Clergy — The Claim of Apostolic Succession
and Special Powers . . . 397
III. Church Unity , ^27

433437

NTRODUCTION.

SHALL PROTESTANTISM FAIL?
BASIS OF UNITY IS IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH.

I. The question whether Protestantism shall fail involves
the question whether, up to this present time, it has been and
is a failure. Has it already been such a success that there is
no reason to discuss this question.? The answer to this is
both yes and no. It has a history which certainly justifies
the belief that the evolution which has characterized its past
will be equally marked in its future. The fact that this
evolution has thus far all been in one general direction
justifies the belief that it will continue to move in that same
direction. If this belief is well grounded, then there can be
no doubt as to the ultimate success of the Protestant churches
in their great mission. On the other hand, if this were not
true, if Protestantism were to become crystallized in its present
conditions, if what is true of it to-day were to be always true,
then the verdict would have to be that it had failed. That the
promise of the Reformation has not as yet been fulfilled is
certain. That the Protestant churches have not as yet in actual
practice candidly and courageously accepted the fundamental
principles then avowed is certain. That there has been, how
ever, a constant tendency towards such acceptance ; that what
was then decreed as the theory has been steadily gaining
ground as the living and working principle is equally true
and certain.

14 INTRODUCTION.
2. Looked at narrowly and locally, Protestantism has failed.
Nothing could be more depressing than such an examination.
Instead of a single united army under competent guidance,
we find a multitude of battalions organized without regard to
the exigency of any common cause, recognizing little, if any,
bond of union or community of resources, and at times rent
by internal dissensions and mutual antagonism and jealousy.
A theory of freedom and toleration has been found too often in
practice to mean restriction, narrowness, and bigotry. Such
an antagonist the Church of Rome has despised, and, in the
main, its contempt has been justified.
3. Up to this time the scholastic theology of Rome has
still been the predominant factor in most of our Protestant
churches. The main doctrinal tone has still remained that of
Rome. The political supremacy of Rome is ended. The
payment of our money into its treasury as tribute is ended.
We deny its cardinal principle. Its mass of pretended " tra
dition " is repudiated. Its subordination of the individual
conscience is -denounced. As a working organization it is
feared and hated. While all this is true, yet the Protestant
churches have never as yet escaped from the whole burden of
Roman influence and modes of thought. What has lingered
has been a most subtle element, and the more difficult to
remove because of its subtlety.
4. Looked at broadly, however, taking in the whole sweep
of its history, Protestantism is seen to have had a great
measure of success ; and this is easily seen to be all that
could have been expected, taking into account the passions
and prejudices of mankind, the popular ignorance prevalent
at the time of the Reformation, and the extent to which
political power has interfered to influence the history of
religion. An intelligent examination of history will lead to
the belief that more than has so far been accomplished was

INTR on UC TION. 1 5
probably impossible, and that the degree of success now
attained is the sufficient guaranty for the future. Religious
development since the first statement of its principles is seen
to have proceeded strictly under the law of evolution. No
ground once gained has ever afterwards been really lost.
5. If the narrower view of Protestantism is depressing, the
broader view is full of encouragement. What to-day seem
discordant and even belligerent principalities, each insisting
on its independence and its petty local privileges, are seen to
be moving on to unity and the glory of a great common
empire. The divided states of Germany, broken for centuries
by interminable rivalries, hatreds, and jealousies, have merged
into the great empire with an altogether new force and dignity
and influence. Such is the future destiny of Protestantism
whenever the prejudices of men can be overcome and the
selfishness of vested interests ceases to dominate. That these
prejudices are being slowly overcome, that the influence of
material interests is gradually becoming less controlling, is
clearly apparent in the history of the centuries.
6. This victory over prejudices and the subordination of
selfish interests is to bring with it, as its necessary and inevi
table result, justice to children and women ; justice to labor ;
a more equal and righteous division of the profits flowing
from human toil and skill and enterprise ; a nearer approach
to equality of condition in human society ; in short, the reversal
of much of that order which now is, and the establishment of
that order which shall for the first time be worthy of the name
of Christ. There can be and will be no Christian unity so
long as Protestant churches deem the present structure of
society just and worthy of perpetuation. Men cannot accept
the real message of Christ and leave conditions as they are.
Until they become willing to accept and act upon this message,
the present conventional scholastic substitute for Christianity

1 6 INTR OD UCTION
will be the shelter under which conscience can be stifled.
The original Christian rule of conduct and life is the only
solution for the problems of to-day and the future. If they
are solved, it will be along these lines. If they are solved,
it will mean the final victory of Christian principles, and the
churches as they are to-day will merge into the Church of
that new day, emancipated at last from that great mass of
mediseval mysticism which has for ages usurped the place
of religion.
7. That this will not occur in this generation, nor for
many generations to come, is probably too true. The law
of evolution works very slowly, though with a marvellous
force and certainty. We may do very little to aid such a
tremendous movement, which is indeed nothing more nor less
than the uplifting of the human race ; but that little we can
do and ought to do.
8. The work of the immediate future is the elimination
from the Protestant churches of every trace of the scholastic
theology inherited from Rome. This should mean, not neces
sarily its utter repudiation nor any dogmatic statement that it
is absolutely false, but the recognition that it is no longer to
be imposed on any one as by divine sanction, but left as open,
debatable ground where each one is utterly free to reach his
own conclusions. This is a definite task, and it would seem
as if it ought not to be impossible of achievement. Agree
ment upon speculative questions of theology has been shown
to be impossible. If human history teaches any one thing it
is certainly this. Such questions have kept men apart, and
have proved fertile in producing discord and bitterness of
spirit. The speculative philosophy, which still holds a con
spicuous place in all of our Protestant churches, and which
in practice is almost substituted for the essential spirit of
Christianity, has alienated, and does to-day and ever will

INTR OD UC TION. 1 7
alienate, a multitude of intelligent men and women who
ought to be in the Church. They are needed. They feel
themselves excluded to-day because of what they consider the
radically false position of the Church.
9. Much of the real Christian living and working of the
day is done by men and women who are outside of the
Church. They do not call their life or their work Christian ;
the Church does not so recognize it; and yet it is true
Christian work and life. Men of different churches unite in
what is really^ Christian work. They do not so consider it.
Such work they deem not of a religious character, so false
is the popular idea of religion that has in some way been
imparted and cultivated.
10. So, too, it must be remembered that in the ranks of
the Church of Rome are thousands and tens of thousands
of individuals who lead the true Christian life and accept the
original message. Inside of all churches and outside of all
churches are these examples found. Men rise above their
environment and are by sheer native force of character
superior to all accidental and adventitious circumstances. In
the mediaeval world, when monasteries were marked by licen
tiousness and riotous living, when churches were filled with
dead ceremonials and the services were conducted in a dead
language, when ecclesiastical councils were little more than
the centres of political power where patronage was distributed,
when the term ecclesiastic meant little more than a diplomatist
skilled in intrigue and cunning, — even then everywhere there
were individuals who did accept the message in its original
force and spirit, and these kept alive in the world the Christian
ideal that else had perished. We ought never to speak as if
all virtue was in one organization or outside of it, as if any
belief or want of it in abstract and speculative matters was
inconsistent with the good and the true life. Whatever is

i8 INTRODUCTION.
good and true and pure is Christlike ; wherever there is com
passion and mercy and kindness, there is the Christ-spirit;
whatever influence uplifts and regenerates and redeems is
Christian influence. Not only is this so to-day, but so it has
ever been since the world began, in all countries and in all
ages. The Christian idea is eternally true, not only always
will be, but always has been. So far as Confucius, Buddha,
Zoroaster, and Socrates stand for these ideas, so far they
necessarily stand for Christ and take hold of the eternally
true principle.
II. The alienation of many intelligent persons from the
Church is in some degree due to misunderstanding and mis
conception, which, it must be said, has been materially
strengthened by the utterances of individuals prominent in
the Church. Without saying a single unkind word about any
church, or seeking to disparage in any way any such organi
zation, I propose, for my present purposes, to take the Church
of England as the typical Protestant church. If Protestantism
is to succeed, it cannot afford to neglect the value of organi
zation. It must utilize some of the existing bodies as the
nucleus or rallying point, and it must select that which will
serve the purpose with the least need for changing its present
organic structure. Such a nucleus is the English Church and
its daughter, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United
States. It affords, perhaps, the only basis now in sight for
the union of all the Protestant forces. That this is so is due
apparently to no design or purpose on the part of those who
fashioned and moulded it. It seems as if it stood to-day
where it does almost despite the frantic efforts of its members
to shape it otherwise. The individuals composing it have
lived below the standard of the Church itself, and will to-day
come very near to denying that the constitution of the Church
is what it is. All such denials are as nothing, however, in
the face of facts.

INTR ODUC TION. 1 9
12. The situation of that Church is, indeed, very peculiar.
It is due to a characteristic of the English race to build better
than it knows. It is so with what is called the English
Constitution. It is so with the English Church, which, in a
sense, may be said to be a part of that constitution.
The English Church stands in a certain well-deflned attitude
towards the world. It has a deflnite theory which governs its
existence. It is interwoven with the State and its laws ; and
a man's rights in the Church are legal rights, in the enjoyment
of which he is entitled to legal protection. This protection
is his right against all the passions and pi-ejudices even of a
majority of its members. If the rules of the Church, rightly
interpreted, permit a certain freedom, then the right to that
freedom is a legal right ; and no man, because he exercises it,
can be subjected to the pains and penalties of heresy. This
has proved the sheet-anchor of the Church. It has kept the
Church broad, liberal, and comprehensive against the wishes
of vast numbers of its members. No one who remembers
the history of the past will be likely to accuse the great body
of English Church members of any marked tendency towards
breadth of view or tolerance of divergent opinions. But,
above all this petty bigotry and the social intolerance of
partisans, the Church has lived on, with its theory safe from
it all, ready for the day when men should see its real mean
ing, and should value rightly their great inheritance. Saved
by a principle, the operation of which was not foreseen and
the enforcement of which was most bitterly resisted, the
English Church stands to-day ready without any change of
its constitution to receive into its arms all phases of Protestant
thought without any demand for the surrender of individual
opinion on speculative points.
13. Its members dogmatize ; the Church does not. A
view held individually by a majority of the members does

20 INTRODUCTION.
not make it the view of the Church, nor is it in the power
of that majority to so make it. If at one time it had been in
the power of a majority to rule otherwise, the Low Church
would never have had any recognition. If at another time
it had been in the power of a majority, the High Church
contingency would have been expelled. Similarly, at a later
period, the Broad-church element would have been cut off
root and branch. But it was not in the power of a majority
to do this, and so to-day in that Church are the three caihps
of Low, High, and Broad, embracing nearly every phase of
thought of all the Protestant churches, and yet are they all in
one camp, and in time all will see the wisdom that prevented
separation. The three parties are legitimate portions of the
Church. There have always been these several tendencies,
and it is idle for any one of these parties to try to exclude
either of the others. They represent different types of mind,
different methods of thought, different points of view. By
embracing all of them does the English Church alone justify
its claim to a true catholicity.
14. If this Church is not the best conceivable, it is probably
the best that has been possible, and the best that to-day is
possible, considering the prejudices, the ignorance, and the
selfishness of mankind. It does not follow that it is or ought
to be in any sense permanent, that it ought to become fixed
and crystallized in its present form. It is not at all probable
that it will ever reach such a period. The law of evolution
is to apply unto the end.
15. If Protestantism is to succeed, it is to be by union and
not by still further breaking up into sects and parties. There
is certainly no good result to flow from further divisions.
To remove existing differences, to point the way, if possible,
towards the broader plains of truth where all may stand
together, is the work of to-day. There is only one way to

INTRODUCTION. 21
do this, and that is to insist on the sufliciency of the original
Christian message in all its breadth and in all its simplicity.
This is the solution of all problems, whether religious, politi
cal, or social. There is no other solution. So long as other
things are magnified as essential, this is dwarfed. So long
as speculative doctrines and dogmas are pushed to the front,
this will be kept in the background. The acceptance of the
simple Christian rule of life is the only way to make church
differences sink out of sight. JNIen do not to-day believe the
plain Christ idea is sufficient. The churches do not believe
it, — and here lies the root of the difficulty. When they do
believe its sufficiency, if that day ever comes, technical differ
ences will be seen in the true light, and will no longer stand
as barriers and dividing walls.
16. My own experience is probably like that of many
others. I reached the age of twenty-six, after the most regu
lar and unbroken attendance upon religious services, with a
feeling of utter contempt for the whole subject. This feeling
received but little, if any, open expression, but my whole
moral nature revolted against what I heard preached as
Christianity. I could not have accepted it without actual
dishonesty and loss of self-respect, so condemned was it by
my mind and my entire moral nature. The conventional
terms employed either had, so far as I was concerned, no
meaning whatever, or had a meaning which my reason refused
to consider as proper for my acceptance. In common with
others I identified religion with the churches. I supposed that
it was truly and fully interpreted and set forth by the parish
pulpit. As thus placed before me, I quietly but indignantly
repudiated it as unworthy of acceptance. I believe that I
would have suffered imprisonment before I would have taken
a different position. It was a series of abstruse, speculative
propositions which repelled me. I found good and true men

3 2 INTR OD UC TION.
inside the churches, but I found them also outside of all
churches. Logical as was the scholastic theology, it did not
save people from their sins proportionately to its awful
assumptions. It did not seem to me to do in the least what
it claimed to. There seemed to be a certain conventional
hypocrisy when discussing religious matters.
The very first thing that led me to think that I was mistaken
in my conception of Christianity was the address on "The
Hopes of Theology," by Dean Stanley, at St. Andrews, in
1877, of which I saw the full text in a newspaper. There
was in that address a nobility, a catholicity of sentiment, a
breadth of view that was to me novel and irresistibly attrac
tive. This made an indelible impression, opening a door
which has never been closed, giving me a stimulus which I
have never lost. I asked a clergyman about Dean Stanley,
and was told that he was universally regarded as a most
dangerous ' ' enemy of religion : '' that his influence was con
sidered as " subversive of the very fundamental doctrines of
the Church." This seemed strange enough. Here was a
man, Dean of Westminster Abbey, one of the best known
dignitaries of the great historic English Church, speaking at
the famous Scottish university, and yet he could not be trusted
to explain to me what the Christian spirit really was. If this
were so, then there could be no such thing as truth. How
could religion be simple, if there was no sort of agreement as
to what it was.? If the best men could only fight over it, and
end by declaring that each believed the other to be wrong,
then it was an insoluble mystery to be let alone. My interest,
however, was aroused, and I began to read the recent literature
of the Church with increasing respect for all things religious.
What I found was a revelation to me, and the results of
my studies are presented in this volume. That there are
thousands of men who stand to-day where I stood in -1877
I very well know to be a fact. To lead them away from a

INTR OD UC TION. 23
feeling of contempt to a belief that Christianity is the final
and universal religion of the world, wonderfully attractive
when really understood and worthy of their loyal allegiance,
is my purpose and motive.
Why they feel this contempt is indicated by Rev. Thomas
Arnold, who said, in 1S36 : "I think that the Scholastic
Theology has obscured Christianity and excited a prejudice
against it. I am thankful myself for having been enabled to
receive Scripture truth in spite of the wrapping which has
been put around it, and that I am not one of those who throw
away the wrapping, unable to conceive that beneath a shell so
worthless there can lurk so divine a kernel. The dishonesty
and foolery of such divinity, as I remember in the lecture-
room and pulpits in times past, would be enough to drive a
man of sound mind into any extravagancies of unbelief."
17. This book has, therefore, been suggested by my own
experience and observation. There is, I believe, a widespread
and serious misconception as to the position of the English
Church with reference to dogma and doctrine. This misap
prehension is the more remarkable because the means of
better knowledge have so long been spread before the public.
There is a large class of sincere men and women who cannot
and will not assent to much, if any, of the popular conceptions
of theology. The idea that such assent is necessary as a pre
requisite to joining the visible Church has kept thousands
away from its communion who by nature and character belong
there, who would help the Church and be benefited by it in
return. To show how slightly this idea is founded in fact is
the purpose of this volume.
In the case of several whose attention I have called to the
passages and facts here set forth, I have found that it caused
an entire change of attitude towards the Church, and at once
aroused a feeling of interest and respect. In their cases it

24 INTRODUCTION.
tended to draw them to the Church and to render possible
their union with it. It is for such a class my work is
intended. It is for all those who misconceive the Church,
who fail to catch its real meaning and to apprehend its true
position, who think it narrow where it is broad, who believe
it bigoted where it is liberal, who deem it exclusive where it
is all-comprehending. It is the special glory of the Church
that it has within its borders men of extremely diverse views.
While it gives a quasi indorsement to certain doctrines and
dogmas as sound and tenable, and therein may be either right
or wrong, it does not declare a belief in them a necessary
prerequisite for membership.
i8. Doctrines may well be permitted to exist for those
who derive comfort from them, who find them a source of
strength and inspiration. There are few who can understand
Kant's system of metaphysics and philosophy. It exists
merely for those who can comprehend it. It is and can be
forced on no one. So it is with the doctrinal and dogmatic
part of theology according to the real view of the Church.
No formal expression of opinion is required with regard to the
points that have caused the most serious difficulty in the
minds of so many sincere men. Membership in the Church
implies merely an acceptance of certain events as facts in
the history of mankind. It does not imply the acceptance
of any set of theories based upon these facts. It is the fact
and not the philosophy of the fact that the Church really
aims to grasp.
19. A mistake is made in assuming that each person by a
given act should express the same thought or feeling or exjDi'ess
it in the same degree. There is a large class of persons who
seem to have such an idea of conformity that they wish to
have all persons concur in all the details of ojjinion and
conduct. My neighbor finds it necessary and helpful to do

INTRODUCTION. 25
many things in the way of genuflexions and other like observ
ances which to me may seem trivial and unmeaning. It is
enough if to him they are important and significant. My
neighbor believes it necessary to attach great importance to
certain dogmatic statements, and derives help from his con
ception of them. It is not true that all others must or even
can agree with him. Each man must be a law to himself in
such matters, being controlled by his own nature, education,
and wants. This is the freedom of the Church. Its members
agree as to belief in certain facts, but are free to differ as to
the philosophical theories based on them.
20. I have not been concerned with the question as to
whether the views here to be presented are held by a majority
of the clergy or laity. It is doubtless true that they are the
views of a minority ; but it will probably be conceded that
that minority is made up of intelligent, thoughtful, and
influential men, and that its members are constantly increas
ing. I do not say that these opinions express the view held
by the Church, but simply a view which it is permitted any
member of the Church, clerical or lay, to hold. Whatever
surprise any one may feel who has not attentively examined
the subject, it is, I believe, perfectly clear that inside the
English Church there may be allowed the largest measure of
freedom without any change in its formularies. It is not
likely that any well-read theological student will be surprised
at anything he will find here stated as embodying a view
permissible within the Church.
21. In the light of the famous Hampden and Gorham
Controversies, the great battle waged over " Essays and
Reviews" and " Tract, XC," the decisions of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council and the Court of Arches,
it is impossible that he who seeks should not find convincing
evidence of the true catholicity of spirit which pervades the
Church.

26 INTR OD UC TION.
22. What is the real authority by which its members are
bound.? How far may a man reject conventional and popular
conceptions without transgressing the spirit and formulas of
the Church? What is the freedom of the Church in this
respect.? What must its members accept as supreme author
ity.? What may they reject as artificial, false, and fictitious.?
What is the spirit of the Church as distinguished from the
spirit of parties and factions within the Church ? If individ
uals, if parties, if factions, if dignitaries, are disposed to fix
limits that exclude men who differ from them in views, how
far are they justified by the law and spirit of the Church .? If
individual members are narrow, is the Church also narrow.?
If these are exclusive and bigoted, does it follow that the
Church is like them .? If some members can see religion only
in a series of abstruse scholastic propositions, is this the view
of the Church.? What is the ultimate and essential standard,
the supreme test by which the Church alone judges its mem
bers and determines their fitness for its communion .? How
far is the Church dogmatic? What particular facts and
doctrinal views does it impose as essential, authoritative, and
necessary .?
23. This book is an answer to these questions, and derives
its weight from the fact that it is in very great part composed
of the utterances of those who are prominent and distinguished
in the ranks of the clergy of the Church. The views of these
eminent men, who hold in many cases the most conspicuous
positions within the gift of the Church, cannot- be heresy,
whatever else may be said of them ; they are, at least, per
missible views. Where no name is cited as authority, the
passages have, of course, no weight beyond that carried
intrinsically by the ideas regardless of the person speaking.

PROTESTANTISM.

BOOK FIRST.
THE EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY.

CHAPTER I.

THE MESSAGE OF CHRIST.

24. Into a world full of every sort of moral corruption
and sensuality came the message of Christ. It was this : God
is in me, and all that you see me do and hear me speak is but
my obedience to His voice which leads and guides me in all
the things that I do and say. As He is in me, so is He like
wise in each and every one of you. Render to Him that.
same obedience you see me render. Make your life conform
to the spirit manifested in the life you see me lead, for this I
am commanded to say unto you is the will of God. If you
do but obey as I obey, you shall know, even as I know, that
this which I speak is true. Seek God within you and you
shall surely find Him. Knock at the door of your soul and
it will open to admit you to this knowledge which is beyond
all you have hitherto known. God is nigh unto you. He is
with you. He is within you. Without this divine support
you would be as nothing. With it you are strong and able to
overcome all things. Believe this. Preach this to all men.
Your country is the whole world.
It is God within you that suggests, inspires, and gives
strength for every good deed. Glory not in your own moral

28 PR O TESTANTISM.
strength and power for good work, for if you deem it your
own you are deceived and know not. For all that you do
well give the glory to God whose presence has enabled you to
do it. Remembering this, you shall have no conceit or vanity
or pride because of any supposed goodness of yourself, for
the power behind it is not your own, but God's. He is thus
in you, not by any merit of your own, not by any exertion of
your own, but because, by the operation of divine law over
which you have had no control, you are blessed with a portion
of the divine nature. This which comes, so to speak, as a
gracious gift is, if you choose to make it such, your greatest
possession. Render, as I do, all the glory to God our Father.
I can of my own self do nothing. If I honor myself, my
honor is nothing. My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent
me. If you will accept the truth I tell you, you will know
that it is of God and not of myself. In believing me, you
believe not on me, but on Him that sent me. God is my
Father and my God as He is your Father and your God. He
dwells in each one of you, manifesting Himself to you as
spiritual suggestiveness or conscience. This voice within you
is your supreme guide. This you are always to obey. To
you as an individual it is above all external authority.
Do that which is just, merciful, and kind. Speak that
which is true. Seek always to know the truth and all the
truth. Be loving and charitable unto all, doing unto others
what you would have them do unto you. Keep yourself free
from pride, envy, and jealousy. Seek the good of others and
you will find your own highest good. Cultivate patience,
humility, and courtesy. Be generous, sincere, free from guile,
and be not easily provoked. Whatever be the burdens of life,
accept them calmly and bear them with courage and fortitude.
Help others to bear their burdens. Be no respecter of persons
in that you shall not fail to recognize any man as your brother
and neighbor because he is poor or ignorant or wicked, but

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 29
because of all this consider your obligation to him increased.
Rise above the lower, brutish part of your nature, the sensual,
degrading animal impulses, into a better and higher life.
Rise from moral cowardice to moral courage, from unreality
to truth, from selfish inactivity to helpfulness for good. The
one paramount precept is, Be better than you have been : be
more pure, more sincere, more true, more kindly. Judge not.
Condemn no man. Hate no man, but even forgive and love
those that hate you and use you despitefully.
Do all this simply because it is right and without regard to
expediency or the consequences to yourself personally.
If you surrender yourself and your life in obedience unto
your conscience, doing the best you can and all you can to
lead the life I have shown you, it will bring to you the pro-
foundest happiness and repose of spirit, in comparison with
¦which all the things commonly sought after as good are as
mere dross. Happiness is like a shadow. If pursued, it will
flee from you ; but if you do not trouble yourself about it,
and strictly attend to your duties, pleasures of the best and
noblest kind will appear everywhere in your path. If you do
not anxiously pursue it, happiness will follow you. In purer
ideas, in sublimer hopes, in loftier aspirations, lies the real
happiness of life. The development of your higher nature
is your truest work, and this higher nature is the source of
the highest pleasure. Your life becomes and is eternal in the
degree that it becomes and is right, pure, and true. " Eternal
life " means life that is in harmony with the ideas that are in
their very nature eternal. It is not a reward to be known and
realized only in a future world, but it is a quality that may or
may not be in your character now. Eternal life is a manner
of life such as leads to the formation of a pure character. It
is the Godlike life. It is that sort of life that I have mani
fested unto you. It should be your life actually and ethically,
here and now. It ought to be and may be your present

30

PR O TESTANTISM.

possession. It means the present transformation of your
human life, the change of its quality. If, indeed, you have
not, here and now on earth, a quality of life that in its nature
is eternal, you cannot with certainty expect to have your life
continue after death. It is only this sort of life that cannot die,
and that of its own inherent nature comes to a resurrection.
The want of this eternal life here and now signifies that the
soul is dead. You are immortal only as the elements of purity
and righteousness and truth enter into your character, these
elements being in their nature indestructible. In this which
alone is true life, physical death is only a phase, a transition.
These elements of character, being deathless and spiritual,
survive in a way you cannot now understand, and that cannot
be expressed in words, but immortal and a spiritual body.
25. This is essentially a message of life. It does not deal
with death or the mysterious hereafter. It is a message to
men in relation to life, — to the life of to-day and of the
immediate future, and not in relation to the unknown eternity.
Professor Henry Drummond says : ' ' We hear much of love
to God. Christ spoke much of love to man. We make a
great deal of peace with Heaven. Christ made much of peace
on earth. Religion is the Inspiration of the secular life, — the
breathing of an eternal spirit through this temporal world.
The message was to teach men the Art of Life. It was a
call to begin Hfe over again upon a new principle, — upon a
new plane. Life from this point of view is the burden which
all must carry with them from the cradle to the grave.
Christ saw that men took life painfully. To some it was a
weariness ; to others, a failure ; to many, a tragedy ; to all,
a struggle and a pain. How to carry this burden of life had
been the whole world's problem. Here is Christ's solution :
' Carry it as I do. Take life as I take it. Look at it from
My point of view. Interpret it upon My principles. Take

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 31
My yoke and learn of Me, and you will find it easy ; for My
yoke is easy, works easily, sits right upon the shoulders, and,
therefore. My burden is light.' There is no suggestion here
that religion will absolve any man from bearing burdens.
That would be to absolve him from living, since it is life
itself that is the burden. What Christianity does propose is
to make it tolerable. Christ's yoke is simply His secret for
the alleviation of human life, His prescription for the best
and happiest method of living. A yoke is designed to make
the burden light. Attached to the oxen in any other way
than by a yoke, the plow would be intolerable. Worked by
means of a yoke, it is light. It is a gentle device to make
hard labor light. Christ called men to obey His message
because the acceptance of it would thus tend to lighten the
burden of life."
26. This religious idea given to the -world by Christ, stated
in its simplest and most essential terins, constitutes the final
view of religious obligation. It is of universal application,
and so appeals to the moral sense as to admit no discussion or
controversy as to its superiority. It derives its sanction from
its inherent excellence, and does not depend on any historical
evidence as to when or where or by -whom it was first stated,
being universally true and appealing merely to the reason and
conscience of men for adoption by virtue of its being the
highest and purest conception of life that ever has been made
or ever can be made.
27. The message was as easy to understand as it was
difficult to obey. It cut like a knife across human prejudices,
human passions, and all the pride and settled habits of men.
The earliest church was wherever two or three were gathered
together in a common effort to obey this message. There was
no accepted creed. There is no evidence of any doctrinal or
dogmatic spirit in even the slightest degree. The earliest of

33 PROTESTANTISM.
those books which make up the New Testament was not
written until a great many years after the death of Christ.
The New Testament was not compiled and recognized as a
book of authority for several hundred years. The Church,
therefore, preceded this volume. The Church made the New
Testament, which was wholly founded on the authority of the
Church. The early centuries had no literature which had any
special authority or to which any special assent could have
been asked. The Church accepted merely the message of
Christ as a new guide of life, and members were bound
together merely by the common effort to live up to the new
standard. There was no intellectual side to the Christian
life. It was not a matter of doctrines or dogmas or philoso
phy ; it was merely the readiness to accept a certain method
or standard of daily living which was in opposition to all
commonly received notions of life and which disregarded
nearly all the conventional standards. Creeds, doctrines,
dogmas, there -were none. The sincere desire to try to lead
the new life was all that was or could be demanded.
28. This message is eminently practical, and, indeed, almost
exclusively so. It asks no Qiiixotic devotion. All that a man
should do is subordinated to his own conscience, his own clear
judgment and common sense. It calls no man away from any
field of human activity. It does not discourage any form of
enterprise, nor check any sort of development ; it simply says
in -what spirit and with what motive all shall be done.
29. What do the churches practically say to this message
of Christ when it is stated in its simplest form, which, how
ever, retains and includes every essential feature .? They deny
its sufficiency. They say that it does not go far enough ; that,
as a system of ethics or morals, it is all very -well, but that
religion is something very different. What, for instance, they
at once say, do you believe with regard to the Trinity, the

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 33
Deity of Christ, the Atonement, the Inspiration of the Bible,
Original Sin, Predestination, Apostolic Succession, Future
Punishment, and so on to the end of the dreary catalogue.?
What are your thoughts, opinions, beliefs, on all these specu
lative questions.? Answer this, and we will determine how
religious you are. If you do not get beyond that simple
message you have outlined, you really have not reached any
religion at all. In any event, if such message be called
religion, it is certainly insufficient and inadequate. This
position of the churches is in reality sheer scepticism. It is
a repudiation of the very essence of all religion. It is a
conception of religion which constitutes to-day perhaps the
gi-eatest obstacle to the advance of the true Christian ideal.
On what does the conception rest.? Why is it so common
and popular? There are three reasons, and they are prej
udice, ignorance, and selfishness. Prejudice means the
liking or disliking of something without a sufficient or ascer
tained cause therefor. Prejudice may be founded on truth or
on falsehood ; but, strictly speaking, so far as it is prejudice,
it is founded on neither. It is w^ithout any real basis. It
merely exists. There is, as a rule, no known pedigree, no
definite explanation of its origin and development. It is the
most difficult thing to overcome by reason and logic, because
it rests on neither, and does not recognize the validity of
either. It enters into every relation of life, and leads to the
most important consequences in the social, political, religious,
and commercial world. The appeal to prejudice generally
succeeds. A zealous Englishman has a prejudice against the
United States because it is republican. He has no real
reason ; but, since he has, as he supposes, found monarchy a
good thing, he flies to the conclusion that there is no other
form equally good. He becomes prejudiced, we say, and Is
often very bitter. Conversely, the zealous American hates
England because It is monarchical, and from boyhood he has

34 PROTESTANTISM.
believed there was no virtue outside of republican institutions.
He really knows nothing about the matter, and could not
Intelligently discuss the question for a moment. He simply
Is prejudiced. Now, the clear-headed political student knows
that England and the United States have virtually the same
Institutions. He knows that England Is really a disguised
republic. His eye penetrates beneath the mere form and sees
the real, moving principle. He sees that in England, for
certain reasons disclosed by historical study, the movement
took one form of outward expression, and In the United
States it took another ; and he sees very clearly why this Is
so, and that It could not have been otherwise. The environ
ment being so different caused a radically different outward
expression of exactly the same Idea and purpose. While
different in form, he sees the essential harmony of these two
states. Now, what dispels prejudice .? Nothing but education
resulting in knowledge. Prejudice is killed by enlightenment.
The feeling held by most people against the Church of Rome
is mere prejudice. It may be right or wrong, but In these
cases It is nothing more than prejudice. It Is so with the
feeling of hosts of people against the English Church, of
others against the Unitarians, of others against Presbyterians,
and so on. Public opinion Is chiefly a bundle of prejudices.
On a final analysis, th,en, prejudice Is seen to melt into the
second reason stated above and to be, perhaps, almost Identi
cal with It; viz.. Ignorance. The majority of people whose
support sustains various dogmas and doctrines could not intel
ligently state those dogmas and doctrines. They do not know
what they are, but they are sure that they believe in them,
and that they are essential and valuable. This Is the grim
satire of life. The English statesman does not correct the
ignorant prejudices of his countrymen, because he may, at
any time, want to play upon those prejudices and use them.
The same is true of the American statesman, who even culti-

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 35
vates these prejudices so that they may be in fine healthy
condition when he does need to play on them. This leads us
to the third reason ; viz., Selfishness. Prejudice and ignorance
are tolerated and even cultivated, because certain persons
derive, or think they do, a selfish advantage from them.
Men who are Intelligent, -who do know, w^ho could enlighten,
are silent because It is for their selfish interest to be so.
Every reform of every kind Is opposed by those who think it
Is for their Interest to keep things as they are. These three
forces that resist the Christ-Idea are indeed three of the main
forces the message of Christ seeks to overcome and remove.
To seek the truth, to search after It with an open and recep
tive mind. Is the one way to banish prejudice and Ignorance,
and all that Is then needed is the disinterested spirit seeking
the good of all rather than the personal and selfish good of
the individual.
This Is the Trinity of the Devil, or the lower nature of
man, — Ignorance, Prejudice, and Selfishness. These three
are one. These three are equal and of one substance. They
are the three manifestations of all that Is evil, and are the
source of the world's misery and sin. You cannot divide the
substance of this Trinity without destroying it. Each Implies
the existence of the other, and the three together are the curse
of mankind. Prejudice is not made nor created, but begotten
of Ignorance ; and Selfishness Is not made, created, or
begotten, but proceedeth from Ignorance and Prejudice. In
this Trinity neither is before nor after another, neither Is greater
nor less than another, but the whole three are co-equal. Who
ever would rightly worship the DevU must thus believe. By
perpetuating Ignorance, by checking enlightenment and broader
views, thus Is Prejudice glorified and Its dominion extended.
The spirit of Selfishness can rightly be received and be per
fectly operative only in those who are under the dominion of
Ignorance and Prejudice. The enemy of this Trinity Is
Enlightenment, Charity, and Self-Abnegatlon.

36 PR O TESTANTISM.
30. We may possibly, by means of an allegory, give some
clear Idea as to the nature of the message and its history.
Men may be conceived as living In a great grove or forest,^
made up of giant trees. Of these trees the trunk and the
roots are ignorance, the branches are prejudice, and the leaves
are selfishness. If all the leaves should fall off, the light of
heaven would come Into that land, dispel the darkness, and
open up new conditions. The leaves, -while they depend for
their nourishment and vitality upon the branches, trunk, and
roots, nevertheless, are what keep out the glorious sunlight.
To permanently lose Its foliage -would Indicate and prove that
the tree Is dead. Under these trees life goes on in darkness,
dampness, and an absence of growth of all the higher and
more valuable plants and fruits. Life Is all in darkness and
the shadow. Some men have climbed the trees, surmounting
the branches of prejudice, and pushing aside the foliage of
selfishness, until for an hour they have had a glimpse of the
great arch of heaven and the marvellous beauty of the sun
and sky ; but their reports were deemed by those who
remained below in the shadow but as mere visions and
dreams. Now, to these men dwelling beneath the shadow of
these great trees comes a message of light and a new life.
There came one, like themselves, who knew, however, of a
different life, — more full, more abundant, richer, better, and
higher. He spoke of a life out in the open, under the great
blue sky, away from the shadows and the darkness. He
described the waving fields of grain, the beautiful landscape,
the fragrance of the flowers, the trees that bore delicious fruit,
the splendor of the sky by night, the magnificence of sunset
and sunrise. "This life you lead here in the shadow is,"
he said, "as nothing to that you may lead if you choose to
accept my message, and, forsaking this darkness, go forth in
faith to seek the land where the trees of Ignorance, prejudice,
and selfishness do not grow. Every one who will forsake his

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 37
present way of life and enter upon the path on which I will
set his feet shall. If he will but follow that path, come out of
the darkness and know that my message is true. Life in this
darkness is but as death. I will show you the way to a life
so much richer and better that It Is the only true life. You
are free to stay where you are. You are also free to accept
my message. If you refuse, the message is to you but as
foolishness ; if you accept, you shall know in time, even as I
know, that it Is truth and leads you to true life. You have
merely to accept the message and enter the path marked by
me. This obedience and faith is all you have to show. This
path does not at once lead to all that I have described. You
could not bear the full light all at once. You must acquire
such power gradually. The path will lead you from one set
of conditions, fitted for your development, to another set of
conditions fitted to carry on this development, and so on to
the end. Enter this path and you will see how to make
progress In it. You have now only to determine whether you
-will enter it or not, and. If you do enter, then you must trust
to the guidance which I tell you will be yours. How this
can be I cannot explain, nor could you understand. Have
faith, and you -will not lack the guide who indeed is within
each one of you ready to serve you as guide if your will so
elects. The decision is for you. Will you cling to life in
the shadow, or turn your steps towards the light which, after
a long and toilsome journey, you can reach .? It is not easy.
The difficulties are many, and for awhile your eyes will suffer
from the ne-w conditions into which you must eventually come.
Fear not. The pain and the obstacles are necessary, but the
fruition is great and well worth all the exertion and sacrifice."
The messenger departs. He has been put to death by the
rulers of the people. The light has shone in the darkness,
and the darkness comprehended It not. "What," they said,
' ' would become of existing institutions if the new ideas were

38 PRO TESTANTISM.
to prevail.? If many were to accept this message, what would
become of the land of the shadows.? Who would dwell in
it .? What would become of vested interests and the value of
property .? "
The message was simple and clear ; but all who heard It
were under the shadow of ignorance, prejudice, and selfish
ness. The message was soon perverted. It was found easier
to absorb it than to fight it ; easier to overthrow It by ostenta
tious union with it than by open resistance ; easier to pervert
It and corrupt it than to meet It honestly ; easier to bury It
under social prestige, political power, and the artifices of
diplomacy, than to explain it away. Instead of obedience
men began to discuss who -was the messenger, -what was his
nature, what were his relations to the King of this marvellous
country. They almost forgot the message In their effort to
magnify the messenger. The message -was conventionalized.
It was blended with the learning and philosophy of the land
of the shadow. It was well-nigh buried, and the -world went
on much as it had before there -was any message. He had
said this new life might become a present enjoyment. Men
now declared it was only a future reward for continuing to
live well under the shadow of the trees. Various schools of
thought arose differing only as to how to still live under the
foliage of selfishness and yet at the end go to this new land.
Men, they held, needed only to enter the new path when they
died and could not longer live under the old selfishness.
When they had exhausted all they and their fathers had
known, then they would obey. Obedience should begin when
nothing more was to be gained by disobedience. This was
supposed to be a great triumph for the philosophers of dark
ness, who thought to retain thus all the old life and still, at a
later period, get all there was In the new. It was held that
it was really a mystical and figurative path that was referred
to, and not one to be actually entered upon at once ; for that

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 39
would shatter the social organizations of the land of the
shadows, which w^as a thing not to be contemplated without
a shudder. It w^as not, In any event, a matter to be readily
understood. Were there not several thousand huge volumes
of learned discussions upon this message .? Whoever said the
message was simple and easy to understand, and that Its
language was to be taken in Its natural sense, was a heretic,
a danger to the state and society, fit to be ostracized and
punished. Many said It -was clearly nothing but a dream and a vision.
No such messenger ever really came. If he did, it was not
a true message. The darkness was at least a reality. The
other land and life -was a mere fanciful delusion. This class
¦was strengthened by the dissensions of those who claimed to
believe there had been a message, but could in no -way agree
as to what it was. Individuals did accept the message, and
went forth upon the path Indicated ; but these, as a rule,
¦were not violent partisans of any of the leading schools of
thought about the message. To them It was a simple fact.
They did not care to delay to dispute about the philosophy of
the fact; they merely obeyed, and were heretics in, the eyes
of all the partisans of the various schools. The message,
buried though it -was, did not, however, die. It had a strange
vitality. It slowly asserted itself, slowly gathered its adherents,
and finally brought to the land of light, to the land of the ful
ness of light, those ¦who had lived in the land of the shadow.
31. The message of Christ summons the world to rational
living. It sets up the standard of higher, purer motives, and
calls all men to rally about It. It Is simply the application of
the highest reason to the every-day relations of life. It is the
divine solution of the mystery of human life. It is so simple
that a child may comprehend and follow It. It is so lofty and
sublime that a saint can no more than humbly seek to live up

40

PR O TESTANTISM.

to It. And yet the churches say that religion Is something
more. This, they say. Is not sufficient. "When, however,
men shall come to act rationally, if they ever do, they will act
nobly. When they act in full view of all reasonable consid
erations, not in partial view of the few considerations that He
Immediately about them, they will rise to loftiness of motive
and dignity of conduct. It is so hard to hold rational consid
erations In mind at all for any length of time, so very hard
to hold them against the weakest opposing force, so all but
Impossible to hold them against the desire for pleasure or
profit when it sets in strong upon even fairly balanced minds,
that it must be very long Indeed before the average of man
kind will submit to this mental, purely invisible, and impal
pable control. Reason has Its development yet to gain. Even
the simplest knowledge of the simplest laws, — the laws of
physical health, for instance, the la^ws of relationship between
obvious Interests and familiar groups of circumstance, — comes
very slowly, and is very slowly diffused. The knowledge that
co-ordinates facts, rests on ¦wide generalizations, covers long
reaches of time and space, is much rarer, and yet on the
increase, nay, on the prevalence of this, the gro^wth of pure
religion must depend."
32. Christianity has been injured by the idea, more or less
sedulously spread abroad, that Its logical outcome is asceticism.
Never was an idea less true. It is the very gospel of life, —
of a brave, manly, courageous life. The ascetic frequently is
at heart tainted with selfishness and cowardice. He leaves
the world that he may escape struggle and effort. He flees
from temptation instead of remaining and overcoming it.
He is, then, the skulker in the battle of life. The external
austerity of his life may become the keenest pleasure to him,
a point of real pride and self-glorification, a sense of being
holier than others. To some natures this Is luxury, and the

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 41
real surrender of self would be to abandon such a life, and
go out among men. The ascetic life has been In many cases
only a specious covering for indolence and a desire to escape
the burdens of an active life.
It Is not by the extinction of our passions and appetites that
we morally grow and develop, but by the proper subordina
tion and control of them. The sexual passion may, It is true,
become the source of degradation, disease, and utter ruin ; but
It may also become a refining and elevating influence, devel
oping what Is pure and unselfish In character. The appetite
for food unchecked may lead to gluttony and a deadening of
mind and all nobler faculties ; but properly subordinated , may
yield much pleasure of a rational and wholesome sort, and,
Indeed, then becomes an element to be considered as the
means of keeping ourselves In the best condition for our
highest work.
The sensible and judicious restraint, the use ¦within legiti
mate limits, the constant check upon \vhat is a low instinct
growing out of a hearty allegiance to the higher instincts, the
steady education of the will by Its daily lesson of moderation,
temperance, and prudence, — this Is the true view Inculcated
by Christ.
33. Applied to nations, the message of Christ is really
contained in one word, and that Is justice. The adoption of
this principle would put an end to all class legislation, the
plunder by due process of law of the millions for the benefit
of a privileged class, the equality^ of all men before the law,
the just and impartial treatment of all men by the law, the
enactment of statutes with due regard to the interests of all
classes and not for the good of one class at the expense of the
others, — this Is merely Christianity In national matters. It
stands for liberty, justice, fraternity, equal rights, fairness of
treatment for all, and a clean and honest administration
of affairs.

42 PR O TESTANTISM.
Where this Is disregarded, it is done under the pressure of
the selfish Interests of particular classes, who are wealthy and
powerful. Injustice disintegrates and destroys the peace of
nations. The French Revolution followed a carnival of self
ishness on the part of the privileged classes. It was the
bitter fruit springing from the seeds of injustice plentifully
planted. 34. The word " selfish," when used with strict accuracy,
should always have a bad meaning, referring to the disposi
tion to secure a person's own advantage without considering
the consequences as regards others, implying such a supreme
desire to secure a personal advantage as leads to a willingness
to sacrifice the rights of all others. The absence of selfishness
is, therefore, necessarily one test of the Christian character.
Men, however, have a marked tendency to go to extremes.
Words are strained to such fulness of meaning as to render
a precept unreasonable which in reality is profoundly reason
able. Unselfishness Is such a word. This being enjoined as
a true rule of action, is at once by some Interpreted to mean
the utter extinction of self. You must not, they say, live for
self, but for others. It is only as you obliterate self that you
are righteous. They convert the term into altruism, and
herein introduce an error ¦which injures the very cause, by
setting up what Is seen to be an essentially false and unnatural
rule of life. Unselfishness is not altruism nor anything like it.
kSeZ/'Ishness in some degree or kind Is absolutely Inseparable
from human character. It Is ineradicable by any course of
treatment whatever. To live for self Is as Inevitable as it Is
to live at all. No man can help it If he ¦would. No effort
can remove It as the central idea of each individual. This
flows from the very fact of our sense of personal identity,
which to each Individual is necessarily a fact of paramount
Importance. Any man who believes this is not true in his

MESSAGE OF CHRIST.

43

own case Is simply deceived, and fails to clearly analyze his
own nature. There Is a selfishness that is reasonable, legiti
mate, and intelligent, from which it is absolutely Impossible
to escape. The very noblest human action, on a careful
analysis, may be found to derive Its inspiration from some
subtle and refined selfishness. To spend one's life In the
service of others may be to some the keenest gratification of
their nature. To lose yourself In the service of others may
be to truly find yourself. Christianity does not seek to oblit
erate self. It appeals to the higher self, and seeks to develop
that higher and nobler self. It changes the man's sense of
proportion. His Instincts, while still selfish, are not as they
were before. Self is seen in a new light, and the whole
service of self Is, therefore, changed. Self will not go to
such lengths to compass its ends, because it is seen to cause
injustice to others, because it Is seen to Involve a course he
now feels to be unworthy of him, because he simply cannot
do so and retain his self-respect, which he values more than
he does the end he has had In view. Through selfishness
he is thus led up to unselfish action. He does not live for
others ; he simply lives for his own higher self, and this must
result in what, looked at externally, is an unselfish life. The
development of his higher instincts and his nobler nature has
given him a new Ideal of himself, and the desire to maintain
this Ideal and so gratify this higher self leads to the true
unselfishness. Whoever Is thus selfish ; that Is, ¦whoever is thus living up
to the higher and purer nature within him and obeying
conscience, will appear externally to be what Is popularly
called unselfish. Selfishness, it Is true. In some sense and In
some degree, is the universal motive governing all our actions ;
but the refined selfishness to which we refer melts Into, and
Is not distinguishable from, ¦what we ordinarily mean by the
term unselfishness. A man cannot really extinguish the self

44 PROTESTANTISM.
within him. He may think that he does, but it is not true, for
he cannot do it. He can cultivate his higher nature to such
a point that, relatively to the bulk of mankind, he will be
governed by such a higher form of selfishness that he will
seem to be above all the ordinary motives that usually control
men. He simply lives on a higher plane and sees things in
a different Hght. He has not extinguished self. He has
purified self, and his selfishness is of a new type, but It is still
and must ever be, on a final analysis, selfishness.
There is such a thing as the ambition to do good, the
ambition to help others, the ambition to render noble service
to the wretched and unfortunate. This ambition has its burn
ing enthusiasm, and has also Its rewards. From it may flow
the most profound satisfaction and personal happiness. It is
merely the ambition of the higher self. To a man capable
of such an ambition the lower and common forms have no
attraction, and could not be followed without unhapplness
and a sense of personal loss. To a man whose higher nature
Is thus In the ascendancy this purer form of ambition gives
the most selfish satisfaction and pleasure, but It is a Christian
satisfaction and pleasure such as the worldlings do not know.
Its pursuit does not bring loss, but Is the source of selfish gain
In a noble Christian sense.
Fidelity to the higher sense of duty always brings with It a
compensating reward. Attended as such a man may be by
outward oppression and social ostracism, by what the mass of
men call failure because it is a failure to secure the common
and lower rewards, he yet does reap his own harvest of Intel
lectual and spiritual pleasure, satisfaction, and happiness ; he
does secure what Bacon calls "the incomparable pleasure of
standing on the vantage ground of truth." This Is so refined
a pleasure as to be beyond the comprehension of the many ;
but we must not forget that in these exceptional cases of
noble sacrifice to truth and duty there is a sense of personal

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 45
gain which satisfies the higher self just as the gain of vulgar
ends satisfies the lower nature of the vulgar man. The
natural and normal selfishness of a man of a lofty spiritual
nature seems positive unselfishness to a man who only com
prehends the needs and passions of the lower nature. In a
sense every man Is and must be selfish. To know the quality
of that selfishness, we must know the nature of the man,
whether It be low or high ; developed and refined, or crude and
vulgar ; passionate and Ignorant, or spiritual and Intellectual.
35. The letter killeth ; the spirit giveth life. This is strik
ingly shown by the mistaken effort to uphold as reasonable.
In a strict and literal sense, certain New Testament precepts
which, when so presented, the universal conscience of man
kind has repudiated. These precepts the very upholders
reject in all their practice, and as intelligent, conscientious
men they must do so. It Is a case where frankness and
candor are much needed. The wrong treatment of these
precepts has tended to Injure the Christian cause, because the
defence of them as literally true and wise has led men to
doubt the Intellectual honesty of such defenders, and then to
deny the value of that system of which they are the avowed
champions. The precepts referred to include these : —
First, " Give to every man that asketh of thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Of him
that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again. Lend,
hoping for nothing again. Sell whatsoever thou hast and
give to the poor." This, if we look merely to the letter of the
precept, means unqualified alms-giving, which would create
professional mendicancy; and this Is an evil and a vice. It
would lead to systematic pauperism, checking and, In time,
destroying all the industries and activities of civilization.
Second, "Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat
or what you shall wear. Behold the birds of the air. They

46 PROTESTANTISM.
sow not, yet your Father feedeth them. Consider the lilies
of the field. They toil not, and yet He clothes them. There
fore take no thought for the morrow." Does any prudent,
intelligent man dare obey this .? Is it wise .? Is it sound and
practical ?
Third, " Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth.
Blessed be ye poor. Woe unto you that are rich." Is not
this the exaltation of poverty > Can poverty be regarded as the
Ideal condition .? Does not decrease of poverty mean decrease
of misery? Is not poverty the fruitful source of crime and
degradation ? Improvidence always leads to dependence upon
the providence of others. Universal improvidence and poverty
would be the end of all society and civilization. The increase
of the well-being of mankind lies in the increase of prudence.
Thrift Is to be encouraged. Mistaken generosity weakens the
incentive by which industry thrives. Mendicancy is an evil
the decrease of which marks genuine progress.
Fourth, " Resist not evil. Whosoever smites you on the
right cheek, turn to him the other also. If he take your coat,
let him have your cloak also. If he compel you to go a mile,
go with him twain." This precept. If obeyed, must Inevita
bly mean the triumph of wrong over right, of the ¦wicked over
the good. No man does obey it. He cannot recognize Its
binding force. Not to resist evil is at times to play the part
of a coward and a dastard. All men feel this. They cannot
help it. To fight evil men and resist their evil schemes Is at
times our highest and noblest duty.
These precepts are given In the most peremptory tone,
without apparent limitation or qualification. Yet we delib
erately disregard them. Why.?
The principle that corrects all these specific rules, controls,
modifies, and governs them, is the duty of a man to obey his
conscience. This does not permit men to take these precepts
literally. The great and broad principle controls and over-

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 47
rules all the minor details. "Christ gave us certain funda
mental principles or ideas which we are ourselves to apply to
all the varied relations of life. He inspired us with a new
spirit In which we are to make such applications. It is as
we understand these ideas and apply them, as we receive this
spirit and carry it out, that we are followers of Christ." We
do not owe literal obedience to a statement, even though it be
In the New Testament, if our .conscience tells us that such
obedience would be wrong. The Idea of the conscience Is
the all-pervading, all-dominating idea. Loyalty to that will
solve a thousand perplexities. To admit that any external
command may justify a man in overruling the decree of his
conscience is to lead him into a thousand difficulties. If the
voice within be indeed the voice of God, then. In disobeying
It, the man disobeys God; in overruling it, he overrules God.
To uphold the authority of a sentence In the New Testament
so as to make It paramount to the authority of conscience, so
that a man should obey the sentence and disregard his con
science, is to say that the Book is the only infallible voice of
God. If the Book be the voice of God, and the conscience
be also this same voice, they must be in harmony. If they
differ, then the conscience must override the Book. This is
the position of the English Church and of all Protestantism
when rightly understood. This, in practice. Is what all men
really believe and act upon, whatever they say or preach. It
¦was necessarily so for nearly four centuries after the death of
Christ, up to which time there was no such thing to defer to
as an ecclesiastically authorized and canonical New Testa
ment. The Scripture Is intended to stimulate and educate
the conscience, and this. In the main, it does in a marvellous
manner. It Is not intended that It should ever operate to
crush or stifle the conscience. So far as it should do this, it
would be a dangerous book. Rightly used, it will never do
this.

48 PROTES TANTISM.
The very probable and obvious explanation of these precepts
is, that Christ Is very inadequately reported, and did not make
the broad and sweeping declarations attributed to Him. It is
what constantly happens to-day when a reporter tries to con
dense Into a few paragraphs the sermon or speech which
occupied several hours in its delivery. No man would, for
an instant, think of holding the orator responsible for the
reporter's brief sentences. Each precept does point to and
suggest a profound truth. They stimulate thought and suggest
great general principles In a forcible manner ; but against
their literal application as universal rules our consciences
protest in no uncertain tones, and this protest it is our
Christian duty to heed.
It necessarily follows that, so far as a man's conscience
does approve, it Is his duty to apply these precepts. It Is a
matter of judgment and good sense under all the circum
stances of each individual. So there be honesty and loyalty
to conscience, it is well. No man ought to fail to see the
underlying truth, and this he must apply without being, how
ever, In slavish fetters to the letter of the Book. He must
seize essentials without being troubled by minor details.
"The eagle that soars near the sun does not ¦worry Itself
how to cross the rivers."
36. Bishop Carpenter says: "Many are anxious on
what they call the claim of Christianity to originality. It is
the survival of a foolish controversy ¦which has existed too
long, and chiefly from a want of understanding Christianity.
There was a time In which Christian apologists refused to
see good in any other religious system. Christianity, how
ever. Is the manifestation of facts, laws, and principles which
are eternal, — not first created when Christ appeared, but then
brought into clearer and fuller manifestation. Christianity
does not deny the brightness and splendor of those beams of

MESSAGE OF CHRIST. 49
light which in all ages shone amongst men. She points to
them in proof of the eternal basis of the kingdom of God.
She throws new meaning into truths which men had already
perceived. She draws together the scattered beams which
men saw, but did not wholly comprehend, and, uniting them,
she is able to diffuse throughout the world a purer light.
Thus, she comes not to destroy, but to save. She does not
seek to make a new system, but to open men's eyes to the
kingdom which ¦was always there. No new principles came
into existence with ^vhat we call Christianity, — even those
which seemed to be new were eternal. Jesus Christ did not
invent a religion : He revealed the laws of the eternal kingdom
of God, — laws older and more abiding than the laws by which
rivers run and planets move."

50 PR O TESTANTISM.

CHAPTER II.
PRE-REFORMATION PERIOD.  CHRISTIANITY CORRUPTED
AND DISPI.ACED BY SCHOLASTICISM.
37. That the theology of the Christian Church has been
at variance with the simplicity of the Gospel Is not a matter
of surprise, when one realizes ho^w largely that theology Is
due to the. influence and ascendancy of the followers of Plato
and Aristotle. The system which they developed has been
designated as the scholastic philosophy, and to it is unques
tionably due the form and technical language of our present
theology. 38. Bishop Hampden says : " Scholastic theology is that
speculative, logical Christianity which has been In all ages
and Is to-day the principal obstacle to the union and peace of
the Church of Christ. While theologians of the schools have
thought that they ¦were establishing religious truth by elaborate
argumentation, they have been only multiplying and arranging
a theological language. Signs and terms have been converted
Into things. The combination and analysis of -words which
the logical theology has produced has given occasion to the
passions of men to arm themselves In defence of the phantoms
thus called Into being. Not only have professed theologians
but private Christians been imposed on by the specious religion
of theological terms, and have often betrayed a fond zeal In
the sei-vice of their idol abstractions. It has been one of the
chief causes of the Infidelity which prevails among speculative
men. It has given rise to a cant of orthodoxy which exists as
surely as a cant of fanaticism and hypocrisy. Persons repeat
certain phrases with a confidence that they understand and

SCHOLASTICISM.' 51
value them, in proportion to their real ignorance of their true
meaning, and without attaching, indeed, any distinct meaning
to the terms which they repeat. The emphasis of their asser
tion of the theological truth Is apt to become a snare to
them. Inducing the delusion that those cannot but have a firm
hold of what they profess who are so staunch and so correct In
making their profession. Their fluency in passing the watch-
¦words of orthodoxy and their exact enunciation of its symbols
thus react on them Injuriously. Their religion, unconsciously
to them, becomes merely verbal. They take the sign for the
thing, the counter for the money.
" Chairs of theology were for centuries the oracular seats
from ¦which the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle were
expounded. Platonism was the more arrogant In its preten
sions. It aspired not to modify, but to supersede, Christian
truth. It regarded the Christian system as an intrusion on
the ascendancy which it had hitherto enjoyed. The Plato-
nists disputed the originality of the Christian doctrine, and
endeavored to derive all the sayings and ideas of Christ from
Plato. The mischief ¦was not lessened when, Its open hostility
being found Ineffectual, its members merged themselves into
the Christian name. The attempted reconciliation which then
took place between the theories of their philosophy and the
doctrines of Christianity proved a snare to members of the
Church. There arose naturally an ambiguity respecting the
peculiar rights of the antagonistic systems, — an Intermixture
of the speculations of Platonists with the vital truths of the
religion. Towards the Platonic system the Church had felt
a tacit partiality. Its speculations were received without any
feeling of repugnance and without any very keen sense of
danger. " The philosophy of Aristotle, on the contrary, crept into
the Church Imperceptibly and even against its consent. The
Church became unawares Aristotelian. The influence of this

52 PROTESTANTISM.
philosophy was more subtle than that of Plato. It was
silently insinuated Into and spread over the whole system of
Christian doctrines. It was not confined, like Platonism, to
certain leading points, as, for Instance, the doctrine of the
Trinity, but was applied to the systematic development of
the sacred truth in all its parts. It fixed our technical lan
guage In every department of theology. Aristotle had been
the great authority of some of the early heretics, and hence
arose a prejudice among the professors of Christianity against
him. The ' subtlety of Aristotle' -was the familiar expression
for a minute and captious logic, and the name of Aristotle
became a term of reproach applied to each adventurous
reasoner In theology. His philosophy had, therefore, to fight
Its way to the throne which it afterwards occupied with an
undisputed and unlimited dominion."
39. Erasmus said that theologians in his day "thought
that all was up with the Christian religion If any one rejected
the decrees of Aristotle," who was called the precursor of
Christ. "Biblical theologian " became a term of contempt.
Luther declared that "Aristotle, that bHnd heathen, has
replaced Christ." Aristotle's "Ethics" were read in the
churches. In 1629 the Sorbonne decreed that to contradict
Aristotle was to contradict the Church.
40. Rev. Mark Pattison says: "The aUiance between
the Church and the Greek philosophers Is easily explained by
a reference to history. In the first century there were no
relations between the two. The Christian movement origi
nated wholly outside the sphere of educated thought. The
first Christians were drawn mainly from the poorer and
uneducated classes. The movement did not originate in the
cultivation of the age. It did not advance In the first instance
as a new teaching which sought to rival and displace existing
schools by superior truth, superior arguments, or greater

SCHOLASTICISM. 53
power of satisfying curiosity and solving speculative diffi
culties. It did not come as an Intellectual principle or a
truer system of philosophy. Philosophy, Indeed, lay outside
its orbit, — was nowhere in contact with it.
' ' We are apt to speak as If In the Roman ¦world of that
first century pagan worships had died or ¦were dying out.
This is an Illusion. These beliefs had disappeared from the
minds of the literary and educated classes, but they had not
as yet faded at all in the esteem of the public. It Is not too
much to say that the Roman ¦world was never more religious
In Its own way than it ¦was in that first century. It was into
this fermenting mass of superstition among the bulk of man
kind that the Christian message was launched, and not Into
the thin upper stratum of the reading and educated classes.
Its relation to the popular ¦worships was one of sharp conffict
and deadly hostility. It encountered rude opposition and
violence, but not from the educated classes who knew nothing
of It, ¦who had not learned to distinguish it from the many
similar phenomena which were surrounding them. It moved
In a different plane from philosophy. The persecution of
Christians by the magistrates was merely to satisfy popular
clamor and prejudices on matters to ¦which the civil powers
were Indifferent. When Nero or Trajan punished Christians
It was not from choice, but from political necessity. Popular
feeling was too strong for them. There was the clamorous
mob which Csesar dared not refuse.
" In the second century a great change silently came into
the world in this respect. With Nerva (A.D. 96) philosophy
may be said to have ascended the Imperial throne. In the
subsequent development of the imperial system, the character
of the individual emperor became steadily of less Importance.
Political power passed over to the educated classes, and
became Imbued with Its habits of thinking. Government was
ceasing to be the tyranny of the emperor's arbitrary will. It

54 PROTESTANTISM.
was being slowly penetrated with the Ideas of reason and
humanity. The educated classes accepted the Greek philoso
phy which Itself changed its character after It was transplanted
to Rome. The schools of philosophy were transformed Into
schools of personal morality. They became an instrument of
progress. Social organization became the attractive object
¦which employed the minds of men.
" At no period of history, perhaps, has the outward victory
of moral Ideas been more decisive than in the second century.
Social problems ¦were discussed on the broadest principles
of reason and humanity. The unity of the empire Introduced
the conception of the brotherhood of mankind. Government
occupied Itself with the condition of the free laborer.
Enfranchisement of slaves ¦was encouraged. Marriage was
protected and raised. Human sacrifices ¦were prohibited.
All this was the work of philosophy or education. Now, in
this Greek philosophy, for It was to this ithat the change of
society was due, Christianity at once recognized Its own
features, and made common cause with it against the inhu
manities of the ¦world. Christians knew that philosophy had
been one long protest against the popular mythology. Philos
ophers had suffered persecution, even death, for not ¦worship
ping the gods of their country. Greek philosophy had also
taught the unity of God. At this period it was eminently
religious. It set to ¦work to reform the old ¦worship. It
sought to remove its grossness. It declared the thousand
pagan deities to be but many names of the same one God.
It treated the old religions with respect, and explained them
by interpretations. It aimed at an ideal religious unity. It
would penetrate behind the veil of the Form to the concep
tion which lay hid beneath It, to the Eternal and the True,
of ¦whom the local deities were transient and phenomenal
representations. ' ' Thus the Christians and the philosophers were drawn

5 CHOLA S TIC ISM.

55

together by their common desire to reinstate a positive religion
in its hold over all. Philosophy was pre-eminently moral.
The reform of the pagan theology was undertaken by the
philosophers under the pressure of moral Ideas. Here, again,
Christians found a point of sympathy. Christianity descended
into the depths of human consciousness and elicited from it
a response to a morality which the philosophers had wished
but had not dared to teach. The gospel in its earliest form
had presented itself as an uncompromising appeal to the
reason and the moral consciousness in Its most exalted mani
festations. At once rational and supernatural, it is super
natural by its profound rationality. Thus the Christian felt
a sympathy with the broad principles of the Greek culture.
"The second century was the reign of common sense in
life and literature. Its philosophy ¦was eminently practical,
universally applicable, of the very stuff of which life Itself Is
made. All the ideal and subtle was evaporated, and only
those results left which recommended themselves to every
one's reason and common sense. That which was rational
and universal had lived. That ¦which ¦was imaginative and
peculiar had died out. In all this Christianity recognized its
own elements.
"We find, then, that there was a time in the history of
Christianity when the highest reason, as Independently exer
cised by the wise men of the world, was entirely co-incident
¦with the highest reason as inspiring the Church. There was
discovered to be not two philosophies, but one true philosophy
common to them both. This was a phenomenon which could
not but attract the attention of the observant men of all
parties. It Invited an explanation. Here was a religion
which did not come from philosophy or liberal culture.
Here was a religious reform of paganism undertaken by
philosophic culture. The two were Identical in all their
chief elements. An explanation was soon propounded by

56 PROTESTANTISM.
the educated Christian writers, such as Justin, Origen, and
Clement of Alexandria, after the middle of the second century.
The educated classes became slowly aware that there was
growing up a set of moral and religious ideas which, in the
disinterested self-abnegation of its standard of human conduct
and the pure moral attributes which it ascribed to God,
offered a surprising coincidence with the best and wisest
thoughts of the best and wisest sages of the Greek schools
during the five or six centuries of their existence. Greek
philosophy had been all along at war with the popular
religions, and the philosophers had been often In danger
from the devotees of those religions, not because their ideal
was laxer, but because it was more refined than that of the
religious world. Greek philosophy had been a protest of
six centuries against an Immoral deity, against the gods of
the nations, — gods partial, changeful, passionate, unjust,
whose attributes were rage, revenge, or lust.
" It was inevitable, as soon as there arose Christian teachers
¦who had any tincture of Greek literature, that they should
appropriate this protest and look upon these philosophers as
upon precursors of the faith. An immediate amalgamation
of Greek literature and Christian teaching was the conse
quence. The fusion of philosophy with Christianity was
complete. Its consequences ¦were not foreseen, but were as
inevitable as the alliance itself. It transformed Christianity
Into a great system of speculative philosophy. The Church,
as a human institution, was too -weak to resist the enormous
influence of that great aristocracy of Intellect and power with
which it came into friendly relations. The primitive sim
plicity of the Church and its gospel was gradually abandoned
in deference to the overwhelming ascendancy of education,
culture, philosophy, political influence, and power. It did,
indeed, carry Christianity over all the then civilized world,
and it was evidently a divinely appointed way of compassing

SCHOLASTICISM. 57
this end. It was, however, done by the temporary abandon
ment of its earlier character and the adoption of a garb and
language foreign to Its original spirit. After it had compassed
tlie world and taken captive the schools and all the resources
of man, its original spirit was to return, and the adventitious
elements Introduced merely to serve a purpose would, In the
end, be thrown off and Its primitive simplicity be restored."
41. The scholastic philosophy is, indeed, pre-eminently a
record of the struggle between the efforts of human reason
to assert Its own freedom and independence, and the coercion
exercised over it by the civil or ecclesiastical power. It ¦was
the struggle bet-ween Reason and Authority, between Com.nion
Sense and jSIysticism. These terms designate the two classes
of human minds, — those who cling to authority and mysticism,
and those who adhere to reason and common sense — the High-
church party on the one side, the Broad -church party on the
other, — the one class speculative, the other practical ; the one
ascetic, literary, and philosophical ; the other social, philan
thropic, and scientiflc.
42. Bishop Hampden says : " Social and political causes
brought about the ascendancy of the clergy, ¦which was for
centuries the only really Influential power. The immense
disproportion ¦which existed between the spiritual chiefs and
the body over which they presided in point of Intelligence
and moral culture ¦was a temptation to acts of tyranny, pride,
and avarice, leading to severe oppression and a secular spirit
in the priesthood. They bound kings In chains and nobles in
links of iron, — chains and links that no hand was seen to
forge, but against which sinews of flesh could not avail.
There was no counterbalancing power against the clergy.
The aristocratic and educated man who had any energy or
ambition found his only sphere of action in the offices of
ecclesiastical government. All schools of learning became

58 PROTESTANTISM.
ecclesiastical societies, and all literature and science was con
verted into theology. The face of civil society was changed.
The monotony of religious rule pervaded all things. The
people became more and more dependent on the clergy, who
exercised a constant watchfulness to maintain ascendancy.
The oracles of divine and human wisdom were no longer
accessible to the great mass of believers. The clergy was a
mysterious, privileged order. The schools of theology became
the source of all Intelligence and po^wer. Theologians alone
had the secret on which the vitality of power depended.
Civil rulers who had any political sagacity showed it in the
dextrous use and direction of the force which they could not
coerce and which was already in possession of the real
dominion. ' ' But the liberty of human reason continued to live In the
bosom of the Church itself. Heresy was the Insurrection of
human reason rebellious against the domination of the spiritual
power. There arose a constant struggle between the advocates
of Reason and the advocates of Authority. The Church for
bade the mind to think for itself, to use its own faculties,
to examine, to discuss, to object. Obedience was become
another word for Religion.
"It Is impossible for us at this day to conceive the force
of the pressure of authority on the mind In those ages. A
passive, unthinking obedience to spiritual direction was the
great object aimed at. The discipline of moral restraint was
extremely ¦weak. The greatest moral Irregularities w^ere suf
fered to exist amid all the strictness of the creed professed
and the solemnities of rituals and rules. Amidst the moral
disorder which prevailed there was the greatest severity of
mental coercion. The struggle of reason was not actuated by
a desire for what we now understand by liberty. The license
of the times afforded a sort of compensation for the miseries
of social tyranny. It was a resistance to the internal spell

SCHOLASTICISM.

59

which bound the faculties, — a resumption of the long-lost
perception of personal Individuality.
" The first yielding of the Church was to concede liberty of
commenting and discussing, provided the intellect confined
itself within the range of established authorities. The whole
field of consequences and deductions was open, but the dis
cussion of first principles was closed. What the writer had
to guard against ¦was the appearance of proposing anything
new, — anything that did not admit of being traced up to
some received opinion. The suspicion of originality was fatal.
If any man speak, let him speak only the ¦words of those who
had been acknowledged by the Church as the dispensers of
truth. If it ¦was a point on which the Church had pro
nounced, it was no longer a matter of opinion. It was to be
received as a sentence. To discuss It simply as an opinion
was heretical. The scholastic theology confounded the truth
of fact w^ith the truth of opinion. It regarded all opinions
when sanctioned by the Church as on a par with facts, or,
indeed, as facts. It is the nature of a truth to admit of no
additional certainty from the progress of discussion. The
truth of opinion is, however, of a nature to be modified and
Improved and established by the course of time, by the prog
ress of civilization, arts, and knowledge, by accessions of
experience, by the conflicts of judgment. It is indeed essen
tial to the truth of opinions that it be held as variable, — that
one should al^ways be open to new light, to new conviction.
This very important distinction the scholastic philosophers
necessarily overlooked In their construction of a theological
system. They boldly stepped beyond the bare facts of
Scripture in the assumption of theoretic conclusions from
them as the principles of their theology. They pushed
dogmas Into the place of religion, and forced their decisions
of doubtful points on the consciences of believers as if the
voice of the Holy Spirit were speaking through them as the

6o PROTES TANTISM.
ministers and stewards of divine mysteries. They treated
faith and reason as distinct principles, — as if the assent to
divine truth could be an act of faith in any way distinct
from an act of reason. The more extravagant any proposed
doctrine was, the more attractive it was Intended It should be
to the religious inquirer, since it was then a more striking
exemplification of the contrast supposed to exist between
truth of faith and truth of reason, which in reality was a
purely speculative distinction.
' ' Where the fanatic fancies that belief In the extravagant
or mysterious doctrine Is a meritorious act of faith, so much
the more to be commended because opposed to reason, all
attempts to convince of error are necessarily unavailing. He
has lost the power to distinguish between dogmas and the
facts of religion. The scholastic spirit reduces all religion
Into theoretic dogmas. It forgets to separate matters of
religion into simple facts divinely revealed and theories
founded on those facts. It confuses the fact and the philo
sophical explanation of the fact. Now, so far as doctrines
are deductive statements, conclusions drawn from the facts
or words of revelation, they may certainly be examined by
that reason which deduces them. It is to be seen whether
they are such as ought to have been deduced ; ¦whether they
have the support of evidence from their general accordance
with Scripture, from the concurrent opinion of the wise and
unprejudiced, and from other considerations of this kind.
The degree of evidence resulting from such considerations
must decide the theological truth and relative Importance of
such conclusions. No argument can be drawn from the
general acceptance of this scholastic theology. No univer
sality can make that divine which never was such. It Is a
mere prejudice of veneration for antiquity and the imposing
aspect of an unanimous acquiescence, if unanimous It really
be, which makes us regard that as truth which comes so
recommended to us.

SCHOLASTICISM. 6i
" Truth is rather the attribute of the few than of the many.
The real Church of God may be the small remnant scarcely
visible amidst the mass of surrounding professors. We can
not pronounce anything to be divine truth simply because it
has the marks of having been generally or universally received
among men. This scholastic theology Is not a mere thing of
the past. In the Romish Church it stills holds visible sway,
clothed in the purple of spiritual supremacy, and giving the
law of faith to the subject-consciences of men. It Is to-day
the theology of Rome. In the destitution of Scripture facts
for the support of the theological structure, the method of
subtle distinctions and reasonings has been found of admirable
efficacy. In the Protestant churches scholasticism in its rude
form and extreme statements has passed away, but its dominion
has endured. The minds of men had been long trained to
think and speak of divine things in the scholastic terms and
Idioms. The reformer was compelled to use the phraseology
of the system which he assailed. Thus, through its techni
cal language, scholasticism has survived even In Protestant
churches. The real state of the case Is, that the spirit of
scholasticism still lives among us ; that, though we do not
acknowledge submission to its empire, ¦we still feel Its influ
ence ; that nearly all of the dogmatic tendency and doctrinal
bitterness of the day Is due to this surviving shadow of the
old schoolmen." It was this theology that Luther denounced.
It w^as the revolt against this theology that received the famous
name of Protestantism. It is fragments of this theology that
have, more or less, been a stumbling-block in all the Protest
ant churches to this very day. It is against the remaining
fetters of this theology that the broader spirit of to-day
speaks. It Is the effort to stamp out the last traces of this
theology that unites the enlightened spirits In all the churches.
To remove this later growth, to overthrow the false ideas
annexed to Christianity by the followers of Plato and Aristotle,

62 PRO TESTANTISM.
to recall the pure and simple spirit of the gospel, to completely
exorcise that dreadful spell that was cast over the human mind
by the schoolmen, to dispel the last traces of that hideous
nightmare that rested over society for ages, — this Is the work
of the liberal theology of to-day.
43. When we consider the terrible power once wielded by
that scholastic theology, when we remember the ascendancy
it once had, and the complete control of the human reason It
once secured, — there Is no occasion for surprise at the slow
ness with which the human mind has freed Itself from its
clutches. The wonder is that the human reason ever suc
ceeded at all In escaping the rule of the scholastic theology
entrenched as It was behind the bulwarks of the civil power,
the ignorance of the masses, the political, social, and religious
prejudices and passions of mankind.
44. Rev. H. R. Ha-weis says: "Our theology, as an
historical fact. Is not derived directly from Christ, or even
His apostles ; It is the result of the Greek mind at work upon
the gospel materials. The Greek mind has done our theo
logical thinking for us, — done It in a way ¦we should never
have done it for ourselves, — and to this day we are repeating
and pretending to understand distinctions of Greek meta
physics perfectly natural to the Greek and as completely
unreal to the modern European. The Greek mind could not
bear to have anything undecided or inaccurately defined,
hence the famous creation of many Christian dogmas. These
we have embalmed In our creeds and articles, the substance
of which was mainly translated by the Roman doctors out of
Greek. In these -we have no longer — we do not even profess
to have — the simplicity which ¦was In Jesus. What ¦we have
got is very remarkable ; It is, in fact, Christianity as it
gathered form and substance In the later Alexandrian schools.
What could they know about the exact sense in which Christ

SCHOLASTICISM. 63
was the Son of God, or the way In which the Holy Spirit
proceeded from the Father and the Son.? Why, of course,
they knew no more about it than we know. They only had
the Old and New Testaments and their own brains, and we
have no more and no less. Yet their speculations have been
set down as next door to infallible truth ; and hence our
theological heart-burnings, our bitter controversies, our wild
and futile attempts to get a rational theology out of the creeds
and formularies of the Christian Church. There is essential
truth underlying the creeds and even the articles ; but to use
them literally has become finally and forever Impossible to
any but professional theologians, who are about as much
concerned with truth as the Greek sophists in the days of
Socrates were ¦with philosophy."

64 PR O TESTANTISM.

CHAPTER III.
REFORMATION PERIOD.  NEW PRINCIPLES STATED, BUT
AGAIN CORRUPTED AND NULLIFIED.  GRADUAL WORK
ING OUT OF THE TRUTH. — THE SO-CALLED LIBERAL
THEOLOGY.
45. Probably no human Institution ever became more
corrupt and wicked than had the Christian Church at the
time of the Reformation. It was a huge political machine
that controlled the wealth and power of the world. Its
ascendancy was complete. Never was there a greater tyranny
over men. The luxury and profligacy of the higher ecclesi
astics were open and notorious. Nowhere in its final results
did the Reformation cause more marked improvement than
in the very Church itself. The losses it sustained finally
sobered and checked its mad -worldliness. The Church of
Rome is to-day spiritually stronger and purer and better than
it ever was, and is more deserving of the respect of mankind.
It is probable that this indignant uprising against its domina
tion was a source of safety ; for, unchecked, it would have
gone on till it would have utterly collapsed by the very decay
of Its organic structure. It was <slowly dying of a moral
leprosy. 46. Among the Protestants the first result of the Reforma
tion was naturally very violent discussion, leading almost to
religious chaos. Till men had been some time free they
could not know how to use their freedom -well. There was
so much error, so much prejudice, such ignorance, such self
ishness, — CTerybody was infected. "Every one was groping
blindly after that light whose very quest had so long been

LIBERAL THEOLOGY. 65
forbidden. Religion had been considered for more than a
thousand years to be a great mass of complicated philosophy.
It was deemed necessary to seek it in erudition, subtlety,
mystery." No one could see that It was a simple, easily
comprehended statement. This condition, lasting more or
less even to the present day, has given Rome Its chance for
taunt and sneer. The answer to the taunt has been admirably
made by Lord Macaulay, who says : —
" In the final and permanent fruits of liberty are wisdom,
moderation, and mercy. Its immediate effects are often
atrocious crimes, conflicting errors, scepticism on points the
most clear, dogmatism on points the most mysterious. It is
just at this crisis that its enemies love to exhibit it. They
pull down the scaffolding from the half-finished edifice ; they
point to the flying dust, the falling bricks, the comfortless
rooms, the frightful irregularity of the whole appearance, and
then ask in scorn where the promised splendor and comfort
are to be found. If such miserable sophisms were to prevail,
there ¦would never be a good house or a good government in
the world. There is only one cure for the evils which newly
acquired freedom produces, and that cure is freedom. When
a prisoner first leaves his cell he cannot bear the light of day ;
he is unable to discriminate colors, or recognize faces. But
the remedy is not to remand him into his dungeon, but to
accustom him to the rays of the sun. The blaze of truth and
liberty may at first dazzle and bewilder nations which have
become half -blind in the house of bondage; but let them
gaze on, and they will soon be able to bear it. In a few
years men learn to reason. The extreme violence of opinions
subsides. Hostile theories correct each other. The scattered
elements of truth cease to contend, and begin to coalesce, until
at length a system of justice and order Is educed out of the
chaos."

66 PR 0 TESTANTISM.
47. Now, in England the revolt against Rome was not at
its inception intellectual or religious In its nature. It was
a political movement designed to throw off subserviency to a
foreign temporal power. It was not opposition to doctrines
or dogmas ; it was not any yearning after religious freedom,
or any keen perception of theological errors that led to the
break with Rome. Matters had never in England reached
the same point of abuse and tyranny that existed on the
Continent. It was bad enough, but the evil was very differ
ent both in kind and degree in England from what it was,
say, in Germany.
48. In England the Church had, however, absorbed and,
at the time of the Reformation, held more than one-fifth of
all the land of the realm. Besides Its landed estates, it held
a vast amount of personal property of every conceivable
description. It ¦was. Indeed, the greatest and richest corpo
ration in the kingdom. The Crown was relatively poor.
The nobility was not wealthy. The reform of religion
simply became a pretext for a great political movement
which was to destroy the power of this great ecclesiastical
corporation and make wealthy the Crown and the nobility.
Henry VIII., therefore, confiscated this immense church
property. It was probably the greatest act of spoliation and
robbery in history. A judicious distribution of this plunder
created a wealthy aristocracy, and filled the coffers of the
King. The noble famlHes of England to this day have their
financial roots reaching down Into this confiscated church
property. This was the source of their wealth, the origin
of their present power. Not only were the older nobles
enriched, but a new aristocracy was created from among the
dependents of the King.
49. The nature of this break rendered any subsequent
compromise Impossible. A reconciliation with Rome would

LIBERAL THEOLOGY. 67
mean, it was feared, a restoration of this church property,
and so every holder of it became Protestant to the very
marrow within his bones. The brief reign of Mary was only
made possible by pledges that the distribution of church
property should not be disturbed. Fears of treachery on the
part of Rome, a belief that these promises and pledges were
deceitful and would be broken whenever it should be possi
ble to do so safely, made England permanently Protestant.
Added to this was the consideration that by the revolt a vast
sum of money was to be kept In the realm that had hitherto
annually flowed to Rome as tribute and church fees. Added
to this was the extreme unpopularity of the clergy because of
their excesses and abuses. These influences were what really
separated England from Rome.
50. The great masses were profoundly ignorant. The
Bible was a sealed book, and, so far as any popular knowl
edge of It -was concerned, was practically non-existent. The
abuse of po^wer by the Church was, however, known and felt
by all men. The financial side of the question was clearly
discerned. Jealousy of a great foreign power was easily
aroused. In fact, all the prejudices and all the selfish instincts
of the people were united against further subjection to Rome.
The King was by law made the " Supreme Head of the
Church." To deny this was treason. He alone could define
orthodoxy or declare heresy.
All this was consistent with almost any opinions on religious
matters. The problem that was before the leaders was this :
It was necessary to recognize the immense prejudices of the
people on religious subjects, and not to go so far as to offend
these too deeply. On the matter of doctrines and dogmas it
was necessary to go very slowly, and yet to go so far as to
clearly be outside of all the fundamental theories of Rome
as a working organization. How this was to be done the

68 PROTESTANTISM.
political leaders did not care provided it was done thoroughly.
At this crisis the moderation, intelligence, and skill of the
ecclesiastics to whom this work was, from time to time,
intrusted seem very remarkable. They probably built better
than they knew. In any event, the result of their labors,
their struggles, their compromises, Is to furnish a basis for
the final union of Protestant Christianity. Much was due to
the character of Elizabeth and the length of her reign.
Rev. J. R. Green, in his admirable history, thus describes
her : —
' ' No woman ever lived who was so totally destitute of the
sentiment of religion. Her mind was unruffled by the spirit
ual problems which were vexing the minds around her.
They were not only unintelligible, they ¦were a little ridicu
lous. She had the same intellectual contempt for the coarser
superstition of the Romanist as for the bigotry of the Protest
ant. She looked at theological differences In a purely political
light. Her ingenuity set itself to construct a system in which
ecclesiastical unity should not jar against the rights of con
science, — a compromise which merely required outward
'conformity' to the established ¦worship, ¦while, as she was
never weary of repeating, it ' left opinion free.' It was a
great gain for humanity when the Queen declared her will to
meddle in no way with the consciences of her subjects. She
would hear of no inquisition Into a man's private thoughts on
religious matters or Into his personal religion. Cecil could
boldly assert in her name, at a later time, the right of every
Englishman to perfect liberty of religious opinion. Such a
liberty of opinion by no means Implied liberty of public
worship. While granting freedom of conscience'to her sub
jects, she was resolute to exact an outward conformity to the
established religion. Conformity, indeed, was necessary, for
men could as yet conceive of no state without a religion, or
of civil obedience apart from compliance with the religious

LIBERAL THEOLOGY. 69
order of the state. But only outer conformity was needed.
That no man should set up a worship other than that of the
nation at large, that every subject should duly attend at the
national worship, Cecil believed to be essential to public
order. But he saw no need for prying Into the actual beliefs
of those who conformed to the religious laws of the realm,
nor did he think that such beliefs could be cl|ianged by the
fear of punishment. While refusing freedom of worship,
therefore, Cecil, like Elizabeth, was ready to concede freedom
of conscience."
51. It is historically true that In all things England is the
antithesis of Rome. Of the two great systems of law Rome
created one and England the other. All Western nations not
to-day living under that system of la^w created by England
live under that created by ancient Rome. The keynote of
Rome is authority. In politics It Is the authority of the
Emperor ¦whose ¦will is law. This Is the fundamental propo
sition of Roman la^w. It Is England that worked out for the
world the theory and practice of constitutional government.
The entire subjection of the citizen is Roman. The entire
freedom of the citizen is English. The passive obedience of
the people is Roman. The absolute power of the people is
English. By the possession of this principle England was
peculiarly fitted to become the religious antagonist of Rome,
for Protestantism is merely the application to the Church of
that principle which is at the root of all English living and
of all English thinking.
52. Now, In palitics this great principle was admitted, and,
indeed, always existed in the organic English law, while for
centuries it was In practice to a great degree denied. What
was loudly proclaimed as a theory was for centuries most
persistently set aside in daily political life. But the organic
law was there. The great principle was deeply rooted in the

70

PROTESTANTISM.

soil. Sheer brute force prevented for ages a successful appeal
to it, but it was all the time slowly gaining power, and finally
enabled what was at one time a great despotism to become, in
every essential respect, a great republic without any change of
the organic structure. This was, of course, simply because
the organic structure had always been right, but had not been
lived up to. It was In existence, however, ready to be acted
upon whenever the conditions became suitable.
Somewhat analogous to this Is the religious situation. The
Church was providentially placed on the right basis ; but in
daily life for ages this basis has been practically disregarded,
and this by sheer brute force, by the operation of sheer prej
udice, ignorance, and selfishness. The cardinal principles
are, however, there in the organic la^w, and will be appealed
to In time successfully.
53. The history of England Is merely the history of two
things, — the growth of the idea of constitutional government,
and the growth of the Protestant religious idea, and these two
Ideas are at the very root one and the same. The great task
in politics was to raise the nation to an adequate, realizing
sense of its own chartered rights, and to see that what was
needed was not more law or new law, but a more com
plete recognition of the very theory and principle on which
all their laws were based. When this was compassed much
was left in force, and. Indeed, found worthy of respect, which,
however, no man would have deliberately created If, in all the
Hght of to-day, he were to plan with a clear field before him.
It was felt, however, that all these minor details would In
time come right without any violent cutting away. So, when
ever church unity is reached, much will be left in the way of
old formulas which will to some be precious and Important.
It will be enough if in the Interest of peace they be left to the
gentler hand of time waiting for the more perfect enlighten-

LIBERAL THEOLOGY. 71
ment of mankind. If there can ever be practical union on
essentials, there may well be granted the utmost indulgence
on all non-essentials.
54. If the political leaders were indifferent as to how
theology was reconstructed, they were not in any sense or
degree indifferent as to the use of church patronage. This
they took into their own hands. It was an evil day for the
Church when practically the right to fill all Its pulpits became
vested In a dissolute nobility, when such places became a
commercial commodity, the value of which was clearly cal
culated and sharply insisted on. To a simple-minded man it
seems an astonishing fact that the right to preach the Christian
religion in a certain place should be purchasable for a sum of
money, which should secure to him for life the right to a
well-defined income and a certain social position. Yet this
was what happened. In determining the selling-price of a
' ' living " you considered the age of the purchaser, his prob
able duration of life under the tables of mortality, the amount
of the revenue and its certainty, and then the social advan
tages of the particular location. The purchaser of the " living"
might then have a curate to do the work at a nominal price,
and himself live the life of an ' ' absentee " at Paris or London
on the surplus over and above what he was obliged to pay the
curate. 55. The same thing was, however, until very recently,
true of army commissions, which were an article to be bought
and sold. It was also a century or more ago true of seats in
Parliament, which were purchased the same as a bushel of
grain. Such abuses were characteristic of all departments
of English life, and that all did not go down in one universal
ruin was merely because, at the core, England was sound and
strong and healthy. The aristocracy that then ruled Church
and State might be rotten, but the great nation never lost its

72 PROTESTANTISM.
recuperative power, and as rapidly as people could be brought
to a realizing sense of their chartered rights and to the asser
tion of them, these abuses disappeared. So it will be with
the Church. The truer views have been coming to the front
slowly, it is true ; but the onward movement has been steady,
and is increasing in strength and volume.
56. Dean Stanley says: "/ «ot persuaded that -what
is called Liberal Theology is the backbone of the Church
of England, and will be found to be the backbone of its
daughter church in America. The fact that a large portion
of the world and the Church Is against us ought not to alter
our conviction that In the main we are right.
"Instead of standing on the merely apologetic ground of
defending itself against the attacks of its assailants, it ought
itself to claim an orthodoxy, if we like so to call It, a Biblical,
Evangelical, Catholic character, which its opponents have
never reached. On many of the essential doctrines of Chris
tianity, the Bible and the best voices of Christendom are on
our side and not on theirs ; and though, on account of the
many-sidedness of truth and the imperfections of human lan
guage, there is much to be forgiven on both sides, yet, on the
whole, it is they, not we, whose extravagances need to be
tolerated, and whose errors need to be condoned."
57. By liberal theology is meant that system which is strictly
based on the Scriptures, without the aid of the authority of the
Church as interpreter and without any addition of material
from the field of ecclesiastical tradition. It accepts the funda
mental principles and theories of the Church, and carries them
out to their natural and inevitable results. Its main purpose
is the restoration of the Church to Its original doctrinal sim
plicity. It brings with it a spirit of tolerance and compre
hensiveness, a recognition of the diversity of men's minds and
needs, a belief that the differences between Christians in the

LIBERAL THEOLOGY. 73
Church are largely verbal, and that a more exact definition of
terms and a better understanding of the points involved will
lead to unity and peace. It believes in a supreme allegiance to
. truth, and that whatever is true is right and expedient however
It clash with accepted ideas and however It affect existing
Institutions. It rejects the idea of a time-serving expediency.
It declares that the conscience and reason are given by God for
the ascertainment of moral and spiritual truth ; that revelation
is to aid reason, not to supersede It, and that the cause of truth
Is subserved by the fullest and freest exercise of the human
faculties in its investigation. It says that the Church should
take conscience and reason as its allies, and, that it may be an
alliance of strength and power, the Church should not seek to
fetter or restrain them. "It insists not on the ceremonial, the
dogmatic, or the portentous, but on the moral side of religion.
It insists on the spirit, not on the letter ; on the meaning, not
on the words ; on the progressive, not on the stationary char
acter of Christianity." It believes in the universality of the
divine love, the supreme Importance of morality, the supremacy
of the individual conscience, the identification of the Church
with the laity, of things secular ¦with things sacred. It is in
harmony with all there Is true in the minds of men. It
says that whatever is good and true science is good and true
theology, and what is false science is equally false theology.
Its conception of religion is righteousness in conduct. To be
religious Is to recognize and live up to the ideas of justice,
truth," love, charity, purity, compassion, sympathy, and ten
derness as exemplified in the life of Christ. It is to accept
the claim of these principles as absolute and paramount, rising
above all other considerations, above all thought of expediency
or self-interest. To be true and just, to be loving, pure,
compassionate, syaxipathetic, tender, and charitable in all the
relations of life, and then to leave the consequences to God,
is to be religious. This, it believes, is Christianity in all its

y4 PR O TESTANTISM.
original simpHcity, freshness, sweetness, and strength. This
rehgion can never grow old or obsolete. It can never fail.
Its obHgation can never cease. It Is of universal application
and potency, for, wherever men are gathered together Into
communities, there these ideas are the only ones that will lead
to the highest and best civilization and culture. Doctrines
and dogmas are things of a day. They rise, develop, are
modified, and pass away from the minds of men. In one
age they have been of overwhelming interest, and In another
age are forgotten. The liberal theology Is, therefore, a pro
test against dogmatism and speculative thought as matter to
be imposed upon the consciences of men by church authority.
It is also a protest against mysticism, for It finds Christianity
to be eminently practical, and a question of right conduct and
pure character. " If the Church is to be loyal to its trust, it
must more and more call men to the contemplation of the
sublime character of Christ and less to the discussion of
speculative doctrines and abstruse dogmas."
58. That a more scriptural and liberal theology should In
the end entirely supplant the old traditional and scholastic
theology was inevitable from the position taken by Protest
antism at the time of the Reformation. Prior to that time
acquaintance with the Bible ¦was confined to the learned few.
The enormous mass of Christians never so much as looked
into or upon a copy of it, much less read a page of it ; Indeed,
the overwhelming majority of believers could not have read it
if it had been placed in their hands. It was not a literary
age. The people were told what the Church chose to allow
as the teaching of the Bible. On the ignorance of the masses
was built a powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy. The authority
of the Church was predominant to the exclusion of every
other. Religion was obedience. The conscience of mankind
was in fetters. Then came the invention of printing, inaugu-

LIBERAL THEOLOGY. 75
rating the new era of a literary Christianity. Despite all the
exertion of the Church, despite persecution, cruelty, and ever)
form of oppression, the Bible surely but slowly emerged, was
translated, and at last thrown open to be read by all men
without let or hindrance. The authority of the Church was
seen to be error, and was denied. The theory that the Bible
w^as to be added to or supplemented from a vast mass of what
was technically termed "tradition" was repudiated.
59. The central idea of the Reformation was that the Bible
alone was the guide to religious truth, and that it was to be
read and studied by all men, not only as a right, but as a
duty. Every man ¦was to read and judge for himself. What
was not clear and plain could not be essential or necessary
truth. This -was the theory or principle that was then adopted.
But Europe was penetrated with the scholastic thinking of a
thousand years. Men still clung to the religious Ideas of their
fathers. No one was prepared to begin anew with the plain
Scriptures, and to sweep away all of scholasticism however
much he detested and abhorred its coarser and more palpable
errors and absurdities. More than was done ¦was not practica
ble, perhaps not possible. Men could not be brought at once
to a realizing sense of the entire transformation of Christianity
by scholasticism. It would have meant an entire clearing of
the field and a new beginning. It would have swept away
every vestige of all that men had been taught to hold as
dearest and holiest. Such a course was Impossible. The
grossest abuses were, therefore, corrected. The most
apparent errors were abandoned. The rest of the structure
was left standing, but a new principle was stated and
adopted which, In Its Inevitable development, would do all
that was then left undone. It is not likely that any man at
that time was far-sighted enough to divine the working of
this new principle.

76 PROTESTANTISM.
60. " The entire field of biblical criticism was shrouded in
impenetrable darkness. Early Christianity was overlaid by
the errors and traditions imposed by authority for a thousand
years. They, therefore, necessarily took much on authority
and tradition, although they denied both of these. They took
the canon of the Old Testament entire from the Jews, and
thereby acknowledged the tradition of the Hebrews. They
took the canon of the New Testament from the Church of the
Nicene age, and in so doing acknowledged its authority.
They assumed that the dogmas and doctrines they retained
were all contained in the Scriptures, and this assumption was
at that time Inevitable and necessary. The Bible was envel
oped by a thousand traditions. The dogmas and doctrines
were invested with an authority based upon a supposed agree
ment with the Scriptures. The Bible and the deductions
from it were then, however, thrown open to Investigation and
criticism. The result was and is certain."
61 . " When it was conceded that nothing was to be required
as necessary except what could be proved from the Scriptures,
the fate of the scholastic dogmas and doctrines was sealed.
Careful, honest, and critical examination was sure to follow,
and the fall of the last remnant of scholasticism ¦was inevi
table. Yet when men first saw this they were resolved, If
possible, to close their eyes to it. Men who could not deny
the principle resisted Its application. It shocked their
traditional reverence to approach the Bible and explore it
in a spirit of fearless calmness and minute research. Every
step of the ground has been hotly contested. Every amend
ment of the Greek text has been resisted. Every advance of,
scholarship has been regarded with suspicion, and generally
branded as heresy ; but the more reasonable after-thought has
corrected much of this, and what was at first resisted has
been gradually adopted and approved. The progress of the

LIBERAL THEOLOGY. 77
liberal theology has not been free from persecution. It has
not lacked Its noble army of martyrs."
62. " England has for centuries accepted the premises, and
has yet to avow distinctly the conclusions ¦which they contain.
Evasion is not ultimately possible. Inspired by the thirst for
truth, urged on by a noble zeal, the scholars of Protestant
Christianity have sought to extricate the real from the unreal,
the truth from the falsehood surrounding it, the permanent
and essential from the adventitious and temporal. ' He that
truly seeks me shall surely find me ' ¦will have Its grandest
illustration in the rise and final supremacy of the scriptural
theology, in the restoration of the pure gospel to assume Its
earlier ascendancy, and to banish finally the superstitions and
errors of intervening centuries. The light of a new day is
dawning upon Christendom. The systems built by men that
have kept Christians apart are breaking down. The day of
unity and reconciliation Is at hand. The earlier gospel will
return with Its original power."
63. Canon Mozley says : " The very earliest Christianity,
that which is coeval with the fountain-head, is the most modern
In Its tone and most in harmony with the claim of advancing
society. It is the political Christianity of a later age, nay, of
an age almost close to our own, that Is now antiquated and
obsolete. The Christianity of the gospel is, indeed, in its spirit
as If It had arisen to-day. We have excelled a later antiquity,
but not the earliest and first. That now meets us and stretches
out Its hands to us over a long Interval. There is nothing
obsolete in the original spirit of the gospel."
64. Dean Stanley says: "When the Spartan general
within the besieged city looked out on the approaching
enemy, his keen eyes caught through the gates the sight of
the uncertain, desultory movement of the troops without.
' The day Is ours ! ' he exclaimed. ' I see the shaking of the

78 PROTESTANTISM.
spears.' We, too, have seen the ' shaking of the spears.' The
resistance to the broader and truer ideas within the Church,
formidable as it may appear at first sight, is really an acqui
escence in them. The unsteady, vacillating motion which has
marked the advance of the phalanxes of dogmatism show that
the alarm and the animosity engendered have no deep seat In
the convictions of the Church, but will pass away when the
real merits of the case are more fully appreciated. This day,
this year, may belong to the partisans, but the coming century
belongs to the catholic, comprehensive, discriminating, all-
embracing Christianity which has the promise not perhaps of
this present time but of the times ¦which are to be."
65. Rev. C. J. Wood says : " I grant that it is indeed a
serious question whether we can Immediately remove the
mythical and pagan elements ¦which survive in Christian
Theology and in popular religion, without the risk of impair
ing their ethical force and moral sanction for the average
man. But have we not had enough of the evils of accommo
dation ? Modern thought is already careless of an absentee
God. "For my part I accept heartily the thought of Amiel
recorded over forty years ago : ' Our century wants a new
Theology ; that is to say, a new and more profound expla
nation of the nature of Christ and of the light which It flashes
on heaven and humanity.' Too long have we been in bondage
to a philosophy which has put a chasm between God and His
word ; too long have the faiths of the childhood of humanity
alloyed the pure gold of the teaching of Christ. We have
halted between two opinions. At this vacillation the world
is becoming impatient. When Plotinus was dying he said :
' I am striving to bring the God which is within me into
harmony with the God of the Universe.' This suggests the
task of Christian teachers in the premise. Quicken the God-

LIBERAL THEOLOGY. 79
consciousness in each soul. Teach men that there is no truth
for ail)' man until he lives it ; that onlj' in so far as men make
truth and life, creed and deed, identical can they know the
truth. To kno^w God, do good.
' ' From Jesus instead of metaphysics we should seek the
true idea of God ; and, like St. Ignatius, to the Romans, con
fess, ' I am Theophorus, the God-bearer, for I carry Christ
within me.' This alone is the basis of that human brother
hood which arouses the undying enthusiasm of humanity.
Only thus can we come Into that temper wherein -we are able
rightly to consider the importunate social problems ¦which
press upon us at this end of the century. This alone Is the
ground of a reasonably religious and holy hope."

BOOK SECOND.

TOLERATION AND FREEDOM.

CHAPTER I.
THE LESSON OF TOLERATION.
66. The real reason why we should feel tolerance and
respect for widely different phases of religious opinion lies
in the fact that religious thought Is not flxed, but progressive,
— that it comes under the law of evolution. If any single
phase could be considered absolutely final and right, and
equally adapted to the needs of all men, it would be difficult
to state an adequate reason why we should tolerate and respect
other phases that would then be mere error and falsehood for
which there would be no necessity. Since, In the case sup
posed, the single phase would be fitted to meet all the needs
of all men, it would seem to be a pious duty to crush out
error and falsehood which could serve no useful purpose,
which could have no valid reason for existence. According
as a man accepts one or the other of these broad views of the
nature of religion, he logically and Inevitably becomes either
tolerant or intolerant.
67. Now, by a spirit of tolerance is meant, not a spirit
that leads one to suffer another to hold certain views merely
because one has no legal or physical power to make him do
otherwise. That would be mere intolerance held In check
by law or force. There should be no toleration of what Is
unnecessary or avoidable error. So, when we use this term.

LESSON OF TOLERATION. 8i
we mean that, while we do not believe that certain opinions
are true or the best that can be held, nevertheless, we -do
recognize a certain reason why they exist, which, in a great
measure, justifies such existence, and even compels us to feel
a certain respect for them and to treat them with forbearance
and kindness. It is to see that every one of these errors Is a
part of the evolution or development of truth, and so, in Its
place, is necessary and inevitable. It is to see that the view
held by any Individual springs largely from his environment,
and indicates merely the stage of his personal religious growth.
It Is to see that it is not a case of wilful and perverse clinging
to a known error, but a mere thinking and believing what it
is natural and almost necessary for that Individual to think
and believe at that time as he is placed.
68. Now, If all men had the same environment, the same
leisure and education, the same Inherited capacity, the same
experiences and knowledge of the world, you might then
deem it possible to have all men take substantially the same
views of a given subject. In all these respects, however.
Instead of similarity there are enormous differences in men,
and this leads naturally and unavoidably to differences In
thought, opinion, and belief.
69. There are in a man's life three stages, — childhood,
youth, and manhood. These represent his growth, his
evolution or development. Each stage necessitates its own
peculiar treatment, and is hardly susceptible of any other.
In a religious sense there are three corresponding stages of
development, only, of course, these stages do not always
correspond to the physical stages, since an aged man may
be only fitted for treatment as a child In religious matters.
70. In childhood we are subject to positive rules which
we cannot understand, but are bound Implicitly to obey.
We are properly subject to rules and to external authority.

82 PRO TESTANTISM.
It Is impossible to explain the reason for all the commands
given to a child, and we do not endeavor to do so.
Obedience is the highest duty. The conscience Is alive,
but it is irregular, undeveloped, easily deceived.
Another characteristic of the child Is its credulity, its keen
but crude imagination. Says Lord Macaulay: "Children
abandon themselves without reserve to every illusion. Every
image which is strongly presented to their mental eye pro
duces on them the effect of reality. No man, whatever his
sensibility may be, is ever affected by Hamlet or Lear as a
little girl is affected by the story of Red Riding Hood. She
knows that It is all false, that wolves cannot speak, that there
are no wolves in England ; yet. In spite of her knowledge,
she believes, she weeps, she trembles. Such Is the despotism
of the imagination over uncultivated minds. Many men, in
this respect, are merely children ¦with a greater variety of
ideas. In religious matters the agony, the ecstasy, the pleni
tude of belief are seen in such minds, and are almost incon
ceivable to a man who has felt the influence of science,
philosophy, historical study, and who is capable of accurate
classification and careful analysis."
71. It must be apparent that the great mass of human
beings are, in a religious sense. In this state of childhood.
It Is here that the Church of Rome comes with Its admirable
adaptation to these conditions. Its fundamental theory fits It
to render a great seiv^Ice to the world, and, so far as It does
this. It deserves the respect and gratitude of mankind. It is
based on those conceptions of religion which are, perhaps,
necessary to the treatment of this stage of childhood. It
claims the infallibility of the parent as regards the child,
whose highest and only duty Is obedience to the Church. So
far as this is not abused, so far as it means a sense of the
terrible responsibility thus ' assumed, so far as It seeks to

LESSON OF TOLERATION. 83
rightly guide, — it Is a noble and sublime conception, and
deserves the admiration of mankind. It Is possibly to-da}-,
considering the prejudices, the ignorance, the selfishness of
mankind, a necessary branch of the Christian Church, and
will be necessary so long as there are millions who are
religiously in the condition of childhood so as to demand
a most rigorous external authority. It renders a great service
to Christ and mankind which we ought not to be slow to
recognize. It may properly exist side by side with Protest
antism, — which Is to assume special responsibility for the
stages of religious youth and manhood, while Rome deals
specially ¦with religious childhood. Nor let it be thought that
one Is necessarily more glorious than the other. Each to-da}-
may be necessary. Each may supplement the other. Each
may have a great mission demanding all that Is possible in
the way of Christian love and consecration. There would
be no hostility between the two if the mission and limitations
of each were rightly understood.
72. So far as the Church of Rome does good ¦work, it is
due to the fact that there may be a living faith concealed in
a ¦wrapping of error and foolish superstition. It is not the
error or superstition that works wonders, but the faith that
lives in it. For some people, who are in a rudimentary state,
an alloy of truth and error may serve as a substitute for pure
faith, but It Is, nevertheless, the truth alone that can make a
man strong and free. Many minds can exercise the same
self-control, perform the same deeds and even greater deeds,
without the aid of superstition. It can only be said of a
slightly developed mind that superstition serves as a support
to faith.
73. The little child has. It is true, qualities which make it
the type of the finished Christian character ; but this side of
the childish life and character Is not that which appears In

84 PR O TESTANTISM.
those men who are in what we have called religious child,
hood. The child is typical of serene faith, of moral purity,
of a love that has in it no selfish element, and of such. Indeed,
is the kingdom of heaven. Such a type of life will always
affect men, and it is thus that a little child shall lead them;
that is, the person who shows a life like this side of the child-
life shall lead men to the better understanding of what the
true life is. If such were the religious childhood of the
world, it would be well that it should have no stage of youth
or manhood. So far is it not true that Paul says that when
we are children we speak, feel, and think as children, but
when we become men we put away childish things .? And In
Hebrews It was also said : ' ' Ye are become such as have
need of milk and not of solid food, for every one that par-
taketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteous
ness, for he Is a babe. But solid food is for full grown men,
even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised
to discern good and evil."
74. Now, what is the characteristic of youth and manhood.?
In youth we are subject to the influence of example, and soon
break loose from all rules unless illustrated and enforced by
the higher teaching ¦which example Imparts. In manhood we
are comparatively free from external restraints, and. If we are
to learn, must be our own instructors. In youth the intellect
begins to assert a right to enter Into all questions of duty.
The reason is appealed to in all questions of conduct. The
man does his duty, not because of any command of his
human superior, but because it Is seen to be clearly right.
His conscience Is developed, and he feels within himself the
monitor higher and greater than the priest. You necessarily
dogmatize with the child. You plead and reason with youth
and manhood. You punish the child. You leave the man
to the consequences of his own acts intelligently done. You

LESSON OF TOLERATION. 85
are necessarily responsible for the child. The man is neces
sarily responsible for himself, being as Intelligent as you
yourself, clothed with an authority quite equal to your own,
resting on the same education, training, and experience.
75. Thus you find the Church of Rome supreme and
unquestioned until that diffusion of knowledge and education
which followed the invention of printing, and the revolt
occurred only in those nations that felt the new learning. It
^vas the revolt of a minority, which was augmented because
of the horrible abuses perpetrated by the Church, of which
many thousands were conscious, and by which many thousands
were repelled who would not have been other^wise Influenced.
When Protestantism broke away from Rome and declared
its Independence, it was forced, whatever its theory, to
practically recognize the fact that the bulk of its members
were In this state of religious childhood, and so, to a large
extent, to practise the very course of treatment it had protested
against. It needed generations of freer, broader education ;
centuries of free discussion, free investigation, free expression
of thought, — to create even the ra^w material fit for an ideal
Protestant Church such as was the dream of earlier days. It
was a bold act to throw off the yoke of the medlceval disci
pline, and assert conscience as the supreme guide. Whatever
men might say in their written formulas, it was too much to
expect that in real life there could be a rapid transition from
a habit of obedience to a purely external authority to a habit
of obedience solely to a monitor within the individual breast.
After more than three centuries the Protestant churches have
not as yet really accepted the supremacy of the individual
conscience in all its logical results and consequences. It
was, however, a great act to state the principle and then to
go on slowly but steadily towards the day when the very
operation of the principle should create more perfect con
ditions for Its more complete acceptance.

86 PR O TESTANTISM.
The real work of Protestantism has been the broader educa
tion of man, the enlightenment of individual consciences ; in
other words, it has taught the lesson of toleration and religious
freedom, for as man progresses In real knowledge and
enlightenment he Insensibly learns that lesson.
76. The child must be treated in the way that his nature
demands, or you compass nothing. By fable, by allegory,
by legend and myth, he may be taught much. To give him
books fit for a man is to leave him in utter darkness. To
plead with him with arguments fit for a man Is to flnd him
insensible and unmoved. The fable gives him a tolerably
clear idea and possibly a valuable one, while the solid argu
ments merely leave him dazed and confused.
To ask the educated man to rely upon these fables as the
highest truth is to fill him with contempt. You may by social
and political pressure prevent him from any open expression
of this contempt, but he will feel it, for he cannot help so
doing. The law of his mind compels him to so see and feel.
77. The fatal defect of Rome is that it seeks to keep a
man always in this state of religious childhood, and it does
this by limiting and narrowing education. There can be no
denial of the statement that Rome deliberately seeks to dwarf
the mind, to educate, indeed, but only in that way and within
such limits as shall not emancipate the mind. Great refine
ment and cultivation Is entirely possible within limits that
leave a man narrow, bigoted, credulous, and superstitious.
The higher and broader education, the great advance of
science, the broader and more critical study of history, — all
this was rendered possible by the rise of Protestantism, which
had for Its mission the complete emancipation of the human
mind from all error, falsehood, and superstition.
It is, therefore, the absolute duty of every man who
believes in intellectual freedom to actively support the
Protestant Church and strengthen the ranks of its adherents.

LESSON OF TOLERATION. 87
It Is equally the duty of the Protestant Church to render it
possible for all the educated thought of the day to flnd shelter
within its fold. It must seek to include and not to exclude,
to remove technical barriers, to cut away what is obsolete and
outgrown, to find the great, central, essential truth, and hold
that up before all men in its utter simplicity and grandeur.
78. Bishop Temple says: "The steady progress of
toleration is unmistakable. The mature mind of our race is
beginning to modify and soften the hardness and severity
of the principles which the earlier ages had elevated into
immutable statements of truth. Men are beginning to take
a wider view than they did. Physical science, researches
into history, a more thorough knowledge of the world they in
habit, have enlarged our philosophy beyond the limits which
bounded that of the Church. All this has an Influence,
whether we will or no, on our determinations of religious
truth. There are found to be more things in heaven and
earth than were dreamt of In the patristic theology.
"To learn toleration ¦well and really, to let it become
not a philosophical tenet but a practical principle, to join it
with real religiousness of life and character, — it is absolutely
necessary that it should break in upon the mind by slo^w and
steady degrees, and that at every point its right to go farther
should be disputed, and so forced to logical proof ; for it Is
only by virtue of the opposition which it has surmounted that
any truth can stand In the human mind. The toleration thus
obtained is different In kind from what it would otherwise
have been. It Is not only stronger, — it is richer and fuller ;
for the slowness of its progress gives time to disentangle from
dogmatism the really valuable principles and sentiments that
have been mixed up and intwined in it, and to unite tolera
tion, not with indifference and worldliness, but with spiritual
truth and religiousness of Hfe."

88 PR O TESTANTISM.
CHAPTER II.
the TECHNICAL BASIS OF FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH.
79. The real basis of a man's right to the utmost freedom
of thought and opinion lies, of course, in the fact that it is
of the very essence of Christianity that he should have such
a privilege. The right to think Implies and carries with it
the right to utter those thoughts. But all churches are
organized with such a system of creeds and dogmatic ram
parts that the popular idea Is, that, by uniting with a church,
a person has surrendered at least a portion of his birthright of
freedom and come under an obligation to refrain from openly
expressing any ideas but those sanctioned and permitted by
the Church. He is thenceforward popularly supposed to be
an advocate of certain vie^vs, and no longer a free seeker
after truth. In many of the denominations this Is undoubtedly
a very correct statement of the situation.
80. The question then arises. What does a man say that he
believes, and under what pledges does he stand In becoming
a member or a clergyman of the Church of England or
the Protestant Episcopal Church .? for the situation of these
churches is practically the same. In the first place let us
consider the position of the layman. He declares his belief
In the Apostles' Creed. This one profession of belief is all
that is required in order to his enjoyment of the highest
privileges which the Church can give. This acceptance of
the Creed obliges conscience, it is said, so far as it is con
formable to Scripture, and of that conformity every man
must judge for himself. This liberty of private judgment
is recognized by the Church. Nothing could, therefore, be
simpler or freer than the position of the layman. The true

FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH. 89
idea of Christian freedom has certainly not been encroached
upon thus far. In the baptismal service this Apostles' Creed
is spoken of as containing all the articles of the faith.
81. Rev. G. H. Curteis says : " For what does the
Church impose upon her members? I believe there exists
the greatest possible misapprehension upon this subject, and
that the mass of half-educated people believe that. — if they
have not already in some occult way been made to sign the
Thirty-nine Articles — at least they must be prepared, as
members of the Church of England, at any moment, to sub
scribe to every statement in them. Such has been the result
of our false and improper use of these things so long per
sisted in. But what is the truth of the matter.? It is, that
the only theological foriiiiila zvhich a Church of Engla^id
layman is called upon — from his baptistn till the hour of
his death — to assent to is ' The Apostles' Creed.' That,
and that alone, is required at his baptismal admission within
the Church ; that, and that alone. Is asked for at the death
bed, as a sufficient proof that the man retains what he origi
nally began with, — the Christian's confession of a true faith.
" And that Creed, Mr. Biddle, the Unitarian, in the seven
teenth century, Mr. Emlyn, in the eighteenth, and (I believe)
a great many of the best Unitarians at the present day, profess
themselves quite ready to accept. As to the other creeds,
they stand in the Prayer-book as triumphant hymns of
orthodoxy, and therefore are of a more elaborate and florid
doctrinal type. They stand there to be sung in divine
worship, — not to be subscribed."
82. Now, what is the position of the clergy.? In addition
to the acceptance of this Apostles' Creed, the candidate Is
asked at ordination certain questions which can leave no
doubt of his position in this respect. He is asked, " Are you
determined to teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal

90

PR O TESTANTISM.

salvation but that which you shall be persuaded may be con
cluded and proved by the Scripture .? " It Is to be noted that
the candidate is the one to be persuaded, and that the verb is
'¦^ shall be," not '¦'¦have been." No subscription to the Articles
or Book of Common Prayer is required of any one In the
United States; and in England since 1865 the form of assent
required of the clergy is so general that It was declared by
Dean Stanley to be practically superfluous, being as bare and
general as it was possible for it to be, consistent with the
retention of any expression of assent at all. At the time of
the passage of the Act in the House of Commons, Mr. Buxton,
one of the Royal Commissioners to whom the consideration
of the matter had been entrusted, said : " It is of the greatest
importance to observe that all those phrases ¦which Indicated
that the subscriber declared his acceptance of every dogma of
the Church have been swept away, and this has been done
expressly and of forethought."
Subscription was required in England as a political or
ecclesiastical measure, and was never in theory placed on
religious grounds. The history of subscription to the Articles
and Liturgy is one of the disgraceful pages In the annals of
England. It is an exhibition of social, political, and ecclesi
astical passion, prejudice, and selfishness.
83. It Is a significant fact that for the first sixteen years
of the existence of the American Church It had no Articles
whatever. They were not adopted until the year 1801, and
it was only from that date that they formed any part of the
American Prayer Book. Thus the Episcopal succession, as
it Is termed, was granted to the American Church without
the adoption by it of the English Articles or any part of
them. It had been proposed to reduce the Articles to twenty
in number, and to this the English bishops gave their assent;
but the " twenty" Articles never were adopted. A long dis
cussion was had as to the expediency of having any Articles

FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH.

91

at all. Bishop ]\IadIson and many others were opposed to
them altogether. The matter was discussed in 17S9, and no
action could be had. It was again postponed in 1793, and
again in 1795. In 1799 it was taken up, and the committee
of the whole reported to the Convention a resolution saying
that Articles were not necessary. This report was not
accepted, and a committee was appointed to frame Articles.
They reported in favor of seventeen, but no action was had.
At last, in 1801, they were adopted as they now stand.
They were, as Bishop White at the time declared, to be mere
Articles of Peace, and no subscription was to be required.
84. Speaking of the American Articles, Bishop Vail says :
' ' They were adopted as Articles of Peace and a declaration
of opinion, and not as authoritative upon the conscience as
Articles of Faith or terms of communion." The same view
has been taken of the English Articles even when it was
necessary for the clergy to subscribe to them. "This sub
scription," said Dean Stanley, "did not imply of necessity
that the subscriber believed all of the Articles. They are
Articles of Peace because not Articles of Belief, and, there
fore, not ¦weapons of hatred." Such was also the view of
Archbishop Bramhall, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Bull, Bishop
Burnet, Professor Hey, and many other leading prelates.
Dean Stanley observed that "if once we press these sub
scriptions (to the Articles and Liturgy) In their rigid and
literal sense, then It may be safely asserted that there Is not
one clergyman in the Church who can venture to cast a stone
at another. They must all go out, from the greatest to the
least, from the Primate at Lambeth to the humblest curate of
Wales." 85. In the United States It Is required, by Article VII. of
the Constitution of the Church, that no one shall be ordained
till he subscribes a declaration whereby he engages to con-

92 PROTESTANTISM.
form to the doctrines and worship of the Church. By the
Canons it is provided (Title II. , Canon 2, § i) that he may
be presented and tried for advisedly holding and teaching
publicly or privately any doctrine contrary to that held by
the Church. The strictest interpretation that can be given
to all these provisions goes no farther than to restrain any
open expression of hostility to whatever can be clearly proved
to be a doctrine formally and officially held by the Church.
These provisions do not seek to coerce any man's mind, nor
is he asked to say that he believes any dogma, nor does the
acceptance of his position Imply that he believes any specific
doctrines. If he does believe them, or if he thinks that he
does, there is nothing to limit his future right of inquiry or his
freedom of thought and opinion. So much is true whatever
may be the doctrines of the Church. Whatever they are he
is merely required to abstain from open hostility to them.
Similar provisions exist in the English Statute, 13 Elizabeth,
chap. 12, sect. 3.
86. It therefore remains for us to consider the matter of
doctrines. What Is the paramount doctrine of the Church,
the doctrine that affects and controls all others and Is, in one
word, the law of the Church on this subject.? It is that in
all matters of doctrine the final source of authority Is the
Bible, and that no one is bound by any formal statement of a
truth, although made by the Church, unless it can be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt from the Scripture.
The Sixth Article declares that what may not be proved
by Scripture "Is not to be required of any man that It should
be believed as an article of faith or be thought requisite or
necessary to salvation." The Twentieth Article declares that
"It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is
contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound
one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another.

FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH.

93

Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a Keeper
of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against
the same, so, besides the same, ought it not to enforce any
thing to be believed for necessity of salvation." This declares,
then, that the sense of Scripture is superior to and restrictive
of the decrees and expositions of the Church. The Twenty-
first Article declares that General Church Councils " may err
and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining unto God,
¦wherefore, things ordained by them as necessary to salvation
have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared
that they be taken out of Holy Scripture."
87. The ordination service and the Articles throw the
clergy in the most emphatic ¦way, not upon decisions of
doctrine which the Church has ruled, and not upon inter
pretation to which the Church witnesses, but upon the Bible
itself. Between Holy Scripture and private judgment no
dominant mediator, no divinely delegated instructor, is made
to Inteivene. The Bible is made supreme, and individual
judgments are invited, and all are urged to ponder Its teach
ings and follow its light. This is the very core of Protest
antism. This is the basis on which the English Church
stands In all matters of doctrine. This was the appeal of
Luther at the Diet of Worms in 152 1 : "Prove me by
Scripture to be In error, and I will instantly retract. I cannot
submit my faith to Pope or Councils." Rome said then and
says now, it Is not what you can find in Scripture, but it is
what the Church declares you ought to find there, and what
the Church says is there. Rome suspends all private judg
ment, abrogates the human reason, and declares the Church
infallible. On this theory there Is no sense in circulating
Bibles for people to read. The books to be consulted are
those which contain the statements of the Church.

94 PROTESTANTISM.
88. The Romish Church is built in part and in a certain
sense upon Scripture, but in greater part upon what Is called
traditionalism, or the utterances of the Church as inspired and
infallible teacher and interpreter. Tradition, in a theological
sense, is that body of doctrine and discipline supposed, in
theory, to have been put forth by Christ or his Apostles,
and not committed to writing. The Romanist is bound by
Scripture, not as he may read and interpret it, but as the
Church may expound it. He has no right of private judg
ment. But not only Is he bound by an extraordinary inter
pretation of a passage found in Scripture, however repugnant
to his reason such interpretation may be, but he Is also bound
by what the Church declares to be an apostolic or ecclesias
tical tradition, and of this the Church Is the sole judge. The
fact, then, that a dogma cannot be proved by Scripture need
not trouble a Romanist at all ; for, besides the Scripture, he
has a vast field of alleged tradition, and, besides all this, he
has theoretically an infallible instructor.
This Is the very kernel of Romanism. To destroy this
idea would shatter the whole system In an instant. This, the
fundamental theory of Rome, is flatly denied by the English
Church. It repudiates the whole mass of what Is designated
as tradition. It repudiates the idea of the Church as Infallible
teacher and Interpreter. What Is not written in the Scriptures
is of no binding force ; nor does the Church claim to bind the
conscience of man by its interpretation of what Is written.
89. The Bible itself, intelligently construed, is the final
source of all authority. To properly convict one of heresy
in the English Church you must, therefore, be able to prove
that his utterance is clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt a
denial of Scripture. If two views are possible of a given
doctrine, if two views may be reasonably entertained accord
ing to the Scriptures, it is not enough that the Church has

FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH.

95

oificially pronounced In favor of one view to the exclusion
of the other. By her own Articles the Church is declared to
have no authority to do so. The Church rears no Article of
Faith upon her own Illumination and authority, but refers all
to Scripture, and prescribes that all shall harmonize with,
and bear to be tried by, it.
The confusion in men's minds rises naturally enough out
of the fact that the English Church, ¦which makes no pre
tension to infallibility, has a system of creeds and elaborate
formularies similar In nature, though not in contents, to those
possessed by the churches that do claim to be Infallible. Men
naturally ask, What is the purpose of all these statements if
they are not binding and necessary.?
Now, whatever the answer may be to this, it is certainly
clear that. If the Articles and Creeds are final expressions and
binding by force of mere adoption by the Church, then the
theory of the Church Is, that it, Is Infallible ; for no one wall
pretend to say that the Church can make binding that which
Scriptur-e does not; and to assert, therefore, the right of the
Church to compel the acceptance of these formularies, to
the exclusion of all argument. Is to assert that the Church has
not and can not have erred In declaring them deducible from
Scripture. Again, if the authority of the Church is sufficient
and valid to exempt one article and one sentence from all
criticism and dissent and to bar all appeal to Scripture as
against the authority of the formulary, then it is sufficient for
every line and every ¦word of every Article. So far as creeds,
articles, and formularies are thus set up as authoritative ; so
far as a man is forbidden to plead the Scripture direct, and
to compel the Church to prove her dogmas by Scripture
before he can be censured, — so far the main doctrine of
Protestantism is Impugned, so far the Sixth and Twentieth
Articles are nullified. The true view is, we believe, that
which we have set forth; namely, that all doctrinal state-

96 PROTESTANTISM.
ments, all articles, creeds, and formularies are to be con
trolled, if need be, by the operation of Articles VI. and XX.
The principle there asserted is possibly inconsistent with the
possession of such a body of formulated doctrine, since it
seems to deny that Holy Scripture Is sufficiently explicit and
definite to serve as a rule of faith without the aid of the
Church as an inspired interpreter. However this may be, it
is clear enough that, so long as the broader Protestant view
is taken, it will not be possible to turn the formularies into
weapons of bitter recrimination and exclusion. Whenever
this is possible, it is only by a lack of fidelity to the funda
mental idea on which all Protestantism really stands.
go. The real answer is an historical one. In brief. It is
that the English Articles were chiefly framed to exclude all
who professed to find Romish doctrines In the Scriptures.
It is apparent enough throughout that this was the main
purpose of the framers. The futility of all such attempts
will not fail to appear to any one who will read the famous
Tract XC. For this reason no attempt was ever made, unless
it may have been by special temporary statutes, to require any
subscription of any of these formularies at the hand of the
laity. The layman had no control of the Church, and so the
subscription was confined to the clergy. To more effectually
root out Romanism subscription was required of all students
on entering the university, and this continued till a very recent
date. It was not required of these students as members of
the Church, for subscription was never recognized by the
Church as such. It was enforced to deprive Romanists of
the higher educational privileges. Political and ecclesiastical
parties have, from time to time, used the formularies for the
exclusion of various shades of opinion. This has always
been, however, by the stringency of the form of subscription,
which has been imposed by Parliament and not by the
Church.

FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH. 97
91. Rev. F. W^. Robertson says: "The question of
doctrines at all times stands open for argument. No one Is
concluded by anyr official statement made by the Church,
because, if it were so, it would be, as we have said, to main
tain that the Church is infallible. The Church desires the
truth, and declares that, If there be error, it may be shown.
Every opinion and view must remain an open question, freely
to be tried with fresh light. To prohibit inquiry, to claim
infallibility, produces fanaticism in some and scepticism in
others. It makes bigots of the feeble-minded who cannot
think, and sceptics of the acute intellects who see through the
fallacies and dare not publish their misgivings. It matters
not in ^vhat form that claim to infallibility Is made, — whether
in the clear, consistent "way in which Rome asserts it, or in
the inconsistent way in which churchmen make it for their
church, or religious bodies for their favorite opinions.
" Wherever penalties attach to a conscientious conviction,
— be they the penalties of the rack and flame, or the penalties
of being suspected and avoided and slandered and having
the slur of heresy affixed to the name till all men count him
dangerous lest they, too, be put out of the synagogue, — these
t^vo things must follow : you make fanatics and you make
sceptics, but believers you cannot make. Therefore do we
stand by the central protest and truth of Protestantism.
There is infallibility nowhere on this earth, — not in Rome,
not in councils or convocations, not in the Church of England,
not in priests, not In ourselves. The soul is thrown in the
grandeur of a sublime solitariness on God. Woe to the spirit
that stifles its convictions when priests threaten and the mob
cries heresy and insinuates disloyalty."
92. This is sublime faith In Scripture, which is the rock
on which the Church rests. This is that faith In truth, and
the ultimate ascendancy of right which ought to be the chief

98 PROTESTANTISM.
characteristics of a Christian Church. But, while this Is
certainly true of the Church, It is just as certainly not the
view practically taken by the majority of the members.
While in theory the Church Is liberal, broad, free, brave, and
full of faith, there are thousands of communicants who are
narrow, servile, cowardly, and at heart sceptical. They fear
to have a doctrine questioned. They dread all investigation,
and desire a dead level of conformity and silence. This is
scepticism of the worst kind.
93. Bishop Brooks says: "When a man tells me that
religion cannot stand unless you teach certain traditional
things, that man seems to me to be an unbeliever of the most
dangerous kind. He has lost his real faith in God and
Christianity and the Church by his very devotion to the
means or second causes through which they work. Our fear
that Christianity will not stand if we do not state and utter
it just so, what is it but a lack of faith in Christianity itself,
in Its vital power, and its original truth.? "
94. Bishop Hampden says : "It is the very spirit of the
Church of England to admit that it is not infallible. It is
bound to concede to dissentients that they are not necessarily
In error, although It believes them to be. It is not necessary
to defend every particular expression which has been adopted
In the formularies of the Church. This would be to make
the Church infallible in itself, which it is not."
95. Bishop Marsh says: "It has been frequently said
that, as the English Church and Romish Church act alike in
maintaining each for itself that It does not err, it is a mere
subtlety to distinguish between the terms of " does not" and
"can not." But these terms, insignificant as they ma}- appear,
denote nothing less than two distinct principles of action, and
principles so distinct that the one leads to charity and tolera
tion, the other to intolerance and persecution. On the former

FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH.

99

principle, which is maintained by the Church of England,
though we believe that we are right, we admit that we are
possibly wrong ; though we believe that others are ¦wrong, we
admit that they are possibly right, and hence we are disposed
to tolerate their opinions. On the latter principle, which is
maintained by the Church of Rome, the very possibility of
being right is denied to those who dissent from its doctrines.-
Now, as soon as men have persuaded themselves that in
points of doctrine they cannot err, they -will think it an
Imperious duty to prevent the growth of all other opinions on
a subject so important as religion. The spirit of intolerance
that springs from such a theory is often felt and often leads
to social persecution to-day in Protestant churches, notwith
standing that in their formularies they reject and condemn
that theory ¦which alone can justify such a spirit."
96. Bishop Coxe says : " I hold It to be a very important
historical fact that the Episcopate was imparted to us with no
agreement as respects the Articles, and that we continued in
organic, visible communion with the Church of England until
I So I without any adoption of the Articles and ¦while they had
no place ¦whatever among our formularies. To this day no
formal subscription is required even of the clergy at ordination.
The Articles are in the nature of a provincial catechism, and
not a symbol of the faith."
97. The non-doctrinal nature of the English Church may
also be shown, first, by its recognition of the lay or the
primitive form of baptism ; second, by the conditions pre
scribed for admission to the communion.
First, The English Church admits that baptism is valid,
no matter by whom performed, whether by clergyman or lay
man, by man or woman, by heretic or pagan, without requir
ing any profession of faith at the time, or fuller repetition of
the ceremony afterwards. This was judicially determined in

loo PROTESTANTISM.
the case of Kempe versus Wickes in 1809. The two essentials,
it was held, are the proper invocation, by whomever made,
and the use of water.
Second, By the Communion Rubric the test Is moral
and not doctrinal. In all the Prayer Books, from that of
Edward VI. to the present day, all are to be admitted to
• the Communion, except ( i ) the " notorious evil liver ; " (2) he
who has " done any ¦wrong to his neighbor by word or deed,
so that the congregation be thereby offended ; " (3) he who,
being at variance ¦with another, has not forgiven from the
bottom of his heart all that the other has trespassed against
him. In the case of Jenkins versus Cook, heard on appeal before
the Privy Council in 1876, judgment was given against the
latter for refusing the Sacrament to the former on the ground
of holding false doctrines. The Lord Chancellor said :
' ' ' Notorious evil liver ' seems to point to moral conduct.
It may be an Important point ¦whether, under the Rubrics
and Canons, a clergyman Is made a judge of the opinion,
however erroneous, of his parishioner."
Lord Penzance said : ' ' Questions of doctrine have nothing
to do with the right to repel. That right results only from
the open and notorious evil life whereby the congregation has
been offended."
98. Rev. R. H. Newton says : " As a creed-commentary
the purpose of the Articles Is plain. They were set forth as
statements concerning aspects of the Christian faith then in
dispute, which might be acceptable to the various sects and
parties embraced within the Church in that yeasty era. They
were intentionally framed so as to Include all possible varieties
of opinion. They were articles of peace.
' ' By general consent the Articles have no binding obligation
upon our thought to-day. Pressed as a creed, they are self-

FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH. loi
destructive. They cover all schools of thought, and shield
none. Every opinion can shelter beneath them. No opinion
can rest undisturbed within them. They do not even exclude
Romanism, as Dr. Newman made clear in Tract No. XC.
' ' All schools of opinion practically agree In this view
of the Articles. When any clergyman is heard claiming
authority for them, you may be sure that he wants to use
them as a club upon some brother clergyman of another
school of thought.
"A foreign substance, it is well known, when lodged in
the human body, will, under favorable conditions, enclose
itself In a sac, thereb)- ceasing to irritate the system in which
it does not belong. It is thus that the Articles are ' encysted '
in the Church."

I02 PROTESTANTISM.

CHAPTER III.
THE TRUE ESTIMATE OF DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES.
99. Dean Stanley says: "The compatibility of great
variety in forms, characters, and views with the closest unity
of spirit is a truth which all history, no less than our own
daily experience, concurs in teaching us. But there is nothing
which brings this lesson home to us -with such irresistible
force as the simple fact, thoroughly understood, that the most
perfect of all truth was imparted to the ¦world, not in one
uniform code, at one single moment of time, but by a gradual
process lasting through more than half a century, and by the
agency of men in natural character and disposition the most
opposite that it is possible for the human mind to conceive, —
Peter, Paul, and John. It is the Epistle of St. James which
expresses most strongly in writing the peculiar views of what
may be termed the school of St. Peter. Never in any age of
the world have there been employed, in the same time and
country and for one common cause, styles of thought and
language so radically distinct as those which appear In the
works of these apostles.
"It is Impossible to confound the severe and prophet-like
warnings of St. James with the Impassioned appeals and
complicated arguments of St. Paul, or either of them with
the simple aphorisms and Intuitive perceptions of St. John.
Whatever, in short, is the difference between action and
thought, between a mind building itself up on the past and
a mind embracing and communicating to others a flood of
new and startling Ideas, is the difference bet^vyeen Peter and
James on the one hand, and Paul on the other. Whatever
is the difference between Aristotle and Plato, who may

DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES.

103

emphatically be said to have divided between them the two
great schools of thought and speculation, the realists and the
idealists, such, In kind and In its leading features, is the
difference between Paul and John.
"What a solemn and, I might almost say, awful sanction
is thus given to the union of the most various tempers,
thoughts, and views within the pale of our Christian sym
pathy. We must remember that there was a time when the
churches of James knew nothing of the churches of Paul,
that nearly a whole generation passed away before either of
them received the Gospel and Epistles of John, that the very
highest truths concerning God and man are expressed by each
of the three in terms not merely dissimilar but absolutely
opposed to the other ; yet these apparent differences are not
real contradictions, but between them there is a higher and
essential harmony. In one sense they are all distinct. In a
higher sense they are all one. Whether we look at their
differences or their unity, the practical lesson for us Is the
same. If there be any who are perplexed by the divisions of
opinion which exist among us. It surely must be a consoling
thought that no greater burden Is upon us than ¦was laid upon
the apostles and their followers. If the English Church,
¦whether by the overruling providence of God, or the jarring
passions of men, or the national character of our countrymen,
has had the power of uniting ¦within its pale more dissimilar
elements than any other communion In the ¦world ; If its
Institutions and its forms of worship be such as of necessity
afford a refuge to those who shrink from rushing Into either
of the two extremes between which Christendom Is at present
divided ; if It thereby holds out a means of Christian unity
¦which we cannot lose ¦without at the same time violating its
fundamental principles, — then the English Church, whatever
may be its general character, and however far unlike In this
or other respects it may be to the Church of the fifth or

I04

PROTES TANTISM.

fifteenth century, is, at least. In this respect not wholly unlike
the Church of the apostolic age.
" There Is a well-kno^wn saying, '¦In necessariis unitas, in
dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas,' and the acceptance which
it has received in these latter days is a significant indication
that there is a chance of its superseding the old theory which
may be fairly represented in the words, ^In necessariis servi-
tudo, in dubiis unitas, in omnibus odium.' The old and once
universal doctrine of the damnation of heretics and heathens
has almost passed away. There are very few Christians
who ¦would now refuse to recognize the goodness of Marcus
Aurelius, or, so far as they know anything of them, of
Buddha or Confucius. There are very few Protestants who
would not acknowledge the virtues of Fenelon or Carlo
Borromeo. There are very few Catholics ¦who would not
do the same for Channing, for Wesley, and for Mrs. Fry.
"Now, If there Is a moral unity thus created which
traverses the outward divisions of men, so also by the same
process is created an intellectual unity ¦which In earlier times
was unknown. Many of the questions which rent asunder
the churches are dead and buried. The controversy of the
Double Procession, the controversy of Monophysitism and
Monothelitism, the controversy of the Light of Tabor, the
controversy of Traducianism, — these, at least in Europe,
have totally disappeared. The controversy of Baptismal
Regeneration, the controversy of Predestination, — these, at
least among ourselves, have almost totally disappeared. The
educated world of Christendom has formed a unity for
itself, above and beside and without the external unity or
divisions of the churches, in which those who wish can
approach each other without even touching on the barriers
%vhich politically and ecclesiastically part them asunder.
A French or German Catholic, like Tocqueville or R^musat
or DoUinger, has far more in common with men like Hallam

DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES. 105
or Macaulay or Tennyson or Milman than he has with the
partisans of the Court of Rome. A Presbyterian like
Chalmers, a Unitarian like James Martineau, has far more
in common with Coleridge or Arnold or Keble than he has
with many divines nominally of his own communion. And
the higJier we ascend in the intellectual scale, the more xve
fijid the atmosphere to be one of attraction and not of
repulsion. The theology of Lord Bacon and of Bishop
Butler and of Pascal can be used by Christians of every
church almost equally. The great work of Ewald, wherever
known, commands the respect of all but the extremest Prot
estants and of all but the extremest Roman Catholics.
"It inay possibly be said that the tendencies just noticed
seem too indefinite to meet the practical wants of the world ;
too meagre, so to speak, for the vast variety and richness of
human thought and feeling. To this it may be answered, that
If once the predominance of those ideas be granted ; If once It
becomes the chief article of the Christian faith as it now is
not the article of any Christian confession, whether of Trent,
Geneva, London, or Westminster, that the object of the
Church is to make men better and wiser, and that goodness
and truth are the chief offerings In which God delights, —
then the various objects and forms of religious Interest and
affection ¦will assume their right proportions. We shall
search out the essential meaning of each, and that meaning
will assign to- each Its due place."
100. Professor Jo'wett says: "A change is observable in
the manner In which doctrines are stated and defended. It
is no longer held suflicient to rest them on texts of Scripture
which contain, or appear to contain, similar words or Ideas.
They are connected more closely with our moral nature ;
extreme consequences are shunned ; large allowances are
made for the Ignorance of mankind. It Is held that there

I o6 PRO TESTANTISM.
Is truth on both sides. About many questions there Is a kind
of union of opposltes ; others are admitted to have been verbal
only ; all are regarded in the light which is thrown upon them
by church history and religious experiences. There are signs
that times are changing, and ¦we are changing too. It would
be scarcely possible at present to revive the Interest which
was felt less than twenty years ago In the doctrine of
Baptismal Regeneration, nor would the arguments by which
it was supported or Impugned have the meaning which they
once had. A silence Is observable on some other points of
doctrine around which controversies swarmed a generation
ago. Persons begin to ask what ¦was the real difference
which divided the two parties. In the present state of the
human mind, any consideration of these subjects, whether
from the highest or lowest or most moderate point of view,
is unfavorable to the stability of dogmatical systems, because
it rouses inquiry into the meaning of vjords. To the sense
of this is probably to be attributed the reserve on matters of
doctrine and controversy which characterizes the present day,
compared with the theological activity of twenty years ago."
loi. Bishop Hampden says : " Dogmatic theology,
properly, should consist of a collection of negations, — of
negations, I mean, of all ideas imported into religion beyond
the express sanction of revelation. It must be strictly con
fined to the exclusion and rejection of all extraneous notions
from the subjects of the sacred volumes.
'¦'•This is the view vohich I take, not only of our Articles
at large, but in particular of the Nicene and Athanasian
Creeds. If it be admitted that the notions on which their
several expressions are founded are both unphilosophical
and unscriptural, it must be remembered that they do not
impress these notiotis as matters of affirmative belief. They
only use the terms of ancient theories current in the schools

DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES. 107
at the time when they were written, to exclude others more
obviottsly Injurious to the simplicity of the faith. The specu
lative language of those creeds was admitted into the Church
of England, as established by the Reformers, before the
period when the genius of Bacon exposed the emptiness of
the system which the schoolmen had palmed upon the world
as the only instrument for the discovery of all truth. At such
a time the theories opposed by the Creeds would be power
fully felt as real obstacles to a sound belief, and the terms
declaring the orthodox doctrine would be readily interpreted
by the existing physical and logical notions. The ¦words used
are not to us signs of those Ideas which ¦were presented to the
minds of men ¦when the Creeds were written or when they
were adopted by the Church. To deny the essential variable
ness of such documents is to admit human authority to a
parity with divine authority. It is to Incur the Imputation
that, professing to make the Scriptures the sole rule of faith,
¦we have inconsistently adopted another rule of faith In the
deference paid to our Creeds and Articles.
' ' Strictly speaking, in the Scripture itself there are no
doctrines . It ¦will be thought, perhaps, that the Epistles are
an exception to this observation ; but even this part, if accu
rately considered, wall not be found an exception. Dogmas,
as such, are human authorities distinct from the honor and
verity of the Divine Word. I would remove from them an
excess of veneration due only to divine truth itself, while I
fully admit that they demand to be treated with respect.
The technical terms of theology are peculiarly open to abuse.
" They are not, like those of mathematics or physics,
restricted to one particular sense, in which exclusively they
must be understood, or else the whole structure of the science
falls to the ground ; nor are they even as definite as moral
terms In general, indefinite as these are when compared with
those of the exact sciences. It has been acutely remarked.

I o8 PROTES TANTISM.
that, whilst technical terms are ' the lights of science,' they
have been In many instances the ' shades of religion,' and that
instead of being Invariably 'signs' of the ideas which they
were intended to perpetuate, they sometimes become their
'monuments,' — not 'signs' so much as memorials of ideas,
which did properly belong to them, but have now passed
from them. Technical terms in religion becoi-ne, in fact, the
popular terms. For example, no one thinks when he uses
the term ' justification ' that he is using a technical term.
Some may be surprised, or even offended, to hear the term
spoken of as a technical one, so far has technical language
In religion passed into common and popular use. Hence the
vagueness to which that language Is peculiarly subject, — a
vagueness which no care of even the most perspicuous and
exact writer can entirely obviate. To some that language
will convey no definite meaning. Some -will take It In its
original sense, others in a secondary one ; and different
hearers, perhaps each In a different sense, each ascribing to
It the various complex notions which have grown around it
in his own associations. The very solemnity, too, attaching
to religious terms as symbols of divine truth is apt to awaken
a feeling of mysticism, which diverts some from the task of
defining and explaining them to themselves. Thus do these
terms become mere sounds, or little more than sounds, to
many ; and thus has been perpetuated, through successive
ages of the Church, that fruitful mother of controversy, —
logomachy, the war of words.
" It is a temptation, indeed, to which the members of any
particular communion of Christians are peculiarly exposed, —
to Identify the defence of the formularies of the Communion
with the defence of Christianity. It is like securing the forti
fications of the city instead of looking to the strength and
discipline of Its garrison as the main resource. As belonging
to a communion, we must be able to show that we have good

DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES. 109
reason for our preference. It Is enough, for this purpose, to
prove that our Church is truly scriptural in Its basis, walking
In the footsteps of the Holy Spirit, and drinking of the pure
fountain of inspiration. This is the sole proper notion of
the Infallibility of a church. For it is an Infallibility not its
own, but of God present with it. We are not called upon to
defend every particular expression which has been adopted
into its formularies. This would be to make it infallible in
itself. It would be to suppose that a fortress, strong in its
internal resources, must fall because some of Its outworks are
not impregnable. And we may find, indeed, at last, that, by
such a proceeding, we are tenaciously cleaving to means of
defence which the present state of religion and knowledge
entirely supersedes, as we might suppose the inhabitant of a
castle fortified In feudal times imagining himself safe amidst
his walls, against assaults from modern inventions in the art
of war."
102. Rev. H. B. Wilson says: "Jesus Christ has not
revealed his religion as a theology of the intellect nor as an
historical faith ; and it is a stifling of the true Christian life,
both in the Individual and in the Church, to require of many
men unanimity In speculative doctrine, which is unattainable,
and uniformity of historical belief, which can never exist.
The true Christian life Is the consciousness of bearing a part
in a great moral order, of which the highest agency upon
earth has been committed to the Church. Let us not oppress
this work, nor complicate the difficulties with which it is
surrounded." 103. Rev. Charles Kingsley says: "Where is the
religious controversy, the two sides whereof are as clearly
opposite to each other as yes and no, black and white? I
know none now. I have hardly found one in the records of
the Protestant Church since first Luther and our reformer

no PRO TESTANTISM.
protested against Romish idolatry. On that last matter there
should be no doubt as long as the first two commandments
stand In the Decalogue ; but, with that exception, it would be
difficult to find a dispute in which the truth lay altogether
with one party. The truth, rather, lies, in general, not so
much half-way between the two combatants as in some third
place which neither sees. God leaves his servants each to
work out some one side of Christian truth, dividing to every
man severally as He will, according to the power of each
mind and the needs of each situation. True, we have the
infallible rule of Scripture, but are our own Interpretations
of it so sure as to be infallible .? The pretence is folly. True,
again, it contains all things necessary to salvation, and yet
does it not contain things whereof even St. Paul said that he
only knew in part and prophesied in part and saw as through
a glass dimly, and are we to suppose that they are among the
truths nece'ssary to salvation.? Are not the very points about
which there has been and Is still the most dispute just of this
very number.? Do they belong to the simple, fundamental
truths of the Gospel.? No. Are they such plain matters that
the wayfaring man, though poor, can make up his mind on
them for himself.? No. Are they, one of them, laid down
directly in Scripture .? No. They are every one, as it seems
to me, whether they be right or wrong, abstruse deductions,
delicate theories, built up on single and obscure texts.
"The tree is known by its fruits. The good fruits can
only spring from a good root. Those ¦who have the fruit
must have the root, let their doctrines be what they may.
Those who have not the fruit cannot have the root, let their
doctrines be what they may. That is the plain truth, and it
Is high time for preachers to proclaim It boldly and take the
consequences from the Scribes and Pharisees of this genera
tion. Let doctrines be what they will, the tree is known by
its fruit. The man who does wrong things Is bad, and the

DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES. in
man who does right things Is good. Most people fancy that
the men who can talk most neatly and correctly about certain
religious doctrines are good, and that those who cannot are
bad. That Is no new notion. Some people thought so In
St. John's time, and what did he say of them ? ' Let no
man deceive you ; it is he that doeth righteousness who is
righteous.' "In one word, then, the sin of the Pharisees, the unpardon
able sin which ruins all who give themselves up to it, was
bigotry, — calling right ¦wrong because it did not suit their
party prejudices to call it right. They were fancying them
selves very religious and pious, and all the while they did
not know right ¦when they sa^w it ; and when the Lord came
doing right they called it wrong because He did not agree
with their doctrines. The bigot has lost the very notion of
right and wrong in the midst of all his religion and his fine
doctrines. He fancies that right does not mean love, mercy,
goodness, patience, but notions like his own. What he
agrees with he thinks Is heavenly, and what he disagrees with
is of hell. He has made his own good for himself and out
of himself. His own prejudices are his good, and he
worships them right worthily ; and if the Lord were to come
down on earth again, and would not say the words which he
is accustomed to say, it would go hard, but he would crucify
the Lord again as the Pharisees did of old.
" Not only be loving, charitable, full of good works your
self, but be ready to praise and enjoy a good, loving, and
merciful action whosoever does It, whether he be of your
religion or not, for nothing good is done by any living man
without the grace of Christ and the Inspiration of the Spirit.
Whosoever tries to escape from that great truth, when he sees
a man whose doctrines are wrong doing a right act, by
Imputing bad motives to him, or saying ' His actions must be
evil however good they may look, because his doctrines are

112 PROTES TANTISM.
wrong,' is running the risk of blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit by calling good evil.
"Whatever may be our doctrinal differences, we can at
least do together something better even than worshipping,
and that is working. We can surely do good together.
Together, let our denomination or party be ¦what it may, we
can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, reform the prisoner,
humanize the degraded, save yearly the lives of thousands
by laboring for the public health and educate the minds and
morals of the masses, though our religious differences (shame
on us that it should be so) force us to part ¦when ¦we begin to
talk to them about the world to come."
104. Rev. R. H. Newton says : "You will not say, this
man differs from me in doctrine ; he Is a bad man, let me
draw away from him ; but you will say, this man agrees with
me in life, therefore, whatever may be his opinions, his life
must root and ground itself In the same essential faith, and I
must fellowship with him. To make the letter of the Creed
a test of fellowship is to sacrifice the spirit of the Creed, —
goodness. However important may be right thinking, the
one thing supremely Important is right living. We must,
therefore, as true Christians, fellowship character."
105. Abraham Lincoln said: " I have never united my
self to any church, because I have found difficulty in giving
my assent, without mental reservation, to the long, compli
cated statements of Christian doctrine which characterize
their Articles of Belief and Confessions of Faith. When any
church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification
for membership, the Saviour's condensed statement of the
substance of both law and gospel, ' Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself,' that church wIH
I join with all my heart and all my soul."

DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES. 113
106. Erasmus said: "Theology, so far, has been culti
vated only by avowed enemies of knowledge. The pretence
has been to protect the minds of the laity from disturbance.
I wish there could be an end of scholastic subtleties, or, if
not an end, that they could be thrust into a second place, and
Christ be taught plainly and simply. Doctrines are taught
now ¦which have no affinit}- with Christ, and only darken our
eyes. The sum of religion Is peace, ¦which can only be when
definitions are as few as possible, and opinion is left free on
many subjects. Our present problems are said to be waiting
for the next CEcumenical Council. Better let them wait till
the veil is removed and we see God face to face."

114 ^¦^ ^ TESTANTISM.

CHAPTER IV.
THE IDENTITY OF RELIGION AND MORALITY.
107. Dean Stanley says : " Religion and morality are
one and indivisible. Whatever tends to elevate the intelli
gence, the purity, the generosity of mankind. Is high religion ;
whatever debases the mind or corrupts the heart or hardens
the conscience, under whatever pretext however specious, is
low religion, is infidelity of the ¦worst sort. There are,
according to the old Greek proverb, many ¦who have borne
the thyrsus and yet not been inspired prophets. There are
many also who have been inspired prophets without wearing
the prophetic mantle or bearing the mystic wand ; and these,
whether statesmen, philosophers, poets, have been amongst
the friends, conscious or unconscious, of the religion of the
future ; they are citizens, whether registered or unregistered.
In the Jerusalem which Is above and which is free.
' ' In the Christian dispensation morality is religion and
religion morality ; or. If we prefer so to express it, religion
Is the sanctification of morality and morality is the action of
religion. This had, no doubt, been foreshadowed by the
Jewish prophets and the Grecian philosophers, but it was
through the teachings of Christianity that it first assumed
paramount importance. Ho^wever much, in the various
churches, correct opinion or correct ceremonial or decoration
of churches or veneration of priesthoods or ecclesiastical inde
pendence have taken the place of morality, and however
enormous the crimes which have been perpetrated In the
name of religion, still the better and wiser spirits In every
age of Christendom have recognized the fact that the original
principles of our faith teach exactly the reverse.

RELIGION AND MORALITY. 115
" Read the description In the Beatitudes of those that are
truly happy. Read the two great commandments in which
our Founder said that the whole of His religion consisted.
Read the thirteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, in Avhich St. Paul declared that, compared with
charity or philanthropy, all perceptions of theoretical truth,
all manifestations of devotional zeal, are as nothing. We
thus see how in each of these original conceptions of Chris
tianity the moral elements of religion outweigh all others.
We sometimes hear it said that, in this or that school, or In
this or that system, morality may be taught, but not religion ;
or that, unless religion Is taught. It Is useless to teach morality.
There are, no doubt, elements in religion that are not neces
sarily contained In morality ; but, in the highest point of
view, the distinction fades away as we touch it. In
Christianity morality is itself the Innermost part of religion,
is its very Holy of Holies.
' ' But it is not enough that there should be this general
identification of morality ¦with religion, or this identification
of perfect human goodness with the divine nature. We have
to ask what are the special points of goodness on which
Christianity lays the chief stress. The chief virtues of Greek
morality were fortitude, wisdom, self-control, and justice ; of
the ancient Roman religion, patriotism and imperial courage ;
of the Hebrew religion, resignation, reverence, and faith.
All these several virtues have their places In Christianity;
but there are other moral gifts which shine with the most
transcendent glory In the New Testament. The main char
acteristics of the Founder of our religion and of His disciples
are kindness, universal kindness and beneficence, to which Is
given the new name of grace, love, or charity ; purity in word
and deed, to which Is given the new name of holiness or con
secration to God ; absolute sincerity, of which the very word
truth became a synonyme of the Founder's life ; humility and

1 1 6 PRO TESTANTISM.
lowliness, for which neither Greek nor Latin had any adequate
expression, — these were the principles which In the Epistles
were deemed to be essentially Christian, and which in the
Gospels were called divine.
" It is, in other words, the constant renunciation of that
which is behind, the perpetual reaching forward to that which
is before, the noble ambition which is satisfied with nothing
less than the highest ideal. This sense of the need of an
endless moral renovation and progress, this dissatisfaction
with the littleness and meanness of things earthly and com
monplace and striving after things above us, — this Is what is
called In the New Testament by many names, all meaning the
same thing : ' conversion,' ' repentance,' ' the second birth,'
' the cross,' ' the grave,' ' the resurrection,' ' the new life,' a
' spiritual mind.' It is described with a peculiar metaphor
in the Epistles by the ¦word ' edification,' which means the
building up of one story above another in the moral fabric of
the soul.
" The identification of things secular with things sacred,
the refusal to acknowledge anything as supremely sacred
except what Is good, or essentially profane except what Is
sinful, — this is the wide-reaching principle of the gospel
which strikes at the root of a thousand superstitions and is
the fruitful source of a thousand truths. It carries with it the
hope of the final triumph of good over evil. It carries with
it the germ of all modern philosophy, modern art, and states
manship. This is the element which liberates, redeems, and
purifies both the Church and the world.
' ' It has been well said by an eminent French writer that
the true calling of a Christian is not to do extraordinary
things, but to do ordinary things In an extraordinary way.
The most trivial tasks can be accomplished in a noble, gentle,
regal spirit, which overrides and puts aside all petty, paltry
feelings, and which elevates all little things. Whatever Is

RELIGION AND MORALITY. 117
affected, whatever is ostentatious, whatever is taken up from
mere fashion or party cry, — that is small, vulgar, contempti
ble. Whatever springs from our own Independent thought ;
whatever is modest, genuine, and transparent ; whatever is
deliberately pursued because it tends towards a grand result,
— that is noble, commanding, great.
" This Identity becomes clear If we consider the two great
commandments which Christ declared to be the sum and
substance of religion. The first is, ' Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy
mind, and ¦with all thy strength ; ' the second is like unto the
first, and is the chief, if not the only, mode of fulfilling it,
' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'
" God must be served by all our nature, not by parts of it.
The intellect must seek truth with undivided, fearless zeal,
else ¦we do not serve God with our whole mind and under
standing. The bodily powers must be guarded and saved for
the healthy discharge of all that Providence requires of us in
our passage through life, else we do not serve Him with our
whole strength. The affections must be kept fresh and pure,
else we do not serve Him with our whole heart. The con
science must not have stained itself with secret sins, unworthy
transactions, and false pretences, else ¦we do not serve Him
with our ¦whole soul.
' ' What Is the measure of the love we owe to others .? It Is
the measure of what we think is owing to ourselves. ' Love
him as thyself.' Observe the equity of this divine rule. It
makes us the judge of what we ought to do. It imposes
upon us no duty that we have not already acknowledged for
ourselves. Every one of us knows how painful it Is to be
called malicious names, to have our character undermined
by false Insinuations, to be overreached In a bargain, to be
neglected by those who rise in life, to be thrust on one side
by those who have stronger wills and stouter hearts. Every

1 1 8 PRO TESTANTISM.
one knows also the pleasure of receiving a kind look, a warm
greeting, a hand held out to help In distress, a difficulty solved,
a higher hope revealed for this world or the next. By that
pain and by that pleasure let us judge what we should do to
others. This is the root of all charity, forgiveness, justice,
toleration. " In our complex state of society it seems out of the
question that so simple and sublime a confession of faith
should ever become practicable. But whenever any church
in truth and in spirit puts forward these two commandments
as that which Is of supreme Importance, as that In comparison
with which all else is unimportant, as that to which all else
tends, for the sake of which all else is done, — any church so
believing and so acting, any Christian so believing and so
acting, takes at once the first place amongst churches and
the first place amongst Christians, because such churches
and such Christians would most fully have embraced the
mind and the intention of our Divine Founder.
' ' It was observed by Coleridge that when a man is told
that religion and morality are summed up In the two great
commandments, he is ready to say, like one who first beholds
the sea, 'Is this the mighty ocean .? Is this all.?' Yes, it is
all ; but what an all ! We know well what Is the view of the
ocean. We look out from the shore on that vacant expanse,
with its boundless horizon, ¦with its everlasting succession of
ebb and tide, and we might, perhaps, ask. What Is this barren
sea to us.? Ho^w vague, how Indefinite, ho-w broad, how
monotonous ! Yet look closer. It is the scene on which
sunlight and moonlight, cloud and shadow, storm and calm,
are forever playing. It has been the chosen field for the
enterprise, for the faith, for the charity of mankind. It is
the highway for the union of nations and the enlargement of
churches. It Is the bulwark of freedom, and the home
of mighty fleets, and the nurse of swarming cities. And so

RELIGION AND MORALITY.

119

these two commandments. They seem at first sight vacant,
vague, and indeflnite ; but let us trust ourselves to them, let
us launch out upon them, let us explore their innermost
recesses, let us sound their depths, — and ¦we shall find that
they call forth all the arts and appliances of Christian life,
that they will carry us around the world and beyond it.
" The fact of which we are never to lose sight Is, that
these two commandments are the end, and all other things,
however sacred and great, are the means."
There is nothing In all this of doctrine or dogma, — no
abstract proposition about the Trinity, the nature of the God
head, the thousand and one perplexities of a scholastic and
mediffival theology, — not a trace of the huge and cumbrous
superstructure of ceremonials, philosophy, and metaphysics
which men have reared and called religion.
108. Rev. F. W. Robertson says: "Christ proclaimed
the identity between religion and goodness. He distinguished
religion from correct views, accurate religious observances,
and even from devout feelings. He said .that to be religious
is to be good. Justice, mercy, truth, — these He proclaimed
as the real righteousness of God. Because of this the Phari
sees became His enemies, — those men of opinions and
maxims, those men of ecclesiastical, ritual, and spiritual
pretensions." 109. Rev. Mark Pattison says: "Christianity as a system
of religion comprises a theology ; but the theology is not put
forward as the essential part of the religion. Christianity is
by nothing so much distinguished from the other religions
known to us as by laying its whole weight on morality. We
are to be saved by a faith, but it is only by such a faith as is
fruitful of works. Not to know, but to do, the will of God
is its repeated inculcation. Its distinctive ethical character
stands out In a clear light. Pure and undefiled religion is

I20 PROTESTANTISM.
active charity and a pure Hfe. Other religions have in their
degree comprised or recommended morality. Christianity is
a system of practical ethics. It is not a theology for the
reason, but it is essentially a discipline of life. It is a law
and method of virtuous action.
' ' There are two ways of viewing the relations of religion
and morality. One is that which subordinates morality to
religion. This is the theoretical position of the Romish
Church, and in a less degree of many who are outside its
pale. It seeks to organize society upon the basis of religion.
The civil power is held to be subordinate to that of the
Church. The moral reason is to be kept in subjection to
the authority of an infallible Church.
"The other view is that which tends to measure religion
by morality. It conceives human happiness as the one great
object towards which men must needs aspire. It observes
how imperfectly all human society is organized for the attain
ment of this end. Yet it perceives that, so far as societ}- does
succeed In realizing any measure of this happiness, it is only
and merely by virtue of those rules which are dictated by
reason, expounding the moral law, and by the employment
of force to compel obedience to those rules. It goes on to
infer that, could obedience to those be secured more com
pletely in all those details which the machinery of public
order cannot reach, a far higher degree of happiness would
be obtained than is met with at present In any existing com
munity. Here it is that religion comes in. The obligation
in the realm of conscience supplements the obligation of
which the law of the State can take account. A church is,
in this view as defined by Dr. Arnold, ' a voluntary society
for the putting down of evil.' As God in revealing Himself
to His creature could have no other object than that creature's
welfare, so what He has revealed Is merely regulative of our
conduct.

RELIGION AND MORALITY. 121
"The first characteristic of the Christian revelation is its
lofty morality. The discourses of Christ consist mainly or
wholly of directions for moral conduct or the inculcation of
the human virtues. The Gospels are not dogmatic. They
relate the life of one who wenf about doing good, and incul
cating it by His teaching. Religion, according to this view,
is an instrument for the amelioration of society. Religion
and morality have not contended as enemies for mutual
destruction, but they have struggled with alternating success
for supremacy. This struggle is traceable through all history.
The ^Middle Ages witnessed the subordination of morality to
religion. The ecclesiastics ruled the world. The Church
became a tyrant, holding the reason and conscience in sub
jection. Religion was separate and apart from morality.
The Church was filled with moral corruption. The very
centres of ecclesiastical power were polluted.
"The gradual diffusion of knowledge slowly undermined
this ecclesiastical fabric. The conscience of men revolted
against the crimes committed in the name of the Church.
The welfare of mankind began to again form the ultimate
standard of appeal. From the time of the Reformation the
struggle has gone on. The Romish Church stands on the
one side, and against it is all of modern civilization. The
world as it stands to-day compared with what it was four
centuries ago is the result of that view which subordinates
religion to morality, or which says they are identical In spirit
and essence.
"It Is not possible, perhaps, to classify individuals as to
their personal views on the relation of religion and morality.
There are a thousand gradations of thought between the two
extreme views ; but, however a man may think, his view is
ultimately reducible to one or the other. The two views
cannot be held by the same mind. They are, in fact, alien
habits of thought rather than contradictory opinions. Towards

122 PROTES TANTISM.
one or the other all thinking men verge In their general habits
of thought. But whatever difficulty there may be in judging
of individuals, there is no difficulty in judging churches and
communities. Every church and every community is swayed
in the one direction or the other, according to the view It
adopts on this subject. If it is ruled by ecclesiastics. If it
is priest-ridden, if it is filled with superstitious ideas and
absorbed In ceremonials and external observances. If it tends
to crush the individual and make his conscience subject to an
external source of authority, — it is not difficult to determine
that there morality is subordinate to religion. If social prob
lems are discussed on the broad principles of reason and
humanity ; if the amelioration of the lot of man be one of
the foremost aims ; if education and knowledge are free ; if
science is given full scope for its investigations ; if the ten
dency of surrounding influences is to develop the Individual,
to bring out his faculties, to train and stimulate his conscience
as his ruling guide in the conduct of life ; if the paramount
duty is a supreme allegiance to the principles of truth, justice,
purity, and love, — then it is equally easy to determine that
there religion and morality are regarded as identical, and that
morality is in a certain sense the measure and test of religion."
no. " It is a great advantage to be able to think of religion
as something real and stimulating, though there be no priest
hood, no altar, no sacrament, no temple or rite. Religion
has been becoming less and less an ecclesiastical mancEuvre,
more an effort of the human being to perfect himself in moral
qualities. More and more It has been emancipating Itself
from the entanglements and complications of usage and tradi
tion, and showing itself a spiritual thing, assuming form as
character, culture, intelligence, moral and spiritual growth.
In the oldest forms of religion there is no apparent connection
between religion and character. The two do not go together.

RELIGION AND MORALITY. 123
do not refer to each other, have no bearing one upon the
other. The worst man might be the most religious, and
honestly accepted as such ; the best man might be the least
religious, so recognized, so professing.
" Romanism, which is, without reasonable question, the
most complete expression of Christianity in its ecclesiastical
form, still, as a rule, with the multitude, keeps up the divorce
between religion and goodness. Such religion consists in the
purchasing of favors from unseen po\vers, not in accumulating
moral power within one's self.
" It consists, therefore, in an apparatus of pious observances,
devotional exercises, humiliations, contritions, confessions
designed to placate these invisible forces and make them
propitious. ' ' Protestantism was a protest against ecclesiasticism and
these its characteristic works. It ¦was a vehement reaction
against such divorce between character and piety ; a demand
for personal religion, for Ii-nmediate concourse between God
and man. Protestantism started with the Idea that the Christ
must be received and reproduced within ; that the regenerat
ing, teaching, consoling. Inspiring spirit was not a form, an
endowment, the fruit of an observance, a rite, an act of sub
jection to a priest, of membership In a corporation, but was
a possession in the person ; that the Lord approached each
individual through the avenue of his private conscience.
Hence a superb flaming out of the conviction that religion
and character were essentially one ; hence, in the highest
illustrations of Christendom, the conviction of an absolute
identity between the highest state of personal goodness and
the highest state of spiritual rapture ; hence practical saintli-
ness as the demonstration of spirituality. Still, this is found
only among the Protestants of the best type, not among the
average members of Protestant communities. The good man
only is the religious man. According to the quality and style

124 PROTES TANTISM.
of the goodness is the quality and style of the religion ; the
religion is, at every stage, as the goodness : the broad good
ness is the sign of the broad piety ; the narrow technical
goodness is the sign of the narrow and technical piety ; good
ness of whatever kind is to be recognized as piet3\
" The man who is faithful to the known conditions of life,
to the physical laws that secure health and private well-being,
to the personal and social laws of self-respect and good-will.
Is so far a devout man. The man who is faithful to Intel
lectual laws, ¦who runs his mind along the golden grooves of
reason In quest of truth, has piety of a higher stamp still.
The man who is obedient to the human conditions which
provide for all mankind prosperity and peace Is still higher
In the scale of religious life. The man who obeys all these
laws together, ¦who gives up his ¦whole being to an entire and
absolute allegiance to the best, is the totally pious man.
" In the judgment of those who accept this definition it is
perfectly Idle to talk of one's religion whose life Is bad ; and
it is equally Idle to deny religion to any man, however he
defines God, conceives of the hereafter, philosophizes about
destiny, if his interior life Is in unity with the highest prin
ciples of conduct."

BOOK THIRD.

THE SCRIPTURES.

CHAPTER I.

INSPIRATION.

III. The English Church Insists, and must always do so,
that the Bible is in some sense. In some degree, and in some
way, inspired ; but beyond this mere general statement it does
not go. It has no special theory of inspiration, no dogma as
to Its degree or method or operation. The idea of a verbal
or plenary Inspiration has never been In any way held,
indorsed, or sanctioned by that Church. It has said in its
Sixth Article that " Holy Scripture containeth all things
necessary to salvation." This Is all It has said, and it cer
tainly is as far as possible from asserting that everything
contained in Holy Scripture Is binding upon us as an Inspired
utterance and therefore infallibly true. The doctrine of verbal
or plenary inspiration has been denied as not only untenable
and unreasonable, but as pernicious and dangerous by a host
of the most eminent churchmen, among whom may be named
Bishop Thirlwall, Archbishop Whately, Bishop Hervey,
Dean Milman, Rev. Thomas Arnold, Dean Stanley, Canon
Fremantle, Bishop Temple, Bishop Burnet, Rev. F. W.
Robertson, Bishop Baxter, Rev. R. H. Newton, Professor
Jowett, Archbishop Tlllotson, Rev. F. D. Maurice, Bishop

126 PROTESTANTISM.
Hampden, Dean Farrar, Dean Alford, Rev. H. R. Haweis,
Rev. H. B. Wilson, Dean Conybeare, Bishop Paley, Bishop
Heber, and Bishop Horsley.
112. Rev. F. W. Robertson says: " Bibliolatry is per
nicious, dangerous to true views of God and His revelation
to the human race, and the cause of much ^bitter Protestant
popery or claim to infallibility of interpretation, which nearly
every party puts forth. I believe bibliolatry to be as super
stitious, as false, and almost as dangerous as Romanism."
113. Rev. R. H. Newton says: " Bibliolatry, the worship
of the Bible, is responsible for the lack of the reasonable rever
ence these sacred writings merit. This reasonable reverence
can be recovered only by frankly putting away the unreason
able reverence. We must exorcise a superstition to save a
faith. We must part with the unreal Bible if we would hold
the real Bible.
" This state of things ought not to have been brought upon
us. The reverent reading of the Bible alone would never
have led us into such straits. It is the old story of all human
reverence. That which we revere we exaggerate. Glamour
gathers around it. The symbol is identified with the spiritual
reality. The image becomes an Idol. The wonderful thing
becomes a fetish. So we end in an irrational reverence of
that which is worthy of a real and rational reverence. Then
we have a superstition. Superstition always results In destroy
ing the rightful belief of which it Is the exaggeration and
distortion. ' ' At the time of the Reformation in the place of the
authority of the Church rose the authority of the Bible, — an
oracular, infallible, miraculous Book, instead of an oracular,
infallible, miraculous Church. Men could only sustain the
elaborate speculative system they had spun out of the New
Testament letters by insisting upon the authority of the

INSPIRA TION. 1 2 7
apostles In metaphysics as strongly as upon their authority
In ethical and spiritual principles. When dogma became
divine, the books whence it was drawn were deified.
"Such important churches, however, as the Church of
England, our own Protestant Episcopal Church, and the
Methodist Church have nothing whatever of this theory in
their olficial utterances. These three churches unite in this
simple, practical, undogmatic statement, — -Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation.'
" If ever messages from on high have come to men, if ever
the Spirit of God has spoken in the spirit of men, — it was in
and through the minds of these men who wrote the Bible.
But they made no claim to infallibility, or, if they did, took
pains to disprove it. Every prophet who goes beyond ethical
and religious instruction and ventures into predictions makes
mistakes, and leaves his errors recorded for our -warning.
No biblical ¦writer shows any consciousness of such supernatural
influences upon him in his work as insured Its Infallibility.
"Eighteen hundred years after he wrote men insist that
they know more about St. Paul's inspirations than he did
himself. Against his modest, cautious discriminations our
doctors set up their theory of the Bible, clothe all his utter
ances ¦with the divine authority, and honor him with an infalli
bility which he explicitly disclaims.
" There Is positively nothing In the New Testament which
lends a reasonable countenance to such an amazing theory.
The Bible carries the refutation of this claim upon the face
of its writings. The Old Testament historians contradict each
other in facts and figures, tell the same story in different ways,
locate the same incident at different periods, ascribe the same
deeds to different men, quote statistics which are plainly
exaggerated, mistake poetic legend for sober prose, report
the marvellous tales of tradition as literal history, and give
us statements which cannot be read as scientific facts without
denying our latest and most authoritative knowledge.

128 PRO TESTANTISM.
"For the first time In the history of Europe, Christian
people have the knowledge by which they can correct their
ideas about the Bible, In what may be called a comparative
science of bibliolatry. We know that nearly every race has
had its own sacred book. These sacred books are now within
the easy reach of all. Any one can examine the Vedas, the
Zend-Avesta, and the other bibles of humanity. Every one
can readily form a just judgment of these bibles. The light
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world shines
from many pages in all of these books. There are profound
thoughts of God, noble, ethical ideals, deep perceptions of sin,
yearning desires for human good, gleams of life beyond the
grave. There are prayers we could use here with a few
verbal changes, and you would not recognize their pagan
source. There are songs of praise which might be made our
canticles. There are parables that the Master Himself might
have spoken. But the light which shines from heaven through
these books does not disguise their earthly character. Having
no glai-nour of tradition over our eyes, ¦we can see them to be
histories, poems, philosophies, rituals, counsels of religion,
hallowed by age Into sacred books. Yet we find precisely
the same notions current in each race about its bible that we
have cherished concerning our own Bible. The Hindu talks of
his Vedas as the Christian talks of his Testaments. Nay, we
find our conceits quite outdone in the dogmas of these heathen.
We find Mohammedan doctors of divinity divided into fiercely
contending parties over the question whether the Koran was
created or uncreated ; the latter theory, as most highly magni
fying their sacred book, of course, becoming the orthodox
doctrine. These learned orthodox divines assured men that
the Koran was verily eternal and uncreated and of the very
essence of God ; that the first transcript of it had been from
everlasting by His throne ; that a copy in one volume on
paper was, by the hands of the angel Gabriel, sent down to

INSPIRA TION.

129

the lowest heaven in the month of Ramadan, from whence
Gabriel revealed it to Mohammed in Instalments, giving him
the privilege, however, of beholding the heavenly volume,
bound in silk and adorned with gold and precious stones,
once a year.
' ' Bibliolatry is pushed to a reductio ad absurdum in these
pagan worships of their sacred books. Men will see their
folly in the reflected light of these kindred follies, and another
superstition will disappear from Christendom. It has bred a
supei-stitlous use of the Bible which has always made mischief,
though a mischief never realized as sensibly as now. It has
taught men to turn to these holy books and accept unquestion-
ingly all therein recorded as authoritative on our thought and
life. It has barred all research ¦which even seei-ned to con
tradict its history or science, and has held Europe in mental
swaddling-bands, preventing normal growth.
" It has furnished an arsenal stocked with proof texts from
which, through many generations, priests and doctors have
armed themselves to war with one another, exhausting in
ecclesiastical and theological strife the holy energies of Chris
tian enthusiasm which might else have changed the face of
the earth. It has arrayed faith against reason, by the necessity
it has Imposed of reconciling every new discovery with the
cosmogony of Genesis or the metaphysics of Romans ; putting
asunder those whom God hath joined together, in the needless
conflict of science and religion."
114. Professor Jowett says: "The subject will clear
itself. If we bear in mind two considerations : first, that the
nature of inspiration can only be known from the examination
of Scripture. There is no other source to which we can turn
for information, and we have no right to assume some imagi
nary doctrine of inspiration. The other consideration is one
which has been neglected by writers on this subject. It is

130

PR O TESTANTISM.

this, — that any true doctrine of inspiration must conform to
all well-ascertained facts of history or of science. The same
fact cannot be true and untrue any more than the same words
can have two opposite meanings. The same fact cannot be
true in religion, when seen by the light of faith, and untrue
in science, when looked at through the medium of evidence
or experiment.
" For any of the higher or supernatural views of inspiration
there Is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles. There Is
no appearance in their writings that the evangelists or apcstles
had any Inward gift, or were subject to any power external to
them ; nor do they anywhere lead us to suppose that they
were free from error or Infirmity."
115. Rev. H. B. 'Wilson says : " In this, which may be
considered the pivot article of the Church, the Sixth, there is
no declaration that the Bible throughout ¦was supernaturally
suggested, nor any intimation as to which portions of It were
Owing to a special divine illumination. No attempt, even the
slightest, is made to define Inspiration as to whether It Is
mediate or immediate, whether through or beside or over
ruling the natural faculties of the writers of Scripture. There
Is not the least hint of the relation between the divine and
human elements in the composition of the biblical books. If
the other Protestant churches have gone farther in definition
in this respect, that is no reason why ¦we should force the
silence of our Church Into unison with their expressed decla
rations, but, rather, that we should rejoice In our comparative
freedom. The word of God is contained in Scripture, whence
it does not follow that It Is co-extensive with it. The Church
does not put any such stumbling-block before the feet of her
members. It is their own fault if they place it there for
themselves, authors of their own offence."

INSPIRA TION. 1 3 1
ii6. Dean Stanley says: "It is thus no doctrine of the
Church of England that every part of the Bible is inspired or
Is the word of God ; that every part, however unconnected
with religious faith or moral duty, was written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It has been expressly decided
by the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal that no such
doctrine is to be found either In the Articles or any of the
formularies. ' The word " inspiration,'" the Court said, ' is not
there used as applied to the Holy Scripture, nor Is anything
laid down as to the nature, extent, or limit of that operation
of the Holy Spirit. The caution of the framers of the Articles
forbids our treating their language as implying more than is
expressed.' Such a view Is taken by no intelligent and devout
Christian who has not committed himself irretrievably to the
narrow trammels of some sect. The idea of verbal or plenary
inspiration is, in actual fact, accepted by hardly any educated
man. "If there existed a Greek text of the New Testament
which was infallible, every ¦word and every letter of which
was directly Inspired and therefore necessarily true, what
benefit would this be to the great mass of Englishmen who
cannot make out a word of Greek .? To be of any avail there
must be an Infallible translator, infallible proof-readers and
printers ; and this infallibility must exist even to the marks of
punctuation, as every student of theology well knows. Thus,
by way of illustration. In Romans ix. 5, the authorized version
reads, ' of ¦whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is
over all, God blessed forever. Amen.' The marginal render
ings of the revised version are: (i) 'of whom is Christ as
concerning the flesh. He who Is God over all be blessed for
ever ; ' or (2) ' He who is over all is God, blessed forever; '
or (3) ' of whom in Christ as concerning the flesh, who Is
overall. God be blessed forever.' The American Committee
of Revisers preferred still another form; viz., (4) 'He who

132 PROTESTANTISM.
Is over all, God, be blessed forever.' It must certainly be
clear that the Greek here is too ambiguous to allow any
special weight to be given to it in a precise argument.
" The crude notions which prevailed twenty years ago
[1858] on the subject of biblical Inspiration have been so
completely abandoned as to be hardly anywhere maintained
by theological scholars to-day."
117. Principal TuUock says : " The notion of verbal
inspiration or the Infallible dictation of Holy Scripture could
not possibly continue after the modern spirit of historical
inquiry had begun. The old Rabbinical idea of an Infallible
text was sure to disappear. The Scriptures are to be read
and studied like any other literature. "Their divinity appears
all the more brightly when they are thus freely handled. If
the Bible as a -whole is not infallibly inspired, how, it is said,
are we to know what Is of divine authority and what is not .?
The only answer is the answer of common sense given in all
other cases. The higher thought and power of any writing is
self -revealing. It is not to be mistaken. It takes captive the
reason as well as the conscience. The divinity of Scripture
resides not in the letter but in the spirit, in the unity of divine
impression -which it conveys.
" The divine side of Scripture, the side on which it appeals
to our spiritual life. Is legible by every devout reader ; but the
human or literary side of it presents everywhere difficulties of
a similar character to those found In all literature of the remote
past." 118. Bishop A. M. Randolph says: "Inspired the Bible
unquestionably is, in a general sense, inspired with a peculiar
fulness by the Divine Spirit, by whose inspiration every good
thought comes into the heart of man. In this sense we may
correctly apply the term ' inspiration ' to every Influence of the

INSPIRATION.

133

Spirit and the truth upon the minds of men. In this sense
Socrates, Bacon, Homer, and Shakespeare may be said to be
inspired." 119. Dean Farrar says: " But while history has shown
that we have nothing to fear for the sacredness of the Scrip
tures, it has taught us also that this sacredness has often been
discredited, and that religion Itself has been weakened in the
minds of men by the prevalence of perilous misinterpretations.
And how often has the Bible been thus wronged ! It has
been imprisoned in the cell of alien dogma. It has been
bound hand and foot in the grave-clothes of human tradition.
It has been entombed as in a sepulchre by systems of
theology, and the stone of human power has been rolled up
to close its door. But no-w the stone has been rolled away
from the door of the sepulchre, and the enemies of the Bible
can never shake its divine authority unless they be fatally
strengthened by our hypocrisies, our errors, and our sins.
"From the theory of verbal inspiration every mistaken
method of Interpretation and many false views of morals and
sociology have derived their disastrous origin. That theory
has never offered any valid proof for the immense demands
which it makes' upon our credulity. It confessedly traverses
all the prima facie phenomena of Scripture, and yet it flnds
no support In the claims of Scripture for Itself. It sprang
from heathenism, and it leads to infidelity . Holy men of
old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, but their
language was subject to all the ordinary conditions of human
speech. It is a mere a priori theory to assume that In their
written words their personality ¦was obliterated by a super
natural ecstasy, or all their most trivial expressions invested
with the dignity of an utterance of God. If such a view
of inspiration were alone orthodox or admissible, no man
of unwarped intelligence would have any refuge save in
heterodoxy.

134 PRO TESTANTISM.
" The notion of verbal infallibility could not possibly survive
the birth of historic inquiry, which showed In Scripture as
elsewhere an organic growth and therefore a necessary period
of immature development. Is It not an absolutely plain and
simple rule that anything in the Bible which teaches or seems
to teach anything which is not In accordance with the love, the
gentleness, the truthfulness, the purity of Christ's gospel, is not
God's word to us however clearly it stands on the Bible page .? "
120. S. T. Coleridge says, speaking of verbal Inspiration :
" I cannot find any such claim made by these ¦writers, either
explicitly or by implication. The doctrine is superstitious and
unscriptural. It is a tenet which the generality of divines
and the leaders of the religious public have ceased to defend,
but which they yet continue to assert or imply."
121. Rev. H. R. Haweis says :" At the time of the
Reformation we were told that the Bible was infallible. In
those days historical criticism hardly existed ; at all events. Its
methods were not generally accepted. In those days the
nature of scientific truth was hardly understood. But now
we have passed into a very different age, and. If we value the
Bible, we do not value It for its infallibility, because It Is seen
to be clearly not infallible ; that Is not the nature of Its value ;
that is not an element in Its inspiration. While I have always
maintained the inspiration of the Bible, I have shown that If
you keep dogmatically to' Its Infallibility, you are simply
injuring it by claiming for it what it does not possess, and
what it never pretended to have or to be. The Bible contains
the record of those divine precepts and those eternal truths
which bind human society, dominate the ages, and purify the
world ; but, being a progressive revelation. It records Imper
fect stages, and, being a record composed by men. It contains
inaccurate science and unreliable history and rudimentary,
often even contradictory, morality."

INSPIRATION. 135
122. Rev. Lyman Abbott says : " Inspiration and reve
lation we no longer regard as exceptional and episodical.
We believe that Inspiration and revelation are universal
phenomena ; that God has not left himself without a witness
among any people ; that he has spoken In all lands, unveiled
himself before all peoples, brooded all hearts. We believe
that he spoke through Confucius, through Siddartha, through
Socrates, through every prophet who has ever attempted to
fill the minds and hearts of men with faith and hope and
love. We wish to see foreign missions less polemical, to see
them treat pagan philosophy less as a delusion of the devil
and more as a darkened vision of God and an imperfectly
authenticated word of God. We desire to see them approach
pagan peoples more In the spirit in which Paul approached
the ¦worshippers of an unknown god in the city of Athens.
We accept the Bible as a standard, but not as the infallible,
inerrant standard that our fathers thought it. It is not less
dear to us because It Is more a literature ; not less divine
because more human ; not less the word of God because the
words of holy men of old. We see In the Bible, then, the
best words of the holiest prophets, of the most religious
people, and these words sifted out by a process of natural
selection from the literature of sixteen centuries ; and we
count this record of the Inspired experiences of the Inspired
prophets, of an inspired nation, a real standard of ethical and
spiritual truth, not the less sacred nor the less valuable
because it was given to Imperfect men, Interpreted by imper
fect men, and translated through the Imperfect medium of
human language, to us who imperfectly understand It. We
believe that all the apostles and prophets knew In part and
prophesied in part, but none the less we accept as our guid
ance their teaching. We count the Bible, not a substitute for
thinking, but a stimulant to thought. We love it, but we do
not idolize It. We believe that God has spoken and is speak-

136 PROTESTANTISM.
ing in many literatures ; but In none so clearly as in the Bible,
in which we rejoice for what it has done, is doing, and we
believe will yet do, for the spiritual culture of the race."
123. If the Greek text were infallible, we should need
infallible translators. Besides all this, the English words
used by the translators must have a fixed and definite mean
ing about which there can be no real dispute. If words
change their meaning after the translation is made, and take
on, as in many cases they have, an almost contradictory sense
from that in which they were used by the translators, how
does the reader then stand who is not scholar enough to know
anything but the popular sense of -words .? He needs an
infallible reviser, and must have such, or the book as it was
originally made is sealed against him. Now, how near to
having an infallible body of translators did the authorized
version of 161 1 come? This ¦will appear if we consider ¦what
the revisers of 1881 said officially of the translation of 161 1.
They said, in the preface to the new version : " With regard
to the Greek text, it would appear that, if, to some extent the
translators exercised an independent judgment, it was merely
in choosing amongst readings contained In the principal
editions of the Greek text that had appeared in the sixteenth
century. Wherever they seem to have followed a reading
which is not found in any of those editions, their rendering
may probably be traced to the Latin Vulgate. Their chief
guides appear to have been the later editions of Stephanus
and of Beza, and also, to a certain extent, the Complutensian
Polyglot. All these were founded, for the most part, on
manuscripts of late date, few In number, and used with little
critical skill. But In those days it could hardly have been
otherwise. Neai-ly all the more ancient of the documentary
authorities have become known only within the last two
centuries, some of the most important of them, indeed.

INSPIRA TION. 1 3 7
within the last few years. Their publication has called
forth, not only Improved editions of the Greek text, but a
succession of Instructive discussions on the variations which
have been brought to light, and on the best modes of distin
guishing original readings from changes introduced In the
course of transcription. While, therefore, it has long been
the opinion of all scholars that the commonly received text
needed thorough revision, it is but recently that materials
have been acquired for executing such a work with even
approximate completeness. ,
" The translators in 1611 appear to have paid much regard
to traditional Interpretations. Moreover, they profess in their
Preface to have studiously adopted a variety of expression
¦which ¦would now be deemed hardly consistent with the
requirements of faithful translation. The studied avoidance
of uniformity in the rendering of the same ¦words, even when
occurring In the same context, is one of the blemishes in their
work." 124. The revisers of 1881 were obliged to entirely omit
the verse i John v. 7 as spurious, after it had stood for two
hundred and seventy years for the unlearned Englishman as
a divinely Inspired utterance. Nor ¦was it an insignificant
verse. It may be reasonably asked by one not versed in the
dark and tortuous paths of theology, how such a thing can
happen ? How is it, he may say, that for nearly three
hundred years the English people have had a translation in
which the only verse supporting the mystical doctrine of the
Trinity was an unauthorized interpolation ? To this question
there is no reply that is at once consistent with the candor.
Intelligence, and honesty of the translators. That verse was
not to be found in any Greek manuscript of earlier date than
the fifteenth century. The Greek manuscripts containing
St. John's First Epistle, and omitting this verse, amounted to

13S PROTESTANTISM.
more than one hundred. The only Greek manuscripts which
the advocates of this verse have urged In its defence are three,
two of which have been proved to be of the fifteenth if not
of the sixteenth century, and the third to be of the seventeenth
century. The verse Is not found in any of the Latin manu
scripts earlier than the ninth century. It is not found In any
of the other ancient versions, as, for instance, the various
Syriac versions, the Coptic version, the Arabic versions, the
Slavonic, Armenian, and Sahldic versions. It was omitted
by Luther in all the editions of his German translation of
the New Testament. In the Old English Bibles of Henry
VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth (1566), it was printed In
small type, or included within brackets to show its doubtful
character. 125. Dean Farrar, speaking before the revision was made,
said that the three words "damnation," "hell," and "ever
lasting" should be erased from our English Bible as being
inadequate or erroneous or disputed readings. "I say," he
continued, " claiming the fullest right to speak on this point,
with the calmest and most unflinching sense of responsibility,
standing here in the sight of God and of my Saviour and, it
may be, of the angels and spirits of the dead, that not one of
these three expressions ought to stand any longer ; that they
are In our present acceptation of them simply mistranslations."
126. With all the variations there are in manuscripts, the
relative value, age, and accuracy of which is a matter of
constant dispute among the best and most sincere scholars, it
is safe to say that the Christian world is not to-day and never
has been agreed upon any complete and exact text of the
Bible. Christian scholars have done In this case as men do
In all other departments of life, and that is, to use all the
skill, learning, and patience they have, and approximate as
near as possible to the absolute truth, which is not by any

INSPIRATION. 139
sane man supposed to be attainable. It would seem that this
absence of an incontestlble text and translation were enough
to destroy any theory of verbal or plenary inspiration. Setting
aside, however, all the difficulties arising out of the countless
variations in the original biblical text In the Hebrew and
Greek, which can only be understood, examined, and dis
cussed by learned scholars, there are enough difficulties that
appear on the very surface of the authorized version that may
be understood by any man open to the reception of ideas at
all. If any one will candidly examine the Bible, he will, it
would seem, be compelled to acknowledge the impossibility
of holding any such theory as that the Bible is in such a way
inspired that all it says is to be taken as true and authoritative.
He ¦will be compelled to say that there are some things that
are not to be insisted upon, and when he has said this, he has
conceded the ¦whole argument. He will have to deny verbal
or plenary Inspiration to save the Bible Itself.
127. Bishop Colenso said. In 1862: "The results of
scientific criticism, applied to the examination of the letter
of the Scriptures, will also soon be acknowledged as facts,
¦which must be laid as the basis of all sound religious teaching.
In vle^w of this change which, I believe. Is near at hand, and
in order to avert the shock ¦which our children's faith must
otherwise experience when they find, as they certainly will
before long, that the Bible can no longer be regarded as infal
libly true In matters of common history, as we value their
reverence and love for the sacred Book, let us teach them
at once to know that they are not to look for the inspiration
of the Holy One, which breathes through Its pages, in respect
of any such matters as these, which the writers wrote as men,
with the same liability to error from any cause as other men,
and where they must be judged as men, as all other writers
would be, — by the just laws of criticism.

I40 PROTESTANTISM.
" Let us rather teach them to look for the sign of God's
spirit, speaking to them in the Bible, in that of which their
own hearts alo7ie can be the judges, of which the heart of
the simple child can judge as well as — often, alas! better
than — that of the self-willed philosopher, critic, or sage, —
i7i that which speaks to the witness for God within them, to
which alone, under God Himself, whose voice it utters in
the secrets of His inner being, each man is ultimately
responsible, — to the reason and conscience. Let us bid
them look for it in that within the Bible, which tells them of
what is pure and good, holy and loving, faithful and true,
which speaks from God's Spirit directly to their spirits, though
clothed with the outward form of a la^w or parable or proverb
or narrative, — in that which they ¦will feel and kno^w to be
righteous and excellent, however they may perversely choose
the base and evil, — in that which makes the living man leap
up, as it were, in the strength of sure conviction, which no
arguments could bring, no dogmas of church or council
enforce, saying, as the Scripture words are uttered, which
answer to the voice of truth within, ' These words are God's,
— not the flesh, the outward matter, the mere letter, but the
inward core and meaning of them, — for they are spirit, they
are life.'
" But then, too, they must be taught to recognize the voice
of God's spirit, in whatever way, by whatever ministry. He
vouchsafes to speak to the children of men ; and to realize the
solid comfort of the thought, that, — not in the Bible only,
but also out of the Bible, — not to us Christians only, but to
our fellowmen of all climes and countries, ages and religions,
— the same Gracious Teacher is revealing. In different meas
ures, according to His own good pleasure, the hidden things
of God."

INTERPRE TA TION. 141

CHAPTER II.

INTERPRETATION.

128. The latest rule of interpretation should have been
the earliest. The advanced thought of to-day merely says be
Inflexibly honest, and interpret the Bible as you do every
other book ¦which you seek to study. Throw on it every ray
of light you can get from literature, history, or science.
Believe that it means what It says. Take words in their
natural senses. Consider all the historical facts, the character
and circumstances of the writers, the time, place, and environ
ment. A contradiction, an Inconsistency, an error, or absurd
ity is not less so because it Is in the Bible. Be honest. Do
not pretend to see more than is there written. Do not become
a liar In the vain hope of pleasing God, who stands for
absolute truth. Simple and obvious as this is. It, nevertheless,
is the method that seems to have been most neglected until
these later days, and even now it Is received with extreme
suspicion by the majority of professional theologians. Every
other method has been tried for sixteen hundred years, result
ing in a history of Interpretation which is a melancholy picture
of perversity, blind zeal, unconscious delusion, and corruption.
The recorded facts with regard to the interpretation of the
Bible are almost incredible. Whether you consider the Rab
binic, the Alexandrian, the Patristic, the Scholastic, or the
Reformation exegesis. It is all forced, artificial, unnatural,
and deplorable.
Speaking even of the Apostolic Fathers, Dean Farrar says :
" In matters of interpretation they show so little title to
authority that their views have been abandoned by the whole
Christian world." To Illustrate their vagaries, we may say

142 PROTESTANTISM.
that to prove the divinity of Christ they used this verse
(Gen. xix. 24) : " Then the Lord rained upon Sodom brim
stone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." This verse was
so used by Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Eusebius, TertuUian, and
Ambrose. The Council of Sirmium, A.D. 357, anathema
tized any one who understood the verse differently. It was
TertuUian who made the famous declaration, "I believe
because It is absurd.'' The more repugnant to sound reason
a statement might be, so much the more ¦was It to be deemed
¦worthy of God. These were the men ¦who helped to create
those dogmas which we are now having such trouble to get
rid of.
The results of the new method, Involving a fair and honest
treatment of the Bible, have been very remarkable, and are
destined to be still more so in the future. Many people who
do not critically understand the subject fear that all the
barriers of the faith are being destroyed, when In very truth
the greatest bulwarks are being thrown around the Christian
religion that have ever been seen in its history.
129. Professor Jowett says: "Let us imagine the
remains of some well-known Greek author, such as Sophocles,
receiving the same treatment at the hands of the world which
the Scriptures have experienced. The text of such an author,
¦when first printed, would be gathered from the Imperfect or
miswritten copies which fell In the ¦way of the editors ; after
a while older and better manuscripts come to light, and the
power of using and estimating the value of manuscripts Is
greatly improved. We may suppose further that the readings
of these older copies do not always conform to some received
canons of criticism. Up to the year 1550 or 1624 alterations,
often proceeding on no principle, have been Introduced into
the text. But now a stand is made ; an edition which
appeared at the latter of the two dates just mentioned is

INTERPRETATION. 143
invested with authority. This authorized text is a piece de
resistance against innovation. Many reasons are given why
It Is better to have bad readings to which the world Is accus
tomed, than good ones which are novel and strange ; why the
later manuscripts of Sophocles are often to be preferred to
earlier ones ; why it is useless to remove imperfections where
perfect accuracy is not to be attained. A fear of disturbing
the critical canons which have come down from former ages
Is, however, suspected to be one reason for the opposition ;
and custom and prejudice, and the nicety of the subject and
all the arguments, which are Intelligible to the many against
the truth ¦which Is Intelligible only to the few, are thrown
into the scale to preserve the ¦works of Sophocles as nearly
as possible in the received text.
"Leaving the text, -we proceed to interpret and translate.
The meaning of Greek words Is known vvlth tolerable cer
tainty, and the grammar of the Greek language has been
minutely analyzed both in ancient and modern times. Yet
the interpretation of Sophocles Is tentative and uncertain ; It
seems to vary from age to age. To some the great tragedian
has appeared to embody In his choruses certain theological or
moral ideas of his own age or country ; there are others who
find there an allegory of the Christian religion or of the
history of modern Europe. Several schools of critics have
commented on his works. To the Englishman he has pre
sented one meaning, to the Frenchman another, to the German
a third. The interpretations have also differed with the
philosophical systems which the interpreters espoused. To
one the same words have appeared to bear a moral, to another
a symbolical meaning, a third Is determined wholly by the
authority of old commentators, while there is a disposition to
condemn the scholar who seeks to Interpret Sophocles from
himself only, and with reference to the ideas and beliefs of
the age in which he lived ; and the error of such a person Is

144

PR O TESTANTISM.

attributed not only to some intellectual, but even to a moral
obliquity, which prevents his seeing the true meaning.
" Still one other supposition has to be Introduced which
will appear, perhaps, more extravagant than any which have
preceded. Conceive, then, that these modes of Interpreting
Sophocles had existed for ages ; that great institutions and
interests had become Interwoven ¦with them, and. In some
degree, even the honor of nations and churches. Is It too
much to say that in such a case they would be changed with
difficulty, and that they would continue to be maintained
long after critics and philosophers had seen that they were
indefensible ?
" No one who has a Christian feeling ¦would place classical
on a level with sacred literature, and there are other par
ticulars in which the preceding comparison fails. But how
ever different the subject, yet, in what may be termed the
externals of Interpretation, this figure Is no exaggeration of
the erring fancy of men in the use of Scripture, or of the
tenacity with which they cling to the interpretation of other
times or of the arguments by which they maintain them.
' ' All the resources of knowledge may be turned into a
means, not of discovering the true rendering, but of uphold
ing a received one. Learning obscures as well as illustrates.
It keeps up a chaff where there is no more wheat. In this
way the sense of Scripture has become confused by the help of
tradition in the course of ages under a load of commentators.
'•'•Educated persons are begiiinirig to ask, not what
Scripture may be made to mean, but what it does. And
it Is no exaggeration to say that he who, in the present state
of knowledge, will confine himself to the plain meaning of
¦words and the study of their context may know more of the
original spirit and intention of the authors of the New
Testament than all the controversial writers of former ages
put together.

INTERPRE TA TION. 1 45
"Much of the uncertainty which prevails in the interpre
tation of Scripture arises out of party efforts to wrest its
meaning to different sides. There are, however, deeper
reasons which have hindered the natural meaning of the text
from immediately and universally prevailing. One of these
is the unsettlement of many questions which have an Impor
tant but indirect bearing on this subject. Some of these
questions veil themselves In ambiguous terms, and no one
likes to dra^w them out of their hiding-place into the light
of day. In natural science It is felt to be useless to build on
assumptions ; In history we look with suspicion on a priori
ideas of what ought to have been ; in matliematics, when a
step Is wrong, ¦we pull the house down until we reach the
point at which the error Is discovered. But in theology it
Is otherwise : there the tendency has been to conceal the
unsoundness of the foundation under the fairness and loftiness
of the superstructure. It has been thought safer to allow
arguments to stand which, although fallacious, have been on
the right side than to point out their defect ; and thus many
principles have Imperceptibly grown up which have over
ridden facts. No one would interpret Scripture, as many
do, but for certain previous suppositions with which we come
to the perusal of it.
" Those who remonstrate against double senses, allegorical
interpretations, forced reconcilements, find themselves met by
a sort of presupposition that ' God speaks not as man speaks.'
The limitation of the human faculties is confusedly appealed
to as a reason for abstaining from Investigations which are
quite within their limits. The suspicion of Deism or,
perhaps, of Atheism awaits inquiry. By such fears a good
man refuses to be inffuenced ; a philosophical mind is apt
to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is better to
close the book than to read it under conditions of thought
which are imposed from without. Whether those conditions

146 PROTESTANTISM.
of thought are the traditions of the Church or the opinions of
the religious world makes no difference ; they are inconsistent
with the freedom of the truth and the moral character of the
gospel. ' ' Where there is no critical Interpretation of Scripture,
there will be a mystical or rhetorical one. If words have
more than one meaning, they may have any meaning. Instead
of being a rule of life or faith. Scripture becomes the expres
sion of the ever-changing aspect of religious opinions. The
unchangeable ¦word of God, in the name of which we repose,
is changed by each age and each generation in accordance with
its passing fancy. The book In which we believe all religious
truth to be contained is the most uncertain of all books,
because Interpreted by arbitrary and uncertain methods.
'¦'¦Interpret the Scripture like any other book. There are
many respects in which Scripture is unlike any other book :
these will appear in the results of such an interpretation.
The first step is to know the meaning, and this can only be
done in the same careful and impartial ¦way that ¦we ascertain
the meaning of Sophocles or of Plato. The subordinate
principles which flow out of this general one will also be
gathered from the observation of Scripture. No other way
is possible but an inductive one ; that is to say, one based on
the language and thoughts and narrations of the sacred writers.
And it would be well to carry the theory of interpretation no
farther than In the case of other ¦works. Excessive system
tends to create an impression that the meaning of Scripture is
out of our reach, or is to be attained in some other way than
by the exercise of manly sense and Industry. Who would
write a bulky treatise about the method to be pursued In
interpreting Plato or Sophocles? Let us not set out on our
journey so heavily equipped that there is little chance of our
arriving at the end of it. The method creates itself as we go
on. Follow the rules of common sense which we acknowl-

INTER PRE TA TION. 147
edge with respect to other works written in dead languages.
Without pretending to novelty, they may help us to ' return
to nature ' in the study of the sacred writings.
" When interpreted like an}- other book, by the same rules
of evidence and the same canons of criticism, the Bible will
still remain unlike any other book : its beauty will be freshly
seen, as of a picture which is restored after many ages to its
original state. It will create a new interest, and make for
itself a new kind of authority by the life which Is In it. It
will be a spirit, and not a letter, as it was in the beginning,
having an influence like that of the spoken word or the book
newly found.
" Any one who, instead of burying himself in the pages of
the commentators, would learn the sacred writings by heart,
and paraphrase them in English, will probably make a nearer
approach to their true meaning than he would gather from
any commentary. The intelligent mind will ask its own
questions, and find, for the most part, its own answers. The
true use of interpretation is to get rid of interpretation, and
leave us alone in company ¦with the author.
" There is no reason for doubting that the divisions of the
Christian ¦world are beginning to pass away. The progress
of politics, acquaintance ¦with other countries, the gro^wth of
knowledge and of material greatness, changes of opinion in
the Church of England, the present position of the Roman
communion, — all these phenomena show that the ecclesias
tical state of the world is not destined to be perpetual.
Within the envious barriers which ' divide human nature Into
very little pieces ' a common sentiment is springing up of
religious truth ; the essentials of Christianity are contrasted
with the details and definitions of it ; good men of all
religions find that they are more nearly agreed than hereto
fore. Neither is It Impossible that this common feeling may
so prevail over the accidental circumstances of Christian

148 PRO TESTANTISM.
communities that their political or ecclesiastical separation
may be little felt. The walls which no adversary has scaled
may fall down of themselves. We may, perhaps, figure to
ourselves the battle against error and moral evil taking the
place of one of sects and parties.
' ' In this movement the critical interpretation of Scripture
will have a great influence. The Bible will be no longer
appealed to as the witness of the opinions of particular sects
or of our own age ; it will cease to be the battlefield of con
troversies. But, as its true meaning is more clearly seen, its
moral power will also be greater. If the outward and inward
witness, instead of parting into two, as they once did, seem
rather to blend and coincide in the Christian consciousness,
that is not a source of weakness, but of strength. The book
itself, which links together the beginning and end of the
human race, will not have a less inestimable value because
the spirit has taken the place of the letter. Its discrepancies of
fact, when we become familiar with them, will seem of little
consequence in comparison ¦with the truths which it unfolds.
" The Scriptures are a bond of union to the whole Christian
world. No one denies their authority ; and could all be
brought to an intelligence of their true meaning, all might
come to agree in matters of religion. That may seem to be
a hope deferred, yet not altogether chimerical. If it is not
held to be a thing impossible that there should be agreement
in the meaning of Plato or Sophocles, neither Is it to be
regarded as absurd that there should be a like agreement in
the interpretation of Scripture. The disappearance of arti
ficial notions and systems will pave the ¦way to such an
agreement. The truths of Scripture, again, would have
greater reality if divested of the scholastic form In which
theology has cast them. The lessons which are contained
in Scripture, — lessons of justice and truth, lessons of mercy
and peace, — -of the need of man and the goodness of God to
him, are, indeed, not human, but divine."

INTERPRE TA TION. 1 49
130. S. T. Coleridge says : " I take up the Bible to read
It for the first time as I should read any other work, as far,
at least, as I can or dare ; for I neither can nor dare throw
off a strong and awful prepossession in its favor, certain that
I am that a large part of the light and life In and by which I
see, love, and embrace the truths and strengths co-organized
into a living body of faith and knowledge, has been directly or
indirectly derived to me from this sacred volume, and unable
to determine what I do not owe to Its Influence. But, even on
this account, and because It has these inalienable claims on
my reverence and gratitude, I will not leave it in the power
of unbelievers to say that the Bible is for me only ¦what the
Koran Is for the deaf Turk and the Vedas for the feeble and
acquiescent Hindoos. No ! I will retire up into the mountains
and hold secret commune with my Bible above the contagious
blasts of prejudice and the fog-blight of selflsh superstition ! "
131. Rev. R. H. Ne-wton says: "It is a wrong inter
pretation of the Bible to accept everything recorded therein as
necessarily true. Has it been such a comfort to us to read
the doings of Samson as actual history, slaying a thousand
men with the jawbone of an ass, tying firebrands to the tails
of three hundred foxes, and so forth, that ¦we should resent
the identification of this Impossible hero with the Semitic
Hercules, a solar myth? Or, if perchance the historian
accepted from remote antiquity the accounts of great deeds
and striking events, as they were told at the camp-fires of
the Hebrew nomads or in the merry-makings of the Palestinian
villages, with an ever-growing nimbus of the marvellous
gathering around them, and if thus impossible marvels are
reported to us soberly, are we to be compelled to accept them
uncritically or reject the Bible altogether ?
"Perhaps Elisha's Iron axe did swim upon the water.
Whether it did or not concerns me no whit. I shrug my

15°

PR O TESTANTISM.

shoulders and read on. I cannot make out the historical fact
which was at the basis of the Red Sea deliverance ; nor do
I care much to make out this or any other Old Testament
miracle. If I felt obliged to accept literally these stories or
to lose my faith in the voice of God which speaks through
the men of the Bible, I should care greatly. In the true
view of the Bible I am delivered from solicitude about these
traditions, and am under no constraint of credulity. Those
who can believe the story of Elisha and the bears, or of
Elijah's ascension into heaven, may ; those who cannot, need
not ; and both alike should reverently read their Bibles, not
for these tales of wonder, but for the still small voice of the
eternal spirit sounding through holy lives and holier aspira
tions, until He came whose life was the word of God."
132. Dean Farrar says: " The divine authority which I
would maintain is that of Scripture in its simple meaning. In
its native majesty as the manifold record of a progressive
revelation. The Bible forms an organic whole, but it is
composed of many parts of unequal value. It is not a book,
but a library. It contains merely the fragments of a national
literature. We must estimate it by its own claims and by the
manner in which it justifies them without the invention of
mechanical theories or the adoption of arbitrary interpreta
tions. The humblest Christian may claim his share In the
illumination, promised to all God's children, and may, there
fore, refuse to resign Into the hands of usurpers, however
venerable, the indefeasible rights of the human reason and
the indefeasible duty of the human conscience. He must not
confuse revealed facts with theological notions. He must
not permit long-tolerated errors to put on the air of abstract
truths. He will interpret language by the only laws whereby
It can be judged. He will sweep aside all arbitrai-y glosses
of which he can trace the genesis and divine the object.

INTERPRE TA TION. 1 5 1
" Religious controversy went to Scripture not to seek for
dogmas, but to find them. Mysticism interpreted it accord
ing to the mood of the moment, and placed the Interpreter
above the text. A spurious and unenlightened idolatry for
the letter of Scripture ignored its simplicity and universality,
and sought for enigmas and mysteries in the plainest passages.
A scholastic orthodoxy developed elaborate systems of theology
out of imaginary emphases and by the aid of exorbitant prin
ciples of Inference. It is nothing short of a sin against light
and knowledge — yes, I will say it boldly — it is nothing short
of a sin against the Holy Ghost — to stereotype, out of the
pretence of reverence, the errors of men who ¦were not more
illuminated by God's Spirit than we may be- and who, in
knowledge, were hundreds of years behind ourselves.
" The revision of the principles and methods of exegesis Is
rendered absolutely necessary by the ever- widening knowledge
of modern days. Theology must reckon with this infinite
desire of knowledge ¦which has broken out all over the world,
with this rapid and ever-rising tide of truth which she is
impotent to stay.
" The existence of moral and other difficulties In the Bible
has been frankly recognized in all ages. They vanish before
the radical change of attitude which has taught us to regard
the Bible as the record of a progressive revelation. They are
powerless against the clearer conceptions which we have
neither invented nor discovered, but which have been opened
to us by the teaching of the Spirit of God in the domains of
history and science. History Is a ray of the light of God.
A great part of the Bible is history, and all history rightly
understood is also a bible. ' Every step in advance in history,'
said Fichte, ' every mental act which introduces into its chain
of occurrences something absolutely new, is an inflowing of
God. God alone makes history, but He does this by the
agency of man.' Secular history, too. Is a revelation. To

152 PROTESTANTISM.
refuse the plain teaching of advancing experience may be a
more essential blasphemy than to reject humanly invented
theories of inspiration or methods of explaining Scripture.
It may be said that the Bible is the same to-day as It was a
thousand years ago. Yes, and Nature, too. Is the same now
as she was in the days of Pythagoras ; but it is as Impossible
to Interpret the Bible now by the old methods as it Is to
interpret Nature by the methods of Pythagoras. We are led
to the complete transformation of a method which leaves us
¦with a Bible more precious than of old because more com
prehensible, while it is at the same time impregnable in every
essential particular against any existing form of assault."

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 153

CHAPTER III.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE.
133. There can be no more erroneous idea than that
there is the slightest danger to the cause of religion from the
advance of science. To a false theology there is danger; to
religion there Is and can be none. Science is ever reaching
out after truth, ever seeking to penetrate farther into the
hidden laws of the universe, and, in so doing, is obeying a
divinely implanted instinct which differentiates man from all
the lower creation. To seek the truth and all the truth in
matters physical, spiritual, philosophical, political, historical,
economical, is the great and noble task of man. He is to do
this without any regard to its consequences upon existing
institutions or long-cherished ideas. Whatever cannot stand
in the full blaze of truth must fall. For this the truth-seeker
is In no way responsible. Now, no man would have much,
if any, antagonism to truth if error did not carry with it a
salary which he feared would not be paid by truth. The
fight with error has been long and difficult because error has
had the control of so much patronage. So soon as the clergy
find that the new truth of science is not likely to disturb
their income, they cease to oppose it. The fear arose from
the failure to separate religion and theology. The scientific
method and spirit are seen, not merely In connection with
the physical sciences, but In connection with history, philos
ophy, and all the varied pursuits of man. It is merely the
spirit of truth, fearless, incorruptible, undaunted, careless of
collateral consequences. This is at once seen to be fatal to
a false and purely technical theology. The real scientific
spirit Is nothing more than the spirit of truth.

154

PROTESTANTISM.

Whatever is opposed to this may well look to its ramparts,
for the enemy is at the gates. The very timorousness of
theologians was and is in itself the most convincing proof of
the avowed weakness of their position. Religion has nothing
to fear from truth. It has everything to gain. Theology has
everything to fear and nothing to gain. It Is the function of
science to study the complex, to analyze, to dissect, to break
up the combination Into its simple elements, to reach the
ultimate conditions of simplicity. When science reaches that
point it is forced to stop ; it has reached its limits and
can go no farther. Simplicity, as a rule, is characteristic of
finality. The perfection of art Is simplicity. The perfection
of manners and good breeding is simplicity. Perfection in
machinery leads In the same direction. Simplicity is ever
the mark of true greatness. In the same way it Is character
istic of religion. It is simple, and herein Is its commanding
greatness ; herein is its badge of being final and perfect.
Whoever sees religion as a thing apart from theology will
never for a moment think of any possible harm from science.
There is and can be no antagonism. Both are expressions of
the highest attainable truth, and must be In harmony.
134. Professor Jowett says: "As the time has come
when It is no longer possible to ignore the results of criticism,
it is of importance that Christianity should be seen to be in
harmony with them. That objections to some received views
should be valid, and yet that they should be always held up
as the objections of Infidels is a mischief to the Christian
cause. It is a mischief that critical observations, which any
Intelligent man can make for himself, should be ascribed to
atheism or unbelief. It would be a strange and almost
incredible thing that the gospel, which at first made war only
on the vices of mankind, should now be opposed to one of
the highest and rarest of human virtues, — the love of truth;

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 155
and that In the present day the great object of Christianity
should be, not to change the lives of men, but to prevent
them from changing their opinions ; that would be a singular
inversion of the purposes for which Christ came into the
world. The Christian religion is in a false position when
all the tendencies of knowledge are opposed to It. Such a
position cannot be long maintained, or can only end in the
withdrawal of the educated classes from the Influences of
religion." 135. Rev. C. 'W. Goodwin says: "On the revival of
science in the sixteenth century, some of the earliest conclu
sions at ¦which philosophers arrived were found to be at
variance with popular and long-established belief. The
Ptolemaic system of astronomy, which had then full posses
sion of the minds of men, contemplated the whole visible
universe from the earth as the immovable centre of things.
Copernicus changed the point of view; and, placing the
beholder in the sun, at once reduced the earth to an incon
spicuous globule, a merely subordinate member of a family
of planets, ¦which the terrestrials had until then fondly
imagined to be but pendants and ornaments of their own
habitation. The Church naturally took a lively interest In
the disputes which arose between the philosophers of the
ne^w school and those who had adhered to the old doctrines :
Inasmuch as the Hebrew records, the basis of religious faith,
manifestly countenanced the opinion of the earth's immobility
and certain other views of the universe very Incompatible
with those propounded by Copernicus. Hence arose the
official proceedings against Galileo, In consequence of which
he submitted to sign his celebrated recantation, acknowledg
ing that ' the proposition, that the sun is the centre of the
world and Immovable from its place, is absurd, philosophi
cally false, and formally heretical, because it Is expressly

156 PROTESTANTISM.
contrary to the Scripture ; ' and that ' the proposition, that
the earth Is not the centre of the world nor Immovable, but
that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion. Is absurd,
philosophically false, and at least erroneous In faith.'
" The Romish Church, It Is presumed, adheres to the
old views to the present day. Protestant instincts, however,
in the seventeenth century ¦were strongly in sympathy with
the augmentation of science ; and, consequently, reformed
churches more easily allowed themselves to be helped over
the difficulty which, according to the views of Inspiration
then held and which have survived to the present day, was
in reality quite as formidable for them as for those of the old
faith. The solution of the difficulty offered by Galileo and
others was, that the object of a revelation or divine unveiling
of mysteries must be to teach man things which he is unable,
and must ever remain unable, to find out for himself ; but not
physical truths, for the discovery of ¦which he has faculties
specially provided by his Creator. Hence, It ¦was not unrea
sonable that, in regard to matters of fact merely, the sacred
writings should use the common language and assume the
common belief of mankind, without purporting to correct
errors upon points morally indifferent. So, in regard to such
a text as ' The ¦world Is established ; it cannot be moved,'
though it might imply the sacred penman's ignorance of the
fact that the earth does move, yet it does not put forth this
opinion as an indispensable point of faith. And this remark
is applicable to a number of texts which present a similar
difficulty. ' ' The difficulties and disputes which attended the first
revival of science have recurred In the present century in
consequence of the growth of geology. It is, in truth, only
the old question over again, — precisely the same point of
theology which Is Involved, — although the difficulties which
present themselves are fresh. The school-books of the

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 157
present day, while they teach the child that the earth moves,
yet assure him that It is a little less than six thousand years
old, and that it was made in six days. On the other hand,
geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the earth has
existed for an Immense series of years, — to be counted by
millions rather than by thousands, — and that indubitably
more than six days elapsed from Its first creation to the
appearance of man upon its surface. By this broad dis
crepancy between old and new doctrine Is the modern mind
startled, as were the men of the sixteenth century when told
that the earth moved.
"When the new cause of controversy first arose, some
writers, more hasty than discreet, attacked the conclusions
of geologists, and declared them scientifically false. This
phase may now be considered past ; and, although school-
books probably continue to teach much as they did, no well-
instructed person now doubts the great antiquity of the earth
any more than its motion. This being so, modern theologians,
forsaking the maxim of Galileo, or only using It vaguely as
an occasional make-weight, have directed their attention to
the possibility of reconciling the Mosaic narrative with those
geological facts, ¦which are admitted to be beyond dispute.
Several modes of doing this have been proposed which have
been deemed more or less satisfactory. In a text-book of
theological instruction ¦widely used we find it stated in broad
terms, ' Geological investigations, it is now known, all prove
the perfect harmony between Scripture and geology in refer
ence to the history of creation.'
" In truth, however. If we refer to the plans of conciliation
proposed, we find them at variance with each other and
mutually destructive. The conciliators are not agreed among
themselves, and each holds the views of the other to be
untenable and unsafe. The ground is perpetually being
shifted as the advance of geological science may require.

158 PROTESTANTISM.
The plain meaning of the Hebrew record is unscrupulously
tampered with ; and, in general, the pith of the whole
process lies In divesting the text of all meaning ¦whatever.
"It is manifest that the whole biblical account Is given
from a different point of vle^w from that which we now
unavoidably take ; that the order of things, as we now know
them to be, is to a great extent reversed, although here and
there we may pick out some general analogies and points of
resemblance. "Admitted, as It is, that physical science is not what the
Hebrew writers, for the most part, profess to convey ; at any
rate, that it is not on account of the communication of such
knowledge that we attach any value to their writings, why
should we hesitate to recognize their fallibility on this head ?
"Admitting, as is historically and In fact the case, that it
was the mission of the Hebrew race to lay the foundation of
religion upon the earth, and that Providence used this people
specially for this purpose, is it not our business and our duty
to look and see how this has really been done, not forming
for ourselves theories of what a revelation ought to be or how
we, if intrusted with the task, would have made one, but
inquiring how it pleased God to do it? In all his theories
of the world man has at first deviated widely from the truth,
and has only gradually come to see how far otherwise God
has ordered things than the first daring speculator had sup
posed. It has been popularly assumed that the Bible, bearing
the stamp of divine authority, must be complete, perfect, and
unimpeachable In all its parts ; and a thousand difficulties
and Incoherent doctrines have sprung out of this theory.
Men have proceeded In the matter of theology as they did
with physical science before inductive philosophy sent them
to the feet of Nature and bade them learn in patience and
obedience the lessons which she had to teach. Dogma and
groundless assumption occupy the place of modest inquiry

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 159
after truth ; while, at the same time, the upholders of these
theories claim credit for humility and submissiveness. This
is exactly inverting the fact. The humble scholar of truth is
not he who, taking his stand upon the traditions of Christian
fathers or schoolmen, insists upon bending his facts to his
unyielding standard, but he who is willing to accept such
teaching as It has pleased Divine Providence to afford without
murmuring that it has not been furnished more copiously or
clearly. " The Hebrew race, their works, and their books, are great
facts in the history of man. The Influence of the mind of
this people upon the rest of mankind has been immense and
peculiar, and there can be no difficulty in recognizing therein
the hand of a directing Providence ; but we may not make
ourselves wiser than God, nor attribute to Him methods of
procedure ¦which are not His. If, then, it is plain that He
has not thought it needful to communicate to the writer of the
biblical account that knowledge which modern researches
have revealed, why do ¦we not acknowledge this except that
it conflicts with a human theory which presumes to point out
ho^w God ought to have Instructed man ? The treatment to
which the Mosaic narrative Is subjected by the theological
geologists is anything but respectful. But If we regard it as
the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, pro
mulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable
account that could then be given of God's universe, it resumes
the dignity and value of which Ignorant fanatics have done
their utmost to deprive It.
"For ages this simple view of creation satisfied the wants
of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching ;
and if modern research now shows it to be untenable, our
respect for the narrative which has played so Important a
part in the culture of our race need be In no wise diminished.
No one contends that It can be used as a basis of astronomical

i6o PROTESTANTISM.
or geological teaching ; and those who profess to see in it an
accordance with facts only do this sub modo and by processes
which despoil it of its consistency and grandeur, both of
which may be preserved if we recognize in It not an authentic
utterance of divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which
it has pleased Providence to use in a special way for the
education of mankind."
136. Dean Stanley says: "There were, there are,
perhaps, still, two modes of reconciliation of Scripture and
science which have been each in their day attempted and
have each totally and deservedly failed. One is the endeavor
to wrest the words of the Bible from their natural meaning
and force them to speak the language of science. Of this the
earliest and perhaps the most memorable example was set by
the Greek translators in the time of the Ptolemies, — ' the
Seventy ' as they are called . They came in the course of
their translation to that verse of Leviticus containing the well-
known stumbling-block which they probably were the first to
discern, which speaks of the hare as one of the animals that
chew the cud. In the old world, before the birth of accurate
observation, that which had the appearance of rumination
was mistaken for the reality and was so described. But by
the time that the Greek translation of the Bible was under
taken the greatest naturalist of antiquity, the world-famous
Aristotle, had already devoted his sagacious mind to the
study of the habits of animals, and through his writings the
true state of the case had become known in Alexandria.
The venerable scholars who were at work on the translation
were too conscientious to reject the clear evidence of science ;
but they were too timid to allow the contradiction to appear,
and, therefore, with the usual rashness of fear, they boldly
interpolated the word ' not ' into the sacred text, and thus, as
they thought, reconciled it to science by making the whole

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. i6i
passage mean exactly the reverse of that which was Intended.
This is the earliest instance of the falsification of Scripture
to meet the demands of science ; and it has been followed In
later times by the various efforts which 'have been made to
twist the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis into apparent
agreement with the last results of geology, — representing days
not to be days, morning and evening not to be morning and
evening, the deluge not to be the deluge, and the ark not to
be the ark. On the other hand, there has sprung up In later
times the equal error of falsifying science to meet the supposed
requirements of the Bible. Of this the most signal example
was ¦when the discoveries of Galileo were condemned by the
supreme judge of faith and morals in the Roman Church ;
and when the Jesuits In their edition of Newton's ' Principia '
announced in the preface that they ¦were constrained to treat
the theory of gravitation as a fictitious hypothesis, because else
it would conflict ¦with the ' decree of the Popes against the
motion of the earth.' This mode of reconciliation has also
been tried in our times at each successive advance of science.
Every generation of the ecclesiastical or religious world has
been tempted to the hazardous enterprise of denying the voice
of God as He speaks to us in His works and in His laws, and
often the plain conclusions of careful observation have been
set aside as impious and dangerous."
137. Professor Jo'wett says: "Almost all intelligent
persons are agreed that the earth has existed for myriads of
ages. The best Informed are of opinion that the history
of nations extends back some thousands of years before the
Mosaic chronology. Recent discoveries in geology may,
perhaps, open a further vista of existence for the human
species ; while it is possible, and may one day be known,
that mankind spread, not from one, but from many centres
over the globe, or, as others say, that the supply of links

i62 PROTESTANTISM.
which are at present wanting in the chain of animal life may
lead to new conclusions respecting the origin of man. Now,
let it be granted that these facts being with the past cannot
be shown in the same palpable and evident manner as the
facts of chemistry or physiology, and that the proof of some
of them, especially of those last mentioned. Is wanting, still
it is a false policy to set up inspiration or revelation in
opposition to them, — a principle which can have no influence
on them, and should be rather kept out of their way. The
sciences of geology and comparative philology are steadily
gaining ground. Many of the guesses of twenty years ago
have become certainties, and the guesses of to-day may here
after become so. Shall we peril religion on the possibility
of their untruth? On such a cast to stake the Interests of
religion implies not only a recklessness of facts, but a mis
understanding of the nature of the gospel. If it is fortunate
for science. It is perhaps more fortunate for Christian truth,
that the admission of Galileo's discovery has forever settled
the principle of the relations between them."
138. Bishop Temple says : " Religious people have
been alarmed at the successive development of the marvels
of astronomy, geology, and the theory of evolution ; but in
no one of these cases was the revelation contained in the
Bible In danger, but only the interpretation commonly put on
the Bible. Believers have insisted that the Bible itself was
gone, unless their interpretation of it was upheld. Instead
of endeavoring to flnd the way out of the perplexity, and
disentangle the true spiritual lesson from the accessories
which are no part of itself, they insisted that it must be all
or nothing, and prepared for themselves a very severe trial.
There \vas nothing involved on \vhich the spiritual life
depended. The duty to be patient, to inquire carefully, to
study the other side, to wait for light, was as plain as any

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 163
duty could be ; but all this was forgotten in an unreasoning
impulse to resist an assault on the faith. On all these
occasions many believers have been seriously shaken by
slowly finding out that the position they have taken Is unten
able. Where men have to give up in such circumstances,
they generally give up far more than they need to, and in
some cases an unreasonable resistance has been followed by
an equally unreasonable surrender.
"While believers thus prepared a stumbling-block for
themselves, they put quite as great a stumbling-block before
others. Students of science. Informed by voices all around
that they must choose between their science and the Bible,
knowing, as they did, that their science was true, and sup
posing that the defenders of the Bible best knew what Its
teaching was, had no choice as honest men but to hold the
truth so far as they possessed it, and to give up the Bible in
order to maintain their science. It was a grievous injury
inflicted on them."

1 64 PRO TESTANTISM.

CHAPTER IV.
MIRACLES.
139. What Is a miracle? The Bible does not explain or
define it. The Church has given no official statement as to
what it is. Scholars are not agreed. Is it a violation of a
law of nature, as Hume declared, or Is It rather an extraordi
nary event that takes place in conformity with some law not
now known by man, which may at some time be discovered
by him, but which may, perhaps, always remain beyond the
reach of his powers of investigation ?
Thus, according to the law of gravitation, a piece of metal
unsupported will always fall to the ground. To A, a person
knowing this law, B comes with a powerful magnet, of which
A knows nothing, but which, not only without apparent cause
will hold to itself the piece of metal which, according to A'%
knowledge of law, ought to fall, but by use of the magnet B
will actually draw the piece to his hand. To A this must
appear a violation of the law of gravitation, but In reality it
is due to the operation of another law which, in its seeming
effect, does temporarily suspend or overrule the operation of
the law of gravitation upon that piece of metal.
Thus, when I lift my arm, the law of gravitation Is not, so
far as my arm is concerned, denied or annihilated ; it exists
as much as ever, but is held in suspense by the higher la-w
of my will. The comet is a miracle, as regards our solar
system ; that is, it does not own the laws of our system,
neither do those laws explain It. Yet there Is a higher and
wider law of the heavens, whether fully discovered or not,
in which its motions are included as surely as those of the
planets which stand In Immediate relation to our sun.

MIRACLES. 165
Thus, too, a person acquainted with the laws governing
electricity could produce effects that would seem hardly short
of miraculous to persons entirely Ignorant of those laws. He
could appear to suspend and violate the only laws known to
the others, and laws which in the experience of those others
had never been anything but uniform and invariable.
140. Bishop Temple says: "The popular definition of
a miracle as a violation of the laws of this universe cannot be
sustained. No man of true, scientific spirit will so define It,
because it Is not susceptible of proof, and the true scholar
of science does not guess or dogmatize where he is not on
certain grounds. It is pure theory to assume that the miracles
ascribed to Jesus must have been, if they occurred, violations
of law. Science proceeds entirely on the assumption that
nature will be found uniform. Without this postulate scientific
knowledge is impossible. Science deals only with materials
obtained by experience or by observations made by the senses ;
and it can deal with these only on the condition that all Is
reducible to Invariable laws. If any observation of the senses
is not capable of being brought under the laws which are
found to govern all other observations, it is not yet brought
under the dominion of science. As far as science Is con
cerned. It may be called as yet non-existent.
' ' Now, science believes in the uniformity of nature simply
because it finds it so. Millions of observations concur in
exhibiting this uniformity. It Is perfectly clear that, however
vast may be the evidence to prove this uniformity, the con
clusion can never go beyond the limits of this evidence, and
generality can never be confounded with universality. We
can assert that the general character of nature is uniform, but
-we cannot go beyond this. The uniformity of nature is a
working hypothesis, and it never can be more. However
great the amount of evidence, the kind ever remains the

1 66 PROTESTANTISM.
same. "We cannot say that nature Is universally uniform.
We cannot extend the induction or Inference from generality
to universality.
" If a miracle were worked, science could not prove that it
was a miracle, nor, of course, prove that It was not. To
prove it to be a miracle would require, not merely a vast
range of knowledge, but absolutely universal knowledge
which it is entirely beyond our faculties to attain. To say
that any event was a miracle would be to say that we knew
that there was no higher law that could explain it ; and this
we could not say unless we knew all laws. In fact, to assert
the occurrence of a miracle is simply to go back to the
beginning of science and to say that here is an event which
we cannot assign to that derivative action to -which we have
been led to assign the great body of events. We cannot
explain it except by referring it to direct and spontaneous
action, to a will like our own will. Science has shown that
the vast majority of events are due to derivative action
regulated by laws. Here is an event which cannot be so
explained any more than the action of our own free will can
be explained. Science may fairly claim to have shown that
miracles. If they happen at all, are exceedingly rare. To
demonstrate that they never happen at all Is impossible from
the very nature of the evidence on which science rests. For
the same reason science can never In the character of science
admit that a miracle has happened. It can only admit that,
so far as the evidence goes, an event has happened which lies
outside its province.
" Science has, indeed, rendered it highly probable that
the uniformity of nature Is never broken except for a moral
purpose. It is only for such a purpose that the will is ever
free. " The miraculous healing of the sick may be no miracle at
all in the strictest sense. It may be but an instance of the

MIRACLES. 167
power of mind over body, — a power which Is undeniably
not yet brought within the range of science, and which,
nevertheless, may be really within its domain. Christ may
have possessed this power absolutely where others have it
conditionally. He may have possessed It without limits,
while others have it within limits. If this were so, these
acts of healing would not be miracles in the scientific sense.
They would Imply very great superiority in Christ over other
men, but they would be themselves under the law of uni
formity. Though not miracles for the purpose of science,
they would still be miracles for the purposes of revelation.
They -would do their work In arresting attention, and still
more in accrediting both the message and the messenger.
They -would separate him from ordinary men. It would still
be a fact that here was a messenger whom God had seen
fit to endow -with powers which no man ever possessed in
such degree and such completeness, though others may have
possessed some touch of them greater or less.
" In other ways -what seem to be miraculous may be simply
unusual. If all the miraculous events recorded in the Bible
happened exactly as they are told, and If science shall some
day be able to show that they can be accounted for by natural
causes, this -would not in any way affect their character as
regards the revelation which they were worked to prove or
of which they form a part. Revelation uses these events for^
its own purposes. If for these purposes they have served
their turn, if they have arrested attention which would not
otherwise have been arrested, if they have overcome prej
udices, if they have compelled belief, — the fact that they
are afterwards discovered to be no breach of the law of
uniformity has no bearing at all on the revelation to which
they belong. Revelation is not bound by any scientiflc defi
nition of miracle. It is not the purpose of revelation to
interfere with the course of nature. If such interference be

i68 PROTESTANTISM.
needless, and the work of revealing God to man can be done
without It, there is no reason whatever to believe that any
such interference would take place.
" The position which miracles take as regards us -who read
them many centuries after and as regards those who witnessed
and recorded them at the time is quite different. To them
the miracles were the first and often the chief proof that the
man who wrought them ¦was from God, and that His message
was a revelation ; while to us they are, if accepted at all,
accepted as a part of the revelation Itself. We believe the
gospel, not because of the miracles, but the miracles because
of the gospel. We believe the miracles because we believe
Christ was from God ; we do not believe Christ was from
God because we believe the miracles.
" If ¦we take each miracle by Itself, it is true that there is
but one ; namely, our Lord's resurrection, for which clear,
unmistakable, and suflicient evidence Is given. It seems,
however, as if, whatever may be the ground of belief, when
once revelation has penetrated into the soul, the exercise of
supernatural power was needed to procure that access in the
first instance. The supernatural in the form of miracles can
never be the highest kind of evidence, can never stand alone
as evidence ; but It seems to have been needed for the first
reception. There seem to be minds that need it still."
141. Archbishop Trench says: "Christianity does not
rest necessarily on the physical miracles of Christ, but on His
moral miracles, ¦which no one has ever doubted or can doubt.
Christianity proceeded from Jesus, and was transmitted by
Him, not as a philosophy, but as a power, a life which
renewed the old world and created a new dispensation. This
is the great miracle. We do not really believe Christianity
on the ground of miracles, but we believe miracles on the
ground of Christianity. Let us explain this. If miracles

MIRA CLES. 169
had been asserted to be wrought by God in order to prove
the truth of a doctrine irrational, self-contradictory, odious to
the conscience and to the heart, — to prove, for example, the
justice of the Spanish Inquisition, the lawfulness of slavery,
— then all the outward evidence in the world would not have
convinced us that God had taught such a doctrine and con
firmed it by miracles.
"False miracles or lying wonders are distinguished from
the true, not by the intellect, but by the moral sense which
finds In them something immoral or ostentatious or futile,
leading to nothing. The miracle is only to be received when
it is an ethical act and ¦when it serves to approve doctrines of
holiness. The forgetting or failing to show that the doc
trine is to try the miracle as well as the miracle to seal the
doctrine is a most dangerous omission on the part of many
¦who in modern times have written so-called ' Evidences of
Christianity ' and have found in the miracles wrought by its
Founder, and in those mainly as acts of power, the exclusive
argument for Its reception as a divine revelation. If men are
taught that they should believe In Christ upon no other
grounds than because He attested His claims by works of
¦wonder, and that simply on this score they shall do so, how
shall they consistently refuse belief to any other who shall
coi-ne attesting his claims by the same ? We have here a
paving of the way of Antichrist ; for, as we know that he
will have his signs and wonders, so, if this argument is good,
he ¦will have right on the score of these to claim the faith
and allegiance of men. But, no ; the miracle must witness
for Itself, and then the first Is capable of witnessing for the
second. And those books of Christian evidences are utterly
maimed and imperfect, fraught with the most perilous con
sequences, ¦which reverence In the miracle little else but Its
power, and see in that alone what gives either to it its attest
ing worth or to the doctrine its authority as an adequately
attested thing.

170 PROTESTANTISM.
" A miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine or the
divine mission of him that brings it to pass. The doctrine
must first commend Itself to the conscience as being good.
The first appeal is to the moral nature in man. Where the
mind and conscience witness against the doctrine, not all
the miracles in the world have a right to demand submis-
siott. On the contrary, then, the great act of faith is to
believe, in the face and in despite of them all, in what
God has revealed to, and implanted in, the soul."
\i,'2,. Rev. Thomas Arnold says : " The kingdom of lies
has Its miracles and wonders no less than the kingdom of
truth. We are so perfectly Ignorant of the unseen world that
the character of any supernatural power can only be judged
by the moral character of the statements which It sanctions.
Thus only can we tell whether It be a revelation from God or
from the Devil. It is wrong, therefore, to complain of those
persons who judge of a revelation, not by its evidence, but by
its substance ; for its substance is a most essential part of its
evidence. We should utterly disregard miracles wrought In
favor of what was foolish or ¦wicked."
143. Rev. F. "W. Robertson says: "As to the evidential
character of miracles, it is a fundamental proposition that
there can be no dogmatism as to what shall be evidence for
individual minds. It Is sheer folly to say that miracles must
appeal to all Christian minds in the same way. One man
may find them the chief evidence of the divine origin of the
religion. Another may just as profoundly believe In the
divine nature of the religion of Christ, and either deny or
have grave doubts as to the miraculous details of the gospels.
It is essential that a man see and feel the divine principles
of Christianity, and that he seek to regulate his life In
accordance therewith ; and, if he do this, it is certainly a
matter of comparative unimportance how he became con-

MIRACLES. 171
vinced, and what was the nature of the evidence on which he
relied. The more a man thinks, the less he will dogmatize;
and the more he becomes Imbued with the spirit of Christ,
the less will he be inclined to lay down arbitrary rules to bind
another Christian's conscience.
"The Church has not violated these principles. Neither
the Creed nor the Articles have any statefnent even remotely
bearing upon the question of miracles. By' becoming a
¦member of the Church, no one pledges himself to any
special view or theory with regard to them. The proper
course Is not to deny them as facts, nor to explain them
away, but to study the^m in the light of all other manifes
tations of an analogous nature in order to see vahether,
after all, they may not lead us to some new laws before
unknown. The attempt to rest Christianity upon miracles
and fulfilment of prophecy is essentially the vilest rationalism :
as If the trained Intellect of the lawyer which can investigate
evidence ¦were that to which is trusted the soul's salvation, or
as if the evidence of the senses ¦were more sure than the
intuitions of the spirit."
144. Canon Fremantle says: "Physical science cannot
advance a step without the assumption of the uniformity of
nature. This is tested at every stage, and never fails. The
Idea that it can fail becomes almost Inconceivable. When
the student turns to experience, he finds that violations of
natural order, ¦which were supposed to take place In old
times, now take place no more ; that no such violations can
be found in times and places where they can be verified.
The position of miracles has completely changed. It is only
the fact that they are supposed to be bound up with the moral
and spiritual forces of Christianity which prevents their being
treated as wholly indifferent. The theologian of the future
will probably be little concerned with them. We have all

172

PR O TESTANTISM.

learned to read in a natural sense the account of the crossing
of the Red Sea, and so it will be In many other cases ; while
as to those which are notable only for their strangeness, the
action of hyperbole, and the growth of the wonderful by
tradition, will be always present to the mind of the theo
logian, and will make him pass over them ' with a light
foot.' We have no difficulty when ¦we read of the miracles
of St. Bernard or the prophecies of Savonarola, nor do they
interfere with our estimate of those great men. The miracles
of healing in the gospel will, we can hardly doubt, always
appear as evidence of a peculiar condition of human life in
the East In the first century and of the restorative power of
a great personality."
145. Dean Stanley says: "Whatever view we take of
these ' signs and wonders,' their relative proportion as grounds
of evidence has altogether changed. However valuable the
record of extraordinary manifestations may be in other
respects, however impressively they may be used to convey
the truths of which they are confessedly but the symbols, —
they have in the eyes of the very men -whom -sve most desire
to convince become stumbling-blocks, and not supports.
External evidence has %vith most refecting minds receded
to the background, and internal evidence has come to the
front. Let us learn by experience to use with moderation
arguments which, at least for the present, have lost their
force. Let us acknowledge that there are greater miracles,
more convincing miracles than those which appeal only to
our sense of astonishment. The ' greatest of miracles,' as a
venerable statesman has observed, is the character of Christ.
Let us recognize that the preternatural is not the supernatural,
and that, whether the preternatural is present or absent, the
true supernatural may and xvill remain unshaken. The
essentially supernatural elements of religion are those which

MIRACLES. 173
are moral and spiritual. These are its chief recommendations
to the reason of mankind. Without them it would have long
ago perished. So far as it has lost sight of these it has
dwindled and faded. With these It may overcome the world,
which. In the first Instance, was converted, not by appeals to
physical but to moral prodigies."
146. Rev. Edwin A. Abbott says: "'Some infidel
authors,' says Newman, ' advise us to accept no miracles
which would not have a verdict in their favor In a court of
justice ; as if moral and religious questions required legal
proofs, and evidence were a test of truth.'
' ' What Is ' legal proof ? ' 'It is simply proof of the ordinary
kind, by evidence direct and indirect, but stronger and
stricter. Legal proof, being seldom required except where-
facts are affirmed and denied by interested parties, requires
(in a greater degree than ordinary proof) that the evidence
shall be deliberate, free from exaggeration or misunderstand
ing, consistent and truthful, free from suspicion ; hence, the
preference of evidence coming from witnesses ¦who have no
Interest, one way or the other. In the ultimate decision. On
the whole, It may be said that legal proof is of the same
kind as ordinary proof, only superior In degree.
' ' Now, we return to Newman's dictum : ' as if moral and
religious questions required legal proofs.' To this we must
reply, 'If, by "moral and religious questions," you mean
such questions as, ¦whether there Is a God or not ; whether
He is just ; whether He will ultimately conform man to His
image; whether good will ultimately triumph over evil, —
then ¦we agree ¦with you. For these questions are in the
region of hope, aspiration, and faith ; and, as we should
allow no facts to disprove these beliefs, so ¦we must admit
that no facts could prove them, though facts can ,help us,
and have helped us, to shape, and to develop, and to Identify

1 74 PRO TESTANTISM.
with our Inmost being those hopes, those aspirations, and
those beliefs. But if you mean, by " moral and religious
questions," the question whether God stopped the sun (rela
tively to the earth) at the prayer of Joshua ; and the question
whether our Lord killed two thousand swine, who at the
worst had done no greater harm than belong to a Jewish
owner, and more probably belonged to a Gentile, — then we
must reply that you enter the region of historical fact ; and
here faith has no place, and " legal proof" is the best possible
proof ; and if you cannot get It, you ought to try at least to
get something as much like it as possible ; and if you cannot
get something very like it, you must be content to say, "This
fact is not proved." '
"The right rule is, to regard as non-existent all alleged
facts for which there is no evidence direct or indirect, and to
regard as antecedently false or highly improbable all state-
¦ments that contradict our knowledge of the fixed and
orderly course of things. Observe ¦we do not say they are
false ; but, being practical people, with a limited amount of
time at our disposal, and having been taught by repeated
experience that innumerable similar stories have originated
from nothing but misunderstandings or exaggerations or
deliberate Impostures, and that very fe^w of such stories have
been based on truth, we shall say to an alleged fact of this
kind, ' Statistical Probability is lOO to i or i,ooo to i against
you; pass on; we have no time to think of you. Other
propositions have higher claims.'
"This practical, reasonable, and justifiable ^z<a«-prejudice
against the extraordinary — though it ought not to prevent us
from examining a case here and there where the evidence is
particularly strong — is absolutely necessary for a truth-seeker,
because it prevents him from -wasting his time upon the
myriads of marvellous lies which have abounded In all ages,
and leaves him leisure for serious Investigation. It is not

MIRACLES. 175
really prejudice ; it is only a kind of selective suspension of
judgment, whereby we select some and dismiss other propo
sitions that claim to be considered, because some are more
worthy than others, and we have not time to hear all. The
practical conclusion, then, is this : since, for all the purposes
of life, no ' truth ' of fact can, so to speak, exist for a man of
sense until It has presented some proof that It has passed
a preliminary test of evidence, -we may say, roughly and
popularly speaking, that evidence is ' the test ' of truth
as regards fact, and that truth of fact does ' depend upon
evidence.' " Newman's practical view of ecclesiastical miracles Is
that, though supernatural, they are, in the true Church, ' the
natural effects of supernatural agency.' ' Miracles,' he says,
' are the kind of facts proper to ecclesiastical history, just as
instances of sagacity or daring, personal prowess or crime,
are the facts proper to secular history.' Just as a mother,
poring over a letter from some far-distant son, and, missing
the usual message of affection, might find it (though It is not
there) perhaps In some blot, or say, ' It Is the fault of my
eyes ; it must be there, somewhere,' so we, yearning for
miracles In God's history, are to accept them on little evi
dence, and almost upon none.
" Even among those who clearly recognize the baselessness
and unfairness of this theory, some may be disposed to think
that, after all, in practice. It can do no great harm. 'A little
excess of faith,' they may say, ' in a somewhat sceptical age,
may be, perhaps, a fault on the right side.' But they are
confusing faith in goodness, or faith in God, or faith in men,
¦with faith in past facts. There can indeed be no excess in
the faith that goodness will ultimately triumph over evil, or
in the faith that God is good ; for these faiths justify them
selves by their moral and spiritual results, and, as they do not
enter the region of proof and disproof, they can never lead

176 PROTESTANTISM.
us into hypocrisy or falsehood. Again, as to faith in men,
there may certainly be an excess In our faith that a particular
person Is good ; but such faith as this sometimes justifies both
itself and us, by ¦making some one w7i07n we have trusted
trustworthy by reason of our trusting him; and, at the
worst, if it never leads us to contradict facts, but only to
trust a man sometimes too much in spite of them, an
occasional failure can do little harm in proportion to the
good that results from the general habit. It may make
us seem slightly foolish ; but it will be folly of that sort
which, as Plato tells us, is almost essential to the highest
nobility ; and it can never make us liars, nor ever such
absolute fools as men of the world are sometimes made by
utter trustlessness.
" But faith in facts, against evidence, is quite a different
thing. It is an insult to those faculties which God has given
us for learning the truth about facts ; it is a faithless distrust
of His gifts, and, therefore, so far as we recognize these gifts
to be from Him, it is a distrust of the Giver Himself. Such
faith is a fault, and an excess of it is an excess of fault.
' ' Faith in an indisputable God must be detached from
faith about disputable incidents. We must learn to dis
tinguish between knowledge of material facts and confidence
in spiritual realities, and to combine a resolute trust in right
eousness with a resolute distrust in all history (whether of
things animate or inanimate) that is not commended to us by
appropriate evidence.
" My book [' Philomythus'] is Intended as an attack against
the whole of that theological ' system of safety ' which would
pollute the Intellect with the suggestion that it is ' safe ' to say
this, and ' unsafe ' to say that about alleged historical facts.
In answer to some one who had reported a saying that
Cardinal Wiseman ' was an unscrupulous controversialist,'
Newman replied (Letters II. , 324), 'I daresay he is. But

MIRACLES. 177
¦who Is not?' How strange an avowal, almost amounting to
a condonation! And yet is It not true? Is it not a fact —
though a portentous fact — that men are expected to argue
¦with scrupulous honesty about Thucydides or Aristotle, but
not about the facts of the Bible or the history of the Christian
Church?"

BOOK FOURTH.

CREEDS AND DOCTRINES.

CHAPTER I.

THE CREEDS.

147. It is not at all clear or certain that creeds have been
useful to the cause of religion. It is clear that they have
been essential to ecclesiasticism, for it could not exist without
them. The Creed is the touchstone of exclusion. It may
keep a person out of the Church. Does It ever bring him
into the Church ? It may alienate. Does it ever inspire ? It
may work mischief. Does it ever do good ? It is, however,
an element to-day fixed in the life of the Church. Can we
reconcile It with Christian life, or must it be a fetter and a
clog to all normal growth and development? Must we
worship a form of ¦words ? Must every idea square with the
exact letter of the Creed or be abandoned ? Were those who
made the Creed infallible ? Ought they to bind men for all
time ? The plain truth Is, that. If the Creed cannot be inter
preted Into harmony -with ¦what men no^w believe to be true,
the Creed will be destroyed and die. " The form ¦will have
done its appointed work, and, like the best of mortal Instru
ments, Its end will be that, after having served Its generation,
It will fall asleep and see corruption. The sons repeat their
fathers' words although In their mouth they have become a
lie. Age after age the same language is repeated, whilst age

THE CREEDS. 179
after age Its falsehood is becoming more flagrant ; and still it
is said ' We are treading in the steps of our fathers from the
very beginning.' So when the husk cracks, and would fain
fall to pieces by the natural swelling of the seed within,
foolish zeal labors to hold them together, because men regard
the form and not the substance ; because they think that to
echo the language of their fathers is to be faithful imitators
of their spirit; because they are blind to the lesson which all
nature teaches them, and would forever keep the egg-shell
unbroken, and the sheaf of the leaf unburst, not seeing that
the ^visdom of winter Is the folly of spring."
A creed must be and remain the servant of man and not his
master. He who made can unmake. He who made may at
least interpret and revise. Men made the creeds. Men may
interpret, revise, or destroy them. We must never allow
ourselves to become the abject slaves of mere words.
148. The Church has seen three grejt Creeds, — the
Apostles', the Nicene, and that commonly called the Atha
nasian. Nothing can be more Instructive than these three
ancient symbols. " There is no doubt," says Dr. Mosheim,
"but that the Apostles' Creed reflects the entire faith of the
early ages of Christianity." It may be interpreted so as to be
free from all vain subtleties and all mysterious researches. It
is the greatest confession of faith through the whole Western
Church, — the most venerable monument of primitive antiquity,
— the symbol to-day of membership with the English Church
and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.
In those churches it is, as we have seen, the only profession
of belief now required. It was formerly declared to have
been composed by the Apostles, but this opinion has been
entirely abandoned. The antiquity of this Creed cannot,
however, be reasonably doubted. It is a work of nearly
apostolic Importance. It must not, however, be regarded as

i8o PROTESTANTISM.
having come from the early ages in Its present form, for, as
Principal Tulloch says, " there is no historical evidence of its
reception in Its completed form until the middle of the eighth
century." Clauses werb added from time to time until its
present form was reached. Simplicity in creeds is ever a
badge of being nearer to the original spirit of the early days.
The troublesome creeds and parts of creeds are a legacy from
the dark ages.
149. The Apostles' Creed, as it now stands. Is as follows.
The words " He descended into hell" may be omitted under
the rules of the Church in the United States, and we there
fore omit them. They were not a part of the Creed until the
sixth century : —
' ' I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven
and earth : And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who
was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and
buried ; The third day he rose again from the dead, He
ascended into heaven. And sitteth on the right hand of God
the Father Almighty ; 'From thence he shall come to judge
the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost ; The
holy Catholic Church ; The Communion of Saints ; The For
giveness of sins ; The Resurrection of the body. And the life
everlasting." 150. It is to be observed that this Creed says nothing
whatever of a Trinity in Unity, of the Deity of Christ, or of
the separate personality of the Holy Spirit. It says nothing
whatever as to the necessity of Episcopal succession, the
origin or use of the Sacraments, the doctrines of Substitution,
Atonement, Predestination, or Justification. The latter doc
trine might possibly be connected -with ' ' the forgiveness of
sins," but no theory is expressed on the subject. There is
not one word on the sacrament of baptism, infant or adult.

THE CREEDS. i8i
It says nothing as to biblical inspiration and interpretation,
nothing as to the future punishment of the wicked. It must
necessarily foUo^w that opinion on these points Is in no way
fettered by its acceptance.
The Church requires belief in facts, but not belief in any
theories or philosophies based on those facts. In this Creed
the facts of Christianity stand out in their absolute simplicity.
Nothing is drawn out Into speculative propositions or pro
pounded as a dogma in terms of theological science. It
shows what are the great, peculiar, and essential facts of the
gospel. It is intended to be purely historic, a simple com
pendium of Christian facts without a trace of what is called
doctrine. 151. The Nicene Creed originated in a general council
held at Nice, A.D. 335. It was amplified In the year 3S1,
and was still further changed until, in the Latin Church, it
stood in the ninth century in its present form. The Creed
as it may now be read In the Prayer Book is as follows : —
"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth. And of all things visible and invisible :
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light
of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being
of one substance with the Father ; By whom all things were
made : Who for us men, and for our salvation came down
from heaven. And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the
Virgin Mary, And was made man. And was crucified also
for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried.
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended Into heaven. And sitteth on the right hand of
the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge
both the quick and the dead : Whose kingdom shall have no
end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and Giver

i82 PROTESTANTISM.
of life. Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who
with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and
glorified. Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one
Catholick and Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Bap
tism for the remission of sins, And I look for the Resurrection
of the dead. And the life of the world to come."
152. This Creed shows a great development away from
the simplicity of the Apostles' Creed. Its adoption threw
the Church into disorder and strife which lasted for several
generations. The settlement In Its favor was chiefly. If not
entirely, due to the operation of political causes and consid
erations. It must be noted that the year it 'was first formulated
was the date that marks the conversion of Constantine and the
political alliance of the old Roman Empire ¦with the Church.
That this alliance was the first great cause of the corruption
of the Church is not probably open to question. This Creed
is specifically discussed In a later chapter in this volume.
153. The Athanasian Creed was not written by Atha
nasius, and was not much known till towards the end of the
sixth century. Several centuries afterwards it was intro
duced Into England. It is as follows : —
' ' Whosoever will be saved : before all things it is necessary
that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every
one do keep whole and undefiled : without doubt he shall
perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this : That
we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity ;
neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one : the
Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is,
such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost : the Father
uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate : the

THE CREEDS. 1S3
Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the
Holy Ghost Incomprehensible : the Father eternal, the Son
eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not
three eternals : but one eternal. As also there are not three
incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated : but one uncreated,
and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Al
mighty, the Son Almighty : and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties : but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God : and the Holy Ghost is
God. And yet they are not three Gods : but one God. So
likewise' the Father Is Lord, the Son Lord : and the Holy
Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords : but one Lord. For
like as ¦we are compelled by the Christian verity : to acknowl
edge every Person by himself to be God and Lord ; So are
we forbidden by the Catholick Religion : to say, There be
three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none :
neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father
alone : not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost
is of the Father and of the Son : neither made, nor created,
nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not
three Fathers ; one Son, not three Sons : one Holy Ghost,
not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore,
or after other : none is greater, or less than another ; But the
whole three Persons are co-eternal together : and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid : the Unity in Trinity,
and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore
that will be saved : must thus think of the Trinity. Further
more, it is necessary to everlasting salvation : that he also
believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess : that our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man ; God,
of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds :
and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world ;
Perfect God, and perfect Man : of a reasonable soul and

184 PROTESTANTISM.
human flesh subsisting ; Equal to the Father, as touching his
Godhead : and inferior to the Father, as touching his Man
hood. Who although he be God and Man : yet he Is not two,
but one Christ ; One ; not by conversion of the Godhead
Into flesh : but by taking of the Manhood into God ; One
altogether ; not by confusion of Substance : but by unity of
Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man : so
God and Man is one Christ ; Who suffered for our salvation :
descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the
Father, God Almighty : from whence he shall come to judge
the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise
again with their bodies, and shall give account of their own
works. And they that have done good shall go into life
everlasting ; and they that have done evil into everlasting
fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe
faithfully he cannot be saved.''
154. This Creed needs no comment. To read it is enough.
No language of criticism can be half so effective in the way
of condemnation as its own elaborate, unscriptural, and incom
prehensible sentences. To read it is to feel a profound sense
of Indignant protest, a moral revolt against such a libel on
the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ. The audacity of the
theologians who first launched this monstrous production is
without any historical parallel. That the American Church
at once repudiated it Is a fact from ¦which its members may
justly derive satisfaction.
155. Dean Stanley says: "It Is a curious fact that the
phrase ' consubstantial,' or ' of the same substance,' was first
used by heretics and condemned by one church council before
it was adopted by another council as orthodox. The distinc
tion between ' person ' and ' substance,' which is so strongly
affirmed in the Athanasian Creed, was in the original Nicene

THE CREEDS. 185
Creed altogether denied ; and the ' double procession,' which
was pointedly denied in that same Nicene Creed, was in the
Athanasian Creed made a part of the catholic faith indis
pensable to salvation.
"It is evident that every sentence has been put together
with the view of combining the utmost amount of purely
abstract matter with the least infusion from history or morals.
It is invaluable as a relic or fragment of ancient times, the
more because out of keeping with the surrounding objects.
It has an unique historical interest. But the more curious as
an historical monument, the less suitable does it become for
general and perpetual use.
' ' Under the shadow of the great name of Athanasius it
crept into general acceptance, and when that shadow was
exorcised by the spell of critical inquiry, it still retained the
place which It had won under false pretences. It Is now
known with absolute certainty that Athanasius never did
write it and never could have written It. But for this belief
as to its Athanasian origin it would never have been accepted
either by the Roman or English Church, so that, now its
un-AthanasIan origin is proved, the special ground of its
acceptance ceases. The history of its reception is gangrened
with imposture, — not wilful imposture it may be, not
conscious fraud, but still leaving It so destitute of historical
foundation as to render doubly imperative the duty of testing
Its claims to authority by Its own intrinsic merits.
" From the close of the seventeenth century, at least, there
can be little doubt but that the Athanasian Creed has been
generally omitted in the church service. Its unfitness for
such use was so keenly felt that the rubric enjoining it was
neglected, and charity prevailed. According to Archbishop
Tillotson's famous expression, ' charity was above rubrics,'
Bishop Blomfield passed through his entire clerical life with
out having once publicly recited it."

iS6 PROTESTANTISM.
156. Bishop Hampden says: "The Apostles' Creed
states nothing but facts. The transition is Immense from this
to the scholastic speculations involved in the Nicene and
Athanasian Creeds. The two later Creeds are not imposed,
it must be remembered, as matters of afjrmative belief.
Again it should be observed that the speculative language of
these Creeds was admitted into the Church of England as
established by the reformers before the period when the
genius of Bacon exposed the emptiness of the system which
the schoolmen had palmed upon the -world as the only
instrument for the discovery of all truth. Their terms were
then readily interpreted by then existing physical and logical
notions. They were adapted to the wants of that day, and
served their purpose, but the original occasion for them has
now ceased. Except to the historical student who under
stands the state of theology and philosophy at the different
periods, these Creeds and the Articles are as if they were
written in a strange language."
157. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds have been treated
very differently in the English and the American Church.
In England they are approved as sound In the Articles, and
the rubric requires that the Athanasian shall be read upon
thirteen certain festivals during each year, and the Nicene
is set forth to be read in the Communion Service. When the
clergyman was required to declare his belief in everything
contained in the Articles and Prayer Book, this was evidently
a matter of grave Importance ; but since the virtual abolition
of subscription, it Is, perhaps, of hardly any moment. No
one is now required, even in England, to assert his belief in
the terms of either of these Creeds.
The Athanasian Creed is not mentioned in the American
Articles nor contained In the American Prayer Book. It had
been at first proposed in the early American Conventions

THE CREEDS. 187
to reject both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. On the
Nicene the Convention finally yielded ; and the English Arch
bishop accordingly, under a special statute passed for the
occasion, gave what is technically termed "the Episcopal
succession " to a Church which had deliberately rejected the
Athanasian Creed and officially expressed a desire to reject
the Nicene.
The treatment of the Nicene Creed in the American Prayer
Book preserved the evidence of this reluctance to insert it at
all. It ¦was admitted only as an alternative to the Apostles'
Creed in the Morning and Evening Service and In the Com
munion Service. It might be read, but It never need be, if
the officiating clergyman chose not to avail himself of the
alternative. Its use was merely permitted. It ¦was never
required. To further stamp with distinctive approval the
Apostles' Creed, it was spoken of In the Baptismal Service
as containing all the articles of the " Christian Faith,'' words
which do not occur in the English Prayer Book.
158. In 1867 a Royal Commission was appointed ¦which
considered the question of the enforced use of the Athanasian
Creed. Dean Stanley, who ¦was a member, said that " it was
one of the most deliberate discussions ¦which has ever taken
place In the English Church, and it is not too much to say
that it resulted in the unanimous condemnation of the present
use of the Creed."
159. Bishop Thirlwall said at that time: "I protest
against the compulsory use of the Athanasian Creed, as not
only an evil on account of the effect it produces on many of
the most intelligent and attached members of our Church,
but a wrong in itself. The important question Is whether
those who are offended by the Creed have just and reasonable
objection to it. I think they have. It appears to me that
in adopting such a document the Church both overstept the

1 88 PROTESTANTISM.
bounds of its rightful authority and exercised the usurped
authority In an uncharitable and mischievous way. Nothing,
as It seems to me, could have warranted such a step but a
special revelation placing the Creed on a level with Holy
Writ. It may be possible for theologians to show by tech
nical arguments that it is a legitimate development of doctrine
implicitly contained In Scripture. But this, if admitted,
would not justify the Church In exacting assent to their
conclusions." i6o. Bishop Ewing says in a letter to Archbishop Tait :
"I do not think there is any vitality in the Athanasian
formula. It Is holding up the skeleton of the dead among
the living. To the great majority of those who attend our
churches the technical phrases of the Creed are quite- as
unintelligible as are the special legal expressions In a legal
deed or the terms in a physician's prescription. I would
keep it as an old and curious heirloom in a charter-chest."
i6i. It would be difficult to produce by means of human
language two more efficient -weapons for the creation of
hostility to the Church on' the part of thoughtful men than
the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. If these were to be
taken seriously, and ¦were to be the sole test of religious
belief, intelligent men might well be content to be classed
with the unbelievers. That they have not been torn up root
and branch is an illustration of how long a symbol can out
live its usefulness. They are merely liturgical. No one can
tell just what other value or what other functions they have ;
but so long as they are retained, it is natural for men to suppose
that they are to play some doctrinal part, and in this way they
injure the Church. They constitute a technical barrier. It is
in reality an obstacle of the flimsiest character, but to many it
has an appearance of solidity too great to be broken down by
them. As doctrinal expressions they are obsolete, and may

THE CREEDS. 189
be in practice utterly disregarded. No one need be troubled
by them or pay the slightest attention to them. They are
interesting and curious relics and nothing more. They are
like antiquarian pictures that are allowed to hang in the
gallery merely because of their age and historical value.
Such pictures can teach no lesson in art except it be the
lesson of a style or method to be avoided. They may, how
ever, possess some interest as a glimpse of what art once was,
and so they are suffered to hang In their old places for what
they may be worth to some student, and for no other reason.
We must minimize them rather than magnify them.
162. Matthe-w Arnold says: "It is easy for a man to
exaggerate to himself the barrier between himself and popular
religion. The barrier Is not so great as he may suppose ; and
It is expedient for him rather to think it less great than It is,
than more great. It will sensibly dwindle the more that he,
and other serious men who think as he does, strive, so far as
they can, to act as if it did not exist. It will stand stiff and
bristling the more they act as if it were insurmountable.
The Church is to be considered as a Christian society for the
promotion of goodness, to which a man cannot ¦wish but well,
and in which he might rejoice to minister.
" The last of Bishop Butler's jottings in his memorandum-
book is a prayer to be delivered ' from offendiculum of
scrupulousness.' He was quite right. Religion is a matter
where scrupulousness has been far too active, producing most
serious mischief, and where it is singularly out of place."

190

PR O TESTANTISM.

CHAPTER II.

GOD.

163. The time has come when men who want to be
religious are asking the clergy, not what they have voted
God to be. In church councils, but what is God. On what
grounds ought our general ideas of the nature of God to be
founded ? Men do not want dogmatism about God, but they
do want some firm ground upon which they may plant their
feet and say " Here is solid ground. This is accurate. This
to begin with is scientific. It may not as an assertion go very
far. It may point to more than It unfolds ; but so far as it
does go, it expresses something about God which Is unques
tionably true." That Is what is wanted to begin with. What
answer is there ?
164. Rev. H. R. Haweis says: "Now, the very first
thing you must realize is this : that consciousness Is one thing
and that thought is another. Thought will go along with
consciousness up to a certain point, and seem to be almost
identical with It ; but after every distinct thought has van
ished, there may still be a consciousness left behind. Thought
cannot monopolize the sphere of consciousness. When you
have done thinking, over and above all definite thought there
may remain a consciousness which you cannot express In the
terms of thought.
"To illustrate this: you know that space exists. You
have an undeniable consciousness that space exists, but you
cannot put the whole of this consciousness into thought.
Every mode of description leaves something unexpressed.
Let us try. Space is either limited or it is unlimited ; but
you cannot conceive of space as limited ; that Is to say, you

GOD. 191
cannot conceive a barrier being put down beyond which there
shall be nothing, because beyond any conceivable barrier
there must still be space, therefore you cannot conceive of
space as limited ; and you cannot conceive of space as un
limited. You may say- it goes on for ever and ever. You
think you have a deflnite conception of thought there, but you
have not. The instant you have stopped thinking, beyond
your last ' ever,' you mentally put down a barrier. Your
mind refuses to entertain the conception of infinite space, —
it Is unthinkable. You cannot conceive, then, that space is
unlimited. Well, then, what do you arrive at, if you cannot
conceive of space as limited nor unlimited, and yet you are
conscious of space ? Why, you arrive at this : that you have
an undeniable consciousness about space which cannot be put
Into thought. You know that it is, that it must be, one of
two things, but you cannot think of it as being either. You
have, in short, a consciousness, but your consciousness has
outrun your thought.
"Again, you have a certain consciousness concerning the
existence of the universe, but you cannot put this into any
intelligible terms of thought. It baffles you just as space
baffies you. Let us try. This universe Is either self-existent,
— it exists by Itself, — or else it Is self-created ; that is, it has
created Itself, or else some one created it — say, God created
It; but each one of these three propositions Is unthinkable.
You cannot imagine this universe as self-existent, because
that is to imagine a thing which does not depend upon any
antecedent cause ; that Is to say, self -existence implies the
existence of something which has no beginning, and thought
refuses to entertain that conception. Again, when you say
this universe was self -created, you only get to another form
of the same difficulty. Self -creation Implies a potential uni
verse passing Into an actual universe, and thought cannot
conceive of such a thing as that. Thought cannot conceive

192 PROTESTANTISM.
of anything which has no existence suddenly becoming an
actual existence ; In other words, creating itself ; because, as
we have just pointed out, you cannot conceive of a thing
which has no beginning. Nor can you conceive of the
universe as having been created by God. For even If you
had established the existence of God, you would still have to
establish that of matter. Is God identical with matter?
Assume that He is, then how came matter? Did that which
was not make itself ? Did that -which is become something
out of nothing? The proposition is strictly unthinkable.
But if you do away with matter, and talk of God as distinct
from matter, the same difficulty arises, the Inconceivability of
imagining the beginning of God, or the creation of something
out of nothing. So you see you cannot Imagine or put into
thought the existence of the universe as self-existent, or self-
created, or God-created. But it does exist, or something we
call the universe exists, and it must, as far as our thinking
powers will reach, have come about in one of the three
above-mentioned ways, each of which Is unthinkable. Again,
consciousness has transcended thought.
" Once more, and lastly. God Is conceived of in the mind
as either existing somewhere or everywhere or nowhere.
You may be a Theist or a Pantheist or an Atheist. When
you speak of Atheism you mean the non-existence of God.
But Atheism is inconceivable. You cannot look upon the
orderly universe, and then deliberately say, ' Nothing has
originated this; no living principle, no orderly or Intelligent
principle, has been at work here.' Therefore, Atheism is
inconceivable, because it involves the impossible Idea of self-
existence, — the self-existence of the universe. But, then.
Pantheism, the doctrine that God is everything and everything
is God, and Theism, or the doctrine that God is somewhere,
are as unthinkable as Atheism ; for, as Mr. Herbert Spencer
points out, whoever admits that Atheism is untenable, because

GOD. 193
it involves the impossible idea of self -existence, must perforce
admit that Atheism, Theism, and Pantheism are all equally
untenable, because they all Involve the same Impossible idea.
Yet, in thinking of God, it is impossible to avoid making the
assumption of self-existence somewhere, and whether that
assumption be made nakedly or under complicated disguises
it is equally unthinkable.
'"Thus the consciousness of God transcends thought, —
transcends the sphere of definable knowledge, — though not
the sphere of experience. You have a consciousness which
enables 3-ou to say there must be something which you cannot
by thinking find out behind the universe, — there is an omni
present, incomprehensible power, as it were, at the back of
all these outward phenomena that, for want of some better
word, we will call God, — and when we say there must be
we mean that we have a consciousness that there is. Some
thing which we choose to call God exists, but He is unthink
able. Once again consciousness has outrun thought.
"Now, then, -we have reached an important point. It is
none other than this, — the reconciliation between science and
religion. It is to be found In this one fact, which is common
to both of them, — the confession upon purely intellectual
grounds of a force or power incomprehensible and oi-nni-
present. We call it omnipresent because we cannot mentally
assign to It any limits, and we call it incomprehensible because
it cannot be comprehended by any forms of thought. The
existence of such a power is a fact ¦which science confesses,
and it is also a fact which religion confesses. There, then,
is an Impregnable ground upon which you may build the
religious consciousness. It is not only a matter of sentiment,
although it is that, but science also confesses it, — that is to
say, the existence of this omnipresent and Incomprehensible
power is a matter of knowledge ; and you may be sure that
science will never destroy that fundamental ground, without
which It cannot move one step.

194 PROTESTANTISM.
"Hold this conclusion fast, and do not think that these
speculations are vain and idle. A reconciliation between the
principles of science and religion is no vain thing ; for are we
not constantly told that the tendency of science is to destroy
religion? Science can never destroy religion, because when
they are pushed to their extreme limits both science and
religion confess the fundamental fact on which each stands,
both postulate the same hypothesis of a reality underlying all
phenomena. Viewed scientifically, religion is impregnable;
but, as Mr. Spencer points out, historically it is equally so,
for ' the universality of religious ideas, their independent
evolution among different primitive races, and their great
vitality unite in showing that their source must be deep-seated
instead of superficial.'
"Distinguish, now, between the spheres of science and
religion. Science deals with phenomenal facts, or the rela
tions which exist between various phenomena ; but it does
not deal with the essence of these phenomena. When science
has explained, as it will explain more and more of this
world, there will yet have to come the explanation of the last
explanation, the mystery of all life, that which makes it what
it is and not otherwise ; and this is what will never be
explained, for it lies outside the limits of thought, and that
is a confession common to both science and religion.
"We have, then, by the light common to religion and
science, established the existence of God. We arrive at this,
not by thought, but by a consciousness transcending thought.
It is the existence of this consciousness which enables us to
come nigh God, — to understand God with an intelligence
beyond that of definite thought.
" You try to conceive of this God, this Creator, this Invisi
ble Spirit, — call It what you will, — conceive of Him in His
totality, and He is utterly beyond the reach of definite thought,
though not beyond consciousness ; but conceive of Him in

GOD. 195
certain relations with ourselves, and He Is at once brought
within the reach of definite thought as well as consciousness.
God, in relation to man, is conceived of as power wielded by
intellect and will ; but It is quite possible there may be an
existence as much transcending the conditions of intellect and
will as Intellect and will transcend mechanical motion. It
is, no doubt, beyond experience, but it is quite possible that
such an existence may be the existence of God in His totality.
Thus this intellect and will, through which we think we
know God, may be only a small part of that great whole
which is called God in His totality. There is a distinction
between the partial nature of God revealed to man in the
universe, especially in human nature, and the whole nature of
God beyond man's ken. This is a most important distinction,
because It enables us to relegate to the sphere of the infinite
totality of God a number of anomalies, inconsistencies, and
injustices which we cannot explain when we contemplate God
as alone He can be Intellectually contemplated; viz., God as
He exists In relation to us, as contrasted with God as He
exists in His unknown totality.
" But now let us try and construct Him for our minds as
He is in relation to ourselves. Is it unfair, in trying to
discover what God is, — the limited God as opposed to the
Illimitable God, in relation to man,- — is it unfair to look at
the world about us and say, ' I will reason from what I see
here, from what I know of the universe and of man, to the
relative nature and constitution of God ? ' I will reason in
this way, because, whatever exists now actively must have
had an appropriate origin, -=- the source from whence it flows
must have Impressed upon it its own law, — so that if I find
certain qualities In the world, I may reason to a power or
source from whence those qualities flow ; or, at least, I may
say that reality, which both science and religion agree in
declaring to underlie the phenomena displayed in the world

196 PROTESTANTISM.
and in human nature, must be something similar in character
to the phenomena themselves, or It would not have given rise
to them as appearances or manifestations of itself. Surely
that is no outrageous proposition, but one most reasonable
and satisfactory, for It puts within a man's grasp the very
detail and particulars of God's nature.
"When we examine the ¦world without us, we are led to
ask, ' Is there really an intelligent God, is there a loving
God, presiding over this vast order of nature ? ' What do we
find ? We flnd this, — whether we look at ourselves or the
smallest insect, whether we look at an animal or a leaf or a
flower, the same thing strikes us! What is that? It is, as
Mr. Arnold acutely obseives, ' the stream of tendency by
which all things fulfil the law of their being.'
" Speaking accurately and scientifically, this stream of
tendency is God. He may be, and doubtless is, more, — but
He is that. We can say ¦we do not know what the whole of
God is, but we can say that He is thus much accurately.
God Is the stream of tendency by which all things fulfil the
law of their being. What do we mean ' by the law of their
being?' Just this, — that everything develops in a certain
way, and not in another way. A cabbage develops after the
fashion of a cabbage, and nothing else ; and if, as ages roll
on, there come variations of the plant, yet these very varia
tions take place according to a certain fixed law, — the law of
being in the vegetable kingdom.
" Man in the same way develops after a certain fashion,
and not after another fashion ; and so in every living thing
the law of individual being is de^^'eloped. There is a stream
of tendency, a co-ordinating principle of life, a permeating
and transfusing influence of some sort, whereby each living
thing fulfils the fixed law of Its being. Man does not grow
by chance, man does not make his own law; vegetables
do not grow by chance, do not make the law they obey

GOD. 197
or tend to obey. There is a law in man, — a law of his
health, a law of his physical being. When disobeyed, that
law asserts itself in disease, in mental misery, in confusion.
Something not" himself has impressed upon him a physical
law. Science may call It a stream of tendency, — we will
caU it God.
' ' Is that all ? Cannot we through the outward world draw
a step nearer to this mysterious God ? cannot we add another
element to our dry and limited definition of Him? We can.
When we look upon the world we see a moral law as well as
a physical la^w. If we go back to the remotest antiquity of
which ¦we have any historical record, we find nations differing
in civilization, in manners, in culture, from modern nations,
but nowhere can we find any people ¦who are completely
insensible to what is called right and wrong. Their views
of right and wrong may not be like ours. They have had
their own ideas of right and wrong, but these were always
tending in one definite direction. So we find in the most
ancient Egyptian proverbs the same kind of moral precepts
about virtue, duty, God, which the Christian religion has
made us so familiar with. We see, then, that, for thousands
of years, at least, the world has been impressed by a certain
moral law of right and wrong, which makes for the happiness
of man. Man has not made this law, — he is In constant and
notorious rebellion against it in every age. Only a few follow
it ¦with any consistency, yet It Is inexorable, as sharp-edged
and self -avenging as any physical law, — this moral not-self
impressed upon man. And this other stream of tendency
which makes for righteousness, this moral not-self, is also
God ; it Is another element in our definition of Him. We
grasp it firmly, so that no one shall take it from us, for it Is
seen to rest on the basis of the experience of the world.
Now, let us put the two elements which we have arrived at
together ; let us see how they read : —

1 98 PRO TESTANTISM.
" ist. God is the stream of tendency by which all things
fulfil the law of their being.
"2d. God is the enduring power which makes for right
eousness. Have we not thus fairly reached an external
intelligence and morality, impressing itself upon the world
of nature and man ?
"Are we to start, then, with a solid belief In an all-
powerful, all-wise, and all-good Deity? No sooner are we
out on these deep waters, than we find ourselves suddenly
on the rocks of doubt. If He is all-powerful. He cannot be
all-good, or why does He permit evil? If He is all-good.
He cannot be all-wise, or He would have devised a universe
without pain. If He is all-wise and all-good, He cannot be
all-powerful, and that is now the question which we have to
face frankly. I agree with John Stuart Mill in saying that
God may be all-good. He may be all-wise, but His goodness
and wisdom can only be saved by some inscrutable and
mysterious limitation of His power.
" After all, why should anything or any one be omnipotent
in the literal and absolute sense of the word ? That such a
thing as absolute omnipotence exists is, at best, a highly
fanciful and arbitrary assumption, and it is directly opposed
to facts. In this absolute sense clearly God cannot be
'omnipotent. He cannot accomplish that which involves a
contradiction of terms. He cannot make a thing to be and
not to be at the same time, therefore there is an ontological
limitation to His power. God cannot cause two and two to
make five, or two parallel lines to enclose a space, or two
sides of a triangle to be less than the third side, therefore
there is a mathematical limitation to His power. God, if
He be all-wise and all-good, cannot do wrong, therefore
there is a moral limitation to His power. God, If He dele
gates life to His creatures, robs Himself of just so much
control over that life as He gives to them (delegated gifts

GOD. 199
mean limitation). God Himself thus places a crea^zVe limi
tation to His own power. God, if He dowers His intelligent
creatures with free will, admits a further self-limitation, — an
evolutionary or develop7nental limitation. Then, If omnipo
tence must be qualified by all these necessary or admitted
limitations, — viz., mathematical, ontological, moral, creative,
evolutionary, and developmental, — %N'hy not one more mys
terious limitation, the reason for which, and the nature of
which, may transcend our present faculties of comprehension?
— why not assume as a hypothesis which explains more facts
than any other, and at once saves the goodness and wisdom
of God ? — why not assume that in matter and force and the
eternal constitution of things there is a something intractable
¦which refuses to yield all at once to ^visdom and goodness ?
or put it thus, — the necessary law of progress, from lower to
higher, involves, in its earlier stages, at least, a conflict with
evil and pain, from which in its higher stages it tends to
work Itself free. Here is the training-ground. We are put
here to start with human responsibility. We could not be
developed were not our choice free (else should we be mere
dummies), and if free, free to choose evil as well as good.
In this conflict we meet with pain, and we propagate misery
and disease, but we shall come through and win. Yonder
we shall ¦work out our deliverance, however inseparable moral
and physical evil may be from this rudimentary stage.
" You may ask, ' How do you know It will ever be other
wise ? Will not freedom of choice always be before us, and
therefore the wrong choice or sin ever possible, and the
door ever open to moral evil?' Certainly we maybe at the
end of this stage, and In all forward stages of development,
free to choose, but, 171 proportion to our progress, less and
less likely to choose wrong. Sin will be to us Increasingly
less and less probable, less and less alluring, and at last it
may become next to impossible. It Is quite Impossible to

200 PR O TESTANTISM.
Imagine Cardinal Manning or the Archbishop of Canterbury
coining out to dine and pocketing your silver spoons. They
are known to have entirely passed out of that rudimentary
stage of moral development In which such things are done.
Just so, we can imagine a state In which, though It might
be still open to us to choose amiss, it would be next to
Impossible for us to do so, and moral evil and sin and its
punishment will then have practically disappeared from our
universe. "The schoolboy hates his Latin grammar, and has to be
caned for his carelessness, and ¦with many tears toils through
the drudgery of school ; but the master points onward to the
tripos. A few years more the boy has learned, — he holds
Virgil and Sophocles in his hand for pleasure, his toilsome
study has ended In joyful achievement, his triumph was
gradual through pain and weary effort and many a stumble,
but his triumph was not doubtful. So we may anticipate a
future state in -which all gross evil has vanished, and our
exhilarating effort and energy is in the direction of joyful
achievement. So works the accomplished artist, so works
the finished musician, so ¦will work for ever and ever God's
elect in the land of eternity, who are now but poor toiling
students in the day-school of Time.
"Is God, then, not, after all, omnipotent? Yes, although
in one way, and, in an impossible manner, no. In the most
conclusive sense, ' yes,' since He is omnipotent for ultimate
victory. His action is steadily in the direction of assured
victory, and limitation of power applies only to the method
adopted, not the end accomplished; and such limitation —
necessary, and often most intelligible — Is recognized by us
all in every department of life, whenever we use the phrase
' means to ends.' ' Delayed (or, as the scientists would say,
evolutionary^ , not defeated,' Is written over the grand divine
purposes. His purpose shall not fail. God's bolts fly straight

GOD. 20I
and sure, but they take time. Is He less for all practical
purposes the God of omnipoteiice, because He is the God of
gradual method, the God of evolution? The answer, then,
to the question, Is God omnipotent? is 'Yes and No.' 'Is
He all-powerful all at once?' 'No.' 'Is He all-powerful
ultimately and forever ? ' ' Yes.' "

202 PROTESTANTISM.

CHAPTER III.
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION.
165. With regard to the miraculous conception it would
seem that the Creed does not of necessity imply It. A fair,
proper, and so permissible interpretation of its language and
meaning may be given thus : I believe In Jesus Christ as the
most complete manifestation of God in human form, and
hence as that human being who, in a strict and full sense, is
most deserving of the name or title of the Son of God ; that
he was born of a woman historically and traditionally known
as the Virgin Mary ; that Into Mary's conception, however it
took place, -whether with or without human intervention, the
Holy Spirit of God entered and dominated it, filling it with
spiritual life, and using it as the means of presenting to the
human race an ideal character as an example for all subse
quent ages.
166. The twofold interpretation of the Creed upon this
point is rendered necessary and inevitable by the fact that in
the New Testament there are two distinct and entirely incon
sistent views with regard to the conception of Christ. One
view is set forth in Matthew i. 18-25. These few verses are
really all there is in support of this dogma, for the passage In
Luke i. 26-35 does not distinctly and unequivocally negative
human intervention. The narrative in Luke, critically con
sidered. Is consistent with either view; while that in Matthew
Is a distinct and clear assertion of a miraculous conception.
In Luke the angel says that God shall give unto the child
"the throne of His father David." In the genealogy in
Matthew Christ is called the " son of David," but He is
shown to be such through Joseph as His Immediate father.

MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 203
The angel In Luke says, "thou shalt conceive in thy womb
and bring forth a son," but it does not say that it shall not be
in a natural way under natural law. The language of the
thirty-fifth verse would appear to be satisfied and justified if
a natural conception were "overshadowed" and dominated
by the Holy Spirit for a special purpose.
The second view is set forth In Matthew i. 1-17 and
Luke iii. 23-38. In the first view Joseph had nothing to
do with the birth of Christ. In the second view Christ is the
direct son of Joseph, and two elaborate genealogies are set
forth, each being based on this supposed fact of paternity. If
the first view be correct, then the second view must be false,
and the genealogies are fanciful and unreal. If the Scripture
be Infallible in the one case, it must be decidedly fallible in
the other case. Now, in Article XX. It is said that the
Church may not " so expound one place of Scripture that
it be repugnant to another." No creed can require us to
believe what is not clearly and beyond all question set forth
In Scripture, nor can a word mean more in the Creed than it
means in the Scripture. Now, if the Church ¦were to expound
Matthew I. 18-25 ^^ '^^ only true view, what would It do
with ISIatthew i. 1-17 and Luke iii. 23-38? If the Church
were to say that Christ had no human father, what would
It do with the two genealogies which are made on the Idea
that Joseph was His human father? The Church cannot
thus dogmatize. Each individual must read these divergent
accounts, and believe what he can, or suspend his judgment
and have no opinion at all, treating it as an Irrelevant and
immaterial point having no bearing upon conduct or faith.
167. It would be difficult to imagine a single fact in the
life of Christ of less practical importance than the manner of
His conception ; nor can there be a fact less accessible to
evidence, less capable of demonstration or knowledge.

204 PROTESTANTISM.
The passage ordinarily quoted from Isaiah vii. 14, " Behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," has no further signifi
cation in the original Hebrew than " Behold, a young woman
shall conceive, and bear a son." The Hebrew word Is not
that which is often used for virgin in the strict sense, but a
less exact word which means no more than a young marriage
able woman. Moreover, the prediction in Isaiah was of an
event which was to occur within a very few years, as appears
by the sixteenth verse. Its terms are thoroughly and mani
festly inapplicable to Christ. Nothing spiritual, nothing
worthy of Christ, nothing suitable to Him is announced.
The only blessing promised was the deliverance of Judah
implied in the desolation and abandonment of Syria and
Israel, the land of whose kings Ahaz was afraid.
How could the birth of Christ 742 years afterwards be a
sign to Ahaz that within a few years his kingdom was to be
freed from his enemies ? Such a child was born. It would
seem, at that period, for in Chapter viii. 8, 10, he is twice
referred to as if then present, or, at least, then living. The
birth of this child was to be a proof to Ahaz that within these
few years the land of Judah should be delivered from the
invaders. It seems clearly to be applicable only to the birth
of a child within that period of a few years. That these
words were uttered with any sort of reference to Christ is
simply incredible. There Is not the slightest reason for such
a belief. 168. Christ Himself never alluded to a miraculous con
ception on even a single occasion. A consideration of all
the passages — five in number — which show His conduct
towards Mary will not tend to Increase one's belief In the
statement ; for, in these passages, as Archbishop Tlllotson
points out, Christ appears to have treated her with neglect
rather than with any great show of reverence and respect.

MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 205
In the Acts and Epistles there is but one mention made of
Mary, and that only incidentally.
The fact that Jesus was born of ]SIary while she was yet a
virgin does not appear to have been publicly stated. If we
may judge from the silence of the Gospels, while Christ was
yet in the flesh upon the earth.
Jesus was nowhere called by his relatives or disciples
during His life and ministry other than the son of Joseph.
The apostles never In their sermons, speeches, or epistles
made any use of the supposed miraculous conception in way
of argument, Illustration, or doctrine of any kind. Their
silence Is complete and unqualified. There Is not the
slightest evidence that any of the apostles outside of Matthew
and Luke ever heard of It. The Apostles' Creed in its
earlier form did 7iot refer to the conception at all. The
Nicene Creed was also silent in its original fort7i.
169. Both ISIatthew and Luke trace the genealogy of
Christ through Josep)h. There is not the slightest ground
for believing one to be the genealogy of Joseph and the
other that of Mary. There is no evidence given or statement
made as to the lineage of Mary. If Joseph were not a real
human parent of Christ, It seems Incredible that two gene
alogies should be given for him, and that none should be
given or hinted at for Mary, who, on that theory, would be
the only real human parent of Christ.
The prophecy was that " of the fruit of David's loins accord
ing to the flesh " God would raise up Christ to sit upon His
throne. Would this have been fulfilled if Joseph had no part
whatever in the conception of Christ? Would Christ in any
real or true sense, then, be "of the seed of David?"
The two genealogies differ. Luke says that Joseph was
"the son of Hell." Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph,
the husband of Mary." This difference has been explained

2o6 PROTESTANTISM.
thus : Luke deduces the natural line of Christ from David
according to the flesh, while Matthew gives the legal suc
cession to the throne of Solomon. The lineal descent is
necessary to prove the validity of the right of succession
because Joseph was Solomon's heir only inasmuch as he
was descended from Nathan, the younger son of David. On
the failure of Solomon's line the descendants of Nathan his
brother would be the legal heirs. Indeed, we have the
express testimony of Scripture that one of the persons In
St. Matthew's list was to be childless, and that neither he
nor his father's descendants should sit upon the throne of
Judah. While this was distinctly said of Jechoniah, it was
also said that David should never fail to have a son to sit
upon the throne of Israel. It would seem as If this rendered
It scripturally impossible that Christ's lineal descent should
be that given by Matthew.
In Matthew we find that sixteen of the middle generations
are a succession of kings who reigned over the house of
Jacob. Then follows a further succession of twelve private
individuals who would have been kings on the throne of
Judah from generation to generation had It continued to
stand ; but, during the whole period that those twelve
persons lived, the royalty of the house was suppressed by
power and violence.- This, then, Is the succession of the
heirs of the throne of David and Solomon. The two gene
alogies are necessary to establish the title claimed for Christ.
In the Scriptures the promise concerning Solomon was that
his throne should be established forever. It is nowhere said
of him, as it was of David, that his seed should endure for
ever. While, then, the promise to David distinctly requires
that Christ should be David's seed, the promise to Solomon
will be quite satisfied by Christ being his heir ; for, if Christ
were Solomon's legal heir, it would be truly Solomon's throne
on which Christ should sit.

MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 207
It ¦was in strict accordance with Jewish usage that persons
deriving property or rank not from their direct ancestors
should have a genealogy suited to their inheritance as well
as one exhibiting their real parentage.
The genealogies from Abraham to David are the same.
Then Matthew carries it to Solomon, the elder son and suc
cessor to the throne of David. Luke then carries It to
Nathan, the younger son of David. The genealogies after
many generations come together again In Salathiel, who is
said by ISIatthew to be begot of Jechoniah who, it was
declared, should be childless. This may be explained by
saying that, on the failure of Solomon's line in Jechoniah,
the throne was taken by Salathiel of the line of Nathan, and.
In the technical language of the royal tables, Jechoniah was
said to have begotten him. The two tables agree in Zorobabel
as the son of Salathiel, and then diverge again, probably
giving In Matthew the elder son, and in Luke the younger
son. They then keep apart until they meet again In Joseph.
Jacob, It is presumed, died without any child as his successor,
whence the inheritance fell to Joseph as next of kin entitled
thereto. Joseph -was the son of Hell, and, by virtue of that,
the legal heir of Jacob, who, therefore, In that sense ¦was said,
after the manner of drawing the royal tables, to have begot
Joseph. This Is the best explanation yet made of these two
divergent genealogies of the same man.
170. Rev. H. R. Ha'weis says: " Meanwhile Christians
might with advantage go back of the Nicene Council, and
plead the evangelical right to be as uninformed as Mark, as
divided as Matthew, as inconclusive as Luke, and as silent
as John, on the question of the miraculous conception.
^Haud scio an ' would, in this case, be a bit of Christian
Agnosticism which I for one would not object to ; for I
really don't exactly know, and I cannot imagine how, any
one should know the exact mode of the Incarnation."

2o8 PR O TESTANTISM.
171. This dogma grew out of that idea which sees right
eousness only in celibacy, — which exalts the monk and the
nun, — which can see only sin in that law ordained by God
for perpetuating the race. It is the idea of St. Augustine
that Original Sin is transmitted by the operation of the sexual
law. It was the desire to exempt Christ from the operation
of this supposed law that led to the interpolation of these
verses. It was a pious fraud perpetrated by the ecclesiastics
of a baptized paganism. It was a clumsy and uncritical age
in which it was done, or the genealogies ¦would have been
altered at the same time. Its clumsiness did not, however,
prevent its effectiveness. The natural corollary of this dogma
is that of the immaculate conception.
172. In 1894 six bishops of the Protestant Episcopal
Church issued a Pastoral Letter. In this they asserted that
the doctrine of the miraculous conception and birth "is held
by this Church as the fundamental doctrine of Christianity ; "
that ' ' unless our Lord Jesus Christ is firmly held to be God's
own true and proper Son, equal to the Father as touching
His Godhead, and to be also the true Son of the Blessed
Virgin by miraculous conception and birth, taking our very
manhood of her substance, we sinners have no true and
adequate Mediator ; our nature has no restored union with
God ; we have no sacrifice for our sins in full atonement
and propitiation, holy and acceptable to God ; for our moral
¦weakness and incapacity there Is no fountain of cleansing,
renewal, and recreation after the measure and pattern of a
perfect manhood." And, again, they asserted that "the
authoritative formularies of the Church require a plain and
full acceptance of the facts that the human conception and
birth of our Lord Jesus Christ was accomplished by the
miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost, and that the human
ity in His one person is wholly derived from the substance

MIBACULOUS CONCEPTION. 209
of the Blessed Virgin ISIary His mother." Again they repeat
that this doctrine is the ' ' cardinal and fundamental doctrine
of the Christian faith."
173. This declaration ¦was made by the six bishops with an
appearance of authority, which they very well knew they did
not possess. Under the laws of the Church their statement
has no more binding authority than the utterance of any six
laymen. This was afterwards publicly acknowledged by one
of the six. To a candidate for ordination, however, the
declaration is of great significance, for it Indicates what the
six bishops intend to do whether they have any right to do
it or not. They are limited, however, to such candidates as
come -within their local jurisdictions. Dean Hodges says :
"No bishop represents the Church. No six bishops, setting
down Episcopal signatures, one below the other, with Epis
copal seals attached, represent the Church. They speak only
for those who agree with them, and the number may be
small or great."
174. The peculiarity attaching to this alleged miracle lies
In the lack of all evidence to show that it did actually occur.
Grant that It might have occurred, the real question is. Did it
occur? Dogma about an historical fact ought to rest on some
sort of reality as a basis. If belief in this fact ¦were to be
deemed an indispensable prerequisite to clerical ordination,
there ought to be some sort of evidence that would bear some
little scrutiny. It ought to be, at least, a fact that a well-
balanced mind could accept without practical stultification of
itself. In regard to many alleged miracles we may readily see
that It was in the power of the witnesses to know whether
what is said to have happened really did so happen ; but In
regard to this miracle it is equally clear that there could have
been no witness w^ho could testify of his own knowledge as

2IO PROTESTANTISM.
to whether the fact in question were true or not. There
could not be any competent testimony concerning such a fact.
The fact involved is one that in its very nature is incapable
of any exact evidence such as any reasonable and intelligent
man would accept. If one man could for one year keep the
expectant mother under his own observation, and could do
this without losing one moment for the purpose of sleep,
and thus make the observation absolutely continuous and
unbroken, then if, at the end of that year, a child were born,
he might be forced to believe that there had been no human
intervention, thus Involving a departure from all known laws,
and he might say that he knew such to be the fact ; but it Is
certain that no one else would accept his testimony or believe
the fact because thereof. This would be so without any
regard to the character of the man who should so testify.
He might be the best man in the world, but not a single
person would accept his testimony. Whether such a fact be
true or not could not be positively ascertained even by con
temporaries having the most critical capacity.
175. Now, on what sort of testimony does the alleged fact
really rest? Upon a very few verses supposed, but not cer
tainly known, to have been written by St. Matthew, and a
few inconclusive verses supposed, but not certainly known, to
have been written by St. Luke. Outside of these verses there
Is not in the whole New Testament even one single reference
to any such fact. Nor, besides these verses, is there the
slightest other allusion to the fact even in the gospels which
contain them, while in each of those gospels there are, as we
have shown, statements which are utterly inconsistent with
the truth of such a fact. The oldest existing manuscript of
these gospels is supposed to go back to the fourth century.
It, therefore, comes to this : We are asked to believe a fact
which we would not to-day accept even upon the very best

MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 211
testimony which the nature of the case admits, and we are
asked to do this because of a few verses written, — no one
really knows by whom, and no one really knows when, — the
earliest copy of these "verses now extant being supposed to
have been made four hundred years after the event. There
is some reason to suppose that these verses are interpolated,
and there is, at least, no satisfactory and conclusive evidence
that they were in the gospels as orginally written.
176. We may not fall back upon any theory of the infalli
bility of the Scripture, for, upon this particular point, there
Is, as we have shown, a distinct contradiction. The two
elaborate genealogies rest in this respect on exactly the same
authority as the eight verses which furnish a basis for this
dogma. Both views cannot be true. Which shall we choose ?
On the one side ¦we have an assertion of a fact which contra
venes all experience and observation, all our knowledge of
science and Its uniformity ; a fact which not only cannot now
be proved, but which never was susceptible of evidence of a
conclusive character ; a fact which Is not mentioned except
by two writers, each of whom states another fact which
directly contradicts It ; a fact which, if stated publicly in the
lifetime -of Joseph and Mary, would certainly have been
received with the utmost derision, scorn, and Incredulity,
which could have been no advantage, and possibly a positive
detriment to the cause. On the other side ¦we have the
two long genealogies, one carrying the line back to Adam.
These two, although different, can be plausibly reconciled
and their differences explained. They rest on a fact which
is in accordance with all natural laws, — a fact which Is in
harmony with all the rest of Scripture except these few
verses. "We find that St. Paul does not so much as mention
this miraculous conception. On the contrary, he does say
(Romans I. 3) that " Christ was made of the seed of David

212 PROTESTANTISM.
according to the flesh," which would seem to actually nega
tive the dogma. In Acts Ii. 30, speaking of David, it Is said
that God promised "that of the fruit of his [David's] loins,
according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ." Again, in
Acts xiii. 23, It is said, referring to David, " Of this man's
seed hath God raised up Christ." Both genealogies trace
Christ up to David through Joseph. Mary is not known to
have spoken but once on the subject, and then she called
Joseph His father: "Behold, thy father ecad I have sought
thee sorrowing." Her testimony is clear enough. When
Christ answered them, "Wist ye not that I must be about
my Father's business ? " it is recorded that ' ' they understood
him not," which would hardly have been the case if they had
known of and believed this dogma. Two verses after this
narrative Luke says that Jesus " Increased i7i wisdom and
stature, and in favor with God and man," — language which
is not consistent with belief in this dogma. Now, which of
these two scriptural views would be chosen by any man of
sound mind who Is not saturated with the ecclesiastical spirit
and is not seeking ordination at the hands of the six bishops?
Is there any doubt which view he would adopt ?
177. S. T. Coleridge thought that this doctrine, not only
could not be proved, and was not necessary to the Incarnation,
but said that it actually " doth weaken and bedim the evidence"
of this great fact.
178. Canon Fremantle says : '¦'¦Little stress will be laid
on the accounts of the Infancy of Christ, since they are men
tioned nowhere in the New Testament outside of the first
chapters of the first and the third gospels."
179. To make this alleged miracle into a dogma requires
the antecedent dogma of an infallible church. Without this
as a basis It is puerile to assert in dogmatic terms- this
miraculous conception. It Is Impossible to find any authority

MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 313
for such a dogma which does not necessarily involve this
which the English Church has distinctly repudiated. It wvAy
exist, it does exist, as a sacred tradition, and, as such, is open
to the most beautiful treatment in art and poetry, which is
its true and proper sphere. To say that it is the " cardinal
doctrine of the Christian faith " implies a gross misconception
of what Christianity^ really Is, and, when said by men in
exalted ecclesiastical position, is calculated to do enormous
injury to the cause of Christ.
180. Archbishop Tlllotson said: "Nothing has been
more pernicious to the Christian religion than the vain pre
tences of men to greater assurance concerning things relating
to it than they can make good, the mischief of which is
this : that when discerning and inquisitive men find that men
pretend to greater matters than they can prove, this makes
them doubt of all they say, and to call In question the truth
of Christianity itself. AVhereas, if men -would be contented
to speak justly of things, and pretend to no greater assurance
than they can bring evidence for, considerate men would be
apt to believe them. Good reasons and arguments are requisite
to beget in men a rational assurance, but a strong conceit is
sufficient to beget in men an opinion of their infallibility."

PROTES TANTISM.

CHAPTER IV.
CHRIST.
i8i. The history of dogmatism concerning the nature of
Christ is a most melancholy record. Christ having pro
claimed the divine law of love, the acceptance of the Christ-
idea being necessarily the recognition of the absolute duty of
man to love his neighbor as himself, to be gentle, compas
sionate, and forbearing, is it not incredible that a discussion
as to what was His inmost nature should have led the professed
defenders of His doctrine of love to murder their fellowmen
who, believing in Christ, could not, however, conscientiously
hold the same opinions as to His nature that were held by the
ecclesiastics then in power? Is it not Incredible that these
ecclesiastics, claiming to be Christ's representatives on earth,
could thus murder their fellow Christians, could burn them
at the stake, could bury them in dungeons, could ostracize,
hate, and persecute them, and all for a difference of opinion
on a question as to the nature of Christ who typified love and
gentleness ? Yet such are the historical facts connected with
the dogmatic spirit fln this subject. Those who have upheld
the extreme views, professedly calculated to exalt and mag
nify Christ, have seemed to possess the largest capacity for
hatred, and to have in the largest degree the spirit of cruelty
and persecution.
Those who. In the main, have shown the Christian grace
of toleration and forbearance have been those who have upheld
the simplest views on this subject. It has seemed as if the
desire to exalt in extremest measure the messenger had caused
men to forget the message, or, at least, to live as if they were
unmindful of it.

CHRIST. 215
182. There are three positions which may be taken, and
these are represented and symbolized by the three Creeds.
The Apostles' Creed does not seek to define the nature of
Christ. It leaves each man free to go to Holy Writ and
settle that question for himself. It seems to say with Paul,
"Let each man be assured in his own mind." It does not
define, limit, or restrict. It may be recited alike by men
holding the most contradictory theories on this subject. It is
catholic and comprehensive.
The second position Is found in the Athanasian Creed,
which upholds the absolute deity of Christ In unmistakable
terms. If this dogma Is to be held at all, this is its true and
proper symbol.
The third position is set forth in the Nicene Creed, which
declares Christ to be God in some secondary sense, — God
by derivation out of God the Father. Of these three posi
tions the English Church adopted the apostolic view, but
liturglcally recognized both the Athanasian and Nicene.
In the United States the Church adopted the apostolic view,
liturgically recognized the Nicene, but utterly rejected the
Athanasian. 183. That the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are not
deemed essential is shown clearly and beyond all dispute by
the fact that the Athanasian — which In England is on an
exact parity with the Nicene — was rejected by the Church
in the United States ; and yet in the preface to the American
Prayer Book it Is said that " this Church does not Intend to
depart from the Church of England In any essential point
of doctrine, discipline, or worship." The Athanasian Creed
was entirely omitted from the American Articles and Prayer
Book, and yet no one thought it an essential omission.
Now, the Nicene Creed in the United States Is treated
exactly as the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds are in England ;

2i6 PROTESTANTISM. •
that is, it is formally approved in the Articles, which no one
is ever called upon to recite or subscribe ; and it is Inserted
in the Prayer Book for occasional festival usage, about one-
third as many times in the year as the Athanasian Is directed
to be used in the English Prayer Book.
To say that the Nicene Creed is essential and binding in
the United States Is to say that the Athanasian Creed is
essential and binding in England, which is notoriously not
In any sense true. To say that the Athanasian is essential
aiid binding in England is to say that the American Church
lacks an essential element which no one has ever intimated
during a whole century of church existence. It is as clear
and plain as any matter can be that the position of the
English Church on this dogma Is that -which is represented
and symbolized by the Apostles' Creed. The Church does
not dogmatize at all on the question as to what was and is
the nature of Christ.
184. The nature and purpose of the English Articles has
been and is very much misunderstood. They have been
mercilessly criticised and even abused. Yet the spirit in
which they were drawn and the purpose behind them were
most thoroughly Christian. They were conceived In the right
spirit, but those who followed could not understand the com
prehensive breadth of view which was taken by those who
framed them. We are Inclined to say that no religious task
was ever performed in a more truly Christian spirit than
that shown by the framers of the much-abused Thirty-Nine
Articles. Take that on the Creeds. There were three dis
tinct parties. Each was made up of conscientious Christian
men. Each declared that it could find In Holy Writ author
ity for Its special view and for none other. Each was made
up of pious and learned men, who had studied with a sole
view to the glory of God and the advancement of the cause.

CHRIST. zi'j
Who was to decide as between these antagonistic views ?
Plainly no one could decide unless he assumed that he were
infallible and so must necessarily be right. Therefore, It was
decided to formally recognize that there were these several
views, each sustainable out of Scripture, and to leave to time
the settlement of the controversy.
But, while the Articles admitted that these Creeds could
be sustained out of the Scriptures, the Church adopted for all
Its practical purposes the simplest and broadest of all, — the
Apostles' Creed. You must accept this. You might, if you
saw fit, add to this the Nicene or the Athanasian, or both, but
you need not unless conscience Impelled you to it. ISIen of
apparently equal piety and honest character found divergent
views in Scripture. " Very well," says the Church, " let us
formally concede that all these views are sustainable. Unite
on the Apostles' Creed, which permits all possible views, and
let Individuals argue as they see fit in favor of those views
they claim to find in Holy Writ. Because of this very diver
gence of views there can be no dogmatism. The Church
can not and will not decide in favor of any one theory."
The men who secured practical control of the Church were
too narrow and bigoted to live up to this broad and compre
hensive spirit. Despite all the wisdom of Its founders, the
Church was in practice made essentially dogmatic. The
Articles, which were intended to work for peace, were turned
Into Articles of war. What was devised for inclusion and
comprehension was converted into an instrument of exclusion
and restriction. The day of emancipation for the clergy came
in England in 1865 through the passage of the Clerical Sub
scription Act, which placed the Articles exactly where the
American Church had always placed them, and where they
were originally intended to stand. They must now become
in time Articles of peace. They can no longer be used in
the old spirit. The Act of 1865, which was introduced in

2i8 PROTESTANTISM.
Parliament by the Archbishop of Canterbury, after careful
and deliberate consideration for two years by a commission
of distinguished laymen and church dignitaries, was a second
reformation, or, rather, a rendering effective of the purposes
of those who reorganized the Church at the time of the
Reformation. It has settled the question of the rights of the
Broad element In the Church. It is their Mag7ia Charta.
185. The position of the Church is that nothing shall be
required except what can be proved out of the Scriptures, so
that If it cannot be therein found It would not matter on what
other grounds it might safely be rested ; it ¦would not be a
dogma on which the Church could insist ; and if there are
two different views deducible from Scripture, it is to be and
remain an open question ; for the Church is not to expound
one part of Scripture so as to deny any other part. Where
Scripture is not perfectly explicit and peremptory, the Church
is not to dogmatize. "The mere fact that a stream of tra
ditionalism on the subject of Christ's deity has flowed on in
Protestant communities from the time of the Reformation is
no proof that the stream Is the tide of truth. The Reforma
tion in England accepted and suffered to survive most things
not manifestly corrupt and mischievous. The removal of
practical evils was more aimed at than the purification of
dogmatic theology. Wherever dogmas were struck, the blow
was instigated by crying abuses with -which they had become
entwined. Whatever did not directly minister to the usurpa
tions and vicious procedures of the priestly order was very
generally retained." The main idea of the Reformation was
to sweep away the notion that the Church was infallible and
divinely authorized to impose doctrinal views whether found
in Scripture or not. The new maxim was " Scripture alone
Is sufficient." The Church was no longer to be an Infallible
interpreter, overruling the individual conscience.

CHRIST. 219
186. At the time of the Reformation this dogma avowedly
did not rest upon Scripture, but upon the 'traditions and
authority of the Church. Those traditions and that authority
were then in theory repudiated ; but to avoid opposition and
friction, to save disturbance of existing notions about which
the passions and prejudices of men were entwined, many
ideas, including this, were retained and boldly declared to
rest upon Scripture in defiance of facts. The personal
authority of ecclesiastics has bolstered this dogma ever since.
Whatever they say, they act as If they did believe themselves
to be infallible and to have authority to prescribe doctrines
which, when prescribed, may not be questioned or denied.
"Go out of the Church," is the reply, "If you do not like
what we declare to be true." To brand a man as a heretic
is generally easier than to refute his arguments. The easy
course has been generally adopted.
187. In the New Testament Christ claims, indeed. Intimate
communion with and commission from the Father ; but He
never approaches an affirmation that He is by nature self-
subsisting, and, by independent necessity of being, the
Father's co-equal partner. His language Is always that of
filial dependence, filial love ; and the highest self-assertion
attributed to Him rises no higher than announcements of
might and gifts, office and dignity, bestowed by the Father.
Let us examine the language of Christ concerning Himself.
Can there be any higher authority? Can His own statements
be controlled by those made by any person whatever ? One
peculiar and great attribute of Deity is absolute, underived
omnipotence. God needs no help and can receive no addi
tional strength from another. He is Infinite power Itself.
He derives it from no source outside of Himself. Now,
whatever power Christ had, it is clear that He declared again
and again that He had not infinite power of Himself. "I

220 PROTESTANTISM.
can of mine own self do nothing." " The Son can do
nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do." "All
power Is given unto me," — negativing the idea of His power
being underived, internal, and self-subsisting. "My Father
is greater than I," — negativing any idea of equality. "My
Father in me doeth the works," — acknowledging thus a
source of power outside of Himself. " I do nothing of my
self, but as my Father has taught me I speak these things."
i88. Another attribute that must needs belong to Deity is
supreme, absolute, unqualified goodness. God is not simply
good ; He is goodness itself. Now, Christ expressly dis
claims this character. "Why callest thou me good? There
Is none good but one, that is God," thus denying of Him
self what He affirms of God ; thus rebuking the man for
presuming to say what seemed to attribute it to Him and at
the same time leading the man to another who and who only
was more eminently so. These words in their simple, natural
meaning clearly discriminate between Christ and God, and
announce goodness in its highest, widest, and absolute sense
to be predicable of none except God.
189. Another attribute necessarily pertaining to Deity is
absolute omniscience, or unlimited knowledge of all things
past, present, and future. Now, what are Christ's words?
"But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the
angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only," thus
declaring His knowledge to be limited and inferior to the
Father's. The existence of one fact of which He did not
know is sufficient to destroy the claim for Him of Deity ; for,
ex hypothesi, God must and does know everything without
any limitation or qualification whatever. Again, Christ said,
" It Is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the
Father hath put in his own power," or, according to the
revised version, " hath set within his own authority."

CHRIST. 221
190. Forty times Christ declares that the Father sent Him
into the world. The lexicon defines "send" as "to despatch
an agent or messenger to convey a message and the like." It
is a striking test of the dogma to ask whether Christ could,
if He had wished, have sent God the Father as the mes
senger ; for, if not, then Christ Is subordinate to God. By
the ver}- definition of God He can be sent by no one. He
acts of His own volition. There is no one to send God.
God sends all others, but is never sent Himself. What says
Christ? "That it might be fulfilled which is spoken. Behold
my servant ^vllom I have chosen. I ^vill put my spirit upon
him." Does the term "servant" imply subordination or not?
" The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed
me." "Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the
world." " This commandment have I received of my Father."
" If I honor myself, my honor Is nothing. It Is my Father that
honoreth me," thus referring everything to his Father. " To
sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give,
but It shall be given to them for whom it Is prepared of my
Father." " For the Son of man shall come In the glory of
his Father with his angels." " He that receiveth me receiveth
him that sent me." "All things are delivered unto me of my
Father." "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which
is in heaven, the same Is my brother and sister and mother."
" My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish
his ¦work." "Of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when
he cometh in the glory of his Father." " Wist ye not that I
must be about my Father's business? " " He that heareth my
word and believeth on him that sent me." " For as the Father
hath life in himself, so hath he give7i to the Son to have life
in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment
also." "I can of mine own self do nothing. I seek not mine
own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I
bear witness of myself my witness is not true." " The works

222 PROTESTANTISM.
that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me."
"And the Father himself which hath sent me hath borne
witness of me." " For I came down from heaven, not to do
mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." " No man
can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
him." "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by [or.
In the revised version, because of^ the Father." " My doctrine
is not mine but his that sent me. If any man will do his will,
he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether
I speak of myself." " I am not come of myself, but he that
sent me is true." " I do nothing of myself but as my Father
hath taught me." " But now you seek to kill me, a man that
hath told you the truth which I have heard of God." "I
proceeded forth and came from God. Neither came I of my
self, but he sent me." " He that believeth on me, believeth
not on me, but on him that sent me." "The Father which
sent me he gave me a com7nandment what I should say and
what I should speak." " The Father, that dwelleth In me, he
doeth the works." " The Holy Ghost whom the Father will
send in my name." " I am the true vine, and my Father Is
the husbandman."
It is the Father that nourishes and prunes and grafts and
cuts off the dead branches. I am the vine, you are the
branches, my Father is He that careth for us. Can any
figure more clearly demonstrate the relation of God to Christ
and his followers? " My glory which thou hast given me."
" I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God
and your God." "If I honor myself, my honor is nothing.
It is my Father that honoreth me." " This commandment
have I received of my Father." "Whom the Father hath
sanctified and sent Into the world." "Not every one that
saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father ¦which Is in
heaven." " He went out into a mountain to pray and con-

CHRIST. 223
tinued all night in prayer to God." " O, my Father, If it be
possible let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will
but as thou wilt." " My God, my God, why hast thou for
saken me?" "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."
"That they might know thee the only true God and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent." " I will ask the Father and he
shall give you." "Jesus said unto them, the Son of man
shall be betrayed into the hands of men and they shall kill
him and the third day he shall be raised again." " I have
finished the work which thou gavest me to do." "The cup
which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" " I go
unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I."
"I am not of this world." That this is no assertion of
Deity is evident by other passages where Christ declares that
His disciples are not of this world, and by His twice affirming
that " they are not of this ¦world as I am not of the world."
"I and my Father are one." Professor Moses Stuart of
Andover declares that this simply means "I and my Father
are united in counsel, design, and power." Union of power
does not, of course, mean identity of power or possession of
equal energy and might, but co-operative union for a common
end. Professor Stuart frankly conceded that this text did not
tend to establish the Deity of Christ, although he was one of
the leading advocates of that dogma. Christ prays that the
disciples may be one as He and the Father are one. Then
He says again, "The glory which thou gavest me I have
given them that they may be one as we are one."
Neander held the same view. "We understand by the
oneness here spoken of, the oneness of Christ with the Father
In will and works, in virtue of which His work Is the work
of the Father." Professor Stuart also conceded that "the
expression of Jesus that the Father is In Him and He In the
Father does not assert His divine nature In a direct manner.
It Is a phrase which Is used to express the idea that any one

224 PROTESTANTISM.
is most nearly and affectibnately united with God." Christ
speaks of Himself as the light of a darkened world ; but He
applies precisely the same description to His disciples.
191. Luke says that "the child grew and waxed strong,
becoining full of wisdom, and the grace of God was upon
him." And again he says : " Jesus increased in wisdom and
stature and in favor with God." How can it be said that
Christ grew in wisdom, if by virtue of His Deity He knew
all things ? How, if He were God, could it be said that He
grew in favor ¦with God ? The language would seem not to
have been used by one who believed Christ to be God. How
did the companions of Christ regard His -wonderful power?
Matthew says : ' ' When the multitudes sa-w it they marvelled
and glorified God who had given such power unto men."
And again, we read : " Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord,
If thou hadst been here my brother had not died, but I know,
that even now, whatsoever thou -wilt ask of God, God will
give it thee."
192. St. Paul, while he constantly employs the name God,
never once gives it to Christ ; but he does distinguish Him
from God in sentences of pointed precision capable of carry
ing but one meaning. If language has any intrinsic connection
with opinion and thoughts, Paul knew no God but the one
Almighty Father. When Christ has been magnified to the
utmost verge of apostolic conception, God is still In the height
above, in unapproachable sovereignty beyond.
Whatever power is ascribed to Christ is not said to be
inherent, Independent, and self-originated, but Imparted by
and derived from the Father, and is therefore not the power
of one who is by nature God, but of one who Is exalted and
aggrandized by God. Paul says: "But we see Jesus, who
was 7nade a little lower than the angels for the suffering of
death, crovjned with glory and honor; that he by the grace

CHRIST. 225
of God should taste death." Christ himself is described as
having been made perfect by suffering. He Himself said :
" I do cures to-day and to-morrow and the third day I shall
be perfected." This is not the language to be used of one
who is the very Godhead. Deity cannot be perfected. It is
in its nature absolute perfection.
193. Peter described Christ as " a man approved of God
among you by miracles which God did by him in the midst
of you." He further said : " Know that God hath 7nade that
same Jesus both Lord and Christ." " For Moses indeed said
a prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among
your brethren like unto me. To him shall ye hearken in all
things." " Ho-w God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost
and with power."
194. Paul said : " He hath appointed a day in the which
he will judge the world by that /nan whom he hath ordained."
" There is one God and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus." Paul declared that his purpose was
to lead men to repentance towards God and faith toxvards
Christ. The supreme devotion of heart and mind is claimed
for God, and belief is asked in the office and tvork of Christ.
It Is as If he said believe in Christ and do your duty towards
God. Belief in Christ will lead one to see his duty towards
God, for such was the mission of Christ. He also said that
at the end when Christ has put all things under His feet.
He shall deliver up the kingdom to God the Father ; but he
expressly excluded from "all things" God, who enables Christ
to put all things under Him, and said that when all things
have thus been subjected to Christ, then shall Christ be also
subjected to God, the source of His power, in order that God
may be all in all. "Who is the image of the invisible God,
the first born of every creature, for it pleased the Father
that in him should all fulness dwell." " We who by him do

226 PROTESTANTISM.
believe in God that raised him from the dead and gave him
glory." "For he received from God the Father honor and
glory." "For to us there Is but one God the Father of
whom are all things and we in him." "One God and Father
of all, who is above." "The head of every man is Christ
and the head of Christ is God." "Ye are Christ's and Christ
is God's." "Through Christ we have access to the Father.
He brings us to God."
The oft-quoted phrase " thought it not robbery to be equal
with God " has become in the revised version " counted it not
a prize or thing to be grasped to be on an equality with God."
" Wherefore God highly exalted him and gave him the name
which is above every name, that every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."
The resurrection of Christ is not ascribed to an}' inherent
power in Christ. He did not raise Himself from the dead,
but He was raised by God. Christ on several occasions
declared not that He would rise, but would be raised. In
seventeen other passages the apostles ascribe the resurrection'
to the power of God the Father.
These apostolic assertions are pregnant with suggestions
adverse to the doctrine of Christ's proper, personal Deity.
If the writers had conceived of Christ as possessing Himself
the undiminished attributes of Godhead, they would certainly
have ascribed that event to the might of his own inherent
co-equal Godhead.
195. On the several occasions when Christ asked the dis
ciples what they thought of Him, what they believed of Him
and called Him, the answer never was "God;" but they
called Him and believed Him to be the Christ, which means
the afiointed one. Indeed, the very name and title imply
that its possessor is not God, for there Is none to anoint or
consecrate God, who does Himself anoint, consecrate, and

CHRIST. 227
sanctify Jesus, thus- making Him the Christ. " No one hath
seen God at any time," said the apostle, — a statement which
is obviously not true if Christ be God.
That Christ worked miracles does not prove that he is
God, for after His death the apostles did the same. " God
wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul." The Acts
are largely made up of miracles and wondrous things wrought
by the apostles.
196. "The apostle said that God was in Christ, and this
was wholly true. Christ had a divine nature as well as a
human nature. This is essentially true ; for when we speak
of our nature, we intend by it merely those elements of
character which are original and permanent, which are not
acquired, do not alter, and are never lost. God dwelt in the
soul of Christ thus constantly, thus permanently. The vital
truth of all this was that men were able to see God manifested
In man as a living, present reality. The indwelling spirit
expressed itself In what He said and what He did. When
He spoke it was as if God spoke. When He did anything
it was as if we saw God do it. It becomes to us an expression
of the divine character. There is a great distinction, how
ever, between saying ' God was in Christ ' and ' Christ was
God.' Christ was born and died; but God cannot be born
and cannot die. He suffered from hunger, fatigue, and pain ;
but God cannot suffer. He was seen by human eyes and
touched by human hands ; but no man hath seen God at any
time. He had a finite body; but God is a spirit. He was
tempted ; but God cannot be tempted with evil. He prayed ;
but God cannot pray. He said, ' My Father is greater than
I ; ' but God has no one greater than Himself. He said, ' I
can of mine own self do nothing ; ' but God can of His own
self do everything. He said, ' that he came down from heaven
not to do his own will ; ' but God always does His own will.

228 PROTESTANTISM.
He said there were some things He did not know ; but God
knows everything. He declared that all power was given to
Him, but God's power cannot be given to Him."
197. " The view that the person of Christ was human, but
was intimately united and in perfect union with the indwell
ing God, makes all Scripture Intelligible. If Christ Is really
a man like ourselves, made in all respects like his brethren,
and yet is thus at one with God, thus full of God, it shows
that sin and separation from God are accidental things, and
not anything necessary. If Christ Is truly a man. He redeems
and exalts humanity. What He has been is a type of what
all men may be. The peculiarity of Christ -was that He was
chosen by God's wisdom and prepared by God's providence
to be the typical man of the race, — the God-man In whom
the divine spirit and human soul become one In a perfect
union. The spirit was given Him without measure."
198. Rev. F. 'W. Robertson says: "The priesthood of
Christ is based upon the perfection of His humanity. What
ever destroys the conception of His humanity does in that
same degree overthrow the notion of his priesthood. The
perfection of His humanity Implies that He was possessed
of a human soul as well as a human body. There is a view
according to which the body of Christ was an external frame
work animated by Deity as our bodies are animated by our
souls. What the soul is to us. Deity was to Christ, according
to this view. His body was flesh, blood, bones, but moved,
guided, and ruled by indwelling divinity. You perceive at
once that this destroys the notion of complete humanity. It
Is not this tabernacle of material elements which constitutes
our humanity. You cannot take that pale corpse from which
life has fled and call that man. If Deity were to take up
that form and make it its abode, that would not be a union of
the divine and human. It would only be the union of Deity

CHRIST. 239
with certain materials that might have passed into man or
into an animal or an herb. Humanity implies a body and a
soul. So in the life of Christ we flnd two distinct classes of
feeling. He hungered in the wilderness, thirsted on the cross,
and was weary by the well of Sychar. These were sensations
which belong to the bodily department of human nature. He
selected one of the twelve to be His bosom friend ; He looked
round upon the crowd in anger ; He shed tears at Bethany,
and He recoiled from the thought of approaching dissolution.
These were not the sensations of the body, much less were
they the attributes of Godhead. They were the affections of
an acutely sensitive human soul, alive to all the tendencies
and hopes and anguish with which human Hfe is filled, quali
fying Him to be tempted in all points like as we are. He not
only was but is man. It is fancied in the history of Christ's
existence that once, for a limited period and for definite
purposes. He took part in frail humanity ; but that, when that
purpose was accomplished, the man forever perished, and the
spirit reascended to unite again with pure unmixed Deity.
But Scripture has taken- peculiar pains to give assurance of
the continuance of His humanity. It has carefully recorded
His resurrection. After that He passed through space from
spot to spot. When He was in one place He was not in
another. His body was sustained by the ordinary food.
The prints of suffering were on Him. His recognitions were
iiuman still."
199. "If Christ Is held to be derived from God, then He
could not be co-equal with God, unless this derivation arose
from a necessity inherent in God. If it Is conceded that It
was an act of the Father's choice and power and will, it
implies inferiority and dependence, because origination by
the will of another Is not distinguishable from creation.
" The dwelling of God in man is a thoroughly credible and

230

PROTESTANTISM.

ennobling truth the conception of which pervades all religious
history and lies at the root of all spiritual aspiration and
development. " The most exalted estimate of Christ's prerogative is that
through Him the precepts of God are communicated, and
through Him as a delegate and representative the function
of judgment is exercised. The apostles write as If they
designed to lead us through Christ up to our God and
Father. Such was the habitual sequence of apostolic thought
from whatever point of vie^w the Christian standing was
surveyed. "What was the meaning of Christ's temptation If, being
very God robed in human vesture. He was utterly Incapable
of sin ? We can understand how the most God-possessed of
mankind can feel the force of temptation and be In the resist
ance of it a pattern to other creatures liable to be tempted ;
but Christ's temptation by the Devil was deceptive and para
doxical If His personal moral perfection -was that of the self-
existent and infinitely holy nature."
200. Bishop Temple says : "God the Father is the source
of all things. To Him in the first place all created things owe
the gift of existence. Though St. Paul tells the Colosslans
that by the Son were all things created that are in heaven
and that are In earth, yet Is the Father still the origin of the
existence of all. If the Son created all things, yet He created
them by His Father's power and will, and never Is It said of
Him that He is the original source of their existence. That
belongs to God the Father only. And, as this Is true of all
created things and persons, so it is also of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit. They both come from God the Father. He is
the source of their existence as He is of all other existence.
The gift of existence implies absolutely no action whatever in
the thing created. Plainly enough the thing not yet created

CHRIST.

^31

cannot have any kind of share in its own creation. And as
our Lord eternally receives from His Father the gift of exist
ence, so does He receive every other gift. He declares that
He has nothing of Himself. He can do nothing of Himself,
but only what He seeth the Father do. He does not bear
witness of Himself. He comes not in His own name, but In
His Father's name. As the Father hath taught Him, so He
siDeaks. He speaks not of Himself, but the Father gave Him
commandment ¦what He should say and what He should
speak. To go a step farther : God the Father Is the source of
all happiness, righteousness, and holiness. Accordingly, our
Lord declares that no man can come to Him unless the Father
draws him."
201. Rev. H. R. Ha-weis says: "With regard to the
person of Christ, His own account of Himself was that He
was the Son of God, but that His Father was greater than
He ; that, as a Son, He was not omniscient, nor raised above
the need of comfort and help which could alone come from
the Father, nor free from temptation, nor free from pain, nor
free from death, though not held by death ; that, although
thus a man among men. He was, nevertheless, so intimately
associated with the Spirit of the Divine Being as to represent
God as only God could be represented to man; I.e., through
man. Much more than this I do not know, and so I cannot
dogmatize after the fashion of the schoolmen, who concocted
creeds and articles and tests of belief for after generations.
But when I am asked to define what I mean by Christ, I use
such expressions as these : There was something In the nature
of the great boundless source of being called God which was
capable of sympathy with man. That something found out
ward expression and became God expressed under the essen
tial limitations of humanity in Jesus. That such a revelation
was specially necessary to the moral and spiritual development

232

PR O TESTANTISM.

of the human race, I believe. That such a revelation of God
was actually made to the world, I believe. More than this I
cannot pledge myself to. I believe that in some full and
efficient sense Christ ¦was a bona fide representation and an
essential incarnation of God, — a perfect manifestation of Him
as possessed of moral, affectional. In a word, human attributes.
God may be reasonably capable of divine manifestation under
the limitation of humanity, but not of complete human en
closure. A perfect and personal manifestation of Him as
possessed of human attributes Is conceivable, but that such a
manifestation can be a complete enclosure of the entire Deity
(the old idea of Incarnation) — no.
' ' You ask if a certain bay or creek is sea. I say, yes.
You ask if it is the whole of the sea. I say, no. Yet a
cupful or a pailful and every part of the bay or creek Is true
sea, — very sea. The sea having its own mighty range and
Infinite potencies, has verily flowed Into that earth-bound
creek. All that Is in the creek is sea, but all the sea is not
in the creek. So all that is in Christ is God, but all God is
not In Christ. In Him God dwelt bodily. The bay Is con
nected with the ocean, — is composed of the same substance."
202. Professor Jowett says: "Absorbed as St. Paul was
in the person of Christ, with an intensity of faith and love, of
which, in modern days and at this distance of time, we can
scarcely form a conception ; high as he raised the dignity of
his Lord above all things in heaven and earth, looking to Him
as the Creator of all things, and the head of quick and dead,
— he does not speak of Him as ' equal to the Father,' or
' of one substance with the Father.' Much of the language of
the Epistles would lose Its meaning if distributed in alternate
clauses between our Lord's humanity and divinity. Still
greater difficulties would be Introduced Into the gospels by
the attempt to identify them with the Creeds. We should

CHRIST. 233
have to suppose that He was and was not tempted ; that,
when He prayed to His Father, He prayed also to Himself ;
that He knew and did not know ' of that hour ' of which He
as well as the angels were ignorant. How could He have
said, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' or,
' Father, If it be possible, let this cup pass from me ? ' How
could He have doubted whether ' when the Son cometh. He
shall find faith upon thS earth ? ' These simple and touching
words have to be taken out of their natural meaning and
connection to be made the theme of apologetic discourses if
we insist on reconciling them with the distinctions of later
ages." 203. Rev. Lyman Abbott says: "Mediseval theology
assumed an Inherent and essential difference between God
and man. So it built up a succession of mediators to fill the
gap between the Father and His children, — a Son to intercede
with the Father, a Virgin Mary to Intercede with the Son,
saints to intercede with the Virgin Mary, and priests to inter
cede with the saints. This ¦whole system depended and still
depends, so far as It exists, on the dualistic conception of
the universe, ¦which supposes two or more distinct classes of
spiritual beings ; generally, at least, three species were con
ceived, — the divine, the angelic, and the human. Now, the
Bible knows no such dualism. It represents man as made in
the image of God ; our hopes and fears, our joys and sorrows,
our loves and hates, — in a word, our experiences, the glass in
which we see God darkly. It is true that the vision Is often
vei-y dim, but It is an Image of the divine. The difference
between God and man — that is, the ideal man — is quantita
tive, not qualitative ; It Is of degree, not of kind. God Is
Ideal man, plus Infinity; ideal man Is God, 7ninus Infinity.
This conception of manhood and godhood, — of God as the
Father whose spiritual offspring we are, of man as a partaker

234

PROTESTANTISM.

of the divine nature, — gradually gro^wlng into the conscious
ness of the Christian Church, is gradually expelling the old
dualism and all that grew out of it. In Protestant theology
the Virgin Mary, the saints, the priests, have already gone.
With them is going the mediseval conception of Christ as
God and man ; not really an image of God, for God could
not suffer ; not really a perfect model for man, for man cannot
hope to be as God. In place of it is dawning a conception of
Christ as God in man ; the divine spirit filling a human life
with its presence and po^wer, so that his life is a perfect type
of ¦what God means human character and life to be, so that
his character Is a perfect revelation of what God Is in the
infinite and eternal sphere ; a conception of Christ, as God
manifest in the flesh, as man in ¦whom dwelt all the fulness
of the godhead bodily ; a conception of Christ as God trans
lated into terms of human experience. And this conception
fits in with the conception we are gradually forming of the
mystic, because spiritual, relationship between God and His
children. This is a relationship of His indwelling. The 'all
things ' that proceed from the Infinite and eternal energy are
not merely physical things ; they are, as well, the spiritual
experiences of man. There is a unity in life. Were there
no unity, there could be no science of man, no true history,
no evolution of either individual or race, no coherence, no
continuity. That unity Is God, and all development of
humanity is the development of the life of God in the soul
of man. This is what we call religion ; this is what Jesus
called the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven. It
is the reign of God, not over man, but in man ; as He reigns,
not over nature, but In nature. We begin dimly to see — it
requires a clearer vision than mine to see It clearly, a more
eloquent pen than mine to state it adequately — that the
incarnation is not an isolated fact ; that it is continuous and
progressive ; that Jesus Christ is the ideal man because God

CHRIST. 235
dwelt in Him as He has dwelt in no other life before or
since, but that He so dwelt In Him that He might show us
what we shall all become when He fills us with His presence
and His power, and we are one with Christ as Christ is one
with the Father, and Paul's inspired prayer is answered, and
we also are filled with all the fulness of God. Then, too,
will be consummated all that ¦we mean by atonement, when
separation from God Is at an end, and God Is at one with His
children, not merely because of some enmity appeased or
some penalty remitted, but because God and man are truly
at one, man in God and God In man, in an eternal spiritual
unity." 204. Rev. J. M. 'Whiton says: "Before the advent of
the historic Christ the essential Christ had begun to appear
in a succession of more or less Christly men, prophets, and
sages, who were forerunners to prepare His way. Undoubt
edly what we see in Christ is the divine life that has ever
been Immanent In the world, ever unfolding itself towards its
perfect gloiy. But will not some say that this idea of the
strict identity of nature in Christ and in us lowers the
height at which the apostles view Him as immensely above
all other men, even the godliest? Will they not say that thus
we do away with the peerless uniqueness of ' the only begotten
Son of God? ' Very likely, but not well. If they read their
Bibles more carefully than some of them seem to do, they
will observe that Luke speaks also of Adam as ' son of God.
What we do away with Is not the uniqueness that is denoted
by ' only begotten,' but only a false theory about It. You get
the scriptural point of view when you notice that the Epistle
to the Hebrews calls Isaac the only begotten son of Abraham,
as being the son of special promise, though Abraham had an
older son Ishmael. So this same Epistle speaks of Christ as
' the first begotten.' Accordingly, we must refuse to recog-

236 PROTESTANTISM.
nize the ter7n ' only begotten ' as belonging to Christ in
virtue of any difference of nature fro7n us. We discover
the ground of It in an exceptional fulness of life, not only
filled, but saturated with consciousness of the IndwelHng
Father. Far beyond all human experience as this Is, yet
Paul does not deem it essentially and forever impossible to
man ; for he looks forward ' till we all attain unto the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ.'
"What John means by 'the Word' is God's eternal self-
expression In some outward form. Such ' a form of God,'
as Paul calls it, was the pre-existent humanity of Christ.
Such ' a form of God ' is our huma7iity which, however
corrupted, is ide7itical in nature with Christ's. Here I
am reminded of Dr. Dale's recent remark, that Christ's
Incarnation was not ' an Isolated and abnormal wonder. It
was God's witness to the true and ideal relation of all men
to God.' I take Dr. Dale to mean only this : God was not
word-less, dumb, or unexpressed In form until the historic
hour when in Christ ' the Word became flesh.' This event
we call by pre-eminence ' the Incarnation,' since in Christ the
divine Word finds fullest utterance. But It is no detached
event, it is the issue of an eternal process of utterance, the
Word ' whose goings forth,' as Micah said, ' have been from
of old, from everlasting.' Since all that is finite proceeds
from the Infinite and Self-existent One, all the forms of finite
existence are embodiments of Him, expressions of His eternal
intelligence, and, therefore, though In varying fulness of
expression. His Word. Certainly, It is only when we enlarge
our thought of the Incarnation, and view it no longer as an
Isolated and abnormal wonder, but rather as the luminous
and convincing act, which reveals the eternal process of the
Word as taking effect not in Christ only, but in us also,
that the kinship of all human lives in God begins to be
realized in a divine sympathy of each with each, our separate

CHRIST. 337
lives cease to seem so exclusive of each other, and our human
brotherhood Is profound I)- felt In a sense of our real unity in
the Divine Fatherhood. So the scattered pools in the rocks
by the shore are united by the inflow of the sea-tide.
" We find it to be a truth In which science and Scripture
agree, that every incarnation of life Is, pro tanto, and in its
measure, an incarnation of God ; and that the age-long way
of God, so far as we can trace It in the world, is in a per
petually increasing Incarnation of life, whose climax and
crown is the divine fulness of life in Christ.
" God everywhere Immanent and everywhere individualized
Is everywhere expressive. Expression as soon as recognized
becomes revelation. So every -work of God is a word of God,.
Every godly life is also a revelation of God."
205. Let no one suppose that in the English Articles the
Deity of Christ Is clearly and unambiguously set forth.
Indeed, a strict examination of Article Second almost nega
tives the idea. It reads as follo-ws : —
"Article Second. Of the Word or Son of God, which was
made very Man.
"THE Son, which Is the Word of the Father, begotten
from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God,
and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in
the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance : so that
two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead
and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to
be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man."
Notice the title, " The Word or Son of God, which was
made very man." How far away this Is from such a title
as the " Deity of Christ." The two are mutually exclusive.
Each conveys a different idea from that conveyed by the
other. " The Word," it is said, " was in the beginning with
God and was Indeed God." This may all be true, and yet it

238 PROTESTANTISM.
does not show that Christ is Deity. In the first place, there
has never been any agreement as to ¦what is meant by this
"Word." It refers probably to some power of expression,
some power to communicate, to reveal, to speak so as to be
understood, to impart to finite creatures some conception of
¦what the God nature is. The Word Is the will of God going
forth into action, the self-revealing agency or power of God
Himself. So interpreted, it means simply that this power was Inherent
In the nature of God from the beginning, as, of course, it
must have been. At the proper time It found full expression
through the person of Christ, in ¦whom the nature of God was
made manifest to men. Christ thus became, ¦was made, the
Word or symbol by ¦which a conception of the divine nature
was imparted to men. It was given to Him to do this work.
He was the anointed one chosen to this high honor. Through
Him God, so to phrase it, spoke to men. Christ was thus
the very Word made flesh. He was the incarnate speech or
language of God. He was " very Man ; " that is, essentially
man, thoroughly and completely man. The term " Son of
God " not only does not show that Christ is God, but has a
contrary effect; for in Scripture it is said that "as many as
are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
They are thus children of God, then heirs, and joint heirs
with Christ." We all may thus become entitled to be called
by this term, the sole condition being that we shall be led
by the Spirit. "As many as received him, to them gave he
power to become -the sons of God." Christ said that God
was his Father and also ours. We are put on a level with
Christ as joint inheritors with Him. The Article declares
that Christ was "begotten of the Father," which means deri
vation or else It means nothing. The term ' ' Son " necessarily
refers to the idea of a precedently existent Father. This is
its root idea, its necessary and unavoidable Implication. The

CHRIST. 239
words "the very and eternal God " may be deemed as descrip
tive of the Father, as appositlve to that term which comes
Immediately before it. " Of one substance with the Father"
means " of one essence," which Is true enough without assum
ing that it makes Christ to be Deity. To be of the essence
of amiihing does not mean that you are that thing itself.
You partake of its nature, and are in harmony wnth Its laws,
but you may be In many ways below that of whose essence you
are. In a sense we all are thus of one substance with the
Father; that Is, we, by having a moral and spiritual nature,
partake of His essential being, and are allowed to share it ;
and this, Indeed, ¦was what Christ revealed to us.
That two ¦whole and perfect natures, the Godhead and
manhood, were joined together In one person, "very God
and very Man," may also be true without asserting that Christ
is Deity. ' ' Whole and perfect " seem together to be equiva
lent to the word "complete." "Very" may mean "essen
tially" or "truly." This is true of all of us. We all have
a dual nature, one side of which is our higher — Godhead —
nature, and the other side of which is our lower — manhood
— nature. This also was told us by Christ, else could we
never dare claim it, if, indeed, we would ever have otherwise
perceived It.
There is nowhere In the Article any assertion In any way
of any equality of Christ with God, or of their co-existence,
or of the underived and unoriginated existence of Christ.
The Article Is moderate, and, considering when it was written,
is very remarkable for what ¦was omitted. Whoever penned
this Article was fully aware of the weight of the Scripture
argument, and avoided any assertions that should definitely
adopt the scholastic view of the nature of Christ. The more
it Is studied, the more apparent Is the skill with which It was
penned. It Is a marvel of moderation and judicious exclu
sion. You may read the scholastic notions into it, if you are

240 PROTESTANTISM.
determined to do so, but they are not necessarily to be found
there ; and one thing is certain, and that Is, that by the most
positive language the Article asserts the derivation of Christ
from the Father, and thus negatives the main and controlling
idea or thought of the scholastic dogma. Since, whatever the
language of the Second Article may mean, it must not conflict
with the Scriptures, nor must it compel us to so construe one
part of Scripture as to render it repugnant to any other part,
it follows that the meaning of the Article must be held to
be in accordance ¦with the passages we have cited in Sections
187-194, or, at least, not repugnant to them. To assert that
those citations are not to be understood in their plain, unques
tioned sense because of any phraseology of the Article would
be to condemn Article Second under the provisions of Articles
Six and Twenty and Twenty-one, and would show that the
Church had erred in so phrasing that Article. Article Two
must, therefore, be capable of meaning that the Father is
greater than Christ ; that the Father has knowledge beyond
that of Christ ; that the Father is good In some exalted sense
In which Christ is not ; that the Father sent Christ, is the
source of His power and authority ; that Christ did nothing
of Himself, and could of Himself do nothing ; that all His
power was given unto Him ; that Christ proceeded forth and
came from God ; that Christ suffered and was perfected ; that
finally Christ shall be subject to God the Father, who shall
be all In all.
If the Article means this, then it does not mean the scho
lastic dogma. This scholastic Idea is a part of the stream of
tradition that floated over from Rome, and Its persistence is
due to a great lack of candor in the treatment of this subject
by the clergy. They began by stating that the idea was
scriptural at a time when they fully believed It was such,
and, although it has long been clear what the scriptural view
really is, there has been and is a great reluctance to frankly

CHRIST.

241

concede It, and admit errors of statement sanctioned by so
great an antiquity. There seems to be a genuine fear that
to tell the truth In this matter ¦svill work some Irreparable
mischief. It Is the old story of how hard it is to have faith
in God and His truth and trust to Him the consequences of
its utterance. If there Is any one thing that the Christian
churches need to-day, it is a fresh baptism into the spirit of
absolute truth and an abiding faith in the power of God to
take care of His own without the aid of the petty formulas
and the scholastic subtleties of men.
206. There Is such a ¦widespread idea that the Nicene Creed
Is of doctrinal force and importance in the English Church
that we are compelled to give it some special consideration,
although we believe that -we have shown that idea to be
utterly unfounded. This Creed owes Its importance in the
public mind entirely to the use made of It by ecclesiastics,
who never explain its real position, but treat it in such a way
as to lead to a popular estimate of it which is essentially
incorrect. These ecclesiastics are entitled to personally treat
this Creed ¦with as much reverence as they see fit, and to
believe in every single word of It, If they see fit, and to lead
as many more people to do so as they can. What they are
not entitled to say or to imply Is that the Nicene Creed is of
any binding force whatever upon any member of the Church
who sees proper to reject any part or parts of it. Nor are
they entitled to say or to Imply that such rejection Is not
entirely within that member's rights.
207. The Prayer Book explicitly declares that the Apostles'
Creed contains "all the articles of the Christian faith."
Neither at baptism nor confirmation is there any allusion or
reference to the Nicene Creed. It is merely commended in
the Prayer Book for occasional festival usage, and, if this
renders it the binding doctrine of the Church, then, as we

242 PROTESTANTISM.
have said, in England the Athanasian Creed Is equally the
binding doctrine ; and yet that Creed has been utterly repu
diated by the American Church, while It has been denounced
in the severest manner by many of the most eminent digni
taries of the English Church. The plain fact is that the
Nicene Creed in the American Church is an anomaly growing
out of a compromise entered into by contending partisan
factions, and it was deliberately left in such shape that it
could be made much of or nothing of according as the indi
vidual member deems proper. A person may accept all three
Creeds, but he will not be any more completely a member of
the Church than Is he who accepts the Apostles' Creed and
utterly rejects the others ; while a man who should accept the
Nicene and Athanasian, and should for any reason reject the
Apostles' Creed, could not be a member at all.
208. Let us examine this Nicene Creed. In the first place
we observe that, as it now stands in the Prayer Book, it is
not the Creed that was formulated by the Council of Nice.
It contains very much that was not then In the Creed, and
omits very much of ¦what was then a part. If its origin is
what renders it authoritative, then we must tear out the Creed
as it now stands, and substitute the original form. If its
antiquity makes it sacred, why does the Church remove the
ancient anathema and insert the "filioque?" Why does the
Church take it In Its ninth century form, rejecting the phrase
ology which was characteristic of It for nearly six hundred
years ? This question has been asked by the Greek Church
for ten centuries, and never has there been an adequate
reply. The English Church has the Nicene Creed because
the Romish Church had It, and for no other reason. It has
it with the filioque clause because the Romish Church had It
with that clause, and for no other reason. The authority for
that Creed In its present form, if there Is any, is Roman and
Papal, — an authority which the English Church denies.

CHRIST.

243

209. The Nicene Creed is the outgrowth of the Greek
mind. It is speculative, metaphysical, and to the Western
mind Is wellnigh incomprehensible. It Is Christianity In Its
Oriental form, being to the Greek Church exactly what the
Apostles' Creed is to the English. It exists In three forms,
which are, (i) the original Creed made by the Council of
Nice, A.D. 335 ; (3) the enlarged form, deriving its authority
from the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451 ; (3) the Latin or
Romish form, which did not come into general use until the
ninth century, and then without any regular ecclesiastical
authority. The second form is that used to-day by the Greek
Church, while the third is distinctive of Rome, resting wholly
on Papal usage. This third form is that used liturgically, but
never doctrinally, by the English Church.
The difference between these uses is very great indeed.
No one pretends that by using the liturgy we agree with all
its language as if It were expressive of doctrinal belief, any
more than we do In using the hymn book necessarily agree
with the innumerable propositions set forth in the various
stanzas. The liturgy is to be used as are the hymns, — not
critically, not intellectually, but because of the general and
temporary effect on the mind and imagination. The liturgy
serves the same function as the vaulted arches, the memorial
windows, the grand music of the organ. It serves to render
the service effective and Impressive. As a part of this liturgy,
as a poetical, rhapsodical version of the Apostles' Creed for
festival occasions, this Nicene Creed may, perhaps, be retained
without being open to any very serious objection. This is
practically all its presence in the Prayer Book really means.
210. As, however, this may be denied by some, let us
consider the Creed just as It stands In the Prayer Book, and
try to discover what it means. We shall find that if it means
anything It means too much.

244 PROTESTANTISM.
The first clause is, "I believe in one God the Father
Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And of all things
visible and invisible." The second clause is, "I believe in
one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God,
Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made.
Being of one substance with the Father."
To an ordinary reader this second clause Is meaningless or
contradictory when it follows the first clause with its distinct
and impressive assertion of a belief in " one God." Christ is
declared to be " God of God, Light of Light, very God of
very God." So far as language goes, it would seem as if it
were intended to show that he was more than God. The
clause relative to God the Father has but one amplifying
word; i.e.. Almighty. Belief is then expressed in a being
who is " God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God."
Rhetorically this is designed to impress the mind more
powerfully than anything contained In the first clause, and
to give the idea of something still greater and more worthy
of worship than has been previously referred to. This, at
least, is its inevitable effect upon the mind of the ordinary
person. It magnifies Christ at the expense of the Father;
and such has been the constant trend of ecclesiastical thought
and teaching for ages.
211. The educated man knows very well that, as this
Creed stands In the Prayer Book, it is to-day, as regards the
language cited, a case of Imperfect translation of the original
Creed. Since the translation was first made the English
language, as understood by the mass of the people, has
undergone great changes, of which the word "of" is an
instance. The word rendered "of" really means "out of,"
"from," "derived out of," "proceeding out of and from."
This meaning is now scholarly and not popular. The idea is

CHRIST.

245

not lutnen In minis, but lumen ex luminc ; not deus dci, but
deus ex deo. The older English form was " God off God."
The Greek words were $uis ex </>o)tos, 6eov ck Otov.
Why Is this language, which has become misleading by
lapse of time, still retained when It conveys to the great mass
of communicants no Idea of the true meaning of the Creed ?
If the Creed is merel}' for liturgical use, this, of course. Is
not so material. The Nicene Creed Is, however, an ancient
symbol written in a dead language, and It would seem to be,
therefore, the positive duty of the Church, if it is to be
included In the Prayer Book at all, to adequately, fairly, and
honestly translate it so that its exact sense, so far as it has
any, may be apprehended by the ordinary layman. To leave
it In its present form is not to treat him fairly, — If the Creed
is of even the least doctrinal importance.
212. Properly translated the Creed expresses a belief In
Christ as a God derived out of God, ^as a God begotten by
God, — in ¦which case there was a time when there was one
God who proceeded to beget a second God out of Himself.
This must fiow from this language if it Is to have any definite
meaning, and is not to be regarded as mere rhapsody. If
God the Father In some way begot what, when begotten, was
God, then there were two Gods thereafter. If after the sup
posed act represented by the word "begotten" there was no
different or other God than before, if nothing more nor less
existed than existed before, — -then the whole act is fanciful
and not real. If what is thus begotten is equal with the
Father, then there are two Gods of equal power where before
there was only one supreme God. There are, then, two
supreme Gods; that Is to say, two forces each irresistible,
which Is logically Impossible, because the hypothesis that
renders one Irresistible compels the other to be incapable of
resisting that one force which by the hypothesis Is Irresistible.

246 PROTESTANTISM.
If Christ were "begotten," and if this implies "derivation
out of," which is beyond any dispute the force of the word
" ex," then there was a time when Christ did not exist. If,
then, the time arrived when He was so "begotten'' as to be
thereafter God, then thereafter there were two Gods ; for, if
thereafter God was one and supreme as before, then He did
not beget "God" out of Himself, but did beget a being to
whom great power w&i, given, but who was not Deity.
213. The word translated "begotten" means both In the
Greek and In the Latin "to be born." It is in the Latin
Creed " natum [or genitum] ex Patre," "iiatum, non factum."
Now, if the use of the word born and the use of the term son
and the use of the preposition " ex," meaning "derived out
of,'' do not point explicitly to a created being of whom it
must be said that there ¦was a time when such being did not
exist, then the words have no definite force or meaning at all.
Whatever meaning may, then, attach to them must flow purely
from ecclesiastical authority, since it must be at variance with
all the natural and ordinary meaning of the ¦words, and can
rest on nothing but sheer arbitrary authority. That there is
any such infallible authority the English Church denies.
214. We may observe that the phrase "Deus ex Deo" is
not scriptural, and so cannot be imposed by the English
Church without violation of her fundamental principles. If,
however, ¦we turn to the New Testament to see what is the
meaning of the phrase "born of God," or "son of God,"
what do we find? " Every one that loveth is born of God."
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of
God." " But as many as received him to them gave he
power to become the sons of God." " For as many as are
led by the Spirit of God, they^ are the sons of God." " Be
hold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us
that we should be called the sons of God." " Now are we the
sons of God." " Whosoever is born of God sinneth not."

CHRIST. 247
215. The t«'m " son of God " is scriptural phrase to desig
nate the righteous man, who is said to be "born of God."
Christ being the only perfectly righteous man Is thus the only
perfect son of God. So far as any man is righteous he is
said to be born of God. Christ being entirely righteous was
entirely born of God. The fact that \\& possess a spiritual
nature must be due to the operation of God, who enters Into
our conception, so to speak, as a spiritual seed -within us.
Every human being Is " conceived by the Holy Ghost," and
it is because of this that every human being has the higher or
spiritual nature. Spiritually every man is the child of God
because into his conception God entered so as to give him the
possibilities of a spiritual life and nature. This differentiates
man from the beasts.
This in any and every case is mystic and marvellous. God
entered, however, into the conception of Christ In such larger
degree than was ever known before or since as to appear
miraculous. This spiritual indwelling was, as to Christ, so
full and perfect as to give His higher nature complete ascend
ancy from the first over His lower nature, — so as to exclude
all imperfection of humanity. This view, while it does not
see Christ as Deity, sees Him as the one man of the race
most filled with the Spirit of God, and best fitted to be the
manifestation of that Spirit to mankind.
216. The phrase In the Creed, " Being of one substance
with the Father," Is, to say the least, very infelicitous use of
language. No intelligent conception of God involves any
Idea of "substance" whatsoever, but almost negatives the
possibility of His having substance or form or anything
analogous to what we ever understand by the use of such
terms. The phrase Is not used anywhere in the Scriptures.
As there is no infallible authority to define it, each man has
the right to Interpret it as he sees fit, giving it whatever force

248 PROTESTANTISM.
he deems proper, or no meaning at all, if to him it be mean
ingless. To say that he believes it can only be to say that he
believes whatever he sees fit to think It means, for It has and
can have no certainty or fixity of meaning.
217. The addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed
has one singular result. The Apostles' Creed declares Christ
to have been " conceived by the Holy Ghost." The Nicene
Creed says that Christ was "Incarnate by the Holy Ghost,"
and then proceeds to give the genesis of the Holy Ghost as
" proceeding from the Father and the Son;" that is to say,
the Nicene Creed In its present Romish form teaches that
A generates B ; A and B together generate C, and C then
" incarnates or conceives" B. This is not true of the Creed
in its original form ; for that does not say that Christ was
" incarnate by the Holy Ghost," but merely said that He
" was made flesh, made man," and does not say one single
word about the Holj^ Ghost except to express a belief In It.
Xor is the form used by the Greek Church open to this absurd
interpretation. 218. Into this quagmire of criticism, speculation, and
uncertainty we plunge when we try to take the Nicene Creed
seriously. Let us deny that this Creed Is of any binding
force whatever. If it is binding and obligatory, let it be
shown, so that henceforth it may be beyond doubt. If it
be the doctrine of the Church, let It be substituted for the
Apostles' Creed in baptism and confirmation. This is the
one supreme test. Until the Church will do that it will not
be the doctrine of the Church. Its use will be liturgical
and not doctrinal.
219. Underneath all discussion there is a real and essential
harmony, if we would only see it. All that is really meant
and intended by the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds is pro
foundly true. We fight about words. If we could all use

CHRIST. 249
these words in the same meaning, if we could all give them
the same force and significance, — we should find substantial
agreement. Where there is downright sincerity, there will
be found underneath all forms and expressions a unity and
harmony. The sincere Romanist and the sincere Quaker
mean the same thing in the inmost heart. Two different
natures are seeking to express the same thought and lead the
same life. Thev both regard Christ as of divine authority,
and accept His message as one from God ; yet one recites
the Athanasian Creed, and the other will recite no creed at
all. Those who are really one in spirit are kept apart by
human creeds and forms.
What we say is that, however adapted for Individual usage
they ma}' be, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are now and
forevermore unfit as forms or symbols to which universal
assent shall be expected or required, and that this is the
position of the English Church with regard to them.
220. To say that correct views with regard to the nature
of Christ and the mode of His Incarnation are essential
elements of religion is as if we were to say that a traveller
would not find the sun a safe and sufficient guide and light to
his feet without knowing the origin and nature of solar light.
Were he to defer his journey and his work until he had
secured this knowledge, most men would never travel and
never work. We all accept the light of the sun as a fact.
We all accept and recognize the innumerable blessings that
flow from Its marvellous power. We live and travel and
work in assured reliance upon its permanence, its uniformity,
and its beneficence.
We study to know its laws and its secret principles, and
the more we learn the more we realize how precious Is its
radiance, how Indispensable to all our living. Yet how
absurd to say that we cannot enjoy the blessings of the sun

250

PROTESTANTISM.

without intellectually understanding its nature. How absurd
would it be for one man to declare that another was not
living In the sunlight and receiving its blessings because he
denied a theory held by the first as to the nature of solar
light. The declaration is seen to be false because they are
both at the very moment enveloped by the radiance of the
sun without which they could not see each other or, indeed,
exist at all.
To escape the blessings of the sun a man must deliberately
seclude himself from it, and even then he cannot get beyond
its Indirect influence. He may refuse to bask in its direct
rays, but all that enables him to live at all In his studied
seclusion is the fact that the sun does shine outside those
walls that shut it out from his little body. He may by his
refusal to directly seek its health-giving rays become sick
and weak and puny, but he would at once die if he could or
should entirely escape from all its beneficent influence.
A plants his seeds and trusts to the sun to cause them to
germinate and grow. B does the same. They may differ as
to the nature of solar heat, but they are entirely agreed upon
all the main and essential facts. They have the same faith,
the same hope, and the same trust in the unseen and unfathom
able Influences of the sun. They agree on the facts. They
differ on the philosophical views growing out of those facts.
In every practical sense they are at one. If you observed
their lives you would say they were in harmony. It Is only
when they indulge in speculation and theory that you see
their differences. They" do practically the same things.
Their differences' are purely verbal.

THE HOLY GHOST. 251

CHAPTER V.
THE HOLY GHOST.  THE SUPREMACY OF CONSCIENCE.
221. The supremacy of the conscience as being the voice
of God in the soul of man is the central truth in the teaching
of Christ. It rests on the belief that the creative, controlling
power working in the world outside of man is identical with
that power within him whose voice he hears bidding him do
right. Christ boldly declared that this influence which is
within man Is the Spirit of God. As the physical laws of
the universe are one expression of God's nature, so, too, the
moral laws of man's nature are another expression of God's
nature. The source or origin of all law, whether physical or
spiritual, is God. Such law Is part of the very nature and
being of God.
This conception of man's higher nature as divine, this
suggestion that the higher aspirations, the nobler Ideals, the
seeking after truth a¥id purity and justice, in so far as they
exist in man, are the same voice and power that called all
nature into existence ; that through obedience to the calls of
this higher nature man comes into closer relations with the
mysterious source of all power and of all life, — this is with
out any doubt the most exalted and sublime thought possible
for man to have. This idea is the exaltation of the individual
life, and is fatal to priestcraft and hierarchies. Though every
church closes Its doors, though every priest refuses his minis
trations, the individual stands. If it needs must be so, self-
centred and Independent of these institutions, for Christ says
to him, " The kingdom of God is within you."
If it be true that his very conscience, his own moral nature,
his own spiritual forces, are the very voice and spirit of the

252

PR O TESTANTISM.

Eternal God, then he has his sure and safe refuge within his
own soul. Churches may help him, the clergy may, if they
will, enlighten and inspire him ; but, in the last resort, he
may, if they all fail, stand without them. If they become
dead and corrupt, he may find within himself a sanctuary, for
Christ says to him your body Is a temple of the Holy
Spirit. Obey your conscience, yield to your highest and
purest impulses, seek to realize your highest aspirations, and
thus you will obey God, thus you will yield yourself up to
God, thus you will be seeking after God. The Church ought
to enlighten your conscience, ought to arouse impulses higher
and purer than you could reach unaided, ought to cause you
to aspire for more than you -would If alone ; but If It be not
so, if the Church fails and is recreant to her trust, you are
not left alone. The spirit is within you and will guide you.
If you obey it, and live up to the best that is in you, then,
though it be but little, you are justified. You are thus
justified by your faith in this indwelling spirit and by your
¦works which flow from your obedience to this spirit.
222. This identification of man's higker moral nature with
God Is the peculiar and distinctive feature of Christ's teaching.
It is His unique revelation to the world of a great truth which
has changed the life of every man who has in any adequate
manner apprehended It. This Idea the world owes to Christ.
You will, it is true, find it foreshadowed in the personal
experience of Socrates, -who was clearly and fully conscious
of some indwelling divine influence, but the more you study
his utterances, the more clearly you see the enormous supe
riority in the disclosure as made by Christ. It is practically
true that, notwithstanding the remarkable sentences used by
Socrates, the world owes this Idea entirely to Christ. The
universality and real significance of the fact Socrates did not
In any degree perceive. It was merely a personal experience.

THE HOLY GHOST 253
but It did point to the same fact which Christ afterwards so
fully revealed. The later Jewish literature had likewise con
tained many vague allusions to it. The moral consciousness
and spiritual nature was seen to exist as a fact of life. The
identity of this with God was what Christ revealed.
223. It is only when thus considered that Christianity is
seen to be the final and universal religion. The history of its
dogmas and theologies does not justify any such claim. The
division and the wrangling of the churches do not lead one to
any such opinion. Its dogmatic leaders have held a hundred
varying theologies. What Is said to be true In one century Is
denied In the next. Theology has been the cause of the
bitterest warfare, in which no quarter was given, and he
who bore the flag of truce was ordinarily slaughtered in cold
blood. An elaborate structure of opinions has been con
structed in one age to be demolished In the next. There has
been no mark of finality or universality In any of the various
theologies. They have proved to be delusive quicksands,
deceptive marshes and bogs.
224. This indwelling spiritual force, this manifestation of
God in the soul of man, this higher and nobler nature is
called In Scripture the Holy Ghost. It is In each man-
co-extensive with all that in him is noble, pure, intellectual,
reasonable, and spiritual. All that renders man morally,
spiritually, and Intellectually great and admirable is conceived
to be due to the presence of this Influence which worketh in
man and filleth him with power as to God seems fit in an
Inscrutable and mysterious manner. Reason itself is the gift
of God, and is a manifestation of Him. The marvellous
endowments which are seen in individual men are but gifts
or inspirations or quickenlngs of the Holy Ghost. In every
department of life Is this true. The marvellous skill of what
we call mechanical genius, the consummate beauty of art, the

254 PROTESTANTISM.
eloquence of the orator, the Inimitable fancies of the poet,
the Indefatigable investigations of scientific genius, — all are
but gifts of the Spirit of God.
The wisdom of the statesman, the military genius of a
Cffisar or a Cromwell, the music of a Beethoven, the power
of a Socrates, a Paul, a Luther, a Jonathan Edwards, or a
Beecher, — all are the workings of what is scripturally called
the Holy Ghost. It is the presence of this divine element In
men that renders religion possible. This It is that renders
possible all civilization, all progress, all mental, moral, and
Intellectual development ; for these constitute all that is noble,
pure, and exalted in human living, and all this becomes
possible because riien partake of the divine nature of God.
This is the only theory that adequately explains the facts
of history and daily life ; and this was the explanation of the
world given us by Christ, who was filled with this spirit with
out measure and inspired by it to be the divine messenger,
the divine manifestation of God, the supreme example for
mankind. 225. It must always be remembered that the moral character
of a man may be entirely apart from the -work which he is
called to do by God. If the Holy Spirit selects Napoleon
to recreate civilization in France, and endows him with force
and power to do It, he is a great man so long as the power
is behind him ; but when he has served the purpose of God,
he Is as a public man no more than so many pounds of clay
weighed on the common scales. Then he has no more
power than the humblest of men. He can escape from Elba.
His work is not done. He may not escape from St. Helena.
His work is done. He is clay. The special divine power Is
withdrawn. The marvel of his century is no longer a marvel
at all. The Holy Spirit is done with him so far as the special
purpose is concerned. His personal, moral, and religious

THE HOLY GHOST. 255
character remains a distinct matter by which he stands or falls
in the sight of God. He can claim no credit or glory for a
power which was not his, which was given to him for carry
ing out God's purposes, — which he served because he must.
His destiny, his real character. Is not written in the history of
his age. What Is there -written is the record of a man seized
upon by God for a special purpose, and the world marvels at
his power. Foolish men ! It is the power of God using the
man as an agent. The man alone was no more than other
men. God was behind him ; that ¦was all. God was using
him. Back of it all was his inmost moral character, and by
this he stands or falls in the final judgment of--history. He
will then have no credit for what was given for special
purpose. He comes to the common bar of judgment like
all common mortals, and is amenable to the same law which
governs those who were not selected for special endowment.
No man can resist the Spirit of God. He might as well try
to resist the cyclone. So, too, he may not claim any personal
credit for what he does when this divine influence is behind
him. As well might he claim credit for being carried five
miles in a minute by a cyclonic impulse. He stands or falls
by his personal character. God is not deceived. He knows
what was done and by what power. There is no hero-
worship in the court of last resort. Csesar is no more than
John Doe. Had John Doe been selected, he had then been
Csesar, — and the world had reverenced John Doe. A man
may have received the adulation of his age and live in the
history of his times as its central figure, but, having developed
no personal character of the eternal type, may perish as the
beasts of the field ; while another, whose record is lost in
oblivion, has developed the deathless character, and so gains
eternal life. The power and the genius of a man may be of
God, the ¦work he does may be a part of the divine purpose,
but his own personal character is apart from all this. Let

256 PRO TESTANTISM.
him in fear and trembling work out his own salvation like
any ordinary mortal, not being puffed up by reason of those
gifts which are indeed his, but yet are not really of him.
The fact that Beethoven could write the Immortal sym
phonies did not In the least affect his relations to the great
problems of right and wrong, did not increase or diminish in
the least his moral and religious obligations. The work of
building up his personal character was apart from the work
that was a manifestation of his special endowment.
The Divine Spirit is in every man alike. In some special
cases it works through him as an agent. He has free will
so far as those acts are concerned ¦which have to do with
building up his personal character. He is not free to accept
or decline any ¦work assigned to him as agent. He is seized
upon. Inspired, urged on by Invisible power, becomes the
source of extraordinary influence among men, and cannot
himself see how it is or can be so. In all these cases it Is the
Spirit ¦working through men.
Ordinarily, the Spirit simply dwells in men as an element
of their nature in the treatment and development of which
they are left free. The manner in which a man exercises his
special powers may make for the building up of his personal
character, and win approbation from the consciences of his
fellowmen. His great powers may, however, be so exercised
that while his fellowmen see the divine genius within him
they can but utter the judgment of condemnation upon the
man personally. They see the two distinct elements, — the
glorious radiance of the divine jewel and its base setting.
This is why ¦we worship genius while we despise the moral
character of the man who possesses it. The genius itself Is a
manifestation of the power of God.
226. If we had a sufficiently clear vision and enough
knowledge to comprehend the working out of the great

THE HOLY GHOST. 257
problem of life, we should probably see that what is per
fectly clear in many cases is. Indeed, universally true, and
that all men of commanding genius are prophets and in some
way help to reveal God to mankind in all the manifold
perfection of His divine nature. Behold the long line of the
prophets of science ! Are they not all revealers of God in
leading us to see the maivellous laws of nature with their
absolute uniformity and beautiful exactness ? Do they not
reveal the hidden things of God whereby we better under
stand ho'w Infinitely great Is that power which we see must
be behind all those extraordinary phenomena ? Can anything
show more impressively the unity of God than the work of
these prophets of science ? Behold the prophets in every
department of life ! They have been everywhere present
from the dawn of history to this day. They are all uncon
sciously proving to men the fact of the divine element as an
indwelling force in humanity. They are all agents of God
inspired with and by His Spirit. Each by following out the
bent of his genius is causing the ¦world to have more knowl
edge, more light, deeper convictions, more facts on which
to base convictions, more profound Ideas in every field of
activity and thought. Truth Is ever growing and broadening.
God gives men the gift of reason and the Illumination of His
Spirit, and by the aid of this man struggles up towards the
light, — an evolutionary process which seems to be the divine
method for the uplifting of the race. Says Rev. J. M. Whiton :
" The advance of science has revealed to us the unity of all
life, and the evolution of life and all things in an orderly and
everlasting process, outside of which not even the unique
person of Christ can now be rationally placed. We have
been supplied with materials that were not available half a
century ago for fresh thought as to God and His relation to
the world." All this is the work of what in Holy Writ is
caUed the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of

?

258 PROTESTANTISM.
Wisdom, the Helper of our Infirmities, the Searcher of all
things, the Guide into all truth, the Revealer of the things
of God. Now, what does Paul say? "Know ye not that
your body Is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you,
which ye have of God ? The Spirit of God dwelleth in you."
This is the central truth on which rests all religion.
227. It may be said. Indeed, that the strongest evidence
against this idea of conscience, this indwelling Divine Spirit,
Is the present condition of the Christian churches after nine
teen centuries of existence. There Is not agreement to-day
as to what Christianity Is. The churches have wasted their
energies in bitter contest over particular interpretations of
what was declared to be simplicity itself. There has been
no unanimity. There is none to-day. In its place there are
the most extreme differences, the most profound antagonisms.
It Is not too much to say that, in a sense, the religion of love
has become the religion of hate ; the religion guaranteeing
peace and repose has led to strife and unlimited controversy.
Shall it always be so ? Is there no reply to which all
Christians shall give assent when asked what Christianity is?
What is its essence? Shall it always be that a hundred men
shall give a hundred different answers? Men ask why, if
there be this Divine Spirit capable of guiding, has it not
enabled the Christian churches to reach something like unity?
why does it not operate to-day to bring men together? Why
does it not, so to speak, compel agreement. If it is so great
a fact in life ?
Why, they say, does the Greek Church ujDhold the absolute
despotism of the Czar? Why does it keep silent before all
the atrocities of his administration ? Why was the Church
the effective ally of the Tudors and the Stuarts In their efforts
to establish despotic power in England? Why, prior to our
Civil War, did the Church In the South support the Institu-

THE HOLY GHOST.

359

tion of slavery ? Why has the Church antagonized science
and only accepted Its results on compulsion ? Why does it
cling to false theologies until the world in Its religious life
and thinking Is almost in advance of the Church ?
228. All this questioning, however, implies a great mis
understanding of the Christian conception of the conscience.
The conscience is not a force in itself. It has in itself no
power to carry out its wishes. It can simply plead with the
will of man. It can merely stand at the door and knock, and
until it is admitted and its claim recognized and obeyed by
the will, it Is in a sense powerless. The depravity of a man
is no evidence that he has no conscience, no divine germ
capable of developing and growing Into a controlling power
for his purification and elevation. It is conclusive evidence
that the appeal of conscience to that man's will has been
disregarded, — that it has not been admitted as a force in his
life, and, so far as he is concerned, it is at that time practi
cally non-existent. It Is crushed and lies powerless. No-w,
Christ asserts that In every man, however degraded, this germ
exists ready to be quickened into life and to become a great
regenerating force ; but that it can only become thus active by
the consent of the man, and the giving of this consent is the
beginning of faith, of belief, of the process of regeneration.
It is a change of the man's life. His will, ¦which has obeyed
his lower nature, he now deliberately seeks to have obey his
higher nature.
229. When thus understood, the state of the Christian
churches is no more evidence that there is no divine guiding
spirit than is the fact that individuals are depraved and so
hardened as in no degree to obey conscience. The will of
the Christian churches has never as yet been brought into
subjection. So far as they fight and abuse each other, so
far as they waste their energies in endless controversies, so far

26o PROTESTANTISM.
as church life is the low level of seeking material prosperity
and worldly pomp and splendor, so far as it is denominational
and sectarian, so far as for gain it bows to the selfish interests
of man, — so far It has failed to hear and obey the pleadings
of the Divine Spirit. It Is like a man who has been lifted to
a certain purer and better mode of life, but who has not as
yet reached that point where his views are broad and compre
hensive, resting on wide generalizations and more complete
knowledge. The man Is, perhaps, doing the best he can,
and is so far justified, but he still clings to his narrow
prejudices, and can hardly believe that so much of his past
thinking has been erroneous. He finds it much easier to
worship Christ than to obey him. He finds that ceremonies
and technical doctrines do not Interfere much with every-day
life. For the churches as for the man the simplest truth is
the hardest to accept and practise. With a conventional and
elaborate theology the Christian churches have satisfied their
consciences, but It has resulted in division, strife, and spiritual
torpor. The day will come when the churches will agree
that " a holy life is a Catholic creed, and orthodox theology
is the intuition of the pure in heart."
230. If it were necessary to concede that statements with
regard to the immanence of God in man probably did exist in
the world's literature prior to Christ, It is to be remembered
that they were buried in a mass of matter that for the most
part was of a very different character ; and while, when read
as isolated passages to-day, in the light of Christ, it is easy to
see their force, it is very certain that if read without the aid
of that light no clear and practical idea would have been
conveyed to the mind. As a plain, historical fact they did
have no practical influence so far as we can now learn.
Such passages must be deemed of great Interest, as they sers'e
to show the universal pervasiveness of truth which in some

THE HOLY GHOST. 261
way and in some degree has apparently always been known
to men or to some exceptional men who, however, seemed to
have but little power to translate their thought Into terms of
life and light for others. In illustration of this may be cited
the following passage from Cicero, who died B.C. 43.
Cicero said : " Law, properly understood, is no other than
right reason, agreeing with nature, spread abroad among all
men, ever consistent with itself, eternal, whose office Is to
summon to duty by its commands, to deter from vice by its
prohibitions, — which, however, to the good never commands
or forbids In vain, never influences the wicked either by com
manding or forbidding. In contradiction to this law, nothing
can be laid down, nor does it admit of partial or entire repeal.
Nor can we be released from this law either by vote of the
senate or decree of the people. Nor does it require any
commentator or interpreter besides itself. Nor will there be
one law at Athens and another at Rome, one now and another
hereafter ; but one eternal, immutable law ¦will both embrace
all nations and at all times. And there will be one common
Master, as it were, and Ruler of all ; namely, God, the Great
Originator, Expositor, Enactor of this law ; which law who
ever will not obey will be flying from himself, and, having
treated with contempt his human nature, will in that very
fact pay the greatest penalty, even If he shall have escaped
other punishments, as they are commonly considered."
231. This central, pivotal Idea of Christ has apparently
been present in some degree In all the religions of the world
that have ever exercised any notable Influence on men. In
some degree It has been perceived by every great religious
thinker and teacher. Overlaid by a thousand fanciful and
puerile thoughts, burled by rubbish, the idea is there for him
who will search long enough to find it. When It Is found,
it gHstens like the pure gold that It is.

262 PROTESTANTISM.
This was evidently the reason why St. Augustine said :
' ' What Is now called the Christian religion has existed among
the ancients, and was not absent from the beginning of the
human race until Christ came in the flesh, from which time
true religion, which existed already, began to be called
Christian." Practically, however, this idea became a living and ever-
expanding force through Christ alone. The fact that the
idea can be found in the utterance of a few of the most
exceptional men the world had seen prior to his day does not
diminish the probability of the absolute truth of the idea, but
merely strengthens and confirms it. The universality and
practical value of the idea was shown only by Christ. Its
bearing upon our daily life, its overwhelming significance and
importance, Its dignity as the central thought of the individual
life, its exaltation of the individual soul, — all this can only
be gained by a study and contemplation of Christ, His life,
and His words. So far as the Church has taught this, it has
been a power for uplifting the world. So far as It has for
gotten this, it has been spiritually weak, the source of strife,
bitterness, and corruption. Only so far as the Church has
accepted this truth has it differed from other human and
selfish institutions.
232. The weakness of the Protestant churches has been
largely due to their want of fidelity to their fundamental
principle. This in practice they have wellnigh repudiated.
The supremacy of the individual conscience Is utterly Incon
sistent with the dogmatic attitude of most of these churches.
They have, therefore, the weakness which comes from an
attempt to force upon Intelligent people dogmas which are
essentially Romish without having the fundamental principle
which alone renders it proper to de77iand reverence for those
dogmas ; namely, the doctrine of an infallible church, and
the sanctity and binding force of ecclesiastical authority.

THE HOLY GHOST. 363
Denying in theory both of these points, the Protestant
churches have, nevertheless, acted In almost entire harmony
with them. This Is so obviously Inconsistent that no unbiassed
man can fail to clearly see it, and it is fatal to his belief in
the Protestant churches as, at the same time, sincere and
intelligent. If they are sincere in their dogmatic assertion of
Romish theories and speculations, they are not Intelligent If
they do not see that these rest, not upon Scripture or reason,
but upon ecclesiastical authority. The very keynote of the
Reformation seems to have been forgotten, and to this has
been due the weakness of the churches.
They did not dare, they do not dare, to trust to the
supremacy of the individual conscience as the cardinal tenet
of Christianity, and the penalty of this cowardice is division,
internecine strife and weakness. ^Meanwhile, the educated
world outside the churches does believe it, and it Is proceed-
-ing to renovate society. The progress of the world has been
due, during these past three centuries, to the working of the
Protestant principle ; and It is a strange fact that this very
principle has been opposed and resisted by the Protestant
churches. Will these churches to-day swing into line with
the great civilizing forces that despite them are pushing on
the cause of Christ, and so add enormously to the effective
ness of those forces ? or will they cling to the discredited
dogmas as In practice the sole test of Christianity, and,
remaining on the border-land of Rome, let the real progress
of Christian thought go on under other leaders, aided by
members of the Church who \vithin the Church are daily
insulted and hunted down as heretics ? This for the churches
is the critical question of this present day. Is the Protestant
doctrine of the supremacy of conscience a mere idle word or
not ? Was the Reformation projected on a false idea ? If it
were not, then the Protestant churches need to change their
present dogmatic attitude, and to be hereafter characterized
by the broad charity of Christ.

264 PROTESTANTISM.
Standing on the simple basis of Christian truth, the Protest
ant churches can dra^w to themselves all the intelligence and
thought of the world. They would henceforth be identified
with all that is progressive and free, — with all that is
precious to mankind. To remain where they stand to-day
in their practice Is to see In this next generation a great
breaking-away of intelligent, high-minded, and conscientious
men. It is to let others do the real work for Christ, and to
do It outside of all present churches.
233. The progress of Christianity has been marked by a
series of thinkers who have always been branded as heretics
by the majority of their contemporaries, but whose heresy has
become the orthodoxy of some succeeding period. The
advance-guard of the churches has always been made up of
these heretics ¦who have been, so to speak, crucified by their
fellows, but reverenced and followed by the generations that
came after. The light shone in the darkness, and the dark
ness comprehended it not. Sunk in the darkness of ignorance,
prejudice, and selfishness, the churches and the world have
ever resisted with a mad fury those -who have sought to
project into that darkness the enlightenment of the true
Christian spirit. Make a list of those ¦who for nineteen
centuries have been in each age regarded as heretical by
the dominant churches, and you will find that you have the
names of those who have uplifted and purified the churches
and the world, — the names of those who have In very truth
been the light that, shining in the darkness, has led the
churches even against their own will up to a higher and a
purer level.
234. Bishop Temple says : " There is within us a voice
which tells of a supreme law unchanged throughout all space
and all time ; which speaks with an authority entirely its
own ; which finds corroboration in the revelations of science,

THE HOLY GHOST. 265
but which never relies on those revelations as its primai}- or
its ultimate sanction ; which is no inference from observations
by the senses external or internal, but a direct communication
from the spiritual kingdom, the kingdom, as philosophers call
It, of things in themselves ; which commands belief as a duty,
and by necessary consequence ever leaves it possible to dis
believe, and In listening to which we are rightly said to walk
not by sight but by faith.
" Now, what is meant when we speak of ourselves? What
is It within which there Is this voice, and to what does it
address itself ? It is our personal Identity. We cannot get
rid of the conviction of our own identity through all changes
through which we pass. Every man amongst us passes
through Incessant changes. His body changes ; he may even
lose parts of it altogether ; he may lose all control over some
of his limbs, or over them all. And there are internal as
¦well as external changes in each man. His affections change,'
his practices, his passions, his resolutions, his purposes, his
judgments, everything possibly by which he knows his own
character. But through all these changes he is conscious of
being still one and the same self. And he knows this ; and
knows it, not as an inference from any observation of sense
external or Internal, but directly and intuitively. All other
knowledge may conceivably be relative, a knowledge of things
as they appear, not of things In themselves. But this is not ;
It is a knowledge of a thing as it is in itself ; for amidst
all changes In the phenomena of each man's nature this still
remains absolutely unchanged.
" It is by virtue of this personal identity that I become
responsible for my actions. I am not merely the same think
ing subject, I am the same moral agent all through my life.
If I changed as fast as the phenomena of my being changed,
my responsibility for any evil deed would cease the moment
the deed was done. No punishment would be just, because

266 PROTESTANTISM.
it would not be just to punish one being for the faults of a
totally different being. The moral law in Its application to
man requires as a basis the personal identity of each man
with himself.
' ' If we now go a step farther, and ask in what form this
personal identity presents itself, the answer is clear, — our
personality, while bound up with all our other faculties, so
that we can speak of our understanding, our affections, our
powers of perception and sensation, as parts of ourselves, yet
is centred in one faculty which we call the will. ' If there
be aught spiritual in man,' says Coleridge, ' the will must be
such. If there be a will, there must be a spirituality in man.'
The will is the man. It is the will that makes us responsible
beings. It is for the action of our will, or the consent of
our will, that we come to be called In question. It is by the
will that we assert ourselves amidst the existences around us ;
and, as the will is the man in relation to phenomena, so, on
the other side, the will is the one and only force among the
forces of this world which takes cognizance of principles, and
is capable of acting in pursuit of an aim not to be found
among phenomena at all. But the will is not the whole
spiritual faculty. Besides the power of willing we have the
power of recognizing spiritual truth. And this power or
faculty we commonly call the conscience. But the conscience
is not a force. It has no power of acting except through the
will. It receives and transmits the voice from the spiritual
world, and the will is responsible so far as the conscience
enlightens it. It is the will whereby the man takes his place
in the world of phenomena.
" It is, then, to the man, thus capable of appreciating a law
superior In its nature to all phenomena and bearing within
himself the conviction of a personal Identity underlying all
the changes that may be encountered and endured, that is
revealed from within the command to live for a moral pur-

THE HOLY GHOST. 367
pose and believe in the ultimate supremacy of the moral over
the physical. The voice within gives this command in two
forms, — it commands our duty and it commands our faith.
The voice gives no proof, appeals to no evidence, but speaks
as having a right to command, and requires our obedience by
virtue of its own inherent superiority.
" Its first command we call duty. The voice within awakes
a peculiar sentiment which, except towards its command, is
never felt in our souls, — the sentiment of reverence. And it
commands the pursuit of that, whatever It may be, to which
this sentiment of reverence attaches. This is the positive test
by which we are to know what is ever to be our highest aim.
And along with this there Is a negative test by which we
are perpetually to correct the other ; namely, the test of
universality. The moral law in Its own nature admits of r>o
exceptions. If a principle of action be derived from this law
it has nothing to do with time or place or circumstances ; it
must hold good in the distant future, in planets or stars
utterly remote, as fully as it holds good now and here.
" The sentiment of reverence is our guide in determining
our duty, and the test of universality perpetually comes in to
correct the commands of this sentiment and to clear and so
to refine the sentiment itself.
' ' But I now go on from the moral law as a duty to the
moral la'w as a faith. For the inner voice Is not content with
commanding a course of conduct and requiring obedience of
that kind. This is its first utterance, and the man who hears
and obeys unquestionably has within him the true seed of all
religion. But though the first utterance, it is not the last.
For the same voice goes on to require us to believe that this
moral law, which claims obedience from us, equally claims
obedience from all else that exi.sts. It Is absolutely supreme
or it is nothing. Its title to our obedience Is its supremacy,
and it has no other title. In claiming our reverence as well

268 PROTESTANTISM.
as our obedience, in making its sanction consist in nothing
but the fact of its own inherent majesty, the moral law calls
on us to believe in its supremacy. It claims that it is the last
and highest of all laws. The world before us is governed by
uniformities, as far as we can judge, but above and behind all
these uniformities is the supreme uniformity, the eternal law
of right and wrong, and all other laws, of whatever kind,
must ultimately be harmonized by it alone. It has a right to
require us to disregard everything but itself, if It be itself
supreme ; if not, its claim would be unjust. We see here in
things around us no demonstrative proof that it is supreme,
except what may be summed up in saying that there Is a
power that makes for righteousness. While there Is much
In things around us which asserts, there is also much which
seems to deny altogether any supremacy whatever in the
moral law. The universe, as we see it, is not holy, nor just,
nor good, nor right. The music of creation is full of discords
as yet altogether unresolved. And if we look to phenomena
alone, there is no solution of the great riddle. But in spite
of all imperfections and contradictions, the voice within,
without vouchsafing to give us any solution of the perplexity,
or any sanction but its own authoritative command, impera
tively requires us to believe that holiness Is supreme over
unholiness, and justice over injustice, and goodness over evil,
and righteousness over unrighteousness. To obey this com
mand and to believe this truth is faith.
' ' The moral law in its government of the world reveals
Itself as possessing the distinctive mark of personality; that
Is, a purpose and a will. And thus, as we ponder It, this
eternal law Is shown to be the very Eternal Himself, the
Almighty God. The more we keep before us the true char
acter of that law, the more clearly do we see that the moral
law is not His command but His nature. He does not make
that law. He is that law. Almighty God and the moral law
are different aspects of what Is in itself one and the same.

THE HOLY GHOST. 269
" It will be seen at once that I am only working out to its
logical conclusion what was said long ago by Bishop Butler
in England, and by Kant in Germany. Butler calls the
spiritual faculty, whose commands to us I have been examin
ing, by the name of conscience. Kant calls it the practical
reason. But both alike Insist on the ultimate basis of morality
being found in the voice within the soul and not in the
phenomena observed by the senses. No analysis succeeds in
obliterating the fundamental distinction between moral and
physical law, or In enabling us to escape the ever-increasing
sense of the dignity of the former, or in shutting our ears to
the still small voice which Is totally unlike every other voice
within or without. Religion demands the submission of a
free conscience, and uses no compulsion but that Imposed by
its own inherent dignity. Disbelieve if you choose, and
religion will do nothing but perpetually repeat its warnings,
and add that your disbelief has lowered you in the scale of
being." 235. Bishop Butler said : "You cannot form a notion of
the faculty conscience without taking in judgment, direction,
superintendency. This is a constituent part of the idea.
This Is of the faculty itself. To preside and govern from the
very economy and constitution of man belongs to It. Had
It strength as It has right, had it power as It has manifest
authority, it would absolutely govern the world.
" Conscience, compared with the various instincts and
principles of action as they all stand together In the nature
of man, plainly bears upon it marks of authority over all the
rest, and claims the absolute direction of them all, to allow
or forbid their gratification, — a disapprobation of reflexion
being in itself a principle manifestly superior to a mere pro-
pension. And the conclusion Is, that to allow no more to
this superior principle or part of our nature than to other

270 PROTESTANTISM.
parts, to let it govern and guide only occasionally in common
with the rest, as its turn happens to come, from the temper
and circumstances one .happens to be in, — this is not to act
conformably to the constitution of man, neither can any human
creature be said to act conformably to his constitution and
nature, unless he allows to that superior principle the absolute
authority which Is due to it.
" Let any plain, honest man before he engages in any
course of action ask himself, ' Is this I am going about right
or Is it wrong ? Is It good or is it evil ? ' and I do not in the
least doubt but that this question would be answered agree
ably to truth and virtue by almost any fair man in almost any
circumstance." 236. Rev. F. D. Maurice says : "I accept the testimony
of Butler to the supremacy of the conscience. Do not sup
pose that I mean the general recognition of a supreme power
existing somewhere to whom the world is subject, and, there
fore, to whom I as one of its inhabitants am subject. The
conscience has nothing to do with such vague and distant
propositions. It is emphatically the witness of a supremacy
over me directly, — not over me as one of the atoms of which
the world is composed. I do not proceed from the world
to myself, but from myself to the world. / know of its
governor only so far as I know of 7nine. Nor do I begin
from the acknowledgment of a power who, as a pozver,
governs me. I own only one who has a right to govern.
The conscience takes no account of power excejDt as It is
joined to right, except as it has its ground in right. The
very business and function of the conscience is to disclaim
and repudiate any other, to say that it will serve no other.
If there is In me that which Is higher than anything I call
my own, if there is that in me which carries me beyond my
self, if the conscience is this, — then I may. Indeed, speak

THE HOLY GHOST- 371
loftily of it, for it testifies of every man in whom it dwells
that Ig7ieus est illi vigor et coelestis origo. He may have
a clothing of earth, he may have wrapped himself closely in
it.; but there is in him a fire which the earth did not kindle,
there are tlie signs of a parentage which must be divine.
"It is this which spoke forth effectually in Columbus when
he determined that he ought to cling to his belief In a new
continent If all the wise heads In Europe derided him, if all
the crowned heads trifled with him ; In Luther when he said
that he ought to go forward though there were as many devils
as there were tiles on the houses ; In Hampden when he said
that he ought not to pay the forty shillings tax of ship money
If the resistance to It Involved him In ruin, even if It ended in
a civil war for his country. Each felt that he had responsi
bilities which no class, no majority of men had imposed on
him, and from ¦which no class, no majority of men could
release him.
" In every Instance to which we can point, a society ¦which
has succeeded In choking or weakening the conscience of Its
members has undermined its own existence, and the defeat
of such experiments has been the preservation and security of
the society that has attempted them. The banishment of the
Moors from Spain helped to turn a chivalrous and Christian
nation into an ambitious, gold-worshipping, tyrannical nation.
Philip II. resolved that the consciences of his Protestant
subjects in Spain and in Holland should be crushed. He
succeeded in the first case, and the greatest nation In Europe
sunk to a third-rate power. He was defeated in the other ;
and Holland, from an insignificant province, became a
people. Louis XIV. was cursed with success In his dealings
with Jansenists and Protestants. He enfeebled and impov
erished his land, and prepared a revolution for his successors.
His disciples, the Stuarts, sought to extinguish the Puritans
and Covenanters in England and Scotland, — we owe any

273 PROTESTANTISM.
vigor which there is In Great Britain to their failure. These
are the commonplaces of history. Often as they have been
repeated, we have need to consider them again, and to lay
them to heart ; they contain lessons which are never obsolete
for one set of men or another. Each sect and school In the
day of Its adversity bears a grand witness on behalf of the
conscience. Each sect and school In the day of Its prosperity
glorifies its own thoughts and opinions, and instead of appeal
ing to the conscience In each of its members, tries to silence it.
They are punished by an increase of the strifes and divisions
which they hope to extinguish ; they lose their convictions in
the vehemence with which they talk of them."
237. Rev. Joseph Cook says : " The Bible speaks of a
Light that lighteth every man that cometh Into the world, and
that in the beginning was with God, and was God. This
Light has its temple in conscience. Conscience puts forth its
activities by a mysterious inner necessity, which although In
us is not of us. It claims for itself, therefore, in the consti
tution of man unconditional supremacy. Conscience is your
magnetic needle. Reason is your chart. We know It was
the discovery of the physical needle that made navigation
possible on the physical seas ; and loyalty to the spiritual
magnetic needle alone makes navigation safe on the spiritual
seas. Conscience requires every man to mean well, and to
do his best. It requires us to follow not only all the light
we have, but all we can obtain, and to do so gladly. Every
man does know infallibly whether he means to do the best
he knows how or not, in any deliberate choice. By a faculty
not derived from experience, he knows whether the purpose
or intention of following all the light he has exists or does
not exist in his mind. Called upon to choose what I will
do, I have a certain amount of light. I know whether I turn
away from the light or not. I know whether I look on the

THE HOLY GHOST. 273
whole or on a part only of this illumination. Mill says that
our direct perception of the difference between a whole and
a part Is primordial. Well, I affirm that If it is primordial
in physical things, it is primordial In spiritual things. I have
illumination, and I know whether I suppress a part of it. I
know whether the whole Is taken as my guide, or whether
I turn away from some section of the radiance. The distinc
tion between the whole and a part is perceived In the field
of mental vision as certainly as it is in the field of physical
vision. It Is just as infallibly perceived there as here. The
perception in both cases Is a direct vision of self-evident
truth. There Is an ancient book that speaks of the mischief
of the suppression of light. There is a volume which says
that ' this is the condemnation, that light Is come into the
world, and men love darkness rather than light.' All this is
said In connection with the most subtle doctrines concerning
' the Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the
world.' I find, therefore, that this general view of con
science, as something which always pronounces it right to
follow all the radiance we have, and wrong to suppress
light, coincides marvellously with the profoundest thought
of Christianity, that whoever tutors ' the Light that lighteth
every man that cometh Into the -world ' is acting against
light which ' in the beginning was with God, and was God.'
Conscience invariably decides that to suppress light is wrong,
and that to follo'w the light we have or can obtain, and to
do so without the slightest tutoring of the radiance, is right.
The perception of the difference between meaning right and
meaning wrong in this sense Is primordial or intuitive ; and
the difference exhibits the three traits of all intuitive truth, —
self-evidence, necessity, and universality.
"Within the field of Intentions or the moral motives con
science has the infallibility which belongs to the perception
of self-evident truths, and, in Kant's language, ' an erring

274 PROTESTANTISM.
conscience is a chimera.' There are men who do not know
that when they tutor the magnetic needle they are tutoring
currents that enswathe the globe and all worlds. There are
men who do not know that when they tutor conscience they
are tutoring magnetisms which pervade both the universe of
souls and its Author. Beware how you put the finger of
special pleading on the quivering needle of conscience, and
forbid it to go north, south, east, or west ; beware of failing
to balance it on a hair's point ; for whoever tutors that pri
mordial, necessary, universal. Infallible perception, tutors a
personal God."
238. Rev. F. 'W. Robertson says: "The one absolute
right, this from eternity to eternity, must be the sole measure
of eternal right. But human right or human wrong — that
is, the merit or demerit of any action done by any particular
man — must be measured, not by that absolute standard, but
as a matter relative to his particular circumstances, the state
of the age in which he lives, and his own knowledge of right
and wrong. For we come into this world with a moral
sense, or, to speak more Christianly, with a conscience. The
law of the Christian conscience Is, therefore, this : Guilt is
contracted by the soul in so far as It sins against and trans
gresses the law of God by doing that which it believes to be
wrong ; not so much what is wrong as what appears to It to
be wrong. A man will be judged not by the abstract law of
God, not by the rule of absolute right, but much rather by
the relative law of conscience. That which seems to a man
to be right is in a certain sense right to him ; and that which
seems to a man to be wrong In a certain sense Is wrong to
him. For example, Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans
that ' sin is not Imputed when there Is no law ; ' in other
words, if a man does not really know a thing to be wrong,
there is a sense in which, if not right to him. It ceases to be

THE HOLY GHOST. 375
so wrong as it would otherwise be. He also says, ' I know
that there Is nothing unclean of itself ; but to him that
esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.' In
other words, whate\-er ma}' be the abstract merits of the
question — however in God's jurisprudence any particular act
may stand — to you, thinking it to be wrong, it manifestly is
wrong, and your conscience will gsither round it a stain of
guilt if you do it. In order to understand this more fully, let
us take a few instances. There is a difference between truth
and veracity. Veracity Is merely the correspondence between
some particular statement and facts ; truth is the correspond
ence between a man's whole soul and reality. It is possible
for a man to say that which, unknown to him, is false ; and
yet he may be true, because, if deprived of truth, he is
deprived of it unwillingly. It is possible, on the other hand,
for a man to utter veracities, and yet, at the very time that
he is uttering those veracities, to be false to himself, to his
brother, and to his God. One of the most signal instances
of this is to be seen in the Book of Job. Most of what Job's
friends said to him were veracious statements. Much of
what Job said for himself was unveracious and mistaken.
And yet those veracities of theirs were so torn from all con
nection with fact and truth that they became falsehoods ; and
they ¦^vere, as has been said, nothing more than 'orthodox
liars' In the sight of God. On the other hand, Job, blunder
ing perpetually and falling into false doctrine, was yet a
true man, searching for and striving after the truth ; and if
deprived of it for a time, deprived of it with all his heart
and soul unwillingly. And, therefore. It was that at last the
Lord appeared out of the whirlwind to confound the men of
veracity, and to stand by and support the honor of the heartily
true. Let us apply the principle further. It Is a matter of
less importance that a man should state true views than that
he should state views truly. We will put this In its strongest

276 PRO TESTANTISM.
form. Unitarlanism is false — Trinltarianism is true. But
yet, in the sight of God and with respect to a man's eternal
destinies hereafter. It would surely be better for him earnestly,
honestly, truly, to hold the doctrines of Unitarlanism than in
a cowardly or indifferent spirit, or influenced by authority or
from considerations of interest or for the sake of lucre, to
hold the doctrines of Trinltarianism. Do what seems to you
to be right ; it is only so that you will at last learn to see
clearly what is right. A man thinks within himself that it is
God's law and God's will that he should act thus and thus.
There is nothing possible for us to say, there is no advice for
us to give but this, ' You must so act.' He Is responsible for
the opinions he holds, and still more for the way in which he
arrived at them, — whether in a slothful and selflsh or In an
honest and truth-seeking manner ; but, being now his soul's
convictions, you can give no other law than this, ' You must
obey your conscience.' Therefore, woe to you if you do
what others think right. Instead of obeying the dictates of
your own conscience ; woe to you if you allow authority or
prescription or fashion or influence or any other human thing
to Interfere with that awful and sacred thing — responsibility.
How reverently and tenderly Paul regarded the sanctity of
the individual conscience ! When once it became a matter
of conscience, this was his principle laid down In matters of
dispute, ' Let every man be fully persuaded In his own mind.'
Tl)e belief of the whole world cannot make that thing true to
me which to me seems false. The conscience of the whole
world cannot make a thing right to me If I in my heart
believe it wrong. You may coerce the conscience, you may
control men's belief, and you may produce a unity by so
doing, but it is the unity of pebbles on the seashore, a lifeless
Identity of outward form with no cohesion between the parts,
a dead sea-beach on which nothing grows and where the very
seaweed dies.

THE HOLY GHOST. 277
" This view leads us to respect the sanctity of Individual
character. There is a sacredness In Individuality of character.
Each one born Into this world is a fresh new soul Intended by
his ISIaker to develop himself In a new fresh way. We are
what we are ; we cannot be truly other than ourselves. We
reach perfection not by copying, much less by aiming at
originality, but by consistently and steadily working out the
life which Is common to us all according to the character
which God has given us.
"According to Paul, nothing is to supersede personal con
viction. Conscience Is the supreme tribunal erected within
a man's owm soul. There Is no appeal to the opinion of
privileged persons. The apostle would not allow them to
condemn for conscientious acts : ' Let no man judge you.'
Be indifferent to man's judgment. For views and opinions
and things which belong to our own consciences, and do not
Interfere with the happiness of others, do not mind the denial
of your Christian character by fallible men. Be in no anxiety.
Human passions cannot bar your Christian rights. Let them
judge or despise. Feel that you owe allegiance to Christ,
and in that sacred, solitary feeling remain calm.
"Let us guard ourselves from a possible misconception of
these words. Let us not mistake supremacy of personal con
science for supremacy of individual will. ' Let every man be
fully persuaded in his own mind.' We draw a distinction
betv^-een the conviction or full persuasion, -which has become
part of a man's self, — that which he believes as the result of
much Inquiry, — and opinion, which is but half-conviction.
The apostle asserted the sanctity of convictions. They are the
solemn solitary positions In which a man stands before God ;
but we must not exalt our opinions to the rank of convictions.
Some people take up opinions in the lightest way, and expect
for them all the deference due to Christian conviction. They
say. Think what you like, it does not matter; your own

278 PROTESTANTISM.
opinion is just as likely to be true as that of another. The
result would be universal anarchy and license. St. Paul is
very far from saying that. He does not say. You are not
accountable for your opinion. He simply says. You are
not accountable to fallible man. He does not say private
judgment Is right; he only says there Is a right of private
judgment, irresponsible except to God.
"Now, consider the violation of the rights of conscience
by unchristian judging : ' Why dost thou judge thy brother?'
Judging is persecuting. It was the procedure of the dark
ages; men were persecuted for their conscientious views.
Such judging can only be defended on the claim of infalli
bility. Rome makes that claim, and is consistent in persecut
ing ; but Protestants, who do not make it, are Inconsistent.
Are those who judge others wiser than their brethren ? Are
they free from human frailty? Are they the meek, the
learned, the holy, and the wise ? Or, are they not generally
the self-instructed, the weakest of both sexes, the Impetuous,
the talkative, who presume to judge on the authority, perhaps,
of some minister who is to them as a pope ? ' Who art thou
that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he
standeth or falleth.'
" This persecution utterly fails in procuring what it aims
at, which Is uniformity of opinion. Uniformity of opinion is
the ideal good which men have tried for ages to attain, by
judgment, by denunciation, by exclusion. Rome tried It for
at least one thousand years. England tried It for three
centuries in Ireland. Have we got uniformity there? Is
Christendom more united than it was In the time of the
apostle ?
"Persecution destroys free inquiry. We boast of our
Protestant freedom. We say that Romanists shut up the
Bible, but that we give it without note or comment, and bid
men judge for themselves. Now, think, do we not really

THE HOLY GHOST. 279
say, ' Here is the Bible : read It for yourself ; but these
doctrines, and no other, you must flnd in it ; Inquire freely,
but at your peril arrive at any other conclusion than this ;
here is the truth, and here is the Bible to prove it by ? ' Is
it not manifest that this is a bitter mockery, and that it only
gives the name of liberty ?
"Hence it comes to pass that men will not bear to hear
the truth. They think that they have It already, in the small
compass of a single mind, and they come to church to hear It
repeated to them In a sermon, — not to get fresh gleams of
infinite truth ; but, holding all the infinite in their minds, to
criticise any departure from It. The multitude dare not
think, and they who think dare not speak. And this we call
free Inquiry ! This is the present case of Christian society,
to my mind an awful and appalling one. What is there to
prevent the spirit of the old times being applied to us ? ' The
prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their
means, and my people love to have it so ; and what will be
the end thereof ? ' "
239. Dean Stanley says: "It is this doctrine of the
supremacy of conscience which corrects the pretensions of
all artificial authority. All human authority, civil or ecclesi
astical, must in the last resort be alike subordinate to the
one Divine authority which speaks to us through the voice of
conscience. When the apostles declared, and when -we after
them declare, that -we must obey God rather than man, it
was the assertion of the supremacy of conscience against the
authority of a Sanhedrim of priests and scribes as it still may
be against the authority of a Pontiff, a Synod, or a Council.
It Is this doctrine which Is the foundation of all true spiritual
independence ; that Is, of the independence by which a brave
man acts for himself and by himself regardless of adverse
critics or fashion or carping foes or, what is more difficult to

28o PR O TESTANTISM.
withstand, of lukewarm friends. ' They have said. What
say they? Let them say.' That is the noble motto of the
chief college in the University of Aberdeen. It should be the
motto of every resolute soul which cares more for mind than
for matter, more for quality than for quantity, more for God
than for men."
240. Bishop Colenso says: "We can only know God,
His moral attributes. His justice, mercy, and truth, by what
we know in ourselves of these excellencies. God, then, has
given this light of the inner man to be the very guide and
pole-star of our lives. By that light within us the acts of our
own lives must be judged, and, when necessity requires It,
the acts of others also. By that light the sayings and doings
of good men, the acts of the Church, the proceedings and
decisions of her fathers and councils, the writings of prophets
and apostles, the words recorded to have been uttered by our
blessed Lord Himself, must all be tried."
241. Rev. John Macnaught says : " Only once say, home
to a man's heart and understanding, 'You are your own judge.
God's vicegerent, conscience, is within, judge for yourself,' —
once say this so that a man shall hear It, and he Is forever
afterwards God's freeman. You may by reason convince
his judgment, and so convert or change his views ; but by
authority of priest or church or book you can never again
guide his mind. Scripture appeals to us as wise men who
can judge and ought to act on our own judgment in rejecting
what is evil, though an angel be its teacher ; and In holding
fast the good, which we approve, whencesoever we may have
derived it and whatsoever it may be."
242. Dean Farrar says: "If any man ask, 'How are
we to discriminate between that which in the Bible ought to
be to us the immediate word of God, and that which, having
been but relative and transient, is not His word to us ? '

THE HOLY GHOST. 381
I answer that not only is there not the slightest practical
difficulty In doing so, but that the question shows, surely, a
strange and unworthy timidity. In the first place, no theory
which can be invented will give the certitude which is
claimed for every petty detail of sectarian dissidence or theo
logical terminology ; nor can any pretence of an Infallible
decision ever give infallibility to hosts of fallible and varying
interpretations. But for all essential truths have we nothing
to guide us into certainty? Have we no reason, ' lighted by
God, and lighting to God, res illuminata, illumi/ians?'
Have we within us no voice of conscience, ' that aboriginal
vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch In
its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas ? '
Have we no Spirit of God to guide us, or has He abdicated
His office ? "
243. Rev. J. M. ^Ai^hiton says : "What Is this communion
of the Holy Spirit? It includes the Impartatlon of the Holy
Spirit as a divine gift to all, in whatever diversities to each,
together with the impartatlon by each to others of his own
individual share. The very differences and inequalities of
our individual shares are thus designed for an individual
communication of benefits, which is to build up the collective
life of the whole as a life of love. A healthy collectivism Is
Impossible apart from a healthy individualism. The life of
the whole depends on the life of each and every part. The
Individual is as Important as the mass composed of Individuals.
As a matter of history, what has come of disregarding the
Individual ? Nothing but despotism in government, stagnation
in society, corruption in morals. And do you not see that
this is a fundamental condition of all religious and moral
progress, that the individual man should regard God as deal
ing, not only with the Church or the State In general, but
with him In particular? Each needs to feel himself as

282 PROTESTANTISM.
responsible to God as any or all others ; each needs to feel
that God cares for him singly as actively as for all.
"It is this conviction of Individuals from which has sprung
all reform, and all those ideas of human rights and duties
from which modern liberty and philanthropy and the general
enrichment of life have proceeded. This was the thing that
powerfully promoted democracy, as Froude observes, by
making the peasant believe that in relation to the grace of
God he was on a level with the prince.
"It needs but slight acquaintance with history to see that
spiritual life with moral and religious power has ever spread
from individual centres, — from an Abraham, a Moses, an
Isaiah, a Paul, a Luther, from solitary hearts which enshrined
a sacred and contagious fire, from lonely seers whose divinely
anointed eyes made them prophets and guides to nations.
Thus from the Holy Spirit in individual breasts ever flows
' the communion of the Spirit,' diffusing from man to man
the thrill of feeling, the awe of conviction, the mandate of
duty, the bowing of conscience to the inner revelation of the
spirit of truth. It is precisely In the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit that the truth of personality is glorified. It seems
most certain that the realization in the world of the Divine
humanity, which Is idealized to us under the Image of the
Son, depends on the realization in the individual of the
divineness and sacredness of his own personality.
" When I see that God is not only the gi^•er but the sharer
of my life, that my natural powers are that part of God's
power which is lodged with me In trust to keep and use,
I feel, on one hand, the spur to self-reliance on what there
is of God's power in me, as the right way of dependence on
what there is of God's power above me. On the other hand,
when I am burdened under my weakness and sin, I am
prompted to faith that God will not forsake His own, will
not abandon what there is of God in me, but, as Paul said,
' will perfect what is lacking.'"

THE HOLY GHOST. 383
244. Rev. Thomas Rain says: "The claim made by
Christ is this : that the individual soul possesses rights
superior to ecclesiastical organizations, and by implication to
all other organizations that mav be set up ; for the principle
enunciated is so great and deep that it may be universally,
applied. The living soul. He seems to tell us, is Lord of
all earthly powers, and particularly of all institutions and
mechanisms which, as vehicles of Its thought, it may choose
to frame. It is the creator of these. But for it, which Is the
vital principle, they, the body, had not been ; and, when
through ignorance or sluggishness it forgets this fact and
lets its own creature rule over it, then, Esau-like, It sells its
birthright. "Therefore, I hardly know another saying of our Lord's
that, from the priestly point of view, looks so revolutionary
as this. For it cuts away the very ground on which priest
hoods take their stand, and, were this principle universally
recognized, there would be no room for sacerdotalism any
where. Like Noah's dove, it would find no rest for the sole
of its foot, but would be driven back to the place whence it
came out, — the uncivilized or half-civilized understanding.
But unhappily the world is ruled to a very small extent by
spiritual principles, and to a very large extent by expediency
and the imitative Instinct ; one consequence of which Is that
priesthoods have abounded and do abound. Further, we
need not expect them to be extinguished In our time or our
children's time, and It is probably better that they should
exist yet awhile. Had they never been necessary to the
world's development, they had never been In it, and, were
they altogether useless to-day, they would speedily disappear.
It is because there is still a certain co-adaptation between the
spirit of man and the overgrown Romish hierarchy, as well
as other hierarchies, which, though disclaiming Rome, are
yet its satellites, that Popery so successfully holds its ground.

284 PROTESTANTISM.
But, as man advances, sacerdotalism must retrograde ; as he
comes to a clearer consciousness of the powers within himself,
he will give less heed to external guides to truth, though they
be never so venerable.
"Institutions are to be the servant of man, says Christ;
liable to modification, to increase or diminution, to total
annihilation, as the needs of his spirit may determine. He
is to have entire power over thera as the potter has power
over the clay, and may mould them to his several purposes,
or. If It suit him better, may break them under his foot.
Like the ancient slave, relatively to his master, they are to
be wholly in his hands for life or death. The world In
which he lives is a place of ceaseless transformation, and,
as other conditions of his life change, Christianity gives him
the power of changing also the institutions in which his faith
is enshrined. Creeds and ordinances conformable to one age
may not be conformable to the next, and man is to judge how
far and in what direction they need modification. The right
of adding to or taking from them is given by God into his
hand. This is the doctrine of our Lord.
" No-w, It Is the doctrine of Ecclesiasticism in its integrity,
and as represented by Rome, that the human soul possesses
no natural faculty for apprehending the absolutely true. A
certain power of thought is admitted to it, but it is of that
mechanical kind which gives rise to Industrial life, and not
of the spiritual order whence come the doctrines of religion.
These doctrines originate without, and are conveyed by an
external authority into the mind, which forms a fitting nidus
for their reception, but between them and the nidus there is
no vital union possible. The fostering care of the Church is
needed to keep them active and guard them against corrup
tion, and when that is withdrawn, or If It be discarded, they
instantly disappear ; at all events, their charm ceases to work,
and the spiritual principle is taken out of man's life. For

THE HOLY GHOST. 285
that Is the gift of the Church, and is only given to those who
put themselves in connection with her holy ordinances.
" By the light shed from this doctrine, we readily perceive
why Ecclesiasticism should have been so fierce an opponent
to the free exercise of reason in judging the truth. Its oppo
sition has been based on a conviction that reason and truth
were two things essentially different, and that the former
could not tell anything reliable about the latter. It might,
no doubt, try its powers, and frame theories ; but, because
between it and what It theorized about there was no commu
nity of nature, its deductions could only lead astray. The
proper place for reason, therefore, was to be chained under
the feet of ecclesiastical authority. Hence Ecclesiasticism
has regarded every new encroachment of the rationalistic
principle as so much territory won from the realm of light
and order and put under the dominion of anarchy. Hence
its jealousy of philosophy and science, of democratic move
ments, of all sorts of Innovation, and its exaltation of the
past at the expense of the present. That inspiration of the
Almighty which giveth man — all men — understanding finds
no acknowledgment in its creed ; and the so-called inner light
Is viewed by it as a dangerous Will-o'-the-wisp, to be guarded
against continually.
"It is the doctrine of Individualism, on the other hand,
that truth in its nature is subjective, a part of the spiritual
consciousness, and necessarily involved In It. This doctrine
is scattered all through the prophetic writings of the Bible,
and Is sometimes stated therewith antique Hebraic vehemence.
We meet with it under a very beautiful form in Deuteronomy :
' tfor this commandment which I command thee this day,
it Is not hidden from thee, neither is It far off. It Is not in
heaven, that thou shouldest say. Who shall go up for us to
heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear It, and do It?
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say. Who

286 PROTESTANTISM.
shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we
may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee,
in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do It.'
" Here is the profoundest spiritual truth stated in quaint,
picturesque fashion, but so simply that he who runs may
read. To form a correct philosophy of religion I do not
think we need add much to what this passage gives us. If
we bring to explicit consciousness the ideas that are latent
In it, and give them an orderly setting. It will be enough.
I would be satisfied with emphasizing the general fact that
religious truth is by this passage placed on an internal and
personal basis. It Is represented as that which springs up
In the hidden depth of man's soul, and for which God has
prepared no other place than this hidden depth. This is the
Christian view ages before the coming of Christ ; and we can
fearlessly admit that there Is a real sense — more real than Is
kno'wn to dogmatic exegesis — In which the Saviour may be
found In the Old Testament books. Neither shalt thou say,
Lo, here it is in this church ! nor, Lo, there it Is in that
ceremony ! for ' the kingdom of God is within you ' is a
word that was sounded by the ancient prophets long before
He sounded it who Is the Light of the World.
" Religious truth Is its own evidence, and the ultimate court
of appeal the spiritual consciousness. This is a position that
hitherto has served the materialists much as Samson served
the Philistines, — It has made sport for them. ' Intuition,'
' necessary truth,' the ' subjective method,' are things that they
have laughed at, and battered with their keen logic alter
nately. Scepticism has sneered, and bigotry has raged, and
between these two fires the spiritual philosophy has some
times had a hard time of It. But the deep-minded men of
the world have been on Its side. That this universe has a
supra-sensuous basis, and is far more than it seems to be, is
a conception round which, in all ages, genius and intellect

THE HOLY GHOST. 287
have ranged themselves ; and though the}' have often erred
in systematizing their thought, and may err again, something
In them has kept them true to Its principle. But we are only
concerned here with the spiritualistic or transcendental prin
ciples of evidence, and these tell us, as I say, that the criterion
of truth in religious matters lies in the soul Itself. According
to these, it is not by a logical arrangement of facts, nor by
the cleverness of empirical philosophers, that religion is to
be defended, but by the witness of the Spirit to what is true,
which is part of the nature of the regenerate man. I am
afraid, if the spiritual ideas of the Bible and of later teaching
do not commend themselves as true to the consciousness of
those who read them, there Is no method at present by which
they can be proved ; at all events, in the present state of
popular culture, philosophical proof of them could not be
made widely intelligible. And perhaps the best ' Evidences
of Christianity ' which in the mean time can be had are those
inarticulate intuitions and feelings -which dwell deep down in
believing souls ; that intense, unaccountable life which has
inspired men from the beginning, and which the wisest of
them have ever looked on as a mystery.
"No great religious teacher ever troubled himself about
the evidences, in the common sense of that term. Where are
the subtle argumentations of the ancient prophets or of our
Lord, and where their testimonies from history? It seems
ridiculous to propose such a question. In them the individ
ualistic principle dwelt strongly, and hence they appealed for
proof to the hearts and consciences of men, the witness that
was within their hearers. Such a thought probably does not
fill, as an inspiring faith, the mind of the great Protestant
multitude, for in the unthinking masses the echoes of a
bygone creed survive for ages ; but there are, I fancy, few
among them who would not acquiesce in it were It brought
Intelligently before them. This acquiescence would be the

288 PROTESTANTISM.
outcome of that individualism which Is working unconsciously
In the atmosphere of the age. Once it has established itself
and taken conscious possession of the age, it will, if it be
a true and not a false individualism, extinguish the division
between the Church and the world entirely,, substituting for It
that grand idea of St. Paul, ' To the pure all things are pure.'
With this idea pervading and filling our souls, we shall come
to perceive that the whole universe of consciousness is at our
service for spiritual culture. We must say that the earth
is given us for the culture of our souls, and that Christian
philosophy is the instrument that explains to us Its complex
symbols. We must take up the discoveries of science and
give to them a spiritual interpretation. Earth's seas and
skies, its rocks and animals, the foliage and the flower, the
flux and reflux of its life, its iron, relentless laws, and the
marvellous history of man, are all facts through -which God
would teach and discipline us. They are a portion of His
revelation, and not one of them but shadows forth His being
and His thought.
" Let no one Imagine that I ignore the value of ecclesi
astical organizations, or would have those existing destroyed.
The inward life necessarily embodies itself in visible institu
tions, and though spiritual thought may have ebbed low in
many of our churches it has not wholly left any of them, and
they are performing a useful work. Their doctrines are the
bread of Hfe to thousands, and they form a real holy of
holies, in which devout souls all over Christendom worship.
I would only warn you against entering into a false relation
to them, calling them your master and lord, and forgetting
they are your servant ; raising them to the position of an
end, and forgetting they are but a means. And I would say,
especially, that not a single doctrine of which they are the
official guardians — the most essential or the most accidental
doctrine, the earliest framed or the latest added — can be of

THE HOLY GHOST. 3S9
moral value to anybody when taken Into the mind at the
bidding of authority.
"Let the simple-minded Christian who hears of progress
and dreads the havoc It may work upon his creed, gather
comfort from the thought that the spirit of true religion is
eternal. The visible body of it may wax old like a garment,
and as a vesture God — or man under God — may change it,
and It shall be changed. But this shall only be that Religion
may weave for itself a simpler and more fitting covering ;
and, when the churches of the present break up and go their
way, they will make room for something that is higher."
245. Seneca. An interesting piece of evidence as to what
was the main idea of the early Christians is found in Seneca,
who was born B.C. 3, and died A.D. 65. He had been
quaestor, prsetor, and consul at Rome, and had every oppor
tunity during the reign of Nero of securing a general knowl
edge of the ne-w ideas. This in all probability led to the
writing of the following passages, and influenced in a marked
degree very much of his philosophy.
He is constantly cited with approbation by some of the
most eminent Christian fathers. TertuUian, Lactantius, and
even Augustine quote his words with admiration, while
Jerome calls him " our Seneca." The Council of Trent
quote him as though he were an acknowledged father of
the Church. He said : —
(a) " Every man has a judge and a witness within himself
of all good and ill that he does, which inspires us with great
thoughts, and administers to us wholesome counsels. To see
a man fearless In dangers, untainted with lusts, happy in
adversity, composed in a tumult, and laughing at all those
things which are generally either coveted or feared, — all men
must acknowledge that this can be nothing else but a beam
of divinity that influences a mortal body. A great, a good.

290 PROTESTANTISM.
and a right mind is a kind of divinity lodged in flesh; it
came from heaven, and to heaven it must return ; and It Is a
kind of heavenly felicity which a pure and virtuous mind
enjoys, In some degree, even upon earth, whereas temples
of honor are but empty names, which probably owe their
beginning either to ambition or to violence.
(5) " God Is nigh unto thee. He is with thee, He is
within thee. A sacred spirit is resident in us, an observer
and guardian both of what is good and what Is evil in us, and
in like manner as we use him so he useth us. There Is no
good man but hath God within him. May any man rise
superior to fortuncj except he be assisted by Him? He it is
that giveth the noblest- and most upright counsels.
(c) "If thou beholdest a man that is dreadless of perils,
untouched with desires, happy In his afflictions, calm in
tempests, contemplating men from a high place, the gods
from an equal, will not a certain veneration of him overcome
thee ? Wilt thou not say. This is too great and high a being
to be considered on a level with the little body which it
inhablteth? The divine power descendeth hither. This
excellent and moderate mind, ¦which overpasseth all things
as if beneath it, laughing at whatsoever we either fear or
hope, surely is enkindled by a celestial power. So great a
thing cannot stand without divine support. Therefore as
touching the greatest part of him, he is there from whence
he descended. And just as the sunbeams do in a manner
touch the earth, but remain In that place from whence they
are sent, so Is It with a great and sacred mind. What
manner of mind, therefore, is this? One that, apprehending
the divine things within it, relieth on no other good but its
own." 246. Epictetus. Another glimpse of the same idea is to
be found in Epictetus, who lived In the latter part of the first
century and the early part of the second century. He says : —

THE HOLY GHOST. 291
{a) " Our souls being thus bound up and in touch with
God, seeing, indeed, that they are portions and fragments of
Him, shall not every movement of them, inasmuch as it Is
something Inward and akin to God, be perceived by Him?
{b) "He hath placed at every man's side a guardian, the
genius of each man, who is charged to watch over him, a
genius that cannot sleep nor be deceived. To what greater
and more watchful guardian could He have committed us ?
So, when we have shut the doors, and made darkness in the
house, remember never to say that ye are alone ; for ye are
not alone, but God is there, and your genius is there ; and
what need have these of light to mark what ye are doing?
To this God it were fitting also that ye should swear an oath,
as soldiers do to Caesar. But those, indeed, who receive pay
swear to prefer the safety of Csesar before all things ; but ye,
receiving so many and great things, will ye not swear? or
swearing, will ye not abide by it ? And what shall ye swear ?
Never to disobey, never to accuse, never to blame aught that
He hath given, never unwillingly to do or suffer any necessary
thing. Is this oath like unto that other? The soldiers swear
to esteem no other man before Caesar ; ye to esteem yourselves
above all.
(c) " Thou art a supreme object, thou art a piece of God,
thou hast in thee something that Is a portion of Him. Why,
then, art thou ignorant of thy high ancestry? Why knowest
thou not whence thou earnest? Wilt thou not remember, in
thine eating, who It is that eats, and whom thou dost nourish ?
In converse, in exercise. In argument, knowest thou not that
thou art nourishing a God, exercising a God? Unhappy man !
thou bearest about with thee a God, and knowest it not !
Thinkest thou I speak of some god of gold and silver, and
external to thee ? Nay, but in thyself thou dost bear Him, and
seest not that thou defilest Him with thine Impure thoughts
and filthy deeds? In the presence even of an image of God

292 PROTESTANTISM.
thou hadst not dared to do one of those things which thou
dost. But in the presence of God Himself within thee, who
seeth and heareth all things, thou art not ashamed of the
things thou dost both desire and do, O thou unwitting of
thine own nature, and subject to the wrath of God !
(fi? ) " Wilt thou dishonor such a Maker, whose work thou
art? Nay, for not only did He make thee, but to thee alone
did He trust and commit thyself. Wilt thou not remember
this, too, or wilt thou dishonor thy charge? But if God had
committed some orphan child to thee, wouldst thou have
neglected it? Now He hath given thee to thyself, and saith,
I had none Tnore worthy of trust than thee ; keep this man
such as he was made by 7iature, — r ever e7zt, faithful, high,
unterrified, unshaken of passions, untroubled. And thou
wilt not.''
247. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who was born A.D.
121 and died in the year iSo, testifies to the same idea. He
says : —
{a) " Let us find out the mark of a man of probity. His
distinction lies in letting reason guide his practice, in con
tentment with all that is allotted him, keeping pure the
divinity within him, untroubled by a crowd of appearances,
preserving it tranquil, and obeying It as a god. He Is all
truth in his words and justice In his actions ; and if the whole
world should disbelieve his Integrity, dispute his character,
and question his happiness, he would neither take it ill in
the least, nor turn aside from that path that leads to the aim
of life, towards which he must move pure, calm, well
prepared, and with perfect resignation in his fate.
(3) "Among all things in the universe direct your worship
to the greatest. And which is that? It Is that being which
manages and governs all the rest. And as you worship the
best thing in nature, so you are to pay a proportionate regard

THE HOLY GHOST. 293
to the best thing in yourself, and this is akin to the Deity.
The quality of Its functions will discover It. It is the reign-.
Ing power within you, which disposes of your actions and
your fortune.
(c) "We ought to live with the gods. This is done by
him who always exhibits a soul contented with the appoint
ments of Providence, and obeys the orders of that divinity
which is his deputy and ruler and the offspring of God.
Now, this divine authority is neither more nor less than that
soul and reason which every man possesses.
{d) " Rely upon yourself, for it is the nature of the
principle that rules within us to be satisfied with honesty
and the In-ward quiet consequent to It.
(e) " Look inwards, for you have a lasting fountain of
happiness at home that will aUvays bubble up if you will
dig for it.
{f) " Remember that your business is to be a good man.
Speak always according to your conscience. A man is a
limb, as it were, of an intelligent, righteous, and irresistible
Being that Is all wisdom, and assigns matter, form, time,
force, and fortune to everything In one measure and propor
tion. If there is nothing more valuable than the divinity
Implanted within you, if all things are trifles compared with
this, give way to nothing else. A man thus qualified makes
a right use of the Deity within him. Take care that the
divinity within you has a creditable charge to preside over."
248. Ralph 'Waldo Emerson says : " There is one mind
common to all individual men. Every man is an inlet to
the same and to all of the same. Who hath access to this
universal mind Is a party to all that is or can be done, for
this is the onlj^ and sovereign agent. Of this universal mind
each Individual man is one more incarnation. The obscure
consciousness of this fact is the light of all our day, the claim

294 PROTESTANTISM.
of claims, the foundation of the heroism, and the grandeur
which belongs to acts of self-reliance. The world exists for
the education of each man. Everything tends In a -wonderful
manner to abbreviate itself and yield its own virtue to him.
We He In the lap of immense intelligence -which makes us
receivers of its truth and organs of its activity. When -we
discern justice or truth, we do nothing of ourselves, but allow
a passage to Its beams.
" God exists. There is a soul at the centre of nature and
over the ¦will of every man. The whole course of nature
goes to teach us faith. We need only obey. There Is guid
ance for each of us, and by lowly listening ¦we shall hear the
right word. Man is conscious of a universal soul within or
behind his individual life, wherein, as in a firmament, the
natures of justice, truth, love, freedom arise and shine.
This universal soul he calls reason ; it is not mine, or thine,
or his, but we are its ; we are its property and men. And
the blue sky in ¦which the private earth is buried, the sky
with Its eternal calm, and full of everlasting orbs, is the type
of reason. That which, intellectually considered, we call
reason, considered In relation to nature, we call spirit. Spirit
is the creator. Spirit hath life in itself. And man in all ages
and countries embodies it in his language as the father. Of
that ineffable essence which we call spirit he that thinks most
will say least. That essence refuses to be recorded in
propositions. The noblest ministry of nature is to stand as
the apparition of God. It Is the organ through which the
Universal Spirit speaks to the individual and strives to lead
back the individual to it. We thus learn that the Highest is
present to the soul of man. Spirit does not act upon us from
without, but spiritually, or through ourselves. As a plant
upon the earth, so a man rests upon the bosom of God. He
Is nourished by unfailing fountains, and draws at his need
inexhaustible power.

THE HOLY GHOST. 295
"I conceive a man as always spoken to from behind, and
unable to turn his head and see the speaker. In all the
millions ¦who have heard the voice, none ever saw the face.
As children in their play run behind each other, and seize
one by the ears and make him ¦walk before them, so is the
Spirit our unseen pilot. That well-known voice speaks in all
languages, governs all men, and none ever caught a glimpse
of its form. If the man will exactly obey it, it ¦will adopt
him, so that he shall not any longer separate It from himself
in his thought ; he shall seem to be It ; he shall be it. If he
listen with insatiable ears, richer and greater ¦wisdom Is taught
him, the sound s^wells to a ravishing music, he Is borne away
as with a flood. But if his eye is set on the things to be
done, and not on the truth that is still taught, and for the
sake of which the things are to be done, then the voice grows
faint, and at last is but a humming In his ears.
"The sanity of man needs the poise of this immanent force.
His nobility needs the assurance of this inexhaustible reserved
power. The doctrine of this Supreme Presence is a cry of
joy and exultation. I praise with wonder this great reality
which seems to drown all things in the deluge of Its light.
What man seeing this can lose It from his thoughts or enter
tain a meaner subject? The entrance of this Into his mind
seems to be the birth of man.
"Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw
with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by Its severe
harmony, ravished with its beauty, He lived in it, and had
His being there. Alone, in all history, He estimated the
greatness of man. One man was true to what Is in you and
me. He saw that God incarnates Himself in man, and
evermore goes forth anew to take possession of His world.
He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, ' I am divine.
Through me God acts ; through me, speaks. Would you see
God, see me ; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now

296 PROTESTANTISM.
think.' Having seen that the law In us Is commanding. He
would not suffer it to be commanded. Boldly, with hand
and heart and life. He declared it was God. Thus Is He,
as I think, the only soul In history who has appreciated the
worth of man.
' ' The true Christianity — a faith like Christ's in the infini
tude of man — is lost. None believeth in the soul of man,
but only In some man or person old and departed. Ah, me !
no man goeth alone. All men go In flocks to this saint or
that poet, avoiding the God who seeth in secret. They
cannot see In secret; they love to be blind In public. They
think society wiser than their soul, and know not that one
soul, and their soul, is wiser than the whole world. See how
nations and races flit by on the sea of time, and leave no
ripple to tell ¦where they floated or sunk, and one good soul
shall make the name of Moses reverend forever. Once leave
your own knowledge of God, your own sentiment, and take
secondary knowledge, and you get wide from God with every
year this secondary form lasts, and if, as now, for centuries,
the chasm yawns to that breadth that men can scarcely be
convinced there is in them anything divine."
249. Browning says : —
" Truth Is within ourselves — it takes no rise
From outward things ; ¦whatever you may believe,
There Is an inmost centre In us all
Where truth abides In fulness ; and around
Wall upon wall, the gross flesh hems It in.
This perfect, clear perception which is truth.
A baffling and perverting carnal mesh
Blinds it, and makes all error ; and to know
Rather consists in opening out a way
Whence the imprisoned splendor may escape,
Than In effecting entry for a light
Supposed to be without."

THE TRINITY. 297

CHAPTER VI.

the trixitv.

250. Probably no dogma has been such a hopeless puzzle
to thinking men as the scholastic interpretation of the Trinity.
Probably none has been so little understood by its professed
believers. This conventional and popular view of the Trinity
was Inherited from medisevalism. The only place in the
Bible where the Trinity is put before us as an arithmetical
enigma has long been known to be spurious, and has been
entirely omitted from the last revised version of the New
Testament. (See Section 134.)
The word "Trinity" is not to be found In the Scriptures,
nor is it claimed that there is used anywhere in the Bible any
word of the same signlflcatlon or import with relation to God.
It is a term of mere human invention. There cannot be
found, with reference to the divine nature. In any genuine
Christian ¦work of the first two centuries any statement of
doctrine equivalent or approaching to or consistent with the
mystical and scholastic conception of the Trinity. As any
thing like a full and developed Idea It did not exist in the
Christian Church until late In the fourth century.
251. " If the mystical doctrine of the Trinity is not taught
in the Bible and it formed no part of the Christian system as
maintained by the primitive Church, whence, then, came it?
From the later Platonic philosophy. Plato had written much
about three divine principles. His followers talked and
wrote mystically about these same three principles ; and a
¦ divine Trinity In time assumed a prominent place among the
doctrines of the later Platonists, Insomuch that it may be
traced in all their works. In process of time many eminent

298 PROTESTANTISM.
Platonists became Christians. Justin Martyr was a devoted
disciple of Plato. Alexandria, which was the birthplace of
the Christian Trinity, was the headquarters of Platonism ;
and the early Trinitarian fathers were all Platonists, and
were, therefore, Trinitarians before they became Christians.
They quoted Plato and Christ in the same breath, believed in
both ¦with equally unhesitating assurance, incorporated the
Platonic Trinity Into their religious creed, remodelled the
Christian system In the Platonic mould, and then compli
mented the memory of Plato on his having anticipated the
essential doctrines of the gospel. That this statement is not
exaggerated will appear from the fact that in their extant
writings the early Trinitarian fathers always quote Plato and
his followers as freely as they do the New Testament on the
subject of the Trinity. St. Augustine expressly says that he
was In the dark with regard to the Trinity until he found the
true doctrine concerning the divine Word in a Latin transla
tion of some Platonic ¦writings which the providence of God
had thrown In his way."
252. Archbishop Tlllotson said. In speaking of this
scholastic doctrine of the Trinity : "It cannot be denied but
that these speculative and very acute schoolmen who wrought
a great part of their divinity out of their own brains, as
spiders' do cobwebs out of their own bowels, have started a
thousand subtleties about this mystery such as no Christian Is
bound to trouble his head about, much less is it necessary for
him to understand those niceties which we may reasonably
presume that they who talk of them did themselves never
thoroughly understand, and least of all is it necessary to
believe them."
253. Rev. R. H. Newton says: "The popular notion
of the Trinity is undoubtedly utterly grotesque, — a sort of
dream of a Divine Being, at once three and one, of whom no

THE TRINITY.

399

conceivable thought can be formed better than that which the
popular imagination of India cast Into the form of an image
with three heads.
''A person can believe in a fact or a being whose nature
he cannot comprehend, as, for instance, in God or vegetation
or life ; but no one can believe a proposition the terms of
which are unknown to him. For example, ' Three persons in
one God.' Unless he knows what ' person ' means, he cannot
believe that, because he attaches no meaning whatever, or
else a false one, to the assertion. It is preposterous to say
that he must believe it as a mystery because the Church says
it ; for all that he then does is to suspend his judgment on a
subject of %vhich he knows nothing, and to say ' The Church
knows all about It, but I have not the smallest conception
what it is she knows.' "
254. Is there anything more strange than the human mind
when it gets under the dominion of an idea? We see men of
education, proud of their Intelligence, who can yet look us in
the face and say. We believe that in the Trinity there are
three distinct persons and that these three are one. We
believe in the absolute unity of God and that He is supreme,
and yet we believe this unity consists of three distinct persons
who are all co-equal, and that each is supreme. We believe
there are three. We believe there is and can be but one.
This we do not understand. It is the arithmetic of heaven.
We do not know what we mean by "person." We do not
pretend in the least degree to understand the meaning of the
words we use, but to believe that these terras mean something,
and to believe them In that meaning ¦without at all knowing
what that meaning Is, — this Is to be religious and orthodox.
" We believe because It Is absurd." What can we say to
such a person ? We may tolerate him, but ¦we cannot imitate
him. He Is a psy^chological puzzle. We study him and try

300 PR O TESTANTISM.
to understand his mind, because to understand it would throw
so much light on the nature of the mind ; but after all our
study -we must confess that ¦we are baffled. Is the mind so
enigmatic? Does the mind delight in paradoxes? Can ¦we
depend on the mind at all ? No wonder these people distrust
their reason.
255. Rightly understood, however, no doctrine is more
true in its substance than this. To have a true conception
of the Trinity is to have the noblest and highest conception
of God which It is permitted man to have.
The view we shall now present Is that held by Dean
Stanley, and Is called by him the biblical vie^w as opposed
to the scholastic view. Thus understood it will never cease
to be the chief expression of Christian belief. "The terms
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indicate three different revela
tions or manifestations which God has given of his character,
¦which taken together constitute the total divine revelation or
manifestation. God has made and is evermore making three
distinct and independent manifestations of Himself, each
giving a different view of the Divine Being, each showing
God to man under a different aspect.
"The first manifestation of God is in nature where we see
Him as power, the supreme cause, the source of all being,
the fountain and end of all things, from whom all things have
come, and to whom all things tend. Here He appears as
Creator, and manifests Himself as unchanging law, as perfect
order. Here He Is the universal Parent or Father. In one
word it expresses to us the whole faith of what is called
natural religion.
' ' The second manifestation is In Christ where God appears
as the personal Friend. It has often happened that the
conception of God becomes faint and dim. How is this
difficulty to be met? How shall the dim remembrance of

THE TRINITY. 301
our universal Father be so brought home to us that we shall
not forget it or lose It? This is the object of the second
sacred name by which God is revealed to us. As in the
name of the Father we have natural religion, — the faith of
the natural conscience, — so in the name of the Son we have
historical religion, or the faith of the Christian Church. As
the Father represents to us God In nature, so the name of the
Son represents to us God in history, God in the character of
man, God in the person of Christ. We know how In the
case of those whom we have never seen at all there Is still
a means of communication ¦with them through reading their
letters, their works, their words ; so it Is in this second dis
closure of the being of God. The life of Christ is the Word,
the speech that comes to us out of that eternal silence which
suiTounds the unseen divinity. And wheresoever in history
the same likeness is or has been In any degree reproduced In
human character, there and In that proportion is the same
effect produced ; there and in that proportion Is the Word
which speaks through every word of human wisdom and the
Light which lightens with its own radiance every human act
of righteousness and of goodness. To believe in the name of
Christ Is to believe that no other approach to God exists,
except through those same qualities of justice, truth, and love
which make up the mind of Christ. Christ Is the form In
which the divine nature has been made most palpably known
to the world, — in flesh and blood. In facts and words, in life
and death. The claim of Christianity upon us Is that It
springs from the highest earthly manifestation of God.
"The third manifestation which God makes of Himself is
within the soul as life. That same power, wisdom, and
goodness which we see displayed externally in outward
nature we find manifested internally In the soul itself as its
natural and spiritual life. That which Is displayed outwardly
as power Is manifested within the soul as cause or motive

302 ^ PROTESTANTISM.
leading to the exercise of will. The ¦will is to science the
first example of power, the origin of the conception of cause.
The bodily effort made by the will lies at the root of the
conception of force. It is by comparing other forces ¦with
that force that science begins its march. That which is
manifested outwardly as wisdom is revealed Inwardly as
reason, and that which is manifested outwardly as goodness
Is manifested Inwardly as conscience or the la^w of right.
The Holy Spirit is an Inward revelation.
" Natural religion may become vague and abstract. Histori
cal religion may become, as It often has become, perverted,
distorted, exhausted, formalized. Its external proofs may
become dubious ; Its Inner meaning may be almost lost.
There have been oftentimes Christians -who -were not like
Christ, a Christianity which was not the religion of Christ.
There is yet another form of religion, and that is spiritual
religion. The name of the Holy Ghost represents to us God
in our own hearts and spirits and consciousness. This is the
still, small voice, stillest and smallest, yet most powerful of
all, ¦which even more than the wonders of nature or the
wonders of history brings us into the nearest harmony with
Him who is a spirit ; who, when His closest communion
with man is described, can only be described as the Spirit
pleading with and dwelling in our spirit. When a child took
up a stone to throw at a tortoise In a pond, he felt himself
restrained by something within him. He went home and
asked his mother what that something was. She told him
it was what was commonly called conscience, but she pre
ferred to call it the voice of God within him. To believe In
a presence within us aspiring with our aspirations ; to believe
In the divine supremacy of conscience ; to believe that the spirit
is above the letter ; to believe that the substance is above the
form ; to believe that the meaning is more important than
the words ; to believe that truth is greater than authority or

THE TRINITY.

303

fashion or Imagination and will at last prevail ; to believe
that goodness and justice and love are the bonds of perfectness
without which whosoever liveth Is counted dead though he
live, and which bind together those who are divided in all
other things whatsoever, — this Is what is meant by the
expression, ' I believe In the Holy Ghost.'
"When we study the mysteries and laws of nature we are
drawing near to God. When we see Christ we see God who
is in Christ. When ¦we look into the solemn Intuitions of our
soul, the monitions of conscience, and the influences which
draw our hearts to goodness, we are meeting and communing
with God.
"Wherever ¦we are taught to kno^w and understand the real
nature of the world in ¦which our lot is cast, there is a
testimony, however humble, to the name of the Father.
Wherever ¦we are taught to kno^w and admire the highest
and best of human excellence, there is a testimony to the
name of the Son. Wherever we learn the universal apprecia
tion of such excellence, there is a testimony to the name of
the Holy Ghost."
256. Rev. F. 'W. Robertson says: "The doctrine of
the Trinity Is the sum of all that knowledge which has as
yet been gained by man. We are puzzled and perplexed by
words. We fight respecting words. Quarrels are nearly
always verbal quarrels. There are in every congregation,
themselves not knowing it, Trinitarians who are practically
Tri-Theists, worshipping three Gods ; and Sabellians, or wor
shippers of one person under three manifestations. Now, the
distinction is not physical, but metaphysical. When we talk
of personaHty as of a being bounded by space, and then say
that three persons are one and one Is three. It Is simply con
tradictory and absurd. It is really a metaphysical doctrine.
It Is a Trinity of three distinct consciousnesses in the mind,

304 PROTESTANTISM.
of God. Thus the first power of consciousness In which God
is made known to us is as the Father, the author of our
being. The second way in which the personality and con
sciousness of God has been revealed to us Is as the Son.
Once more, there is a nearer, a closer and a more enduring
relation in which God stands to us ; that is, the relation of
the Spirit. The spiritual manifestation of God to us is that
whereby He blends Himself with the soul of man. These
are the three consciousnesses by which He becomes known to
us, — Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier.
"The ages of the world are divisible Into three dispensa
tions presided over by the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
In the dispensation of the Father, God was kno^wn as a
Creator ; creation manifested His eternal power, and the
religion of mankind was the religion of nature. In the dis
pensation of the Son, God manifested Himself to humanity
through man ; the Eternal Word spoke through the inspired
and gifted of the human race to those that ¦were uninspired
and ungifted. This was the dispensation of the prophets ; its
climax was the advent of Christ ; it was completed when
perfect humanity manifested God to man. The character
istic of this dispensation -was that God revealed Himself by
an authoritative voice speaking from without ; and the highest
manifestation of God whereof man -was capable was a divine
humanity. The age In which we at present live is the dis
pensation of the Spirit, in which God communicated Himself
by the highest revelation and In the most intimate communion
of which man is capable ; no longer through creation, no
more as an authoritative voice from without, but as a law
within, — as a Spirit mingling with a spirit.
' ' The Trinity thus apprehended teaches that these three
manifestations, though distinct, are essentially at one ; that
nature cannot contradict revelation ; that revelation cannot
contradict nature, and that the intuitions of the soul cannot

THE TRINITY.

305

be in conflict with either. The Naturalist need not fear
revelation, nor the Christian believer natural theism. Since
it Is one and the same God who manifests Himself in nature,
in Christ, and in the soul, all His manifestations must be in
harmony with each other.
" There are these three ways in which we learn to know
God. In the first place, this world is but manifested Deity,
— God shown to eye and ear and sense. That which lies
beneath the surface of all appearance, the cause of all mani
festation, is God. The world Is the glass through which we
see the ]SIaker. Then, again, God manifests Himself in the
working of our minds and consciences, — in our sense of
love, justice, tenderness. If we -would know what these
mean in God, we must gain the conception from their exist
ence in ourselves. But inasmuch as humanity is imperfect
in us, God has given us besides this the representation of
Himself in Christ, ¦where is found the meeting-point of the
divine and human, and In whose life the character of Deity is
reflected." 257. As French is and has been for generations the lan
guage of diplomacy, so for ages Latin has been the universal
language of the Church and of theologians. The real signifi
cance, therefore, of the Latin words used by theologians might
reasonably be expected to throw light upon the questions
discussed by them. This Is seen in a very striking manner
if we examine the word " person," which, though derived
from the Latin persona, has to-day a different popular mean
ing from what it had in earlier ages. What was the true
sense of the word persona in approved Latin authors? It
meant primarily a mask used by actors on the stage, varying
according to the character to be represented, and hence a
character or assumed part. Hence we find these phrases in
frequent use, — perso7ia7n i7nponere, meaning to put a man

3o6 PRO TESTANTISM.
into an office or confer a dignity or some new character upon
him ; induere personam, meaning to assume or take upon
him the office or character or relation or to clothe himself
with it ; sustinere personam, meaning to bear an office or
execute an office or sustain a certain character or relation ;
disponere personam, meaning to resign or lay aside the office
or character or relation ; agere persona77i, to act a character
or part in a play. So that there is nothing of contradiction,
nothing absurd or strange for the same man to be different
"persons,'' or for different "persons" to meet in the same
man according to the true and proper notion of the word
" person." Thus Cicero says, " Sustineo unus tres personas ;
meam, adversarii, judicis." Properly translated this means,
' ' I being one and the same man sustain three ' persons ; ' that
is to say, three characters or relations to the case or ways of
looking at the case, since I examine it from my own stand
point, that of my adversary, and that of the judge." So
David was at the same time son of Jesse, father of Solomon,
and king of Israel, disclosing three "persons" in one man,
using the word "person" In Its strict sense. To understand
David, then, you must study his qualities as a son, which will
be one manifestation or disclosure of his character ; that Is to
say, it will be one of his " persons," that is, one of the parts
he has played in the drama of life. Then you must study
his qualities as a father, and this will be another manifesta
tion of his character, another one of his parts in the drama.
Lastly, you must study his qualities as king, and this will be
still another manifestation of his character, another of the
parts he has played. These three "persons" or manifesta
tions ought to be In essential harmony as being each the
expression of one and the same man. In this sense David
may intelligently be said to be three distinct "persons," and
these three "persons" may be said to be one. They may
be said to be of the same substance ; for the same nature and

THE TRINITY. 307
qualities of heart and mind that make him the good and loyal
son render him also the kind parent, and also cause him to be
the good and beneficent ruler over his people. The hateful
son becomes the cruel father and the malignant king.
Now, if three persons in this proper sense of the word
"person" may be one man, what hinders but that three
divine persons, in a sense metaphorical, may be one God?
and what hinders but that the same God distinguished accord
ing to these three considerations may be fitly said to be three
persons ?
As applied, therefore, to the Deity "person" should mean
the outward manifestation as distinct from the inward essence
of the Supreme Being. The three persons spoken of as the
Trinity would be, therefore, the three outward manifestations
or revealed characters of God.
258. The English word was used till quite recent times in
this sense of " character or part sustained by any one." Our
English dictionary gives this as the primary meaning. Thus
"person" Is defined as "a character or part, as in a play;
a, specific kind or manifestation of Individual character."
This sense of the word, it says, is archaic. Thus Bacon says,
" His first appearance in his new perso7i of a sycophant."
Jeremy Taylor says, " No man can long put on a. person and
act a part," using it in its strict classical sense. Milton says,
"To bear rule which was thy part and person hadst thou
known thyself aright." South in his sermon says, "How
different is the same man from himself as he sustains the
person of a magistrate and that of a friend." Milton used
the verb "to person," where we say "to personate," "to play
a part." Hayward says, " He hath put on the person, not of
a robber, but of a traitor to the State." Steele says, " I must
take upon me the person of a philosopher." Shakespeare
says, " I then did use 'Cae person of your father; the image of

3o8 PROTESTANTISM.
his power lay In me," meaning "I played the part of your
father, and manifested his power."
Archbishop Trench points out that when this old sense of
the word is remembered, greatly increased force is given
to the statement that God is no respecter of perso7is. The
meaning is that God cares not what part In life a man plays,
— in other words, what office he fills, — but how he plays it.
259. Rev. Joseph Cook says: "I will resist, in the
name of scholarship, the proposition that there are in God
three persons in a strict, colloquial, modern sense. Why do
I resist that? Because the -word 'person,' In our colloquial
speech, implies a species. If you say there are three persons
in God, and mean by that ¦word just ¦what you mean by it on
the street and in the parlor, you assume that these persons
are individuals in a species ; and my reply is that there is no
species of gods outside of polytheism. There is nothing of
the sort known to either scriptural or scientific truth. No
doubt Orthodoxy has often been careless in her phrases ; but
it is not stupidity, it is not Incautiousness, which causes
Orthodoxy to use the word ' person ' sometimes. She is
always speaking Latitz when she uses that word intelU-
ge7itly. This idea of personality, as the word is understood
on the street and in the parlor, does not belong to the idea
of the three subsistencies in the Trinity. God Is one essence
or substance. Three persons, in the usual sense of the ¦word,
are not of one substance."
260. God is called personal because there is felt to be In
the universe a something which has manifested itself in various
ways to mankind as possessing a will and a purpose. God is
a person only in this sense, — that he is a manifested character.
That he is a person in the ordinary acceptation of the word
is, of course, unintelligible and contradicted by all the words
used to explain his nature. This is apparent enough in

THE TRINITY.

309

Article I., which declares that "there is but one God who
is without body, parts, or passions, and who is of infinite
power. In this unity there are three persons, all of one
substance." The words "person" and "substance" are not
officially defined, and, indeed, the latter is in this use not
susceptible of satisfactory definition by finite creatures. Being
in this connection unscriptural words, it would seem that the
Church violates its own fundamental rules In using them if by
such use any binding force upon communicants were implied.
That the words have not their ordinary meaning Is certain
enough, and is not denied. If, therefore, they have not their
ordinary meaning, and the Church does not officially define
them, there is no way by ¦which any man can be held to any
special sense or interpretation of them. If "person" does
not mean " manifestation" or " revelation," In what sense Is
It used, and when has the Church so declared ?
261. To dogmatize about God is unwise. God is a spirit,
and, except so far as He has in nature, in Christ, and in the
soul, and to the conscience of man, manifested and revealed
His nature, it Is Impossible for man to discover it. The
Church has never attempted to explain how He exists or in
what form and manner. This is not less a mystery to the
Christian than to the Pagan. It is impossible that to the
finite human mind it should ever be otherwise. It Is one of
the points that show to humanity its limitations.
262. Rev. H. R. Ha'weis says : " Trinity in unity Is In
God a diversity of manifestation or function combined with
a unity of life and purpose. We can hardly think of the
Almighty in any other way. It is the normal order of
thought, metaphysically. Let us see : first, our conception
of God is vague and indefinite, creative force pervading,
correlating, co-ordinating all things everywhere. This Is the
All-Father, the First Person. But the instant we think more

3IO

PR O TESTANTISM.

closely, our only definite conception proves Insensibly anthro
pomorphic. All power, wisdom, intelligence, love, is, in
some sort, human, manifested and transferred to God, but
still human in nature and thought ; and thus the Ideal Man,
the God under the limitations of humanity, steps forth. This
would be so in the order of thought were there no figure of
Jesus In history. We always have made God in our own
image, God the Son, or the Second Person. But in prayer
and worship He is apprehended as a spirit only ; in com
munion, in sympathy with ours, then He is God the Holy
Ghost, or the Third Person. God the vague, God the
definite, God the immanent, — that is the Inexorable order
of thought, and that is the eternal doctrine of the Trinity
In unity.
"Sometimes a creative manifestation, the Father; some
times an incarnate manifestation, the Son ; sometimes an
inspirational manifestation, the Holy Ghost. In the last
spiritual analysis even the Son retires and Is subject to the
Father, and God becomes all in all."
263. The idea or thought covered by the Trinity, when thus
rightly apprehended. Indicates fulness of religious Intelligence.
It is a systematic and logical arrangement of religious thought,
for which summary of all religious Ideas the word " Trinity"
may conveniently be used. That term does not refer to any
thing in the nature of the Deity, but is a mere ¦word Invented
by men to designate the summary of all we know about God.
Consider how true this is. Man at first sees about him
the world ; he looks up to the magnificent canopy at night
studded with stars ; he observes the regularity of the moon's
courses, and at once detects regularity and system. He Is
overcome with a sense of his absolute littleness in the presence
of the enormous natural forces which come under his obser
vation. The earthquake, the cyclone, the lightning, — what

THE TRINITY.

311

can more impressively suggest unlimited power, irresistible
force? And so man gets his first conception of a power
immeasurably greater than himself, the mere thought of which
appals him, and he calls this conception God. He thus sees
the first and simplest manifestation of God, discerns the first
person of the Trinity. Historically this Is always the first way
in which man comes to apprehend God. Then God rides on
the clouds. His eyes flash the lightning. His voice is the
thunder. His breath is the whirlwind, the cyclone. He is
seen as majestic, as overwhelming in his might and power,
as capable of inflnite wrath if offended. He can send the
plague. He can deny the rain, can send the mildew, can
cause the crops to ^vither, can send an army of devouring
locusts. What shall man do? Why, he must placate this
tremendous God. He must do what will be acceptable, or
the heavy hand of God will smite him and all that- he has.
He Is In the hollow of God's hand. If it closes on him, he
Is crushed, is lost beyond recovery. This is the origin of all
religion. Man sees, then, only this first manifestation ; he
sees only one side of God. What does he do? The most
natural thing is to sacrifice something to appease God, and
so man does it, and this Is always characteristic of this stage
of religious thought. And so the smoke ascends, the fat
oxen are consumed, and man feels that he has done his duty.
He may In his daily life be cruel, licentious, and in every
way wicked, but if he sacrifices the best of his cattle, he will
be right before God. If troubles come, he at once thinks
God is offended because the right thing was not offered up,
and so he studies, not to live better, but to sacrifice something
likely to prove more acceptable.
But man outgrows this conception. This was ancient
Judaism, and was the first dispensation. Then came the
prophets introducing those Ideas of God which reached their
perfect expression in Christ. It is historically clear that the

313

PR O TESTA AUTISM.

prophets were leading up to Christ, were making clear the
pathway, were sowing the seeds which ¦were to reach full
fruition in Christ. The prophets were the Jewish Protestants.
They saw the inadequacy of the external religion, the insuf
ficiency of the then orthodox idea of sacrifice. They pro
claimed the new idea. " God will have mercy instead of
sacrifice." " Let the lifting up of my hands In prayer be to
thee as the evening sacrifice." "Whosoever offereth thankful
hymns of praise, he it is that honoreth me." "The true
sacrifice to God is a broken and contrite heart." Doing the
will of God is to take the place of sacrifice. "To obey Is
better than sacrifice, and to hearken to God's laws Is better
than the fattest portions of rams or of oxen." " To do justly
and walk humbly is more than rivers of oil or ten thousands
of burnt offerings." The sacrifice of self, the fragrance of a
holy and upright life is the true idea. This is the true way
to propitiate God.
This w^as the voice of the prophets, and foreshadowed
Christ, who merely exemplified perfectly the idea of the
second dispensation ; that is, the manifestation of God in
human character as purity, love, humility, mercy. It was
to make men see the second person of the Trinity, the
moral side of God's nature, the manifestation of Him as
truth, justice, mercy, love, that the prophets and Christ
spoke. This was an immense advance in religious thought. With
¦w^hat timidity must men have ceased to sacrifice the oxen and
come to believe it unnecessary. If all the ideas of ages were
to be given up, what would man do ? Suppose the new idea
be a mistake after all ? Can man believe that those who have
preceded him were all wrong? Shall he give up the ideas
of his ancestors? Very slowly, we may believe, -was the old
orthodoxy routed. Very slowly came to man the perception
of the second manifestation of God.

THE TRINITY.

313

There then remained one further step, one further manifes
tation which was proclaimed by Christ. Ye are the temples
of the Holy Spirit. God dwelleth In you, in every one of
you. Your inspiration to good works, your strength to resist
temptation, your capacity to overcome the evil that is in you
and grow in goodness, is due to the Spirit of God which
dwells within you. Trust that Spirit. Follow its promptings.
Listen to Its pleadings. ISIake It your supreme authority. It
will guide you and direct you and save you, if you will but
listen to It and trust it. To deny its presence is to deny the
presence of God. To be deaf to it is to be deaf to God. To
reject It, throw off its allegiance, and live only the selfish life
of the flesh, is to abandon the mercy of God, seeking the
judgment of condemnation -which follows all sin ; namely,
moral degradation and death. Though you live, yet ¦will you
be morally dead ; for, without recognition of this voice of
God within you, and obedience to It, there is no real life.
All other life Is not other than death. Yea, it is better to
be physically dead than to reject the pleadings of this voice,
and live after the lusts of the flesh. God manifests Himself
daily in your life. This was the third person of the Trinity,
the third manifestation of God, the Spirit of God within the
soul of each and every man.
These three disclosures of God came historically in the order
In which they are always spoken of In the Trinity. So under
stood, the Trinity Is the sum of all man's knowledge about God's
nature, and the idea is simple, intelligible, and even sublime.
264. Let us make one more effort to present this same
idea in slightly different language, for each attempt may add
something, may give a fresh glimpse of the profound truth
underlying the Idea.
The first person of the Trinity, then, is God, the tran
scendent, incomprehensible source of all things. He who is

314 PROTESTANTISM.
behind all phenomena. Science devotes itself to the study
of nature as this first manifestation of God. Every new dis
covery does but give men a deeper sense of the marvellous
uniformity and exactness of those laws which are the same
to-day that they have ever been, and the same that they will
ever be, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Science
has steadily magnified and exalted, and ever will go on to
magnify and exalt, this " first person" of the Trinity.
The second person of the Trinity is God manifested In
human character, ¦whereby every man, so far as he is good,
noble, pure, and true, becomes an example to others, of all
these the historic Christ being the transcendent and supreme
example. Every noble, heroic, pure, tender, and compas
sionate human life, from the beginning of history to this day,
has been and Is a bit of radiance suggesting this second
person of the Trinity. It embraces every sublime and glorious
human character In every age and in every race and nation.
This is the essential Christ as distinguished from the historic
Christ. To see and understand the essential Christ the world
needed the historic Christ. To lead men to see the essential
Christ was the very mission of the historic Christ. It is,
indeed, in the light of this distinction that we speak of His
pre-existence. In this sense was It true that " before Abraham
was I am."
The third person of the Trinity is God manifested In each
man as the source of all his enlightenment and spiritual
capacity, — the power whereby he Is able to understand and
appropriate to himself the example set before him by others,
and In his turn to become an example to others, — the power
whereby he may receive light from others and reflect back
light upon others. Thus we say that we recognize God as
the Creator, the universal Father, — and also we recognize
Him as the Son or the universal example, — and also we
recognize Him as the Holy Ghost In each Individual man.

THE TRINITY. 315
He being thus the universal source of enlightenment and
spiritual consciousness. This is what we mean wdien we say
that we believe In the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
265. Now, therefore, what do we mean when we use the
baptismal formula ? We may translate it thus : We baptize
you in the name of, and In recognition of, the transcendent
Father, the source of your being, the origin of your very life ;
in the name of, and in recognition of, the Son as the divine
example, after whose pattern your life Is to be moulded and
shaped ; and in the name of, and in recognition of, the Spirit
within you which may enable you to imitate the example set
before you, so that you may both receive the divine light and
may also reflect it on others.
What means the apostolic benediction? Its obvious sense
is this : May the gracious example of Christ and the love of
God, as an expanded and purified love of your fellowmen,
and the consciousness of the ever-present divine influence be
with you all. The use of these time-honored formulas does
not, therefore, depend on our holding the scholastic and
enigmatic doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, the only real and
satisfactoiy Interpretation of the formulas is rendered possible
by the vie'w we have presented.
266. Rev. J. M. 'Whiton says: "In the Hne of thought
about the Trinity that we have followed lies all hope of rid
dance from the false supernaturalism that has always fomented
schism within the Church and scepticism outside. In the
construction of a complete Trinltarianism on the lines of our
present thought lies the solution of the question on which
the men of faith and the men of science are yet unhappily
divided: Is the supernatural a reality? And what, then, is
the revelation of the supernatural to the natural ?
"In the world of form called nature, life is the supernatural
reality, for It Is above nature, the producer of nature, not a

3i6 PROTESTANTISM.
jDroduct. Life is the organizing power, nature the organized
form. This mystery of life Is one with the mystery of the
Living God. His Trinity is the trinity in His life. The
Father is the life transcendent, the divine source, ' above all.'
The Son is the life immanent, the divine stream, ' through
all.' The Holy Ghost Is the life individualized, the divine
spherule, ' in all,' the divine Inflow Into the individual con
sciousness, giving Inspiration to the conscience of each separate
child of the Father of all.
' ' We give glory to the Father when we humbly devote
ourselves to fill our allotted place with service to the Father,
when we take an interest in seeking the truth that we may
learn of the Father, when we let our light shine in good works
that through our brotherhood others may come to the Father.
We give glory to the Son ¦when -we honor the divine rights
of humanity, both by making the most of ourselves and by
helping others to do the same, for the realization In us and
in all of the life that Is truly filial to God. We give glory
to the Holy Spirit when we alike obey our own consciences
and respect those of our neighbors, when we prefer the fel
lowship of a truth-seeking spirit to that of a truth-containing
form, when we press on to find God in new forms as well as
in old, and receive men to sympathy as broadly as God invites
them."

THE RESURRECTION. 317

CHAPTER VII.
the resurrection.
267. As regards the " resurrection of the body," It must
frankly be said that no one knows just what this language
means. It is an insoluble mystery, about which we may
speculate and over which we may ponder, but concerning
which we are not likely to ever have, as huraan beings, any
real fulness of knowledge. We may have and ought to have
a belief, a hope, a faith, a trust ; but we cannot honestly
assert that ¦we have any definite kno^vledge concerning the
conditions that exist after death. Beyond the mere belief that
there is what is called a "resurrection," we have nothing.
We have not been told in the Scriptures anything exact and
specific concerning it, so that the recital In the Apostles'
Creed of a belief In such a resurrection of the body does not
In the least Imply any clear and definite conception concern
ing it ; nor is such recital an assent to any stated or defined
theory or speculation on the subject. It Is a matter that lies
outside the domains of human knowledge, and probably is in
Its very nature beyond finite comprehension.
268. If the main Idea of Christianity be conceded, — that
the higher nature of man is divine. Is akin to God, is indeed,
so far as it goes, essentially Identical with the nature of God,
— then the Idea of Its immortality, of Its persistence after the
dissolution of the physical structure with which it has been
associated, follows naturally and inevitably as a corollary to
the main proposition. If this main idea be not true, there is
no reason to believe that its corollary is true. If our spirits
are immortal, it can only be because they are divine by their
very nature, and so Imperishable.

3iS PROTESTANTISM.
Christianity does not explain the future life with any fulness
of detail. It merely holds out the subllmest conception, the
noblest thought, the loftiest hope of which the subject is
capable. True or false, the conception Is Immeasurably
beyond any other possible thought on the subject, and tends
to dignify and ennoble all human living. There Is no
attempt to furnish any proof or any exact demonstration.
It is offered as a noble thought or vision the rejection of
which lowers you In the scale of moral being.
What is, then, the Christian expectation ? It is this. The
body that is buried is not raised. What rises and lives is the
personal element, and not the body. The personal element
is the spirit. Identity depends on the expression which
this spirit gives- through the organism which it animates.
Recognition of personal Identity is merely recognition of this
expression given by the spirit of itself. This power of self-
expression ought theoretically to be most perfect in the
spiritual body, so that recognition under those conditions
after long separation ought to be more immediate than here
where the spirit has to express itself through a less perfect
because less plastic medium, — the body. After twenty years
of separation you do not always at once recognize your old
friend until back of the physical changes ¦which disguise him
you detect and recognize the spirit that you knew before.
You recognize at last the same Intelligence, the same subtle,
indefinable something which has always remained with you as
the expression of that friend's spirit. When you have found
this, you have found him. From that moment of spiritual
recognition all the physical changes which hid him from your
immediate recognition are as nothing. You kno^w it Is your
old friend, for you have recognized his spirit which is his
real personality. Until you know a person so as to know his
spirit, you do not know him so as to be able to identify him
after such lapse of years as bring physical changes. You do

THE RESURRECTION. 319
not know him at all. You merely know a physical appear
ance. LTntil you reach the spirit which is behind all this
skeleton of appearance, you do not know the person at all.
Death merely disconnects this spirit from a perishable body
which is dropped and left behind forever. This no sooner
drops away than the spirit Is clothed upon, or clothes itself,
through the operation of flxed and uniform law, with a new
body suited to the advanced stage of being. The spirit rises
at once into such a condition of existence as it is fitted to rise
into. Rising and living are equivalent terms. It is not a
deferred or postponed event, but an immediate, undelayed
progress or evolution. "It works by orderly growth from
within the man, not by miraculous operation from without.
It is not a power which operates on all, as the spring sun
operates on the leaf-buds, irrespective of personal volition,
but a power which, like the wind, which the sail Is set to
catch, must be appropriated by voluntary Individual action
and endeavor. It operates according to our effort to prepare
the conditions and our resulting fitness."
269. Rev. R. H. Newton says: "Few questions halve
been more frequently put by earnest men than this : How can
you believe in the resurrection of the body? And truly, if
the liberty which the noble Apostolic Creed leaves us, under
its simple statement. Is to be tied up to any mere literal
reading of these ¦words. It is no wonder that our intelligence
or our honesty should be faulted when we make this solemn
declaration of our belief. Such an interpretation of our belief
of the Creed would shut us up, apparently, to the belief that
the actual body which is buried is to be raised again ; that the
material organization which resolves Itself into its kindred
elements Is to be put together again and summoned from the
grave, the same structure of flesh and blood that ages before
was laid away therein.

320 PROTESTANTISM.
" How utterly impossible such a conception is to the candid
thought of our age ! It is directly contrary to every analogy
which Nature yields. She does, indeed, know of a life out
of death, of new and higher bodies arising out of the old
decaying bodies, of glorified forms clothing the vital substance
which passes through its transformation ; but she knows no
going back of life to pick up bodies that have been once dis
carded, no creeping again within shells that have been once
outgrown. She is not so poor as to be driven to such petty
economies. She can afford new clothes for her children
when the old ones are worn out. She leaves the larva in
the cocoon and brings out the beautiful butterfly. She drops
the seed in the ground and raises the flower.
"At the core of this doctrine is the world-old faith in
Immortality ; and, around this innermost faith there is the
belief that the life beyond the grave Is not a purely spiritual
existence, but an existence in which spirit clothes itself ¦with
some form of body. Most educated teachers thus present this
belief to-day.
' ' It can be shown that the New Testament doctrine or
teaching is not for a rising again of the old body, but of a
rising up of man into a new body.
"All that the human heart craves. In clinging so tenaciously
to this doctrine, is found Intact in the belief that we live
again, not merely as disembodied ghostly existences, but in
bodies which, however refined and spiritualized, preserve the
individual Identity.
" If you believe at all in a life to come, you are forced to
believe in a life that in some way builds for Itself a body
however spiritualized.''
270. Dean Stanley says: " The words ' the resurrection
of the body ' are held not to convey a belief in the resurrec
tion of the corporal frame. The word ' body,' although

THE RESURRECTION.

321

perhaps open to misconception, is capable of the spiritual
sense of the apostle. All that Paul directly asserts is that
whatever body there may be after death will be wholly dif
ferent from the present, and that the infinite variety of nature
renders such an expectation not only possible but probable.
" The Christian idea of a future state Is not fully expressed
by a mere abstract belief In the Immortality of the soul, but
requires a redemption and restoration of the whole man.
Amidst whatever change it Is the very man himself that is
preserved ; and if for the preservation of this identity any
outward organization Is required, then, although ' flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven,' God from the
Infinite treasure-house of the new heaven ¦will furnish that
organization as He has already furnished it to the several
stages of creation In the present order of the world."
271. Rev. H. R. Ha-weis says: "The essence or spirit
of that clause, ' the resurrection of the body,' is a belief in
the survival of the soul under fitting conditions of self-
manifestation or even Incarnation ; but the sort of physical
resurrection ¦which those who wrote these words dreamed of,
— the rising of the bodies out of the coffins while an angel
blew a horn, — that is not true.
"St. Paul says, 'There is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual body.' Yon have a body ; then you have a spiritual
body within that body ; then you have got a something you
call mind which is in immediate connection with that spiritual
body. There is the natural body ; there Is the spiritual body
which floods it as Ink will flood blotting-paper, or magnetism
will flood iron, or oil will flood any substance which absorbs
it entirely. " It Is a body within a body. It is born with every
natural body, — the spiritual body. But it is rudimentary.
The spiritual body Is developed by the play of forces going

322 PROTESTANTISM.
all through life, which we call mind, dealing with the mate
rial environment, so that the spiritual body which is born
germinally in you, existing faintly, is through all life, as you
go along, gradually precipitated or crystallized or built up
by the action of the mind. There is the physical body and
the spiritual body, and then the mind at the back of the
spiritual body. The mind, the theory is, has a great Imme
diate grip over this body ; but the grip the mind has over it
is over the spiritual body. The mind is engaged in building
up the spiritual body, and the spiritual body is the thing
which has a grip over the physical body. The spiritual body
goes on growing, a life within a life, all through your life,
and the nature and the character of It depend upon the action
of your mind upon it. The reason why the body Is so
marvellously affected by the mind is that the mind moulds
and uses this spiritual body, which has in Its turn a great grip
on the material body and moulds it to Its will. If, then, you
can intensify the powers of the mind, you control and grip in
that sense the spiritual body which is ¦within you growing
and developing. If you can control the spiritual body, you
control that which immediately controls the physical body.
And that is why such extraordinary effects are produced upon
the physical body through the spiritual body. It has a ten
dency to become whatever the spiritual body is. That is
what I believe to be a brief summary of the philosophy of the
matter. If you believe that there is this spiritual body within
you, and if you believe that at death when the shock comes
and separates or disengages the spiritual body which Is closely
in connection with the mind, that Is, yourself, you may allow
your physical body to crumble away, and you ¦will say non
07nnis moriar, I shall emerge. That thing which the play of
the forces of the mind upon me has been building up within
me is that thing with ¦which I am going to proceed into the
new realm. I can leave the husk here ; I can leave that

THE RESURRECTION. 333
which served my purpose and which was moulded to a
certain extent by the spiritual body, I can leave that behind
me and go on.
" If only there Is a rudiment of truth in the phenomena of
Mesmerism and Spiritualism, we have a kind of restoration
of a belief which was gradually gliding away from us,-^ — the
possibility of our own emergence and our own survival. It
is the hope full of immortality reformulated. You can go to
men and women and say. If you are satisfied about Mesmerism
and about the rudimentary alleged facts of Spiritualism, you
may take back to yourself the truth that your body may die,
but that there is that within you being built up which cannot
die, because it is built up by mind itself in the shock and in
the confluence of your environment.
"'Christ In you the hope of glory' becomes no more a
figure ; the Ideal man in you is really to be wrought out. It is
the hope of glory, it is the chrysalis which is being matured,
and by and by that chrysalis, -when the time comes, shall
burst its shell, leave the shell to decay, and break into the
empyrean splendors of the unknown life.
"I may say that upon myself the result of considering
these evidences, whilst I am very doubtful about a great
many of the explanations, is a tolerably fixed idea that we
have evidence for the existence of mind acting outside our
body; and, If that is so, I know no theory so satisfactory,
and which explains so many of the alleged facts of modern
times and ancient history, as the theory of the tripartite
nature of man, which is a very ancient theory indeed, and
which means that we have a natural body, and a spiritual
body which is being built up slowly all through life, and
a mind behind in close grip with the spiritual body, which
in its turn immediately affects, structurally even, the physical
body."

324 PROTESTANTISM.
272. Bishop Clark says: "It is said that this notion
of immortaHty must be a delusion because we can form no
actual conception of the future life ; a disembodied soul, as
it is sometimes called, is a simple nonentity. This Is not
an argument, but only an appeal to the imagination. What
conception has an Infant of the experiences that are awaiting
him in his maturity ? It might be worse than useless for us
to know anything very definite as to the outward conditions
of our future life, and I think it is very doubtful whether
there are any terms In the language that we now use capable
of conveying to the mind a distinct idea of those conditions.
"There maybe good reasons for keeping the future life,
to a certain degree, remote from us and inaccessible. Inas
much as this removes the temptation that might otherwise
beset us to busy ourselves with curious speculations about the
spiritual ¦world, instead of giving our minds to the faithful
discharge of the duties that pertain to our present life. Our
work is here, our responsibilities all centre here, and the
best preparation we can m.ake for our future life is to be
had in doing the work well which God assigns to us here
on earth.
" The doctrine of immortality among the Egyptians assumed
such prominence that it Interfered with the welfare and prog
ress of society, made men Indifferent to the discharge of their
secular duties, while it exerted no salutary influence upon
their character.
' ' Another form of objection is this : If you base the
immortality of man upon the teachings of the New Testa
ment, then It becomes Identified with a doctrine of resurrec
tion which Is equivalent to the reconstruction of our present
bodies at some future period, — the recompounding of their
existing elementary atoms, after they have been blown hither
and thither by the winds, and been resolved into their
primitive gases, entering In this form into the composition

THE RESURRECTION. 325
of various kinds of vegetable life, perhaps Into the substance
of a thousand different human bodies.
" This Is not the Christian Idea of the resurrection, and
St. Paul calls the man a fool who holds such a doctrine as
that. In reply to those who ask, ' With what body do they
come ? ' he says expressly, ' Thou sowest not that body that
shall be ; ' that Is, it is not the organic structure which is laid
in the earth that appears again. But he always teaches that
the soul is to have some sort of investiture In the spiritual
world; it is ' not to be unclothed.' We know nothing as to
the specific nature of what he calls ' the spiritual body.'
" ' When you speak of form,' says the scientific sceptic, ' if
your words have any real meaning, the term must be Intended
to signify something which Is capable of being bounded in
space, and which, therefore, must have an outline or figure ;
and If this is In any sense a body, it must be competent to
exercise certain functions, such as changing its place, receiv
ing and imparting knowledge, and doing whatever may be
demanded by the exigencies of its condition.'
"We are perfectly wHling to accept this statement; and If
you say that all this requires the existence of some sort of
physical organization, that there can be no action without
limbs, and no sight without an eye, and no communication
of thought -without a tongue, and inasmuch as such organs
are incompatible with the idea of spiritual being, therefore it
is unscientific to believe in any such being, allow me to ask
one or two questions.
" If a hundred years ago some wild visionary had said that
the time would soon come ¦when. In looking with a magnifier
at what appears to the eye as a little dot of the pen, you
would be able to read in that dark speck every word of the
Lord's Prayer, distinctly engraved, or see there a perfect copy
of your friend's face, and then should be further told that this
wonderful delineation had been wrought without the use of

326 PROTESTANTISM.
any instrument whatever, even without the touch of a human
hand, would not such men as you have been almost certain
to pronounce such a prediction unscientific and, therefore,
absurd ? Suppose he had gone on to say that, at the same
period, merchants in New York would hold communication
with their correspondents in London almost as readily as if
they were sitting in the same counting-room, I imagine that
the sceptic would insist upon knowing something of the
process by which such a result ¦was to be obtained before he
would consent to listen patiently to so preposterous a statement.
" Suppose, then, for his enlightenment and satisfaction, he
should be told that the men of different continents conversed
together by sending communications along the bed of the
ocean, how far would this tend to reduce his scepticism?
Suppose, then, he should be further informed that the prin
ciple Involved in this mode of Intercourse consisted in pro
ducing a simultaneous vibration on the coast of America and
the coast of Europe, this vibration shaping itself into words
and sentences, would this explanation satisfy him any better?
And if, after all this, he should be told that the agent or
power by means of which this would be done is something
which the eye of man never saw, something which could
never be weighed in the most delicate scales, something so
nearly analogous to spirit that the same terms by which one
is described are equally applicable to the other, — if he had
never believed in the existence of spirit before, I do not think
that such a story as this would be likely to convert him.
" I have cited these Illustrations to show that it Is absurd
and unscientific to deny the existence of spiritual beings,
endowed with spiritual bodies, and capable of exercising all
the functions which pertain to the highest condition of being,
merely on the ground that we do not know how they are
constituted, and by what modes they act. When you can tell
by what process mind acts upon body, and body upon mind

THE RESURRECTION. 337
In our present form of existence ; how it is that a thought can
give an Impulse to the flow of the blood, and the stagnation
of the blood arrest the action of thought, — then you may
deny, with some better show of reason, the fact of your own
immortality, because you are not able to comprehend the
mysteries of that immortality."
273. Rev. C. J. 'Wood says: "Modern Protestantism
represents the dead as though they were unconscious, 'Asleep
in Jesus.' Epitaphs and hymns still go on asserting the
ancient heresy of the soul's sleep In death, — a notion
thoroughly pagan, a notion -without foundation in the teach
ing and example of the Lord Christ. Nowhere does the New
Testament literally teach that death is a sleep. Our Lord
starts with a new proclamation, one which is deeper and more
Intimate -with the very essence of life. He came that we
might have life and have It more abundantly. His kingdom
is a kingdom of life, and into this kingdom of the new life
each one of us must be born. Jesus said, ' He that believeth
on me hath eternal life : ' '•hath eternal life,' — it is a present
possession of ¦which Christ is speaking. He goes on to say
further, ' He that heareth my word and believeth on him that
sent me hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemna
tion, but is passed from death unto life.' The true believer
now has eternal life, and already has passed out of the death-
ful condition Into consciousness of life eternal. So It Is a
matter, not of the future, but of the present, because we are
in God now. The Beatitudes were, every one, given in the
present tense. It Is an error to suppose that life eternal is
nothing more than a continuation of this life. Eternal life
Is something different from any continuation of life beyond
death; It is a transformation of a human life so that It
cannot cease or die. Eternal life, therefore, is the quahty
rather than the quantity of life, the quantity being a result

328 PROTESTANTISM.
of the quality. ' I say unto you, he that believeth on me
hath everlasting life,' therefore, unless we now have eternal
life before the grave, we cannot with certainty expect to have
it afterward. " Thus biblical theology repeats the one and unvarying
lesson touching eternal life ; it Is life actually and ethically
in the ' everlasting now,' whether here or hereafter. This
must be true, if indeed In God we live and move and have
our being. The life that is saved is called real or actual life.
Only he that hath life Is saved, and the life that he has is
eternal. Life becomes eternal In the measure it is rightened
or rectified ; it cannot die, and of its own Inherent nature It
comes to a resurrection. The old misconception of eternal
life as a future reward instead of a present condition is
corrected by the parable of the good Samaritan, wherein
eternal life is displayed in the concrete present. Eternal life,
says St. Peter, is to live according to God, or. In St. Paul's
phrase, to be alive unto God. This life begins with an altered
mind towards God. Eternal life, then, is godly life, infinite
In Its power of growth and expansion. Eternal life Is, there
fore, not a reward laid up in a future world, but It is a
quality in the character. Eternal life is a manner of life
unto the formation of character. Each man's character Is
his book of final doom.
" Simple and clear as are the sayings of our Lord, when
¦without any bias or prepossession they are received, how
soon the theologians of the Church, in many instances and
bearings, lost the comprehension of their profound and saving
sense ! Receptiveness was limited and misshapen by pre
cedent Influences and contemporaneous environment. So we
encounter early In the history of theology a survival of primi
tive culture in the notion that life after death has Its value
and significance in being a retribution or compensation for
the life before death. The thought of human life, as growth

THE RES URRE C TION.

329

and progression and as self-retributive, does not seem to have
emerged clearly into Christian consciousness. The common
notion of the law of life was that of sordid compensation, ' an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' Not the future life, but
the present. He set forth as the motive of righteousness. He
distinctly declines to allow the fear of future punishment to
be furnished as a motive for godliness. Nowhere In His
teaching does He substitute other worldliness for unworldli-
ness ; nowhere holds up a scheme of future rewards and
punishments as a reason for godly and righteous living in
the present time. Men forgot the gospel that future life,
or immortality, is the corollary or result of life being In the
present of an eternal character. It was forgotten also that
Jesus taught that the future is the outcome of the present, not
a gift which shall meet us beyond the door of death. Men
forgot that to be born again was simply to begin to live
spiritually, after the institution and example of the godly life
of Jesus, historically manifested. They forgot that to eat His
flesh and drink His blood was, as He explained, to keep His
commandments; they forgot that this Christ-life was simply
the life of pure and unselfish love, and consequently they
erected a formal and external theory of the sacraments,
analogous to the Hebrew system of sacrifice, and such sacra
ments had but a feeble and notional hold upon the moral life
of man. But this theory exactly suited the Imperialistic Idea
of the Church, and without such a theory the hierarchical
system would have had no raison d'etre. Between folk-faith
and philosophy the word of Jesus could hardly get a hearing.
The fault of the theologians of the early Church, if we may
presume to point it out, is that they started the evolution of a
dogma about salvation which has always required an elaborate
explanation to establish for It any bearing upon human life
and character ; therefore, the dogma has not been saving. It
has held within it too little of the power of the personal

330 PROTESTANTISM.
Christ. The subject of Jesus' teaching was implicitly and
explicitly life, its value, significance, and purpose. A pre
cise point of His teaching was consequently this : that unless
we have eternal life now, unless we are born again now, Into
a higher plane of existence, unless now -we enter into Christ's
life, will, character, existence, as It was on earth, there can
be no ground to hope for an eternal life hereafter.
" The old theory of rewards and punishments ab extra has
served a use In the ¦world. A theological police system, it
was suited for a stage of imperfect development of the
religious consciousness. This theory fed the poetry, art, and
drama of the Middle Ages, elevated the papal chair, and sent
forth the crusaders. Powerful as has been this doctrine in
the past, useful as the turn it has served, it has, nevertheless,
been an untrue statement of the religion of Jesus. Besides,
its day Is fast passing away, the temper of the world Is
changed. This doctrine has no logical place in scientific
or rational theology. It is not an article of the Creed. It
is not a part of the reasonable, religious, and holy hope of
the Christian. No longer do men clutch the pe^w in front
of them to keep from falling down into a burning hell
which yawns just before their terrified Imaginations, as some
Jonathan Edwards thunders out the wrath of God. Wrath
and fear and hope of gain are not the motives of that life
eternal which Jesus brought to light. Yet for centuries they
have been stinging thongs in the whip which a mistaken
theology wielded to keep the child-men good. Even the
heathen Marcus Aurelius had a nobler and worthier idea of
life's meaning. ' For what more dost thou want,' said the
imperial moralist, ' when thou hast done man a service ? art
thou not content that thou hast done something conformable
to thy nature, and dost thou seek to be paid for it? Just as
if the eye demanded a recompense for seeing or the feet for
walking ! For as these members are formed for a particular

THE RESURRECTION. 331
purpose, and by working according to their several constitu
tions obtain what is their own, so also as man is formed by
nature to acts of benevolence, when he has done anything
benevolent or in any other way conducive to common Interest,
he has acted conformably to his constitution, and he gets ¦what
is his own.' Reward, future or present, is not a part of the
gospel of Christ. His teaching of reward is that it is in
being something. God destroys the soul by creating condi
tions of existence, which, if not fulfilled, result in destruction
as surely as if He did it by a sudden and visible thunderbolt
of annihilation. Only, in God's sovereignty there is nothing
arbitrary, there are no legal fictions and equivocations, no
theological evasions, ¦whereby that which is unholy shall be
counted as though It were holy, and enter Into joy hereafter.
Because life Is growth, eternal life Is growth and progress in
this world and after it. The scope for progress is infinite for
that life which is become eternal.
"By philosophy, also, has this teaching been tested.
Spinoza thought that a man ¦would become immortal only
as the elements of deathlessness entered into his character ;
so, when the destructible things pass out of existence, the
man would be left with only Indestructible elements of
character, ' saved so as by fire.' If nothing eternal or imper
ishable has entered into the man, he ¦will simply cease to
exist, because in him there is nothing which will endure.
Thus, in the meaning of the philosopher, as in that of the
gospel, true life and everlasting life Is eternal life, because
it is that life which cannot be extinguished, to which death
Is only a phase, a transition, and which, being deathless and
spiritual, re-arises from the dead, immortal and a spiritual
body." 274. Rev. Ho-ward Macqueary says : " It is said that
death is the bourn whence no traveller returns, and this is
generally true ; yet I think we have sufficient evidence to

332

PR O TESTANTISM.

show that there has been, at least, one great exception to this
rule, In the case of Christ. Strip off whatever accretions
seem to have gathered around the faith In the reappearance
of Jesus after death to His disciples, admit that His bodily
resurrection cannot be proved, — yet even so we may believe
that He made Himself known to His disciples after His
death. It cannot be denied that all the disciples believed that
they saw the risen Jesus. Hundreds of them believed they
saw Him, at the same time, and they succeeded in convincing
others of this fact, and upon it founded the Christian Church.
Something, therefore, must have happened outside of the
minds of the disciples to create this belief, and, taking the
New Testament as a whole, it seems to me not Irrational to
believe that Jesus appeared as a spirit to His disciples after
His death. Of course, if science disproved God's existence
and the soul's existence, then, indeed, no amount of historical
evidence could neutralize this demonstration. But we have
just seen that science does not disprove either the existence
of God or the soul. On the contrary, it furnishes many facts
in proof of these two important beliefs, and, believing in God
and the soul, believing that He sends men into the world to
teach religion, as well as science and philosophy, we may
believe that He sent Jesus for this purpose, and that through
Him life and immortality have been brought to light.
"I explicitly accept the doctrine of the resurrection as
stated in St. Paul. I do indeed claim that it must be inter
preted by his vision on the way to Damascus, by his statement
that ' there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body,'
that ' flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,'
and that ' the body which is buried is not the body that shall
be' the organ of the soul in the spiritual world. I hold that
St. Paul treats Christ's resurrection as the prototype, ' the
first-fruits ' of our own ; and since he distinctly says that God
will give us different bodies in or after death from those

THE RESURRECTION.

333

which are burled, it follows logically that Christ's resurrec
tion body was not that body which was crucified and laid in
the sepulchre. I hold further, not that the gospel accounts
are false, but that they are substantially true. I hold that the
theory of a spiritual appearance of Christ after death explains
the gospel narratives themselves, with the exception of a few
passages, better than the old doctrine, and that these excepted
passages cannot be rationally and fairly explained by the old
view." 275. Canon Fremantle says: "In the case of the
resurrection the theologian who starts from the Epistles of
St. Paul as the solid central ground of New Testament litera
ture will go upon the apostle's teachings that not flesh and
blood but the spiritual personality, clothed in the new house
which is from heaven, inherits the kingdom of God, and ¦will
take the vision by which the apostle ¦was converted as the type
of all the manifestations by which the companions of Christ
were assured that He ¦was not lost but gone before."
276. Rev. Alfred 'W. Momerie says : " But Christ did
not rise in His body. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the king
dom. It must be a spiritual resurrection." For an exposi
tion of this vie^w at some length, see his "Church and Creed."
277. Rev. R. H. Newton says: "Strip the story of every
possible accretion of legend, and you will touch the core of the
tradition, — the appearance of Jesus from the spirit sphere.
It was the persuasion in the minds of the disciples that He
had thus appeared to them which took form In the story of
the resurrection." He thinks that we may and must believe
as the disciples did, — that Jesus communicated with them
from the spirit sphere. See his sermon on " Robert Elsmere,"
and also Dr. Kelm's " Life of Christ," which he cites and
approves. Rev. Edwin A. Abbott, in his book entitled
"Kernel and Husk," gives the most elaborate exposition of

334

PR O TESTANTISM.

this view of the resurrection of Christ as a spiritual manifes
tation. See his chapters XX. to XXIII. inclusive. It is an
unanswerable presentation of the case.
278. Rev. J. M. 'Whiton says : " Before the resurrection
of Christ there had been other Instances of what Is popularly
called ' resurrection,' as In the case of Lazarus and others
whom Christ raised from the dead. Had the resurrection of
Christ been like these, simply the return of the spirit to the
waiting body, and a mere reviving and continuance of the
interrupted life, it is hard to see truth In the terms frequently
applied to Christ as ' the first-born from the dead,' ' the first-
begotten of the dead,' ' the first-fruits.' We recognize the
appropriateness of such terms to Christ only when we per
ceive that his reappearance within the circle of the friends
who had burled him -was not on a level ¦with that of Lazarus,
but In a higher mode of life than that ¦which he had quitted.
In Lazarus we behold simply the reanimation of the natural
body and the resumption of the fleshly life. In Christ we
behold resurrection in the spiritual body and assumption of
the life of the world to come. This is fully demonstrated
by the facts given in the gospel record, and this Is required
by the exceptional pre-eminence which the New Testament
accords to Christ's rising from the dead.
' ' But one Instance of veritable resurrection has been vouch
safed to our knowledge as a sure pledge of that ¦which Is to
come. All the partial resemblances to this which are found
on record are cases of mere resuscitation or reanimation."
279. Bishop Harris says: "The law of spiritual life
and death is the same for all worlds. There Is no such
difference between time and eternity as we are apt to
Imagine. Paradise and Hades are states which have their
counterpart In our present state of existence. Paradise is
not a locality. It is a condition of the soul in which it finds

THE RESURRECTION.

335

bliss In loving and desiring the supremely good. Hades,
too. Is not a locality. It Is the condition of a soul which Is
alienated from good because it loves evil. Character deter
mines both of these conditions, and you and I are in one or the
other of them to-day. The only difference Is that here we
are so beguiled and befooled by the shadows that surround
us that we do not realize what our condition is. Were the
shadows to depart, then we should not need to go, but we
would simply be, each in his appropriate place, of Paradise
or Hades. The great gulf -would yawn between the two ;
but the joy of Paradise would glow and gladden In the loving
heart, and in the selfish heart the torment would simply
assert itself and begin to torture and madden. These are
the two states between which we must choose for time and
for eternity. We choose between them here ; -we shall simply
live on in them hereafter.
"The souls of the dead, ¦when they depart hence, live as
they lived before ; only they have passed beyond the veil, and
are ' no more seen.' Generation after generation of men
comes into the region of the seen, to spend whatever force
and fire and energy there Is In each. Then, one by one, their
spirits are recalled ; the earthly vesture falls away, and in a
moment they are gone. They have re-entered the invisible.
"The invisible is all around us. It is our spirit's true
home, and we can lift ourselves into Its atmosphere upon the
mountain tops of meditation ; for the unseen world, the world
of God, the world of spirits, is not future or distant ; it is not
above the sky nor beyond the grave ; It Is now. It is here !
" Death Is not what it seems to be, nor the awful thing we
consider it. It is only because we think so exclusively of
the seen and the temporal that death seems to be the ruin of
creation's noblest work. No wonder that It seems so when
we are compelled to look upon the stilling of the busy hands,
the active brain, the tender heart, to witness the closing of the

336 PROTESTANTISM.
gentle eye, and to yield our best beloved to the intolerable
indignity and horrible corruption of death ! But to God it is
not so ; to Him it is only the laying by of the fleshly garment,
the solemn unrobing, nay, the blessed emancipation of the
earth-bound spirit. What we call death is but a change of
clothing; he who is disrobed, the man, the immortal, whom
God sees, does not die. It is only we who cannot see, and
therefore fancy he is dead.
"Suppose, now, that the veil of sense which hides the
spiritual world ¦were to vanish at this instant ; that is what
death would be. There would be no change in the life of
the soul. The selfish soul 'would be selfish still, and the
loving and unselfish soul would be loving and unselfish still.
The one, -which Is blessed now, would continue to be blessed,
but in larger measure ; the other, -which is unblessed now,
would remain unblessed, but it would be undeceived and dis
enchanted ; it would see and know and travail, as it does not
here, in the -wretchedness of being unblest.
"It is true, indeed, that unless spirits are co-ordinated in
condition they cannot directly communicate with each other.
If one is embodied, so likewise must the other be embodied ;
if one is incarnate, the other must be incarnate ; and when at
death your spirit, or mine, shall lay its body down, all means
of communication between the embodied and the disembodied
spirit will cease because of the cessation of such co-ordination.
Hence all spiritualistic notions of direct communication with
the spirits of the departed are utterly unphilosophical and
absurd. " Yet the world is filled ¦with the voices of the piouS dead.
They speak to us In the principles which they established
and which now control, or ought to control, our lives. The
blessed influences which holy men set in motion long ago
are ceaselessly operating upon us, and through us they are to
be transmitted to other generations.''

THE HOLl' COMMUNION. 337

CHAPTER VIII.
the holy communion.
280. No observant man will deny that there are thousands
to whom the sacraments of the Church are a source of
comfort and even of spiritual strength. He sees that to these
people tlie sacraments have a deep significance, and seem to
exercise over them a profound Influence, and so may be, as
regards such people, a religious necessity. He will also see,
however, that there are thousands of men to whom such
sacraments are not such a necessity, to -whom they would not
be a help or benefit, so different are men in their tempera
ments and natures. To the latter class such solemnities are
mere ceremonies in which, however, no man can rightly par
ticipate who does not fully enter Into the very spirit thereof.
It has been customary in some ecclesiastical circles to assert
that these sacraments are the very pith and marrow of a
religious life, which is not a true statement when thus broadly
made. Many men shrink from all outward ceremonial observ
ances, from all the external part of religion. It would be
evidence of a very shallow mind to deny the religious name
and character to these men for such a reason. Religion is
above and beyond all churches and all ceremonials. The
essence of all sacraments is to be had, and is in very truth
had, without going through the forms at all.
Christianity is purely spiritual and ethical. It is not
sacramental nor theological. Visible sacraments are not an
essential element of religion. You find a community of
Quakers who have no visible sacrament and no creed. Here
Is a fact : ' ' No people in the world have a clearer title to the
name of Christ than the Qiiakers. It is of no use to argue.

338 PROTESTANTISM.
You cannot argue away a fact. There they are in the visible
Church. They are undoubtedly Christians of the best type.
If righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost are the
tests the Quakers stand high. When facts are appealed to
theories must give way. The reunion of Christendom must
be on the basis of a full acknowledgment of existing facts.
Men must check their o-wn pride of knowledge and orthodoxy,
and reverently trace the lines marked out by the Holy Spirit.
They must not deny liberty which the Spirit has sanctioned.''
281. The true estimate to be placed on all external, visible,
and material rites and ordinances was settled and determined
by the Christian treatment of the idea of circumcision, ¦which,
without any question, is the most ancient and most widely
observed of all religious rites. It runs back nearly two
thousand years before the time of Christ, and has been
observed continuously to the present day. It was observed
strictly not only by all Jews but by the Egyptians and
Ethiopians, and to this day is maintained by the Coptic and
Abyssinian Christians. It was also observed by the Arabians
and Syrians and by the aboriginal Mexicans. It Is also
practised by the Mohammedans. It is not easy for us to
conceive the ancient Importance and significance of this rite.
It purported to have been expressly commanded by God as a
direct and visible token of the covenant declared to have been
entered into with Abraham. It is declared In Genesis to have
been ordained " for everlasting." "The unclrcumclsed man
shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my cove
nant." The unclrcumclsed man was regarded as an outcast,
and referred to In terms equivalent to even more than our
phrases, pagans and heathen. He was lost, abandoned, cut
off from all the good and respectable people of the world.
He was loathed and despised as unclean. He was a godless
man. At no time in express ter77is did Christ abrogate this

THE HOLY COMMUNION.

339

ancient rite. Indeed, Paul declared, " Now I say that Jesus
Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of
God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." It
was then we see an everlasting covenant or promise of which
this circumcision -was commanded as the visible token, sign,
and condition, and this promise or covenant Christ came to
confir7?i .
John the Baptist, Christ, and Paul were all circumcised,
and in each case it is carefully recorded. The custom was
universally observed, and It would at that time have been
almost literally impossible to have stemmed the tide of preju
dice that would have risen against them if the rite had not
been observed. When Paul desired to take Timothy to aid
in his work, he "took and circumcised him because of the
Jews -which ¦were in those quarters." He did not then dare
to breast the ignorance and prejudice of the day.
It is indeed incredible that men could ever have regarded
such an external act as a condition on -which they -were to
keep their hold on a solemn covenant with God ; but It Is
an historical fact that millions of men have so believed and
that millions do now so believe. It is evident that In their
evolution they have not passed beyond the stage of very early
religious childhood ; and such is the fact -with regard to all
who in the same -way rely on external and material tokens,
rites, and ordinances. It is but one remove from magic and
sorcery^ So far, however, as any external religious rite could demand
universal respect and compliance that of the circumcision must
then have seemed to so command It. Yet what said Paul?
" Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumclslon,
but faith which worketh by love. As many as desire to make
a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised ;
but ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands. For we are the circumcision which worship God in

340 PROTESTANTISM.
the Spirit. A man Is justified by faith without the deeds
of the law. Circumcision Is nothing, and uncircumcision
is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God
is an."
This was merely to say that the essence of all was to be
had without observing the outward act, which was merely the
symbol or token.
Pascal says: "When the apostles deliberated upon abol
ishing circumcision, where the point in question involved an
apparent contradiction of the law of God, they did not consult
the prophets, but regarded simply the reception of the Holy
Ghost by the unclrcumclsed. They judged it more certain
that God approved those whom He had filled with His Spirit,
than that it was necessary for them to observe the law. They
knew that the end of the law was but the gift of the Spirit ;
and that since they had received It without circumcision, the
ceremony was not essentially necessary."
282. Dean Stanley says : " The Eucharist or Holy Com
munion Is unquestionably the greatest religious ordinance of
the world. In its original form it was the evening feast, of
which every Jewish household partook on the night before
or after the Passover. It was the ancient Jewish paschal
meal, commemorative of the birthday of the Jewish religion
and Jewish freedom. It was the festival of the deliverance
of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. The blessing which
Christ pronounced on the bread and wine was taken from the
blessing which the Jewish householder pronounced on them.
Easter and the Lord's Supper are the Passover in another
form, and the link which binds the old and the new together
Is the same sense of deliverance. It was the birthday of the
Christian religion, which was no less the day of the birth of
the freedom of the human race, of the human conscience,
of the human soul. In Its origin, then, it was the institution

THE HOLY COMMUNION.

341

of a service of commemoration. It was to be a memorial of
Christ's death. It was to be the great Christian festival as
the Passover had been the great festival of the Jews. It was
the old form with a new meaning, — the old Paschal feast
transformed and transfigured, endowed with a new life and
vigor. " In the early Church the social and the religious aspects of
life were not yet divided asunder. In the first age the festive
character of the meal was Its predominant feature. The
meal and the sacrament were blended together. The spirit
of antiquity regarded the meals of human beings as having
the nature of sacred things. We connect less dignified asso
ciations with them than the ancients did. A common meal
is, however, in fact, certainly the most natural and universal
way of expressing, maintaining, and, as it were, notifying
relations of kinship.
" But even in early times the difficulties of bringing an
ideal and an actual life together made themselves felt. As
a community of property was found to be impossible, so
excesses and disorders profaned and made Impossible a con
tinuance of the primitive celebration of the Eucharist. The
community of property vanished, and then the community of
the sacrament. The time came when the secular and the
spiritual were disentangled one from the other. The sim
plicity and gladness of the primitive communion could no
longer be continued, and, therefore, the form was altered to
ease the spirit. Gradually the repast was parted from the
religious act. The repast became more and more secular,
the religious act more and more sacred. The two remained
for a time together, but distinct, the meal immediately pre
ceding or succeeding the sacrament. Then, by the second
century, the daily administration ceased and was confined to
Sundays and festivals. Finally the meal itself fell under
suspicion, and In the fifth century was forbidden as profane.

342

PR O TESTANTISM.

" It then became a purely religious observance, and round
It as a nucleus gathered the worship of the early Church.
The Liturgy, properly speaking, -was the celebration of the
Communion. The solemn service opened with the kiss of
peace. This was held absolutely essential. It came direct
from apostolic times. Sometimes the men kissed the men,
the women the women, and sometimes It was -without dis
tinction. But it was considered so essential that to abstain
from It was a mark of mourning or excessive austerity. In
the Latin Church it continued till the end of the thirteenth
century. In its place was then substituted a piece of the
altar furniture called a Pax, and this was given to the deacon
with the words, '•Pax tibi et ecclesice.' The only trace of
It now remaining In the English service is the final bene
diction which begins with the words, ' The peace of God.'
Had any primitive Christian been told that the time would
come when this, the very sign of Christian brotherhood and
sisterhood, would be absolutely proscribed In the Christian
Church, he would have thought that this must be the result
of unprecedented persecution or unprecedented unbelief.
According to the view which then prevailed, it is impossible
to imagine the omission of any act more sacred, more signifi
cant, more necessary to the edification of the service.
"When -we remember what the original ordinance was;
when we call to mind the upper chamber, with the evening
feast and the recumbent guests ; when -we recollect its primi
tive connection with all the incidents of a common banquet ;
when we reflect on its undoubted Intention, as a pledge of
love between Christians, as an offering of grateful hearts, as
a self-dedication to the Master, — it is with difficulty that
we can trace our way through the long descent of centuries
during which It has become ' the Dreadful Sacrifice,' the
' Miracle of Bolsena,' the centre of strange fables and still
stranger discords, the battlefield of scholastic theologians, of

THE HOLY COMMUNION.

343

warring nations, of conflicting sects, of the fierce struggle
of Abelard and Bernard, of John Zlska and the Emperor
Siglsmund, of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches against
each other and against Rome.
"Hard logic, wild rhetoric, prosaic want of Imagination
and imagination run riot, bad metaphysics and misguided
politics, have done their worst on that simple and sacred rite
till the true miracle seems to be that It survived at all. That
so fragile an ordinance should have survived so many shocks,
so many superstitions, so many centuries, is In Itself a proof
of the Immense vitality of the religion which it represents, of
the prophetic insight of its Founder.
"The name sacrifice has survived, the form has perished.
The ancient sacrifice was an endeavor to approach, to pro
pitiate, to gratify God. It was supposed to be done by
giving up something dear to ourselves which was also dear
to Him ; by feeding and nourishing, as It were, the great
God above by" the same food by which we are fed ; by send
ing messages to Him by the smoke, the sweet-smelling odor
which went up from the animals which the sacrlficer had
slain. "In the place of this gross, earthly conception arose
gradually three totally different ideas of approaching God,
to which, because of their taking the place of those ancient
ceremonies, the name of sacrifice has In some degree been
always applied. The first is the elevation of the heart
towards God In prayer and thanksgiving. ' Let the lifting
up of my hands in prayer be to thee as the evening sacrifice.'
' Whosoever offereth thankful hymns of praise, he it is that
honoreth me.' ' The true sacrifice Is a broken and a contrite
heart.' Secondly, in the place of the early sacrifices, which
were of no use to any one, was revealed the truth that the
offerings acceptable to God were those which contributed to
the good of mankind. Thus the prophet Hosea says, ' God

344

PROTES TANTISM.

will have mercy Instead of sacrifice.' Kindness to the poor,
beneficent, useful, generous schemes for the good of mankind,
are the substitutes for those useless offerings of the ancient
world. Thirdly, the sacrifice which God values more than
anything else is the willing obedience of the heart to the
eternal laws of truth and goodness, — the willing obedience,
even though It cost the life and limb and blood, suffering and
death. To obey Is better than sacrifice, to hearken to God's
law is better than the fattest portions of rams or of oxen, to
do justly and walk humbly is more than rivers of oil or ten
thousands of burnt offerings. It is the fragrance of an up
right life that Is most acceptable, — the dedication of self to
the highest and best Interests of humanity.
"The sense in which the Holy Communion Is a sacrifice
is because it is an expression of these three ideas. It Is
throughout praise and thanksgiving. Then the offertory from
the earliest times has been the practice of collecting at or
Immediately preceding that service alms for the poor, which
duty is then urged upon us in the Liturgy by the most moving
passages that can be drawn from the Scriptures to stir up
Christian compassion. Finally, the service always expresses
the idea of self-dedication. It Is thus a service of prayer and
praise, a service of generosity, and a service of self -dedication
to the highest interests of humanity.
"It might have been thought that in a religion like
Christianity, which is distinguished by its essentially moral
and spiritual character, no doubt could have arisen on the
material presence of Its Founder. In the holy life we lead,
in the courageous act we do. In the just law we ordain. Is
to-day the real presence of Christ. In the very first discourse
in which Christ first uses the terms in speaking of moral
converse with Himself under the strong figure of ' eating his
flesh and drinking his blood,' it is not only obvious to every
reader that the literal sense was absolutely Impossible, but He

THE HOLY COMMUNION. 345
Himself concluded the whole argument by the words which
ought to have precluded forever all question on the subject.
'The flesh profiteth nothing; It Is the spirit that quickeneth.'
" The words of Ignatius, ' Faith is the body of Christ and
charity is the blood of Christ,' and the words of Augustine,
'• Crede et manducasti,' have ever found an echo in the higher
and deeper intelligence of Christianity. There has been a
constant undersong of better spirits from the earliest times
7naintaining that, in the case both of Baptism and the
Holy Communion, the sacraments may not 07ily in extreme
cases be dispensed zvith, but that their essence is to be had
without the for7n at all. There was a maxim of the early
Church that the martyrdom of the unbaptized was itself a
baptism. It was, however, held for ages that a child dying
beyond the reach of baptism, and without having received in
his mouth the sacramental bread, was everlastingly damned ;
and this was, and Is, perhaps, the necessary logical results of
a stringent view of the Sacrament as an outward form. The
moment that the door was opened for the moral considera
tion of what was due to Tnercy and humanity, the whole
fabric of the strict sacramental system vanished, and reason,
justice, and charity stepped in to take their rightful places.
" The material interpretation of this ordinance arose In
part from a defect In the Intellectual condition of the early
recipients of Christianity, the tendency to mistake parable for
prose, and, in part, from the fascination exercised over the
early centuries by the belief In amulets and charms, the
superstitious regard for external objects, which the Christians
inherited from the decaying Roman Empire.
"These lower and material views have continued to this
day in the popular view of the Romish doctrine of transub
stantiation, and In the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantlatlon,
which is really the view taken by the Ritualists or High
Church party In the EngHsh Church. These doctrines, how-

346 PROTESTANTISM.
ever, when properly stated and intelligently understood, melt
Into something not very unlike the purest Protestantism.
"Thus, 'transubstantiation' is a word based, as its com
ponent parts sufficiently indicate, on the scholastic distinction
between 'Substances' and 'Accidents,' a distinction which
has long since vanished out of every sound system of physics
or metaphysics. Every external object was then believed to
consist of two parts, — the accidents, which represented the
solid, visible framework alone cognizable by the senses ; and
the substance, which was the inward essence, or Platonic Idea,
Invisible to mortal eye, incommunicable to mortal touch.
The popular notion of the Romish doctrine Is, no doubt, that
the change believed to be effected Is not of the substance, but
the accidents. The true scholastic doctrine is wholly Incon
sistent with any such supposition. The substance spoken of
is not the material substance, but the Impalpable Idea. The
supposed change consists in the transformation of one invisible
object into another Invisible object. The senses have no part
or lot in the transaction on one side or the other. Luther's
vie-w was a softened and modified version of the old Romish
doctrine retaining some mixture of the physical with the
purer moral Idea. In Its extreme form It Is scarcely to be
distinguished from the old doctrine. It was this point on
which Luther was the most hesitating and the most super
stitious in his departure from Rome. The third view, to
which the name of Zwingli is given, is that the moral
influence of the Sacrament is chiefly or solely through the
potency of its unique commemoration of the most touching
and transcendent event In history. _ It is the most refined and
purely spiritual conception of the ordinance. Its efficacy is
purely moral. There Is no mystical element.
"There being these three views the English Church
vehemently repudiated the first or Romish view, but refused
to adopt either the Lutheran or Zwingllan view so as to

THE HOLY COMMUNION. 347
exclude the other. In the spirit of compromise and con
ciliation which pervaded all their work, the framers of the
English formularies, though determined to keep the Zwingllan
doctrine intact, yet often so expressed it as to make it look as
much like Lutheranism as possible. The Articles, as finally
drawn up under EHzabeth, exhibit this reluctance to exclude
positively one or other of the two views, which, although
conflicting, are compatible with joint Christian communion.
In Article XXVIII. the first paragraph is distinctly Lutheran,
the third paragraph Is as distinctly Zwingllan, while the
Intervening paragraph repudiates transubstantiation. The
same comprehensiveness is clearly marked In the language
of the Communion Service In the Prayer Book. It is no
reproach to the English Church that Luther and Zwingli
should, under its auspices, close their struggle against each
other. "The body was the Hebrew expression for the Identity of
any person or thing. When spoken of in the sacramental
words, it must of necessity mean that undying love of truth,
that indefatigable beneficence, that absolute resignation to His
Father's -will by which alone we recognize Christ's unique
personality. "All acts of so-called communion with Christ have no
spiritual meaning except in proportion as they Involve or
express a moral fellowship with the holy, the just, the pure,
and the truthful ; except In proportion as our spirits, minds,
and characters move In unison with the parables of the
Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, the Faithful Servant,
and the Good Shepherd, with the Beatitudes on the Galilean
mountain, with the resignation of Gethsemane, and the
courage of Calvary. In proportion as the ordinance of the
Eucharist enables us to do this. It Is a true partaking of what
the Gospels intended by the body of Christ ; and in proportion
as it fails to do this, it is no partaking of anything.

348 PROTESTANTISM.
"The blood of a living thing is the life thereof. This
expression of the old Jewish law many times repeated well
harmonizes with the language of Harvey, who says, ' Blood
Is the fountain of life, the first to live, the last to die, the
primary seat of the animal soul.' The blood of Christ means
the inmost essence of His character, the self of His self, or
else the inmost essence of the Christian society, the life-
blood of Christendom and humanity. It Is the love, the self-
devotion, the generosity, the magnanimity, the forgiveness,
the toleration, the compassion of which that blood was the
expression. "It Is necessary to bring out as strongly as possible this
moral element as the primary, and, it is hardly too much to
say, the sole meaning of the words on which the institution
of the Eucharist is founded. Possibly the materialism of the
sacristy may so undermine the spiritual element of this —
almost the only external ordinance of Christianity — as to
endanger the ordinance Itself. Possibly the material may so
obliterate the spiritual that it will be necessary in the name
of religion itself to expect some change in the outward forms
of the Sacrament not less incisive than those which in earlier
ages by the general instincts of Christendom swept away
those parts which have no-w perished forever. Infant com
munion, once universal throughout the whole Church, and
still retained in the East, has been forbidden throughout the
whole Western Church, Catholic and Protestant alike. Daily
communion, universal in the primitive Church, has for the
vast majority of Christians been discontinued both in East
and West. Evening communion, the original time of the
ordinance, has been forbidden by the Roman Church. Solitary
communion has been forbidden in the English Church. Death
bed communion has been forbidden In the Scottish Church.
It is difficult to Imagine changes short of total abolition more
sweeping than these. But yet they were Induced by the

THE HOLY COMMUNION.

349

repugnance of the higher instincts of Christendom to see the
most sacred ceremony degraded into a charm.
"Whatever betide, it Is alike the duty and the hope,
whether of those who fondly cling to these forms or words,
or of those who think, perhaps too boldly, that they can
dispense with them, to keep steadily in view the moral real
ities, for the sake of which alone such forms exist and which
will survive the disappearance even of the most venerable
ordinances, even of the most sacred phrases."

350

PR O TESTANTISM.

CHAPTER IX.

FUTURE punishment.

283. On the subject of the future punishment of the
wicked the Church has refused to dogmatize for the reason,
as Dean Farrar points out, that there are four views, each
of which seems to have more or less support from passages of
Scripture. There are, as he has clearly shown, some passages which,
if understood in their literal meaning, seem to teach a final
restitution of all things, a final triumph of absolute blessed
ness, a final immanence of God In all things ; in other words,
to teach what is called Universalism. There are others which,
taken In their literal meaning, seem to point to the final
annihilation of the wicked. There are, again, others which
hold out no definite hope of alleviation to the doom of the
finally impenitent. These passages, of course, are the basis
of the Calvinistic views. There are others, again, which
seem to point to some temporary punishment, some purifying
discipline through which men must pass, but from -which they
may be saved. Each of these views has had its advocates and
champions In the ranks of the Church, but to no one of them
is the Church itself committed.
284. Bishop Moorhouse says: "There is not a single
word on the subject of endless torments In all the Thirty-Nine
Articles; and Article XLII., which forbade Universalism,
was struck out In 1562. This Article XLII. was withdrawn
because the Church, knowing that men like Origen, Clement
of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa were Universalists,
refused to dogmatize on such questions."

FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 351
285. Bishop Martensen and Bishop Thirlwall con
sidered the whole question as an insoluble mystery. Dean
Farrar says that endless torment is nowhere clearly taught,
the passages which appear to teach that doctrine being either
obviously figurative or historically misunderstood. He declares
that if the decision were made to turn solely on the literal
.meaning of Scripture, he should have no hesitation In saying
that the Universalist and annihilation theories have far more
evidence of this sort In their support than the popular view.
He regards It unwise, however, to speak dogmatically beyond
the point of denying positively the endlessness of punishment.
He says that it Is to the Middle Ages and to scholastic
theology that we mainly owe the rigidity of the common
dogmas as to the endlessness of doom and its irreversibility
after death. It came from the extreme confiderice of the
schoolmen and their imaginary knowledge of all the secrets
of the other world.
286. Dean Farrar says: "In the high name of the out
raged conscience of humanity, nay, in the far higher name of
the God who loves, the Saviour who died for, the Spirit who
enlightens, us, we hurl from us representations so cruel, a
doctrine so horrible, with every nerve and fibre of our intel
lectual, moral, and spiritual life. Here In Westminster
Abbey, this vast mausoleum of the glorious dead, I repudiate
these crude and glaring travesties of the awful and holy will
of God. I arraign them as Ignorantly merciless. I impeach
them as a falsehood against Christ's universal and absolute
redemption. I denounce them as a blasphemy against God's
exceeding and eternal love. The Scriptures reveal, indeed,
a future state of retribution, but are absolutely silent as to
' endless torture ' when competently interpreted in the light
of modern criticism. By no single formulary of the Church
of England Is such a dogma required.

353 PRO TESTANTISM.
" We hear the question asked triumphantly in sermons, ' If
the punishment of the wicked Is not to last, forever, what
guaranty have we that the felicity of the blessed -will last
forever?' I reply, 'Is there not in the question — when not
traditionally repeated, but plainly considered — an intense
selfishness and a most ignoble thought of God ? '
" Thank God, my own hopes of seeing God's face forever-
hereafter do not rest on ten times refuted attempts to read
false meanings Into the Greek lexicon in order to support a
system far darker than St. Augustine's, from whose mistaken
literalism it took Its disastrous origin. But here I declare
and call God to witness that if the popular doctrine of hell
were true, I should be ready to resign all hope, not only of
a shortened but of any Immortality, if thereby I could save,
not millions, but a single human soul from what fear and
superstition and ignorance and inveterate hate and slavish
letter-worship have dreamed and taught of hell. I call God
to witness that, so far from regretting the possible loss of
some billions of ceons of bliss by attaching to a Greek -word a
sense In which scores of times it is undeniably found, I would
here and now, and, kneeling on my knees, ask Him that I
might die as the beasts that perish and forever cease to be
rather than that my -worst enemy should endure the hell
described by TertuUian or Minuclus Felix or Jonathan Edwards
or Dr. Pusey or Mr. Furniss or Mr. Moody or Mr. Spurgeon
for one single year. Unless my whole nature were utterly
changed, I can imagine no immortality -which would not be
abhorrent to me if it were accompanied with the knowledge
that millions and millions of poor suffering wretches — some
of whom on earth I had known and loved — were writhing In
an agony without end or hope.
"This is what I believe after years of thought on this
subject, and what I know to be the belief of yearly Increasing
multitudes, of the wisest and most learned of the laity and

FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 353
of the clergy In our English Church. I can not and do not
believe in the endlessness of punishment. Scripture will not
let me. My conscience, my reason, my faith in Christ, the
voice of the Spirit within my soul, will not let me. God will
not let me."
287. Dean Stanley says : " It Is not in the interests of
philosophy, but in the interests of religion itself, that we are
bound to avoid exaggerated statements of the details of that
future state which transcends all human thought. It is from
relying, not on the dictates of a presumptuous reason, but on
the revelations of the nature of God made in the Bible itself
that we shrink from closing forever that door of hope which
He In His infinite mercy, not in one passage only, but in
many of the sacred Scriptures, has appeared to some of the
holiest and purest Christians to leave open. The Bible is
either silent or speaks with a voice which conveys to some the
brighter as to others the darker conclusion. The Church in
its formal documents is silent altogether. The Forty-Second
Article, affirming the harsher doctrine, has been long ago
struck out of the Articles of the English Church. The clergy
waver in their own teaching respecting it.
" There Is not a more widely renowned name in the early
Church than that of Origen. If there is any opinion more
closely than another connected -with this splendid memory it
is that of the final restoration of the wicked. Nor did the
opinions of Origen die with him. They continued to form
the backbone, so to say, of a vast school of thought. Not till
the sixth century is there any hint of their condemnation by
any supreme authority. Then, not by any General Council,
but by a small ecclesiastical synod convened in the palace of
Constantinople, — not through the Inspiration of the Church,
but at the absolute command of the most worldly emperor
and the most wicked empress that ever sat on the imperial

354 PROTESTANTISM.
throne, — the opinions of Origen were censured and his name
cast out as heretical. We can hardly wonder that no General
Council has ever sanctioned a decree so passed.
"From that time downward, although the belief in the
eternity of hell-fire took a deeper and more universal hold
on the minds of men, yet it received the sanction only of
general sentiment, not of catholic authority. It remains
certain that no creed of any ancient church entered on the
question at all. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed
are absolutely silent. Neither in any of the Councils binding
on the Greek Church, nor In the Council of Trent, nor In
the creed of Pope Pius IV., is there any opinion expressed
on the nature or duration of hell torments. The severity
of the doctrine and the Immense difficulties -which it suggests
in its application were softened in the Eastern Church by
a theory of sudden purification at the moment of death or
at the Judgment Day, — and in the Latin Church by the
vast variety of punishment allowed in the lower world,
and still more by the theory of a limbo for heathens and
children, and of a purgatory for all but the very worst, — a
doctrine which, in fact, covers almost all the cases which
render the popular doctrine of hell so appalling to reflecting
minds." 288. Bishop Colenso says: "I now declare that I can
no longer maintain or give utterance to the doctrine of the
endlessness of future punishments, that I dare not dog77iatize
at all 071 the matter, that I can only lay my hand upon my
mouth, and leave it in the hands of the righteous and merci
ful Judge, and entertain the hidden hope that there are
remedial processes, when this life Is ended, of which at
present we know nothing, but which the Lord, the righteous
Judge, will administer, as He In His wisdom shall see to be
good."

FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 355
289. Rev. H. B. 'Wilson says: "If we look abroad in
the world and regard the neutral character of the multitude,
we are at a loss to apply to them either the promises or the
denunciations of revelation.
"The Roman Church has imagined a limbus infantium.
We must rather entertain a hope that there shall be found,
after the great adjudication, receptacles suitable for those who
shall be Infants, not as to years of terrestrial life, but as to
spiritual development, — nurseries, as It were, and seed-grounds
where the undeveloped may grow up under new conditions,
the stunted may become strong, and the perverted be restored.
And when the Christian Church In all its branches shall have
fulfilled its sublunary office, and its Founder shall have sur
rendered His kingdom to the Great Father, all, both small
and great, shall find a refuge In the bosom of the Universal
Parent, to repose or be quickened into higher life in the ages
to come according to His will."
For this passage It was attempted to punish its author, but
the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal refused to do so, and
declared the position tenable within the rules of the Church.
(See case of Fendallv. Wilson in Brooke's " Privy Council
Judgments," p. 102.)
290. Rev. R. H. Ne-wton says : " There can be no
question whatever that a terrific dogma of future punishments
has been unofficially shaped by Christendom ; nor that it has
constituted the orthodox belief in the minds of the mass of
men within the churches, — the belief upon which the whole
superstructure of conventional theology is reared and by which
every other doctrine of that system Is shaped. To seriously
believe such a dogma would be to a sensitive soul sheer, stark
madness. " Let me remind you that outside critics of Christianity
have not been alone in Hfting up an indignant protest against

356 PROTESTANTISM.
this debasing dogma of our popular theology. Through the
whole history of the Church this protest has been from time
to time most earnestly renewed. In our own age this oppo
sition has gathered such a force and volume as to have
practically carried the day. Here and there a belated theo
logian, -who has not awakened to the fact that the churches
have been moving on while he was dreaming the dreams of
the Middle Ages, rouses and puts forth a defence of the old
belief, which, as one of our papers said of the recent article
in the North Afnerican Review by a distinguished Presby
terian divine, is chiefly noticeable as a curiosity. An eminent
theological professor of our own Church said to me a few
years ago, ' This belief has been fading out of men's mind as
the belief in witchcraft faded out from our fathers' mind.' "
291. Dean Stanley quotes with approval the following
statement as having been made -without contradiction by an
eminent prelate in 1840, and remarks that It is not less true
at the present time than it was when It was uttered :
' ' I repeat solemnly that I never met with a single clergyman
who believed in everlasting punishment in the literal sense
of the words ; and, for the honor of human nature and of
Christianity, I trust that not one lives in our age who would
deliberately aver that such was his belief."
292. In support of the views presented in this chapter
might be cited the utterances of a host of the most eminent
dignitaries of the Church, such as Archbishop Tlllotson,
Archbishop Whately, Archbishop Newcome, Archbishop
Thomson, Bishop Law, Bishop Newton, Bishop Ewing,
Bishop Moorhouse, Canon Westcott, Rev. F. D. Maurice,
Dean Milman, Canon Kingsley, Professor J. B. Mayor,
Professor E. H. Plumptre.

PR A YER.

CHAPTER X.

PRAYER.

357

293. The purpose of prayer Is not to inform God as to
what are your needs, but, rather, to arouse yourself to knowl
edge, to fix the sense of those needs more deeply In your own
mind, to impress upon yourself the need of higher things, and
to recall to your attention the weakness and error against
which you must be ever on your guard. It Is not to move
God, but to move yourself, that you pray. Such was the
conception of prayer held by John Wesley, one of the saints
of the English Church. Such Is the idea underlying the
preparation and use of the Book of Common Prayer. It is
not to be supposed for a moment that this language of prayer
In any way affects that mysterious power called God, so far
as that power is external to ourselves. That is not its design
or purpose. It Is so prepared as to move and affect men, to
cause them to think certain thoughts, to recall to their atten
tion certain duties and obligations, to cause them to realize
and meditate upon certain facts. All serious reflection and
meditation Is In the nature and within the purpose of prayer,
which in Its essence is communion -with the Divine Spirit
which is within you. To aid and facilitate this state of mind
by Its marvellous wealth of suggestive and pregnant sentences
the Church has prepared the Prayer Book, which, despite all
its imperfections, Is a precious legacy from the past, repre
senting the inspired moments of a host of saintly men.
294. Rev. F. 'W. Robertson says: " Prayer Is a necessity
of our humanity rather than a duty. To force it as a duty is
dangerous. Christ did not. He never commanded it, never
taught it till asked. Prayer is not necessarily words in form

358 PROTESTANTISM.
and sequence. There may be a real prayer that never can be
syllabled. The wish felt and not uttered is a prayer. Speak,
if your heart prompts, in articulate words, but there Is an
unsyllabled wish which is also prayer. Prayer does not
change the outward universe, but alters our inward being :
it does not work on God, but it works on us.
"A common, popular conception of prayer Is that it is the
means by which the wish of man determines the will of God.
This conception finds an exact parallel in those anecdotes
with -which Oriental history abounds, -wherein a sovereign
gives to his favorite some token on the presentation of which
every request must be granted. Thus Ahasuerus promised
Queen Esther that her petition should be granted, even to
the half of his kingdom. Thus Herod swore to Herodlas's
daughter that he would do whatever she should require. It
will scarcely be said that this is a misrepresentation of a very
common doctrine, for they who hold it would state it thus, —
and would consider the mercifulness and privilege of prayer
to consist in this, — that by faith we can obtain all we want.
"Now, we are told distinctly that this Is not the aim of
prayer nor its meaning. ' Not as I will.' The wish of man
does not determine the will of God. Try this conception by
four tests.
'¦'¦First, By its incompatibility with the fact that this uni
verse is a system of laws. A certain event Is invariably
followed by a certain consequence. This -we call a law.
All is one vast chain from -which. If you strike a link, you
break the whole. It has been truly said that for the waves to
heave a pebble on the seashore one yard higher up would
change all antecedents from the creation and all consequents
to the end of time. For It would have required a greater
force in the wave that threw it there, and that would have
required a different degree of strength in the storm, that
again a change of temperature all over the globe, and that

PR A YER.

359

again a corresponding difference in the temperaments and
characters of the men Inhabiting the different countries. So
that, when a child wishes a fine day for his morrow's excur
sion, and hopes to have it by an alteration of what would
have been without his wish, he desires nothing less than a
whole new universe.
"It Is difficult to state this in all Its force, except to men
who are professionally concerned -with the daily observa
tion of the uniformity of the Divine laws. But when the
astronomer descends from his serene gaze upon the moving
heavens, and the chemist rises from contemplating those
mai-vellous affinities, the proportions of which are never
altered, realizing the fact that every atom and element has
its own mystic number in the universe to the end of time ;
or, when the economist has studied the laws of wealth and
seen how fixed they are and sure, — then to hear that it is
expected that to comply with a mortal's convenience or plans
God shall place this whole harmonious system at the disposal
of a selfish humanity seems little less than Impiety against the
Lord of law and order.
^'¦Second, Try it next by fact. Ask those of spiritual
experience. We do not ask whether prayer has been effica
cious ; but -what -we ask is whether the good derived has been
exactly this, — that prayer brought the very thing wished for.
For Instance, did the plague come and go according to the
laws of prayer or according to the laws of health? Did it
come because men neglected prayer, or because they disobeyed
those rules which His wisdom has revealed as the conditions
of salubrity ? When it departed, was It because a nation lay
prostrate In sackcloth and ashes, or because men arose and
girded up their loins and removed those causes and those
obstructions which by everlasting law are causes and obstruc
tions ? Did the catarrh or the consumption go from him who
prayed sooner than from him who humbly bore it In silence f

360 PROTESTANTISM.
Try It by the case of Christ. Christ's prayer did not succeed.
He prayed that the cup might pass from Him. It did not so
pass. " What Christ's prayer -was not efficacious to do, that ours
is not certain to effect. If the object of petition be to obtain,
then Christ's prayer failed. If the refusal of His petition did
not show the absence of the favor of His Father, then neither
does the refusal of ours.
'•'¦Third, Try it by the prejudicial results of such a belief.
To think that prayer changes God's will gives unworthy ideas
of God. It supposes our will to be better than His, the
Unchangeable, the Unsearchable, the All -Wise. Can you see
the All of things, — the consequences and secret connections
of the event you wish? If not, would you really desire the
terrible power of Infallibly securing it?
" Consider also the danger of vanity and supineness result
ing from the fulfilment of our desires as a necessity. Who
does not recollect such cases in childhood when some curious
coincidences with our wishes were taken for direct replies to
prayer, and made us fancy ourselves favorites of Heaven in
possession of a secret spell. These coincidences did not
make us more earnest, more holy, but rather the reverse.
Careless and vain, we fancied -we had a power which super
seded exertion ; we looked down contemptuously on others.
Those were startling and wholesome lessons -which came
when our prayer failed, and threw our whole childish theory
into confusion.
'¦'¦Fourth, It would be most dangerous, too, as a criterion
of our spiritual state. If we think that answered prayer
is a proof of grace, we shall be unreasonably depressed and
unreasonably elated, — depressed when we do not get -what
we -wish, elated when we do. Besides, -we shall judge
uncharitably of other men.
" Two farmers pray, the one, whose farm is on light land,

PRAYER. 361
for rain ; the other, whose contiguous farm is on heavy soil,
for fine weather. Plainly, one or the other must come, and
that which is good for one may be Injurious to the other. If
this be the right view of prayer, then the one who does not
obtain his wish must mourn, doubting God's favor or believ
ing that he did not pray in faith. Two Christian armies
meet for battle, — Christian men on both sides pray for suc
cess to their own arms. Now, if victory be given to prayer.
Independent of other considerations, we are driven to the
pernicious principle that success Is the test of right. The
object of prayer is not the success of Its petition, nor Its
rejection a proof of failure. All prayer is to change the will
human Into submission to the will Divine. That prayer
which does not succeed In moderating our wish. In changing
the passionate desire Into still submission, the anxious, tumultu
ous expectation into silent surrender, is no true prayer, and
proves that we have not the spirit of true prayer.
"That life is most holy in -which there is least of petition
and desire and most of waiting upon God ; that in which
petition most often passes Into thanksgiving. In the prayer
taught by Christ there is only one petition for personal good,
and that a singularly simple and modest one, — ' give us this
day our daily bread,' — and even that expresses dependence
far rather than anxiety or desire.
"From this -we understand the spirit of that retirement for
prayer inio lonely tops of mountains and deep shades of night
of which -we read so often in the life of Christ. It was not
so much to secure any definite event as from the need of holy
communion with His Father. It was prayer without any
definite wish. We must distinguish two things which are
often confounded. Prayer for specific blessings Is a very
different thing from communion with God. Prayer is one
thing, petition is quite another. Indeed, hints are given us
which make it seem that a time will come when spirituality

362 PROTESTANTISM.
shall be so complete, and acquiescence In the will of God so
entire, that petition shall be superseded.
" There are many passages in which Christ discountenances
the heathen idea of prayer, which consists in urging, prevail
ing upon God. ' They think that they shall be heard for
their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them :
for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before
ye ask him.'
" Practically, then, I say, pray as He did till prayer makes
you cease to pray. Pray till prayer makes you forget your
own wish, and leave it or merge it in God's will. The
Divine wisdom has given us prayer, not as a means -whereby
to obtain the good things of earth, but as a means -whereby
we learn to do without them ; not as a means -whereby we
escape evil, but as a means -whereby -we become strong to
meet it. ' There appeared an angel unto him from heaven,
strengthening him.' That was the true reply to His prayer.
And so in the expectation of Impending danger our prayer
has won the victory, not when we have warded off the trial,
but when, like Him, we have learned to say, 'Arise, let us go
to meet the evil.' "
295. A most striking Illustration of this whole idea is to
be seen in Jean Valjean's struggle as to whether he should or
should not do his duty by surrendering himself and disclosing
his identity. (See First Part, Book VII., Chapter III., in
Victor Hugo's novel of "Les Miserables.") It was not In
the form of prayer at all. There was, perhaps, no conscious
presence of any distinct religious feeling, and yet it was
exactly what Is meant by "wrestling in prayer." It was a
struggle as to whether he should become submissive to his
sense of duty ; that is. In other words, to the will of God ;
whether he could do what was right, that Is to say, obey the
law of God, and face the apparently evil and terrible conse-

PRA YER. 363
quences ; whether he could sacrifice self to justice and treat
another man, a stranger to him, as he would that other
should treat him if their positions were reversed. All this
struggle -was prayer of the most exalted type, and yet the
literal and narrow religionist would not call it such at all,
because it lacked certain forms and was not consciously done
on any distinct religious theory. The literalist loses the
essence while he clings to the form or ceremony.

364 PROTESTANTISM.

CHAPTER XI.
SIN AND THE DEVIL.
296. The Christian conception of life rests on two facts.
One is that man inherits at birth a tendency towards evil ;
that he has within him the germs of moral disease -which,
under proper conditions, will grow and develop, and, if not
checked and overcome, will lead to moral death. This is
seen to be a plain fact. It Is true of all men in all ages and
In all nations. No change of environment alters It. Life,
therefore, must inevitably be a struggle, — a fight to over
come this evil element in man's nature. This Is unavoidable.
Man enters life with this as his burden. To bear this so as
to rise above it, to bear this so as not to be crushed by it,
to bear this so as at last to escape it, such is the task and
mission of every man.
The original possession of this inherited tendency no man
can escape. He has no choice as to whether he shall or shall
not enter this struggle, whether he shall or shall not take up
this burden. Life is forced upon him, and with life comes
Inevitably its burden. Up to this point no responsibility
comes with life. If this were all, then men were like the
beasts of the field, to live, to follow natural Instincts, and at
the end — die.
297. But there Is a second fact. Man has within him a
certain something which prompts him to resist this evil ten
dency. He has within him the germ of a spiritual life
which, under proper conditions, will grow and develop with
out limit. This we call conscience, the voice of God, the
inner monitor. This Is the armor of God, clad in which
man enters the fight of life. This Is his commanding officer

SIN AND THE DEVIL. 365
whose orders he ought to obey. This is his refuge, his con
solation, his strength, for It Is the Spirit of God within him.
This voice it Is his duty to obey, and failure to so obey is the
only sin for which we hold man responsible and accountable.
This fact -was the true revelation made by God through Christ.
For the first time this tremendous fact was proclaimed in all
its length and breadth. Ye are the temples of the Holy
Spirit. God dwelleth in you, in each and every one of you.
298. This fact contains in itself the promise and potency
of all spiritual life, of all true civilization, of all moral
progress and development. Faith Is the Implicit acceptance
of this fact. It is the settled assurance that this Spirit w^ithln
is sufficient, and will give the victory. Belief in Christ Is
belief in this fact. The fight against the natural tendency
to sin, relying on the guidance of this inner voice, is the true
religious life. Man thus having faith, thus believing, thus
relying, rises above all noisy partisan clamor, rises above
narrow prejudices, and fights his own battle by the aid of
that Spirit of God which is within him. To deny this is to
deny Christ. You may deny all the creeds and doctrines of
Christendom ; but if you accept this as a fact, if you have
this simple faith, this simple belief, you accept Christ, — and
it is sufficient to enable you to fulfil your life-mission, your
life-task. Your yoke will be easy, your burden will be light,
you have accepted the mediation of Christ. These, then, are
the two central facts, — the inherited tendency to sin, and the
gift of the Holy Spirit by whose aid that tendency can be
overcome, resulting in spiritual life and happiness.
299. Sin Is such a quality or manner of exercising the will
as results In the supremacy of our lower nature. It Is a
quality of action caused by the choice of what Is evil instead
of what is good. Forgiveness of sin means the removal of
sin ; that is to say, the removal or change of that state of the

366 PROTESTANTISM.
will which chooses evil for that state of the will which
chooses good. In both Greek and Hebrew the words for
"forgiveness" signify "removal." Sin thus forgiven or
removed ; that Is, the -will having thus been changed, man
is said to rise upon the stepping-stones of his dead self to
higher things. Forgiveness is thus a process, a growth, a
progressive change of character. It does not remove the
physical or material consequences of past action. The
prodigal returns to his father's house. There is the change
of will, but the reformed son can never be as If he had not
once wasted his substance In riotous living. There is no
magic that can remove facts which have eaten Into character.
The past Hfe may cause a long struggle after the change of
will ; but If the new purpose be adhered to, in time the
old character disappears, the man is renewed, old things
pass away, and the process of "forgiveness," that Is, of
"removal," Is at last completed.
300. " Whatever either of moral good or moral evil pro
ceeds from our nature and not from our will has no character
of merit or demerit. So far as goodness proceeds from a
beautiful nature, it Is not virtuous. So far as sin proceeds
from a diseased and depraved nature, it is not guilty. We
can conceive of an angelic nature with no capacity of virtue
because incapable of guilt. We can also conceive of a nature
so depraved as to be incapable of guilt because incapable
of virtue. Nothing can be more certain from reason and
Scripture than this : that transgressions which come from
a corrupt nature are just so far done in us and not by us.
This is distinctly asserted when Paul says, ' Now, then, it is
no more I that do It, but sin that dwelleth in me.' No man
is responsible for disease when he has not brought that disease
on himself but inherited it from his ancestors. The disease
may make him very odious, but cannot make him blamable.

SIN AND THE DE VIL. 367
We find evil tendencies In us which we did not cause ; but
we know that, for whatever part we are not the cause, we
are not to be held accountable. Our nature we find to be
diseased. We can the more readily, therefore, believe that
God has sent us a physician, and that we shall be cured by
him. We can believe In a future emancipation from these
tendencies, which are not crime, but disease."
301. There must, therefore, be two kinds of sin. First,
there Is the voluntary and conscious disobedience of the voice
of conscience, originating with the individual himself, by
means of his free will, -which is its only seat. It Is his duty
to obey the voice of God within him. Refusal to do this is
the only sin for which he Is accountable and responsible. If
there were no conscience, no inner voice, there could be none
of this sin, for there could be no disobedience of a command
not given, — no refusal to listen to a voice that did not speak.
Where there is no law there is no transgression. In this use
of the term sin is the same as guilt. Now, there is another
form of sin from which we suffer, and which It is our duty to
resist and overcome, but it Is that form called depravity, the
general demoralization of human nature. This Is a state of
the will Induced by certain inherited instincts which, in a
sense, almost seem to coerce the -will or cause It to operate
in a given way. Aside from any restraint imposed by the
enlightenment of his conscience, man will be Instinctively
led to so exercise his will and adopt the lower course of life.
So long as his higher nature is not aroused and does not act,
he simply follows his lower nature, which is all his nature
of which he is then conscious. He is Ignorant of the exist
ence of any higher nature or of the obligations to. which it
leads. A man who thus sins Ignorantly is not guilty, but he
suffers the consequences of his sin, — which are depravity of
his nature or moral death. " The Hottentots violate no posi-

368 PR O TESTANTISM.
tive law given them by God, and consequently are not guilty
of that ; but because, even ignorantly, they violate the laws
of their moral nature, they are morally depraved. This sin,
as disease, has been transmitted to every one of us by
physical influences from the beginning of history. By the
law of heredity these qualities have been transmitted. We
Inherit, not our own life merely, but that of our race. This
is the essential truth in the doctrine of the fall of man or
original sin. The tide of life which comes pouring through
us comes from ten thousand ancestors. All their temptations
and struggles, sins and vices, have helped to make us -what
we are. That we are guilty In any way for or because of any
such inherited tendencies Is an absurd and immoral doctrine."
A perception that there are these two kinds of sin must
lead to mercy and the suspension of human judgment. "Judge
not, that ye be not judged." Who can measure and determine
in any individual case the relative proportions of these two
kinds of sin ? Who can say how much is wilful and ho-w
much is inherited tendency ? "I say unto you judge not at
aU." 302. "We are each of us an Adam. We are at first placed
in Paradise. Each has in himself that which is represented
by Adam, Eve, the Serpent, the voice of God. Adam is the
will, the power of choice ; Eve is the desire for pleasure, the
passions. The voice of God is the higher reason In the soul,
the conscience. The Serpent is the lower reason, the cunning
element, the sophistical understanding which can put evil for
good and good for evil. The garden Is our early innocence
of childhood. When we leave the garden we enter a life of
trial till we reach that state of mind and soul where joy and
duty become one again." From Innocence which we lose we
have to fight our way back to Innocence. In this struggle we
are opposed by what has been personified as the Devil, who

SIN AND THE DEVIL. 369
Is nothing more nor less than our inherited tendency towards
evil, — including our sophistical lower reason. As God is the
stream of tendency that makes for righteousness, so the Devil
is that stream of tendency that makes for wickedness. The
Devil is our passions, our appetites, our lower Instincts, which
are somelsmes called in Scripture the flesh. In " Faust," when
Marguerite is tempted and ruined, it is by this Devil. Who
ever misleads or deceives another to moral harm and ruin, in
order to satisfy his own desires. Is truly doing the work of
this Devil. We may well believe that there is no other Devil.
This one Is terrible enough ; but we are told that if we resist
him he will flee far from us. By the term " Devil," then, we
mean our inherited tendency to sin, which it is our duty to
resist and overcome. It is our lower and worse nature which
it Is our duty to conquer. The message of Christ is merely
the method suggested for enabling a man to secure this victory.
It is the physician's prescription for this inherited disease.
Obey the voice \vithin you, live the life I have shown to you,
and you shall succeed. Such is the declaration of Christ.

370 PROTESTANTISM.

CHAPTER XII.

BAPTISM.

303. The Interminable controversy concerning baptism
seems to have been marked and governed by two radically
different views with regard to the central Idea of all religion.
One view Is that all men are born into this world as the
children or sons of God, who is the Father of all men, whose
nature is dwelling in all men. Now, It is certain that you,
as a man, cannot lose the quality of being the son of your
father. You may be unworthy of him, you may disgrace
him, you may put him to shame and distress, but the sonship
remains ; for either it is an unalterable fact, or it is not a fact
at all. You may deny the source of your origin, you may
live in utter disregard of the relationship, but It Is a fact, and
must ever remain such by the very la-w of nature. Those
who take this view regard baptism as a public and formal
recognition by a man of the fact that he is already the child
of God. It is a proclamation of an individual's desire to
recognize the relationship. It is the testimony of the man
that he has become aware of his true paternity, and is so
satisfied of the fact, of which he had previously been In
ignorance or doubt, that he is desirous of formally and
publicly acknowledging Him who was and is the source of
his being. His will has changed in this respect, and baptism
merely testifies to this change of will. He wills to hence
forth live as a son of that Father should live, — in full
recognition of the duties and obligations growing out of the
relationship. 304. The other view is that a man is not a child of God
until made so by baptism. Failing to be validly baptized

BAPTISM.

371

the man. It is said. Is Irrecoverably lost, because, it Is held,
that he can in no other way acquire any such relationship.
He never is born, so to speak. He never has any claim to
the title of child or son. God Is not his Father. If this
be correct, then an unbaptized person should never repeat
the Lord's Prayer, for the first line would not be true In his
case. This view is held clearly, rigidly, and consistently by
the Church of Rome ; and it is held by many Protestant
churches in a vague and Inconsistent way, -with various
modifications and many painful attempts to draw subtle
distinctions, so as to still hold the doctrine and yet to
escape Its obvious logical consequences. The basis for all
these various Protestant theories Is, however, identical with
the basis on which the Romish theory rests, and Is, there
fore, equally indefensible.
305. Rev. F. "W. Robertson says: "Our objections to
the doctrine of Rome concerning baptism are, —
"(i.) Because it assumes baptism to be not the testimony
to a fact, but the fact itself. Baptism froclaim.s the child of
God. The Romanist says It creates him. Then and there
a mysterious change takes place, — Inward, spiritual, effected
by an external rite. This makes baptism not a sacrament,
but an event.
"(2.) Because it is materialism of the grossest kind. The
order of Christian life is from within to that which is without,
— from the spiritual truth to the material expression of it.
The Roman order Is from the outward to the creation of the
Inward. This is magic.
"Now, this is degrading God. Observe the results: A
child Is to be baptized on a given day ; but when that day
arrives the child is unwell, and the ceremony must be post
poned another week or month. Again a delay takes place,
— the day is damp or cold. At last the time arrives; the

372 PROTESTANTISM.
service Is read ; It may require. If read slowly, five minutes
more than ordinarily. Then and there, -when that reading Is
slowly accomplished, the mystery is achieved. And all this
time, while the child Is ill, -while the -weather Is bad, while the
reader procrastinates, — I say it solemnly, — the Eternal Spirit
who rules this universe must wait patiently, and come down,
obedient to a mortal's spell, at the very second that it suits his
convenience. God must wait attendance on the caprice of a
careless parent, ten thousand accidents, nay, the leisure of
an indolent or an Immoral priest. Will you dare Insult the
Majesty on high by such a mockery as this result ?
" The superstitious mother of the lower classes baptizes
her child in all haste because she believes it has a mystic
influence on Its health, or because she fancies that it confers
the name without which it would not be summoned at the
day of judgment. And the superstitious mother of the upper
classes baptizes her child, too. In all haste, because, though
she does not precisely kno-w w^hat the mystic effect of baptism
Is, she thinks it best to be on the safer side, lest her child
should die, and Its eternity should be decided by the omission.
And we go to preach to the heathen while there are men and
women in our Christian England so bewildered with systems
and sermons, so profoundly In the dark, so utterly unable to
repose In eternal love and justice, that they must guard their
cki\\d. from God by a ceremony, and have the shadow of a
shade of doubt whether or not, for omission of theirs, that
child's Creator and Father may curse its soul for all eternity 1
" Methinks original sin must be a trifling thing if a little
water and a few human words can do away with it ; a
trifling thing, If, after It is done away, there Is no distin
guishable difference between the baptized and unbaptized ; if
the unbaptized Quaker is just as likely to exhibit the fruits
of goodness as the baptized son of the Church of England.
We have got out of the land of reality into the domain of

BAPTISM. 373
figments and speculations. A fictitious guilt is done away
with by a fictitious pardon, neither the appearance nor the
disappearance being visible.
"If baptism makes God our Father, baptism is incantation.
The Romanist does no more than the red Indian and the
black negro pretend to do, — exorcise the Devil, and infuse
God. The only question, then, becomes. Which is the true
enchanter, and which is the Impostor ? For the juggler does,
by the power of Imagination, often cure the sick man ; but
the mysterious effects of baptism never are visible, and never
can be tested in this world.
'•We pass to the doctrine of the Bible and, I believe, of
the Church of England. Christ came to reveal a name, the
Father. He proclaimed God the Father, man the son ;
revealed that the Son of man is also the Son of God. Man,
as man, God's child. He came to redeem the world from
that Ignorance of the relationship which had left men In heart
aliens and unregenerate. Human nature, therefore, became,
viewed In Christ, a holy thing and divine. The revelation is
of a common humanity, sanctified in God. The appearance
of the Son of God is the sanctification of the human race.
Now, this is the revelation : Man Is God's child, and the sin
of the man consists in perpetually living as If it were false.
To be a son of God is one thing ; to know that you are, and
call Him Father, Is another, — and that Is regeneration.
" Observe, then, baptism does not create a child of God.
It authoritatively declares him so. It does not make the fact,
it only reveals it. If baptism then and there for the first time
made it a fact, baptism would be magic. Nay, faith does
not create a child of God any more than baptism, nor does
it make a fact. It only appropriates that which Is a fact
already. The Catechism, however, says, 'In baptism I was
made a child of God.' Yes, coronation makes a sovereign;
but, paradoxical as it may seem, it can only make one a

374 PROTESTANTISM.
sovereign who is a sovereign already. Crown a pretender,
that coronation will not create the king. Coronation is the
authoritative act of the nation declaring a fact which was
fact before. And ever after, coronation is the event to which
all dates back, and the crown Is the expression used for all
royal acts. Similarly with baptism. Baptism makes a child
of God in the sense in -which coronation makes a king.
" The paternity of God Is the revelation. This Is authori
tatively declared by baptism, appropriated personally by faith,
but a truth independent both of baptism and faith, — which
would still be true if there were neither a baptism nor a faith
in the -world. They are the witnesses of the fact, — not the
creators of It."
306. Sins, it is said, are removed by baptism resulting in
salvation. Baptism is merely an outward sign of a change
of will with an intent to obey the law of God, the Father,
following the example of Christ as aided by the Indwelling
Holy Spirit. It is the birth into a higher plane of action
of -which the la-w is purity and unselfishness. It signifies a
change of the -will, recognizing the duty to obey and follow
the higher impulses and to keep the low-er nature in subjec
tion. This results in what is called " Salvation," which is
the actual abandonment of the worldly, self-indulgent, careless
life which we are all so apt to live, and the actual entrance
on a life -which is animated by a sincere intention to attain to
purity and an earnest effort to make that Intention good. //
is not salvation from punishtnent in a future world, but
from, the do7ninion of our lower nature in this world. It is
a state of being here and now.
307. It Is fair and proper to say, however, that the right
to hold the Romish or Calvinistic theory has been expressly
conceded, for, by the final judgment in the famous case
of Gorham v. Philpotts in 1850, the Calvinistic doctrine of

BAPTISM. 375
baptismal regeneration was declared to be not contrary to
the formularies of the Church. Lord Langdale said that the
question had been left open by the Church, and that this was
done intentionally, the subject of baptism being surrounded
by a great variety of opinions at the time when the Articles
and Formularies were drawn up, so that on these points all
ministers were at liberty to exercise their private judgment
without offence or censure.

376 PROTESTANTISM.

CHAPTER XIII.

the ATONEMENT.

308. There is hardly a single word that has been the
symbol of more grossly irreligious ideas than this word
" atonement." It has all been sheer speculation, mere
theorizing, the product of a diseased, morbid imagination.
As one reads the record, he can hardly believe .that such
conceptions have seriously been held by men -who had in
their hands the four Gospels.
There have been three main views or theories which, in
later days, have been mingled and blended with each other
in every conceivable -way. The first vie-w was based on the
idea of a conflict or -war bet-ween God and the Devil for the
soul of man. The Devil had acquired legal rights to posses
sion of the human race in consequence of Its sins. This
right was fully admitted. St. Augustine considered it to be
analogous to the right of property, while Leo the Great held
it to be the right of a conqueror. To induce the Devil to
release his rights Christ gave his own life to the Devil as a
ransom, and this -was adequate to redeem the whole race.
The Devil held the human race as his prisoners, and Christ
paid the ransom for their deliverance from bondage. But for
this no man could have ever hoped to escape from the Devil's
clutches. The theory -was certainly realistic enough to satisfy
any imagination. It sounds like blasphemy, but It -was the
accepted and orthodox belief of the Christian Church for
nearly a thousand years.
Dean Farrar says that this view was first suggested by
Bishop Irenaeus (A.D. 177), and that It recurs almost

THE ATONEMENT. 377
unquestioned in the writings of theologians till the days of
Anselm, A.D. 1093.
The second view was based on the idea of a debt legally
due from the human race to God. Man could not pay this,
and so Christ paid It for him. This is the commercial view.
The redemption of man was purchased by the blood of
Christ. God could not forego or release this debt except on
and after a full payment. Payment being made, the ledger
was balanced, and God Avas free to allo-w men to enter into
those relations from which otherwise they would have been
debaiTed. It was a magical wiping out of a score against us,
and a settlement of our account by charging the same to the
account of another. This seems like an ingeniously worded
insult to God, but it Is one of the views held by the Church
as orthodox for nearly eight hundred years. This view
originated with Archbishop Anselm, A.D. 1093, In his
treatise " Cur Deus Homo." It was undoubtedly shaped by
the Teutonic custom of blood-money whereby the criminal
made pecuniary compensation for his crime.
The third and more modern view is based on the idea of
a Divine necessity. It would not do. It was said, for God
to forgive sin unless, by some great example, an Impression
could be made as to the evil of sin. This Impression was
said to be produced by the death of Christ, who thus died,
not to extinguish any past sins of the race, but to prevent
future sin, or. In other words, to make a moral impression
upon the human mind. This may be called the spectacular
view. It Involves an exhibition of Divine justice gained,
however, by allowing men to commit the greatest of all crimes.
The sin of Adam was. In this view, redeemed by the murder
of Christ. It is si7nply horrible to say that men were
reconciled to God by their Tnurder of an innoce7it, saintly,
perfect m.an, and that, ¦without this hideous crime com
mitted by them, they must forever have re7nained incapable

378 PROTESTANTISM.
of religious life and spiritual growth. This theory has
been well stated as '¦'¦the im77iolation of an innocent Being
by an all-loving Being to satisfy a perfectly just Being."
309. The English Church, however, has no special theory
or view or doctrine with regard to the reconciliation or
atonement. Whatever any man, after a study of the Bible,
believes to be the true view of this matter he is free to hold,
but for no view he may propound can he claim the English
Church as his authority. It has endorsed no man's vagaries,
sanctioned no special interpretation of controverted passages.
310. The word " atonement" itself only occurs once In the
King James version of the New Testament, and that is in the
eleventh verse of the fifth chapter of Romans. The Greek
-word there translated "atone" is rendered "reconcile" in
the verse just preceding. In the Revised Version this has
been remedied, and "reconciliation" has been used Instead
of " atonement," so that in that version the word " atone
ment" does not occur at all. The word was printed In the
first editions of the English Bibles " at-one-ment."
311. Bishop Butler in his "Analogy" says, with refer
ence to this matter of the atonement, " I do not find that the
Scripture has explained it. All conjectures about it must be,
if not evidently absurd, yet, at least, uncertain." In this same
chapter he adds, " Let reason be kept to. If any part of the
Scripture account of the redemption of the world by Christ
can be shown to be really contrary to It, let the Scripture, in
the name of God, be given up."
312. Now, is there literally nothing in this idea of the
atonement worthy of respectful consideration? Is there no
essential idea, no conception worth retaining? The word
means reconciliation. Well, then, of what? Why, of God
and man. What does that signify but the reconciliation of

THE ATONEMENT. 379
man's lower nature and man's higher nature, — the proper
subordination of the one to the other? The lower impulse,
the depraved nature, is in Its primal condition typical of
man ; while the higher nature, the conscience, the spiritual
aspirations and tendencies are the Spirit of God within the
man, — and so typical of God. These being naturally at
enmity, there is need of reconciliation ; there is need of atone
ment, or the bringing of these two natures into harmonious
relations. The lower crushes the higher, the bad swallows
up the good. Harmony can only exist by the subordination
of the lo-wer nature, since, if It rules. It crushes and destroys
the higher. Until conquered it is master. Reconciliation or
atonement is, then, only possible by securing this victory for
the higher nature over the lower. It is to reconcile the flesh
and the spirit, so that each shall fill its true and proper sphere
resulting in the true life because the good life. It is here that
the ministry of reconciliation comes in. " Its office Is to pass
men over the gulf that yawns between the lower and the
higher self ; to rescue humanity from passion to principle ;
to counteract the brutal traditions of sensuality and hate by
the nobler conceptions of sacrifice and brotherhood."
There being, then, need of an atonement or reconciliation,
how is It to be effected? The true vIe-w Is that it has not
been made, and is not to be made,ybr man, but each man is
to effect it for himself in the way revealed by Christ, which
is the only way it can be made or effected. It is a plain
fact not open to dispute that, by Christ's death, nothing
was changed In our nature. We suffer from the inherited
tendency to sin just as men always have, — just as they did
before Christ came. To say, then, that any reconciliation
was effected, broadly covering all men and making these
relations between the flesh and the spirit any different from
what they had previously been, would be contrary to all
knowledge, experience, and observation. Christ merely

380 PROTESTANTISM.
disclosed the way, which whoever will follow shall secure
the reconciliation.
The atonement is not completed when Christ has done His
part. It is then only made possible. The conditions of
success are stated and revealed, nothing more. The recon
ciliation is effected when men do their part. What, then, is
the way of reconciling these natures disclosed by Christ?
Faith in the fact that God dwells within you, ready and able
to guide you, and the acceptance of the rule of life exemplified
by Christ.
"As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."
What does this mean ? As by living -for yourself, that Is, as
by living the selfish life, the life of the flesh, you are morally
dead, so by living for others, that is, by living the unselfish
life, the Christ life, you become morally alive. The man
who can once really feel that God dwells within him, guides
and directs and inspires him, needs only contemplate and
seek to follow Christ's life to obtain atonement or recon
ciliation which merely signifies that henceforth there shall be
harmonious relations between his lower nature and his higher
nature ; for they shall then be at one.
313. Rev. J. M. Whiton says: " Take those texts which
speak of Christ as ' the propitiation for our sins.' If this
is made to point toward God in heaven, as requiring to be
propitiated, the idea Is abhorrent to Jesus' teaching in the
parable of the father and the prodigal son. It can only be
accepted as pointing to God in the conscience. It means that
Christ brings peace to the conscience, and satisfies the Divine
demand which is felt therein. Such an atonement is not a
governmental work outside of us, but an educational work
within us. It Is not an historical propitiation of God In
space and time, but a spiritual process of God within the
conscience."

BOOK FIFTH.

CHURCH AND CLERGY.

CHAPTER I.

THE church.

314. The distinguishing and peculiar characteristic of the
English Church is that it has a constitution under which men
of nearly every shade of Christian opinion may live in a
spirit of loyalty to It, however -widely they may differ from
one another in matters of detail. The test of membership
consists of a brief statement of the broadest and most funda
mental character, with regard to which the Church allows
the Jargest liberty of Interpretation. There have never been
wanting men who are themselves too narrow to understand
the comprehensive and catholic attitude of the Church, too
timid to feel secure without extensive doctrinal ramparts, too
distrustful of the power of truth to believe In the liberty of
Interpretation ; but, whatever i^ and has been true of Indi
viduals, the Church is and has been free, comprehensive,
tolerant, and broad. In Its true and strict sense the English
Church is the most catholic of churches. It says that the
result of differences should be charity, not anathema.
"It Is historically certain," says Dean Stanley, "that the
English Church was meant to include, and that it has always
included, opposite and contradictory opinions. In this respect
it presents a likeness, however faint, of the Church of the
Apostolic Age, which directed its earliest and most energetic

382 PRO TESTANTISM.
efforts, not to the enforcement of a rigid conformity, but to
the toleration of wide diversities."
It is true that there have been many strenuous efforts by
various sections of the Church to narrow its domain, to
exclude all those who did not agree with certain theories
and dogmatic statements. The course of church history is
marked by these struggles which at various times have con
vulsed the Church and given rise to great bitterness of
feeling, leading to most deplorabile utterances and actions.
It Is equally true, however, that all these attempts have
failed, — that the ancient and fundamental principles of the
Church are so clearly in favor of freedom and toleration as
to embrace all these -warring elements in Its one catholic fold.
315. By reason of its fundamental breadth the English
Church covers, includes, and should permit, every form of
Protestant belief ranging from the ritualist or externalist at
one extreme to the Unitarian and Quaker at the other. We see
in that wing called the High Church those elements adapted to
the state of religious childhood, — elements -which exist in the
most developed and ultra form in Romanism. Shorn of the
most extreme and superstitious features, the English Church
permits all that can be useful or proper in appealing to the
highly emotional nature -which depends upon external author
ity and rules, venerable traditions, and symbolic ceremonials.
There can be no doubt but that every essential religious idea
held by the Romanist, that is to say, every essential idea not
connected with or dependent upon the authority of the Pope,
and not leading up to or growing out of the p'olitical and
temporal p'ower of Rome, may be legitimately and properly
held by a member of the English Church. This is as it
should be. It is the freedom of the Church. Views essen
tially Roman are at one extreme of those views permissible
within the Church.

THE CHURCH. 383
We see in that wing called the Low Church those elements
adapted to the state of religious youth, — elements which are
found in those Protestant churches popularly called evangeli
cal and orthodox.
In these various sects or denominations these ideas have
tended to become fixed and crystallized, and so to become a
barrier to Christian growth and development. Carried away
by a passionate Idea of conformity and agreement on minute
details, they have become exclusive and narrow. There Is
not a religious idea which Is essential to any of these churches,
whether Congregational, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, or
what not, which may not be legitimately and properly held
by a member of the English Church. We see in that wing
called the Broad Church those elements adapted to the state
of religious manhood, — elements which are found In those
Protestant churches popularly called " liberal." There is not
a religious idea essential to these so-called liberal churches
which may not be legitimately and properly held by a
member of the English Church. These are the reasons
why that Church may become and truly be the Catholic
or the all-embracing Church, — a title which it would more
completely deserve and secure if its members were as broad
as their great charter, if the practice of the Church were
in harmony with its law and its theory. There is no other
Church in the world that occupies, or that ever has occupied,
the same position. No such conditions could be created
to-day if they did not exist. They must exist and do exist
as the result of centuries of life and unconscious growth,
not deliberately planned or the result of human foresight or
wisdom ; in other words, the position of the English Church
Is a providential fact looking toward the final union of the
Christian churches. Are Its members to-day equal to this
mission? Are they broad enough, wise enough to see the
opportunity ?

384 PRO TESTANTISM.
316. To know that a man is a loyal citizen of the United
States tells you nothing as to his views, his opinions, his
interpretation of the Constitution. Men who are Identical in
their legal position as citizens differ the most widely on every
detail of thought and opinion, and yet are all in harmony on
the great essential points. A crisis causes all differences to
sink out of sight, and they stand shoulder to shoulder, bound
by the same oath of allegiance, by the same love for and faith
in the common country. Most citizens are in the state of
patriotic childhood. For them there must be the fervent
rhetoric and the resounding cannon of festival celebrations.
The sun, they say, shines on no such institutions In its w^hole
course. The forefathers are exalted, glorified, and wor
shipped. It Is the enthusiasm of a child, but it is natural,
proper, necessary, and Inevitable. There are also citizens
-who are in the state of patriotic youth. They perceive prin
ciples and comprehend legal theories, but take narro-w and
prejudiced views with regard to them, and feel bitterness
towards all who do not agree. They feel that there Is and
can be but one correct interpretation, and that is the one they
hold. All other views are actually dangerous and subversive
of the government itself.
There are also citizens who are in the state of patriotic
manhood, -who see with clear eyes, who comprehend great
principles without forgetting their limitations and modifica
tions, who keep national Ideas broad, sound, conservative,
and healthful by their Influence. The leaders of all three
classes really think alike in the main. They are not supposed
to do so by their respective camp followers. They do, how
ever, see fundamental facts and theories in the same light,
for their common training and education compels It. These
leaders keep the nation as broad and as 'sound in its Ideas as
the ignorance, prejudice, and selfishness of the people render
possible. National life in the main Is ever on an ascending

THE CHURCH. 385
scale, creeping towards better conditions through greater
enlightenment. Analogous to all this is the fundamental conception of the
English Church which I would emphasize.
317. Rev. F. C. Ewer says: "The world knows all
about the growing pains with which the Church has been
writhing these past fifty years. The meaning of these grow
ing pains is not that the Church herself is expanding, but
that the narrow children within her are learning what their
mother Church was. Is, and always will be ; that Is to say,
a good deal less sectarian and more catholic, a good deal
wider and deeper and more elastic, a good deal broader and
less full of starch and buckram than they are. Her breadth
and catholicity are her constant quantities, and it is not she
but those children within her that are affiicted with the grow
ing pains and making all the outcry as they are widening and
deepening to fill the measure of her capacity.
' ' Often have schools of thought within the Church tried to
identify her with their own notions of what she ought to be,
and just as often have they found themselves discomfited.
Low Churchmen have tried to control her and have failed.
High Churchmen have tried to control her and have failed.
Even overwhelming majorities of her children within her
have tried to control her and have found themselves unable
to do so. She holds but is not composed of her children.
Time and developing events, especially of recent days, have
been displaying what she really is. Her members cannot
make her what they want. In the long run she makes them
what she wants. She Is God's for man, and not man's for
God ; and the Divine Will has had its own purpose in her.
" We are all finding by the logic of stubborn results, as we
criticise each other, and as her several schools of thought
within her are trying in vain to control each other, that she

386 PROTESTANTISM.
is larger than we knew and big enough to hold us all. Some
of her bishops and people and editors may be low and some
high, but she is not sectarianly low nor sectarlanly high, but
broad and catholic. Through her Lows she shows, in spite
of the Highs, sympathy with members of the various sects.
Through her Highs she shows, in spite of the Lows, sympathy
with the organic, ancient ' Church continuous.' Through
her Broads, in spite of her fossils, she shows sympathy with
the life and advance of modern thought and investigation.
Nevertheless, all the schools of thought in the Church roll
along together as one body full of life, struggling with each
other In a sort of love, and loving each other in a mutual
struggle." 318. The English Church stands providentially where,
without changing its formularies, all Christians of whatever
diverse views may meet in one common communion. The
difficulty lies in the fact' that churchmen, for various reasons,
will not concede facts of church organization to be such,
because they personally do not deem it wise that the Church
should be so organized. They deny that certain views are
permissible, because they are not their personal views. They
do not see how the Church can safely admit such freedom,
and so they deny it because of their own defective eyesight.
The practical obstacle, therefore, in the way of Christian
unity is. In the first place, the ignorance, passions, and
prejudice of the laity due to the negligence and timidity of
the clergy.
It is a shame that It should be true, but It nevertheless is
true, that laymen who do not by independent study of church
literature get at the truth about the Church, rarely, if ever,
obtain it from the parish clergy. There Is a gulf between the
higher light and intelligence of the Church and the ordinary
parish congregation. The lack of accurate Ideas makes room

THE CHURCH. 387
for a confused mass of erroneous thought. No man Is so
hard to convince as one who thinks he has had ample instruc
tion and opportunity to know. " If this be so, why have I
not heard it from my rector? " What reply Is there? There
are many of the clergy who know the truth, but who in the
face of parish prejudices do not dare state it in its length and
breath. Prejudices are chiefly based on ignorance.
In the second place. It Is the bias or prejudice of the clergy,
due to a narrow ecclesiastical training. The inevitable result
of all this is a prevalent idea of the necessity of having all
men agree in a series of definite speculative propositions.
Again it results In an unwillingness to examine the evidence,
to see just how much is revealed, to acknow^ledge gaps and
imperfections, and then to rest on the supreme allegiance to
the truth whatever It is, not bringing to the search after it any
preconceived determination as to what shall be found. Until
Christian men in the Church can be made to see that religion
is not an acceptance of certain dogmatic formulas, but Is
love, justice, truth, humility, compassion, toleration, and
tenderness, there can be no real Christian unity. Until the
scholastic theology Is dead, the Church cannot have that
supreme influence It deserves. Erasmus said, and Arch
bishop Tlllotson quoted it with approbation, that "it was
never well with the Christian world since it began to be
a matter of so much subtlety and wit for a man to be a
true Christian."
319. If religion were not above all churches, it would
to-day be dead. If, by its very nature, it were not Inde
pendent of all organizations, and so full of vitality as to live
on without such support, it would have perished. The seat
of religion Is in the mind and the heart of man. It rests on
the Spirit of God which is within the man. Until you can
obliterate the record of the world's history, until you can

388 PROTESTANTISM.
efface and destroy all that which results from the experiences
of mankind, until you can take away all that man has learned,
— you cannot destroy religion. The Holy Spirit shall remain
with you always ev^n unto the end of the world. This Is the
pledge and security for the ' permanence of religion. You
may call it what you will, you may bury it beneath -what
philosophy you will, you may ostracize it and persecute it,
but a fact It is and a fact it will remain for all time.
Now, the Christian Church has but one true function, and
that is to evoke the conscience of men, to arouse it, to
enlighten it, to educate It, to Inspire It. To arouse men to
a genuine belief that God dwells within them, and then
to educate thera by holding up before them the life of Christ
as the simple record of a good and a true and a spotless life,
is the whole mission of the Church. To quicken the indi
vidual conscience, to arouse It, to train and develop it, to
stimulate It, to make It more sensitive and delicate in its
perceptions, to augment its influence, to increase Its power,
— this is the true purpose for which the Church should exist.
When the Church shall arouse itself to a true sense of this
mission, it will teach more plainly the lesson of justice, love,
mercy, truth, compassion, toleration, and tenderness. It will
cease to impose speculative systems of thought upon men.
It will cease to elevate dogmas about which intelligent, sincere
Christians have never been able to agree, and teach those
immutable principles never disputed by any. It will estimate
men by what they are and not by what they say they believe.
320. This view inevitably leads to a very kindly feeling
towards all of the different organizations -which bear the
name of Christ and claim to be Christian churches. Every
fair-minded man must see that every one of these churches
does, in some degree, this great work of arousing and
enlightening man's conscience. Ordinary honesty compels

THE CHURCH. 3S9
us to say that the Church of Rome Is to-day, despite all
its errors and superstitions, doing a noble work in this direc
tion. Men are often better and purer than their theories,
and this Is as true of the Romanist as it Is of the Calvinist
or the English Ritualist. To deny good and true work
wherever It is done and by whomsoever it is done is contrary
to the cardinal precept of Christ. But whatever work Is
done by the churches. It is Immeasurably below what It ought
to be both in quality and quantity. The higher literature of
the English Church is a very different atmosphere from that
which is found surrounding the parish pulpit. Many thought
ful men have said that the only way they preserved then-
respect for Christianity was by not attending church service.
321. The source of much of the opposition on the part of
the clergy to whatever is supposed to run against the tide
of parish prejudices is due to the fact that the Church is a
great organization for the payment of salaries. It has the
distribution of an enormous amount of patronage. To secure
this, one must defer to the prejudices and whims of those
who are the source of It. On a certain conventional basis of
belief it is known that men contribute certain -well-ascertained
sums. These beliefs acquire thus a certain commercial value.
They are equivalent to a banker on -whom checks to a certain
amount may always be drawn and will always be honored.
The disturbance of these beliefs is a shock to those who are
relying for their income upon this fact. Will men pay the
same if they cease to hold these opinions ? The powerful
nature of this idea can hardly be over-estimated, nor will its
existence ever be conceded even by those most affected by it.
If the truth had the same patronage at its disposal that Is now
possessed by error, the world would very readily get rid of
error. Truth, however, bides her time. Her patience is
marvellous. She asks men for faith in her power, but has

390 PROTESTANTISM.
no means to compel faith. She will have voluntary obedience
or none. She offers no bribes, but despises the service of the
mercenary. When men come, if they ever do, to believe in
the supreme power of truth, they will find her resources to
be inexhaustible, her armor to be invincible.
322. Let us frankly concede the imperfections of the
English Church. They are manifold. Let us point, not so
much to what its members have been nor to what they are,
but to what they may be. If there have been abuses, if there
are such to-day, the correction lies not in the further with
drawal of men from the Church, but in their cordial union
with it, and the frank assertion of their rights under its broad
charter. There is much in English life in all its phases to
excite the sense of humor and to arouse our Indignation ; but
underneath It all there Is a certain rugged strength and a
certain mighty moral purpose which we do well to recognize.
323. The result of so much strife and disputation is that
to-day the world is at a loss to know what Christianity really
is. This is the question that is being everywhere asked, and
it is the question to which the clergy, as a rule, are giving no
intelligent reply. The real fact Is that the Church has had
a constant tendency to minimize Christianity so as to satisfy
the overwhelming selfish Interests of mankind. The Church
In the main has been in line with these selfish Interests, has
supported and helped to maintain them, and received in
return from those interests a large part of the money that has
paid the salaries and enabled the machinery of the churches
to move. The courage to defy these vast interests, to speak
to the conscience of men the naked truth, to fitly denounce
the selfishness and the fraud of the day, — this courage has
been, as a rule, lacking. Estimating the influence of the
churches at whatever point the most zealous champions may
choose to place it, nevertheless, it is immeasurably below

THE CHURCH.

391

what it might be If the churches had the courage to speak
directly to the conscience of powerful men In whose hands
are In reality the solution of the great moral problems of our
day. It Is unquestionably a fact that the leaders of the serious
movements for social progress do not look to the churches for
aid, co-operation, or sympathy, and that the mass of toilers
believe, perhaps without reason, that the great Influence of
the churches is against them. It never occurs to them that
the only real solution of their problems Is in the application
of the ideas of Christ. They do not feel that Christianity,
as they see it exemplified in the churches, has any practical
bearing on the problems by which they are bewildered.
They do not feel or believe that the churches are doing
anything on their behalf towards solving these problems.
Whether they are right or wrong in their belief, it is clear
enough that they Identify the churches with the powerful and
privileged classes, and for this belief the churches are alone
to blame.
324. Mr. Goldwin Smith says that " for ages Christianity
has been accepted by the clergy of the Established Church as
the ally of political and social injustice." Mr. John Morley
says that ' ' the Church of England Is the ally of tyranny, the
organ of social oppression, the champion of Intellectual
bondage." Says another, "The Church shares and serves
the prejudices of rank and property instead of contending
with them." Dean Farrar says, " The early Church, the
Mediaeval Church, did more than we. In days when the
weak were prostrate at the feet of the strong, she not only
pleaded with the strong for the weak, but made the cause of
the weak her own. In days when force was terribly pre
dominant. It was the Church alone which dared to dash down
the mailed arm of the baron when It was uplifted to strike
his serf. Our problems are less difficult, our work less

392 PROTESTANTISM.
dangerous ; but we do not face them. We leave standing
the most horrible streets. We suffer temptation to be sown
broadcast with scarce so much as an attempt to check it.
We are more afraid of wealth and capital and class
interests thati our fathers ¦were of the swords of pitiless
barbarians and the wrath of autocratic kings."
325. Bishop Huntington said, in 1890: "No character
istics of the primitive Christian manners are more conspicuous
than humanity, simplicity, and fraternity. No contrast between
the heathen and Christian communities was sharper than that
in the esteem shown for those who live on other men's toil,
and for those who do the -world's work and -who bear the
burden of its drudgeries. .Just as fast as the. spirit which
Christ always declared to be antagonistic to His religion, and
which He called ' the world,' crept into the Church, usurped
the control of its affairs, and put a lock on the lips of its
ministers, this first law of equity was sacrificed, — the second
crucifixion. Long before Phocas played into the hands of
a secular papacy, before Latin princes were substituted for
servants of the Nazarene, and before Adrian stamped a pope's
name on Roman coin, the world had largely bought up the
Church's title and estate, and found profit in administering It
for the -world's entertainment.
"As operating through human agencies the Church has an
ecclesiastical apparatus, policy, financial system, officers, and
honors. Scarcely less than formularies of belief or decrees
of councils, in moral impression, is this ecclesiastical polity.
To innumerable people who read little and think less it Is
the inarticulate but significant interpretation of Church Chris
tianity. They accept it as the Christianity of Christ, judging
Him by the system, and supposing that In despising or hating
the system they reject Christ. More than half the religious
organizations, large or small, are at present practical contra-

THE CHURCH.

393

dictions of the Sermon on the Mount. The ' prince of this
world' buys up the property, holds the keys of pew doors,
puts rich families In the foremost seats, hires and pays the
choir, tells the ' lower classes ' to stay out in the streets or
patronizes them with a mission chapel in the outskirts, makes
a fashion-plate of the female worshippers, sees to It that
parish offices and all other marks of distinction are assigned
to prosperous merchants, politicians, and leaders of society,
suits the preacher to the tastes of the ruling set, and ' runs
the concern.' What Is all this parochial mammonism and
snobbery but a surrender of the kingdom of the Crucified to
His adversary ? Where is the divine brotherhood ? Mean
time, prudent care is taken to keep safe the holy language
and handsome ceremonial, and not to put St. Dives into the
calendar." 326. The identification of the churches with religion, the
judging of one by the other, is a mistake of the most serious
character. A church is a purely human organization designed
to promote religion, and it Is only In so far as it actually does
this that its existence is at all justified. It is to be judged the
same as all other Institutions are judged. Its failure, its
weakness. Its deadness, does not show that religion has failed
or is weak or is dead. Judged by Its results, by Its existing
internal conditions, by Its attitude towards the great problems
of the day, does the Church justify its tremendous claims ?
If it does not, where are we to seek the explanation ?
327. Looking at the Church as a body or organic structure,
we see that theology is its lower nature and religion is its
higher nature. Between these two there Is and always has
been a struggle for supremacy. To secure harmonious rela
tions there must be the subordination of theology and the
recognition of its decided inferiority. Religion as the higher
nature is forever struggling under the burden of this theology

394 PROTESTANTISM,
as a correlative lower nature. The warfare that goes on in
each man between his two natures thus occurs In the life of
the Church between its two natures. Some theology there
must always be. It is a proper and even a necessary element,
but its ascendancy is fatal to religion. In the presence of an
arrogant theology, based on a proud reason and an unyielding
logic, religion dies. Now, as in the life of each man the
lower nature seems almost irresistible, and is only overcome
by patient effort and never-ending struggle, so in the life of
the Church theology has seemed to hold almost irresistible
sway, and it has been a hard and bitter fight for religion to
make itself a power in the Church, much less to secure an
ascendancy. Each man has to fight against his prejudice, his ignorance,
and his selfishness ; and these are likewise the agencies which
in all ages and to-day explain the difficulty that religion has
to make headway in the Church. Never has religion secured
the ascendancy. Never has it succeeded in making theology
subordinate to it. Theology has ruled. It has had behind
it political power, the resources of wealth, the passions,
prejudices, and selfish interests of mankind. Theology has
endeavored to usurp the place of religion, — the lower nature
thus seeking to stifle and extinguish the higher nature. Under
the scholastic dominion of mediaeval times this was nearly
accomplished. The Reformation was merely a supreme effort
of the higher nature of the Church to assert and save itself
from being permanently crushed. It was a crisis similar to
those occurring in the individual life, when the nobler self
makes a mighty effort to shake off the bonds in which it is
held by the lower self. As a man does not at once escape,
and cannot, however great his effort, throw off at once the
degrading fetters that have been woven around him and his
ancestors during many long years, so the Church, noble as
was the struggle, did not secure more than a chance to breathe

THE CHURCH.

395

freely, look about her, and begin to develop the unused muscles
and test the hitherto fettered limbs. For three centuries she
has been slowly struggling towards that light in the faith of
whose existence she girded up her loins and made her supreme
struggle. For these centuries has she been working on towards
the day when religion, as her higher nature, might at last put
Its foot on the neck of theology, as her lower nature, and hold
it in its true and proper place subordinated, controlled, and
subdued. As a man struggles -with Inherited tendencies, and feels the
consequences of the enviropment of all his ancestors, so the
Church is weighted down by the Inherited speculations of
centuries. The thoughts of earlier ages under an environment
peculiarly adapted to check the free development of truth,
under circumstances of political tyranny and brutal exaction
of conformity to opinions, adopted not so much because they
were true as because they were expedient and served the pur
poses of the hour, — this is the inherited theology, the inherited
lower nature of the Church, whose chief claim to reverence is
its antiquity, which, on analysis, is no more than the fact that
it was born in days of less enlightenment and freedom than
the present. This undue reverence for a great system of
Inherited speculative thought has had pernicious consequences
-which are sure to be detected and recognized in time by
thoughtful men, and when enough men have become thus
thoughtful, the undue reverence will melt away.
The churches have been permeated with theological ideas.
They have never as yet been permeated by the simple religious
spirit. Each Church has nurtured and developed Its own
theological and ecclesiastical system, and in so doing has
well nigh forgotten religion itself. Each Church has sedu
lously cultivated an external uniformity of theological think
ing, which is perfectly well known to exist only in appearance,
and is only maintained at all by discreet silence imposed under
penalty of exclusion and loss of temporal emoluments.

396 PR O TESTANTISM.
So far as a church cultivates thus its lower nature and is
not responsive to the appeals of its higher nature, so far as
it is Intellectual and not spiritual, so far It Is morally dead.
It is cultivating fruit that is perishable. It Is building on the
shifting sands. It is only a question of time when such fruit
becomes no longer attractive, however fair and alluring it
may have been at the outset. It is only a question of time
when such a building falls by the resistless movement of the
sand on which it Is built.
Theology has stood long enough as the dragon guarding
all the approaches to religion. Theology has separated the
churches, has brought discord and war. Let it stand aside.
Let religion unite the churches, bringing harmony and peace.
Let us reach out towards a theology that shall be subordinate
to religion, that shall minister unto it Instead of dominating
and ruling it, that shall be the servant and not the master.

THE CLERGY. 397

CHAPTER II.
the CLERGY.  THE CLAIM OF APOSTOLIC SUCC"^"i5SSI0N AND
SPECIAL POWERS.
328. In none of the formularies of the English Ch'urch is.
there any basis for any doctrine of the apostolic succeb^'Sion.
That It exists as a stream of tradition Is true enough, but
that it exists by any genuine authority is not true. That th'fe
acceptance of any such doctrine is commanded to either laity
or clergy Is not true. No man can produce any real basis for
It which shall be authoritative and binding. Whence, then,
came It? Out of that atmosphere of tradition and mysticism
which existed prior to the Reformation. The Idea was that
the sacrament of the Holy Communion was a sacrifice which
no one had any right to celebrate except he had received
power by the Imposition of hands descending in an unbroken
line and beginning -with the apostles. It was a mystical
power which passed only by the physical touch of one who
had in his turn been physically touched by another, which
series ran back to a similar apostolic touch. Without this
apostolic touch there could be no bishop. Without a bishop
there could be no church. Without a church there could be
no Sacrament, and without the Sacrament there could be no
saving grace. It is the very keynote of all priestcraft and
ecclesiasticism. It is the very basis of all ecclesiastical
aristocracy. The retention of such a tradition was plainly
inconsistent with all the cardinal principles of Protestantism.
It is in all Its features a conception of Rome. It does not
belong to England. The English Church has never passed
any direct opinion respecting either the rightness or validity

398 PROTESTANTISM.
of any other ordination differing from her own as in relation
to other churches or communities of Christians. That Church
has never taken it upon her to pronounce an uncalled-for and
general judgment either way upon others. She has not done
more than lay down a law of church government for herself.
Whatever basis there is for any special doctrine of apostolic
succession is found only In inference and implication from
the fact that the Church has herself a system of government
by bishops. No essential idea of the Church -would be dis
turbed if to-day its government -were changed from Episcopal
to Presbyterian methods. It is difficult to believe that any
man, whose mind is not in ecclesiastical fetters, seriously
holds this mystical doctrine of the tactual succession. That
he may most profoundly believe episcopacy to be the most
effective form of church government is easy to understand,
and, indeed, it Is probable that there would be a general
consensus of opinion in that direction. In any event, there
is no need of quarrelling. If the English Church has a hold
on this succession, It is well for the peace of mind of those
-who deem such matter essential and necessary, while the
fancy on the part of some that such power is possessed ought
to be no offence to those who deem it superfluous and vain.
In either case we must agree that the Church has all that is
necessary, and as to what that may or must be, let each one
satisfy himself. So long as, whatever it be, it is free for any
one to believe, if he choose, that the Church has it, there
seems little need for angry discussion. If such a power really
exists, and if the Church really has it, no man Is likely to
ever deprive her of it. At the same time, since the assertion
of such a doctrine is a gratuitous insult to many other
Christian organizations. It would seem that ordinary charity
and decency required it to be held with some moderation
and to be asserted with some timidity and suspicion of its
soundness.

THE CLERGY. 399
329. The reformed English Church had at the outset, and
for at least two generations thereafter, no noticeable number
of prelates who lield thisy'wrc divino theory of the succession
even as a tradition worthy of respect. In the formularies of
the Church there is no clear trace of it. In the literature
of the Church, as an expression of the Ideas of any consider
able faction or party. It does not appear until the reign of
James I. In 1604 the University of Oxford openly reproved
a student for maintaining in his divinity thesis that episcopacy
was jure divino, and so there could be no true church with
out true bishops. This student was Laud, afterwards the
infamous ecclesiastic. The first traces of the notion had,
indeed, appeared about the end of the reign of Elizabeth, but
merely as the opinions of individuals who were seeking to
introduce into the new establishment the essential ideas of
Rome. Under Edward and Elizabeth the apostolic succession was
treated as little better than a fable. The genius of Calvin
presided at the universities. When Laud, In 1604, read his
thesis the magnates of the university heard it with amazement
and horror. He was publicly rebuked by Dr. Abbot, the
Vice-Chancellor and Regius Professor of Divinity, and after
wards was reviled as a Papist and a hypocrite. He was
pursued by pamphlets and sermons in which abuse was poured
out without limit. If he had aimed at creating a sensation,
his object was fully attained.
Dr. Abbot, who publicly rebuked Laud in 1604, became
Archbishop of Canterbury in 161 1, which place he held until
1633, when, singularly enough, he was succeeded by Laud.
Whitglft, who was Archbishop from 1583 to 1604, referring
to this then novel doctrine, said that he did not believe It
was true, but he wished that it were. Lord Bacon held that
the Reformed Church of England stood on this platform:
(i) That the Scriptures do not prescribe for the Church any

400 PROTESTANTISM.
perpetual unchangeable polity; (2) that episcopacy as a
mode of government Is not opposed to Scripture; (3) that
the reformed churches that had adopted Presbyterian govern
ment were not to be condemned ; (4) that Presbyterian gov
ernment -was not better than episcopacy, but, even If It were,
there were reasons why it should not be adopted in England ;
(5) that the -word "priest" should be laid aside, as, under
the gospel, -we have no priest in the Levitical sense ; (6) that
questions about ceremonies and church government are indif
ferent, — to be, as things belonging to time, distinguished from
things belonging to eternity.
330. Until, at least, the reign of James I. the English
Church uniformly regarded and treated as on a parity -with
itself the Lutherans, -who had not preserved any succession
of bishops, and the Calvinists, -who had altogether abolished
the episcopacy.
The element that secured control under the Stuarts began,
in utter disregard of all preceding ideas, practices, and form
ularies, to treat the Lutherans and Calvinists as aliens and
schismatics, as lacking the very essence of a Christian society.
They created their own tests of doctrine with an utter indif
ference to those created by la-w. They began to assert that
Rome was a part of the Catholic Church, -while, expressly or
by inference, they refused that title to Geneva and Heidelberg.
The party in favor of a divine episcopacy joined hands with
the party that favored the divine right of the monarch. Thus
political power was secured as an ally for the propagation of
ecclesiastical notions. The Low Church fought the great
battle for human freedom against the High Church as the
slave and ally of the Stuart pretensions. Controlled by the
High Church faction, which was backed by the royal pre
rogative, the Church became to all practical intents and
purposes the " servile handmaid of monarchy, the steady

THE CLERGY. 401
enemy of public liberty. The divine right of kings and the
duty of passively obeying all their commands were her favorite
tenets." It was by this subservience to the political ambition
of the Stuarts that ecclesiastics secured the power for several
generations to make an idea which was foreign to the basic
idea of the Church, and that could not be found in any of
her formularies. In actual practice a distinctive element of
the Church. The political rights of the people were sold by
these churchmen for ecclesiastical power and preferment. At
once, on the overthrow of the Stuarts and the appearance of
William III. in 1689, bringing constitutional government, the
Low and the Broad parties obtained for the first time for
several generations a chance to breathe freely in the Church.
Tlllotson became In 169 1 Archbishop of Canterbury, a man
of the most broad and liberal Ideas.
The failure of the Stuarts determined the destiny of the
Reformed English Church. The success of the Stuarts must
have meant ecclesiastical surrender to Rome, which is the
Inevitable and logical consequence of High Church theories
when given free scope to develop. Constitutional govern
ment went hand In hand -with Protestantism. The cause of
religious freedom was and is one with the cause of political
freedom. The success of Protestantism was and is the suc
cess of constitutional freedom, of free speech, of a free press,
free education, and a free people. Ecclesiasticism is hostile
to all this by inherent necessity.
331. The singular feature of the history Is that through It
all the Church formularies were let alone. The mischief was
done by Acts of Parliament, such as the Corporation Act
of 1661, the Act of Uniformity of 1662, the Conventicle Act
of 1664, the Five Mile Act of 1665, the Test Act of 1673, ^^^^
a multitude of others of a like nature. It was political power,
using religion as the cloak for social, political, and com-

402 PR O TESTANTISM.
merclal oppression, that earned for the English Church the
profound hatred of all earnest lovers of freedom and Christian
truth. The Church as a religious Institution was lost sight of
when its entire machinery was in the hands of unprincipled
politicians, by whom it was exercised In a manner to deserve
the contempt and hatred of mankind. The repeal, ho-wever,
of these acts of legislation leaves the Church where it was
placed by the early reformers, except that In practice there
must needs be the tainted traces of so many years of ill-
doing. To recognize this change and utilize it for harmony
and general Protestant unity is the work of to-day. To bring
in fresh blood, to, indeed, tolerate but keep within due limits
the High Church contingency. Is Christian work to-day.
332. Had it not been for that fatal taint in the Stuart blood,
and the disastrous effort to establish the divine right of the
king, this tradition of an apostolic succession, of a divine
episcopacy, -would never have disfigured the annals of the
English Church. So far as it exists to-day, it is a lingering
reminder of disgraceful pages of church history. By Its
disappearance, which Is now Inevitable, and this time final,
the Church will merely return to the ideas of its founders,
to the ideas that prevailed for the first two generations of its
members. The doctrine, severed as it is now from any con
nection with political ascendancy, is harmless. Those who
hold it may well be treated with indulgence and kindness.
As a mere opinion it is innocent, and must merely be regarded
as characteristic of a certain well-defined stage of religious
development. Bad as has been its record in the past. It is
not likely that ever again it can be used to thwart the progress
of human freedom and religion.
So long as this doctrine shall operate to keep apart the
various Protestant churches, so long will fhe influence of the
Stuarts be operative, showing how difficult It is to exorcise

THE CLERGY.

403

an evil spirit in the face of historical ignorance and inherited
prejudices. It never was an Idea of the English Church any
more than the jure divino theory of the inonarchy was ever
a part of the English Constitution. It is no more in harmony
with Christianity than that political theory was In harmony
with Magna- Charta. It has made men hate- and abhor
episcopacy just as the Stuart pretensions made men hate and
abhor the idea of royalty. As England has been steadily
working out the Idea of constitutional government by a
limited monarchy, and finding In it a source of Imperial unity
consistent with popular liberty and Individual security and
prosperity, so the Church is to work out the idea of an
episcopacy that will serve and minister instead of ruling and
tyrannizing, that will be of the people and for them as guides
to and overseers of organized Christian life and work, that
will be seen to be of the highest utility and convenience when
it has been shorn of its fanciful pretensions and is valued for
what it really is -worth as an aid in combining and rendering
effective the earnestness and loyalty of the scattered individual
forces of a great community.
333. Dean Stanley says : " Among the gifts which Christ
gave to mankind during His life on earth, the ministry, as we
possess it now. Is not one. No permanent order of ministries
appears in that spiritual kingdom of -which He spoke. The
twelve apostles had no successors like themselves. The seventy
disciples that went forth into the cities of Palestine were soon
gathered to their graves, and no order of the same kind or of
the same number came In their stead. They went out once,
and returned back to their Master to go out no more. The
Church existed In its faithful followers. Wherever in any
town or country two or three are gathered together by a
common love and faith, there will be a Christian Church.
For years such a society existed without a separate order of

404 PROTESTANTISM.
clergy. All were alike holy ; all were alike consecrated. It
is certain that the clergy arose gradually out of the pre
existing institutions or under the pressure of local emergencies.
It Is certain that in no instance before the third century -was
the title or functions of the pagan or Jewish priesthood
applied to the Christian pastors. It is as sure, that nothing
like modern episcopacy existed before the close of the first
century as It is that nothing like modern Presbyterianism
existed after the beginning of the second. No existing church
can find any platform of its government In those early times.
Churches have not to go back to a state of barbarism to justify
their constitution. There has been on all sides equally a dis
position to assume the existence in early days of all the later
principles of civilization, or else to Imagine a premature state
of things which never existed at all.
" There was a kind of natural necessity for the growth of
the clergy in order to meet the necessary needs of the Chris
tian community. Even in those religious bodies which have
endeavored to dispense with such an order, it has reasserted
itself in other forms. The intellectual element in Christian
society will always require some one to express it, and this
in some form or other will probably be the clergy. In like
manner the clergy existed before the institution of bishops.
In the first age there was no such marked distinction as now
we find between the different orders of the clergy. It was
only by slow degrees that the name of bishop became appro
priated to one chief pastor raised high In rank and station
above the mass of the clergy. But here again It was the
demand which created the supply.
" Doubtless there have been times when the clergy and the
Church were able to effect their great objects without the aid
of higher officers, just as there have been battles which have
been won by the rank and file of soldiers without the aid or
even In spite of generals. But still the more usual experience

THE CLERGY.

405

of mankind has proved that In all conditions of life there are
men who rise above their fellows, and who, therefore, need
corresponding offices in which these more commanding gifts
may find a place, and who, by the development of those gifts
through the higher offices, are themselves a standing proof
that the offices are necessary. Even In Presbyterian Churches
we see again and again men -who, by their superior character
and attainments, are bishops in all but name, and who only
need such offices to call out their full energies. The various
grades of the clergy have sprung up in the same way and by
the same natural necessity as the various grades of government,
law, and science.
" The clergy have no special power to remit sins or give
absolution. The Introduction Into the ordination service of
words implying it is comparatively recent, and was probably
the result of misconception. It is certain that for the first
twelve centuries they were never used for the ordination of
any Christian minister. It is certain that In the whole
Eastern Church they were never used at all for this purpose.
It was not till the thirteenth century — the age -when the
materialistic theories of the sacraments and the extravagant
pretensions of pontifical and sacerdotal power were at their
height — that they were first Introduced into the Ordinals of
the Latin Church. From thence they were at the Reforma
tion retained in the ordination service of the English Church.
It is clear that they have become a mere stumbling-block and
stone of offence, partly as unintelligible, partly as giving rise
to the most mistaken conclusions. Their retention is con
fessedly not in conformity but in direct antagonism with
ancient and catholic usages. It is a mere copy of a mediseval
interpolation which has hardly any more claim on historical
or theological grounds to a place In the English Prayer Book
than the admission of the existence of Pope Joan or of the
miracle of Bolsena. And so far from these words being

4o6 PR O TESTANTISM.
regarded as a necessary part of the validity of Holy Orders,
such an assertion, if admitted, would of itself be fatal to the
validity of all Holy Orders whatever ; for it would prove that
every single ordination for the first twelve hundred years of
Christianity was Invalid ; nay, more, that every present ordi
nation in the Roman Church Itself -was invalid. Inasmuch as
In the Ordinal Itself these words do not occur In -the essential
parts of the office, but only in an accidental adjunct of it.
" The Bible really teaches us that we all have to bear each
other's burdens. There Is no caste or order of men who can
relieve us of this dread responsibility, of this noble privilege.
The clergyman needs the advice and pardon of the gifted
layman quite as much as the layman needs the advice and
pardon of the gifted clergy. The brother seeks the forgive
ness of the brother whom he hath offended, the child of the
parent, the neighbor of the neighbor. This in the earliest
times was the real meaning of confession. ' Confess your
faults,' says James. To whom ? To the elders of the Church
whom he has just mentioned ? To the bishop or the priest or
the deacon? No. ' Confess your faults one to another.' It
is as though he said, ' Let there be mutual confidence.'
Every one can do his neighbor some good ; every one can
protest against some evil, and the whole tone of the com
munity shall thus be raised.
"There is a story told of James I., who, when after
indulging in a furious passion against a faithful servant,
found that It was under a mistake, sent for him immediately,
would neither eat, drink, nor sleep till he saw him, and
when the servant entered his chamber the king kneeled down
and begged his pardon ; nor -would he rise from his humble
posture till he had compelled the astonished servant to pro
nounce the -words of absolution. That was a grotesque but
genuine form of repentance ; that was a grotesque but genuine
form of absolution. There was a story told during the

THE CLERGY.

407

Turkish War of 1877 ^^'^ ^ Roumanian soldier, after having
received the sacraments from a priest on his deathbed, would
not be satisfied till he had obtained an interview with the
excellent Princess of Roumania. To her he explained that
he had tried to escape from the dangers of the battle by
mutilating one of his fingers, and against her and her
husband he felt that this offence had been committed. From
the princess and not from the priest he felt must the forgive
ness come which alone could bring any comfort to him.
That forgiveness was whispered into the dying man's ear by
the princess. With that forgiveness, not sacerdotal but truly
human, and, therefore, truly divine, the penitent soldier passed
in peace to his rest.
" In fact, the moment we admit the efficacy of repentance
we deny the necessity of any special absolution. The moment
that the moral condition of the recipient Is acknowledged as
a necessary element, that of Itself becomes the chief part, and
the repetition of certain words may be edifying but is not
essential. "Absolution can come from any one whom we respect,
from any one whom -we may have injured, from any one
who will give us a true, disinterested verdict on our worse
and on our better qualities. It is finely described in a well-
known tale that, when the obstinate youth at last in bitter
remorse acknowledges his fault to the wife of the man whom
he has mortally injured, she takes upon herself to console
him and absolve him, and her absolution consists In repeating
the words of the Psalmist : ' The sacrifices of God are a
troubled spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, wilt
thou not despise.' No pontifical decree could say more ; no
true forgiveness could say less. Whenever any man Is able
to see clearly that his fellowman has truly repented, or that
a course of action Is clear and right, then, whoever he be, he
can declare that promise of God's forgiveness. In all cases

4oS PROTESTANTISM.
each man must strive to act on his own judgment and on his
own conscience. The first duty of the penitent Is to try to
minister to his own disease. ' The heart knoweth his own
bitterness, and a stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy.'
The next duty may be to get sound advice on his future
course. But that advice can be given by any competent
person, and the competency depends, not on any ministerial
or sacerdotal character, but on personal insight into character,
to be found equally In layman and clergyman.
"As alchemy has disappeared to give way to chemistry, as
astrology has given way to astronomy, as monastic celibacy
has given way to domestic purity, as bull-fights and bear-
baits have given way to innocent and elevating amusements,
as scholastic casuistry has bowed before the philosophy of
Bacon and Pascal, so will the belief in the magical offices
of a sacerdotal caste vanish before the growth of manly
Christian independence and generous Christian sympathy."
334. Rev. Thomas Arnold says: "I am perfectly aware
that my opinion about the pretended apostolic succession is
different from that of most individual clergymen, but I defy
any man to show that It is different from the opinion of the
Church of England ; and. If not. It is fairly an open question
on which any man may express his own opinion. That the
Scriptures are clear enough against the priestcraft notion Is to
me certain. My abhorrence of the succession doctrines is
founded on my firm conviction that they are and ever have
been in theory and In practice a most formidable device of
the great Enemy to destroy the real living Church, and even
to drive it out of men's minds by the false and superstitious
idea of a church which never has and never can overthrow
His kingdom. The heraldic or succession view of the
question I can hardly treat gravely. There Is something so
monstrously profane in making our heavenly inheritance like

THE CLERGY.

409

an earthly estate to which our pedigree is our title. What is
called succession Is exactly a pedigree and nothing better.
So that, to lay a stress upon it, is to make the Christian
Church worse than the Jewish. The Reformation was an
assertion of the supremacy of the Church or Christian society
over the clergy, and a denial of one of the most mischievous
falsehoods ever broached, — that the government of the
Christian Church is vested by divine right In the clergy.
"As the authorized formularies of our Church are perfectly
free from this notion, and as the Twenty-third Article to my
mind implies the contrary, it has always vexed me to see our
clergy coquetting as they do with this doctrine of the succes
sion, and clinging to it even while they stoutly repudiate those
notions of a priesthood which the doctrine really Involves.
The essence of popery Is the mystic virtue of ritual acts done
by a priesthood, the setting up a quantity of human mediators.
Interpreters between God and man."
335. Rev. H. R. Ha-weis says : " The clergyman is one
placed exactly on the same level with the laity ; with the
same hopes, the same liability to error, the same fears, the
same temptations, and the same aspirations. He in no -wise
differs from any of you ; he is not even a part of an ecclesi
astical system divinely ordained. All churches upon earth
are in one sense divinely ordained, in another sense none are ;
the spirit in them Is divine, the form is simply human.
There Is no divinely appointed order for the Church.
Apostolic succession, if real, would be of no value. An
Episcopal Church is not a divine, but a human institution.
The Church of England is no more divine than any other
body of Christians governed in another way. All sects are
divine just in proportion as they make men better; that is
what Christ's Church exists for, and that Is what the sects
profess to do, and actually do in a measure accomplish. I

4IO PROTESTANTISM.
may feel, having been born and bred in the ecclesiastic order
of episcopacy, that I prefer that order. I think it more
liberal, more regular, and more large-hearted and wise, and
so I may like to stay there ; but I do not say, therefore. It is
divine In the sense of having come down straight from God,
like a second law from a new Sinai. I may think there are
advantages connected with the State Church ; that is my
opinion. I may think it is advantageous for my Church to
remain connected with the State ; but that, {tgain. Is not a
matter of divine right. The Church has been set up by
Christ, but its outward, form varies, and must vary, from
age to age.
" ' Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,'
was spoken not to any apostolic caste, but to the disciples ;
and, as the gift of the Holy Spirit is free and open to all,
so is the priestly power of absolution vested in all Christian
people, — if they did but know It, and would but use it.
How true it is, that by simply forgiving men, -we lift their
sin and help them to a fresh start ! How true it is, that by
branding men and women -with their past offences, we rivet
upon them chains of vice and misery from -which a kind
word, a helping hand, a gentle oblivion, a Christian heart
beat, would have forever set them free !
" The early bishops of Rome were obscure men. History
even refuses to name them with certainty or in order. Even
if St. Peter consecrated Linus or Clement, It would do very
little for the doctrine of apostolic succession, for the next five
bishops are doubtful, as a glance at Milman's ' History of
the Latin Church' will suffice to show. We seem, Indeed,
to touch history again, for a moment, with Telesphorus In
A.D. 129; but between A.D. 138 and A.D. 219 there are
two more doubtful links, and before the advent of Constan
tine the See of Rome was vacant for about three years, which
seems, on the whole, to justify the reflection that, while the

THE CLERGY. 411
permanency of the Christian ministry Is historical, the doctrine
of the apostolic succession is little better than a cunningly
devised fable resting on no historical basis at all, — and not
so very cunningly devised either. The gifts of the Christian
ministry are of spiritual succession, and not by mechanical
transmission. The order of bishop, priest, and deacon fis
ancient, excellent, a witness to the historical continuity of the
Church, a rare and valued product of Its consummate ecclesi
astical genius, but of no scriptural or divine authority any
more than the popedom of Rome."
336. Archbishop Cranmer, who In the reign of Edward
VI. drafted the English Articles and did the greater part of
the preparation of the Prayer Book, explicitly denied in 1548,
in his official capacity, this doctrine of the succession. He
said: "A bishop may make a priest by the Scriptures, and
so may princes and governors also, and that by the authority of
God committed them ; and so may the people also by election.
The people, before Christian princes were, commonly did elect
their bishops and priests. He that is appointed to be a bishop
or priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture, for election
or appointing thereto is sufficient. There is no more promise
of God that grace is given in the committing of the ecclesias
tical office than it is in the committing of the civil office.
" In the apostles' time there -was no appointment of minis
ters, but only the counsel of Christian multitudes among
themselves by an uniform consent to follow the advice and
persuasion of such persons -whom God had most endued with
the spirit of counsel and wisdom. And so sometimes the
apostles and others unto whom God had given abundantly
His spirit sent or appointed ministers of God's Word ; some
times the people did choose such as they thought meet there
unto. And when any were sent by the apostles or others, the
people of their own voluntary will with thanks did accept

413 PROTESTANTISM.
them, not for the supremacy or dominion that the apostles
had over them, to command as their princes or masters, but
as good people ready to obey the advice of good counsellors."
337. Bishop Je-wel was the man who redrafted the Articles
in the reign of Elizabeth. He denounced in 1567 this doctrine
of the succession, referring to it as "gay tales of their suc
cession." "A matter of nothing, and a very trifling tale."
" God's grace is promised to a good mind and to one that
feareth Him, and not unto sees and successions." " Of suc
cession Paul says to the faithful at Ephesus, ' I know that
after my departure hence ravening wolves shall enter and
succeed me, and out of yourself there shall by succession
spring up men speaking perversely.'"
He quotes TertuUian, St. Peter, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose,
St. HIerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, and Origen as "all
agreeing that every baptized person may justly be called a
priest ; that all Christians are priests and offer up to God the
daily sacrifice, being ordained of God the priests of holiness."
338. TertuUian says: "And we being laymen, are we
not priests? It is written, Christ has made us priests unto
God. Be there but three together, and though they be lay
men, yet Is there a church, for every man liveth of his own
faith. St. Peter says, ' Ye are the royal priesthood,' and this
he said unto the whole Christian people."
339. Bishop Brooks said. In 1890: "I do not believe
that the threefold organization of the Christian ministry or
the existence of the episcopate Is essential to the being of a
Christian Church."*
340. Bishop Burnet said, in 1676: "How ordinations
were made in the primitive Church we cannot certainly know.
If we will raise scruples In this matter, it is Impossible to
satisfy them unless the authentic registers of all the ages of

THE CLERGY. 413
the Church could be shown, which Is Impossible ; for, though
we were satisfied that all the priests of this age were duly
ordained, yet, if we be not as sure that all who ordained them
had orders rightly given them and so upward till the days
of the apostles, the doubt will still remain. Therefore the
pursuing nice scruples about this cannot be a thing indis
pensably necessary, otherwise all people must be perplexed
with endless disquiet and doubtlngs."
341. Bishop Stanley said. In 1843, referring to this doc
trine of the succession : "I confess such awf ill claims have
ever appeared to me as both untenable and dangerous. The
more closely this chain of succession is examined the weaker
does it appear in parts, more Ingeniously than correctly put
together, and in very many of Its links connected by a feeble
and yielding thread. With a large portion of my fellow-
members and brethren, lay as well as clerical, headed by the
venerable Cranmer, do I believe that the title of our Church
rests upon far nobler and, I think, firmer and more substantial
grounds. Our Church is apostolic. But why? Not because
It Is to be traced through the often doubtful testimony of con
tending traditions on which little or no dependence can be
placed, but because her system Is founded upon those prin
ciples and those truths delivered by the apostles and from
them inherited and taught. On this subject our formularies,
to say the least, are silent. Many of our leading divines have
expressly condemned such a view. It has no warrant In
Scripture inasmuch as Scripture contains no proof whatever
of St. Peter's episcopate or even residence at Rome, which
yet must be the very first link In the supposed chain of
succession." Such was the position taken by Bishop Stanley in a sermon
delivered in St. Paul's Cathedral before a large gathering of
the dignitaries of the Church.

414

PR O TESTANTISM.

342. Rev. C. F. 'Wood says: "If we cannot find any
statement or assertion of a tactual succession in the Anglican
Articles of Religion, if it was not held by the English
Reformers, nor Insisted upon by Cosin or Jewel or Andrews
or Flail or Whitglft or even by Saravia, then shall we hold
it to be essential to the being of a church ? Nay, -we should
In that case out-Herod Herod in our exactions, -we should go
beyond the Roman Church ; for it is well known that in the
reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, in the propositions which
Rome made for the ' reconciliation ' of the English Church,
there -was no requirement that the clergy should be reordained,
and yet we kno-w quite -well, as Keble tells us, that ' numbers
had been admitted Into the ministry of the Church with no
better than Presbyterian ordination.' The order of the
ministry must be held as of the Integrity of the Church rather
than of its essence, and in this sense we may understand the
words of the seventh book of Hooker's ' Ecclesiastical Polity : '
' There may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to
allow ordination made -without a bishop.'
' ' We may well ask what Is taken as the sign of the apos-
tolicity of this Episcopal Church. Surely the ' greater -works'
are not visibly performed in these post-apostolic days. Do
we lay the sick where the shadow of the bishop may fall
upon them as he passes by ? Do we bring handkerchiefs and
napkins from the bishop to heal the sick? Has the bishop
the unique power to deliver over one bound unto Satan?
If, then, the tremendous assumption of such a succession of
ministry as shall serve for an unbroken conduit for a sub
stantial force called grace gives no sign of Itself, in gifts
of healing and tongues, in the immediate evangelization of
the world, and In the conviction of the human heart, or in
any other mighty work, we may well ask ourselves If It be
necessary to hold tactual succession and substantial grace, and
if we do, what is the practical outcome ? "

THE CLERGY. 415
343. Dean Farrar says : "Luther maintained with all his
force the absolute. Indefeasible right of private judgment,
which, with the doctrine of the spiritual priesthood of all
Christians, lies at the base of all Protestantism, — I might even
say at the base of all manly, sure, and thoughtful religion.
He felt that the Christian especially is not permitted to resign
— that it is a mere effeminate pusillanimity to resign — into
the hands of any one the exercise of that spiritual faculty —
the gift which comes from the unction of the Holy One —
which Is promised to all Christian men alike. He indignantly
swept aside the fiction of a usurping hierarchy, that priests
were in any sense the sole authorized interpreters of Scripture.
The first wall which he threw down in his attack on the
Papacy was the Romish distinction between the spiritual
capacity of the laity and the clergy. There was no truth to
which Luther clung more firmly, none which he felt to be
nobler, more inspiring, or more eternally necessary, than the
fact that Christ has not two bodies but one body, wherein
every member has his office, which Is to be a priest therein.
Among Christians, he maintained, there is a difference of office,
but no difference in spiritual rights, and that it Is baptism,
not ordination, unction, or tonsure, -which makes any one
' a religious ' or a spiritual man. He held that henceforth
there is no such thing as a priest in the sacrificial sense except
Christ alone, nor is any one a minister or priest in that sense
except by metaphor, and by exactly the same metaphor
whereby every other Christian Is every whit as much a priest
as he. The use of the word ' priest,' except in the sense of
presbyter, to describe the functions of the clerical order, and
the confusion of the ' priest ' with the Christian minister,
was. In Luther's opinion, a defiance alike of the whole letter
and spirit of the New Testament. The Word of God was
a word, not to the clergy, and not for the sole interpretation
of the clergy, but a word to all.

4 1 6 PRO TESTANTISM.
"It is needless to repeat that ' priest' is never used in the
New Testament of Christian ministers, but only of heathen
and Jewish priests or of Christ or of the whole body of
Christian ?nen."
344. Rev. R. H. Newton says : " There is no record of
a single explicit word of Instruction concerning the organiza
tion of the Church. Two or three sayings, of very dubious
Interpretation, form the whole foundation of the massive
structure of ecclesiasticism. Altogether too big a structure
is it to rear upon any such questionable interpretation of the
questionable records of Oriental speech as that in -which
Christ, addressing Peter concerning his spiritual discernment,
declares, ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church.' Our good ecclesiastics quote the record concerning
the after life of Jesus, — how that, during the forty days fol
lowing upon His resurrection. He appeared to the disciples
' speaking the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.' On
this slender, fragile foundation, this wisp of sand, the huge
structure of ecclesiasticism would feign rest Itself. As though
it were not perfectly clear, to the unbiassed mind, that Christ's
use of the phrases ' the kingdom of God ' and ' the kingdom
of heaven ' always referred, primarily, not to any outward
and visible organization, but to the Inward, unseen, ethical
life, in which Is the real kingdom of God, as In it alone is
the real life of God.
"Doubtless He did call His disciples to follow Him, and
sent them forth to teach others. There would not have been
in Him the wisdom which shone through all His life If He
had not prepared for the carrying on of His work after
His departure. But, as far as any hint of the record goes,
the whole work of that training was the enlightening of
the mind, the inspiration of the life, the moulding of the
character, and not at all the shaping of the polity and the

THE CLERGY. 417
prescribing of the order of His Church. There is, I again
affirm, not extant one single explanatory direction concerning
that organization."
345. Rev. J. M. 'Whiton says: "The sacerdotal sense
put upon those proof-texts, so-called, is decisively set aside
by the principle that God is immanent in all the social life
and growth, and individualized in each personal conscience.
This makes it clearly impossible that the flow of divine
quickening should be restricted to the channel of a single
organization and a special class of men. That notion of
sacerdotalism is simply one of many sprouts from the pagan
fallacy that God, secluded from the multitude like a king,
deals with them from a distance by a class of ministerial
agents. In so saying do you side with those who decry
organized churches and ordained ministers? Not at all.
What is essential to the well-being of religion is to be dis-
tinsfuished from what is essential to its being; A church
militant must be a church organized. An episcopal organi
zation may, under certain social conditions, promote the
well-being of religion better than any other. What is most
efficient for religious life at any time is the way of God for
that time. I only contend for the principle, ' Where Christ
is, there the church is.' The Divine life in Christly men
owns no boundaries of priestly prescription. Ecclesiastical
organization and orders cannot limit the gracious communi
cations of the everywhere indwelling and outworking God."
346. Lord Macaulay says : "What evidence, then, have
we for the fact of the apostolic succession ? The transmission
of orders from the apostles to an English clergyman of the
present day must have been through a very great number of
intermediate persons. Now, it is probable that no clergyman
in the Church of England can trace up his spiritual gene
alogy from bishop to bishop so far back as the time of the

4i8 PROTESTANTISM.
Conquest. There remain many centuries during which the
history of the transmission of his orders is buried in utter
darkness. And whether he be a priest by succession from the
apostles depends on the question, whether, during that long
period, some thousands of events took place, any one of which
may, without any gross improbability, be supposed not to have
taken place. We have not a tittle of evidence for any one of
these events. We do not even know the names or countries
of the men to whom it is taken for granted that these events
happened. We do not know whether the spiritual ancestors
of any one of our contemporaries were Spanish or Armenian,
Arian or Orthodox. In the utter absence of all particular
evidence, we are surely entitled to require that there should
be very strong evidence indeed that the strictest regularity
was observed In every generation, and that episcopal functions
were exercised by none who were not bishops by succession
from the apostles. But we have no such evidence. In the
first place, we have not full and accurate information touching
the polity of the Church during the century which followed
the persecution of Nero. That, during this period, the over
seers of all the little Christian societies scattered through the
Roman Empire held their spiritual authority by virtue of holy
orders derived from the apostles cannot be proved by con
temporary testimony which can be regarded as decisive.
Extreme obscurity overhangs the history of the Middle Ages ;
and the facts which are discernible through that obscurity
prove that the Church was exceedingly ill regulated. We
read of sees of the highest dignity openly sold, transferred
backwards and forwards by popular tumult, bestowed some
times by a profligate woman on her paramour, sometimes by
a warlike baron on a kinsman still a stripling. We read of
bishops of ten years old, of bishops of five years old, of many
popes who were mere boys, and who rivalled the frantic
dissoluteness of Caligula. In our own island it was the

THE CLERGY. 419
complaint of Alfred that not a single priest south of the
Thames, and very few on the north, could read either Latin
or English. And this illiterate clergy exercised their ministry
amidst a rude and half-heathen population. In which Danish
pirates, unchristened, or christened by the hundred on a field
of battle, were mingled with a Saxon peasantry scarcely better
instructed In religion. The state of Ireland was still worse.
We are, therefore, at a loss to conceive ho-w any clergyman
can feel confident that his orders have come down correctly.
" Since the first century not less, in all probability, than
a hundred thousand persons have exercised the functions of
bishops. That many of these have not been bishops by apos
tolic succession is quite certain. Hooker admits that deviations
from the general rule have been frequent, and, with a boldness
worthy of his high and statesmanlike intellect, pronounces
them to have been often justifiable. 'There maybe,' says he,
' sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination
made without a bishop. Where the Church must needs have
some ordained, and neither hath nor can have possibly a bishop
to ordain. In case of such necessity the ordinary institution of
God hath given ofte7iti7nes, and may give place. And, there
fore, we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal
descent of power from the apostles by continued succession
of bishops in every effectual ordination.' There can be little
doubt, we think, that the succession, if It ever existed, has
often been interrupted in ways much less respectable.
"Now, suppose that a break, such as Hooker admits to
have been both common and justifiable, or such as we have
supposed to be produced by hypocrisy and cupidity, were
found in the chain -which connected the apostles with any of
the missionaries who first spread Christianity in the wilder
parts of Europe, who can say how extensive the effect of this
single break may be ? Suppose that St. Patrick, for example,
if ever there was such a man, or Theodore of Tarsus, who is

420

PR O TESTANTISM.

said to have consecrated in the seventh century the first bishops
of many English sees, had not the true apostolic orders. Is It
not conceivable that such a circumstance may affect the orders
of many clergymen now living? Even if it were possible,
which It assuredly Is not, to prove that the Church had the
apostolic orders in the third century, it -would be Impossible
to prove that those orders were not In the twelfth century so
far lost that no ecclesiastic could be certain of the legitimate
descent of his own spiritual character. And if this -were so,
no subsequent precautions could repair the evil.
" Chlllingworth states the conclusion at which he had
arrived on this subject in these very remarkable words : ' That
of ten thousand probables no one should be false ; that of ten
thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should
be wanting, this to me is extremely improbable, and even
cousln-german to Impossible. So that the assurance hereof
is like a machine composed of an innumerable multitude of
pieces, of which it Is strangely unlikely but some will be out
of order; and yet, if any one be so, the whole fabric falls of
necessity to the ground ; and he that shall put them together,
and maturely consider all the possible ways of lapsing and
nullifying a priesthood, will be very Inclinable to think that It
is a hundred to one that, among a hundred seeming priests,
there is not a single true one ; nay, that it is not a thing very
improbable that, amongst those many millions -which make
up the hierarchy, there are not twenty true.' We do not
pretend to know to what precise extent the canonists of
Oxford agree with those of Rome as to the circumstances
which nullify orders. We will not, therefore, go so far as.
Chlllingworth. We only say that we see no satisfactory
proof of the fact that the Church of England possesses the
apostolic succession."
347. There is, however, a genuine apostolic succession,
unbroken and unbreakable. The true apostolic touch does

THE CLERGY.

421

continue to transmit power and life, but it Is an intellectual
and spiritual touch, not visible and physical, nor restrained
within the limits of ecclesiastical forms and organizations.
As the spirit bloweth where it listeth, so the apostolic touch
rests on whomever It will in a subtle way beyond analysis and
all searching. All men who have by their example and their
utterances roused others to a keener apprehension of spiritual
facts, all men whose minds have been touched and roused by
the fire of a divine enthusiasm so as to communicate this heat
and glow to others, are In the apostolic line. They are all
apostles in the true unbroken and unbreakable succession.
This touch is Invisible, spiritual, intellectual. No human
power can Interrupt its working. It sweeps like a great
wave, ever growing In volume, down the course of human
history. He -who opens his mind to the literature of the
great past Is touched by a thousand Invisible and Immortal
spirits. Into him flows the current that had its rising in a
thousand different springs. He comes into touch with all
those who went before, and, gathering up their fragmentary
voices, adds his own contribution and transmits the harmony
to those who follow. Thus sweeps along the great wave of
spiritual intelligence and force from mind to mind, from spirit
to spirit, in one unending succession. This is the true and
only apostoHc succession. The Hving man by his utterance
and his example, which are the expression of his spirit,
transmits the power and touches the spirit of others. The
man dies, but he leaves in books, in letters, in his biography,
the expression of his spirit, the evidence of his inspiration
and apostolic character, and across intervening centuries
touches and inspires the minds and spirits of living men and
rouses them to activity and zeal. This is the consecrating
imposition of hands, but the hands are invisible, and the
touch is only evidenced by the higher life and service of him
whom it reaches and inspires.

42 2 PROTESTANTISM.
" Books are not dead things, but do contain a potency of
life in them, to be as active as that soul was whose progeny
they are. They preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and
extraction of that living intellect that bred them. A good
book Is the precious life-blood of a master spirit embalmed
and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life.''
Thus, living or dead, by his voice, his speech, by his books,
his writings, his recorded example, the apostle in every age
touches the spirits of men and transmits the true succession,
which knows no limits and has no ecclesiastical boundary
lines. This mighty stream of influence coming down through
all the ages In the form of literature and the living voices and
examples of inspired men is indeed the river of life of whose
waters he who -will may drink freely, or he may stand on
the banks and let the great current flow by, leaving him
untouched. 348. Rev. Allan Menzies says: "There Is no function
of priesthood which the Christian, who is alive to his relations
with the spiritual -world, may not find represented in his own
personal experiences and actions. The end of sacerdotalism
will have arrived when men in general come to realize the
sacredness and dignity of their own lives as spiritual beings.
" Let us, then, consider what is meant When we find it is
said in the New Testament that Christians as such are priests
to God. What are priests? and In what way is that title
applied to Christians in general ?
' ' We may mention three points in the priestly character
which we may appropriately, and In full sympathy with the
teaching of the New Testament, consider to be transferred
to ourselves. Firstly, the priest is set apart to his holy office.
Secondly, the priest stands in communication with God.
Thirdly, the priest offers a sacrifice.
" I. Consecration. — Every man has a call, more or less

THE CLERGY. 423
clear, to the work there is for him to do, and to the character
Into which he ought to grow. There is an Infinite variety of
calls, as there are Infinite diversities of gifts and operations,
all of which are needed by the world to help its many-sided
growth. But each man has his call, and it Is well for him If
he recognizes and obeys it. It points him to the work which
for him is sacred work, and for which he ought to give up
all besides. And there is a secret ordination or consecration,
though at the hands of no presbytery or bishop, by which
those whose ears are open to the call addressed to them by
their higher selves or the world's needs are set apart in their
appointed sphere for the service of God. The call may come
In a very homely fashion, but to the obedient spirit It cannot
be other than sacred and religious. A man may feel It a
duty to support his aged parents, and give up for them his
savings or his leisure. A man may see It to be needful
for the health of his spirit to withdraw from society. The
student is called on to give up his ease ; the practical worker
among men may be obliged to sacrifice learning : these are
but symbols of the great self-consecration which In one form
or another all are called to make. To all of us there presents
itself In one shape or another the ideal with its beauty and its
crown of thorns. The world is full of priests unrecognized,
who have taken on themselves vows of faithfulness and
poverty, and turned away from what they, too, were fitted
to enjoy.
" In this sense, then, It Is In the power of all of us to take
upon ourselves the priestly character. Although he wears no
special dress, and does not live in any separate abode, nor in
any way give himself out to be holler than other people, yet
he who has heard God's call to duty and has arisen to follow
it, turning a-way from other pursuits and pleasures, is In the
highest and the best sense a priest to God, separated from
the world, and consecrated to the service of the highest.

424

PR O TESTANTISM.

"II. Worship. — In Judaism, as in other old religions,
the priest was thought to possess means of approaching the
Deity which ordinary men did not enjoy. The people remained
in the outer court, and could only see the priest pass inward
to the Holy Place In which God was thought to dwell between
the cherubim, and which none of them could hope ever to
enter. In Christianity this is all changed. We do not
believe that any man, or any set of men, is in possession of
a special privilege which admits them to God's presence,
while others are excluded. And the reason why we do not
believe this is that Christianity has given us a new conception
of where God dwells, and of the means to be used to approach
Him. Where does God dwell? Where shall -we say that
the Most High is to be found ? Not in any local shrine, not
In any church with doors that men may shut or open. We
cannot go to Him upon our feet. We cannot send a message
to Him through another. No one can go to Him Instead of
us. If we do not go ourselves. No one can debar us from
His presence, if we wish to meet with Him. God Is a Spirit,
and He dwells in our spirits : that Is where we have to seek
Him. Our spirits are the temples of the living God : in our
spirits only can we meet with God or Christ. Our worship,
therefore, must take place where no one but ourselves can
come to be our priest. Of that only true and real service of
God which is offered in the heart, all outward services, be
they never so grand and beautiful, and conducted by whatso
ever dignitaries, are but types and shadows. The outward
act of worship does but faintly symbolize this inward and
most solemn and only real contact with Divinity. If we
have 7iot 7net with God in our own spirits, we cannot have
met Him anywhere ; and this is a service from which no
one can exclude us, in which no 07ie can take our place or
represent us.
"Shall we not say, then, that we are priests, and dwell

THE CLERGY. 425
each one of us, would we but know it, in the precincts of the
tabernacle of the Most High ? Each of us has his own sacred
place of which he Is the guardian, and which he Is charged
to keep pure and bright for the sake of God who loves to
dwell in it. If we keep alive the worship belonging to this
sanctuary, that will be our best security against forfeiting our
liberty to a superstitious priesthood or an outworn creed.
How can we let any one stand between God and conscience,
when we know that He is with us In the hidden shrine to
which we can at any time repair? How can we allow the
conclusions of men long dead to be the standard of our faith,
when those relations which they interpreted in the way suited
to their age are present and living In ourselves?
"III. Sacrifice. — The third point in regard to which
It may well be said that Christ has made us all priests is that
we do not look to a professional priesthood to offer sacrifices
for us, but offer sacrifice to God ourselves. In the Jewish
religion this -was different. There was a particular way in
which the thing had to be done, — a number of minute for
malities had to be observed, and the priest was acquainted
with all these, so that the worshipper had to bring his sacrifice
to the priest, and get him to offer it up to God upon the altar.
"But If God dwells In our spirits, then that must be the
place where our sacrifice has to be offered. And there no
one can offer It except ourselves. And, besides, when we
consider what is the nature of the sacrifice which Christians
are called on to present to God, we see that in such a matter
no one can possibly take our place. What is the sacrifice
God asks from us? It Is nothing outward, nothing that can
be transferred from one individual to another. It is nothing
different from ourselves. It Is just ourselves. It is our
bodies, the apostle says; that is to say, our whole person
ality, not a dead but a living sacrifice, not a careless but a
holy sacrifice, not a material or mechanical but a reasonable

426 PROTESTANTISM.
sacrifice. And if we are to offer ourselves to God, then it Is
not an occasional or a formal act that we are to bring Him,
but all we are, all the seasons and all the departments of our
life, — a sacrifice lasting all the week and growing all the
year. This is' the true sacrifice, of which all others are
but types and suggestions. Christ does not - supersede it,
but enables and encourages us to offer It. more simply and
heartily. It need not express itself in any special phrase or
outward act ; it may be unseen by all the world . When we
Intrust the direction of our life to the highest that Is In us,
when we yield to the Spirit of God the guidance of our
whole activity, and take up duty with the cross that Is bound
to it, then we are offering this sacrifice, and are the true
successors of the priesthoods of old times."

CHURCH UNITY.

CHAPTER III.

CHURCH UNITY.

427

349. What is there in the way of church unity that is
practicable ? It is useless to ask all men to adopt the same
external observances. It is not at all necessary that they
should. It is useless to seek to have all churches adopt the
same form of church government. It is not at all necessary
that they should. It is of the very first importance to secure
unity in essentials, and to do this it Is absolutely necessary
to allow the utmost freedom In all that is not essential.
Practically the first step towards unity would be taken if all
the various Christian churches -would adopt the Apostles'
Creed as the sole and common symbol of membership. The
adoption of this -with the distinct understanding that there
was to be full freedom of interpretation -would at least show
that the churches stood on the same agreed basis. No church
need disavow or repudiate any of its present formularies, but
simply let them take a secondary place, similar to that occu
pied by the English Articles. Let them remain for study
and edification without in any way being Imposed upon the
conscience of any member, lay or clerical. Each church
would continue as it is so far as concerns all its methods of
administration and routine of service ; but the idea of unity
would have crept In, and a sense of a common interest would
be aroused. Men will never agree in details. They ought,
however, to agree in everything that is of the essence. This
course will never destroy or weaken any church organization
that is not so lacking in vitality and sound theory that it has
no right to live. By this simple act, which In reality sur
renders no personal belief, but respects every honest and

428 PROTESTANTISM.
conscientious difference of opinion, the first step can be taken
towards the unity of all the Protestant churches. If this be
done, the rest may safely be left to free Christian discussion.
Every thinker in every church will have his influence in all
churches, and will contribute his best towards the solution of
the problems that, although non-essential, will always arouse
in all men the profoundest interest. It is probable that
to-day the differences between the best educated thinkers of
the different Protestant churches are in reality very slight and
chiefly verbal. The restraint imposed by antiquated formu
laries prevents the frank expression of opinion which -would
disclose this essential unity, in all its fulness and strength.
The strife is largely over mere phrases, and is known to be
so by the best educated clergy of all the churches ; but the
clergy of inferior education and the uneducated laity believe
that it involves essentials. The rectification of ideas will in
time follow freedom of expression, which will eventually
result whenever the full liberty of utterance is granted to the
clergy of the various churches.
It is as certain as any fact of such a nature can be that 'the
relative attitude of pew and pulpit is changing. Compared
with a generation ago, there has been an Increased intelligence
in the pews greater than the increase shown in the pulpit.
The fettered position of the clergy has driven away from
the Church many who might have rendered great service.
Intelligence cannot, as a rule, be Induced to wear the slave
collar of any restricted system of thought. The charm to the
mind of freedom to seek Its highest and best expression, the
reluctance to be bound by human formulas in the search for
truth, the rank injustice and actual dishonesty characteristic
of heresy trials, — herein lies the cause why the Church has
ceased to attract many men who else had been glad to serve
her. They simply cannot enter such service under the con
ditions which surround it.

CHURCH UNITY.

429

350. The preparation of elaborate creeds and doctrinal
formularies is a direct declaration of the insufficiency of
the Scriptures. The fierce contention over these formularies
shows that none of them are so clearly set forth in the Bible
as to be beyond question. It is all a matter of Interpretation,
a process of inference. Implication, and deduction. All are
the result of mere human cunning and ingenuity, the fruit
of human wit and sophistical subtlety. Clinging to these
formularies to-day is like a mature man refusing to make over
and modify the rules of virtue he drafted for his guidance
when a boy in his teens. At that time his rules may have
been, all things considered, an admirable and even wonderful
production ; but if. In mature life, he cannot see more clearly
and judge more wisely, his education must have been very
restricted and. Indeed, must have been a failure. If a dozen
boys had Independently drafted such rules of virtue, and in
mature life could not agree on one clear statement which
should be comprehensive of all their rules, then it would be
certain that no universal ethical principle was contained in
those rules, and that, outside of some personal value to each
individual, the rules were unworthy of consideration. If the
mature men could not agree, but each clung stubbornly to his
own boyish phrases as sacred, then education merely has left
each where he was as a boy, as crude and undeveloped as he
was then, with the narrowness and the restricted vision, the
ignorance and the prejudice of boyhood. If one boy, guided
by a father's superior mind, drafted his rules better than he
knew, more comprehensive and elastic, but at first put a
narrow, boyish interpretation on them, more in accordance
with his own mind, and while they were really broad con
ceived of them as narrow ; if in mature life he could indeed
perceive the higher interpretation, but resolutely denied that
It was there, and clung to the boyish interpretation as final
and necessary, we should declare his education a failure, and

430 PROTESTANTISM.
should. It is very likely, feel something of contempt for him.
If, now, each boy was thus narrow and stubborn, and each
sought to get along without the others, leading an isolated
existence, each glorifying his own rules and denouncing
savagely the rules of the others, it would be clear that charity
and love were not common to all the rules, and we should
believe that they would all be vastly better if they had never
made any rules at all.
That the mature men should agree upon the great|truths
underlying all their various boyish rules, and that each should
recognize the same truth however stated and phrased, and
should live in harmony and mutual sympathy, and that yet
each should have a peculiarly tender feeling towards the
quaint phrases of his boyish rules without undue reverence
for them, — this we could understand, and with each In turn
we, too, could sympathize.
351. The question of uniting the Christian churches necessi
tates a profound examination of what is the fundamental and
essential nature of religion itself, and It is only by ascertaining
and presenting this in a convincing and unanswerable manner
that unity will ever be attained. When a man once appre
hends clearly the idea of religion as it was set forth by
Christ, he is forever after Incapable of going back to those
materialistic conceptions which to-day characterize the so-
called Christian churches. He can never again regard as
essential and saving those visible external ordinances and
ceremonies on which hitherto he had concentrated all his
attention. In the new light they disappear and are gone so
far as he is concerned, forever. He can never see things as
he did before, no matter how much he tries to. The awful
significance of the oonsecrated wafer, the mystical transform
ing and regenerating power of baptismal water, the saving
and cleansing power of the priestly words of absolution the

CHURCH UNITY. 431
mystical transmission of grace by the physical touch of priestly
hands In a materialistic apostolic succession, the localized
heaven and hell with materialistic Ideas of bliss and torment,
of white robes and harps on one side and roaring flames on
the other, the rising from the grave of physical bodies with
all the attendant materialistic ideas thereby implied, — all
this disappears when one comes to see clearly the religion of
Christ as purely ethical and spiritual, as He taught it and
Paul expounded it. Whoever shall once grasp this idea
clearly and adequately will feel that the scales have dropped
from his eyes, and no human sophistry, however cunning,
can ever again dim his vision. The conventional Ideas of his
past will seem paltry and mean.
352. The spiritual explanation of life and of man is so
sublime that he who once truly apprehends it will never
part with It. It Is only as men come to this higher plane
of spiritual and ethical life that they reach the unity which
is genuine and permanent. Towards this spiritual form of
religion the world has ever been tending. Progress Is marked
by a steadily decreasing faith In all external, visible, and
material rites and ordinances, in the diminishing belief in the
magic and mystical power of all material and physical things
whatsoever. It Is only as the conventional substitute for
Christianity is overthrown that the real Christianity can take
its rightful place. It is only as false ideas are displaced that
there Is room for true Ideas. The popular conception of
Christianity Is grossly material, and, resting as it does on
ignorance, saturated with prejudice, and Intertwined with the
selfish interests of society, it will doubtless be overcome slowly
and with extreme difficulty. It will probably be overthrown
by the change of Individual convictions, silently and gradually,
and not bv any concerted movement of the churches which
can be definitely traced or historically described.

432 PROTESTANTISM.
353. " We are finally to reach the ' unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace.' We are moving towards a unity which
shall guarantee us intellectual liberty, which shall by necessary
consequence legitimize that variety which always springs out
of liberty.
"The only real unity is that -which springs spontaneously
from mutual recognition of those who have the mind of
Christ. As two drops of quicksilver rush Into one, so every
two neighboring Christian hearts should blend.
' ' We must acknowledge the legitimacy of every kind of
polity and the right of each several company of Christians to
follow their own conscientious convictions of duty ; above
all, we must concede the widest liberty. Every Christian is
a king and a priest unto God, an authorized interpreter of
Scripture and a creed-maker."
When this is widely recognized, the day of unity will have
begun to dawn. Let the Church, then, act upon this belief
and make more of the spiritualities of her faith. Let her rise
to a real belief In the Holy Spirit and make a strong and
vital presentation of this almost forgotten revelation. Let
her recall to the minds of men those sublime conceptions of
life which have been obscured for so many ages by a false and
artificial theology, by an arrogant and selfish ecclesiasticism.

Explanatory Index of Authors Cited.

Abbott, Edwin A., is a prominent Eng
lish clergyman, born in 1S5S. He was
Hulsean Lecturer in Cambridge Uni
versity, Select Preacher at Oxford Uni
versity, and Headmaster of the City of
London School. He wrote the article
on the "Gospels'' for the last edition
of the " Britannica." Is the author of
many valuable books.
Abbott, Lyman, born 1S35, ^^ an eminent
Congregational minister. He is Editor
oi The Otttlook and Pastor of the famous
Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, N.Y.,
succeeding Mr. Beecher in that place.
He is one of the leaders of American
thought.
Alford, Henry, born iSio, died 1S7]. He
was Dean of Canterbury.
Amiel, H. F., a Swiss thinker, born 1S21,
died iSSi. His "Journal" is a very
remarkab'e book.
Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, was born
A.D. 121 and died in iSo. He was Em
peror of Rome. Renan says : " The re
ligion of Marcus Aurelius is absolute
religion. It is of no race, of no country.
No revoltition, no change, no discovery
can affect it." " He has always," says
Dean Farrar, "exercised a powerful
fascination over the rainds of eminent
men." He may properly be regarded
as one of the mouthpieces of the Holy
Spirit.
Arnold, Matthew, born 1S22, died 18SS.
He was a Professor at Oxford Univer
sity. He wrote " St. PauJ and Protest
antism " and " Literature and Dogma,"
two very remarkable books.
Arnold, Thomas, born 1795, died 1S42. He
was Headmaster of Rugby School and
Regius Professor of Modern History at
Oxford. Dean Stanley was his pupil
from 1829 till 1834, and owed much to
his extraordinary personality. Stanley
said, late in life: "Arnold at Rugby
was my idol and oracle, both in one.
Afterwards he was not exactly my
oracle, but I reverenced him wholly to
the end, I have never felt such rever
ence for any one since."
Blomfield, C. J., born 17S6, died iS57,was
Bishop of London.
Bramhall, John, born 1593, died 1663, was
Archbishop of Armagh.

Brooks, Phillips, born 1835, died 1S93, was
Bishop of Massachusetts.
Browning, Robert, born 1S12, diediSSg.
He stands as the greatest of psycho
logical poets. His chief study was the
human soul. "Little else is worth
study," he said.
Bull, George, born 1634, died 1710, was
Bishop of St. Asaph.
Burnet, Gilbert, born 1643, died 1715, be
came Bishop of Salisbury in 16S9.
Butler, Joseph, born 1692, died 1752, was
Bishop of Durham and author of the
famous " Analogy."
Carpenter, W. B., is Bishop of Ripon.
Delivered the Bampton Lectures for
1SS7 on the " Permanent Elements of
Religion."
Chillingworth, William, a distinguished
English clergyman, born 1602, died
1644. His "Religion of Protestants,"
published in 163S, remains to this day
one of the ablest books on the subject.
Clark, Thomas M., born in iSi3, became
Bishop of Rhode Island in 1854. Pub
lished "Primary Truths of Religion"
in i86g.
Colenso, J. W., born 1S14, died 1SS3, was
Bishop of Natal. He was the centre of
a violent controversy during which he
was mercilessly abused. All that he
contended for has since been quietly
accepted by almost all sections of the
Church.
Coleridge, S. T., born 1772,^ died 1834. _ A
man of a strange, dynamic personality,
who gave a great impetus to English
religious thought.
Conybeare, W. D., born 17S7, died 1S57,
was Dean of Llandaff. Delivered
Bampton Lectures in 1S39.
Cook, Joseph, an able and eminent
American Congregationalist, well
known for his Boston Monday Lectures,
published in a dozen volumes. He was
born in 183S.
Coxe, A. C, became Bishop of Western
New York in 1S65.
Cranmer, Thomas, born 1489, died 1556,
became Archbishop of Canterbury in
1533. He may well be called the founder
of the present English Church.

434

EXPLANATORY INDEX.

Curteis, G. H., Principal of Lichfield
Theological College and Canon of Lich
field. Delivered Bampton Lectures in
1871 on " Dissent in its Relations to the
Church of England."
Dale, R. W., a leading English Congre
gational clergyman, for many years
located at Birmingham.
Drummond, Henry, a Scotch clergyman.
Professor of Natural Science in the Free
Church CoUege in Glasgow.
Emerson, R. W., born 1803, died 1882.
An American clergyman whose influ
ence transcends that of most bishops
and popes. He was one of the saintli-
est spirits of his own or, indeed, of any
age, a genuine spiritual force.
Epictetus was probably born about A.D.
go, and probably died A.D. 130. His
"Enchiridion" was adopted as a re
ligious work in the early Christian
Church. Dean Farrar says that it was
widely accepted among Christians even
so late as the fifth century. He adds :
" No systematic treatise of morals so
simply beautiful was ever composed,
and to this day the best Christian may
study it, not with interest anly, but with,
real advantage." He was a slave, he
was lame and feeble in body, he was
almost a beggar, but he was inspired by
the Holy Spirit, and so his words reach
through innumerable years.
Ewer, F. C, born 1826, died 1883. He
was a decided High Churchman.
Rector of St. Ignatius Church, New
York.
Ewing, Alexander, boMi 1814, died 1873.
Bishop of Argyll and the Isles. The
most eminent Broad Churchman of the
Scotch Episcopal Communion.
Farrar, F. W., was born 1831. He be
came Canon of Westminster in 1S76 and
Chaplain of the House of Commons in
1890. Is now Chaplain to the Queen
and Dean of Canterbury. He delivered
the Bampton Lectures in 18S6 on "The
History of Interpretation." He prepared
for the last edition of the " Britannica"
the important article on "Jesus Christ."
Fichte, J. G., born 1762, died 1814, was
one ot the most celebrated writers and
thinkers of his day in Germany.
Fremantle, W. H., born 1831. He was
Chaplain to Archbishop Tait from 1S51
to 1882; Rector of St. Mary's, London,
1866-18S3. ^6 became Canon of Canter
bury in 1SS2.
Goodwin, C. W., born 1817, died 1878, was
one of the contributors to the famous
" Essays and Reviews " in i860.

Green, J. R., born 1837, ^^^^ ^^83, was an
English divine who will have an endur
ing reputation because of his valuable
" History of the English People," which
is one of the very best books on that
great subject.
Hampden, Richard, born 1794, died 1868.
He delivered the Bampton Lectures in
1832, from which all the citations in this
volume are taken. He published in 1834
a pamphlet in favor of removing the
doctrinal tests then imposed on pupils
on their admission to the universities.
In 1836 he was appointed Regius Pro
fessor of Divinity at Oxford. In 1S43
he was made head of the Board of
Theological Examiners, and in 1847
was made Bishop of Hereford.
Harris, S. S., was born in 1841, and died
in 1 888. He became Bishop of Michigan
in 1S79.
Haweis, H. R., was born in 183S. He
has occupied one of the prominent Lon
don pulpits since 1S66. He has pub
lished a dozen volumes, every one of
which has aided the Broad Church
movement. See Maurice.
Heber, Reginald, born in 17S3, died in
1S26, was Bishop of Calcutta.
Hervey, A. C, was Bishop of Bath and
Wells from 1869 until 1S94.
^ey, John, born 1734, died 1815, was Pro
fessor of Divinity at Cambridge Uni
versity.
Horsley, Samuel, born 1733, died 1S06,
was Bishop of St. Asaph.
Huntington, F. D., was born in 1819,
Became Bishop of Central New York
in 1S69.
Jewel, John, born 1522, died 1571, was
Bishop of Salisbury. His book in de
fence of the English Church was so
highly regarded by Elizabeth that she
ordered a copy to be placed in every
parish churtfh in England and Wales.
Jowett, Benjamin, born 1817, died 1893,
was a distinguished English clergyman
and scholar. He was Master of Balliol
College, Oxford, from 1S70 to his death.
He was also Vice-Chancellor of the
University. In 1S60 he wrote an article
on scriptural interpretation for which
he was tried on a charge of heresy, hj^t
was acquitted. He was in his day one
of the great stimulating religious forces.
Keim, Karl T., born 1S25, died 187S, was
Professor of Theology at Zurich. He
wrote a very valuable " Life of Christ"
in six volumes.
Kingsley, Charles, born 1819, died 1871;
was Canon of Westminster.

EXPLANATORY INDEX.

435

Law, Edmund, born 1703, died 17S7, was
Bishop of Carlisle.
Macaulay, T. B., born iSoo, died 1859,
Famous for his "History" and "Es
says."
Macnaught, John, was an English clergy
man who died in 1S90. He is entitled
to be regarded as one of the minor Eng
lish prophets of his day. He published
two remarkable volumes, one in 1856 on
the Scriptures, in which he took clearly
and boldly the position now becoming
general, and in 1S7S an elaborate treatise
on the Eucharist called "Coena Domini."
Macqueary, How^ard, an American Epis
copal clergyman who in 1891 was tried
in Ohio for heresy on a charge of deny
ing the miraculous conception and tne
physical resurrection of Christ. He
was convicted, three judges voting
against him, and two in his favor.
Madison, James, born 1749, died 1812, was
Bishop of Virginia.
Marsh, Herbert, born 1757, died 1S39, was
Bishop of Peterborough.
Martensen, H. L., born 1808, died 1SS4,
was Bishop of Seeland, the highest dig
nity in the gift of the Danish Church.
Maurice, J. F. D., born 1S05, died 1S72,
was an English clergyman. Professor
of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge
University and Professor of Divinity at
King's College, London. No one can
read modern theoloCT^ without coming
under his influence. Gladstone said that
he was a" spiritual splendor." Tulloch
said that he "was a God-intoxicated
man, livingf, as few men ever have lived,
in the Divine." H. R. Haweis said, in
1872 : " All that I know of theolo^, all
that I ever felt to be true about religion,
I owe to Mr. Maurice. 1 owe more to
him, not only as a man, but as a thinker
and theologian, than to anybody else in
the world.
Menzies, Allan, a clergyman of the Church
of Scotland.
Milman, Henry H., born 1791, died 1868,
was Dean of St. Paul.
Momerie, A. W., an English clergyman.
Professor of Logic and: Metaphysics in
King's College, London. He has pub
lished many volumes, all of which have
been extensively read in England.
Moorhouse, James, became Bishop of
Manchester in 18S6.
Mozley J. B., born 1813, died 1878, was
Canon of Christ Church and Regius
Professor of Divinity at Oxford.
Newcome, William, born 1729, died 1800,
was Archbishop of Armagh.

Newman, J. H., born 1801, died 1S90, was
an English High Churchman who went
over to Rome and became a Cardinal.
Newton, R. H., was born in 1S40. Has
been Rector of All Souls' Church in
New York since 1869. He is the author
of many books that have been widely
read. He is a leading member of the
Broad-Church forces in the United
States.
Newton, Thomas, born 1704, died 1782,
was Bishop of Bristol.
Pascal, Blaise, born 1623, died 1662. A
distinguished French scholar and
thinker.
Pattison, Mark, born 1S13, died 1SS4, was
an eminent Enfflish clergyman. He
was Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.
Plotinus, born 204, died 262. His writings
have exercised considerable influence
on modern thought.
Plumptre, E. H., born 1821, died 1891,
was Professor of Pastoral Theology and
Exegesis and Dean of Wells.
Rain, Thomas, a clergyman of the Church
of Scotland.
Randolph, A, M., born 1836, is Bishop of
Virginia.
Robertson, F. W., born 1816, died 1853.
He himself said, " I stand nearly alone,
a theological Ishmael." Principal Tul
loch declared thirty years or more after
his death that he was "the greatest
thinker who has appeared in the pulpit
in modern times." Dean Stanley said
that " Robertson is now accepted as the
chief of English preachers by almost
every phase of religious thought." He
gave a great impetus to the Broad-
Church movement.
Seneca, born A.D. 3, died 65. Of him
Dean Farrar says : " With all his faults
he yet lived a nobler and a better life,
he had loftier aims, he was braver, more
self-denying, nay, even more consist
ent, than the majority of professing
Christians."
Stanley, A. P., was born 1815, died 1S81.
He was son of Bishop Stanley. He be
came Canon of Canterbury in 1851, and
held that position until 1S58, when he
became Regius Professor of Ecclesias
tical History at Oxford, and served there
until 1863, when he was offered the posi
tion of Archbishop of Dublin. This,
however, he declined, and was made
Dean of Westminster, which office he
held till his death. In 1854 he was
made Chaplain to Prince Albert, and
in 1S62 Chaplain to the Queen and the
Prince of Wales. At the request of the
Queen he accompanied the Prince on a

436

EXPLANATORY INDEX.

journey in 1862 to the Holy Land. He
was Preacher to the University of Ox
ford in 1846 and 1847, and Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of London from
1856 till 1863. He was elected Lord
Rector of the University of St. Andrews
in 1S74.
Stanley, Edward, born 1779, died 1849,
was Bishop of Norwich. He was as
broad in his views as his son, the Dean.
Stuart, Moses, born 1780, died 1852, was
a noted American divine who for more
than thirty years was Professor in
Andover Theological Seminary.
Temple, Frederick, born in 1821, was
made Headmaster of Rugby in 1S5S;
Bishop of Exeter, 1869, and Bishop of
London in 1885. He delivered the
Bampton Lectures for 18S4 on the
" Relations between Religion and
Science.'*
Thirlwall, Connop, born 1797, died 1875,
was Bishop of St. David's. He is said,
by Principal Tulloch, to have been, " in
tellectually, the greatest bishop of his
time."
Thomson, William, born 1819, died 1890,
became Archbishop of York in 1863.
Tlllotson, John, born 1630, died 1694, was
Archbishop of Canterbury. Dean Stan
ley said that he "was the most states
manlike and large-minded primate who
has occupied the See of Canterbury till
the present time."
Trench, R, C, born 1807, died 1S86, was
Archbishop of Dublin. His works on

the Miracles and the Parables have be
come standard, and are used by all
churches alike.
Tulloch, John, born 1823, died 1886, was
a prominent minister of the Church of
Scotland. He was Principal of St.
Mary's College.
Usher, James, born 15S0, died 1656, was
Archbishop of Armagh.
Vail, T. H., born 1S12, died 1889, was
Bishop of Kansas. Wrote a good book
called "The Comprehensive Church."
Westcott, B. F., was born in 1825, and
became Canon of Peterborough and
afterwards Bishop of Durham.
W^hately, Richard, born 17S7, died 1S63,
was Archbishop of Dublin,
White, William, born 1748, died 1836,
was Bishop of Pennsylvania,
Whiton, James M., born in 1833, is an
American Congregational minister, one
of the most intelligent ^vriters that has
been seen in that church. He is Pastor
of Trinity Congregational Church in
New York City.
Wilson, H, B., born 1803, died 1SS8. He
delivered the Bampton Lectures in 1851,
and was one of the contributors to the
famous " Essays and Reviews."
Wood, C. J., an American Episcopalian
clergyman. He delivered a course of
very remarkable lectures before the
Episcopal Theological School at Cam
bridge, Mass., in 1S92, which were
published under the title of " Survivals
in Christianity."

GENERAL INDEX.

Abbot, Archbishop, referred to, 399.
Abbott, Edwin A., cited, 173, 333.
Abbott, Lyman, cited, 135, 2^7,.
Absolution, right to grant, 405-40S, 410.
Adam and Eve, typical significance of, 368.
Alford, Dean, cited, 126.
Allegory of the trees, 36.
Ambrose cited, 142.
Amiel cited, 7S.
Andrews, Bishop, referred to, 414.
Anselm, Archbishop, referred to, 377.
Antoninus, ^Marcus Aurelius, cited, 104,
292, 330- ,
Apostles' Creed, bi, 89, iSo, 1S6, 205, 215,
216, 241, 242.
Apostolic succession, 397-426.
Aristotle, influence of, 50-56.
Arnold, Matthew, cited, 1S9, 196,
Arnold, Thomas,cited, 23, 120, 125, 170,408.
Article, The Second, 237-240,
Sixth, 92, 95, 96, 125, 127, 130, 131, 240.
Twentieth, 92, 95, 96, 240.
Twenty-First, 93, 240.
Twenty-Eighth, 347.
Forty-Second, 350, 353.
Articles, The Thirty-Nine, 89, 90-96, 99,
100, 106, 216, 217, 237.
Asceticism considered, 40.
Athanasian Creed, 89, 106, 182, 1S5-18S,
215, 216.
Atonement, Doctrine of the, 376-3S0.
Augustine, St., cited, 3o8, 262, 289, 29S,
345. 352* 376, 412.
Bacon, Lord, cited, 44, 307, 399.
Baptism, 370-375.
Baptismal formula, meaning of, 315.
Baxter cited, 125.
Beethoven referred to, 256.
Benediction, meaning of the, 315.
Bible, inspiration of the, 125-140.
interpretation of the, 141-152.
Bibliolatry, 126-129.
Biddle, Mr., referred to, 89.
Blomfield, Bishop, cited, 185.
Blood of Christ, meaning of phrase, 329,
34S.
Body of Christ, meaning of phrase, 329,
34S.
Born of God, meaning of phrase, 238, 246,
247.
Bramhall, Archbishop, cited, 91.
Brooks, Bishop, cited, 98, 412.
Browning cited, 296.
Buddha referred to, 18, 104.
Bull, Bishop, cited, 91.
Burnet, Bishop, cited, 91, 125, 412.
Butler, Bishop, cited, 105, 189, 269, 378.
Buxton, Mr., cited, 90.

Carpenter, Bishop, cited, 48.
Childhood, state of religious, S2-S6, 382,
Chlllingworth cited, 420.
Christ, genealogies of, 202-205.
message of, 27.
miraculous conception of, 202-213.
Isaiah vii. 14 does not refer to, 204.
as to the nature of, 214-250, 254, 301, 304,
3H-
priesthood of, 22S.
greatness of, 295, 296.
the essential and the historic, 314.
Christianity, originality of, 48.
Chrysostom, St., referred lo, 412.
Church of Rome, its main idea, 94, 123.
its past, 64.
its present, 17, 64, 82, 83.
its attitude towards education, 86.
its attitude towards science, 155, 156,
161.
Church, the, 381-396,
its main idea, 92, 97-99, 21S.
its past, 19, 20, 66-71, 390, 391.
its present, S, 20, 3S2, 392.
its future, 5, 8, 10.
is comprehensive, 7, 103, 383.
is non-doctrinal, 23, 25, 99.
is a nucleus for unity, iS.
its theory and its practice, 5, 217.
contrasted with its members, 8, 19, 20,
25, 26.
freedom in the, 9, 35, 8S-101.
its higher and its lower nature, 393.
Church unity, 427-432,
Cicero cited, 261, 306.
Circumcision referred to, 338-340.
Clark, Bishop, cited, 324.
Clement of Alexandria cited, 56, 350.
Clergy, the, 397-426.
Colenso, Bishop, cited, 139, 2S0, 354.
Coleridge, S. T., cited, iiS, 134, 149, 212,
266.
Communion, the Holy, 337-349.
of Holy Spirit, meaning of phrase, 281,
Conceived by Holy Spirit, meaning, 247.
Conception, the miraculous, 202-213.
Confucius referred to, 18, 104, 135.
Conscience, the, 28, 47, 140, 251-296, 302,
313. 3H. 3^7. 357. 364. 365, 367,368,
380. 388,417- ^ ¦ ¦ f
Consecration, old and new meaning or,
^22.
ConsuDstantiation, ^45, 346,
Conybeare, Dean, cited, 126.
Cook, Joseph, cited, 272, 30S.
Cosin referred to, 414.
Coxe, Bishop, cited, 99.
Cranmer, Archbishop, cited, 411,
Creeds, 17S, 179.

438

GENERAL INDEX,

Creed, the Apostles', 88, 89, 180, 1S6, 205,
215, 216, 241, 242.
the Nicene, 89, 106, iSi, 186, 187, 205, 215,
216, 241-24S.
the Athanasian, 89, 106, iSz, 185-188, 315,
216.
Curteis, G. H., cited, 89.
Cyprian, St., referred to, 412.
Dale, Rev. Dr., cited, 236.
Damnation, meaning- of word, 13S.
Devil, meaning of the term, 36S, 369.
trinity of the, 35.
Doctrinal and liturgical use, difference in,
243-
Doctrinal differences, true estimate of, 97,
99, 102-113.
Drummond, Professor, cited, 30.
Ecclesiasticism, doctrine of, 123, 284.
Edwards, Jonathan, referred to, 352.
Elisha's iron axe, 149.
Elizabeth, character of, 68.
Emerson, R. W., cited, 293.
Emlyn, Mr,, referred to, 89.
England and Rome contrasted, 69.
English history, the two ideas of; 70.
Epictetus cited, 290.
Episcopacy not essential, 397-426.
Erasmus cited, 52, 113, 3S7.
Eternal life, meaning of term, 327.
Eucharist, the, 337-349.
Eusebius referred to, 142.
Eve and Adam , typical significance of, 36S.
Everlasting, meaning of word, 138.
Ewald referred to, 105.
Ewer, F.C., cited, 385.
Ewing, Bishop, cited, 188, 356.
Farrar, Dean, cited, 126, 133, 138, 141, 150,
280,350,351,376, 391.41s-
Fendall v. Wilson cited, 355.
Fichte cited, 151.
Forgiveness of sin, meaning of phrase,
365.
Forty-Second Article, 350, 353.
Freedom in the Church, 9, 25, 88-ijOi.
Fremantle, Canon, cited, 125, 171, 212, 333.
Furness, Mr., referred to, 352.
Future life, 318.
Future punishment, 350-356.
Galileo referred to, 155, 161.
Genealogies of Christ, 202, 205.
Gloria patri, meaning of, 316.
God, 190-201. See Trinity.
Son of, or born of, meaning, 238, 246, 247.
why called personal, 30S.
Goodwin, C. W., cited, 155.
Gorham v. Philpotts cited, 374.
Gospel precepts not observed, 45-48.
Gravitation, Jesuits on law of, i6t.
Greek philosophy, influence of, 50-56, 62,
297.
Greek text of New Testament, 136, 13S.
Green, J. R., cited, 68.
Gregory of Nyssa referred to, 350.

Hades, what it is, 335.
Hall, Bishop, cited, 414.
Hampden, Bishop, cited, 50, 57, 98, 106,
126, 186, 187.
Harris, Bishop, cited, 334.
Harvey cited, 348.
Haweis, H. R., cited, 62, 126, 134, 190, 207,
231.309. 321, 409-
Hayward cited, 307.
Heaven, what it is, 334,
Heber, Bishop, cited, 126.
Hell, meaning of word, 13S, 335.
Heretics considered, 264.
Hervey, Bishop, cited, 125.
Hey, Professor, cited, 91.
Holy Ghost, 251-296, 302, 313, 314, 317, 357,
364. 365. 367, 368, 3S0, 38S, 417.
conceived by, means "what, 247.
Hooker cited, 414, ^19.
Horsley, Bishop, cited, 126.
Hugo, Victor, cited, 362.
Huntington, Bishop, cited, 392.
Ignatius cited, 79, 345.
Ignorance as a factor in life, 34, 35.
Immortality, 317-336,
Incarnation, 202-213, 231, 232, 237, 238.
Individualism, doctrine of, 123, 285.
Infallibility, 95-99, 110.
Inspiration of the Bible, 125-140.
Interpretation of the Bible, 141-152.
Irenjeus cited, 142, 376.
Isaiah vii. 14 considered, 204.
Jenkins v. Cooh cited, 100.
ferome, St., cited, 2S9, 412.
Jesuits and Newton's "Principia," 161.
Jewel, Bishop, cited, 412, 414.
I John V. 7 considered, 137.
Jowett, Professor, cited, 105, 125, 129, 142,
154, 161, 232.
Justin Martyr cited, 56, 142, 298.
Kant cited, 24, 369, 373.
Keble cited, 414.
Keim, Dr., cited, 333.
Kempe V. PPVcA^5 cited, 100.
Kingsley, Charles, cited, 109, 356.
Koran referred to, 128, 149.
Lactantius cited, 2S9,
Langdale, Lord, cited, 375.
Laud, Archbishop, referred to, 399.
Law, Bishop, cited, 356.
Leo the Great cited, 376.
" Les Miserables " referred to, 362.
Liberal theology, what it is, 72-79.
Life eternal, meaning of term, 29, 327.
Lincoln, Abraham, cited, 113,
Liturgical and doctrinal use, difference,
243-
Logos, meaning of term, 336-238.
Luther, Martin, cited, 9, 52, 93.
Macaulay, T. B., cited, 65, 82, 417.
Macnaught, John, cited, 280.
Macqueary, Howard, cited, 331.

GENERAL INDEX.

439

Madison, Bishop, cited, 91.
Manhood, state of religious, S2-86, 3S3.
Marsh, Bishop, cited, 98.
Martensen, Bishop, cited, 351.
Maurice, J. F. D., cited, 125, 370, 356.
Mayor, J. B., Professor, cited, 356.
Menzies, Allan, cited, 422.
Mesmerism referred to, 323.
Message of Christ, 27.
Mill, J. S., cited, 19S, 273.
Milman, Dean, cited, 125, 356.
Milton cited, 307.
Minucius Felix referred to, 352.
Miracles, 164-177.
Miraculous conception, 202-213.
Momerie, Professor, cited, 333.
Moody, Mr,, referred to, 352.
Moorhouse, Bishop, cited, 350, 356.
Morality and religion, identical, 1 14-124.
Morley, John, cited, 391.
Mosheim, Dr., cited, 179.
Mozley, Canon, cited, 77.
Napoleon referred to, 254.
Neander cited, 22^.
Newcome, Archbishop, cited, 356.
Newman, Cardinal, cited, 173, 175, 176.
Newton, Bishop, cited, 356.
Ne^vton, R. H., cited, 100, 112, 125, 126,
149, 29S, 319, 333, 355, 416,
Nicene Creed, 89, 106, iSi, 1S6, 187, 305, 215,
216, 241-245.
Only begotten, meaning of phrase, 335,346.
Origen referred to, 56, 350, 353, 412.
Originality of Christianity, 48.
Paley cited, 126.
Paradise, what it is, 334.
Pascal cited, 105, 340.
Pastoral letter of 1S94, 20S.
Pattison, Mark, cited, 52, 119.
Penzance, Lord, cited, 100,
Person, meaning of term, 305.
Personal, why God is called, 308.
Plato, influence of, 50-56, 62, 297.
Plotinus cited, 78.
Plumptre, Dean, cited, 356.
Prayer, 357-363- , , .
Prayer Book, idea underlying, 357.
Prejudice as a factor in life, 33.
Pre-reformation period, 50-63.
Protestantism, 1-432.
has it failed, 13.
its main idea, 75, 123, 21S.
its past, 14, 64, §5.
its present, 14, 77, 87.
its future, 15, 16.
its need of unity, 20,
nucleus for unity, 18.
inconsistency of, 262.
Quakers referred to, 337.
Rain, Thomas, cited, 283.
Randolph, Bishop, cited, 132.
Red Sea episode, 150, 172.

Reformation period, 64-79, 394-
Religion and morality, 114-124.
Religion and science, 153-163.
Religion and theology, 393.
Religion, technical terms in, loS.
Religious childhood, youth, and manhood,
82-86, 382.
Rasurrection, the, 317-336.
of Christ, 332-334.
Revisers of 18S1 cited, 136.
Robertson, F. W., cited, 97, 119, 126, 170,
228,274,303,357,371.
Romans ix. 5, various renderings, 131.
Rome and England compared, 6g.
Sacraments considered, 337-340.
Sacrifice, old and new idea of, 343, 425.
Salvation, meaning of term, 374.
Samson, a solar myth, 149.
Saravia referred to, 414.
Scholastic theology, 14, 16, 33, 50-63.
Science and religion, 153-163.
Scriptures, inspiration of, 135-140.
interpretation of, 141-152.
Selfishness, the element of, 35, 42.
Seneca cited, 289.
Shakespeare cited, 307.
Siddartha referred to, 135.
Sin, 364-369.
Sirmium, Council of, 142.
Smith, Goldwin, cited, 391,
Socrates referred to, iS, 133, 135, 252, 254.
Son of God, meaning of phrase, 33S, 246,
247-
"Sorbonne, decision of the, 52.
South, Rev. Dr., cited, 307.
Spencer, Herbert, cited, 192, 194.
Spinoza cited, 331.
Spirit, the Holy. See Holy Ghost.
communion of the, 281.
Spiritual body, the, 321, 325.
Spiritualism referred to, 323, 336.
Spurgeon, Mr., referred to, 352,
Stanley, A. P., cited, 22, 72, 77, 91, 102,
114, 125, 131, 160, 172, 184, 379,300,
320,340,353,356, 331,403-
Stanley, Bishop, cited, 413.
Steele cited, 307.
Stuart, Moses, cited, 223.
Stuarts, influence of the, 400-402.
Subscription Act of 1S65, 90, 217.
Succession, apostolic, 397-426.
Taylor, Jeremy, cited, 307.
Technical basis of Church freedom, 88-
101.
Technical religious terms, loS.
Temple, Bishop, cited, 87, 125, 162, 165,
230, 264.
Tennyson cited, lo.
TertuUian cited, 142, 289, 352, 412.
Text, the New Testament Greek, 136, 138.
Theology and religion, 393.
Theology, liberal, 72-79.
scholastic, 14, 16, 23, 50-63.
Thirlwall, Bishop, cjted, 125, 187, 351.
Thomson, Archbishop, cited, 356.

440

GENERAL INDEX.

Tillotson, Archbishop, cited, 135, 1S5,
213. 298, 356, 387.
Toleration, the lesson of, So-87.
Tract XC. referred to, 25, 96, 101.
Tradition, meaning of term, 94.
Transubstantiation, 346.
Trench, Archbishop, cited, 168, 308.
Trinity, Doctrine of the, 297-316.
Trinity of the Devil, 35.
Tulloch, Principal, cited, 132, iSo.
Unity, church, 427-433.
Universalism, 350, 351, 353, 355-
Usher, Archbishop, referred to, 91.
Vail, Bishop, cited, 91.
Vedas referred to, 12S, 149.
Wesley, John, cited, 357.

Westcott, Canon, cited, 356.
Whately, Archbishop, cited, 135, 356.
White, Bishop, cited, 91.
Whitgift, Archbishop, cited, 399, 414.
Whiton, J. M., cited, 335, 357, 2S1, 315,3341
380, 417.
Will, freedom of the, 256, 266.
Wilson, H. B., cited, 109, 126, 130, 355.
Wiseman, Cardinal, referred to, 176.
Wood, C. J., cited, 78, 327,414-
Word, the, meaning of phrase, 236-238.
Worship^ new and old idea of, 424.
Youth, state of religious, 82-86, 3S3.
Zend Avesta referred to, 128.
Zoroaster referred to, 18.
Zwinglian view of the Eucharist, 346.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 7545

\lf

|\^\ V

N.^-.

^

¦Sii.'

*»

^\SM