Possible Mistakes and Dangers

HE opening the second division of our subject, it may be well to point out some mistakes and dangers which seem to beset the discussion as summed up in the last chapter. It may be said that if every man may take his own view of the work of Christ, and change that view according to the state of mind he may be in at any given moment, and that if all sides of a controversy be right, there can be nothing vital in Christian doctrine and nothing certain in spiritual interpretationn — a man may be a Unitarian in the morning, and a Trinitarian in the evening, or contrariwise, as circumstances may determine. Such a conclusion would be perfectly correct, if the premises were not obviously absurd. It is insisted, indeed, in this argument that every man must be faithful to his own individuality in studying the work of Christ, and also that the work of Christ is so various in bearing and aspect as to meet every changing movtd of the earnest soul; but that any one mood, or all the moods of any single mind, can be the standard and measure of objective truth, is a suggestion that ought not to be debated because of its evident insanity. Yet it may be possible (and is, I think, happily actual) that as plants absorb such atmospheric elements as are appropriate to their structure and functions, so varying states of spiritual experience may see in the work of Christ aspects of truth most comforting and satisfactory, without denying that there are other aspects which may have equal fascination under totally different conditions, As to the absolute and eternal certainty of Christian doctrine, it is to be found (1) in the life of Jesus Christ; (2) in His revelation of the Father; (8) in there being no way to the Father but through Himself; (4) in His continual and quickening presence in the souls that trust and love Him; (5) in His gift of the Holy Ghost; and (6) in His priestly intercession on behalf of all who come to God by Him. These are the verities of the Christian faith; the unchangeable quantities; the indestructible facts. It is in the interpretation of these that controversy arises, and it is in the interpretation of these that truly earnest men must exercise charity towards each other. Speculation ought not to insist upon ultimate dogmas; tentative persuasions it must have, and temporary resting-places whence it can see in the distance which is too gleaming to be distinct provinces of knowledge yet to be conquered and enjoyed; but no authoritative standards by which to determine the orthodoxy of individual thinkers. In allowing the large liberty of interpretation which was conceded in the last chapter, my mind was distinctly fixed upon a moral character which was worthy of so broad a concession; a character arising out of motives pure and simple, and directed with intelligent ardour towards the attainment of the whole truth as it is in Jesus. Upon a merely intellectual belief in the coming of Christ into the world to save sinners, I place literally no value as a moral test; it is an element in responsibility, but it is not necessarily a guarantee even of good faith. In the words of Scripture, it is with the heart that man believeth unto righteousness. Mark the fulness of that expression, and try your own sincerity by its earnestness ; — “with the heart,’ with the love, the tenderness, the devotion, the enthusiasm, of the very life:

‘man believeth,” receiveth as part of his soul’s substance, accepteth as an infinite sufficiency, resteth upon as the only, the everlasting foundation: “unto righteousness,” unto sanctification, and holiness of character, unto the love of right and the service of right, unto an acceptable standing before God, and an honest discharge of all human duty. To such a man, and to such a man alone, do I give the liberty which perhaps you supposed to be licence and latitude. Now, to bring this part of the subject to a practical point, given a company of such men, every one of whom shall have his own view of the work of Christ, and his own way of stating that view, and let the various ways when brought together seem so opposite as to be mutually contradictory and irreconcilable, yet the assemblage constitutes a living Church of the living Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Where, in such a diverse and perhaps tumultuous company, is the point of sympathy and cohesion? It is in this individual confession : — Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners; without Him I cannot be saved; He only can satisfy every need of my spirit and life; I give myself wholly to Him, my one wish being to know and to do His will; He is my Saviour, and He alone as the Christ, the Son of the living God, has the words of eternal life. — There, you have the basis of church fellowship. And yet no two minds would probably agree upon a detailed interpretation of the meaning of those solemn and vital facts! But we are to be saved by the fact, not by the interpretation: your CHRIST may be the Son of the living God, but your Christianity may be little more than the creation of your own fancy.

Perhaps you fall back upon the thought that one or other of the interpretations must be right, and that this will fix the erroneousness of the remainder. But in our ee E present infirmities and limitations that does not follow so simply and inevitably as you suppose. Remember we have agreed as to the truly religious earnestness of every inquirer concerned; and if we insist that one view is right, every man who does not accept that view is perverse and by so much not in earnest; thus suspicion is excited, and distrust, perhaps schism, ensues. But is not the man who supposes himself to have attained the complete and final interpretation of truth bound to declare and uphold it? Undoubtedly. Yet that is not all he is bound to do. He must declare and uphold his view in all humility and charity, remembering that he himself did not come to the full knowledge of the truth except by much prayer and ereat endeavour, and he must not expect other men to fly where even he was obliged to walk. But what man is bold enough to assume that he has attained the complete and final interpretation of truth? Not Paul, for he knew only in part; not Peter, for he urges us to grow in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ; not John, for he says it doth not yet appear what we shall be. Yet we may modify the instance without disputing the doctrine. Every man is called upon to put forth his view of the work of Christ, and to uphold it with all needful learning and zeal; and if all do this, with emulous energy and charity, what they know not God will reveal to them; but if they bite and devour one another; if they classify one another as orthodox and heterodox, and attach a stigma to each of these epithets; if they rejoice in one another’s infirmities and failures; then they cease to be the living Church of the living God, and become malevolent and contentious sects. If you suggest that the living Church of the living God should abandon all denominationalism, and conduct its afiairs in one way only, I think you may be led to see that the suggestion is sentimental rather than practical, There are psychological difficulties in the way of such a fusion. Perhaps no man will say that Methodism is the only form of church government approved of God, yet there are men who would find it hard to live out of Methodism; its order, its warmth, its cohesiveness, its sympathy, are simply precious to them, and even indispensable. Perhaps no man would be so foolhardy as to say that Congregationalism is a special and exclusive revelation from heaven, yet there are men who love its simplicity, its directness of movement, and its independence, to whom every other form of ecclesiastical life would be at least intricate and inconvenient. Besides, it is for the health of religious society that special prominence should be given to the universal love of God which is known by the name of Arminianism; and not less so that there should be continual declaration of the sovereignty and righteousness of God which is more or less correctly described by the name of Calvinism. It is well, too, that one communion should teach the doctrine of the Inward Light, the Witness of the Spirit, the Joy of the Holy Ghost; and quite as well that another communion should devote itself with undividedlove and might to make aggression upon superstition, ignorance, and every form of heathenism, omit His contemplation in favour of arduous service. All may be right. All may be parts of a beautiful whole. Jesus can love every one of them, — Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus!

A more important inquiry is, Whether, considering the immeasurable work that has yet to be done in bringing Christian influence to bear upon the ignorance and crime of mankind, it is either wise or good for theologians, and especially for ministers, to be elaborating theories of the Atonement when they themselves frankly own that men are to be saved by the Atonement itself and not by any philosophy or theory of it. An inquiry like this cannot be satisfactorily’ answered either by Yes or No. It is undoubtedly important that what is known as the science of theology should be most zealously and patiently developed by the very few men who to competent gifts and attainments add the needful leisure for so high an undertaking; and that the development should operate from two distinct points is helpful rather than obstructive in the attainment of precision and completeness of knowledge. But it may be gravely doubted whether such work is appropriate to the pulpit. In the time usually allotted to public worship there is not scope for the full treatment of controversial questions; nor are audiences usually disposed to follow persistent and critical arguments; and some hearers may unhappily remember objections when they have forgotten the replies. Where there is a written discussion the reader can rest until he masters the various points, but in listening to the living voice the hearer is often left behind, or urged forward so rapidly as to become confused and uncertain. In the pulpit we should declare the things that are assuredly believed, or preach such doctrine as admits of easy proof where the Bible is received as the Word of God; but in classes, in books, in select circles, we ought to urge our inquiries into the deepest problems, and reverently propound and strenuously, with tender charity, defend and press the conclusions which we have reached. Christianity, as we are continually reminded, has lessons which little children can understand, and lessons which strain the powers of the strongest men; the former are more suitable to the pulpit, except under very special circumstances, than the latter, because of the toil, anxiety, disappointment, sorrow, and infirmity, which enter so largely into practical life. But if the very men who eschew controversy did but know the spiritual joy which arises from reverent speculation upon the high things of the kingdom of God — the bracing air which sweeps around the great hills of worship and inquiry — and

Possible Mistakes and Dangers. IgI

“the glorious liberty” of walking far above the petty strifes of time, either commercial or sectarian — they would demand an order of preaching and an order of literature far beyond the common supply. At present the Church is not much inclined to mountain climbing; it has lost its long steady stride, and is content to inhale the relaxing air of its own sect, or at best the warm breeze of limited and sheltered valleys. Herein is God dishonoured; for His Truth, which like Himself is infinite and everlasting, is shorn of its majesty and placed at the head of the commonplaces which indolence mistakes for theology.

Still, the question may fairly be raised, Whether strictly formal or scientific theology has not, by its abuse it may be frankly allowed rather than by its use, done more to hinder than to help the progress of spiritual Christianity as a redeeming and regenerating power? I wish to be very guarded here in the choice of words, as the point is one of extreme delicacy. History would seem to prove that formal or systematic theology has never been prized by the people as a whole, but has been regarded as the intellectual luxury of the few. The common heart, if I may be allowed the expression, has never taken warmly to scientific or systematic divinity; on the contrary, it has avoided the books and pulpits devoted to that study, and in doing so it may have shown, in a way practical and earnest enough to be authoritative, that theology and Christianity are far from being necessarily one and the same thing. It has been said, but not happily I venture to think, that as there is no revealed science of the skies or the fields, and yet we have been assisted in the study of both by astronomy and botany, so though there is no revealed science of divinity yet our study of revelation is assisted by theological formule and definitions. The answer is, that in astronomy and botany we have to deal exclusively with things visible, measurable, recurrent, and positive, but in religion we have to deal with the invisible, the infinite, the eternal, with facts great and solemn indeed beyond all others, but their very greatness and solemnity may prevent their reduction to the details of a formal creed. That the student will find his inquiries assisted by recording the conclusions to which he has been conducted is undeniable; but he must be on his guard as to the use of that very word “conclusions,” for if it be employed otherwise than intermediately it may shut out some further “light and truth.” Strictly, that is literally, speaking, there are no “conclusions” in theology, because there is no conclusion in God. We shall have to bring our intellectual pride to accept the sumbling truth that men are not to be saved by philosophical propositions, but by truth unmeasured and immeasurable, unclassified and unspeakable. In so saying I have no wish to discourage what may be called the scientific way of studying Divine revelation, but simply to suggest that formal propositions, like common material property, require defence; and often great expense of time, genius, and strength, is required for their logical, perhaps even sectarian, maintenance. Out of this necessity comes controversy, and out of controversy may come distrust and alienation, results never anticipated at the beginning of what was meant to be a solemn and fraternal discussion of vital truth. Propositions seem to have a fatal charm for some minds. So also with proverbs and epigrams, they are so bright, keen, and memorable that they soon come, by their very terseness and compactness, to be popularly accepted as authoritative and final. In this way much fiction is taking the place of truth in the common thinking of civilised nations. What proverbs are in ordinary conversation, propositions may become in theological orthodoxy. It is not unusual for some men to think that to quote a proverb is to settle a controversy; and this fallacy has undoubtedly its counterpart in the higher thinking. But is it not possible to state truth in propositions? Partially so; temporarily so; but not necessarily and finally so. Human nature is conservative enough not to wish to alter propositions. It is like taking down favourite trees, or removing ancient landmarks; there is something ghostly about it and weird and fearsome, hence superstitions are bred and fostered, and “temples made with hands” are regarded as the

“habitation of God.” Yet propositions are useful; as marking progress they may even be needful; but as tests and standards they may become instruments of offence and persecution. The one thing that must be regarded as unchangeable is the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation; there is the truth of God; the way of holiness; the well springing out of the rocks, never dry, never forbidden to the weary and sorrowful; the redeeming love which speaks all languages but will not limit itself within the confines of any scholastic proposition,

Wiciay ye. iy
Or rs La
? way +4
as ar

Pokies:

£; me i) ce i* Mey
x j ft re “aie ates ire ey’
eR ‘, Wee Li nal a