Chapter XXV: Appendix: Critical Notices (4)

You ask us to believe a precise statement, viz., that “there are three _persons_ in the Godhead.” We say, “What do you mean by ‘person’?” The Trinitarian answers, “It is a mystery.” We say, “We cannot believe it, then.” The Trinitarian replies, “Why, all is a mystery. How the grass grows is a mystery; yet you believe it.” “No,” we say, “we do not believe it. When the mystery begins, our belief ends; we believe up to that point, and no farther.” The statement, “the grass grows,” is _not_ a mystery; the fact, “the grass grows,” is _not_ a mystery. We believe the fact and the statement. The _way_ in which it grows _is_ mysterious; and we do not believe anything about it. “You cannot understand _how_ the grass grows.” No; and, accordingly, we do not believe anything about _how_ the grass grows. But the whole purpose of the Trinity is to show _how_ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist. You are not satisfied that we receive _what_ the Scripture teaches; you try to show us the _how_, and then leave it in obscurity at last.

Nor does Dr. Huntington reply to the Unitarian explanation of the Trinitarian proof-texts. Trinitarians have often quoted the texts—“_I and my Father are one_;” “_He who has seen me has seen the Father_”—in proof of the Deity of Christ. Unitarians have often replied to both of them: to the first passage, that since Jesus has also said that his _disciples were to be one with him, as he is one with God_, it either proves that the disciples are also to be God, or does _not_ prove that Christ is God. To the second passage, Unitarians have replied by reading the next clause, in which Christ says, “Believest thou not that I am _in_ the Father?” showing how it is that he reveals the Father. He is _in_ the Father, and his disciples are _in_ him. Those who see him, see the Father; those who see his true disciples, see the face and image of Christ. These answers are so obvious, and Dr. Huntington must have heard them so often, that he should, as a controversialist, have taken some notice of them. He has not done so.

He quotes the passage from Eph. 1:20, 21, and says, “_Can this be a creature?_” We reply, “Can he be anything _but_ a creature?—he who was _set_ by God in this place of honor.” Does God set God, as a reward, above principalities and powers? Does God make God “head over all things in the Church”? Again: Dr. Huntington quotes, “that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord;” but he omits the conclusion, “to the glory of God the Father.”

He even quotes the passage, “Him _hath God exalted_ to give repentance and forgiveness of sin.”

And he quotes the passage, which has staggered the strongest believers in the Trinity, where Paul declares (1 Cor. ch. 15), that, _at the end_, Christ will give up his kingdom to the Father, that “God may be all in all,” and explains it as meaning that “he will resume his place in the coequal Three, the indivisible One.” Has he _left_ his place, then? Is that Orthodox? Dr. Huntington evidently thinks so; for he says, “The Son, in his character of Sonship, is retaken, so to speak, into the everlasting undivided One.” _So to speak._ We may _speak_ so: “But what do we mean by it?” is the question. Did God the Son leave his place in the Godhead? Did he become less than God? Did he become ignorant? Did he suffer and die? Did he arise, and at last reascend, and take his place, “so to speak,” in the Godhead? If this is meant as real statement, what better is it than the Avatars of Vishnu? What sort of Unity is left to us? We have a Trinity of council; but where is the Unity, except of agreement? One divine Being descending, and leaving the other divine Being alone, temporarily, on the throne of the universe, until the divine Being who had descended should reascend to take his seat again “in the coequal Three and indivisible One”!

One Unitarian argument, which appears to us unanswerable, is in the fact, that the very passages in which the highest attributes are ascribed to Christ are always those in which his dependence and subordination are most strongly asserted. We could throw aside all the passages in which Jesus asserts directly his inferiority,—as, “My Father is greater than I;” “Of mine own self I can do nothing,”—and take the strongest proof-texts of the Trinitarians, and ask for no better proof for the Unitarian doctrine: “All power is given to me in heaven and earth;” “The image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature;” “In him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Are these passages written of Christ in his divine or human nature? Not his divine nature; for to God the Son all power cannot be “given.” God the Son cannot be “the image of God,” or the “first-born of every _creature_.” The “fulness of the Godhead” cannot dwell in God the Son. They must, then, be said of him in his human nature; and, if so, they show that the loftiest titles and attributes do not prove him to be God.

V. The good ascribed to the doctrine of the Trinity does not belong to it, but to the truths which underlie it.

Dr. Huntington asserts, for example, that “the Triunity of God appears to be the necessary means of manifesting and supporting in the mind of our race, a faith in the true personality of God.”

If so, it is remarkable that the two forms of religion in which the personality of God, as absolute will, is most distinctly recognized (i.e., the _Jewish_ religion and the _Mohammedan_ religion), should both be ignorant of the Trinity. It is equally remarkable that the most Pantheistic religion in the world, in which the personality of God most entirely disappears (i.e., Braminism), should have a Trinity of its own. It is also remarkable, on this hypothesis, that idolatry in the Christian Church (as worship of Mary, worship of saints and relics, &c.) should come up with the Trinity, and flourish simultaneously with it.

No; it is not the Trinity which brings out most distinctly the personality of God, but the faith in a divine revelation through inspired men. If God can dwell in the souls of men, teaching and guiding them, he must be a person like the soul with which he communes. Especially does the religious consciousness of Jesus, his simple and child-like communion with the heavenly Father, bring God near to the soul as a personal being. It is not the Trinity, but the Christian faith which underlies it, which teaches the divine personality.

Nor is it the doctrine of the Trinity which is necessary for a living faith in God through Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. All that Dr. Huntington says of the evil of sin is well said, but has no bearing on the point before us. According to Dr. Huntington’s own witnesses, as we have seen above, the Trinity was unknown in the earlier ages of the Church. Was reconciliation unknown? Was the forgiving love of Christ unknown? If he cannot assert this, the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessary to a living faith in a reconciling God.

Dr. Huntington argues, that only the sufferings, and actual sufferings, of God himself, can touch the sinful heart; and, therefore, the Trinity is true. The conclusion is a long way from the premise, even supposing that to be sound. But as regards the premise, he has read and quoted Mansel. Has he not verged towards the dogmatism which that writer condemns? Would it not be more modest, and better accord with Christian humility, to be satisfied with believing the scriptural assertions, that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son;” that “He who spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all,—shall he not, with him, freely give us all things?” Is not this enough, without an argument to prove that the _only_ way by which man can be saved is the method of a suffering God?

We will not dwell further on this head, nor examine our friend’s argument to show that we cannot consistently, as Unitarians, have any piety. We will try, then, to have it inconsistently.

VI. Great evils to the Church have come from the doctrine of the Trinity.

It has tended to the belief in three Gods. It has tended to a confusion of belief between three Gods of equal power and majesty, united only in counsel; one supreme and two inferior Deities; one Deity with a threefold manner of manifestation; and a vague, undetermined use of words, with no meaning attached to them—unhappy confusion, which none have been more ready to recognize and to point out than Trinitarians themselves.

And what shall we say of the continual struggles, conflicts, and bitter controversies, which this doctrine has caused from the time of its entrance into the Church? What is there more disgraceful in the history of the Church, than the mutual persecutions of Arians and Athanasians, and of all the minor sects and parties, engendered by this disputed doctrine?

This is what Dr. Bushnell says of one of these matters; and his testimony is, perhaps, sufficient on this point,—

“No man can assert three persons,—meaning three consciousnesses, wills, and understandings,—and still have any intelligent meaning in his mind, when he asserts that they are yet one person; for, as he now uses the term, the very idea of a person is that of an essential, incommunicable monad, bounded by consciousness, and vitalized by self-active will; which being true, he might as well profess to hold that three units are yet one unit. When he does it, his words will, of necessity, be only substitutes for sense.

“At the same time, there are too many signs of the mental confusion I speak of not to believe that it exists. Thus, if the class I speak of were to hear a discourse insisting on the proper personal Unity of God, it would awaken suspicion in their minds, while a discourse insisting on the existence of three persons would be only a certain proof of Orthodoxy; showing that they profess three persons, meaning what they profess, and one person, really not meaning it.

“Such is the confusion produced by attempting to assert a real and metaphysical Trinity of persons in the divine nature. Whether the word is taken at its full import, or diminished away to a mere something called a _distinction_, there is produced only contrariety, confusion, practical negation, not light.”

So far Dr. Bushnell. On another point thus testifies Twesten:—

“There are many to whom the biblical and religious basis of the doctrine is exceeding sure and precious, who are dissatisfied with the Church form of the doctrine, and even feel themselves repelled or fettered by it. It is to them more negative than positive, more opposed to errors than giving any insight into truth. It solves no difficulty, it unseals no new revelation.”

Twesten goes on to admit that the Trinity has really hemmed in the free movement of the mind, substituting a dead uniformity for a manifold and various life; and yet Twesten is a very strong and able Trinitarian.

VII. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of philosophy, and not of faith.

As philosophy, it might be ever so true and important; but, when brought forward as religion (as Dr. Huntington has done), it would become at once pernicious. To offer theology for religion, belief for faith, philosophy born of speculative reflection in place of spiritual insight and pious experience, have always been most deleterious both to religion and to philosophy.

The objects of faith are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Through Christ we have access to the Father in the Spirit. We see the Father revealed to us in the Son; we feel the power of the Spirit in our hearts. This is religion; but this has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity.

VIII. We can trace the gradual formation of the doctrine in the Christian Church.

The following facts we suppose to be incontrovertible:—

1. Down to the time of the synod of Nice (A.D. 325), the Son was considered to be subordinate, or inferior to the Father, by the great majority of writers and teachers in the Christian Church, and by the multitude of believers; and no doctrine of Trinity existed in the Church.

2. The _Nicene symbol_, which declared Christ to be “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, of the same substance with the Father,”(95) was directed against the two Arian positions,—that Christ was created, and that there was a time when he did not exist; but it did not declare his equality with God the Father, nor teach the personality of the Holy Spirit, nor say anything of the Trinity.

3. The councils vacillated to and fro during three hundred years, gradually tending towards the present Church doctrine of the Trinity; thus,—

1. _Synod of Nice_ (A.D. 325) opposed the Arian doctrine of the creation of Christ out of nothing, and maintained that his substance was derived from that of God.

2. _Synod of Tyre_ (A.D. 335) favored the Arians, and deposed Athanasius.

3. _Council of Antioch_ (A.D. 343) opposed the views of the Arians, and also the views of their opponents.

4. _Council of Sardica_ (A.D. 344) resulted in a division between the Eastern and Western Churches—the East being semi-Arian, and the West, Athanasian—in their view of the nature of Christ.

5. The Western Church tending to Sabellianism (taught by Marcellus and his pupil Photinus), this view was condemned by two councils in the East and West, viz.:—

Second council of Antioch (A.D. 343).

Council of Milan (A.D. 346).

6. Constantius, an Arian emperor, endeavored to make the Western Churches accept the Arian doctrine, and, at two synods (A.D. 353 and 355, at Arelate and Mediolanum), compelled the bishops to sign the condemnation of Athanasius, deposing those who refused so to do.

7. The Arians, being thus dominant, immediately divided into Arians and Semi-Arians,—the distinction being the famous distinction between _o_ and _oi_. Both parties denied the _Homoousios_; but the Semi-Arians admitted the _Homoiousios_.

8. At the synod of Ancyra (A.D. 358), the Semi-Arian doctrine was adopted, and the Arian rejected. The third synod of Sirmium (A.D. 358) did the same thing.

9. Down to this time (A.D. 360), nothing was said about the Holy Spirit in its relation to the Trinity. The Emperor Valens, an Arian, persecuted the Athanasians from A.D. 364 to 378. Then Theodosius, an Athanasian emperor, persecuted the Arians. Semi-Arianism, however, continued Orthodox in the East.

10. The Nestorian controversy broke out A.D. 430. Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) condemned Nestor. The Nestorians (who were Unitarians) separated entirely from the Church, and became the Church of the Persian empire.

11. The Monophysite controversy broke out. The council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) decided that there were two natures in Christ; and the Monophysites separated, and formed the Coptic Church. Their formula was, that “God was crucified in Christ.” The Nestorians were too Unitarian, and the Monophysites too Athanasian. The Church decided (against the Nestorians) that Mary was God’s mother, but decided (against the Monophysites) that God was not crucified.

12. _First Lateran Council_ was called (in A.D. 640) to settle a new point. It having been decided that there were _two_ natures in Christ, it was now thought best by many to yield to the Monophysites—that there was only one will in Christ. Hence the Monotheletic controversy, finally settled at the,—

13. Sixth General Council (A.D. 680), when _two_ wills in Christ were accepted as the doctrine of the Church.

Thus it appears that it took the Church from A.D. 325 to A.D. 680 to settle the questions concerning the relation of Christ to God. During all this time, opinion vacillated between Arianism on the one hand and Sabellianism on the other. At the end of this period, the Church had become consolidated, and strong enough to compel submission to its opinions: but the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Trinity remained unsettled for several centuries more; and finally the Eastern Church separated altogether from the Western Church on this point. The whole Greek Church remains, to this day, separated from the Latin Church on a question belonging to this very doctrine of the Trinity. So much, then, for Dr. Huntington’s assertion, that the Trinity is a doctrine which can almost literally be said to have been believed “always, everywhere, and by all.”

IX. The doctrine of the Trinity is opposed to the real divinity of Christ and to his real humanity; thus undermining continually the faith of the Church in the divine humanity of Jesus Christ the Lord.

Our final and chief objection to the Trinity is, not that it makes Christ divine, but that it does _not_ make him so. It substitutes for the divinity of the Father, the Supreme God, which Unitarians believe to dwell in Christ, a subordinate divinity of God the Son. This is subordinate, because derived; and, because derived, dependent. The Son may be said to be “eternally generated;” but this is only an eternal derivation, and does not alter the dependence, but makes it also to be eternal. The tendency of the Church doctrine of the Trinity is always to a belief, not in the supreme divinity dwelling in Christ, but in a derived and secondary divinity.

How is it, for example, with the Nicene doctrine concerning Christ? Dr. Huntington claims Nice as Trinitarian. (p. 361.)

But what says Prof. Stuart concerning the Nicene doctrine? Listen.

“The Nicene symbol presents the Father as the Monas, or proper Godhead, in and of himself exclusively; it represents him as the _Fons et Principium_ of the Son, and therefore gives him superior power and glory. It does not even assert the claims of the blessed Spirit to Godhead, and therefore leaves room to doubt whether it means to recognize a Trinity, or only a Duality.” (Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835, quoted by Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 264.)

And how is it with the ante-Nicene fathers, whom Dr. Huntington also considers to be Trinitarian? else certainly his rule of “always, everywhere, and by all,” does not hold. If, for the first three hundred years after Christ, there were no Trinitarians, it cannot be said that the Trinity has “always” been held in the Church. Listen, again, to Prof. Stuart, whose learning no one can question.

“We find that all the Fathers before, at, and after the Council of Nice, who harmonize with the sentiments there avowed, declare the Father only to be the self-existent God.” (See the whole paragraph in Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 267.)

“To be the author of the proper substance of the Son and Spirit, according to the Patristical creed; or to be the author of the _modus existendi_ of the Son and Spirit, according to the modern creed,—both seem to involve _the idea of power and glory in the Father, immeasurably above that of the Son and Spirit_.” (Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835.)

So Coleridge asserts that “both Scripture and the Nicene Creed teach a subordination of the Son to the Father, independent of the incarnation of the Son.... Christ, speaking of himself as the coeternal Son, says, ‘My Father is greater than I.’ ” (Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 270.)

According to the Trinitarian doctrine, then, we do not find God—the Supreme God, our heavenly Father—in Christ; but a derived, subordinate, and inferior Deity. Not the one universal Parent do we approach, but some mysterious, derived, inscrutable Deity, less than the Father, and distinct from him. Do we not, then, lose the benefit and blessing of the divinity of Jesus? Can we believe him when be says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father?” No; we do not believe that, if we are Trinitarians; but rather, that, having seen him, we have seen “THE SON;” whom Coleridge declares to be an inferior Deity; over whom Bishop Pearson, in his “Exposition of the Creed,” says, the Father holds “preeminence,”—the Father being “the Origin, the Cause, the Author, the Root, the Fountain, the Head, of the Son.” The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore opposed, as Swedenborg ably contends, to the real divinity of Christ.(96)

But it is equally opposed to his real humanity. It constantly drives out of the Church the human element in Christ. Dr. Huntington is astonished at Unitarians not perceiving that the humanity of Christ is as dear to Trinitarians as his Deity; yet it cannot be denied, that the mysterious dogma of deity has quite overshadowed the simple human life of our dear Lord, so that the Church has failed to see the Son of man. All his highest human traits become unreal in the light of this doctrine of his deity. He is tempted; but that is unreal, for God cannot be tempted. He prays, “Our Father;” but this also is no real prayer, for he is omnipotent, and can need nothing. He encounters opposition, hatred, contumely, and bears it with sweetest composure; but what of that? since, as God, he looked down from an infinite height upon the puny opposition. He agonizes in the garden; but it is imaginary suffering: how can God feel any real agony, like man? Jesus ceases to be example, ceases to be our best beloved companion and brother, and becomes a mysterious personage, inscrutable to our thought, and far removed from our sympathy.

FOOTNOTES

1 The following passage, from an article in the “Independent,” by
Henry Ward Beecher, is valuable, perhaps, as the testimony of one
who has “summered it and wintered it” with Orthodoxy:—

“Does anybody inquire why, if so thinking, we occasionally give such
sharp articles upon the great religious newspapers, ‘The Observer,’
‘The Intelligencer,’ and the like? O, pray do not think it from any
ill will. It is all kindness! We only do it to keep our voice in
practice. We have made Orthodoxy a study. And by an attentive
examination of ‘The Presbyterian,’ ‘The Observer,’ ‘The Puritan
Recorder,’ and such like unblemished confessors, we have perceived
that no man is truly sound who does not pitch into somebody that is
not sound; and that a real modern orthodox man, like a nervous watch
dog, must sit on the door-stone of his system, and bark incessantly
at everything that comes in sight along the highway. And when there
is nothing to bark at, either he must growl and gnaw his reserved
bones, or bark at the moon to keep up the sonorousness of his voice.
And so, for fear that the sweetness of our temper may lead men to
think that we have no theologic zeal, we lift up in objurgation now
and then—as much as to say, ‘Here we are, fierce and orthodox; ready
to growl when we cannot bite.’ ”

2 Thus Theodore Parker (“Experience as a Minister”) speaks of a review
of his “Discourse on Religion” in a Trinitarian work, which did it
no injustice.

3 According to the “Chart of Religious Belief” in Johnston’s Physical
Atlas, there are in the world 140,000,000 of Catholics, 70,000,000
of Protestants, 68,000,000 of the Greek Church, and 14,000,000 of
minor creeds. _About_, in his “Question Romaine,” gives the Roman
Church 139,000,000. He says, “The Roman Catholic Church, which I
sincerely respect, is composed of 139,000,000 of individuals, not
including the little Mortara.”

4 Mr. Taylor shows that the Church, A.D. 300, was essentially corrupt
in doctrine and practice; that the Romish Church was rather an
improvement on it; that Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, and Athanasius are
full of false doctrine; and that a Gnostic theology, a Pagan
asceticism, and a corrupt morality prevailed in the Church in those
early centuries.

5 Of course we do not mean to charge our Orthodox friends with
believing in persecution. We only show that _if Orthodoxy is in the
letter_, they _ought_, consequentially, to believe in persecution.
No doubt Protestantism has put an end to persecution. When Luther
came, all believed in persecution; now, no one does. This is because
the Reformation contained a double principle: first, that we are
saved by faith, not by sacraments, and that faith is the belief of
doctrines; second, that to see them aright, we must use our own
minds, and consequently seek for truth as the paramount duty of
life. But in order to seek effectually, we must seek freely—hence
the right of private judgment as against authority in Church and
State. The last principle is that of toleration; the first is the
principle of intolerance. The last has proved the stronger, because
it rests on the logic of things, the other only on the logic of
words.

6 Heb. 11:1.

7 Jacobi—whose words have been said to let the thoughts shine through,
as wet clothes around the limbs allow the form to be seen—says that
all knowledge begins with faith. Faith is, according to Jacobi, (1)
a knowledge proceeding from immediate revelation; (2) knowledge
which does not need, and cannot have, proofs; (3) much more certain
knowledge than any derived from demonstration; (4) a perception of
the super-sensual world; (5) A well-grounded and reliable
prepossession in favor of certain truths; (6) a faith which sees,
and a sight which believes; (7) a vision, an impenetrable mystery, a
perception of the thing in itself.

8 See “Broken Lights,” p. 207, note.

9 A story is told of a clock, on one of the high cathedral towers of
the older world, so constructed that at the close of a century it
strikes the years as it ordinarily strikes the hours. As a hundred
years come to a close, suddenly, in the immense mass of complicated
mechanism, a little wheel turns, a pin slides into the appointed
place, and in the shadows of the night the bell tolls a _requiem_
over the generations which during a century have lived, and labored,
and been buried around it. One of these generations might live and
die, and witness nothing peculiar. The clock would have what we call
an established order of its own; but what should we say when, at the
midnight which brought the century to a close, it sounded over the
sleeping city, rousing all to listen to the world’s age? Would it be
a violation of law? No; only a variation of the accustomed order,
produced by the intervention of a force always existing, but never
appearing in this way till the appointed moment had arrived. The
tolling of the century would be a variation from the observed order
of the clock; but to an artist, in constructing it, it would have
formed a part of that order. So a miracle is a variation of the
order of nature as it has appeared to us; but to the Author of
nature it was a part of that predestined order—a part of that order
of which he is at all times the immediate Author and Sustainer;
miraculous to us, seen from our human point of view, but no miracle
to God; to our circumscribed vision a violation of law, but to God
only a part in the great plan and progress of the law of the
universe.—_Ephraim Peabody._

10 Trench, “Notes on the Miracles of our Lord.”

11 We use the term “plenary inspiration” rather than “literal
inspiration,” or “verbal inspiration,” for “_literal inspiration_”
is a contradiction in terms, like “_bodily spirit_.”

12 Tholuck, in his Essay on the Doctrine of Inspiration, ascribes the
origin of the belief in the infallibility of Scripture to this
supposed need of an authoritative outward rule of faith among
Protestants. He says, “In proportion as controversy, sharpened by
Jesuitism, made the Protestant party sensible of the necessity of an
externally fortified ground of combat, in that same proportion did
Protestantism seek, by the exaltation of the outward authoritative
character of the Sacred Writings, to recover that infallible
authority which it had lost through its rejection of inspired
councils and the infallible authority of the pope. In this manner
arose, not earlier than the seventeenth century, those sentiments
which regarded the Holy Scripture as the infallible production of
the Divine Spirit,—in its entire contents and its very form,—so that
not only the sense, but also the words, the letters, the Hebrew
vowel points, and the very punctuation were regarded as proceeding
from the Spirit of God.”—_Tholuck’s Essay—Noyes’s
__“__Collection.__”_

13 The doctrine of the Roman Catholics, as stated by Moehler, a
distinguished Roman Catholic, is as follows:—

“The doctrine of the Catholic Church on original sin is extremely
simple, and may be reduced to the following propositions: Adam, by
sin, lost his original justice and holiness, drew down on himself,
by his disobedience, the displeasure and judgments of the Almighty,
incurred the penalty of death, and thus, in all his parts,—in his
body as well as soul,—became strangely deteriorated. Thus his sinful
condition is transmitted to all his posterity as descended from him,
entailing the consequence that man is, of himself, incapable—even
with the aid of the most perfect ethical law offered to him from
without (not excepting even the one in the Old Covenant)—to act in a
manner agreeable to God, or in any other way to be justified before
him, save only by the merits of Jesus Christ.”

The doctrine of the Church of England concerning original sin and
free will is in its ninth and tenth articles, and declares that,—

“Original sin is ... the fault and corruption of the nature of every
man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby
man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own
nature, inclined to evil, ... and therefore in every person born
into the world it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation....

“The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot
turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works
to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good
works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by
Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with
us when we have that good will.”

The early Fathers took different views of the origin of sin.
Tertullian ascribed it to human _impatience_. “Nunc ut compendio
dictum sit, omne peccatum impatientiæ adscribendum.” (Tertul. _De
Patien._ 5.) Origen thinks _laziness_ the cause of sin; sin is a
negation—_not_ doing right. Justin Martyr ascribes the origin of sin
to _sensuality_. Origen (after Philo) considered the story of the
fall as an allegory, and a type of what takes place in all men.

14 See, in the Appendix, an examination of Professor Shedd’s article.

15 Ovid. Metam. 7:18.

“Si possem, sanior essem.
Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido,
Mens aliud suadet, video meliora, proboque,
Deteriora sequor.”

See, also, the story, in the Cyropædia, of Araspes and his two
souls.

16 See Dr. Cox’s Sermon on Regeneration, reviewed by Dr. Hodge, in
“Essays and Reviews.”

17 Luther, in his “Table-talk,” says of his preaching against the pope,
and the enormous labors it entailed, “If I had known then what I now
know of the difficulty of the task, ten horses should not have drawn
me to it.” “At that time Dr. Jerome withstood me, and said, ‘What
will you do? They will not endure it.’ But said I, ‘What if they
_must_ endure it?’ ”

18 See Raumer, “Geschichte Europas,” zweiter Band.

19 God in Christ, by Horace Bushnell, p. 193, &c.

20 Heb. 2:9, 17, 18. 4:15. 5:8, 9.

21 No sooner was Socrates dead than he rose to be the chief figure in
Greek history. What are Miltiades, Pericles, or Alcibiades to him?
Twenty years after Joan of Arc was burned by a decree of the Roman
Catholic Church, the same Church called a council to reconsider and
reverse her sentence. Twenty years after the death of Savonarola,
Rafaelle painted his portrait among the great doctors, fathers, and
saints in the halls of the Vatican. Within a few years after John
Brown was hanged, half a million of soldiers marched through the
South chanting his name in their songs. Abraham Lincoln was killed,
and he is now the most influential figure in our history.

22 “Doctrinal Attitude of Old School Presbyterians.” By Lyman B.
Atwater, Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Princeton
College. Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1864.

23 “The Old School in New England Theology.” By Professor Lawrence, of
East Windsor. Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1863.

24 “Doctrines of the New School Presbyterians.” By Rev. George
Duffield, D. D., of Detroit. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863.

25 “Hopkinsianism.” By Rev. Enoch Pond, D. D., Professor in Bangor
Theological Seminary. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1862.

26 “Doctrines of Methodism.” By Rev. Dr. Whedon. Bibliotheca Sacra,
April, 1862.

27 “Theologische Zeitscrift.” Herausgegeben von Dr. Friedr.
Schleiermacher, Dr. W. M. L. DeWette, und Dr. Friedr. Lücke. Erstes
Heft, Berlin, 1819. _Ueber die Lehre von der Erwählung._

28 Rom. 11:29. “The gifts and callings of God are without repentance.”
By this we understand the apostle to mean the same thing as is
implied in Ecclesiastes (3:14): “I know that what God doeth, it is
forever.” God, having chosen the Jews for a work, will continue to
them the gifts, and will see that somehow or other, some time or
other, the work is done.

29 A person who never had an intellectual doubt concerning a future
life may be so poorly provided with an inward sense of immortality
that he may never feel quite willing to die, or confident in view of
death. Such a man was Dr. Johnson, who had not the least scepticism;
who was a dogmatic believer, and hated a heretic; who, yet, never
attained to any sort of comfort in view of death, and was always
afraid to die. So there may be another person who may have no
intellectual belief in a future life, but who will have the instinct
of immortality so strong as to be quite easy and happy in looking
forward to death. Such a person is Miss Martineau, who, in
consequence of a poor philosophy of _materialism_ which she was
taught in her childhood, and has always held, has been brought very
logically at last to disbelieve immortality, and even the existence
of God, and yet is very contented about it, and quite happy.

30 “Nescio, quomodo, dum lego, assentior; cum posui librum, et mecum
ipse de immortalitate animorum cœpi cogitare, assensio omnis illa
illabitur.”

31 Thus it is said, “In Christ shall all be made alive.” The meaning
is, that when we live in reference to God, to immortal truth, to the
infinite law of right,—when we really love anything out of
ourselves,—we lose all fear of death. “Perfect love casts out fear;”
that is, pure love. The love of a mother for a child casts out fear.
She is not afraid of death; she will run the risk of death twenty
times over to save her child. The immortal element is aroused in
her. The soldier is roused by the general’s fiery speech to a thrill
of patriotism, and thinks it sweet and beautiful to die for his
country. Love of his country has cast out his fear. This is
something more than any mere insensibility. Men can harden
themselves against danger and death; they can think of something
else. But that insensibility is merely a thick shell put round it—a
sevenfold shield perhaps; but the mortal fear lies hidden all the
same within. True life is very different.

32 The word here rendered ABOLISHED is elsewhere translated
“destroyed,” “made void,” “made of none effect,” “brought to
nothing,” “vanished away,” “done away,” “put down.” The meaning is,
that all its force, importance, value, is taken out of it.

33 “The State of the Impenitent Dead. By Alvah Hovey, D. D.” Boston,
1859.

34 For ἵνα before a defining clause, see John 6:29; 4:34; 1 John 3:11,
23; 4:21; 2 John 6.

35 Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Berlin, 1800.

36 In addition to the extracts from Professor Hovey, Meyer, Lücke, and
De Wette, the following passages from F. D. Maurice (“Theological
Essays”) are interesting, as showing a concurrence of testimony from
yet another quarter to the thesis of this section:—

“When any one ventures to say to an English audience, that eternity
is not a mere negation of time, that it denotes something real,
substantial, before all time, he is told at once that he is
departing from the simple, intelligible meaning of words; that he is
introducing novelties; that he is talking abstractions. This
language is perfectly honest in the mouths of those who use it. But
they do not know where they learned it. They did not get it from
peasants, or women, or children. They did not get it from the Bible.
They got it from Locke. And if I find that I cannot interpret the
language and thoughts of peasants, and women, and children, and that
I cannot interpret the plainest passages of the Bible, or the whole
context of it, while I look through the Locke spectacles, I must
cast them aside....

“Suppose, instead of taking this method of asserting the truth of
all God’s words, the most blessed and the most tremendous, we reject
the wisdom of our forefathers, and enact an article declaring that
all are heretics, and deniers of the truth, who do not hold that
eternal means endless, and that there cannot be a deliverance from
eternal punishment. What is the consequence? Simply this, I believe:
the whole gospel of God is set aside. The state of eternal life and
eternal death is not one we can refer only to the future, or that we
can in any wise identify with the future. Every man who knows what
it is to have been in a state of sin, knows what it is to have been
in a state of death. He cannot connect that death with time; he must
say that Christ has brought him out of the bonds of _eternal_ death.
Throw that idea into the future and you deprive it of all its
reality, of all its power. I know what it means all too well while
you let me connect it with my present and personal being, with the
pangs of conscience which I suffer now. It becomes a mere vague
dream and shadow to me when you project it into a distant world. And
if you take from me the belief that God is always righteous, always
maintaining a fight with evil, always seeking to bring his creatures
out of it, you take everything from me—all hope now, all hope in the
world to come. Atonement, redemption, satisfaction, regeneration,
become mere words, to which there is no counterpart in reality.”

37 In the German Bible we have the true word—“Auferstehung.”

38 So De Wette, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T., ad
locum.

39 So Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX.

40 So Usteri (Paulinischen Lehrbegriff) says that σάλπινξ appears to
denote partly the startling power of the truth, and partly its power
of calling men together from all the regions of the earth.

41 Christ only comes when he comes to reign. His first coming was as
Jesus, not as Christ. The human life is “the life of Jesus.”
Christian history is “the life of Christ.” In his earthly life he
was Prophet; in his death he was Priest; in his resurrection, or
risen state, he was King.

42 The book of the Revelation of John is the account of Christ’s
coming; and the true interpretation of that book depends on the
proper understanding of his coming. If Christ’s coming began at the
destruction of Jerusalem, and has continued in all the developments
of human history, then the key to “the Revelation” is to be found in
the progress of Christian principles and ideas in the world.
Bertholdt (Christologia Judæorum Jesu Apostolorumque ætate), note to
§ 11, quotes from the Sepher Ikkarim this passage—“The future age
will come _gradually_ to men after the day of the great judgment,
which will take place after the resurrection.” Resurrection and
judgment both come with Jesus, and his were “the last days.”

43 1 Thess. 4:17. “We, who are alive, and remain, shall be caught up
together with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.”
Usteri (Paul. Lehrbeg.) says that “this εἰς ἀέρα has no analogy in
any other passage of the Epistles, or indeed of the New Testament.”
But Paul outgrew this literalism, and in his later Epistles speaks
of sitting already with Christ in “heavenly places.”

44 Olshausen, an Orthodox commentator, speaks thus in regard to
Christ’s predictions concerning his coming, in Matt. ch. 24, 25:—

“One of the most striking examples of the binding of the present and
future in one narrative, and one which presents many difficulties,
is to be found in these passages. Plain descriptions of the
impending destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish state blend
with no less apparent descriptions of the coming of Christ in his
kingdom. It cannot be denied that the Orthodox interpreters are far
less natural and unforced than the others, in their treatment of
this passage. Their dogmatic views lead them to put apart from each
other elements which are blended together by Matthew and by the
other evangelists. For example, Schott says, that the description of
Christ’s coming begins (Matt. 24:29) immediately after ‘the
tribulation,’ &c., and that all before that belongs to the
destruction of Jerusalem. But apart from the impossibility of
regarding the 29th verse as the beginning of something entirely new,
there are also in the passages which follow distinct references to
the present generation (verse 34), and in the first part as distinct
references to ‘the last time.’ We do not, therefore scruple (says
Olshausen) to accept the simple explanation which alone suits the
text, that Christ speaks of his coming as coincident with the
destruction of Jerusalem, and with the downfall of the Jewish
state.”

The most interesting question, perhaps, is as to the opinions of
Jesus _himself_ about his coming. That he forsaw the overthrow of
Jerusalem and the Temple is certain. Everything indicates that he
possessed a marvellous power of reading the future in the present,
and saw in the condition of the Jewish mind the inevitable overthrow
of their state. He also saw that through his death all men should be
brought to him, and that he should become King in the way in which
he described to Pilate his royalty, i.e., King of the truth. All who
love the truth shall, sooner or later, obey his voice. In what way,
then, did he expect to come? In the way he himself indicates the
coming of his kingdom—like leaven, working secretly in the dough;
like seed, sprouting mysteriously in the ground; like lightning,
seen everywhere at once. By these images alone could he convey to
his disciples his ideas. He longed to tell them many things more,
but they were not able; to bear them.

45 The difficulties (of which Olshausen and other candid Orthodox
interpreters speak) in harmonizing the different parts of Matthew’s
two chapters (24 and 25) about Christ’s coming and judgment, may
perhaps be relieved in some such way as this. (1.) The end of the
Mosaic age and the beginning of the Messianic age are fixed at the
destruction of Jerusalem. (2.) Christ’s coming begins there, and
continues through Christian history, till all mankind are
Christians. His coming, therefore, verifies what Schiller says of
truth, that it “_nimmer ist, immer wird_.” (3.) Whenever he comes,
he judges men according to the state of mind in which they are. (4.)
The three parables (virgins, talents, king on his throne) represent
the judgment of three different classes. The first class (of wise
and foolish virgins) are those who _are not yet converted_, and have
not become disciples of Christ. When he comes, those of them who
have oil in their lamps—or who receive truth into an honest heart
(Luke 8:15)—are ready to receive him, and to become Christians;
those who have no oil reject him. The second class (in the talents)
are Christians, who receive more or less of power and of good,
according to past fidelity. The third class (the “nations ”) are the
heathen, and others, who have never known of Christ at all, but are
Christians outside of Christianity.

46 The latest illustration of Orthodox ideas on this subject we have
met with is contained in a little tract which has fallen in our way,
containing “extracts from a sermon addressed to the students in the
United Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Xenia, Ohio, by Rev.
William Davidson.” It begins in this somewhat enigmatical way:—

“It is an unspeakably terrible thing for any one—for even a youth or
a heathen—to be _lost_.”

Why this limiting particle “even” is introduced is not explained. It
seems to be implied either that a youth and a heathen have not as
much to lose as others, or else that we are not bound to feel so
much for their loss as for that of others. After a little poetry
(which we omit, as it is altogether too stern a matter for any
sentimental ornament), Mr. Davidson proceeds:—

“Nor is this all to those who suffer _least_. It is not only the
loss of all, and a horrible lake of ever-burning fire, but there are
_horrible objects_, filling every sense and every faculty; and there
are _horrible engines and instruments of torture_. There are the
‘chains of darkness,’ thick, heavy, hard, and smothering as the
gloom of blank and black despair—chains strong as the cords of
omnipotence, hot as the crisping flames of vengeance, indestructible
and eternal as justice. With chains like these, every iron link
burning into the throbbing heart, is bound each doomed, damned soul,
on a bed of burning marl, under an iron roof, riven with tempests,
and dripping with torrents of unquenchable fire.”

The object of the preacher being to make as terrific a picture as
possible, he accumulates these material images of bodily torment in
order to excite the imagination to the utmost. We can conceive of
his writing these sentences carefully in his comfortable study, in
an easy chair, by the side of a cheerful fire, with a smile of
self-complacency, as he selects each striking expression. Then he
proceeds:—

“Nor is this all. Unmortified appetites, hungry as death, insatiable
as the grave, torture it. Every passion burning, an unsealed volcano
in the heart. Every base lust a tiger unchained—a worm undying, let
loose to prey on soul and body. Pride, vanity, envy, shame,
treachery, deceit, falsehood, fell revenge, and black despair,
malice, and every unholy emotion, are so many springs of
excruciating and ever-increasing agonies, are so many hot and
stifling winds, tossing the swooning, sweltering soul on waves of
fire. And there will be deadly hunger, but no food; parching thirst,
but no water; eternal fatigue, but no rest; eternal lust of sensuous
and intellectual pleasures, but no gratification. And there will be
_terrible companions_, or rather _foes_, there. Eternal longings
after society, but no companion, no love, and no sympathy there.
Every one utterly selfish, hateful, and hating. Every one cunning,
false, malignant, fierce, fell, and devilish. All commingle in the
confusion and the carnage of one wide-spread, pitiless, truceless,
desperate strife. And there will be terrible sights and sounds
there. Fathers and sons, pastors and people, husbands and wives,
brothers and sisters, with swollen veins and bloodshot eyes,
straining towards each other’s throats and hearts, reprobate men,
and devils in form and features, hideous to as great a degree as are
the beauties of the blest in heaven beautiful. And there are groans
and curses, and everlasting wailings, as harsh and horrible as
heaven’s songs, shouts, and anthems are sweet, joyous, and
enrapturing. And there will be terrible displays of the divine power
and skill, and infinitely awful displays of merciless and omnipotent
justice, in the punishment of that rebel crew, that generation of
moral vipers full grown, that congregation of moral monsters.”

All this, however, is not enough. It is necessary to go further, and
represent God in the character of the devil, in order to complete
the picture.

“Upon such an assembly, God, who is of purer eyes than to behold
iniquity, cannot look but with utter detestation. His wrath shall
come up in his face. His face shall be red in his anger. He will
whet his glittering sword, and his hand shall take hold on
vengeance; and he shall recompense. He shall launch forth his
lightnings, and shoot abroad his arrows. He shall unseal all his
fountains, and pour out his tumbling cataracts of vengeance. He
shall build his batteries aloft, and thunder upon them from the
heavens. His eye shall not pity them, nor shall his soul spare for
their crying. The day of vengeance is in his heart, and it is what
he has his heart set on. He will delight in it. He will show his
wrath, and _make his power known_. That infinite power has never
been fully made known yet; but it will be then. It is but a little
that we see of it in creation and providence; but we shall see it,
fully revealed, in the destruction of that rebel crew. He will tread
them in his anger, and trample them in his fury, and will stain his
raiment with their blood. The cup of the wine of his fierce wrath
shall contain no mixture of mercy at all. And they will not be able
to resist that wrath, nor will they be able to endure it; but they
shall, in soul and body, sink wholly down into the _second death_.
The iron heel of omnipotent and triumphing justice, pitiless and
rejoicing, shall tread them down, and crush them lower still, and
lower ever, in that burning pit which knows no bottom. All this, and
more and worse, do the Scriptures declare; and that preacher who
hesitates to proclaim it has forsworn his soul, and is a traitor to
his trust.”

Now, it is simple truth to say that the blasphemer and profane
swearer who spends fifty years in cursing God and Christ is not so
blasphemous as the man who writes such sentences as these about the
Almighty, and utters them to young men as a preparation for their
work in the ministry. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah shall rise up
in the day of judgment against those who speak thus of God, and
shall condemn them. The Pagans, who represent their gods as horrid
idols, pleased with blood and slaughter, have an excuse, which Mr.
Davidson has not, for they do not have the gospel of the Lord Jesus
in their hands. Thus he continues:—

“And _all this shall be forever_. It shall never, never end. (Matt.
ch. 25.) The wicked go away into everlasting torments. This is a
bitter ingredient in their cup of wormwood, a more terrible thing in
their terrible doom. If after enduring it all for twice ten thousand
times ten thousand years, they might have a deliverance, or at least
some abatement, it were less terrible. But this may never, never be.
Their estate is remediless. There is a great gulf fixed, and they
cannot pass from thence. Or, if after suffering all this as many
years as there are aqueous particles in air and ocean, they might
then be delivered, or if, after repeating that amazing period as
many times as there are sand-grains in the globe, they might then be
delivered, there would be _some_ hope. Or, if you multiply this
latter sum—too infinite to be expressed by figures, and too
limitless to be comprehended by angels—by the number of atoms that
compose the universe, and there might be deliverance when they had
passed those amazing, abysmal gulfs of duration, then there would be
_some_ hope. But no! when all is suffered and all is past, still all
beyond is eternity.”

47 To show how some _Roman Catholics_ write in the middle of the
nineteenth century, we quote the following from a Roman Catholic
book, published in England, by Rev. J. Furniss, being especially “a
book for children.” Wishing to spare our readers such horrors, we
put it here, advising no one of weak nerves to read its atrocious
descriptions.

“The fourth dungeon is ‘the boiling kettle.’ Listen: there is a
sound like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle which is
boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling
in the scalded veins of that boy; the brain is boiling and bubbling
in his head; the marrow is boiling in his bones. The fifth dungeon
is the ‘red-hot oven,’ in which is a _little child_. Hear how it
screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about in the
fire; it beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its
little feet on the floor of the oven. To this child God was very
good. Very likely God saw that this child would get worse and worse,
and would never repent, and so it would have to be punished _much
more_ in hell. _So God in his mercy called it out of the world in
its early childhood._”