God, the creator and Lord of all

Front matter

LIBRARY OF

W. B. MATTESOH.

Cost

Chapter I

I. Its significance as distinguished from current misconceptions.

II. Theological investigation accords with the spirit and teaching of the Bible. III. Essential to the preservation and purity of Christian belief. IV. Essential to the preservation and purity of Christian character and life in the development of the individual and of the kingdom of God. V. Essential to the effective preaching of the gospel. VI. Man’s knowledge of God progressive. VII. Theology to be studied in reference to the questions of the day . 1-43

Chapter II God The Absolute Spirit : Misconceptions Of His Revelation

OF HIMSELF AS SUCH

I. Revelation, belief, reason. II. Nature and the Supernatural.

III. The fundamental reality. IV. Transcendence and immanence.

V. God’s revelation of himself contained in the Bible .... 44-1 1 3

Chapter VIII

THE TRINITY : THE BIBLICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE REVELA¬ TION OF GOD IN CHRIST

I. Christ the Son of Man. II. Pre-existence and humiliation. III. God in Christ. IV. God in the Holy Spirit. V. The one only God, Father, Son or Logos, and Holy Spirit . 294-340

Chapter IX

I. The idea of God. II. Historical confirmation

CONTENTS

IX

Chapter X Pages

I. Christ presents it as central in the organization, worship, and work of his church. II. The Trinity, as revealed in God in Christ recon¬ ciling the world unto himself, gives to Christianity, as revelation, doctrine, and life, its distinctive and essential significance and power.

III. Confirmed by the common and persistent belief in it. IV. His¬ torically associated with the highest spiritual experience and power of the church. V. The denial of the Trinity has disclosed a ten¬ dency to false rationalism. VI. The Christian conception of the Trinity meets spiritual wants disclosed in all religions and realizes ideas which all the ethnic religions have been feeling after.

VII. Truth of the doctrine is independent of philosophical and speculative questions discussed within the church and of the failure to attain agreement in answering them . 366-407

Chapter XI The Trinity : Practical Significance Of The Revelation Of

GOD IN CHRIST

I. Christ the revealer of God. II. God in Christ the reconciler of man to God. III. God in Christ the revealer of man. IV. The unique¬ ness of Christ, the ideal man . 408-462

Chapter XIV

god’s government in its generic significance

I. Definition : God’s action in the evolution of the universe expressing his perfections and progressively realizing the archetypal ideal of all perfection and well-being possible in a finite universe including a moral system of finite rational free agents. II. Classification as providential and moral. III. God’s right to sovereignty as Lord of all. IV. God’s sovereignty both absolute and exercised under law. V. Not the sovereignty of arbitrary will. VI. Submission to Gods sovereignty . .

Chapter XV

god’s PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT : ITS UNIVERSALITY I. Statement of the doctrine. II. Proof of it . 548-568

Chapter XVI Providential Government : Its Relation To Sin

I. God’s purpose of the holy character and actions of his rational creatures positive ; his purpose of sinful character and action nega¬ tive. II. In all his action recorded in the Bible God seeks to prevent sin and to reclaim sinners from it to the life of love .... 5^9“S79

Chapter I

Truth is the intellectual apprehension and expression of realityT] As such it is the light and guide of man in the determinations’ of his will and the regulation of his feelings. Knowledge of reality also excites feeling and is the occasion of directing and exerting the energy in action. Theology is the intellectual apprehension and expression of what God really is in his relations to the uni¬ verse, and especially to man, and of what man and the universe are in their relation to God. It is, therefore, the intellectual element in religion.

The study of theology necessarily begins with ascertaining the grounds or reasons of our belief in the existence of God and the reality of his revelation of himself to men ; a belief spontaneous and inherent in all religions. We find that he exists ; and that he reveals himself in the constitution and evolution of the physi¬ cal universe ; in the constitution and history of man ; and pre¬ eminently in his action redeeming men from sin and developing his kingdom, culminating in the coming of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit as recorded in the Bible. This may be called Fundamental Theology, as being the result of our inves¬ tigation of the fundamental grounds on which our religious belief in God rests. Naturally we inquire next, What can we know of God as thus revealed ? What are his relations to the universe, and pre-eminently to man? What are the relations of the universe,

VOL. I. — I and pre-eminently of man, to him? The result of the action of the human mind attaining and declaring the answers to these ques¬ tions, so far as possible within the limits of the human mind and the extent of God’s revelation of himself, is called Doctrinal T heology, or Theological Doctrine. It is sometimes called Dogmatics and the doctrines, dogmas. But, because these are misleading and opprobrious words denoting formulas of belief prescribed and enforced by authority, they cannot be fairly applied to doc¬ trines which claim assent only as the result of careful investigation and on reasonable evidence. Therefore conformity with truth requires the use of the other designations, Theological Doctrine, or Doctrinal Theology. What is called in the schools Systematic Theology includes both Fundamental Theology and Doctrinal. Because theology in its generic meaning is the product of the human mind ascertaining all that may be known of God through the various - lines of his self-revelation, it must include not only systematic theology, but also the critical, exegetical, and historical study of the Bible, the study of the history of the Christian reli¬ gion and of the kingdom of Christ in its development through the ages, the comparative study of the religions of the world and their sacred books and of the relation of all religions to the history and progress of man, and the study of the practical appli¬ cations of the knowledge of God to the right development of the individual and to the progressive transformation of human society into the kingdom of God. Here is the basis of the several departments of theological study recognized in the schools. They may seem too scholastic, complicated, and far-reaching ro be compatible with “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Ccr. xi. 3). But it is evident, on a moment’s thought, that they are merely the different lines of investigation of what may be known of God through the various lines of the divine action in which he has revealed himself and is evermore revealing himself to men. Since God has given us a revelation of himself so grand and varied, we greatly dishonor him if, so far as we have opportunity, we do not use diligence to ascertain its meaning and its practical applications.

In our theological investigation/ religion with its spontaneous beliefs is presupposed^ In the investigations of theological doctrine to ascertain what we know of God as revealed, we pre¬ suppose also, as already ascertained in our investigations in

Fundamental Theology, the existence of God and the reality of his revelation of himself in the various lines of divine action already mentioned, and pre-eminently in the reality of his revela¬ tion of himself in his action in human history developing his kingdom and culminating in Christ and the Holy Spirit, the God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, as recorded in the Bible ; and continued through all generations in the Holy Spirit. At this point in the progress of our investigations we are not atheists nor disbelievers, but Christian theists. We are to become as little children in order to enter into the kingdom of God (Matth. xviii. 3) . In the same spirit, with teachableness and open¬ ness of mind and willing trustfulness in the divine teaching and leading, we seek to ascertain what God is, what we are and may become in our relations to God, what are our duties and privileges as related to him and our consequent duties to our fellow-men, and what hopes of promoting their perfection and well-being we are justified in cherishing. At the same time, I am sure that the right presentation of what we know of God and of man through God’s various revelations of himself, and pre-eminently through his revelation of himself in Christ, both commends itself to man’s reason, and meets his moral and spiritual needs. The results of God’s revelation of himself in Christ, rightly apprehended and applied in the development of spiritual life, meeting man’s spiritual needs and promoting the progress of man through all the ages since Christ, are decisive proof of the reality of the revelation as the true revelation of God.

Here we meet the objection that religion is not theology, it is life. But life manifests itself in intellectual action as really as in the feelings and in the determinations of the will directing and exerting the energies. And the intellectual apprehension of reality stimulates and guides in every sphere of human action as really as in religion. The danger, therefore, is not in the exercise of the intellect respecting God and his revelations of himself, but in the misuse of it. The danger is twofold. One tendency is to regard truth with merely a speculative interest, dissociating it from its practical applications to conduct and the formation of character. Another tendency is to push inquiries beyond the scope and limits of the human mind, or to insist disproportion¬ ately on the remoter and minor ramifications of thought. In former times these tendencies have been obtrusive in theological thought. In studying the history of the Christian church we are saddened at the waste of intellectual and spiritual power in con¬ troversies on such questions, and often the insistence of each party on the acceptance of its peculiar ramification of doctrine or ritual as a condition of Christian fellowship. In the present reaction from them are indications that thought is swinging to the opposite extreme. The present demand for religious life seems to call for life excluding theological truth, instead of life enlightened, quickened, and guided by it. It seems to overlook the necessity of carefully ascertaining the truth respecting God as he has revealed himself, which is essential alike to the quickening and guiding of right spiritual life.

Froude says : “ Thus the religion of Christ was exchanged for the Christian religion., God gave the gospel; the father of lies invented theology.’ ’ 1 Sentiments of similar import, though not always expressed with the same rudeness, have appeared in popular magazines and newspapers, and have been uttered by Christian ministers. The demand is for “ religion,” “ the Bible,”

“ the gospel,” without theology. Therefore I am constrained to devote this first chapter to the consideration of the real signifi¬ cance and practical importance of theological doctrine or doc¬ trinal theology.

I. We must define doctrinal theology in its true significance in distinction from misconceptions on which the objection is founded.

i. The objection as often presented implies that theological doctrine is essentially dogma and inseparably connected with bigotry and intolerance. The first requisite, therefore, is to define the words. Truth is the correct statement of the intellectual apprehension of reality, whether the reality be a being, a fact, or a rational principle, law, or ideal. Doctrine is what a person believes and teaches as truth. Dogma is a doctrine, not only held for true, but authoritatively declared as true and the belief of it to be enforced by penalties for disbelief ; therefore to be believed in unquestioning obedience to authority and not after free inquiry and conviction in the light of reasonable evidence. Such was the requirement of the church of Rome before the

1 History of England, vol. ix. pp. 304, 305.

Reformation ; and this belief on authority without investigation was commended as faith.

In the history of the Christian church dogmas have been thus imposed with the assumption of authority. The spirit of dogma¬ tism, bigotry, and intolerance has sometimes shown itself even among those who disclaim the infallible authority of the church. It is therefore legitimate to expose and rebuke the error ; but not in so doing to identify theological doctrine with dogma, bigotry, and intolerance.

The object investigated in theological study is not dogmas, nor doctrines, nor even truths, but God himself in his relation to the universe and pre-eminently to man ; and the universe and man in their relation to God. The special object of the distinctively Christian theology is “ God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” So Paul declared, “ I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

It is therefore the object of theology to attain the fullest possi¬ ble knowledge of God through his various lines of revelation, and of the universe and of man as related to him. Though dogma¬ tism, bigotry, and intolerance have been at times historical facts in the history of the church, they are no parts of theology. Chris¬ tian theology does not consist of dogmas declared by authority and enforced by penalties for non-conformity. It consists of doctrines expressing the convictions of prayerful and thoughtful minds, to be received on evidence according as they are found to accord with the principles, laws, and ideals of reason, and with the revelation of God through Christ, the apostles, and prophets, as recorded in the Bible, and to meet the demands of the spiritual life. Theology, therefore, has no essential connection with bigotry, dogmatism, and intolerance. Truth is not responsible for the mistakes arid errors of those who seek it. Comte, in his “ Poli¬ tique Positive,” presented a scheme of social organization under the reign of complete Positivism. A committee of savans were to determine what should be believed as scientific knowledge in every sphere of human thought. Whoever should refuse to be¬ lieve any declaration of this committee must be subjected to pains and penalties, and be no longer tolerated in the commu¬ nity. Hence Professor Huxley described this scheme of polity as Romanism with the religion left out. But we should not be justified, on account of Comte’s error, in identifying all science with dogma, and characterizing all scientists as bigoted and intolerant.

If the doctrines which express the beliefs of men thus attained by prayerful and earnest investigation are to be identified with dogmas, it would logically imply that 3.11 earnest conviction, propa¬ gation, and defence of any truth are inseparable from the spirit of dogmatism, bigotry, and intolerance. It would consign all the great reformers, and all who have died as martyrs in maintenance of truth, to the category of bigoted and intolerant dogmatists. It would be incompatible with the recognition of man as a rational person ; or, if he is such, it would logically imply that the Chris¬ tian religion, and in fact any religion, will not bear the scrutiny of human reason. It even implies that the real knowledge of any truth by man is impossible ; that all the action of the human intellect can attain no more than a Perhaps, and that we are not justified in holding any doctrine as truth with such full conviction as to devote our energies to its defence and propagation. The total result of all the activity of the human intellect would be written in an interrogation point. It is also in contradiction to the fact evident through all history that all ages of reformation and progress have been ages of intense conviction and heroic faith. It is impossible to divorce life from intellectual belief ; and this, when expressed in words, is doctrine. As Phillips Brooks says,

“ No exhortation to a good life that does not put behind it some truth as deep as eternity, can seize and hold the conscience.”

It is sometimes said that any creed of a church is a dogmatic assertion of authority to command belief. But a creed is simply a statement of doctrines held for true by persons united in an asso¬ ciation for a specified purpose. A church declares the Christian belief of its members ; that is, it declares itself to be a Christian church. The one essential criterion of Christian fellowship in the church is credible evidence of Christian character and life. Doc¬ trinal belief constitutes a part of such criterion only so far as it is essential to Christian character. But the simplest possible state¬ ment of what Christian experience and character are, involves a very considerable amount of Christian doctrine. It involves, for example, belief in God and knowledge of what he is and of his relations to man, the possibility of trusting and obeying him, ob¬ taining his favor, communing with him in worship, the Christian law of love, and many other Christian doctrines, Recognition of common belief and purpose is essential in every voluntary asso¬ ciation, and none are admitted who do not concur in the prin¬ ciples and objects of the association. No one ever supposes that in so doing the association acts in the spirit of dogmatism, bigotry, and intolerance.

No more is the church subject to this reproach for exercising the same right. If it may not exercise this right, then it cannot recognize any doctrine or character distinctively and essentially characteristic of a Christian, nor the kingdom of God as charac¬ teristically distinct from the world that lieth in wickedness. Then no persons may unite in any association as Christians, and no Christian church may exist. Then, because man is naturally an organizer and cannot attain his normal development and power in isolated individuality, Christians, forbidden to unite in any dis¬ tinctively Christian organization, are not allowed to attain their full development in Christian character and their greatest effi¬ ciency in Christian work.

It must also be remembered that a church has no authority to punish for wrong belief or for lack of credible evidence of Chris¬ tian character. A church has the power of the keys, — that is, the right to admit to Christian fellowship or to exclude from it (Matth. xvi. 19), — but it has not the power of the sword. The State has the power of the sword, but not the power of the keys (Rom. xiii. 4). The State has no right to determine the question of Christian fellowship, or to control the church in so doing.

2. Theology is also charged with wasting mental energy in endless definitions and distinctions, in pushing inquiry beyond the limits of the human mind, and in discussing needless questions of metaphysics and casuistry. It is a fact that instances of this have often been found in the history of thought on theological doc¬ trines. But it is an abuse of theological thought, not its legiti¬ mate use nor the result of its essential tendency. Perhaps the most remarkable example of it in history is the literalism and casuistry of the Jewish rabbis. Their studies in casuistry and their hair-splitting reasoning about words made the study of the law exceedingly intricate and difficult. Edersheim says : “ Ter¬ rible as it may sound, it is certainly the teaching of Rabbinism that God occupies so many hours every day in the study of the law. ... It speaks of the Almighty occupying himself by day with the study of the Old Testament scriptures, and by night with that of the six tractates of* the Mishna.” He says that a teacher named Rabbah attained so great a reputation as an interpreter of the law, that, when a discussion on purity had arisen in the heavenly academy, Rabbah was summoned from the earth to attest the correctness of God’s opinion on the question under discussion.1 The inference naturally followed that the highest possible merit was attained in the study of the Halacha, the record of rabbinical discussions and decisions in the interpretation of the law. Devoting themselves to this line of study, with its end¬ lessly ramifying definitions and distinctions, they became interested and absorbed in it, so as even to imagine that it constituted the employment and blessedness of the saints in heaven, and of God himself. Their minds became so microscopic that they were unable to appreciate the greatness of God and the grandeur of his service, and of the character developed in the life of universal love. Hence the contemptuous saying of the Pharisees, “ This multitude (crowd, populace) that know not the law are accursed (John vii. 49).

Another result of this word-mongering of the Jewish rabbis was that, in the intricacy of quibbling questions of casuistry, the law in its essence was lost from sight. In building their hedge about the law they hid the law of love itself and made it inaccessible and ineffectual within the thorny hedge. A rabbi, being asked by one of his pupils, Which is the great commandment in the law? re¬ plied, “ The law of tassels. So do I esteem this law that once, when, ascending a ladder, I chanced to tread on the fringe of my garment, I would not move from the spot till the rent was re¬ paired.” Thus the rabbinical literalism belittled the law, obscured or entirely hid its essential significance as the law of love to God and man, and frittered its requirement into the blinding dust of external conventionalisms and mannerisms, instead of the life of righteousness and good-will manifested in loving trust in God and works of loving service to God and man.

A similar tendency has sometimes appeared in various forms in the Christian church. It has appeared as a tendency to undue inquisitiveness into the mysteries of Cmd ; and to excessive defi¬ nition and explication in answering all questions which ramify in every direction and as far as thought can reach, and into the utmost fineness into which thought can be split or attenuated, and

1 Edersheim, “ Life of Christ,” vol. i. pp. 144, 106, 93.

serving no purpose but to illustrate the infinite divisibility of thought. This reached its most remarkable manifestation in the scholasticism of the middle ages, with its entities, quiddities, relativities, formal causes, Johannities and Petreities. Of this Erasmus writes, “ Theology is the mother of sciences. . . . The¬ ology itself I reverence and have always reverenced. I am speak¬ ing merely of the theologasters of our own time. . . . Let us have done with theological refinements. There is an excuse for the fathers, because the heretics forced them to define particular points ; but every definition is a misfortune ; and for us to perse¬ vere in the same way is sheer folly. . . . Necessity first brought articles upon us, and ever since we have refined and refined till Christianity has become a thing of words and creeds. / Articles increase, sincerity vanishes ; contention grows hot and charity grows cold. /Then comes in the civil power with stake and gal¬ lows, and men are forced to profess what they do not believe, to pretend to love what in fact they hate, and to say they understand what in fact has no meaning to them.” He refers to the legend of Epimenides that, getting lost, he wandered into a cave. There seating himself, and biting his nails and thinking of his many defi¬ nitions and distinctions, he fell asleep and slept forty-seven years. Erasmus adds, “ Happy Epimenides, that he waked at last ! Some divines never wake at all, and fancy themselves most alive when their slumber is deepest.” 1 In the time of Alexander of Hales, the Doctor Irreffragabilis , also called Fans Vitae, it was debated whether the angels had a higher degree of intelligence early in the morning or late in the evening. “ Gulielmus Parisiensis found on computation that there are 44,435,556 devils.” “ John Weir, a physician of Cleves, published in 1576 a volume of some 1,000 folio pages. He makes 72 princes of devils, with 7,405,926 subjects.” 2

But all this was an abuse of theological thought. It is no argument against its use in prayerful and careful investigation of what can be known of God in the varied lines of his revelation of himself. The erroneous theology of the middle ages is no more an argument against theology than the medieval astrology is an argument against modern astronomy or the medieval alchemy against modern chemistry. It did not pass without censure even

2 James Mew, “Nineteenth Century,” November, 1891, p. 727.

Ji t

IO GOD, THE ONE ONLY ABSOLUTE SPIRIT

at the time. Bernard of fclairvaux said of Abelard, in rebuke of his rationalistic inquisitiveness, that “ he thrust his head into heaven and scrutinized the deep things of God.” Another saint says that he saw in a dream or vision an honored Doctor of Theology with a measuring line in his hand trying to ascertain the exact height and width of the gate of heaven. Another rebukes some theologians of his time for their refined definitions of the eternal generation of the Son of God, “ quasi ipsi obstetricaverint.” The Reformation was in part a protest against the word-weariness engendered by such scholastic discussions. But even in the reformed churches the tendency to excessive re¬ finement in definition and in answer to needless questions has not entirely ceased. But its continuance, though with abated force, is no reason for any valid argument against theology. It is not a tendency essential to theology ; but is merely incidental to the limitations of the finite mind. Many theologians deprecate it, and it is gradually passing away in the progress of theological knowledge.

3. Occasion for misconception of theology and objection against it has been given also in the fact that there has appeared in the church a tendency to a false literalism and a disintegrating verbal interpretation. This arises from the error of regarding the Bible as a mere book-revelation, a book of sentences, an arsenal of proof-texts, each dictated by God and declaring a truth or rule of life for all persons in all places and all times. Thus the Bible is disintegrated into texts. It is searched through and through for isolated proof-texts, to be used in proving a doctrine or justifying or enjoining a practice. Irenaeus rebukes this tendency and compares this atomistic use of proof-texts to the breaking-up of the mosaic of a king made with jewels by a skilful artist, and forming, by rearranging the jewels, the image of a dog or fox, and then trying to persuade men that this miserable likeness is the true image of the king, by pointing to the jewels as real jewels.1 This has been accompanied with a tendency to use each text in its literal meaning, isolated from its connection, as a universal truth or law. Sisinnius, a bishop of the Novatians in Constan¬ tinople, was in the habit of wearing white garments. On a visit to Arsacius he was asked why he wore a garment so unsuitable for a bishop, and where it was required in the Bible. He replied,

1 Against Heresies, Book I. chap. viii. 1.

THE INTELLECTUAL ELEMENT ’IN RELIGION II

“ Solomon is my authority, whose command is, ‘ Let thy garments be always white ’ (Eccles. ix. 8) ; and at the transfiguration our Saviour’s garments were white as the light.” 1 An instance of disintegrating literalism is related by Dr. James Freeman Clarke in 1869 : “ In the evening I went to a church and heard a dis¬ course on, * Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.’ The preacher argued that Solomon must have known the circulation of blood, and hence the Bible was inspired. He said also that Job must have known that the solar system is moving toward the Pleiades when he said, ‘ Canst thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades?’”2 3 Cardinal Newman in his earlier life seemed inclined to a similar literalism. Before he united with the Catholic Church he appears to have regarded a life of celibacy as obligatory. He inferred this from the words of Paul (1 Cor. vii.). In this chapter Paul fully approves marriage. But because it was a time of persecution and distress he expresses the opinion that “ by reason of the present distress ” it is well for a Christian to remain unmarried ; he explicitly says that on this point he has no commandment from the Lord, but simply gives his own judgment. But Newman insisted that this is a rule for all and for all time. He said, “ If the present distress does not denote the ordinary state of the church, the New Testament is scarcely written for us, but must be remodelled before it can apply.” Interpretations like these are of the same type with a rabbinical interpretation of the words of a psalm, “ Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord ” (Ps. cxxx. 1) ; “ there¬ fore it is good to pray from a low place, not from a high place.”

This tendency to disintegrate the Bible into isolated texts manifests itself also in the impression that some distinctively evangelical and spiritual instruction must be found in every isolated verse. Rev. Dr. Ewer says : “ Who is that of whom it is said, ‘ Lo, we heard of the same at Ephrata and found it in the wood,’ but He of whom the shepherds heard at Bethlehem- Ephrata, and whom all sinners find on the wood of the Holy Cross? And what were those two sticks which the widow of Zarephath gathered on which to bake her bread but the two

1 Socrates, “ Ecclesiastical History,” Book vi. chap. xxii.

2 His Life, by E. E. Hale.

3 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, in “Contemporary Review,” Jan. 1891, p. 45.