The religion of the incarnation; short practical papers on doctrinal subjects

Front matter

Book

Cc5^Tight]\°-

COPYRfGHT DEPOSIT.

Preface

THE papers here brought together were, most of them, prepared as addresses to adult Confirmation classes. They are intended to be popular and untechnieal expositions of the Church's teaching of the doctrines of Christianity — not too simple and popular, however, for they were addressed to men and women who were willing to do some thinking for themselves.

The writer believes that doctrinal teaching can be made both interesting and helpful. Whether he himself has succeeded in making it so, he cannot tell; but he has tried, at any rate.

Two thoughts run through the papers, thoughts which were always in the mind of the writer, though not always directly expressed:

(1) That every doctrine of Christianity has its bearing on life, and is to be preached and taught because of this its practical value. It is worse than useless to lecture on dogma, if any suspicion exists in the minds of the hearers that the doctrine is a mere shibboleth or is in any way divorced from life. But if every article of the Creeds affects our attitude towards God and the world, and so influences our daily conduct.

viii THE RELIGION OF THE INCARNATION.

a right understanding of tlie doctrine is of inestimable importance, because right belief means right living. In these papers, creed and conduct go hand in hand.

(2) Of all doctrines, the truth of the Incarnation, as the foundation stone of the Christian faith, is most full of practical value. It will explain and illumine many other mysteries, and will always give a clue to the solution of the problems and difficulties of our modern religious life.

The book is published in the hope that it may prove suggestive in the preparation of Confirmation classes, either as a basis for the instructions or in private study by those who are unable to come to the general class meetings.

It would be impossible to note at every turn one's indebtedness to others in the preparation of such papers as these; but the author wishes especially to thank two former members of the faculty of the General Theological Seminary, Dr. Cady and Dr. Walpole, for whose inspiring teaching he is glad to record his gratitude here.

Contents

CHAPTER. PAGE.

I. — Creed and Conduct - - i

II. — Why I Believe in God 7

I. Creed And Conduct

THESE papers will deal with some of the doctrines of Christianity. Do not close the book at once and throw it aside^ as soon as yon have read that sentence. There will be people who find themselves tempted to do that. "Doctrine they will exclaim^ indignantly and impatiently. "We want none of it. It is enough for ns that a man is trying to live a good life^ no matter what his belief may be — at leasts it is enough if he believes in Jesus Christ as our example of all that is best and truest in human living. Let us have more of the simple faith of the Gospel^ and less of the barren dogmas of the Church. This age is impatient of doctrine^ and rightly so; it demands conduct, character, life. Dogmas are of no conceivable use for the plain, every-day man in the street, battling with the problems and temptations that surround him; if you are going to insist on doctrine, you will be putting a stumbling-block

2 THE RELIGIOJsT OF THE INCARNATION.

in the way of most of iis. After all^ the only right Christian standard is that which is based solely on conduct/**

Yes — bnt suppose we regard the doctrines of Christianity as a deposit of trnth^ committed by God to the Churches care as a sacred trust. Is truth of no value? And have we any right to pick and choose what we will accept^ without asking whether or not the rest may tell ns something we onght to know abont God^ or ourselves^ or the world? And suppose that when we teach dogma we do so because we think that what a man believes is as important as what he does^ just because as a rule what he does will depend on what he believes. Suppose^ in other words^ that it can be shown that doctrine is of value; that one cannot divorce creed and character; that the Christian character is really the outcome of the Christian creed; and that if we surrender the creed^ with its insistence upon the facts of our Lord^s life^ by and bye we shall lose the character which sprang out of it — then would you call it narrow and illiberal to guard with the closest jealousy every element of that truth which leads to salvation ?

And^ then^ luhat are dogmas? It is always well to define terms — What, then, are Christian dogmas? Why, simply the logical statement of Christian facts. We take for granted that most of those who object to doctrine are believers in Jesus Christ, that they accept Christ as their Saviour. Let us start there. J esus Christ is our Saviour. Well, then, who was He ? What was He? Where are we to learn about Him?

CREED AND CONDUCT.

How does He bring us the life eternal ? How are we to keep it? How does He save us^ and how and where are we to receive the benefit of the work He has done for ns? These and a hT;indred other questions spring np at once^ and Christian dogmas are nothing more nor less than the answers to snch questions.

It is quite true that ^^the important thing is to follow Christy even though one cannot adequately define Him/^^ But it is also true that we have a greater incentive to follow Him if we have reached the higher conception of His Person. And it is equally evident that one who is intensely alive to the meaning of Christ^s life for his own soul cannot rest satisfied until he has learned all that can be known about the Master — what were His relations to the Father whom He came to reveal ; on what His authority is grounded ; why He may demand our allegiance and our love; whether or not He is an infallible guide. We must not think that Christian faith is simply the ability to declare our conviction that Jesus is divine; we are not merely to name His Name^ we are to do His will^ walk in His steps^, commit our souls to His keeping. Yet^ if we are to do this, it is inevitable that we ask, ^*^Why must I do it ? Who is this Master And the kind of obedience we render, and the character of our imitation of His life, will depend on how we answer those questions.

We emphasize doctrine, then, first, because we

^ Peabody : *'Jesus Christ and the Social Question."

cannot ask the simplest questions about Christianity without doing so : and second^ because this being the fact^ the more we know of the doctrines of the Church the more shall we know of Christy and receiving in its fulness the truth about Him^ we shall receive that which will make our life richer and stronger and fuller. If we were to teach doctrine as a mere shibboleth^ excluding all who cannot frame to pronounce some test word aright^ men could not condemn us too strongly; dogma divorced from life would be useless — worse than useless. But if the doctrines of Christianity are simply the logical expression of its facts^ we cannot be rid of creeds^ even if we would.

Stop to think of it a moment^ and it will be plain that every doctrine of the Creed has its influence on conduct. Our whole thought of the purpose of life depends on our grasp of these spiritual realities. The conception of God as a moral governor is that which gives us a moral standard of action. The conception of a Future Life gives us support in all our perplexities^ for by it we are led to believe that we see only a fragment of a vast scheme^ and that injustice, oppression^ pain^ and sorrow will be remedied in the world that is to come. The conception of the Incarnation teaches us to recognize a new and ineffaceable relation between man and man, for if Christ took upon Him our human nature, every man, white or black, good or bad, saint or sinner, has in him some likeness to Christ and is not to be neglected or despised. The conception of the Trinity tells us that

CREED AND CONDUCT.

subordination is consistent with equality^ and that it is the glory of the Triune God to be one a moral living for and in each other^ in a mutual devotion such as serves as an example for men/^' The conception of the Atonement declares to us the conquest of evil through suffering, tells us of a Christ crucified through weakness but living through the power of God, and therefore shows us the need of self-sacrifice, the moral beauty of a life given for others. The conception of the Eesurrection makes every part of life important; teaching, as it does, the resurrection of the flesh, it impresses on us the sacredness of our bodies as well as of our souls.

So patient investigation will show that no doctrine — if it be rightly maintained — is without a bearing on conduct. False and imperfect doctrines will and must result in lives faulty and maimed, which might have been noble and complete. The full Church doctrine produces a full moral life. It is, if it be translated into action, an inexhaustible spring of strength, though if it be held merely as an intellectual notion it will bring a complete paralysis of moral force. Dogma is necessary, then, because dogma rightly applied is life.

After all, perhaps it is not so much the preaching of dogma men object to, as it is the exaggerated dogmatic spirit. There is a difference between dogma and dogmatism — the one broad, sane, reasonable, insisted on as the only safe foundation of helpful,

2 Mason : "The Faith of the Gospel,"

6 THE EELIGION OF THE INCARNATION.

warm-hearted service for God and men; the other narrow and sectarian^ often distorting the truth by nndnly emphasizing some one principle of the faith at the expense of much else that is equally true and important. It is dogmatism that arouses opposition and dislike — that fashion of presenting doctrine with sledge-hammer blowS;, or cramming it down men^s throatS;, or insisting upon it for its own sake with little or no effort to prove its necessity or its usefulness. Happily^, it is the glory of our own American Episcopal Church that she is free from this sectarian spirit^ declaring only what is fundamental and allowing a large liberty in all else. ^^In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.^^ It is in this spirit that we are to examine some of the chief doctrines of Christianity — hoping thus to give a reason for the faith that is in us^ establishing the grounds of our belief; and hoping also to show that in the full acceptance of these truths lie the richest possibilities of life.

II. Why I Believe In God

AN" incident is related of a certain eminent astronomer which shows how men^ in the name of reason^ are guilty often of the most irrational conduct. The great scientist had a friend who strenuously denied the existence and power of God. The astronomer had with much care constructed a concave in miniature^ upon which he represented all the planets and stars in their places^ together with their evolutions and courses. One day this friend came to see him^ and noticing the ingenious piece of work, asked, '^o made that?''

^^Who made it repeated the astronomer ; ^ Vhy, nobody ; it came by chance.''

^^Nonsense/' said his friend; ^^really, who made it?"

^*^N"obody/' came the reply again, "it came by chance, I tell you."

"Don't be absurd," was now the response, in irritation. "Someone must have made it. Why don't you tell me who it was ?"

Then the astronomer^ turning to his friend^ said: ^^This poor miniature ^hich I have made to represent what God has created in the nniverse yon say cannot have arisen from an irresponsible canse ; and yet yon tell me that the wonderful and mighty works around and above us are a mere fortuitous combination of atoms. HoTT do you explain your inconsistency?^^

The anecdote will illustrate one of the arguments that convince us of the existence of a supreme Creator and Euler of the universe. Every effect must have had an adequate cause^ and every design must have had a designer. TTere I to find a watch^ wonderfully calculated to fulfil the evident purpose of its manufacture^ it would be absurd for me to suppose^ just because I could not see the maker of it^ that it came into existence by a mere chance, that somehow the various parts accidentally fell together and fitted into each other with perfect correspondence, and by a fortunate coincidence were able to mark the passage of time. Seeing the watch, noticing the evident design in its various parts^ and observing the precision with which the mechanism does the thing it was manifestly intended to do. I cannot but say^ Surely this thing had a maker. It is not by a luckj^ chance that the parts have come together and can do what I see them doing; someone designed it to do this ; someone made it so that it would accomplish that for which it was designed. In other words^ when I see a watch I know that there must have been a watchmaker.

N"ow^ in something the same way, when I look at

WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD.

the world about me^ when I see its manifold harmony of design^ when I realize how perfectly it fulfils that design^ I say again^, This also must have had a Maker; some One must have brought it into being; some One must be responsible for all its wonderful perfection of movement^ its correspondence of part with part^ its harmony of action with action.

If I am impelled to this belief when I think of the universe as a whole^ much more am I forced to it when I examine in detail some one of its myriads of marvels. Take^ for example^ the human eye. Could anything be more exactly fitted to fulfil the function of sight ? Think for a moment of the retina^ which receives the impressions from without. It is made up of numerous tissues^ forming a sort of mosaic^ one square inch of which receives twenty million impressions^ while sixty million millions of light vibrations enter into it every second of time. Each ray must act upon but one part of the retina, for unless there were some such special arrangement there would be no image formed, any more than the light entering through an open window forms a picture. Think, again, of the functions of the cornea, or of the aqueous and vitreous humors, or notice the external parts of the organ: the eyebrows are sponges which catch the moisture and dust from the forehead; the eyelids are a protection against hostile matter; the lashes are fans, to keep away dirt and insects. And where was the eye made ? when ? how ? It was formed in the maternal womb, long before it could be put to use, wholly separated by solid barriers from the

10 THE EELIGIOX OF THE IXCARXATIOX.

external world. "Witliout those walls was light : within was forming an organ to perceive the light. It is as if in a dark cellar a blind workman should fashion a key to a com^Dlicated lock outside. Xow consider that the eye is but one of a million wonderful things that go to make tip this wonderful world, and you will see why we are compelled to believe that the universe did not come by chance : it was designed and created, and its Creator must be an intelligent Being, of infinite wisdom and power.

Xor must it be supposed that such scientific theories as. for instance, the Darwinian theory of evolution, would invalidate this argument. For Darwinism is merely an explanation of hov: things became what they are. not necessarily a denial that there is a God who gave them their origin, and made them capable of progressing from a simple beginning into a richer, fuller harmony and growth.

The word evolution means an ^^unfolding.*^ and the evolutionary theory tells how different forms of animal and vegetable life have come from other forms already in existence. We are not told, however, anything about the original germ of matter from which these various forms have been evolved. There must have been some bit of protoplasm to begin with, and it must have been endued with life or it could not have developed into all its succeeding forms. How. then, did that speck of protoplasm come into being ? Whence came the life energy which has since been displayed in the things that have come from it ? If God created the original germ and gave it the

WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD.

spark of life, He is the Creator of everything that has sprung out of it, no matter how the process of development was carried on, or what forces have affected succeeding forms of life that are traced back to this original. Evolutionists themselves will grant this. Herbert Spencer, for example, says that we know nothing of the beginning of the universe, and that '^'^the production of matter out of nothing is the real mystery.^^^ Darwin, too, has placed on record in his Life and Letters his belief that ^^the theory of evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God.^^* Asa Gray, the great botanist, spoke of himself as ^^one who is scientifically, and in his own fashion, a Darwinian, philosophically a convinced theist, and religiously an accepter of the creed commonly called the Nicene as the expression of the Christian faith.^^

Let us take an example to show the reasonableness of this position. We have just used as an illustration of God^s wonderful power the existence of the human eye. If now it is discovered that this marvellous sight-mechanism was not formed with all its present properties, but was originally a membrane so made that it has developed into an eye, does that make the old argument antiquated and obsolete? Not at all — the wonder seems even greater when we ask. What must He be who could endow a simple membrane with such possibilities of change? Is Paley's old example of design in the watch (which we used

3 "First Principles," p. 34.

* "Life and Letters," vol. i., p. 307.

above) any the less valid^ if we discover that instead of being made at once and coming from the hand of the manufacturer^ the Tvatch was but a bit of steel which the maker endowed tvith such properties that in time it was bound to grow into a watchf An(J God^ moreover^ not merely gave the original impulse^ but was active in the work throughout its whole progress — a Creator who works from end to end in His creation^ and in every step of the onward progress shows His presence in the design and purpose everywhere manifested. Mysteries only multiply if we try to conceive of a Creator who works in this fashion, quietly, slowly, and unseen.

Speaking of the mystery of the Godhead, one is reminded of the argument from the beauty as well as the utility of this world of ours. Beauty, like truth, is a reality outside of ourselves. It must have its seat somewhere — and the existence of relative beauty here implies perfect beauty in Him who made this earthly splendor. Finite beauty implies infinite beauty; the beautiful landscape, cloud, sunset, face, figure, are but drops in the great ocean of beauty. Once more, beauty has a strange, mystic power; we cannot explain it, nobody can explain it. And so it prepares us for the profound mysteriousness of God, from whom all beauty comes. Clouds and darkness are round about Him. With God, and the thoughts of God, there is always for us an inherent, unfathomable, spirit-stirring mystery.

If the world that lies about us, in its usefulness and its aesthetic charm, tells us of a Creator, of

WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD.

infinite wisdom^ boundless power, and deepest mystery, the world that lies within ns tells of the personal existence and moral grandeur of this infinite Creator. When I look within, at myself, I know that I am a person, a being with a separate existence ; I am myself, and am quite distinct from all that lies outside of this self. And, moreover, I am a person who distinguishes between right and wrong ; I have an innate sense of goodness; I know that there is righteousness and unrighteousness, and I know that I am a free moral being who can choose between them. There is no force upon earth superior to human personality; and because this is so I know that in God must be found something to correspond to personality in myself, or else God is not Almighty; man is greater than He. To put it briefly, because / am a person I know that God must be a Person as well. He who created cannot ie less than the infinite expression of His own creation, and because I am what I am, God must be something like me, only in Him the likeness is carried to perfection.

Personality in God does not mean that He is a sort of enlarged man, as some people in their crude way seem to think ; it means rather, that God is more than mere energy or force ; He is a Being, who thinks, plans, wills, and acts — a Being who can be known as well as a Presence to be felt. The personality of God is of the very essence of religion ; for if He were nothing more than an impersonal energy, I could not pray to Him, I could not obey Him, I could not love Him ;

we cannot love^ obey^ pray to that which is only a neuter pronoun — It.

For these reasons^ then^ I believe in God. I believe He made the world and all that is therein; it must have come from some hand^ and I believe it came from His. I believe that He is a Person^ because I know that I am^ and He is infinitely greater than I. I believe He is a Moral Being, because He gave me my sense of morality. I believe in God^ and I cannot get away from this belief. The world within and the world without, the voice of conscience and the voice of nature^ tell me that there is one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

III. The Holy Trinity

MOST people seem to think that when they have learned to believe in the existence of God^ the Christian doctrine of the Trinity comes as an additional demand on their faith. They regard it as comparatively simple to believe in a Supreme Being, bnt when they are asked to believe that in the unity of the Godhead there are three Divine Persons, they regard this as a new burden on an already overburdened creed.

As a matter of fact, however, it is exceedingly difficult for the human reason, in any case, to gain a satisfactory conception of the inner life, the essence of the Godhead — the thought is one beyond the grasp of finite intelligence. We see this the moment we think of any of God^s attributes. What can we understand, for example, of His self-existence, a life without source or origin, a great First Cause? Or try to conceive of His eternity, without beginning of days or end of years ; or of His omnipotence, a power which is almighty, yet exercised in accordance with definite laws and subject to moral limitations; or of His omnipresence^ by which we mean not simply that His influence is everywhere felt^ but that He Himself is in every part of His universe^ that all of God^ so to speak^ is everywhere at one and the same time ; or of His omniscience^ including in tliis the thought of God's foreknowledge and man's free will.

The idea of God^ then^ whether as Trinity or Unity^ is utterly beyond our comprehension. Yet, while this is true, it may be possible here to show that it is far easier to believe in God as Three Persons than to accept the Unitarian conception of the deity as a monad. Before we touch upon that, though, it may be well to call attention to some hints in nature, which prepare us for the Trinitarian conception — not that these could ever have taught us the truth about God, had it not been fully revealed by Christ; but such types and figures will prepare us for the substance and reality, of which they are but shadows.

An illustration of the Trinity, poor and weak, indeed, but an illustration, nevertheless, is found in the sunbeam. It is absolutely one — we call it a beam of light — and yet in that unity there are three entities, light and heat and actinism. They exist together, yet they are three. They are properties that can be distinguished, yet they are one. All of the sunbeam is light, all is heat, all is chemical action, and yet there are not three sunbeams, but one. Another imperfect illustration of the doctrine is the human soul. It has three functions, knowing, feel-

THE HOLY TRINITY.

ing, willing. We cannot exercise these functions apart. We cannot know a thing without having some feeling or desire about it^ however slight^ or without acting, or declining to take action, in accordance with the desire. We cannot act about a thing, without the wish preceding the act; we cannot have the wish without some previous knowledge of the thing. The human soul is absolutely one, and yet it is threefold. And since man is made in the image of God, we need not be surprised when Scripture tells us that something of the same kind, though higher and more mysterious, is true of God.

The mysteries of nature, too, may prepare us for the mystery of God^s existence. Here we have on our side so good an authority as the great scientist Huxley himself, who, though he was not a believer in theism or in Christianity, based his position purely on the question of evidence and not on the difficulty of the revelation. On this very subject, in a letter to Canon (now Bishop) Gore,^ some years ago, he said: "I have not the slightest objection to offer a priori [that is, on grounds of reason] to all the propositions of the three creeds of Christendom. The mysteries of the Church are child^s play compared with the mysteries of Nature. The doctrine of the Trinity is not more puzzling than the necessary antinomies [that is, contradictions] of physical speculation.^^

In other words, as Bishop Gore says in commenting on the letter, a man like Huxley would recognize

^ Quoted in Bampton Lectures for 1891, p. 266.

IS THE EELIGIOX OF THE IXCARXATIOX.

that liiiman tliougiit may well find itself baffled to conceive about Tvliat it still must believe. As an example, tto are given what scientific writers tell us about the ether which is the vehicle of heat and light. This ether is described for us by physicists as diffused through all space: but though it is ever^wrhere it cannot be discovered anywhere, and when its properties are examined it seems to be at once a solid and a fluid. This is mysterious indeed, and passes our limited power of imagination, but nevertheless it appears to be true and is regarded as true by the scientific world. One who finds it difficult to conceive of a Trinity in unity might well approach the subject, then, by thinking first of the mysteries of nature and so preparing liimself for the mysteries of the faith. Or he might contemplate his own being — how '^•fearfully and wonderfully'* he is made — lest he grow impatient at understanding so little of the infinite.

It was said just now that it is easier to believe in God as three Persons than as one. Try to think it out. for example, in connection with the very idea of personality. TVe know that God has personality, because He cannot be less than we are. whom He created — and personality is our greatest attribute. Whatever we mean by the personality of God is infinitely higher than what we mean by personality in men — but it is something that must run on similar lines, so to speak. How. them could there be the fullest and most complete personality in God if He were a lone and solitary unit, without anything corresponding to personal communion and intercourse ? Imagine

THE HOLY TRINITY.

a God^ seated alone in desolate grandenr; and then think of the Christian conception of God^ in the relation of Father, Son, and Spirit, showing perfection of life, fulness of movement, intercourse, action, reciprocal love — and you will see what we mean by saying that such a God is easier to conceive of than the cold unit of those who reject Trinitarian teaching. As a matter of fact. Unitarians hesitate at the conception of God prior to the creation of the world, because of these very difficulties.

Or take the thought of God as love. If He is love, there must be something on which He is to expend His love. What or whom did He love, then, before the creation of the world? Was His love infinitely expended upon Himself? We cannot but feel that such a thought is shocking to our best instincts — a monstrous selfishness is the only picture the language suggests. But if, on the other hand, there are difl^erent Persons in the Godhead, then one Divine Person may lavish the infinite wealth of His love upon another Divine Person who is infinitely worthy to receive and return it, and we have a picture of God as perfect love, love in Himself, as of the very essence of His being, and apart from any relations with a created world.