Bishop Foster's heresy

II I ■ ■ I I

BISHOP FOSTER'S

HERESY.

BY

V

REV. JAMES E. LAKE, B. D.,

THE NEW JERSEY CONf

BORDENTOWN, N. J. 1889.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S89,

By JAMES E. LAKE,

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.

washington

GAZETTE PRESS, CAMDEN, N. J.

Introduction

BY A METHODIST MINISTER OF MANY YEARS.

I want to say my best word for this book. It deserves it well, and it deserves a better and more powerful word in its commendation than I am able to utter ; and that, too, will come in its time. It is a book for the hour, because it is born of the hour in conjunction with the eternal. It is the expression, true and earnest, of the heart and intellect of orthodoxy in response to the oppositions of science, falsely so called. Hence it must reverberate with welcome force through the church.

An undeveloped philosophy mixed with revelation, makes a hybrid monster, proclaimed as the legitimate issue of advanced religious thought. Such appears the dualism of mind and matter applied by Bishop Foster to the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. Nothing could be more incoherent or more unscriptural. Against it this book strikes the keynote of the old and tried orthodoxy.

Its argument from Scripture is clear as crystal, and stronger than links of steel. This is the supreme argument for the faithful, who believe in the infallible authority of the Bible, as the Word of God, which is the undisputed doctrine of the Methodist Church, and which we suppose is the doctrine of Dr. Foster as one of the Bishops of that church. Any other interpretation of Scripture than that of this book is harsh and violent ; and, besides, this only has the support of all creeds called orthodox. To the law and the testimony is the first and final appeal of the true believer ; and it is here all the more important because in the book here criticised Bishop Foster virtually ignores Scripture by leaving it unconsidered, and delivers as final and Christian what appears to him to be philosophical, and because it so appears to his understanding. Let, then, the reader faithfully test " Beyond the Grave" by the sacred word as here expounded in reference to it. Yet the exposition is not anything new, and does not claim to be. The very force of the argument is that it is old as the Bible and Christian interpretation thereof.

Equally clear and cogent is the consensus of the creeds of the churches and the utterances of all the great preachers and divines, who hold to the head, even Christ.

Our author is also philosophical, in the main, in his psychological analysis, in which he expounds the conscious unity of body and mind. If ever there was anything in the sphere of philosophical speculation, which above all things deserves to be emphatically stigmatized as pre-eminently mere drivel, it is the assumption of an absolute gulf of contrast between body and mind, or matter and spirit, which is the avowed foundation of Bishop Foster's questionable speculations and conclusions.

This assumption is utterly alien to Scripture. It is true the Scriptures make an important distinction between flesh and blood and spirit Matter, in the form of flesh and blood and bones, constituting our present corruptible bodies, is vastly different from the supersensible, spiritual and immortal forms of our life and being. But that is a very different thing from contrasting matter and spirit, per se ; which the Scriptures never do, unless it be in the passages in which they speak of God as a spirit pure and simple.

This assumption and all the doubtful speculations of " Beyond the Grave " have but one foundation, the much lauded and superficial " philosophy of common sense," thrown up by Reid and Beattie as a barrier against the skepticism of Hume, a philosophy so-called which is despised by all the Germans, and by all philosophically developed minds everywhere ; who, since the time of Descartes, have discerned and maintained that all that we know of our body and mind is known as a conscious unity. There is, therefore, no justification either in Scripture or philosophy for the contempt of matter so prevalent in some quarters, and so conspicuous in " Beyond the Grave." Matter has its place as God's creature. By its eternal Creator it is made for immortality as all his creations may reasonably be supposed to be.

For rhetorical effectiveness matter and our body may be called the scaffolding of the spirit. But this body is composed of material which will never perish. It will be a scaffold forever, though not in the same crude form, and for the same crude form or style of spiritual building. It will be elevated into the spirit rank, and become the scaffold of a correspondingly higher order of spiritual building; the glorified spiritual organization of the glorified spirit.

But while the term scaffold may be allowed as an expression to designate the body in relation to the spirit as supersensible, yet like all analogies it must be limited. " Parables must not go on all fours." Our body is not a mere scaffold; far from it. It is vastly more.

A mere scaffold is always rude and rough, without polish and art. The rougher and less costly the material, the better, as it cheapens the work of the building, and so allows the more of beauty to be put on the building. The builder never cares about the looks of his scaffolding, but only for its strength and availability. Far different is it with the human body in relation to the supersensible spirit. Infinite pains have been bestowed on this sensible element of our being. As a mechanism it has always been the admiration of all human intelligence ; and in its better forms and expressions and action, it is a thing of inexpressible beauty and loveliness ; and the beauty and loveliness are not a mere accident, but clearly intrinsic to the structure and design of the Maker. Further, the beauty conferred on the body does not so far exhaust or consume the resources which otherwise might be expended on the soul, the figurative building ; but, on the contrary, it often helps the spirit and beautifies it, and always will where the spirit is not perverse.

It is true that this sensible beauty may, in a large degree, be attributed to the supersensible beauty of the spirit, which shows itself through the face. But dead forms are beautiful, and beauty is stamped on nearly all natural things, the inanimate and inorganic. This fact is made one of the conspicuous arguments of " Natural Theology " in favor of the divine goodness. The exanimate human form usually retains its beauty so long as it is unmarred by the process of dissolution. Thus the beauty of the organism remains so long as it is an organism incorrupt and undecayed.

Further, the scaffolding has no office or function in relation to a building as a building in use ; but only for what is not yet really a building, but only an approximation to a building, which is certainly not descriptive of all human souls. They are not unfit for use and action like an unfinished building, and the body is not related to them as a scaffold to a rising and untenantable fabric. The body is of service only or chiefly where the spirit has a certain sort and degree of completeness. At birth and in the prenatal condition, both, so far we know, are very incomplete and undeveloped, equally so, apparently. They grow and develope together, the spirit through the body, and doubtless also, though less obviously, the body through the spirit. And when the body has ceased to grow, it may, and usually is, the means by which the spirit still continues to grow for a period, as it is the mode of expression and the condition of various forms of experience and information. Then with the decay of the body there is generally or always some decay in the power of spiritual expression and achievement, and probably in the power of thought itself. It appears probable, if not manifest, that the body is the form of the life of a finite spirit in every stage of its development, in all worlds, to all eternity, the form, rank and glory of the body varying with that of the spirit, just because it is generally the expression of the spirit's life; so that the body, therefore, that now is, shall be transfigured with the glorification of the spirit.

More frequently we meet with the mention of the body under the figure of a house, or dwelling, in which the spirit lives and works, and through which it looks and speaks and thus reveals itself. This, too, is good only as a proximate description of the body. The house ts not alive like its inmates ; but the body is alive as well as the soul ; and only so far as the body is alive do we know anything of the soul ; so that so far as both are known as living, they are known only as having or being the one same common life. The same remark, in substance, belongs to the analogy between the body and a tool, or implement, an image much in use by Bishop Foster. Tools are not alive, and they do not have feelings as part of our own consciousness, like our animate body. If we use an animal as a tool, its life is not our life like the life of our body.

In short, the body and spirit are a living, conscious unity. The body feels ; that is, it is conscious, for all feeling is consciousness, though it may be of a low order, as it may also be of a high order, according to the rank of the feeling. Therefore, to say that the body is beastly and idiotic is altogether too sweeping and inconsiderate. It is so sometimes; and in all such cases it is also the same with the spirit so far as it is known to us.

This also is inconsistent with the further allegation that all body is devoid of power or force, as Bishop Foster often affirms. If it is powerless, why stigmatize it as beastly or idiotic ? Surely beasts and idiots have some power, and often considerable. All beastliness implies strong tendencies in certain directions, requiring much power to control and restrain them. The powerless cannot be anything of that kind. It must have power of some kind and degree to be beastly. It is no exercise of power to resist and control that which has no power to oppose it.

Now if, as Bishop Foster often affirms as one of the primary articles of his metaphysics, all matter is utterly powerless, it follows that all the power of evil or beastly impulses, desires or action, is only and wholly of the spirit. This, therefore, strikes a fatal blow at his own position. The body ought to be dropped, he argues, to be raised no more, because it is beastly and corruptible and perverse, which is impossible, because powerless — for good or evil, if really powerless. If powerless, all evil (as well as good) is of the spirit, and there is nothing gained (or lost) by dropping the body. It is not worth a word of discussion or remark.

If powder of any kind or degree belongs to matter, it may be a good power, or capable of being used for good forever. This conception of it is the only one consistent with the infinite perfection of its Creator.

td INTRODUCTION.

Nothing is more absurd than to suppose an infinite creative fiat for the production of what is absolutely void of all force, so that it can do nothing, nor suffer anything, nor be the means or occasion of anything. Such a thing so-called would be equal to nothing. It cannot be used as a tool, for a forceless implement is worthless. The steel chisel must have force to cut into the granite ; as the prow of the colliding ship must have some little force to cut the other ship in twain. The powerless is utterly incapable of all utility. It is the qualityless — equal to nothing.

However, the good bishop may take which horn he prefers. If powerless, it cannot be evil, and all evil is of the spirit, and nothing is gained by dropping the body; and if forceful, its force as God's creature must be susceptible of enduring good.

Body is not absolutely contrasted with spirit, its opposite in every particular, as some expound. It is the sense form of spirit, the counterpart and expression of the supersensible spirit ; and both are apparently made for immortal union, judging from both Scripture and reason — body in its present form for the spirit in its present stage of development; body in its nobler, spiritual rank for the spirit in its glorified estate — all of which is well and clearly unfolded in this little book.

The style of the work is animated; its temper kind; its spirit earnest and Christian. It cannot fail to command attention and excite thought, and it will contribute toward definite conception on the great subject on which it treats.

" METHODIST."

Preface

Rev. Randolph S. Foster, D.D., LL.D., one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, was born A. D. 1820. He was converted at the early age of thirteen under his own preaching. At seventeen he entered the work of the Christian ministry in the Methodist Episcopal Church. At the age of twentyseven he wrote a masterly work on " Objections to Calvinism," which immediately lifted him into the notice of the church. Since then until now he has been very prominent in his church, filling her most important pulpits and places of power. From 1857 to i860 he was President of the Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. From 1868 to 1873 he was Professor of Systematic Theology in the Drew Theological Seminary ; and after the death of Dr. McClintock he became its president. At the General Conference of 1872, held in Brooklyn, New York, he was elected Bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church. His principal writings up to this date are " Objections to Calvinism," " Christian Purity," "Beyond the Grave" and " Centenary Thoughts," besides some lectures, letters and addresses which from time to time have been published. The work with which this volume deals is " Beyond the Grave," which was published in 1879 by the Methodst Book Concern, New York and Cincinnati.

The book was published six years after he was elected to the Episcopacy, nearly ten years ago, and some have said to the author of this volume, why notice the book now since it has been before the public so long? My answer is because, 1st, it is still before the public and published by our Book Concern. 2d, because it has never been thoroughly and plainly exposed ; and, 3d, because it is a very dangerous book, and until lately I have not been in position to answer it, and hence it was not laid upon me as a duty ; but now that I see its error and danger and feel my duty, I can see no reason for allowing it to go on further in its destructive work, simply because it is ten years old and the church has failed to suppress it.

Ten years in the life of a book is but a moment and of no concern as to my reply; if it were a hundred years, my answers would be the same, if the circumstances were the same. I hasten the work beyond my desire because Bishop Foster is soon to go hence, and then it would seem unkind or less manly to answer him, and his heresy would crystalize around his sacred memory and be more dangerous than ever. My time has been so much engaged in the pastorate that I have not been able to give much thought to the mere literary form of my subject, and here must beg the indulgence of my readers. Let me say that I wish to emphasize most deeply, that I love Bishop Foster and acknowledge my indebtedness to him more than to any living man. When I entered Drew Theological Seminary, in 1869, September, I found him with Drs. McClintock, Nadal, Strong and Prof. Buttz, all that heart could wish. From then till now I have never ceased to love him, and while I may seem unkind in my criticisms, it is not so. He has fallen into 'an error and when he sees it, he will be the first to thank me for my humble efforts to shield the church and the world from harm. May the richest blessings of heaven fall upon him in the afternoon of life.

I am deeply impressed with the great task that I have voluntarily taken upon myself; but I enter upon it, as on every important act of my life thus far, with a deep conviction of oughtness that I am unable to banish. After long and earnest prayer I am conscious of an imperative duty. I can do no other. God help me.

" Beyond the Grave," I am compelled to believe, is one of the most dangerous books written in the nineteenth century. It is not written by the hand of an enemy. It is not written with the design to do harm. It is not a coarse, blatant heresy. But it is the work of a master in the arts of sophistical reasoning, after having embraced a subtle rationalism that is hardly known to himself. A rationalism that is more injurious than naked infidelity possibly could be. " Beyond the Grave" is rationalism boiled down and sweetened into a syrup, or sugar coated, so that it is taken along with wholesome food undetected, except by great analysis, like alcohol in patent medicines. Hence the great danger; overdosing would work its own ruin. But as malaria, though insidious, breaks down the system, so this rationalistic, insidious heresy must work havoc, unless it is counter-worked. I hope under God at least to call the doctor's attention to this malarial poison.

" Beyond the Grave" teaches as a fundamental truth that, " man is a spirit." This is only a half truth, and having adopted this as truth, he is led into all the errors that anyone would naturally come with a false foundation. Once accept this as true, and the conclusions of " Beyond the Grave " must be accepted. Starting with this false premise, " Beyond the Grave " never stops until it traces out the natural conclusion, which is of necessity as false as the premise itself. Hence " Beyond the Grave " is a deadly heresy, touching the fundamental questions of the origin of death and the resurrection from the dead.

If " Beyond the Grave" is not heretical, then our whole theology is inconsistent. I claim that it is false and destructive. Our fundamental doctrines are in danger.

I know the author is a great and a good man, hence the danger. If he were not, he could not do the damage that he now can. These qualities must be possessed before he is able to do much harm.

In 1886 a great epidemic of typhoid fever broke out in the beautiful town of Plymouth, on the banks of the Susquehanna, and thousands were affected, until the whole town was a hospital. Hundreds died. Those who drank from the wells were not affected, those from the hydrants' supply were. After months of untold agony it was discovered that one man, only one, had died of the fever miles up the stream and the refuse had been thrown on the icy and snowy banks of the stream and hence the death.

The water supply was from a pure stream or the pgople of Plymouth had not drank its waters. The typhoid germs must come from above or they would not have taken them. They must be very insidious or they would have been detected ; so our author stands at the fountain head and pours into a pure stream an insidious heresy, and the outcome must be death.

I know the author, I love him. I do not impeach his integrity or his intelligence. God forbid. But such is the frailty of man that the same may be said of many great but mistaken men; e.g., Origen, Calvin, Luther, Toplady, &c. It is not necessary to impeach their integrity or intelligence to say they were greatly mistaken.

I don't suppose the man that died, or his nurse, many miles away from Plymouth, were demons or fools, so let us divest ourselves of any and all uncharitable judgment, and remember that truth alone is to be sought.

Bishop Hurst has well said, (History of Rationalism, page 2), "The reason why skepticism has wrought such fearful ravages at various stages in the career of the church has been the tardiness of the church in watching the sure and steady approach;" also, on page 587 he very truthfully says, "The true way to meet l6 PREFACE.

the writings of skeptics in the church is by calm replies to their charges, and by immediate ecclesiastical action."

John Wesley wisely says, "The Methodists must take heed to their doctrine, their experience, their practice, and their discipline," and yet nearly a decade has passed since "Beyond the Grave" was published and still no ecclesiastical action has been taken, although some of the most important doctrines have been attacked by one of our ablest preachers, educators and Bishops in such language as the following: " Man is a spirit." " Not simply that there are these two parts to man — an organism of earth and an indwelling spirit — but that the deeper truth, the very essence of his manhood is that he is a spirit" " We consign the quickly decaying form to the grave. We know that it soon moulders to dust. There is not a single sign that it will ever germinate or return to life. There is every indication that it never will. To believe that it ever will is impossible." "However it may awaken surprise, truth demands that we should make the confession that we do not know that death does not end all . . . where he is or that he is at all is absolutely unknown to us." " If the theory that death is the result of sin involves the counter idea that absence of sin would have insured the absence of death, the theory would have to be abandoned ; we can scarcely conceive of an authority that could have rendered it credible." "Thus the fashion, habits and necessities of the structure built by life, proclaim death to be normal and primitive. It is born of creation, not of retribution. It is God's offspring direct, not a penal device. It exists in the bosom of sinless, not sinning, nature."

Is this truth? then our Methodist fathers had not the truth. Is this truth? then orthodoxy has become heterodoxy. I say it is not true, and " Beyond the Grave" assails the very foundations of our Holy Christianity; and yet because its author is a great man, an honored Bishop, the church manifests the same tardiness as it always has done. I love Bishop Foster and all the rest of our Bishops, but I love the church more, and no reverence for any man can compel me to be quiet while the truth arid the Methodist Church suffer.

Our author is an adept in argument whether true or sophistical, and he has sown the seeds of heresy deftly, and covered them artfully and with a tenderness born of love, and yet by applying the rigid laws of logical truth, human and divine, he must stand convicted at the bar of an unbiased judgment. If he has the truth, we all want to know it. I for one don't care to believe in a fallacy, no matter how old or how great the authority, but I do not believe in any man dictating to the whole Methodist Church what it shall believe. We have a body of divinity carefully formulated and handed down to us from our fathers ; and if I understand our position, no man, be he never so great, has the authority to change or modify those doctrines ; and one of the prescribed functions of a Bishop in his ordination vows is to " Be ready with faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erronious and strange doctrines contrary to God's word, and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same." Can any one doubt that our author has violated that part of his ordination vows ? Don't we all know that the above quotations from "Beyond the Grave" are contrary to the standard teachings of Methodism ? If these are not erronious and strange doctrines, then Methodism is erronious and strange. If " Beyond the Grave" is according to God's Word, then Methodism is contrary to God's Word. Will any one impeach the intelligence of our author by saying that he did not know that he was teaching doctrines that were erronious and strange as compared with Methodist standards ?

Will any one admit that he had the right, legal or moral, to stand at the fountain head of his church and instead of "with faithful diligence banish and drive away erronious and strange doctrines," promulgate them from press and pulpit, both "privately and publicly." If one Bishop has a right to thus use his position to undermine the doctrines of the resurrection of our bodies, another Bishop has the right to assert his peculiar ideas of infant salvation or of the Trinity; and alas! how soon will Methodism be like Unitarianism, unknown and unknowable. I believe in freedom, liberty ; but not license. The word of God is not bound. I believe in an intelligent faith that can stand the light of a free, full discussion. But when that full, free discussion, after years, has formulated a creed to which we all subscribe, I protest that no man, after we have elevated him to the highest position in the gift of the church, has a right to use that position to undermine the faith of those who elevated him. Clothed with the dignity and power of his high office, standing on the vantage ground far above all opponents, in a position for life, O, who can tell the immense harm that may be done ! O, who would not tremble to send out through all the lines of thought a book like our author's, clothed with all the authority of the imprint of the Methodist Book Concern, by the greatly honored theologian and great preacher, occupying the highest office in the gift of two millions ot Methodists, and that book written upon the great theme " Beyond the Grave," and upon these great questions introducing doctrines that are contrary, not only to the Methodist standards, but are contrary to the orthodox standards of the Christian Church generally. In keeping with this estimate, an editorial in the New York " Christian Advocate," May 3, 1888, says : " Where they appear and whenever they speak they are considered representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the height they attain fixes the estimate of the denomination in the communities where they live and where they preside in Conferences. More than thirty thousand persons, at a low estimate, many of them consisting of the cream of other denominations, who would rarely or never hear Methodist pastors, listen to the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church as they hold their Conferences in a hundred different cities and towns every year. These form their opinions of Methodism from those who are reasonably supposed to exhibit its best types of spirit, matter, and manner ; and around the world, whenever in the presence of a minister or a society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they are not beyond their jurisdiction. If, then, the General Conference of the Methodst Episcopal Church had nothing, to do but to elect Bishops, it wou d have a work unsurpassed in importance by any similar act, except that of the Romanists when they elect the Pope."

I say, all hail to any better interpretation that can be brought out by the increasing light of the nineteenth century. Turn on the light of any and all new discoveries in the intellectual advancements of the race. The pine-knot, the candle-dip, answered our fathers ; but we have the greater light of the sun lamp and of electric light. Let there be light in every department. Light will not harm the solid truth of God, although it set fire to the drapery. Oh, for a flood of light ! The more light the easier to see the wrecks of effete systers hung about it. Let it burn; it will only reveal more clearly the truth. Fire does not harm the gold; it only burns u) the dross. Let the giants wrestle ! Let the swords clash ! Let the storms howl around Sinai's hoary brow, and around Calvary's rent summit ! Open Joseph's new tomb. Come see the place where the Lord lay. Handle me and see that I am not a spirit. Truth alone will stand ; error will fall. Let our author shed light upon Bible interpretation; but do not allow him to blow out the light. " If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen?" " For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised ?" Let any, yea, all, help clear away the moss that may have gathered on the rocky foundations of God's immutable truth. Yea, let it be polished as a precious stone, but for conscience sake let us not join with the infidel and rationalist to remove the foundation, or else "what will the righteous do?" I hail with joy Dr. Curry's attempt to set eschatology in a clearer light, but when he says, " The future has no horizon ;" that " The Old Testament abounds in 10,000 old wives' fables," I say, hold on. Our enemies can abound in mere assertions. Don't rob us of the truth. Give us light upon the truth. I welcome our author's aid when he would clear the grand old doctrine of the resurrection from any rubbish that may have gathered about it; but when he, by hundreds of pages, would argue from a false premise that man is a spirit, pure and simple, and that his body is no part of him, and leave our old bodies forever in the grave, I cry, avaunt !