proofreading team. the things which remain _an address to young ministers_ by daniel a. goodsell a bishop of the methodist episcopal church _cincinnati: jennings & pye_ _new york: eaton & mains_ _copyright, 1904, by_ jennings and pye preface this little book contains the larger part of an address i have delivered at several annual conferences on the occasion of the admission of probationary ministers into full membership. at the suggestion of some who have heard it when delivered and whose assurance that it would be useful in print i am bound to respect, i have consented to its publication. matter not directly relating to the theme, but of sufficient importance to accompany it in addressing an annual conference, is here omitted, that all possible space might be given to the discussion of the question, "how much christian doctrine will still remain, though much of the most radical criticism be accepted?" preface it will be understood that concessions made for the sake of the argument by no means represent my own views of that which must be ultimately yielded to the critical spirit. already some opinions which threatened the authority of gospels and epistles, and which have had wide acceptance, have been modified or withdrawn. my aim in this address was not to scout criticism, from which much of the highest value to faith is to come, but to steady the wavering young minister; to sustain his preaching power by helping him to a definite message, and to encourage him to a slow and guarded acceptance of critical opinions destructive of "the faith once delivered to the saints." chattanooga, tenn., december, 1903. the things which remain the followers of him who said "i am the truth" can never afford to hold or propagate that which is false. no man can preach with power unless he strongly believes. teaching force depends on faith. [sidenote: doing and knowing.] [sidenote: the divine call.] [sidenote: conditions of the call.] thus far our ministry has had teaching power because it has been founded on and inspired by a christian experience. our church has always emphasized that essential christian statement, "if ye do ye shall know." at every ordination we have demanded of every candidate a declaration of his persuasion that he was "called according to the will of our lord jesus christ" to the particular office to which he was then to be advanced. by this we do not mean a mediate call through the order of the church or the judgment of the bishop, but an immediate call by the holy spirit from christ himself. this call is antedated by that personal surrender to jesus christ; that blessed acceptance by him of the self-surrendered; that witnessing spirit as to sonship which brings the consciousness of pardon, renewal, and justification known as "a religious experience." [sidenote: evidence of the call.] those who possess this know something. whereas they were "once blind, now they see." they know they have "passed from darkness to light" through the changed love which now controls. however the persuasion reached them, it is a persuasion; not merely a hope. it is a conclusion borne in upon them by satisfactory evidence, and is a lasting certainty while the faith which brought it abides in its original measure. thus to-day we have a pulpit substantially in doctrine and force what our pulpit always has been. even in some cases where doubt has entered, it would appear that this christian experience has steadied the wavering head by the full and regular impulses of the believing heart. [sidenote: new problems in theology.] [sidenote: the modern skeptical temper.] it is, however, to be admitted that the years to which we have come bring with them problems which our fathers did not have to solve. doubts of which they knew nothing throng our atmosphere and crowd upon our consciousness. the attacks on christianity are no longer the ribald jeers of the unlovely and the vile. they come in the name of honest investigation, historical veracity, and scientific accuracy; and are projected by characters apparently truth-loving, reverent, and candid. [sidenote: the sources of advanced criticism.] this may be said for most of them, but on occasion it is hard to believe that all the german critics are wholly and exclusively truth-loving and candid. so extreme are the positions of some, so evidently tinctured with overreadiness for criticism and unbelief, that they must be excluded from the "most" above described. i speak of the germans because they, chiefly, are those capable and active in original research. most of our american "advanced critics" are merely translators and adapters of german work. their volumes add nothing to the controversy to those who know the german originals. not a few americans have obtained reputation by the expansion of the note books they made at the feet of german professors. [sidenote: the english disciples of the german school.] [sidenote: love of novelty.] this also is largely true of the english critics. many of them are well furnished for greek criticism. the number of greek englishmen is still very large. but these seem also to fortify, at least, their own conclusions by the opinions of the original german investigators. it is hard to believe that, in the contests for german professorial position, as well as in the justification of the incumbent when the position is gained, the desire to attract attention by some critical novelty of method or result has not been in some cases, at least, as influential as a simple love of truth. [sidenote: some questions as to style.] there is always the question also, which i profess seems to be one not easy of answer, whether the literary judgments as to style when men are dealing with another language than their own, and especially with greek and hebrew, can be as worthy of acceptance as their authors and many others hold them to be; whether, in short, their opinions may not, like those of experts in handwriting, come to be so colored by their personality, or their interests, as to be of little evidential value. on this point it seems to me that not enough allowance has been made by these critics for the difference in style when men write familiarly or didactically, or when they are engaged in narration or exhortation. [sidenote: foundation of belief unsettled.] whatever may be the truth as to these matters, the present state of faith is due to the unsettlement of the foundation of belief by scientific and critical scholarship. [sidenote: a new foundation to emerge.] this unsettlement, admitted on every hand with difference of opinion as to extent, is either to increase until faith in christianity, except as an ethical and humanitarian system, is dead, or abide until faith revives by a perception that the church has maintained an erroneous basis for faith and that a new and stronger one is emerging from the sea of discussion. this last i believe to be the truth in the matter. i hold, therefore, that faith is not dying, but suffering in some minds from a kind of lunar eclipse, where a shadow diminishes, temporarily, the radiance, but does not extinguish the planet itself. [sidenote: the authority of the scriptures weakened.] when we ask what foundation is weakened, the answer is: the authority of the scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice. some claim that only a few of the books are genuine and almost none authentic. if this is to be the final judgment of the learned and the sincere, it is plain that we must seek another foundation for faith than the word of scripture. it is no more a "thus saith the lord" for us. [sidenote: critics not yet agreed.] [sidenote: archæology and the bible.] [sidenote: personal standpoints.] but we are very far from seeing that final agreement among the critics which warrants us in discarding a single book. if any one has been fought about, and fought over, it is the gospel of john. "it used to be said that this was not a history at all, but an idealizing of tradition in the interest of a speculative idea;[1] now theologians are mostly agreed that if john is the most speculative, he is, at the same time, the most personal of new testament writers." no other book has been finally overthrown. archæology has confirmed paul, and also some old testament writers, especially those who speak of widely separated settlements of the hittites. i get a strong impression that the new testament writers are sometimes attacked because they teach what the critics do not wish to believe. thus it would appear that harnack scouts the early chapters of matthew and luke because he doubts the virgin birth, and would hold that belief therein is no part in authority or value of the christian religion. [footnote 1: denney. studies in theology.] [sidenote: bible appeal for verification.] [sidenote: gracious ability.] [sidenote: huxley's passionless impersonality.] [sidenote: gracious conditions for belief.] [sidenote: ethical conditions for faith.] i now wish to declare my own confidence that the verification of the truths contained in the new testament was never intended to rest upon an absolutely inerrant record or on an inspiration which dictated to a personality rather than expressed itself through a personality. the bible presupposes a power in man to test and verify its statements and doctrines. it makes its appeal to this steadily from the earlier books to the later; the appeal growing in content as the soul has developed its power of recognition. this is the familiar law of knowing and doing, of proving by practice, of perceiving the leadership of jesus christ through the leading of the holy ghost. as to doctrine, there is left in man the power to make the beginning of a faith. on this beginning devotion builds a belief in the greater mysteries. thus reason deduces a first cause, then the unity of the first cause. this is as far as reason can go. huxley, looking out on the universe with this power, said: "there is an impassable gulf between anthropomorphism, however refined and the passionless impersonality underlying the thin veil of phenomena. i can not see one tittle of evidence that the great unknown stands to us in the light of a father." nor could he. religious truth is conditioned in a way in which the apprehension of physical truth is not. there must be a certain condition of the heart, conscience, and will to see the truth of the godhead of christ. one may resist this evidence.[2] only a living christian is competent to look at the subject--"unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of god." in physics "nothing is needed but open eyes and a sound understanding."[3] moral character has nothing to do with it, except as vice may affect vision and deteriorate the judgment. but in a soul's relation to the christian religion, the ethical element is that which is fundamental. "the pure in heart shall see god." the foul soul has no vision for the eternal purities. in the days of idolatry "there was no open vision." so in the heart of sin there is no light of spiritual truth. the higher verities appear fully founded to the christian consciousness only. [footnote 2: cf. denney.] [footnote 3: cf. denney.] [sidenote: natural ethical canon.] yet, let us remember that below this christian consciousness lie the substrata of reason and ethical canon common to all men. religious truth rests on these in its first revelations. above the first and simplest revelation, truth rests on christian experience as to those matters for which reason and natural ethical canon are insufficient. [sidenote: general calm of methodist episcopal church.] [sidenote: wesley's advanced views.] this having been the teaching of the methodist episcopal church from the beginning, she has been little disturbed by the critical school. while holding that the bible is the sole rule of faith, she has not committed herself to any one theory of inspiration. she has not believed the scriptures because they are written, but, being written, she has found them true. she has believed in the supernatural power of the gospel because in her sight its leaven has wrought in the individual and in society what it claims for itself. john wesley believed that there were god-breathed teachings outside of the bible. he believed this because of his feeling that the divine fatherhood must have spoken to other than his jewish children. inheriting from our founder these thoughts, we have kept a high degree of calm in these later days of inquiry and doubt. [sidenote: wide range of unbelief.] [sidenote: natural immortality.] [sidenote: reward and punishments.] we have already admitted that the present tendency to unbelief has wider range and fresher foundations than our fathers knew. the belief in the natural immortality of the human soul whether of platonic or christian origin is shaken to an extent not known in a century. the doubts of huxley, the denials of hæckel had a purely scientific basis. the suspension of consciousness by sleep, by accident, by drugs, the decay of mind by old age and by disease are freely put forth as proofs that mind can not exist without the mechanism which supports and manifests it. if this last be true a doctrine fundamental to christianity must be abandoned. the doctrine of immortality through christ does not meet the new objections. the scheme of redemption and the doctrine of future rewards and punishments are involved in the fate of the doctrine of natural immortality. we have thus shadows of doubt thrown upon two great doctrines, the virgin birth of christ and natural immortality. the miracles, resurrection, and ascension must be added to the shadowed list. [sidenote: some influential facts.] [sidenote: a great mistake.] [sidenote: doctored heathenism.] whatever relation the fact may have as a cause, it is noteworthy that as to time, this new era of doubt largely coincides as to its beginning with the movement to revise the new testament. the variations of the manuscripts, the interpretations, the comparatively late date of the oldest manuscripts were before this in possession of scholars only. the daily press have made them the possession of the christian world. the shock to traditional confidence through this was very great. the congress of religions at chicago had a similar effect. the mistaken liberality which permitted christianity to appear on the same platform with the ethnic and imperfect religions contributed largely to doctrinal indifference. the taking and uncandid misrepresentations of these religions convinced many that there was at least no better foundation for christianity and no better content therein than for and in the false and imperfect faiths. many of these were defended by men who had had an english education and had come into contact with christian vocabulary and civilization. they did not hesitate to read into these religions ideas wholly christian and wholly foreign to the original teachings. [sidenote: what remains?] these and other considerations lead me to ask what remains that we may and do believe? while far from admitting as finally proved the radical conclusions reached by some as to authorship and inspiration of the bible and divine authority for doctrines deduced therefrom, it must be profitable for us to ask, "what remains if some of these conclusions stand?" recall that i do not admit all these for a moment, or any of them as final. some are probably true. but taking the worst and most iconoclastic as true, are we compelled even then to surrender our christian faith? [sidenote: the apostles' creed.] let us take the separate articles of the apostles' creed and see how they stand affected: [sidenote: the fatherhood of god.] "i believe in god the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth." [sidenote: a christian god.] surely this remains untouched and in full force. huxley, to requote what has before been quoted, says: "i can not see one tittle of evidence that the great unknown stands to us in the light of a father." what a contradiction is here! he knows that the great unknown can not be proved to be our father. then he must know of the great unknown the negative aspects so minutely as to be sure that no fatherhood is in the great unknown. then he knows the great unknown much better than he is willing to admit, better than an agnostic ought. [sidenote: an all pervasive spirit.] [sidenote: his commandments.] [sidenote: the divine ideal.] yet that the idea of god may remain in power and not as a "passionless impersonality," it must be less interpreted by the teachings of moses and more by the teachings of christ. human tempers and passions must be eliminated from our divine ideal. he must not be made an angry and jealous god as men count these. he must not be thought of as a vindictive personality, never so well pleased as when scaring his children into panic. in the thought of the church he will be an all-pervasive spirit whose nature is unfolded by the universe he has made. in that universe he will be felt to be immanent as the power of development, order, and destiny. all ages show him to be "the power which makes for righteousness." the commandments are not only his because they are found in the bible, but because they are perceived to be necessary laws of conduct proceeding from such a being as we know god to be for such beings as we know men to be. thus we perceive them to be the divinely authorized bond of society and the guarantee and obligation of the divine ideal of humanity. all nature and all history are scrutinized for traces of the supreme. these being found to coincide with the christian revelation of him, men will read with new reverence those wonderful books which make up the book, and which beyond all others anticipate the latest results of scientific inquiry and natural ethical canon. [sidenote: advantage of newer view.] out of this will come such a sense of the divine presence as the church and the individual christian have not hitherto known. moral distance from god will be the only distance. "in him we live and move and have our being" comes to full interpretation through this thought of god. humanity is immersed in him. [sidenote: transcendent.] [sidenote: huxley against hume.] but this immanent god is also seen to be transcendent. he is in nature and far beyond it. vast as nature is, it is limited. god is the unlimited. within this region of transcendence is room for all his gracious activities as distinguished from his natural activities; room for marvel and miracle if he will and we need. when huxley abandons hume's _a priori_ argument against miracles it is not worth while for others to use it. fewer doubt the existence of a god, i believe, than at any time since men sought to prove that he does not exist. the fatherly in god is proved both by his work in nature and by those works of grace which the student of nature alone can not see. god is a spirit. the human spirit refined, purified, sees him in proportion to its purification. [sidenote: modern christology.] [sidenote: former limitations.] [sidenote: ritual statement.] [sidenote: aim of christianity.] [sidenote: likeness to god.] in respect of "jesus christ, his only son our lord," it may, it must, be said he remains in full and glorious vigor as the redeemer of mankind. the marked difference between our time and a half-century ago with respect to christ is in the extension, rather than the diminution of his relation to salvation and the extension of the idea of salvation itself. in the former days men's eyes were almost wholly fixed on his death and its relation to salvation in the future life. seldom indeed was the value of the following text taken into consideration: "for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to god by the death of his son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life." there is less disposition to dogmatize as to theories of the atonement. most, i think, come to feel that no one view contains the full significance of christ's death. have you noticed how the ritual puts it in the order of the lord's supper? "didst give thine only son jesus christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there [on the cross] by his oblation of himself once offered a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." the men who wrote that struggled to interpret his death by every possible phase of its meaning. in our time we have come to see that the aim of christ and christianity is to develop character and that this must be gained in time that we may be ready for eternity. thus the death of christ as the ultimate of self-sacrifice persuades us to the death of sin in us that we may live renewed in god; "rise from our dead selves to higher things." his life persuades us as the condition and example of growth to move on from the first self-surrender into the habit and fact of constant obedience and therefore "into the likeness of god's dear son." the consciousness, well-nigh universal, of the nobility of self-sacrifice is that which gives vitality and vogue among the masses to the doctrine of the atonement. self-sacrifice becomes more rare as wealth and refinement modify men and women. he that has much is loath to lose or leave it. hence the rich generally fight in security. the poor meet the bullets first. bad as is the conduct of some trades-unionists, it is among these toilers that great deeds of sympathy and generosity are done. how they tax themselves to help each other! how their women work for each other when one is unable to care for herself or her children! their doctrine that "an injury to one is a wrong to all" has much that is christlike in it. let us who believe in an atoning christ rejoice that as long as men honor bravery--self-sacrifice unto death for country, home, or the life of dear ones; as long as they build monuments to generals, soldiers, firemen, physicians who die for others, so will the world be slow to disbelieve the doctrine that "jesus christ tasted death for every man." [sidenote: john's logos.] [sidenote: an anthropomorphic god.] more, too, is made of his life before the incarnation. the pre-existence of christ is an essential element in christianity. "his eternal relation to god is the only way of conceiving him which answers to his real greatness."[4] the christ was present and active in the creation. john's use of the word "logos" is right. "logos" is not merely a result but a force. it is not only the speech, but the speaker. let us admit once for all that the fact, much belabored of the critics, is a fact. let us not be afraid of the word which expresses it. god must be anthropomorphic if he exists. we can come nowhere near to thinking out any other kind of god. christ has the value of god to devout christians because in the fullness of his moral perfections he expresses god so far as we can know him and man so far as man can hope and grow. [footnote 4: denney. studies in theology.] [sidenote: how son of god.] is his sonship different from ours, or only an expansion of the fullness and perfection of our sonship? this last seems to me a most important question. if he was born as we were born--that is, as to the beginning of his earthly life, there can be no pre-eminent sense in which he was the son of god. he was either a happy accident of natural birth or a "sport" in evolution. [sidenote: the virgin birth.] this brings us to that doctrine which is the greatest challenge to the doubter: "conceived by the holy ghost; born of the virgin mary,"--a doctrine fiercely fought by harnack and yet by no means to be dismissed as he dismisses it. his teaching on this point seems to me the result of his theory of christianity. if one seeks to rid christianity of the supernatural, here is the place to begin. [sidenote: dignity of the story.] [sidenote: a greater puzzle.] but who will not feel the force of the position that, granted god was to be incarnate, the story of christ's incarnation is the noblest and most probable? he is not born of a man's lust nor of a woman's desire--but of the submission of untainted womanhood to the direct creative power of god. the alternative to this is the divinest man in all the world born of sinning and not yet married parents. if the new doctrine of heredity be true that men may inherit good as well as evil, we still have an astounding fact to account for; namely, the birth of such a child from such conditions, that is, with all the good kept in and all the bad left out. [sidenote: parthenogenesis a fact.] when men speak of a virgin birth as incredible and impossible and as the weakest of all christian doctrine, do they know or have they forgotten that parthenogenesis (virgin birth) is a fact in nature; existing, for example, in as highly organized insects as the honey bee? there are other insects which are parthenogenetic at one time and sexually productive at another. there are also hints of it in human life known to anatomists which can not be fully discussed here. [sidenote: among the bees.] [sidenote: a small departure from nature.] the virgin queen bee produces males in abundance, but can not produce females until she has made her nuptial flight and met her mate in an embrace invariably fatal to him. nor does she ever need to meet another. from that time on, she is the fruitful mother of every kind of bee life the hive needs; the undeveloped females called neuters and those who become queens by being fed on royal food. virgin birth is therefore imbedded in nature's order. to occur in the human species nature need call in no novelty. christ, if born of a virgin, was born with the smallest possible departure from the order of nature. a process known in a lower form of life was carried into the higher to produce the unique being called for by the spiritual needs of mankind. * * * * * [sidenote: the historical statement.] passing over the historical assertions which follow the doctrine of the virgin birth, "suffered under pontius pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried," because there is nothing in these statements difficult or incredible, we reach the doctrine of his resurrection, "the third day he rose from the dead," a doctrine next to that of the virgin birth in natural difficulty of acceptance. [sidenote: christ's resurrection.] [sidenote: surprise of disciples.] [sidenote: the fact accounts for history.] faith in this seems to me to depend on how far we have accepted christ's deity and his incarnation. if by the holy ghost we have been able "to say that jesus is the lord;" if by that blessed energy we perceive his divine mastership; if by the same energy we feel that he has transformed us into the image of his dear son; raising us "from the death of sin into the life of righteousness" it is not difficult to believe that jesus "the power of the resurrection" rose from the dead. "the fact of the resurrection and belief in the fact is not explicable by any antecedent conditions apart from its truth."[5] the disciples did not expect what they saw. his death was for them so far as we can see, without hope. they were not able yet to interpret his prophecy that he would build again his temple, nor understand the spirituality of his kingdom. these facts seem to me utterly to demolish the theory of a vision called up by eager, yea, agonizing, expectation. the idea of the resurrection justifies his prophecies as to himself and the fact accounts, better than any theory which denies the fact, for the faith and founding of the early church as well as for the course of subsequent history and of the believer's experience. [footnote 5: westcott. the revelation of the risen lord.] * * * * * [sidenote: slow belief in resurrection.] it is much to see that belief became belief only with great difficulty. the idea of the resurrection was strange and alarming to the disciples. "they were terrified and affrighted and supposed they beheld a spirit." slowly by tests of sense as well as by persuasions of teaching did the disciples come to believe that the christ of the resurrection was the same christ who suffered on the cross. [sidenote: not an invention.] [sidenote: an eye-witness story.] it seems impossible that the resurrection could have been an invention or that the account of it could be a work of the imagination. the last is almost as great a miracle as the resurrection itself. in detail, in naturalness, even in the presence of difficulties and hindrances to easy belief of the story, the narrative seems that of an eye-witness. no reasoning can bring faith, however, to one who denies the miraculous. as a fact, the resurrection is incapable of naturalistic explanation. to those who deny the miraculous i can only again point out how huxley cuts out the _a priori_ argument from hume as worthless. as quoted in his biography, huxley says: "we are not justified in the _a priori_ assertion that the order of nature, as experience has revealed it to us, can not change. the assumption is illegitimate because it involves the whole point in dispute." * * * * * [sidenote: ascent into heaven.] [sidenote: the ascension.] [sidenote: nature not wholly love.] [sidenote: evil and good.] necessarily miraculous also is the doctrine, "he ascended into heaven." in this he passed from the visible into the invisible; from the conditions of human life to those of the life of a spirit; from the work of redemption to that of intercession. if his resurrection be accepted, his ascension presents no difficulties to faith. this, with his incarnation, and the facts of his earthly life are the manifestation of the tender side of god to the senses even as his wisdom and power are shown to the senses by the facts and laws of nature. as to the doctrine, "god is love," nature's word can never be conclusive. in the natural kingdom joy and sorrow, ease and pain, love and hate, kindness and cruelty, trust and terror exist side by side, as do life and death. no man concludes, from nature alone, that god is ruled by love. because man can not conclude this, ormuzd and ahriman are found substantially in all religions, as in that of the parsees, except in the christian. here the warfare is not to be eternal. the victory of good is to come. divine help is promised, that it may be secured in every soul. the conquest of evil by good is within that christian omnipotence which paul knew. "i can do all things through christ who strengtheneth me." it requires a christ to show that the path to rest is through toil; that the way to ease is through suffering; that the highway to life passes through death. only thus can "mortality be swallowed up of life." [sidenote: the meaning of jesus.] [sidenote: christ as revealer.] in the unity of the godhead, christ is god in manifestation, redemption, intercession, judgment. in the trinity, in which we must believe god exists, jesus christ is the personality expressive, at first visibly and now invisibly, of the tender qualities of the divine nature which, manifested in part in the world of nature, are there so linked with severity as to require special and peculiar revelation in the person of jesus christ in order that god may be understood both as transcending nature and as eternal love. * * * * * surely the doctrine, "i believe in the holy ghost," will remain. it is a misfortune that the word "ghost" has, in our english use, an unworthy and terrifying significance. on this account it were well if we could substitute for constant use the word "spirit." [sidenote: the holy ghost.] [sidenote: the energy of god.] [sidenote: the interpreter.] the holy spirit is the energy of god, whether working as creator or in the processes of redemption. it stirs us to the depths when we consider that the author of the worlds, the source of the energies is he who transforms, renews, sanctifies, and witnesses in us. there is no question as to the pervasiveness and competence of the power which "works in us to will and to do of his good pleasure." we are taught to trace all our religious uplift to the highest possible source. we gather a great sense of our worth by the dignity of this association as we do of the condescension of our lord in making his home in our hearts. this holy spirit is in all christians the energy of the entire spiritual life. by this we do the things which by nature we can not do. his is that divine impulse which initiates, continues, matures, and satisfies the life of god in us. it is the indwelling, all-pervading holy spirit, which interprets that great word, "i in them and thou in me, that they may be one as we are." [sidenote: the doctrine of energy.] and if the most advanced philosophy should yet be confirmed as true that there is nothing really but energy, none the less would the doctrine of the holy spirit abide. back of all the individual energies of humanity; back of all the forces of nature is the supreme energy of god. if creation be our theory, it is the spirit of god which broods on the face of the waters. if evolution be our creed, it is "in him we live and move and have our being." all science is but the knowing of his way of working, and all theology is but the discovery of his mind. to know him is to know all things. the latest christian will be saying, "i believe in the holy ghost." * * * * * [sidenote: the forgiveness of sin.] [sidenote: huxley on depravity.] [sidenote: not all born good.] [sidenote: experience of hell.] and what becomes of the doctrine of the "forgiveness of sins" in this outlook for "the things which remain?" accepting huxley as the incarnation of the skeptical spirit of our time, i quote from him his thought of sin, depravity, and punishment, as a hint of where the scientific spirit may yet aid us. "the doctrine of predestination, of original sin, of the innate depravity of man, the evil fate of the greater part of the race, of the primacy of satan in this world, of the essential vileness of matter, of a malevolent demiurgos subordinate to a benevolent almighty who has only lately revealed himself, faulty as they are, appear to me to be vastly nearer the truth than the liberal, popular illusions that babies are all born good, and that the example of corrupt society is responsible for their failure to remain so.... that it is given to everybody to reach the ethical ideal if they will only try; that all partial evil is universal good; and other optimistic figments." "i suppose that all men with a clear sense of right and wrong have descended into hell and stopped there quite long enough to know what infinite punishment means." [sidenote: transmission of evil.] surely, the established truths of heredity confirm the doctrine that man, if not born depraved, is born _deprived_ of tendencies toward good essential to his own welfare and that of the race. "where sin has once taken hold of the race, the natural reproduction of life become reproduction of life morally injured and faulty. with evil once begun, the race is a succession of tainted individuals; an organism that works toward continuance of evil. not but that good is transmitted at the same time, for it goes along with evil. any virtue or value which is strong enough to live will pass from generation to generation even while evil is making the same journey."[6] [footnote 6: outline of christian theology. clarke, p. 242.] [sidenote: depravation and deprivation.] [sidenote: natural standards.] [sidenote: the decalogue.] while we hold that this tendency, this natural sluggishness in laying hold of the things of the higher nature is not in itself guilt, it becomes so by the voluntary adoption of the lower forces as the guide of life. nature has her own decalogue. there is a law written upon our hearts. the wasting of power by anger, jealousy, envy, covetousness and the like, and the degradation following their expression in acts of revenge, concupiscence, and mere rapacity, are known without revelation by all races which have not suffered the downward evolution. the literatures prove this back even to the days of hamurabi. thus natural standards of temper and conduct are seen to exist, below which men may not live without loss, and hence there are natural laws to disobey which is sin. the table given on sinai, though given to moses, was in the world long before moses. but higher sanction was given it by the lawgiver, and the highest by the re-enactment of the decalogue by jesus christ. [sidenote: the heart law.] [sidenote: effects of sin.] [sidenote: characteristics of sin.] [sidenote: results of sin.] sin is blameworthy because it is born of the human preference and the human will. the nation which, knowing most of the divine will, disobeys, is the most guilty because the most knowing. the proportion of guilt depends on the measure of knowledge and the measure of opportunity. hence there is some guilt among those who know only a part of the truth, and if a man perceives, without the aid of revelation, a law in nature and a penalty, and breaks that law, then is he a sinner. some of the physical consequences may apparently be avoided by future obedience. but the inner and spiritual consequences of sin are the worst--these things; namely: in the weakening of the will; in the hardening of the conscience; and, later, in the recklessness as to consequences, indicated by that terrible indictment by paul, "who, being past feeling, have given themselves over." the consciousness of sin is practically universal. it is no invention of christianity, though brought to its greatest force by christianity. religions, governments, literatures,--all and everywhere,--treat of sin as a fact. it is more than dominion of body over spirit; more than an incident of growth; more than a result of undeveloped judgment, tinged with emotion, and applied to questions of motive and conduct. sin is the abnormal; sin is a variant from standard; sin is self-will and selfishness throttling duty. where men accept a god, it is opposition to his law and government.[7] if no personal god be believed in, then sin is willful opposition to the course of nature and to law, as proved by experience. so, in every case, it is unworthy, injurious, and guilty, and must be repented of and atoned for. the doctrine of sin will never be essentially disturbed. [footnote 7: cf. clarke. outline of theology.] * * * * * [sidenote: a supernatural event.] [sidenote: lacks scientific proof.] [sidenote: an old fallacy.] [sidenote: a jewish argument.] [sidenote: kant's reasoning.] [sidenote: can not be demonstrated.] the next clause in the creed, "the resurrection of the body," if it remains as a permanent article of faith, must rest on the declaration of christ and on his resurrection. it is confessedly dependent, not on a natural, but a supernatural order. on this point it is again worth our while to note a concession by huxley, as showing the consistency of one christian truth with another. "if a genuine, and not merely subjective, immortality awaits us, i conceive that without some such change as that depicted in i corinthians xv, immortality must be eternal misery."[8] surely, this is a great testimony to that famous chapter on the resurrection. no scientific proof or probability can be adduced for the resurrection of the body. the older theologians used to point out that the caterpillar entombed itself that it might emerge to the higher life of the butterfly. but we must not take from such a fact what suits our purpose, and leave a fatal weakness in our argument. the butterfly does, indeed, emerge from the coffin of the cocoon and the seemingly dead pupa. but it is only for a brief day of life. then it lays its eggs and dies forever. it is born to no immortality, but to the most ephemeral life. the early church; yea, the jewish church, found rational warrant for belief in immortality and the resurrection of the body, first in the thought that it was unjust for those who fought for and brought in the kingdom of god, to enjoy nothing of what they secured. so the doctrine of the first resurrection appears as a contribution of justice to holy life. later on, similar reasoning demanded the resurrection of all. a judgment is necessary, not to acquaint god with the merits of men, but to acquaint men with the righteousness of god. this would be impossible without the resurrection of all. very close to this is the reasoning of kant, summarized as follows: "every moral act must have as an end the highest good. this good consists of two elements, virtue and felicity, or happiness. the two are inseparable. but these can not be realized under the limitations of this existence. immortality follows as a deduction. the moral law demands perfect virtue or holiness; but a moral being can not realize absolute moral perfection or a holy completeness of nature in this present life." it is wholly of faith that men are immortal. it of necessity can not be demonstrated. the mass of mankind have believed it, and do believe it, and it is one of the most difficult of beliefs to escape from, returning to some skeptical scientists almost as an intuition, conquering the logic of death and decay. [footnote 8: biography, vol. ii. p. 322.] [sidenote: how faith grows.] it is also true that faith in immortality grows with the fullness and intelligence of the spiritual life. it becomes a complete persuasion to the pure in heart. yet some scientific facts, as related to man, make the idea of his extinction improbable, and separate him from the "beast which perisheth." [sidenote: men and brutes.] [sidenote: what brutes have.] it is true that much is common to men and brutes. they walk the same earth; breathe the same air; are nourished by the same food, which is digested by the same processes. their life is transmitted by the same methods, and their embryonic life is strangely similar. it is also true that there are strong mental resemblances. both love and hate; are jealous and indifferent; are courageous and cowardly; they perceive by similar organs; record by similar mnemonic ganglia; and are within certain limits impelled by the same motives. nor can a measure of reason be denied to animals. while much of what appears to be mental life is automatic and unconscious response to an external stimulus reaching a nerve-center, yet within limits they deliberate; they exercise choice; and determine routes and methods. [sidenote: man above brutes.] [sidenote: habits of animals.] [sidenote: limits of brute intelligence.] [sidenote: limits continued.] but when all this is said, man rises almost infinitely beyond the highest brute. man can stand outside of himself; contemplate the movements of his own mind; watch the play of motive upon energy and will, and know himself as no brute can ever be trained to do. nor have brutes the ganglia, lobes, or convolutions which house and direct such powers; and no tribe of mankind has been found without them, however undeveloped. very limited, indeed, is the use of natural forces or of supplied materials in the life of a brute. the birds pick up feathers, hair, twigs; but no bird provides such things by deliberate prevision and co-operation with nature. what animal sows that he may reap? the so-called agricultural ants gather what they have not sown, and reap what they have not planted. man sows that he may gather; breeds that he may use; and accomplishes civilization by an ever-increasing mastery and adaptation of natural forces. an insect may float with the current on a chip; but what one ever put a chip into the water? a beaver may build a dam; but what beaver ever turned the heightened water on a wheel? the dog may lie in a sunny spot; but what dog ever created artificial heat or condensed by a lens the sun's heat on a particular point? the hen may lay and incubate an egg; but what hen ever invented an incubator to save her long sitting in one pose or place, or studied the development of life in and from the egg she produced? the ox may select the richest pasture; but never dreamed of creating a rich pasture by the culture and fertilization of which he is the chief source. the tiger chooses and slays his prey; but does not know how to propagate, develop, and safely mature the animals on which he feeds. all animal life below man must locate where its food abounds, or follow that food in its migrations or seasonal changes. man alone stores and transports his food, creating commerce by his mastery of climate. [sidenote: man parts company.] [sidenote: man and brute compared.] [sidenote: how man can live.] [sidenote: how man can decay.] [sidenote: incidental as to body.] the brute obeys law unwittingly in the sustenance and transmission of life. man alone perceives and deduces law from a thousand facts, and concludes a lawgiver from the law, and one lord and giver of life "from the unity and universality of force." the brute turns its eye skyward to detect danger; but never measures or counts the stars, discerns the movements of the planets, nor extends vision and hearing by telescope, microscope, and megaphone, nor proves by the spectroscope the sameness of stellar elements with those of our own world. the brute neither makes history nor records it. he remembers, but does not recollect. his affections are evanescent as to his kind, and only approach permanence as they are fastened upon us. the brute cognizes external things, but does not perceive their being. thus man can live in an intellectual or spiritual world as to his aims, motives, and occupations. he need touch matter only so far as it is necessary to support the bodily strength on which his spiritual and intellectual movement must depend for basis and manifestation. on the other hand he may reduce the intellectual and spiritual life to the lowest limit by giving the mastery to his physical appetites. we feel instinctively that to do this last is unworthy of manhood and destructive of the higher nature and intent. but who expects a brute to do anything else but minister to his appetites? if he delays a single second in doing it, it is only through fear of man or of some stronger animal. his intellectual movements have this as an end in complete reversal of the case with man. with the brute the intellect seems incidental to the body. with man the body is incidental to the intellect. one feels for this reason that man might live a purely spiritual and disembodied life. no one from this standpoint thinks so of a brute. [sidenote: immortality of force.] [sidenote: christ's light.] [sidenote: the christian's eye.] once more let huxley speak as to the scientific possibility "with regard to the other great christian dogmas, the immortality of the soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can i, who am compelled, perforce, to believe in the immortality of what we call matter and force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for all our deeds, have to these doctrines? give me a scintilla of evidence, and i am ready to jump at them."[9] but when all conditions are considered, and just weight given to all the probabilities, the full persuasion of immortality comes through him who has "brought life and immortality to light." these seem part of his communication to the souls in whom he dwells. to them he says, "because i live, ye shall live also." into their being he injects the power of an endless life. their hopes, faith, affections center less and less on time. the truer, fuller, richer life is felt to be coming. it is to surpass the earthly life in quantity and in quality only because the soul, as it flutters godward, must here feel the attrition of its fleshly tabernacle. this dissolved, the fullness and the freedom come. the house not made with hands henceforth enshrines the spirit. christ's great word is finally interpreted: "i am come, that they might have life, and have it more abundantly." [footnote 9: biography. vol. i, p. 260.] * * * * * [sidenote: the life everlasting.] [sidenote: literalism.] "the life everlasting!" this is the grand finale of the creed as it is the end which all devout souls seek. it is made probable by what man is, which is the same as saying that there are, from considerations above mentioned, probabilities in its favor. it has been the habit of pious souls to attempt to understand and describe this life, and many are the volumes which proceed upon the literalness of the bible descriptions. i suppose there are phases of faith which can not reach beyond literalness, and hence do not rightly interpret the splendid imagery of st. john. such we must leave to the blessed surprise and ecstatic awakening of paradise. [sidenote: great figures.] [sidenote: locating heaven.] [sidenote: eternal punishment.] to other minds the life everlasting is unbelievable except as the great pictures of john are spiritualized. to such the place becomes a state or condition. it is of no interest to us to inquire, as did the christian philosopher, dick, into the locality of heaven and hell. such ideas as those recently put forth by a preacher, not of our church, thank god! that hell is in one of the spots on the sun, and heaven in the chromosphere are distasteful to the last degree to those who believe that "god is a spirit," and that "flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of god." such feel that heaven may be anywhere and everywhere; that the gulf which separates the rich man and lazarus may be only a moral gulf, seeing that they talked across it. they see eternal punishment in the perception of the sinner that he has forever stunted his soul by his sinfullness and the grossness of his affections. though he should begin a progressive life from his present status, he could never catch up with a soul which has a purer point of departure. there is an awful penalty in the fact that this sense of loss may be eternal. the consciousness of limited powers, the certainty that so much is lost, never to be regained, is surely a fire that is not quenched; a worm that dieth not! [sidenote: limitation by sin.] [sidenote: illustrations.] [sidenote: strength and disuse.] but how much more awful the thought that this limitation of the nature by sin, whether of body or soul, may affect the soul through unending life without fitness for any pleasure or delight possible to that state! the company of good and refined men and women is here little less than hell to a bad and coarse man, if he is compelled to stay in it. there is nothing in the spirit, aim, and employments of such that he can measure. he can understand the delights of eating and drinking. even then it is the coarse foods and the drunk-bringing drink that he most enjoys. he can understand noise, coarse jokes, but not quiet conversation, nor the play of a delicate wit. when the pleasure of life is sensual, bodily, the capacity for mental and moral pleasure slowly diminishes, and at last dies. project such a soul into the company of the redeemed; place it where the body has no existence, and therefore no pleasure to give; compel it to remain among those whose every thought is pure, and whose eyes are fixed on the "king in his beauty," and, like the rich man, it will lift its eyes in torment, and ask for "water to cool his parched tongue." * * * * * it is no part of my aim to say a final word on any of these great truths, even if i deemed myself capable thereof. [sidenote: aim and intent.] [sidenote: confirmation by experience.] [sidenote: effect on the bible.] [sidenote: the coming of revelation.] but it is my hope to point out the way in which we find our faith strengthened, and to show that the great truths of christianity will survive the most radical criticism of the scriptures. every one of these truths has increasing confirmation as we accumulate the teachings of science, history, and religious experience. the bible will never be superseded, because it contains the struggle of every type of soul godward, and because its record of what the lord said and did; of what he was, and of what the apostles thought him to be, stands as the verification of what we know him to be. the bible and experience are mutually illuminating and corroborative. it is possible that the church receiving the deposit of truth orally from the apostles, might have passed that truth down orally, and by her ordinances, illustratively as she did, until the gospels were written; as she must do now in lands where the people can not read, having no written language. to avoid, however, the defects of human memory and to accumulate a standard by which teaching and experience should be verified, "god who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son;" through his son to the apostles; and by the apostles and their successors to us; those successors being not those made so by the touch of a human hand; but by god's transforming grace, giving to every believer power and privilege "to speak the things we do know." "we having the same spirit of faith; according as it is written, i believed, and therefore have i spoken, we also believe, and therefore speak; knowing that he which raised up the lord jesus, shall raise us up also by jesus, and shall present us with you. for all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might, through the thanksgiving of many, redound to the glory of god." the augsburg confession the confession of faith: which was submitted to his imperial majesty charles v at the diet of augsburg in the year 1530 by philip melanchthon, 1497-1560 preface to the emperor charles v. most invincible emperor, caesar augustus, most clement lord: inasmuch as your imperial majesty has summoned a diet of the empire here at augsburg to deliberate concerning measures against the turk, that most atrocious, hereditary, and ancient enemy of the christian name and religion, in what way, namely, effectually to withstand his furor and assaults by strong and lasting military provision; and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and christian faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other's presence; and considered and weighed among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and christian concord, that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one christ and do battle under him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one christian church. and inasmuch as we, the undersigned elector and princes, with others joined with us, have been called to the aforesaid diet the same as the other electors, princes, and estates, in obedient compliance with the imperial mandate, we have promptly come to augsburg, and--what we do not mean to say as boasting--we were among the first to be here. accordingly, since even here at augsburg at the very beginning of the diet, your imperial majesty caused to be proposed to the electors, princes, and other estates of the empire, amongst other things, that the several estates of the empire, on the strength of the imperial edict, should set forth and submit their opinions and judgments in the german and the latin language, and since on the ensuing wednesday, answer was given to your imperial majesty, after due deliberation, that we would submit the articles of our confession for our side on next wednesday, therefore, in obedience to your imperial majesty's wishes, we offer, in this matter of religion, the confession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the holy scriptures and the pure word of god has been up to this time set forth in our lands, dukedoms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our churches. and if the other electors, princes, and estates of the empire will, according to the said imperial proposition, present similar writings, to wit, in latin and german, giving their opinions in this matter of religion, we, with the princes and friends aforesaid, here before your imperial majesty, our most clement lord are prepared to confer amicably concerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may come together, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter between us on both sides being peacefully discussed without offensive strife, the dissension, by god's help, may be done away and brought back to one true accordant religion; for as we all are under one christ and do battle under him, we ought to confess the one christ, after the tenor of your imperial majesty's edict, and everything ought to be conducted according to the truth of god; and this it is what, with most fervent prayers, we entreat of god. however, as regards the rest of the electors, princes, and estates, who constitute the other part, if no progress should be made, nor some result be attained by this treatment of the cause of religion after the manner in which your imperial majesty has wisely held that it should be dealt with and treated namely, by such mutual presentation of writings and calm conferring together among ourselves, we at least leave with you a clear testimony, that we here in no wise are holding back from anything that could bring about christian concord,--such as could be effected with god and a good conscience,--as also your imperial majesty and, next, the other electors and estates of the empire, and all who are moved by sincere love and zeal for religion, and who will give an impartial hearing to this matter, will graciously deign to take notice and to understand this from this confession of ours and of our associates. your imperial majesty also, not only once but often, graciously signified to the electors princes, and estates of the empire, and at the diet of spires held a. d. 1526, according to the form of your imperial instruction and commission given and prescribed, caused it to be stated and publicly proclaimed that your majesty, in dealing with this matter of religion, for certain reasons which were alleged in your majesty's name, was not willing to decide and could not determine anything, but that your majesty would diligently use your majesty's office with the roman pontiff for the convening of a general council. the same matter was thus publicly set forth at greater length a year ago at the last diet which met at spires. there your imperial majesty, through his highness ferdinand, king of bohemia and hungary, our friend and clement lord, as well as through the orator and imperial commissioners caused this, among other things, to be submitted: that your imperial majesty had taken notice of; and pondered, the resolution of your majesty's representative in the empire, and of the president and imperial counselors, and the legates from other estates convened at ratisbon, concerning the calling of a council, and that your imperial majesty also judged it to be expedient to convene a council; and that your imperial majesty did not doubt the roman pontiff could be induced to hold a general council, because the matters to be adjusted between your imperial majesty and the roman pontiff were nearing agreement and christian reconciliation; therefore your imperial majesty himself signified that he would endeavor to secure the said chief pontiff's consent for convening, together with your imperial majesty such general council, to be published as soon as possible by letters that were to be sent out. if the outcome, therefore, should be such that the differences between us and the other parties in the matter of religion should not be amicably and in charity settled, then here, before your imperial majesty we make the offer in all obedience, in addition to what we have already done, that we will all appear and defend our cause in such a general, free christian council, for the convening of which there has always been accordant action and agreement of votes in all the imperial diets held during your majesty's reign, on the part of the electors, princes, and other estates of the empire. to the assembly of this general council, and at the same time to your imperial majesty, we have, even before this, in due manner and form of law, addressed ourselves and made appeal in this matter, by far the greatest and gravest. to this appeal, both to your imperial majesty and to a council, we still adhere; neither do we intend nor would it be possible for us, to relinquish it by this or any other document, unless the matter between us and the other side, according to the tenor of the latest imperial citation should be amicably and charitably settled, allayed, and brought to christian concord; and regarding this we even here solemnly and publicly testify. article i: of god. our churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the council of nicaea concerning the unity of the divine essence and concerning the three persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one divine essence which is called and which is god: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the father the son, and the holy ghost. and the term "person" they use as the fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself. they condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one good and the other evil--also the valentinians, arians, eunomians, mohammedans, and all such. they condemn also the samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one person, sophistically and impiously argue that the word and the holy ghost are not distinct persons, but that "word" signifies a spoken word, and "spirit" signifies motion created in things. article ii: of original sin. also they teach that since the fall of adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of god, without trust in god, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through baptism and the holy ghost. they condemn the pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before god by his own strength and reason. article iii: of the son of god. also they teach that the word, that is, the son of god, did assume the human nature in the womb of the blessed virgin mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one person, one christ, true god and true man, who was born of the virgin mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that he might reconcile the father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men. he also descended into hell, and truly rose again the third day; afterward he ascended into heaven that he might sit on the right hand of the father, and forever reign and have dominion over all creatures, and sanctify them that believe in him, by sending the holy ghost into their hearts, to rule, comfort, and quicken them, and to defend them against the devil and the power of sin. the same christ shall openly come again to judge the quick and the dead, etc., according to the apostles' creed. article iv: of justification. also they teach that men cannot be justified before god by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for christ's sake, who, by his death, has made satisfaction for our sins. this faith god imputes for righteousness in his sight. rom. 3 and 4. article v: of the ministry. that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted. for through the word and sacraments, as through instruments, the holy ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases god, in them that hear the gospel, to wit, that god, not for our own merits, but for christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for christ's sake. they condemn the anabaptists and others who think that the holy ghost comes to men without the external word, through their own preparations and works. article vi: of new obedience. also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by god, because of god's will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification before god. for remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of christ attests: when ye shall have done all these things, say: we are unprofitable servants. luke 17, 10. the same is also taught by the fathers. for ambrose says: it is ordained of god that he who believes in christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone. article vii: of the church. also they teach that one holy church is to continue forever. the church is the congregation of saints, in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments are rightly administered. and to the true unity of the church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. as paul says: one faith, one baptism, one god and father of all, etc. eph. 4, 5. 6. article viii: what the church is. although the church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of christ: the scribes and the pharisees sit in moses' seat, etc. matt. 23, 2. both the sacraments and word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men. they condemn the donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect. article ix: of baptism. of baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through baptism is offered the grace of god, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to god through baptism are received into god's grace. they condemn the anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without baptism. article x: of the lord's supper. of the supper of the lord they teach that the body and blood of christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the supper of the lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise. article xi: of confession. of confession they teach that private absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. for it is impossible according to the psalm: who can understand his errors? ps. 19, 12. article xii: of repentance. of repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: one is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance. they condemn the anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the holy ghost. also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin. the novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after baptism, though they returned to repentance. they also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own. article xiii: of the use of the sacraments. of the use of the sacraments they teach that the sacraments were ordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of the will of god toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them. wherefore we must so use the sacraments that faith be added to believe the promises which are offered and set forth through the sacraments. they therefore condemn those who teach that the sacraments justify by the outward act, and who do not teach that, in the use of the sacraments, faith which believes that sins are forgiven, is required. article xiv: of ecclesiastical order. of ecclesiastical order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the church or administer the sacraments unless he be regularly called. article xv: of ecclesiastical usages. of usages in the church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the church, as particular holy-days, festivals, and the like. nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation. they are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate god, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the gospel and the doctrine of faith. wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the gospel. article xvi: of civil affairs. of civil affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of god, and that it is right for christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage. they condemn the anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to christians. they condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of god and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for the gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. meanwhile, it does not destroy the state or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of god, and that charity be practiced in such ordinances. therefore, christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey god rather than men. acts 5, 29. article xvii: of christ's return to judgment. also they teach that at the consummation of the world christ will appear for judgment and will raise up all the dead; he will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils he will condemn to be tormented without end. they condemn the anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils. they condemn also others who are now spreading certain jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed. article xviii: of free will. of free will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. but it has no power, without the holy ghost, to work the righteousness of god, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god, 1 cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the holy ghost is received through the word. these things are said in as many words by augustine in his hypognosticon, book iii: we grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without god, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to god, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "good" i call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. for all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of god; yea, of him and through him they are and have their being. "evil" i call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. they condemn the pelagians and others, who teach that without the holy ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love god above all things; also to do the commandments of god as touching "the substance of the act." for, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of god, trust in god, chastity, patience, etc. article xix: of the cause of sin. of the cause of sin they teach that, although god does create and preserve nature, yet the cause of sin is the will of the wicked, that is, of the devil and ungodly men; which will, unaided of god, turns itself from god, as christ says john 8, 44: when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own. article xx: of good works. our teachers are falsely accused of forbidding good works. for their published writings on the ten commandments, and others of like import, bear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what works in every calling be pleasing to god. concerning these things preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of rosaries, monasticism, and such like. since our adversaries have been admonished of these things, they are now unlearning them, and do not preach these unprofitable works as heretofore. besides, they begin to mention faith, of which there was heretofore marvelous silence. they teach that we are justified not by works only, but they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith and works. this doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and can afford more consolation than their old doctrine. forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine concerning faith, which ought to be the chief one in the church, has lain so long unknown, as all must needs grant that there was the deepest silence in their sermons concerning the righteousness of faith, while only the doctrine of works was treated in the churches, our teachers have instructed the churches concerning faith as follows:-first, that our works cannot reconcile god or merit forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification, but that we obtain this only by faith when we believe that we are received into favor for christs sake, who alone has been set forth the mediator and propitiation, 1 tim. 2, 6, in order that the father may be reconciled through him. whoever, therefore, trusts that by works he merits grace, despises the merit and grace of christ, and seeks a way to god without christ, by human strength, although christ has said of himself: i am the way, the truth, and the life. john 14, 6. this doctrine concerning faith is everywhere treated by paul, eph. 2, 8: by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of god, not of works, etc. and lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the testimonies of the fathers. for augustine, in many volumes, defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits of works. and ambrose, in his de vocatione gentium, and elsewhere, teaches to like effect. for in his de vocatione gentium he says as follows: redemption by the blood of christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of man's works be superseded by the mercy of god, if justification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer. but, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced, nevertheless god-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the sure ground that for christ's sake they have a reconciled god. as paul teaches rom. 5, 1: being justified by faith, we have peace with god. this whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the terrified conscience, neither can it be understood apart from that conflict. therefore inexperienced and profane men judge ill concerning this matter, who dream that christian righteousness is nothing but civil and philosophical righteousness. heretofore consciences were plagued with the doctrine of works, they did not hear the consolation from the gospel. some persons were driven by conscience into the desert, into monasteries hoping there to merit grace by a monastic life. some also devised other works whereby to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins. hence there was very great need to treat of, and renew, this doctrine of faith in christ, to the end that anxious consciences should not be without consolation but that they might know that grace and forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by faith in christ. men are also admonished that here the term "faith" does not signify merely the knowledge of the history, such as is in the ungodly and in the devil, but signifies a faith which believes, not merely the history, but also the effect of the history--namely, this article: the forgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through christ. now he that knows that he has a father gracious to him through christ, truly knows god; he knows also that god cares for him, and calls upon god; in a word, he is not without god, as the heathen. for devils and the ungodly are not able to believe this article: the forgiveness of sins. hence, they hate god as an enemy, call not upon him, and expect no good from him. augustine also admonishes his readers concerning the word "faith," and teaches that the term "faith" is accepted in the scriptures not for knowledge such as is in the ungodly but for confidence which consoles and encourages the terrified mind. furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of god. it is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. and because through faith the holy ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. for ambrose says: faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. for man's powers without the holy ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in god's sight. besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. this we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, but were defiled with many open crimes. such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the holy ghost, and governs himself only by human strength. hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. for without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the first or of the second commandment. without faith it does not call upon god, nor expect anything from god, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man's help. and thus, when there is no faith and trust in god all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. wherefore christ said, john 16,6: without me ye can do nothing; and the church sings: lacking thy divine favor, there is nothing found in man, naught in him is harmless. article xxi: of the worship of the saints. of the worship of saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the emperor may follow the example of david in making war to drive away the turk from his country; for both are kings. but the scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one christ as the mediator, propitiation, high priest, and intercessor. he is to be prayed to, and has promised that he will hear our prayer; and this worship he approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions he be called upon, 1 john 2, 1: if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, etc. this is about the sum of our doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the scriptures, or from the church catholic, or from the church of rome as known from its writers. this being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. there is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the church without rightful authority. and even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the confession which we have now reviewed; because even the canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. for it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. but it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. these, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected. articles in which are reviewed the abuses which have been corrected. inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the church catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the canons, we pray that your imperial majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. nor should your imperial majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. for your imperial majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. but it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches. article xxii: of both kinds in the sacrament. to the laity are given both kinds in the sacrament of the lord's supper, because this usage has the commandment of the lord in matt. 26, 27: drink ye all of it, where christ has manifestly commanded concerning the cup that all should drink. and lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests, paul in 1 cor. 11,27 recites an example from which it appears that the whole congregation did use both kinds. and this usage has long remained in the church, nor is it known when, or by whose authority, it was changed; although cardinal cusanus mentions the time when it was approved. cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given to the people. the same is testified by jerome, who says: the priests administer the eucharist, and distribute the blood of christ to the people. indeed, pope gelasius commands that the sacrament be not divided (dist. ii., de consecratione, cap. comperimus). only custom, not so ancient, has it otherwise. but it is evident that any custom introduced against the commandments of god is not to be allowed, as the canons witness (dist. iii., cap. veritate, and the following chapters). but this custom has been received, not only against the scripture, but also against the old canons and the example of the church. therefore, if any preferred to use both kinds of the sacrament, they ought not to have been compelled with offense to their consciences to do otherwise. and because the division of the sacrament does not agree with the ordinance of christ, we are accustomed to omit the procession, which hitherto has been in use. article xxiii: of the marriage of priests. there has been common complaint concerning the examples of priests who were not chaste. for that reason also pope pius is reported to have said that there were certain causes why marriage was taken away from priests, but that there were far weightier ones why it ought to be given back; for so platina writes. since, therefore, our priests were desirous to avoid these open scandals, they married wives, and taught that it was lawful for them to contract matrimony. first, because paul says, 1 cor. 7, 2. 9: to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. also: it is better to marry than to burn. secondly christ says, matt. 19,11: all men cannot receive this saying, where he teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life; for god created man for procreation, gen. 1, 28. nor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of god, to alter this creation. [for it is manifest, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.] therefore, those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to contract matrimony. for no man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of god. for these reasons the priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives. it is also evident that in the ancient church priests were married men. for paul says, 1 tim. 3, 2, that a bishop should be chosen who is the husband of one wife. and in germany, four hundred years ago for the first time, the priests were violently compelled to lead a single life, who indeed offered such resistance that the archbishop of mayence, when about to publish the pope's decree concerning this matter, was almost killed in the tumult raised by the enraged priests. and so harsh was the dealing in the matter that not only were marriages forbidden for the future, but also existing marriages were torn asunder, contrary to all laws, divine and human, contrary even to the canons themselves, made not only by the popes, but by most celebrated synods. [moreover, many god-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy and depriving men of marriage (which god himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity.] seeing also that, as the world is aging, man's nature is gradually growing weaker, it is well to guard that no more vices steal into germany. furthermore, god ordained marriage to be a help against human infirmity. the canons themselves say that the old rigor ought now and then, in the latter times, to be relaxed because of the weakness of men; which it is to be wished were done also in this matter. and it is to be expected that the churches shall at some time lack pastors if marriage is any longer forbidden. but while the commandment of god is in force, while the custom of the church is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more cruelty exercised than against the marriage of priests. god has given commandment to honor marriage. by the laws of all well-ordered commonwealths, even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored. but now men, and that, priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to the intent of the canons, for no other cause than marriage. paul, in 1 tim. 4,3, calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage. this may now be readily understood when the law against marriage is maintained by such penalties. but as no law of man can annul the commandment of god, so neither can it be done by any vow. accordingly, cyprian also advises that women who do not keep the chastity they have promised should marry. his words are these (book i, epistle xi ): but if they be unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by their lusts; they should certainly give no offense to their brethren and sisters. and even the canons show some leniency toward those who have taken vows before the proper age, as heretofore has generally been the ease. article xxiv: of the mass. falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the mass; for the mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in latin are interspersed here and there with german hymns, which have been added to teach the people. for ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of christ]. and not only has paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by the people 1 cor. 14,2. 9, but it has also been so ordained by man's law. the people are accustomed to partake of the sacrament together, if any be fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of public worship. for none are admitted except they be first examined. the people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the sacrament, how great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they may learn to believe god, and to expect and ask of him all that is good. [in this connection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings on the sacrament.] this worship pleases god; such use of the sacrament nourishes true devotion toward god. it does not, therefore, appear that the mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us. but it is evident that for a long time this also has been the public and most grievous complaint of all good men that masses have been basely profaned and applied to purposes of lucre. for it is not unknown how far this abuse obtains in all the churches by what manner of men masses are said only for fees or stipends, and how many celebrate them contrary to the canons. but paul severely threatens those who deal unworthily with the eucharist when he says, 1 cor.11,27: whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the lord. when, therefore our priests were admonished concerning this sin, private masses were discontinued among us, as scarcely any private masses were celebrated except for lucre's sake. neither were the bishops ignorant of these abuses, and if they had corrected them in time, there would now be less dissension. heretofore, by their own connivance, they suffered many corruptions to creep into the church. now, when it is too late, they begin to complain of the troubles of the church, while this disturbance has been occasioned simply by those abuses which were so manifest that they could be borne no longer. there have been great dissensions concerning the mass, concerning the sacrament. perhaps the world is being punished for such long-continued profanations of the mass as have been tolerated in the churches for so many centuries by the very men who were both able and in duty bound to correct them. for in the ten commandments it is written, ex. 20, 7: the lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. but since the world began, nothing that god ever ordained seems to have been so abused for filthy lucre as the mass. there was also added the opinion which infinitely increased private masses, namely that christ, by his passion, had made satisfaction for original sin, and instituted the mass wherein an offering should be made for daily sins, venial and mortal. from this has arisen the common opinion that the mass takes away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act. then they began to dispute whether one mass said for many were worth as much as special masses for individuals, and this brought forth that infinite multitude of masses. [with this work men wished to obtain from god all that they needed, and in the mean time faith in christ and the true worship were forgotten.] concerning these opinions our teachers have given warning that they depart from the holy scriptures and diminish the glory of the passion of christ. for christ's passion was an oblation and satisfaction, not for original guilt only, but also for all other sins, as it is written to the hebrews, 10, 10: we are sanctified through the offering of jesus christ once for all. also, 10, 14: by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. [it is an unheard-of innovation in the church to teach that christ by his death made satisfaction only for original sin and not likewise for all other sin. accordingly it is hoped that everybody will understand that this error has not been reproved without due reason.] scripture also teaches that we are justified before god through faith in christ, when we believe that our sins are forgiven for christ's sake. now if the mass take away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act justification comes of the work of masses, and not of faith, which scripture does not allow. but christ commands us, luke 22, 19: this do in remembrance of me; therefore the mass was instituted that the faith of those who use the sacrament should remember what benefits it receives through christ, and cheer and comfort the anxious conscience. for to remember christ is to remember his benefits, and to realize that they are truly offered unto us. nor is it enough only to remember the history; for this also the jews and the ungodly can remember. wherefore the mass is to be used to this end, that there the sacrament [communion] may be administered to them that have need of consolation; as ambrose says: because i always sin, i am always bound to take the medicine. [therefore this sacrament requires faith, and is used in vain without faith.] now, forasmuch as the mass is such a giving of the sacrament, we hold one communion every holy-day, and, if any desire the sacrament, also on other days, when it is given to such as ask for it. and this custom is not new in the church; for the fathers before gregory make no mention of any private mass, but of the common mass [the communion] they speak very much. chrysostom says that the priest stands daily at the altar, inviting some to the communion and keeping back others. and it appears from the ancient canons that some one celebrated the mass from whom all the other presbyters and deacons received the body of the lord; for thus the words of the nicene canon say: let the deacons, according to their order, receive the holy communion after the presbyters, from the bishop or from a presbyter. and paul, 1 cor. 11, 33, commands concerning the communion: tarry one for another, so that there may be a common participation. forasmuch, therefore, as the mass with us has the example of the church, taken from the scripture and the fathers, we are confident that it cannot be disapproved, especially since public ceremonies, for the most part like those hitherto in use, are retained; only the number of masses differs, which, because of very great and manifest abuses doubtless might be profitably reduced. for in olden times, even in churches most frequented, the mass was not celebrated every day, as the tripartite history (book 9, chap. 33) testifies: again in alexandria, every wednesday and friday the scriptures are read, and the doctors expound them, and all things are done, except the solemn rite of communion. article xxv: of confession. confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. and the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there was profound silence. our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of god, and pronounced by god's command. the power of the keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that god requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; of faith and the merit of christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. for this even our adversaries must needs concede to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers. but of confession they teach that an enumeration of sins is not necessary, and that consciences be not burdened with anxiety to enumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins, as the psalm testifies, 19,13: who can understand his errors? also jeremiah, 17 9: the heart is deceitful; who can know it; but if no sins were forgiven, except those that are recounted, consciences could never find peace; for very many sins they neither see nor can remember. the ancient writers also testify that an enumeration is not necessary. for in the decrees, chrysostom is quoted, who says thus: i say not to you that you should disclose yourself in public, nor that you accuse yourself before others, but i would have you obey the prophet who says: "disclose thy self before god." therefore confess your sins before god, the true judge, with prayer. tell your errors, not with the tongue, but with the memory of your conscience, etc. and the gloss (of repentance, distinct. v, cap. consideret) admits that confession is of human right only [not commanded by scripture, but ordained by the church]. nevertheless, on account of the great benefit of absolution, and because it is otherwise useful to the conscience, confession is retained among us. article xxvi: of the distinction of meats. it has been the general persuasion, not of the people alone, but also of those teaching in the churches, that making distinctions of meats, and like traditions of men, are works profitable to merit grace, and able to make satisfactions for sins. and that the world so thought, appears from this, that new ceremonies, new orders, new holy-days, and new fastings were daily instituted, and the teachers in the churches did exact these works as a service necessary to merit grace, and did greatly terrify men's consciences, if they should omit any of these things. from this persuasion concerning traditions much detriment has resulted in the church. first, the doctrine of grace and of the righteousness of faith has been obscured by it, which is the chief part of the gospel, and ought to stand out as the most prominent in the church, in order that the merit of christ may be well known, and faith, which believes that sins are forgiven for christ's sake be exalted far above works. wherefore paul also lays the greatest stress on this article, putting aside the law and human traditions, in order to show that christian righteousness is something else than such works, to wit, the faith which believes that sins are freely forgiven for christ's sake. but this doctrine of paul has been almost wholly smothered by traditions, which have produced an opinion that, by making distinctions in meats and like services, we must merit grace and righteousness. in treating of repentance, there was no mention made of faith; only those works of satisfaction were set forth; in these the entire repentance seemed to consist. secondly, these traditions have obscured the commandments of god, because traditions were placed far above the commandments of god. christianity was thought to consist wholly in the observance of certain holy-days, rites, fasts, and vestures. these observances had won for themselves the exalted title of being the spiritual life and the perfect life. meanwhile the commandments of god, according to each one's calling, were without honor namely, that the father brought up his offspring, that the mother bore children, that the prince governed the commonwealth,--these were accounted works that were worldly and imperfect, and far below those glittering observances. and this error greatly tormented devout consciences, which grieved that they were held in an imperfect state of life, as in marriage, in the office of magistrate; or in other civil ministrations; on the other hand, they admired the monks and such like, and falsely imagined that the observances of such men were more acceptable to god. thirdly, traditions brought great danger to consciences; for it was impossible to keep all traditions, and yet men judged these observances to be necessary acts of worship. gerson writes that many fell into despair, and that some even took their own lives, because they felt that they were not able to satisfy the traditions, and they had all the while not heard any consolation of the righteousness of faith and grace. we see that the summists and theologians gather the traditions, and seek mitigations whereby to ease consciences, and yet they do not sufficiently unfetter, but sometimes entangle, consciences even more. and with the gathering of these traditions, the schools and sermons have been so much occupied that they have had no leisure to touch upon scripture, and to seek the more profitable doctrine of faith, of the cross, of hope, of the dignity of civil affairs of consolation of sorely tried consciences. hence gerson and some other theologians have grievously complained that by these strivings concerning traditions they were prevented from giving attention to a better kind of doctrine. augustine also forbids that men's consciences should be burdened with such observances, and prudently advises januarius that he must know that they are to be observed as things indifferent; for such are his words. wherefore our teachers must not be looked upon as having taken up this matter rashly or from hatred of the bishops, as some falsely suspect. there was great need to warn the churches of these errors, which had arisen from misunderstanding the traditions. for the gospel compels us to insist in the churches upon the doctrine of grace, and of the righteousness of faith; which, however, cannot be understood, if men think that they merit grace by observances of their own choice. thus, therefore, they have taught that by the observance of human traditions we cannot merit grace or be justified, and hence we must not think such observances necessary acts of worship. they add hereunto testimonies of scripture. christ, matt. 15, 3, defends the apostles who had not observed the usual tradition, which, however, evidently pertains to a matter not unlawful, but indifferent, and to have a certain affinity with the purifications of the law, and says, 9: in vain do they worship me with the commandments of men. he, therefore, does not exact an unprofitable service. shortly after he adds: not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man. so also paul, rom. 14, 17: the kingdom of god is not meat and drink. col. 2, 16: let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the sabbath-day; also: if ye be dead with christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances: touch not, taste not, handle not! and peter says, acts 15, 10: why tempt ye god to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? but we believe that through the grace of the lord jesus christ we shall be saved, even as they. here peter forbids to burden the consciences with many rites, either of moses or of others. and in 1 tim. 4,1.3 paul calls the prohibition of meats a doctrine of devils; for it is against the gospel to institute or to do such works that by them we may merit grace, or as though christianity could not exist without such service of god. here our adversaries object that our teachers are opposed to discipline and mortification of the flesh, as jovinian. but the contrary may be learned from the writings of our teachers. for they have always taught concerning the cross that it behooves christians to bear afflictions. this is the true, earnest, and unfeigned mortification, to wit, to be exercised with divers afflictions, and to be crucified with christ. moreover, they teach that every christian ought to train and subdue himself with bodily restraints, or bodily exercises and labors that neither satiety nor slothfulness tempt him to sin, but not that we may merit grace or make satisfaction for sins by such exercises. and such external discipline ought to be urged at all times, not only on a few and set days. so christ commands, luke 21, 34: take heed lest your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting; also matt. 17, 21: this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. paul also says, 1 cor. 9, 27: i keep under my body and bring it into subjection. here he clearly shows that he was keeping under his body, not to merit forgiveness of sins by that discipline, but to have his body in subjection and fitted for spiritual things, and for the discharge of duty according to his calling. therefore, we do not condemn fasting in itself, but the traditions which prescribe certain days and certain meats, with peril of conscience, as though such works were a necessary service. nevertheless, very many traditions are kept on our part, which conduce to good order in the church, as the order of lessons in the mass and the chief holy-days. but, at the same time, men are warned that such observances do not justify before god, and that in such things it should not be made sin if they be omitted without offense. such liberty in human rites was not unknown to the fathers. for in the east they kept easter at another time than at rome, and when, on account of this diversity, the romans accused the eastern church of schism, they were admonished by others that such usages need not be alike everywhere. and irenaeus says: diversity concerning fasting does not destroy the harmony of faith; as also pope gregory intimates in dist. xii, that such diversity does not violate the unity of the church. and in the tripartite history, book 9, many examples of dissimilar rites are gathered, and the following statement is made: it was not the mind of the apostles to enact rules concerning holy-days, but to preach godliness and a holy life [, to teach faith and love]. article xxvii: of monastic vows. what is taught on our part concerning monastic vows, will be better understood if it be remembered what has been the state of the monasteries, and how many things were daily done in those very monasteries, contrary to the canons. in augustine's time they were free associations. afterward, when discipline was corrupted, vows were everywhere added for the purpose of restoring discipline, as in a carefully planned prison. gradually, many other observances were added besides vows. and these fetters were laid upon many before the lawful age, contrary to the canons. many also entered into this kind of life through ignorance, being unable to judge their own strength, though they were of sufficient age. being thus ensnared, they were compelled to remain, even though some could have been freed by the kind provision of the canons. and this was more the case in convents of women than of monks, although more consideration should have been shown the weaker sex. this rigor displeased many good men before this time, who saw that young men and maidens were thrown into convents for a living. they saw what unfortunate results came of this procedure, and what scandals were created, what snares were cast upon consciences! they were grieved that the authority of the canons in so momentous a matter was utterly set aside and despised. to these evils was added such a persuasion concerning vows as, it is well known, in former times displeased even those monks who were more considerate. they taught that vows were equal to baptism; they taught that by this kind of life they merited forgiveness of sins and justification before god. yea, they added that the monastic life not only merited righteousness before god but even greater things, because it kept not only the precepts, but also the so-called "evangelical counsels." thus they made men believe that the profession of monasticism was far better than baptism, and that the monastic life was more meritorious than that of magistrates, than the life of pastors, and such like, who serve their calling in accordance with god's commands, without any man-made services. none of these things can be denied; for they appear in their own books. [moreover, a person who has been thus ensnared and has entered a monastery learns little of christ.] what, then, came to pass in the monasteries? aforetime they were schools of theology and other branches, profitable to the church; and thence pastors and bishops were obtained. now it is another thing. it is needless to rehearse what is known to all. aforetime they came together to learn; now they feign that it is a kind of life instituted to merit grace and righteousness; yea, they preach that it is a state of perfection, and they put it far above all other kinds of life ordained of god. these things we have rehearsed without odious exaggeration, to the end that the doctrine of our teachers on this point might be better understood. first, concerning such as contract matrimony, they teach on our part that it is lawful for all men who are not fitted for single life to contract matrimony, because vows cannot annul the ordinance and commandment of god. but the commandment of god is 1 cor. 7, 2: to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. nor is it the commandment only, but also the creation and ordinance of god, which forces those to marry who are not excepted by a singular work of god, according to the text gen. 2, 18: it is not good that the man should be alone. therefore they do not sin who obey this commandment and ordinance of god. what objection can be raised to this? let men extol the obligation of a vow as much as they list, yet shall they not bring to pass that the vow annuls the commandment of god. the canons teach that the right of the superior is excepted in every vow; [that vows are not binding against the decision of the pope;] much less, therefore, are these vows of force which are against the commandments of god. now, if the obligation of vows could not be changed for any cause whatever, the roman pontiffs could never have given dispensation for it is not lawful for man to annul an obligation which is simply divine. but the roman pontiffs have prudently judged that leniency is to be observed in this obligation, and therefore we read that many times they have dispensed from vows. the case of the king of aragon who was called back from the monastery is well known, and there are also examples in our own times. [now, if dispensations have been granted for the sake of securing temporal interests, it is much more proper that they be granted on account of the distress of souls.] in the second place, why do our adversaries exaggerate the obligation or effect of a vow when, at the same time, they have not a word to say of the nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a thing possible, that it ought to be free, and chosen spontaneously and deliberately? but it is not unknown to what extent perpetual chastity is in the power of man. and how few are there who have taken the vow spontaneously and deliberately! young maidens and men, before they are able to judge, are persuaded, and sometimes even compelled, to take the vow. wherefore it is not fair to insist so rigorously on the obligation, since it is granted by all that it is against the nature of a vow to take it without spontaneous and deliberate action. most canonical laws rescind vows made before the age of fifteen; for before that age there does not seem sufficient judgment in a person to decide concerning a perpetual life. another canon, granting more to the weakness of man, adds a few years; for it forbids a vow to be made before the age of eighteen. but which of these two canons shall we follow? the most part have an excuse for leaving the monasteries, because most of them have taken the vows before they reached these ages. finally, even though the violation of a vow might be censured, yet it seems not forthwith to follow that the marriages of such persons must be dissolved. for augustine denies that they ought to be dissolved (xxvii. quaest. i, cap. nuptiarum), and his authority is not lightly to be esteemed, although other men afterwards thought otherwise. but although it appears that god's command concerning marriage delivers very many from their vows, yet our teachers introduce also another argument concerning vows to show that they are void. for every service of god, ordained and chosen of men without the commandment of god to merit justification and grace, is wicked, as christ says matt. 16, 9: in vain do they worship me with the commandments of men. and paul teaches everywhere that righteousness is not to be sought from our own observances and acts of worship, devised by men, but that it comes by faith to those who believe that they are received by god into grace for christ's sake. but it is evident that monks have taught that services of man's making satisfy for sins and merit grace and justification. what else is this than to detract from the glory of christ and to obscure and deny the righteousness of faith? it follows, therefore, that the vows thus commonly taken have been wicked services, and, consequently, are void. for a wicked vow, taken against the commandment of god, is not valid; for (as the canon says) no vow ought to bind men to wickedness. paul says, gal. 5, 4: christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. to those, therefore, who want to be justified by their vows christ is made of no effect, and they fall from grace. for also these who ascribe justification to vows ascribe to their own works that which properly belongs to the glory of christ. nor can it be denied, indeed, that the monks have taught that, by their vows and observances, they were justified, and merited forgiveness of sins, yea, they invented still greater absurdities, saying that they could give others a share in their works. if any one should be inclined to enlarge on these things with evil intent, how many things could he bring together whereof even the monks are now ashamed! over and above this, they persuaded men that services of man's making were a state of christian perfection. and is not this assigning justification to works? it is no light offense in the church to set forth to the people a service devised by men, without the commandment of god, and to teach that such service justifies men. for the righteousness of faith, which chiefly ought to be taught in the church, is obscured when these wonderful angelic forms of worship, with their show of poverty, humility, and celibacy, are east before the eyes of men. furthermore, the precepts of god and the true service of god are obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection. for christian perfection is to fear god from the heart, and yet to conceive great faith, and to trust that for christ's sake we have a god who has been reconciled, to ask of god, and assuredly to expect his aid in all things that, according to our calling, are to be done; and meanwhile, to be diligent in outward good works, and to serve our calling. in these things consist the true perfection and the true service of god. it does not consist in celibacy, or in begging, or in vile apparel. but the people conceive many pernicious opinions from the false commendations of monastic life. they hear celibacy praised above measure; therefore they lead their married life with offense to their consciences. they hear that only beggars are perfect; therefore they keep their possessions and do business with offense to their consciences. they hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel, and not a commandment. others judge that the christian cannot properly hold a civil office or be a magistrate. there are on record examples of men who, forsaking marriage and the administration of the commonwealth, have hid themselves in monasteries. this they called fleeing from the world, and seeking a kind of life which would be more pleasing to god. neither did they see that god ought to be served in those commandments which he himself has given and not in commandments devised by men. a good and perfect kind of life is that which has for it the commandment of god. it is necessary to admonish men of these things. and before these times, gerson rebukes this error of the monks concerning perfection, and testifies that in his day it was a new saying that the monastic life is a state of perfection. so many wicked opinions are inherent in the vows, namely, that they justify, that they constitute christian perfection, that they keep the counsels and commandments, that they have works of supererogation. all these things, since they are false and empty, make vows null and void. article xxviii: of ecclesiastical power. there has been great controversy concerning the power of bishops, in which some have awkwardly confounded the power of the church and the power of the sword. and from this confusion very great wars and tumults have resulted, while the pontiffs, emboldened by the power of the keys, not only have instituted new services and burdened consciences with reservation of cases and ruthless excommunications, but have also undertaken to transfer the kingdoms of this world, and to take the empire from the emperor. these wrongs have long since been rebuked in the church by learned and godly men. therefore our teachers, for the comforting of men's consciences, were constrained to show the difference between the power of the church and the power of the sword, and taught that both of them, because of god's commandment, are to be held in reverence and honor, as the chief blessings of god on earth. but this is their opinion, that the power of the keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the gospel, is a power or commandment of god, to preach the gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer sacraments. for with this commandment christ sends forth his apostles, john 20, 21 sqq.: as my father hath sent me, even so send i you. receive ye the holy ghost. whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. mark 16, 15: go preach the gospel to every creature. this power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments, according to their calling either to many or to individuals. for thereby are granted, not bodily, but eternal things, as eternal righteousness, the holy ghost, eternal life. these things cannot come but by the ministry of the word and the sacraments, as paul says, rom. 1, 16: the gospel is the power of god unto salvation to every one that believeth. therefore, since the power of the church grants eternal things, and is exercised only by the ministry of the word, it does not interfere with civil government; no more than the art of singing interferes with civil government. for civil government deals with other things than does the gospel. the civil rulers defend not minds, but bodies and bodily things against manifest injuries, and restrain men with the sword and bodily punishments in order to preserve civil justice and peace. therefore the power of the church and the civil power must not be confounded. the power of the church has its own commission to teach the gospel and to administer the sacraments. let it not break into the office of another; let it not transfer the kingdoms of this world; let it not abrogate the laws of civil rulers; let it not abolish lawful obedience; let it not interfere with judgments concerning civil ordinances or contracts; let it not prescribe laws to civil rulers concerning the form of the commonwealth. as christ says, john 18, 33: my kingdom is not of this world; also luke 12, 14: who made me a judge or a divider over you? paul also says, phil. 3, 20: our citizenship is in heaven; 2 cor. 10, 4: the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through god to the casting down of imaginations. after this manner our teachers discriminate between the duties of both these powers, and command that both be honored and acknowledged as gifts and blessings of god. if bishops have any power of the sword, that power they have, not as bishops, by the commission of the gospel, but by human law having received it of kings and emperors for the civil administration of what is theirs. this, however, is another office than the ministry of the gospel. when, therefore, the question is concerning the jurisdiction of bishops, civil authority must be distinguished from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. again, according to the gospel or, as they say, by divine right, there belongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to whom has been committed the ministry of the word and the sacraments, no jurisdiction except to forgive sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines contrary to the gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the church wicked men, whose wickedness is known, and this without human force, simply by the word. herein the congregations of necessity and by divine right must obey them, according to luke 10, 16: he that heareth you heareth me. but when they teach or ordain anything against the gospel, then the congregations have a commandment of god prohibiting obedience, matt. 7, 15: beware of false prophets; gal. 1, 8: though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed; 2 cor. 13, 8: we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. also: the power which the lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction. so, also, the canonical laws command (ii. q. vii. cap., sacerdotes, and cap. oves). and augustine (contra petiliani epistolam): neither must we submit to catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the canonical scriptures of god. if they have any other power or jurisdiction, in hearing and judging certain cases, as of matrimony or of tithes, etc., they have it by human right, in which matters princes are bound, even against their will, when the ordinaries fail, to dispense justice to their subjects for the maintenance of peace. moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to introduce ceremonies in the church, and to make laws concerning meats, holy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc. they that give this right to the bishops refer to this testimony john 16, 12. 13: i have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth. they also refer to the example of the apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled, acts 15, 29. they refer to the sabbath-day as having been changed into the lord's day, contrary to the decalog, as it seems. neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the sabbath-day. great, say they, is the power of the church, since it has dispensed with one of the ten commandments! but concerning this question it is taught on our part (as has been shown above) that bishops have no power to decree anything against the gospel. the canonical laws teach the same thing (dist. ix). now, it is against scripture to establish or require the observance of any traditions, to the end that by such observance we may make satisfaction for sins, or merit grace and righteousness. for the glory of christ's merit suffers injury when, by such observances, we undertake to merit justification. but it is manifest that, by such belief, traditions have almost infinitely multiplied in the church, the doctrine concerning faith and the righteousness of faith being meanwhile suppressed. for gradually more holy-days were made, fasts appointed, new ceremonies and services in honor of saints instituted, because the authors of such things thought that by these works they were meriting grace. thus in times past the penitential canons increased, whereof we still see some traces in the satisfactions. again, the authors of traditions do contrary to the command of god when they find matters of sin in foods, in days, and like things, and burden the church with bondage of the law, as if there ought to be among christians, in order to merit justification a service like the levitical, the arrangement of which god had committed to the apostles and bishops. for thus some of them write; and the pontiffs in some measure seem to be misled by the example of the law of moses. hence are such burdens, as that they make it mortal sin, even without offense to others, to do manual labor on holy-days, a mortal sin to omit the canonical hours, that certain foods defile the conscience that fastings are works which appease god that sin in a reserved case cannot be forgiven but by the authority of him who reserved it; whereas the canons themselves speak only of the reserving of the ecclesiastical penalty, and not of the reserving of the guilt. whence have the bishops the right to lay these traditions upon the church for the ensnaring of consciences, when peter, acts 15, 10, forbids to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, and paul says, 2 cor. 13, 10, that the power given him was to edification not to destruction? why, therefore, do they increase sins by these traditions? but there are clear testimonies which prohibit the making of such traditions, as though they merited grace or were necessary to salvation. paul says, col. 2, 16-23: let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days. if ye be dead with christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not; taste not; handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men! which things have indeed a show of wisdom. also in titus 1, 14 he openly forbids traditions: not giving heed to jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth. and christ, matt. 15, 14. 13, says of those who require traditions: let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind; and he rejects such services: every plant which my heavenly father hath not planted shall be plucked up. if bishops have the right to burden churches with infinite traditions, and to ensnare consciences, why does scripture so often prohibit to make, and to listen to, traditions? why does it call them "doctrines of devils"? 1 tim. 4, 1. did the holy ghost in vain forewarn of these things? since, therefore, ordinances instituted as things necessary, or with an opinion of meriting grace, are contrary to the gospel, it follows that it is not lawful for any bishop to institute or exact such services. for it is necessary that the doctrine of christian liberty be preserved in the churches, namely, that the bondage of the law is not necessary to justification, as it is written in the epistle to the galatians, 5, 1: be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. it is necessary that the chief article of the gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace freely by faith in christ, and not for certain observances or acts of worship devised by men. what, then, are we to think of the sunday and like rites in the house of god? to this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them without offense to others. so paul ordains, 1 cor. 11, 5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 cor. 14, 30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc. it is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 cor. 14, 40; comp. phil. 2, 14; but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given. of this kind is the observance of the lord's day, easter, pentecost, and like holy-days and rites. for those who judge that by the authority of the church the observance of the lord's day instead of the sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. scripture has abrogated the sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of moses can be omitted. and yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the church designated the lord's day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the sabbath nor of any other day is necessary. there are monstrous disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs be in the church a service like to the levitical, and that christ had given commission to the apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to salvation. these errors crept into the church when the righteousness of faith was not taught clearly enough. some dispute that the keeping of the lord's day is not indeed of divine right, but in a manner so. they prescribe concerning holy-days, how far it is lawful to work. what else are such disputations than snares of consciences? for although they endeavor to modify the traditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where the righteousness of faith and christian liberty are not known. the apostles commanded acts 15, 20 to abstain from blood. who does now observe it? and yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. for in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the gospel is. scarcely any canons are kept with exactness, and from day to day many go out of use even among those who are the most zealous advocates of traditions. neither can due regard be paid to consciences unless this mitigation be observed, that we know that the canons are kept without holding them to be necessary, and that no harm is done consciences, even though traditions go out of use. but the bishops might easily retain the lawful obedience of the people if they would not insist upon the observance of such traditions as cannot be kept with a good conscience. now they command celibacy; they admit none unless they swear that they will not teach the pure doctrine of the gospel. the churches do not ask that the bishops should restore concord at the expense of their honor; which, nevertheless, it would be proper for good pastors to do. they ask only that they would release unjust burdens which are new and have been received contrary to the custom of the church catholic. it may be that in the beginning there were plausible reasons for some of these ordinances; and yet they are not adapted to later times. it is also evident that some were adopted through erroneous conceptions. therefore it would be befitting the clemency of the pontiffs to mitigate them now, because such a modification does not shake the unity of the church. for many human traditions have been changed in process of time, as the canons themselves show. but if it be impossible to obtain a mitigation of such observances as cannot be kept without sin, we are bound to follow the apostolic rule, acts 5, 29, which commands us to obey god rather than men. peter, 1 pet. 5, 3, forbids bishops to be lords, and to rule over the churches. it is not our design now to wrest the government from the bishops, but this one thing is asked, namely, that they allow the gospel to be purely taught, and that they relax some few observances which cannot be kept without sin. but if they make no concession, it is for them to see how they shall give account to god for furnishing, by their obstinacy, a cause for schism. conclusion. these are the chief articles which seem to be in controversy. for although we might have spoken of more abuses, yet, to avoid undue length, we have set forth the chief points, from which the rest may be readily judged. there have been great complaints concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunications. the parishes have been vexed in many ways by the dealers in indulgences. there were endless contentions between the pastors and the monks concerning the parochial right, confessions, burials, sermons on extraordinary occasions, and innumerable other things. issues of this sort we have passed over so that the chief points in this matter, having been briefly set forth, might be the more readily understood. nor has anything been here said or adduced to the reproach of any one. only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against scripture or the church catholic. for it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. the above articles we desire to present in accordance with the edict of your imperial majesty, in order to exhibit our confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our teachers. if there is anything that any one might desire in this confession, we are ready, god willing, to present ampler information according to the scriptures. your imperial majesty's faithful subjects: john, duke of saxony, elector. george, margrave of brandenburg. ernest, duke of lueneberg. philip, landgrave of hesse. john frederick, duke of saxony. francis, duke of lueneburg. wolfgang, prince of anhalt. senate and magistracy of nuremburg. senate of reutlingen. free _and_ impartial thoughts, on the sovereignty _of_ god, the doctrines of election, reprobation, and original sin: humbly addressed to all who believe and profess those doctrines. the second edition, corrected and enlarged. _london:_ printed for j. robinson, at the _golden-lion_, in _ludgate-street._ m.dcc.xlv. the preface _i cannot find, upon the most impartial retrospection of the argument, any reason to alter my sentiments concerning it; and as it is a matter of the greatest importance, 'tis hoped that those who maintain the doctrines of_ election, &_c. will afford it all the weight and consideration it deserves. but, if there be any among them, who will hear no reason or argument whatever, and are_ sure, only because they are sure, _i have_ little _or_ no hopes _to prevail with them, to give me a fair hearing, or to think_ candidly _and_ impartially _about it. but as there are among them, some, who no doubt will allow the_ possibility _of their being in an error; to all such i address my self, and beseech them, as much as possible to lay aside prejudice and partiality; wisely considering, that many of their fore-fathers maintained some erroneous doctrines, with as much zeal, and integrity, as they their descendants now do the doctrines of_ election, &_c. and yet saw occasion to renounce them afterwards._ _there is reason to fear, the just liberty i have taken with the_ doctrines of election, &_c. may, by some, be deem'd blasphemy against_ god _himself; but i am far from intending any such thing. these doctrines (i think) on the contrary, are_ in them selves _nothing better than_ blasphemous, _tho' the intentions of some who maintain them, be ever so devout and sincere: and if an impeachment of doctrines, which, instead of preserving_ god's moral character, _robs him of all that is dear and valuable, or that can render him lovely and adorable to man, be accounted_ blasphemy, _the ignorance and bigotry of those, who judge after that manner, ought much to be lamented. it is a melancholy truth, that where prejudice, in favour of false principles, has had early and frequent access to the mind, it too often shuts the ear against reason and truth; and 'tis very hard to persuade such people to enter at all, and much less impartially, into the merits of an argument advanced against them; nor indeed is the liberty of thought on_ religious subjects, duly inculcated _in religious assemblies: for, the_ teachers of christianity, _tho' they are seldom averse to give us the compliment of a_ just liberty of thinking for ourselves, _are but too apt_ to set the terrors of the lord in array against unbelievers; _tho' perhaps_ their dissent _may sometimes be only the_ innocent effect, _of the best examination they are able to make. and if there be any thing worthy of notice, in what i have advanced, i hereby intreat all, into whose hands this treatise may come, not to be terrified, by any such popular arts, from making a thorough examination for themselves; on the other hand, i am altogether as willing to set right, in whatever i may have erred, or been mistaken._ _'tis well known, the 17th article of our own_ national church, _greatly favours the_ doctrines _of_ election _and_ reprobation; _and it is also generally believed, that the_ better part _of our clergy entirely disapprove these doctrines, and would very readily assist in expunging them out of their_ creed; _which would render their consciences much easier, than now they are, or can be, under a subscription in a sense so_ very qualified _and_ remote _from the_ natural intent _and_ meaning _of the_ article. _experience makes it evident, that education is able to retain men of the_ brightest understanding, _in the belief of the_ greatest absurdities. _but, that men of learning, ingenuity and experience, who have lived perhaps to the age of fifty, in the disbelief of the_ doctrines _of_ election, &_c. should after that sincerely embrace them, is to me matter of great astonishment; yet this i am inform'd is really the case, with regard to one of the most ingenious_ divines, _our metropolis has to boast of. one reason may perhaps be alledged, for such an unexpected alteration of sentiment_, viz. _that tho' we disbelieve these doctrines, because they are_ absurd, _yet we hold at the same time, others_, equally repugnant _to reason, and to common sense; and certainly we may as reasonably_ embrace _the one as_ retain _the other. besides, with what reasonable expectation of success could such a man as this sit down to argue with_ another _of_ absurd principles, _when_ he himself _might be so easily abash'd and put to silence, by an appeal to_ other principles, _of_ his own, _equally absurd and inexplicable. the best way then, instead of embracing a_ fresh, _absurd, principle of faith, is, to renounce the_ old. _i would not willingly offend_ any, _by a special application to_ particular societies _and_ doctrines: _let but every man make an honest application to himself, and the articles of faith he professes, and the work of reformation will, i am persuaded, gain something thereby. and that, not only these doctrines, but every other absurd principle of faith, which either ignorance, or design, may have introduced into the christian church, to the_ dishonour _of_ god, _the_ burthen _and_ reproach _of human nature, may be_ utterly exploded, _is the incessant wish, and earnest desire, of_ the author. free _and_ impartial thoughts, &_c_. _christianity_ having been instituted, by its great author and publisher, for the benefit and advantage of mankind, it is pity we should so greatly differ, concerning what _genuine christianity_ is; if the _holy bible_, as we generally agree, was designed to lead us to the true knowledge of god, and to be a standing and perpetual rule of _faith_ and _manners_ to men, it must surely have been greatly corrupted since the primitive times of the gospel, or the _explication_ of it designedly left to a more excellent and superior director: for the seeming contradictions, and multiplicity of obscure passages, wherewith it abounds, shew plainly it could never, in its present condition, be a rule of faith, &_c_. becoming an all-wise and perfect being, to give to rational creatures. every _good man, society_, and _state_, study perspicuity in all their _rules, orders, and statutes,_ dispensed to their _families, members,_ and _subjects:_ and can we suppose, that he, who is perfect in knowledge, would, in the dispensation of his laws, take less care of the everlasting state of his immortal creature _man?_ yet it is plain, we differ in our sentiments of religion, and greatly too, for want, as i sincerely hope, of the knowledge of better helps, to direct our inquiries, in matters, the true knowledge whereof, is of so considerable moment. therefore, i intend, in the course of this debate, to descant _freely_, on the doctrines of _divine sovereignty, election, reprobation_, and _original sin;_ and also, on the arguments which some ingenious gentlemen have used to support them. but i hope (with regard to the _authors_ i may possibly name) to be perfectly decent, and to treat them with all becoming respect and deference, as i think men of integrity, learning and abilities deserve; who, though in some points they may err, and hold doctrines in their own nature and tendency altogether subversive of religion and morality, do nevertheless not perceive them to have these tendencies, and are therefore by _no means_ chargeable with them. yet, as touching the _doctrines_ themselves, i shall presume to speak freely, both in regard to their nature, and what appears to me to be their genuine fruits and effects. it is with me an establish'd truth, that the mistaken notion of some _learned men_, concerning the _sovereignty_ of the _deity_, has given these doctrines a more favourable acceptance in the world, than otherwise they would, or could, ever have met with; and notwithstanding all the pains and arguments these gentlemen have bestowed, to reconcile their doctrines to our common sense of _right_ and _wrong_, it is plain, that, at _bottom_, this is the grand governing principle. for, when their attempts to reconcile these doctrines with common sense and equity fail, they have immediate recourse to god's _sovereignty_, and even go so far, at least in effect, as to deny there is _any_ intrinsick difference in things themselves, as shall be made appear from their most approved writers, whenever they are pleased to demand it: but as this principle of _sovereignty_ is most certainly their strong hold, i shall therefore endeavour to go to the depth of this argument; and shew, in the first place, how greatly they misapprehend the nature of this _attribute;_ and, in the second place, granting it to be as they say, i shall then shew the _precarious_ and _miserable_ condition of all mankind, not excepting the elect themselves, under the government of such an arbitrary being. to begin with the first. that god is a _sovereign_, we readily allow: but it will not therefore follow, he is _morally capable_ of doing any thing, in its _own nature_, immoral or unjust. all religious debates are allowed to be best determinable by the divine attributes; and yet nothing is more common, than to single out, and lay the greatest stress on, that attribute alone, which appears best to suit our own particular opinions: which, however innocent our intention may be, is, i think, in itself, a very erroneous and unwarrantable procedure; for as god is _all-wise_ and _good_, as well as _almighty_ and _independent_, it is, in the nature of things, impossible (and therefore we should never admit it possible) he should be capable (in a moral sense, i mean) of exerting any one particular attribute in _opposition_ to, or _diminution_ from, another. a _sovereign_ he is, nor can any creature whatever dispute his _unlimited_ and _uncontroulable_ power over his _whole creation_. but power alone, without wisdom and goodness to make a right use and application of it, may be perfect _frenzy_, and run into the greatest latitude of _folly_ and _tyranny_. it is, if i may be allowed the comparison, like a _vessel_ that has lost its helm, continually exposed to the tossing of winds and waves. to talk, therefore, of _mere sovereign pleasure_, without regard to the proper reason or fitness of things, so far operating and bring in the _divine mind_ (and which is nothing more than the presence and operation of his own wisdom) in order to prefer what, in its own nature, is _best_, and _fittest_ to be done, is excluding from the deity, those _more_ blessed and _valuable perfections_ of _wisdom_ and _goodness_, and establishing in their room, and at their expence, mere sovereign power alone. _physically speaking_ indeed, we allow god can do evil itself; but the moral perfections of his nature, are to us an _infallible_ and _unshaken security_, that he _never will_ do it. _man_ being an impotent and fallible creature, liable, not only to mistake the true nature and importance of things, but when he does understand his duty rightly, liable also, thro' the prevalence of _habit_ and _passion_, to be very backward and defective in performing it, must necessarily be subject to such laws, as contain in them rewards and punishments, proper to influence his _hopes_ and his _fears_. but as god, on the contrary, is a being of all possible and infinite perfections; an exact knowledge of what we call _right_ and _wrong_, _just_ and _unjust_, ever hath, and always will exit in the _divine mind_, and be to him a perfect, constant, and invariable rule of action, in relation to his creatures. he that is _infinite_ in knowledge, cannot but know, at all times, and under the most (to us) difficult and perplex'd circumstances of things, what in its _own nature_ is _best_, and _fittest_ to be done; and, being void of all bias, prejudice, and passion, cannot but approve of what is _right_ and _best;_ and being likewise _almighty_, no power can possibly interrupt, or prevent what he determined to accomplish: so that it is _morally impossible_, that god should do an evil thing, these truths are so deducible from each other, and in themselves so evident, to all unbiassed and inquisitive minds, that one would wonder to find men, of learning and integrity, give into the contrary sentiments; which, in effect they do, who hold doctrines _naturally subversive_ of these fundamental truths, as all certainly do, who depart from the moral good and fitness of things, and resolve all into _mere sovereign pleasure_ alone, _independent_ of wisdom and goodness; which must ever be at hand to _cooperate_ with, and govern the exertion of, their favourite attribute, _sovereign power_ itself; or, if they do not expressly affirm this, they do by another method the very same thing; and that is, by denying, in effect, the _intrinsick difference_ of good and evil, which, according to them, has no foundation in the _nature_ and relations of things, but takes its rise, only, from the mere will and appointment of the _deity_. but if all things are in themselves equally good, where is the use to _appoint_, or the sense of talking about it? wisdom and goodness must, according to this notion, be idle and unmeaning sounds, without sense or service. but alas! the natural consequence of maintaining tenets, so repugnant to common sense, is seldom less than running into and embracing other absurdities, in themselves equally great with what they are brought to defend, and here, as some of these gentlemen are exalted, and i hope deservedly, to the dignity of teachers in the _christian church_, they will, i hope, permit me to ask them a question or two, which i should, on almost any other occasion, blush to ask any rational man, _viz_. if they do not perceive an intrinsic beauty and excellence in virtue, as opposed to vice; independent of all _positive_ or arbitrary appointment, tho' of the _deity_ itself; and whether, besides the commands of god, (which to be sure are of high importance, and ought ever to be urged with great strength and energy) they do not also _press_ upon their hearers, the practice of virtue, and endeavour to recommend, and inforce it on the mind, from its _own_ native charms? but to make this matter, still, if possible, more evident; let us suppose the present excellent order of things inverted, and that god, of his own mere pleasure, had given mankind quite contrary laws, and commanded _rebellion, murder, ingratitude_, and all manner of intemperance and debauchery, instead of their _opposite virtues;_ would the same fitness, beauty, and propriety, appear to these gentlemen, as there now does, in _virtue?_ if not, from whence the difference arises, let them answer. as god is an infinite mind or spirit, perfectly acquainted, at every instant of time, with whatever _hath been, is_, or _shall be;_ and all things _possible to be;_ 'tis evident, that all possible relations of persons and things are fully known to him; and that all _moral_ and _divine_ obligations, arising from the relation we stand in to god, and to each other, did, in their own nature, _previous_ to actual law or commandment, exist; because the one was in time, and the other eternal; one commenced only (at best) with the _being_ and _beginning_ of creatures, the other was from all eternity, _co-existent_ with the _divine wisdom_ itself; and such an inseparable concomitant therewith, that, in regard to the _divine being_, himself, it was absolutely impossible, but that, on his creating such a rank of beings as we are, _moral_ and _religious_ obligations must have been _invariably_ and _unalterably_ the same; and if, as these men teach, god's having commanded the practice of virtue, be its peculiar sanction, and that _alone_ which distinguishes it from vice or evil; then, by the same or as good an argument, his commanding light in the beginning, is all the reason we have for esteeming light and darkness different, (as they really are) the one being the actual pretence of a real body, and the other a mere name, to signify its absence; not that vice is therefore a mere name, to signify the absence of virtue, for comparisons seldom hold good in _every_ minute particular; but there is a parity between the two cases, sufficient to justify my bringing in the one, as an illustration of the other. there is no knowledge _more certain_, than what mankind commonly have of good and evil; and he who, in order to serve any private scheme of religion, goes about to depreciate this knowledge, robs mankind of all truth and certainty whatever, and in the end subjects his own darling schemes to the same uncertainty; for if we cannot judge of the fitness, of plain moral truth and duty, neither can we of any scheme of religion; especially such as hang together more by art and human contrivance, than by reason or revelation. being very desirous to get all the information i could, concerning the matter in debate; i have attentively read over mr. _cole's_ treatise on the _sovereignty_ of god. i know 'tis thought an unanswerable performance; and, so far as it regards general christianity, it is worth every christian's serious notice: but as to the doctrine it was wrote to support, it leaves it (in my judgment) no better than it found it; but is miserably weak, and defective, as to any thing that looks like sound reason, or true argument; and amounts to no more than this _poor assertion, that because god is a sovereign, he may do what he pleases:_ and, from the instances he brings from scripture, 'tis plain, that mr. _cole_ himself pays as _little_ regard to the intrinsick worth and excellence of things, as is done by many of his brethren. the manner in which he has been pleased to give us the story of _jacob_ and _esau_, proves the truth of this observation, i have no great inclination to spend time in explaining _hard passages_ of scripture, (tho' if any thing of that kind can be serviceable, or deem'd excellent, 'tis mr. _taylor_ of _norwich_ his book on _original sin_,) or to trespass on the reader's patience, by throwing one text of _hard_ and _uncertain_ meaning against another; for by this means the controversy hath been needlessly prolonged. where the scriptures are _plain_, _positive_ and _reasonable_, their authority ought to be conscientiously adhered to: but as this is not always the case, the _next_ thing to knowing what is the _true meaning_ of any particular text of scripture is, to know what it neither _does_ nor _can_ possibly mean; in which case, the divine attributes, and the nature and reason, or (if you please) fitness of things, is the best rule. we _cannot_, it is impossible we _should_, understand the certain determinate meaning of any text of scripture _better_, if altogether _so well_, as we do _know_ certainly, that god is _just_ and _good_, and _know_ also as clearly, what _justice_ and _goodness_ mean, when applied to the _deity_, as we do, when we apply them to _ourselves_. and this rule, if duly observed, would be abundantly sufficient, to set aside many interpretations of scripture, too commonly admitted upon this and the like occasions. and, besides this never failing argument (to all who attend duly to its force) it is worth while, just to remark, that though, as the _bible_ now stands, there are in it (as we must acknowledge) some passages, which (especially at first sight) seem to favour the doctrine of _sovereignty_, &c. yet as it is possible, nay sometimes easy, to give them _another interpretation_, and the general scope and tenor of the scripture being agreeable to such an interpretation, we have abundantly more reason to _reject_, than to _admit_ of the sense, in which these gentlemen are pleased to understand and expound many texts of the _bible_, relating to this and other affinitive points. i would not, as i observed before, presume to impose on the reader's time and patience, by entering unnecessarily into the scriptural part of the argument; yet i must beg leave, to make now and then an observation or two as i go along: and the first thing that falls in my way is, the story of _jacob_ and _esau_, and the account which mr. _cole_ gives of it. he not only relates the story, but assures us, that _jacob's_ obtaining the blessing was of divine appointment, and (what is more extraordinary) that the _falsehood_ and _fraud_ he practised to accomplish it, was all of god's own immediate direction; and this he gives as an instance of god's _sovereignty_, and proceeding contrary to the moral fitness of things, and the nature of those laws he hath given to man. that god intended _jacob_ the _blessing_, or preferred him to _esau_, i readily grant; but cannot admit it to be inferred from thence, that the means, by which it was, as we reckon, accomplished, were _divine_ also: there is a more natural or (at least) more justifiable way of accounting for the whole matter. according to the history, it seems plain, that _rebecca_ only, and not her husband, was privy to this designation of the _deity:_ she had upon inquiry (when with child) received such an assurance from the lord; which might be the _first cause_ of her preferring _jacob_ to _esau_, and which in time, 'tis probable, grew up into a much greater degree of _partiality_ and _fondness:_ all this time the good old _patriarch_, her husband, seems to have been entirely unacquainted with the affair. and when the time drew nigh, in which, according (as some think) to custom, he was about to _bless_ his _eldest_ son, _rebecca_ then grew diffident of the accomplishment of the promise made in _jacob's_ behalf, and applied herself to the means, which the text tells us was used on that occasion. as to the authority those heads of families had to _confer benefits_ on their offspring, by way of _blessing_, though i shall not now much contend about it, yet give me leave to make a few observations. it don't appear to me that _isaac_, in giving his blessing, did so properly or so much bestow it on the _person_ of _jacob_ present, as he did on the _person_ of _esau_ absent; because it is the intention which ought principally to be regarded, and _esau_ undoubtedly was intended. again, this way of blessing, if considered in itself as a mere tradition, could be _no more_ efficacious, than what now prevails in some parts of the _christian church_. all true authority of this kind (if any there be) must result from _immediate inspiration and command;_ and whether _isaac_ had these qualifications, while _jacob_ stood before him, personating _esau_, is a matter of no small doubt and dispute. he was ('tis evident) much surprised at the _cheat_, put on him by his _wife_ and _son_, and would doubtless very willingly have given _esau_ the preference, according to his first intention; but something _supernatural_ seems now to have seized and satisfied him, that _jacob_ was the person intended; for he cries out, "i have blessed him, yea and he shall be blessed." and this latter assurance, and the energy and satisfaction wherewith the words were pronounced, i take _rather_ to have been the _true blessing_ than the _other_. for, as the reason of _jacob's_ dissimulation was intirely owing to his mother's diffidence and impatience; so, there is no doubt to be made, but that the _almighty_ himself would, had she not interfered, have brought it about in a manner becoming his _holiness_, and not by _falsehood_, _deceit_, and _dissimulation_. _religion_ can never be _more_ dishonoured, or the despensations of god to mankind receive _greater_ reproach, than when _divine purposes_ are (under god's immediate direction) said to be accomplish'd by methods in themselves _evil_ and _immoral_, and altogether opposite to his commands. hath he forbid us lying, under the _penalty_ of _hell-fire_, and shall he himself practise it, or immediately influence another to do it, for the sake of bringing to pass some event, which he could as easily have accomplish'd, by methods purely righteous and honourable! and had _jacob_ never been prompted, or attempted to obtain the blessing in the manner he did attempt it, 'tis more than probable, that god, who removed _isaac's_ surprise, and caused him to break forth as he did, "i have blessed him, yea and he shall be blessed," would never have permitted or impowered _isaac_, to have _blessed esau_, in an _effectual_ manner beyond his brother: or if a mere pronouncing of words, when uttered as a blessing from the heads of families, was in itself an _irreversible blessing_, and _isaac_ had attempted to bestow it on _esau_, god no doubt would have stayed his mouth by _intimations within;_ as he did, on another occasion, the _hand of abraham_, by an angel without: provided, i say, it be allowed, that a _formal blessing_, from the mouth of _isaac_, was necessary to confirm on _jacob_ those superior privileges, which god had designed for him; and that this interpretation of the text is more honourable, and better becoming the truth and majesty of the _divine being_. i appeal not to reason only, but to mr. _cole_ himself: for whatever influence prejudice, or enthusiasm, may have on some minds, there are certain seasons, wherein truth will display itself to the realm and understanding of mankind, and extort, even from the mouths of those, who sometimes oppose her, the most ample concessions in her favour. take the following as an instance--_cole's sovereignty of god_, page 41, 2d edit. "to this also might be added the strict injunctions that god hath laid upon the subordinate dispensers of his law; as namely, to judge the people with just judgment, not to wrest judgment, nor respect persons; yea, he curseth them that pervert judgment, and will surely reprove them that accept persons; and shall mortal man be more just than god? will he, under such penalties, command men to do thus, and not do so himself?" the argument is undoubtedly equally applicable to the sin of _lying_, or indeed to any sin whatever; and i appeal to every unprejudiced reader, if any thing more to the purpose could be urged, against his own account of the affair between _jacob_ and _esau_, or even against the doctrine itself, which he writes his book to support: and this, in conjunction with my foregoing arguments, may, i hope, be answer sufficient for the use they make of _all other_ parallel places of scripture. by this concession 'tis plain, that justice and goodness in god are, by this author, considered the same as in us; how else were it possible, to understand what the laws of god truly mean? _be you perfect, as your father which is in heaven is perfect_, is a plain indication (taking in the context) of the moral perfections of the divine nature, in part apparent to us, as the text observes, from his admirable bounty in the creation; _he causeth his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth his rain on the just and the unjust_. though at other times, when these gentlemen are hard pinched with the iniquity and injustice of their doctrines, they apply for refuge to the _sovereignty_ of god, and give strong intimations, that _justice_ and _goodness_, when applied to him, are mere unmeaning sounds, which at best signify, what mere sovereignty pleases to do, and that when applied to man, they signify quite another thing. and this naturally leads me to the second thing i proposed to consider, _viz_. that allowing the doctrine of _election_ to be, as they say, resolveable into god's sovereignty; that god is just such a sovereign, as this doctrine supposes, and these gentlemen take him to be; that they have his word for their own election and salvation; yet even then, there could be no manner of certainty as to religion, no dependance on the promises and threatnings of the gospel; and consequently, the supposed elect must _beat the air_, and run at the same or as great uncertainties, as any other persons whatever, under the government of such an arbitrary being. i have, to avoid dispute, proposed this argument more to the advantage of the elect, than i was strictly obliged to do, by allowing them to be absolutely certain, that god has told them, that they are his elect, and that he will give them eternal life; which, allowing the doctrine of _election_ to be true, is generally much more than they can prove, either to themselves, or to others: allowing, i say, the doctrine of _election_ to be clearly revealed in scripture, there will be this difficulty behind, as to the certain marks of being of that number. the scripture must also as clearly reveal the marks, as it does the doctrine, or we shall not be able to apply with any certainty to ourselves. is believing the doctrine, &_c_. and thinking myself one of this happy number, a rule sufficient to abide by? if so, no man who has this faith, concerning the _doctrine_ and _himself_, can ever depart from it. yet, there have been many instances of persons, zealous in that way, who saw occasion afterwards to renounce the doctrine itself, and with it that _imaginary_ and _ungrounded conceit_ of their being, for no reason whatever, god's dear children and favourites, and embraced, in its room, the doctrines of _universal grace_ and _free-will;_ and upon the best reasons too, for as without the one, god cannot be just, so without the other, man, being no agent, can be no subject of rewards and punishments. these very men were before thought to be elect, by their most spiritual and best judging brethren, who pronounced them chosen in _christ_, and unshaken in the faith; and so indeed they judged concerning themselves: but the grace of god being once permitted freely to operate in the mind, it soon expelled that ignorance, and narrowness of spirit, which (even in many well meaning persons) is the genuine effect of such narrow doctrines. if having this faith be no certain mark, because a man may depart from it, what proof have they? surely none: but allowing them an absolute certainty, as to themselves, that god hath told them, in person, that they are his elect, it will (on their own darling principle of sovereignty) amount to just nothing at all; because, as a sovereign, god may promise one thing, and intend, nay do another, or the contrary; nor can they prove, or have they the least assurance, he will not thus deal with them, without recurring to other principles, which will hold equally strong against the doctrines themselves--to this dilemma are these gentlemen inevitably reduced; they must either give up the doctrines, or part with any security of dependance on god himself, as to their own happiness. it will be _in vain_, here, to refer to the _goodness of god_, though, on _my_ principles, the argument would be unanswerable; on _theirs_, it is _stark naught_, and avails nothing. and pray observe the _double dealing_ this reduces them to; it is something like setting up _two gods_ instead of one, or, which is much the same, ascribing to the _eternal, unchangeable being_, an inconsistent and contrary conduct. here is, _first_, a _mere_ arbitrary being, that decrees, or pretends to decree, by mere _sovereign pleasure_ only, the salvation of the _elect;_ but, because such a being may as well break his promise as keep it, here is _another_ to make _good_ the promise, who invariably acts according to the moral fitness of things: or, if you take it the other way, here is, 1_st_, a promise made as a mere _sovereign_, undetermined by, and unregardful of, _all_ moral obligations; and, 2_dly_, the performance of this promise is expected, from a principle of justice and goodness; ever conformable _to_ the moral reason and fitness of things: and certainly, in either case, it leaves things very precarious; nor can the promises of such a being as this (i speak it with all possible reverence to the true god himself) be any thing near so valuable, or fit to be depended on, as the engagements of a good and worthy man. and whatever these gentlemen, to put a more plausible out-side on their doctrines, say, concerning the freedom and excellence of that state, wherein our first father _adam_ was created, and the _possibility_ of his having remained perfectly innocent, and the blessings of eternal life, which would have been thence derived to all his posterity, it is plain to me, they generally believe no such thing; but that, on the contrary, god absolutely _willed_ and _decreed_ the _fall of adam_, mr. _cole_ himself, their great advocate, is far from supposing the condition of _adam_ to have been proper for abiding long in obedience to the divine command, or that, had he stood, his posterity would have thence become _impeccable_ and _happy:_ on the contrary, he represents _adam's_ condition as a very weak and imperfect state, by no mean suited to the temptations, which his maker knew he would shortly be exposed to, and overcome with; and all his posterity, _had they been tried one by one, would_, it seems, _have failed as he did_, page 72. if all this does not amount to something equal to a positive assertion, that god _willed_ the fall of adam, and in consequence of it, the guilt and desert of eternal death, which is said to be thence derived, to _all_ his prosperity, i do not know what is, or can be equal to it; and indeed all this, and much more, may easily be resolved into the doctrine of god's _sovereignty:_ and whoever thinks i have misrepresented their faith, need only consult their great apostle mr. _calvin_. but let me further pursue my argument, to prove, that tho' a man of this _faith_ has god's _own word_ for his election and salvation, he cannot, on this principle of _mere sovereignty_, reasonably or safely depend on it: my reason, which is short and plain, i have already given; because god, as a _sovereign_, may do just what he pleases, _keep_ his promises, or _break_ them. there can be no possibility of evading this argument, without coming back to the goodness of god; which is at once to set aside mere _sovereign_ pleasure, and evidently recurring to the moral fitness of things. as much as these gentlemen are pleased to despise this moral fitness, and superstitiously exalt the mere will of god in opposition thereto; and if the _goodness_ of god proves, that he _cannot_ break the promise he has made to them of eternal life; it is at least as strong a proof to me, that such a good being _could not_ possibly make me for eternal misery, or, which is the very same thing, will or decree the fall of _adam_, and pass the sentence of eternal death on all his posterity; the far greatest part of whom he leaves, in this condition, to perish everlastingly, and _miserable_ me among the rest! a due survey of the two cases, or conditions, of the elect and non-elect, may serve to set this matter in a clear light, god being in himself antecedent to the existence of all other beings, infinitely glorious and happy, could have no occasion for creatures to add to his blessedness; all that we call _evil_, such as cruelty and injustice in man, ever arises from such a _vicious_ and _imperfect_ state of mind, as cannot, for that reason, possibly belong to _deity_. as the sources, therefore, whence these evils arise, cannot be in god; such a conduct, as these doctrines suppose, is also equally impossible to proceed from god, whose _only intent_ in creating must be, to communicate happiness to his creatures: creation infers providence, and to bring a sensible rational being into this world; and, instead of taking _due care_ of its safety and happiness, to _decree_ and render it eternally miserable, is in its _own nature_, much worse than making an absolute promise of eternal life to any created being, and _disappointing that being_ of its happiness, whether by annihilation, or by changing it to another state, or mode of being, no more happy than the present mortal life; 'tis only a breach of promise, which, in such a _sovereign_, is a mere trifle. we have _no natural_ right to immortality, _much_ less to immortal happiness; it is the mere effect of divine bounty--but, being created in a weak, dependent state, and surrounded with wants and infirmities, we _have_ a _natural right_ to the care and protection of our maker; and tho' we allow, no _formal promise_ is made on our behalf, yet the _very act_ itself, of creating such beings, and the condition we _are_ placed in, contains in it the _substance_ of a promise; and we may be assured, god will have proper regard to such beings. if god be gracious enough to _give_ eternal life, to which we have not the _least_ natural right, can he possibly with-hold that which, from our make and dependance on him, we have just reason to expect? and how much more impossible is it, that he should make us for everlasting misery! to make _one man_ for damnation, is much worse, than promising eternal life to another, and breaking that promise; he that does the former, cannot be depended on in the latter. methinks, the very creation itself, and bountiful provision therein made, for the accommodation and happiness of man, might assure us, that (man being made principally for another world) a _proportionate care_ will be taken of his more important and everlasting concerns. which presents me with a fair opportunity, of exposing a notion these gentlemen hold, or a method they have, of interpreting such plain texts of scripture, as are brought to prove god's general care and providence over his whole creation; in _particular_, where _david_ says, "the tender mercies of the lord are over all his works:" this, if you believe them, relates only to this life; so i think mr. _gill_ says. but what then, is no inference thence to be made? if god be thus tender, to provide temporals, how _much more_ will he be kind to the soul, and provide for _that!_ 'tis a natural and strong way of arguing, and it was our saviour's own method of arguing, as the most plain and conclusive: "wherefore if god so cloath the grass of the field, &_c_. how much more shall he cloath you, &_c_." _mat_. vi. 30. the argument rises in one case, as much above the other, as _immortal life_ is preferable to the present _mortal state;_ and suppose any of us should sympathise with a near friend, under a _small degree_ of pain and affliction, would not the same spirit of friendship and humanity have a _stronger sympathy_, when affliction becomes more intense and severe? to be tender and pitiful in the least and lowest matters, and unregardful and cruel in important and everlasting concerns, is, with regard to the _divine being_, a moral impossibility; 'tis _beneath_ human nature and prudence, and the practice of a good man; and yet these doctrines teach this horrible impiety concerning the great god himself. to sum up this argument: that being who can make a sensible rational creature, on _purpose_ for _damnation_, instead of taking a reasonable care of it, which, from its make and dependance, it has a right to expect, as much as though a formal promise were made, may, with altogether as much (_nay more_) justice, break its promises of eternal life, _made_ to another creature of the same kind; its claim not being founded in nature, but built on promise. as the former would be a more cruel and un-justifiable proceeding than the latter, he that is capable of doing the one, can have _no moral perfections_ in his nature sufficient to secure the _elect_ against his doing the other: and on this _wild_ and _boundless_ principle of _sovereignty_, it is possible that, with regard to _religion_, things may be quite _reversed_ hereafter; the _elect_, as they are called, made _miserable_, and the _non-elect, happy_. i think we may challenge the whole world, to shew on this mad principle the contrary; and why, as well as any thing else, such an economy may not be resolved into _sovereign pleasure_. if god to _isaac_ conveyed such errant falshoods, by the instrumentality of _jacob's mouth_, _why not_ make the same _deceitful use_ of the _bible_, or even of his own immediate word, in regard to the elect? if god, as mr. _gill_ (i think) observes, has two wills, "one publick will of command, and another of intention, which is private;" why, with regard to the _elect_, may he not promise one thing, and intend, nay resolve on another? one would think it impossible, for any understanding man to judge thus of his creator, that it is possible he should command one thing under the _severest penalties_, and at the _same time_ not only _will_ and _intend_, but irresistibly and secretly work to accomplish just the contrary, and (what is amazing beyond belief) after all punish severely the creatures concerned, whom he actuates to bring his secret purposes to pass: if there can be such a thing as arbitrary power and tyrannical government, in the very worst sense of all, here it is. and here certainly is all the _phrensy_, _folly_, and _tyranny_, which, i told you in the beginning, the government of such an arbitrary being (as these gentlemen represent the deity to be) must ever be liable to. it is evident, that as worthy sentiments of god and of religion, better the mind, and improve the understanding; so do weak and superstitious principles corrupt the intellectual faculty, and render the soul more blind and inhuman, than it is in its natural state, unassisted and unimproved by divine grace. i have the rather made choice of this argument, not only because i have never seen it urged before, but because i think it more nearly affects men of this faith, than any i have hitherto met with. i may be mistaken; but while it has such weight with me, i cannot but earnestly recommend it to the serious and impartial consideration of all who profess this faith, more especially those who preach it publickly to the world; whose acknowledgment of what i take to be truth, or friendly animadversions thereon, will be matter of no small satisfaction to me: but i must here enjoin one caution, _viz_. that it will be a absolutely in vain to produce texts of scripture, till this point is better settled between us. in the art of evading scripture proofs, i allow these gentlemen to be very skilful and expert; nor can i help believing, that a small part of the penetration and dexterity, usually exercised on these occasions, would, in men of contrary principles, or even in themselves, could they be persuaded to think differently, be abundantly sufficient to overthrow even the doctrines themselves: they have a peculiar talent, at misunderstanding; and perverting the plainest text, and rendering those which are difficult and obscure in their literal sense, with much boldness, and without hesitation; they stumble in a plain path at noon-day, and walk carelessly at midnight amongst rock, and upon the most dangerous precipices. and here i might safely rest the argument, and make a final end of it. _sovereignty_, such an one as they contend for, once proved, any thing whatever may be allowed to follow, and all disputations will be utterly in vain. allow but the _roman church_ its _infallibility_, and the truth of other doctrines will unavoidably follow. till these gentlemen, i say, set my main principles aside, all the scripture in the world will be nothing to their purpose. not but in the main the _bible_ is against them; for the scriptures _reveal_ god's being and attributes _more clearly_ than they do most points of doctrine: the reason is, because the doctrines commonly embraced, are in themselves _not so plain_ to reason, as the being and attributes of god; the latter being generally acknowledged in all christian churches, tho' at the same time they widely differ about particular doctrines, some of which have no doubt been greatly corrupted in passing through _various hands_ and translations: and i have been informed, by much better judges than i pretend to be, that the _new testament_, even in these very doctrines i have been contending against, has, by _some partiality_ or _neglect_, been made to speak more roundly in their favour, than the original _greek_, or best copies, will support; and that, in some places, the meaning of the original is inverted in the translation. the scripture not only revealing to us the _being_ and _attributes_ of god, _more clearly_ than it does many doctrines, and that fundamental of all true religion being also in itself perfectly agreeable to the light of nature; 'tis evident, we are bound to reject the most positive text of scripture militating against this everlasting and fundamental truth: and rather than part with this, we had much better suppose the writer, as to disputable points, to have been mistaken at the first, or the true meaning corrupted by others. the translators are allowed to have been fallible men, and 'tis very probable some errors might creep in at that door: but it will not so easily be granted, that the _inspired writers_ could mistake, nor would i suppose it, unless in _very extraordinary cases_, where either _that_ or something _worse_ must be supposed; and such a supposition will, i am sure; much better become us, than to imagine it possible for god to make a revelation of his will to man, which shall upon examination be found _contrary_ to his being and goodness, as well as expressly contrary to other _plain parts_ of this revelation, tho' the argument, i say, might be safely rested here, yet as there are some well meaning persons, who believe that _adam_ was made upright, and furnished with a stock of strength and understanding, sufficient to _preserve_ his innocence; that god made a covenant with him, as our _federal_ or _representative head_, wherein it was stipulated, that if he continued upright, during the time of probation allotted, _all_ his posterity should be _for ever_ happy; but that if he fell, _all_ should be _subject_ to everlasting misery, as the counter part of the covenant; and he falling, the restoration of his fallen race should be intirely owing to the good pleasure of god, who might _redeem all_ or only _a part_, and leave the rest to perish in the state wherein he found them, and in which _adam_ had involved them by his transgression: this they call _preterition_, or a _passing by_, which sounds a little better than that harsh word _reprobation_, tho' in reality no better at all: and on this first transgression _some_ found the doctrine of _election_, and others that of _infant-baptism_, as an expedient to wash away this original guilt; and it must be owned, the virtue of the remedy is admirably well suited to the malignity of the disease. i shall, for their sakes, inspect a little farther into the affair; to me it appears unreasonable, and therefore improbable, that god should make with _adam_ any such covenant or agreement, or suffer the eternal state of all mankind to hang upon the single thread of _one man's_ behaviour, and who too (it seems) god knew would swerve from his obedience: besides, in all equitable covenants, _every party_ concerned has a right to be consulted, nor can they be justly included to their own detriment, without consent first obtained, (especially if the thing covenanted for, has an immediate, or may have a very fatal, tho' very remote, tendency, to make _wretched_ and _unhappy_) which, in this case, with regard to the unborn, could not possibly be had. i am sensible the gentlemen against whom i am arguing (especially mr. _gill_) have many pretty inventions, to justify such a conduct in the divine being, such as producing parallel instances, drawn from the allowed practice of men, and usage of the state; in particular, the law relating to _high-treason_, whereby a _rebel's_ immediate descendants are _deprived_ of inheriting their father's estate, with others of a like kind; to all which, what i am about to offer may, i hope, be a sufficient answer: the two cases differ so widely, that it will be no easy undertaking to make any thing of this instance in their favour; and 'tis very surprising, to find men of the brightest intellects, so weak as to argue and infer, from the laws of _fallible men_, to the laws of an _infallible_ and _holy being:_ the inference ought rather to be just the reverse; for such institutions as men, in this weak and imperfect state, may think convenient for their own sakes, and the good of society, to establish and ordain, can be _no rule_ to him, whose infinite wisdom and almighty power set him _far above_ all such necessity. nor, again, does this case come up to the matter in dispute: it is true, that the heir of a convict rebel _cannot_, according to our laws, inherit his father's estate; but what then, does it deprive him of any thing that was his own before? no; the law convicts the rebel, while _in possession_ of his estate, which it considers as his _own property_, and which therefore it justly takes away for his _own offence_. perhaps, in cases of hereditary possessions, it may seem a little hard, because it prevents the _next_ heir from inheriting; but if there be any evil or imperfection in this, we must excuse it, for the sake of the intent, which might be for the general good, the more effectually to deter men from _treasonable conspiracies_ against their prince, whereby the happiness of society hath been often greatly disturbed, and whole kingdoms and countries depopulated: but in this case, it is not strictly the heir's, till he comes into possession; for the law, by which he may possess hereafter, may be considered as having in it this _particular_ exception, as to the crime of _high-treason_, which, whenever it _occurs_ as to the _parent_, renders the son incapable, &_c_. with regard to our laws, we may, in some sense, be said to make them ourselves, by our representatives, whom we constitute for that end: and 'tis besides very probable, that some great men, who formerly possessed estates, and settled them on the male heirs in their families, from one generation to another, might help to make this very law itself concerning treason, and consequently they could not but acquiesce with this _very exception_ to the right of inheritance in their posterity. but if it be still said to be unjust, though necessary, 'tis no argument; for it _cannot_ be unjust and necessary too: the law, in this case, ought rather (with submission) so far as it unjustly affects a man's children, to be alter'd; and if it robs us of the security, which arises from deterring the parent, on account of the evils which shall afterwards befall his child, 'tis easy to remedy this, by laying an _additional punishment_ on the traitor himself; which, as _self_ is much nearest to us all, might better prevent the sin of rebellion, if the present law be just in itself, there can be no objection to it; if it be unjust, _no argument_ of any weight can be drawn from it, in regard to the _divine being;_ who is holy, wise, and true, and so are all his appointments concerning the children of men. to bring this kind of reasoning of theirs up to the point, they should have produced a law, which subjected the son (for the father's offence) to the _same corporal_ punishment with the father, and then also they must have proved such a law to be just and good. but, as these gentlemen are so fond of bringing instances from the _practice of men_ in this frail state, in justification of their own doctrine, i shall present them with one or two of my own. _murder_ has sometimes been committed under such circumstances, that though the murderer has been arraigned, there hath been no room to condemn him, all circumstances having concurred, in the eye of the law, to acquit him; _will the almighty therefore acquit him?_ again, on the other hand, in the case of murder, things have so fallen out, as to make an innocent person look like the murderer, in the eye of the law or court, which has therefore sometimes proceeded to death itself; _is this man therefore guilty before god?_ i have put these two cases, purely to shew the absurdity of such kind of arguments: and i hope they will consider better of it, and advance them no farther. if there was such a covenant between god and adam, 'tis strange _no notice_ should be taken of it in the law given to _adam_, as laid down in the _bible_, and where, of all places, we have most reason to expect it--this must surely have been the fittest place for its insertion--nor is it only absent here, for there is no positive account of any such covenant in all the _old testament_. besides, when the law was given, and threatening (in case of disobedience) pronounced on _adam_, 'twas _merely personal_--_in the day_ thou _eatest thereof_, thou _shalt surely die_. and when _adam_ and _eve_ had broke the command, and god descended to judge them for it, their sentences were _personal_ and _particular_, and no reproaching _adam_ on the account of evils to be thence brought on his posterity, and _much less_ of eternal damnation. the _jews_ indeed, many of whom were weak enough to embrace any absurdity at all, had by some means contracted a notion, not altogether unlike this of _original sin_, probably from a misunderstanding of the second commandment, which speaks of "visiting the iniquity of the father upon the children, &_c_." but 'tis highly worthy of our notice, that god himself was _greatly displeased_ with their having imbibed this notion, and commanded the prophet _ezekiel_ to refute it at large; the substance of which i cannot avoid setting down, it being so full to my purpose. the prophet introduces it thus, _ezek_, xviii. 2. _what mean ye, that use this proverb in israel, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children teeth are set on edge?_ ver. 4. _behold all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die_. the prophet then, from _ver_. 5. to 19. puts the _two cases_ of a _righteous man's_ having a _wicked son_, and a _wicked man's_ having a _righteous son_, in order to shew, that neither is the one _better_ for his father's uprightness, nor the other at all _worse_ for his father's wickedness; but that all is, as it should be, placed to the account of their own _merits_ or _demerits_. ver. 20. _the soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him_. ver. 23. _have i any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the lord god: and not that he should return from his ways and live?_ ver. 25. _yet ye say, the way of the lord is unequal. hear now, o house of israel, is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?_ ver. 32. _for i have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the lord god: wherefore turn your selves and live ye_. words more positive against this doctrine cannot be laid together. _justice_ and _equity_ are here, by the almighty himself, consider'd as the _very same_, both in god and man; and the same justice and equity, which _he commands_ us to make the rule of _our actions_, 'tis evident _he here_ makes the rule of his _own_. he blames them for their false principles, their ignorance and bigotry, and is not a little offended, because they thought him capable of acing in so evil and unrighteous a manner, as that would be, of _punishing the child for the parent's offence;_ and strongly and solemnly assures them, he will do no such thing. and as justice and equity would not bear it then, it is plain that, god could never take any such cruel and disreputable measures, either in the beginning, or at any time afterwards; because, to act thus at the creation of man, and disdain the imputation with indignation afterwards, argues a strange inconsistency in the conduct of god towards men; but the truth is, the same reasons which made him abhor the imputation afterwards, could not but infallibly prevent his making any such unrighteous covenant in the beginning. what would you think of a man, who is a villain to-day, and boasts much of his great honesty tomorrow? the _appearance_ of _christ_ in the flesh was, we are told by these gentlemen, on account of _adam's_ transgression, without which it would have been, they say, wholly superfluous. but the expediency or end of _christ's_ coming, may be resolved into the _love of_ god, on the _one hand;_ pitying the ignorance and folly of mankind, on the _other:_ and whether this state was the effect of _adam's_ sin, or of their _own_ personal demerits, it makes _no difference_ in this case. whoever looks carefully into the evangelists, will find abundant reason to disapprove and condemn this doctrine of _original sin_, and of _christ's_ coming into the world on _that account only_. our saviour, had this been the case, would either have plainly express'd, or have given some strong intimations concerning it: yet no such thing appears; but the contrary, to a _demonstration_, from no less than two passages of scripture, recorded by st. _mark_, (ix. 36.) when the disciples had been privately contending for preheminence above each other, our saviour, to rebuke this aspiring spirit, sets before them, as a pattern of simplicity and innocence, a little child; which must have been very absurd, according to the notion of _original sin:_ the second is _mark_ x. _ver_. 13. 14. 15. 16. where _christ_ assures his disciples, that, in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven, they _must become as little children_. and in st. _matthew_ (xviii. _ver_. 3.) this very thing is, if possible, more _strongly_ and _emphatically_ express'd. which declarations, had there been such a thing as the guilt of original sin, _subjecting children to_ god's _wrath and displeasure_, would have been ungrounded, and erroneous in a high degree; for if they were to become like such a little child, as a necessary and fit condition for heaven, the condition of infants _must also_ be suitable to that blessed place--_suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven_. the word such, is a general term, equally applicable to all infants whatever: it shews their innocence, and how acceptable they are to the almighty; and, consequently, demonstrates the doctrine of _original sin_ to be spurious and erroneous: as is also the practice of _infant baptism_, in support of which, this very text is wisely alledged; whereas the text itself assures us, that children are _already_, by nature, in that _same state_ of innocence, which _baptism_ is design'd to procure them: and how vain the ceremony, under such a circumstance, must be, is _too evident_ to need explaining. but suppose there was such a covenant, our condition, in point of innocence, is just the same as it would be without it; we could have no manner of concern with _adam's_ transgression: and our innocence in either case being _exactly_ the same, god cannot but look upon us (in our natural state, before we commit sin) as creatures that never did any thing to offend him, and consequently be gracious and kind to us; for to leave us in this state, to suffer everlasting torment, is worse than a breach of promise made to the elect; and if we are as innocent, as tho' no such covenant had ever been made, god cannot but regard us accordingly: and this proves that such a covenant could never be made, because to no good or valuable end. i am fearful of swelling this pamphlet, beyond its intended bounds; yet so fast do my thoughts, on this subject, multiply and enlarge themselves, that i must beg leave to say a small matter, concerning that _propensity to evil_, which we are told is derived from _adam_, as a fruit and proof of his first and original offence. if _adam_'s sin had this influence on his posterity; as the act, which produced it, was _one_ and the _same;_ and all his posterity standing in the same relation to him, as their federal head; 'tis evident, in this view of the matter, that _this_ bias to evil, must in _all_ be _uniform_ and _alike:_ but the contrary seems demonstrable, from undoubted and incontestable experience; some children having _much stronger propensities to evil_, than others: and if part of this can be resolved into something besides the _influence_ of _adam's first transgression_, and _subsequent_ to the _fall;_ it lies (i think) on our adversaries to shew clearly, why every propensity to sin, may not likewise be resolved into something besides, and _subsequent_ to, this _original transgression_. but allowing we are born into the world, with this _propensity to evil_, and that we derive it from _adam's_ sin; yet if god be _merciful_, he could never leave us in this deplorable condition; nor would his _impartiality_ admit of _redeeming_ the one part of mankind in a mere arbitrary manner, and _leaving_ the other _to perish_. nor can much righteousness be expected from the _justice_ of that being, whose mercy can be an idle and unconcerned spectator, in so very moving, piteous, and miserable a circumstance. as to _adam's_ posterity, where is the difference to them, whether their present weak and despoiled condition (as these men deem it) be the immediate work of _creation_ itself, or the _effect_ of _adam's sin_, and abuse of his intellectual powers. we are what we are by _necessity_, strict _necessity:_ and though it may be called _moral necessity_, in order to palliate and distinguish it from that which is natural; it operates on us, to all intents and purposes, equally the same; and the giving it a milder name, looks like a sophistical artifice. if man's nature be impaired by the act of another, god, as a _just_ and _good_ being, will either abate of the rigour of his original law, or replenish and restore our decayed powers. the _same goodness_ (if these gentlemen will allow it was _goodness_) which prompted the almighty to make man such an excellent and blessed creature in the beginning, must also prevail with him, to look even on _adam_ himself with an eye of pity and compassion, after he had sinned; and much more must he be inclined to provide for the _restoration_ of his off-spring, who themselves had not _actually_ sinned, but yet had their natures impaired by the _fall_. besides, if man was first enslaved by the devil, not of _force_, but by _fraud_ and _temptation;_ and jesus christ be a kind of _chieftain_, set up against antichrist; his method of _recovery_ must be as extensive as the _fall_--why does he save some? but as they are objects of mercy, and to recover, with a just indignation, souls, originally god's own, out of the hand of an usurper, tyrant, and destroyer. how can these reasons operate as to a part, and have no influence as to the remainder? the more i reflect upon the doctrine, and view it in every light, the more terrifying and deformed it appears: and there is no argument, short of god's _sovereignty_, that will relieve the difficulty; which admitted, will bring on and multiply ten thousand greater evils. it may here be proper to take notice of a new argument, urged in its full strength, and with all the advantage of rhetorick and eloquence, by the most ingenious dr. _i--c w--s_, in a book intituled, _the ruin and recovery of mankind;_ &_c_. we are there told, that this _covenant_ seems to have been, evidently, calculated for the best; because _adam_, in that state of understanding and innocence, was more likely to stand, and maintain his innocence, than any of his posterity, especially when he consider'd himself as acting for _all_ his posterity; with which the doctor supposes him to have been fully and strongly apprised; as indeed he ought, had the case been as the doctor believes. this argument i take him to have mistaken both ways, _viz_. by extolling _adam's_ condition, on the one hand, beyond what in reality it ever was, and setting that of his posterity much lower than it really is: and these errors are productive of many others. _adam_ is supposed to have been without any pain, or uneasiness, and that he would so have remained, during his innocence: but after christ has removed the curse, and taken away the sin of his own _chosen_ children, bodily pains and outward afflictions are sometimes their lot, why might not man, in his original state of innocence, be subject, in some degree, to pain and disease? if _creation_ were inconsistent with such a mixt dispensation of good and evil, why not _redemption?_ if god, for the exercise of man's fidelity, placed him where he was exposed to the evil and danger of temptation; why not suffer his patience to be exercised, at some seasons, by pain and inquietude? to return to this _covenant_, could it be proved to have been as the doctor imagines, i see not what could be gained by it: because it would be trifling to a considerable degree. and all the arguments, used by _milton_, in his third book of _paradise lost_, to shew the absurdity of that doctrine, which considers _adam_ as _acting_, or rather as _being acted, by necessity_, in that situation of paradise, would be equally applicable to all the elect, under the absolute slavery of the _fall_. where is the use of _reason_, or _moral agency_, in man, if another be substituted to act in his stead, and not he himself? man, being made a _free_ and _moral_ agent, has power to act for himself, and can be accountable for no body's crimes but his own. the _consciousness_ of being a sinner, belongs only to him, that _actually_ sinneth, or omitteth his duty. enthusiasm indeed, which, in its highest stages, is a kind of spiritual madness, may have on some minds a quite different effect; and the poor soul, that is subject to this gloomy and tyrannical principle, may conceit strange things; it may at one time imagine itself under the guilt of _adam's_ sin, which it never committed; and fancy itself a saint in jesus christ (and what not) at another: it is a mad principle, fruitful of false doctrines, chimeras, and monsters. it matters not whether (as in the case of _natural madness_) the reason be lost, or whether (as in that of _enthusiasm_) it be over-power'd, and brought into subjection to false principles. the effect is the same; and between powers that are suffered to lie dormant, and no powers at all, there is here no material distinction to be made. again, this notion of _adam's_ being more likely to stand than his posterity, is a mere fallacy: it supposes a difference of state, and rectitude of mind, between him and us; which, if true, will likewise suppose, that our state being more weak and defenceless than his, the task or duty, assigned us, must be proportionate to our different and inferior abilities. if _adam_ was put into this state, as _the ruin and recovery_ seems to suppose, from a motive of love in god, to his creatures, in order to prevent the misery of the human race; the same love cannot fail to commiserate the case, and to provide an effectual remedy for all such as are included in the covenant. _adam's_ motive to obedience must (we are told) have been greatly strengthened by this consideration, that on _him_ depended the happiness, not of _himself_ only, but of _all his posterity_. but, i believe, experience will tell us, that if the consideration of a man's own future state, placed in the strongest light (as this book supposes before _adam_) be not sufficient to move to obedience, a regard to others will seldom have any considerable influence: such a covenant enter'd into, or rather arbitrarily imposed on _adam_ by his maker, could not fail to awaken, in so holy and knowing a creature, some very uneasy and disquieting suspicions. this covenant, and _partial election_ thence following after the _fall_, will, if rightly considered, appear very iniquitous and oppressive: because it makes no proper difference between the _righteous_ and the _wicked_. if _adam_ had been considered as a private person only; and _all his posterity_ left to stand or fall, by their own merits or demerits; some of those, whom this doctrine adjudges to everlasting condemnation, would doubtless have been so _wise_ and _happy_, as to have pleased god in their generation; while others, on the contrary, would have sinned, and transgressed his laws. the state of the latter is, you see, the same as it would have been, upon the vulgar notion of _adam's sin;_ or rather the guilt of it being, in virtue of this covenant, imputed to them: the other and better part, in virtue of this doctrine, are miserable, and must therefore have abundant and bitter cause of complaint against the doctrine itself. i therefore think it was impossible, such a covenant should ever be proposed to _adam;_ a covenant which, if ratified, tended only to make those wretched and miserable, who without it, had they been left to shift for themselves, would have used their liberty and rational powers aright, and have pleased and obtained god's favour thereby. to talk of its being of general service, can never be of sufficient authority to silence this argument. no _private injuries_ can be excused to _innocent sufferers_ (and much less that of _eternal torment_) on the score of general good; what is it to them, whether _they only_, or _all mankind_ suffer. if _adam_ had stood, these very men, (who would, had they been left to their liberty, have proved obedient) would have been in no wise bettered; as he failed, misery came on those, who would otherwise have been happy. as to those who would, in the course of their liberty, have sinned; this covenant, had _adam_ stood, would ('tis true) have saved them from the sentence of _condemnation_. take it again the other way: _adam's fall_ could make no alteration in the state of those who, without it, would have been sinners; such as would have proved virtuous and happy, are hereby made miserable. these are, or must have been the consequences of such a covenant strictly observed; and the wisdom and equity of all covenants must be judged of, by comparing the good and evil consequences, necessarily resulting from them. all the good such a covenant could possibly pretend to, had it been kept, was, the saving from wrath such as, without it, would, as free beings, have sinned; and if, for their sakes, and to prevent the evil that might otherwise befall them, such a covenant was worthy of god to make with man, a day of grace and salvation, extended for their recovery, after they might have transgressed, would have been equally worthy of god; and we need not recur to such fictions and chimeras. one would think it incumbent on all legislators, to consider well the consequences of every law they enact; for the preferring a law, whose consequences can at best be of no service, and will probably in the main event of things be more evil and pernicious than otherwise, would be preferring evil to good; in as great proportion as the evil might exceed the good: and how such a constitution could be better for mankind, i do not understand. i am sorry any body, especially the author of _the ruin and recovery_, should imbibe and defend such erroneous opinions, and this too, in opposition to other and nobler sentiments of his own, elsewhere delivered. but, thus it is to be enslaved to the mere letter of the _bible_, under a notion of doing it _just honour_, when, on the contrary, 'tis the ready way to _dishonour_ and _lessen_ its authority. the pains which infants suffer, and the many miseries to which they are exposed, are, by this gentleman, consider'd as so many arguments of the guilt of _original sin_. he thinks that, without such a supposition, the _justice_ of god cannot be vindicated. [i wish he would stick true to that argument.] we must, he thinks, suppose one of these two things: either, _that god punishes them without all cause or reason_, or, _that they are under the curse and condemnation of_ adam'_s sin:_ and the latter is, in his opinion, the best sentiment. but i am of a contrary opinion, and think that in either case, the _injustice_ is the same. he _allows_ it in the _one case;_ and i hope it is _proved_ in the other: and really the picture which this gentleman has drawn of our young innocents, is very dreadful and terrifying. if all the _evils_ that befall them in this life, and _eternal damnation_ afterwards, be no more than a _just_ punishment for their _sins_, our _saviour_ must surely have been _greatly out_, in the encomiums he bestows on their _innocence_, as i observed before; or, the kingdom of heaven, instead of being design'd for _upright holy souls_, may be a receptacle for the worst of human race. the brute creation undergo pain and affliction; is _adam's_ sin, therefore, imputed to them? if not, and they sometimes suffer by pain and abuse, why may not infants do the same? the miseries of the human race, reckon'd up and aggravated thro' so many elaborate pages, cannot all of them be supposed to belong to the _original constitution_ of things, but might be partly owing to the effect of time and accident, as well as to the folly and wickedness of particular persons and nations. this objection, drawn from the sufferings of brute animals, the doctor endeavours to answer: i wonder _adam_ is not considered (for the sake of putting an end to the difficulty) as their federal head. he thinks, however, that brutes must be some way or other included in the _curse;_ and may be punished, as man's property: but has man, because they are his property, a right to grieve and afflict them? they were bestowed as a blessing, for reasonable service and delight, not for cruel treatment and abuse. the doctor's rule of faith will tell him, _a merciful man will be merciful to his beast_. if their being man's property will not justify him in abusing or cruelly handling them; it can be no reason or argument, why another should do it, even the almighty himself. consider beasts, then, as god's own property; will that render it a whit more equitable? no: this the doctor himself, in the case of infants, allows would be cruel, and contrary to the divine justice and goodness: and the argument is the same as to brutes. but the doctor, sensible of the weakness of this argument, has recourse to another, which i believe will always be admired as a standing mark of _extraordinary invention_, to get rid of difficult and perplexing questions. brutes may, it seems, contrary to common experience, have sensations _less quick_ and _painful_ than ours. i wonder he allows them any sensation at all; nay, 'tis doubtful if he does allow it. noise, or crying out, in them, is, it seems, no mark of pain, because some brutes, under the same circumstance, remain quiet and still. but will the doctor say, they have therefore no painful sensations? are there no marks of pain besides those of crying aloud? did the doctor never know a man sometimes bear a pretty deal of pain without crying out at all; and give many external tokens of pain, at another time? did he never perceive a _gaul'd horse_ wince, upon the most gentle approach of the hand; and discover signs of the greatest fear, and most _exquisite pains?_ do not some brutes take as much pains to avoid the discipline of the whip, as tho' their sensations were the same as ours? i am ashamed to waste time upon such a subject; tho' i hope to be pardoned for following so great a man in his own method of arguing. he perhaps may continue of the same mind, and there may be no hopes of convincement, till brutes are taught to speak. by this new way of reasoning, the ground we tread upon, and every thing around us, hitherto thought inanimate, may be full of cogitation. if affording the common marks of sensation, be no proof, that brutes have it in a common degree, wanting the common marks of intelligence, can be no proof that a stock or a stone has it not. if i mistake not, bishop _berkley_ has furnished the world with something equally instructive and philosophical, in relation to the existence of matter; which, he endeavours to prove _not_ to be a _real_, but an _ideal_ and _imaginary being_. i shall leave others to guess, in what condition those must be, who think and reason after this extraordinary manner. but the doctor has yet another argument in reserve, to vindicate god's justice--_tho' brutes suffer, yet they may_ it seems _have upon the whole more pleasure than pain_. but do not some brutes partake very deeply of the former, in this life; will the doctor therefore suppose a future state for them, by way of compensation? but this argument ruins the whole affair, and may be turned against the doctor himself, in the case of infants, who may be made ample amends in a future state, for the evils sustained here, which evils may have other causes besides _original sin;_ for here again, as in the case of a propensity to evil, pain in infants, if inflicted because of _adam's sin_, must in _all_ be _uniform_ and _alike_. but the fact being quite otherwise, some of this pain and evil must be resolved into _other causes;_ and if _some_, why not _all?_ i grant indeed, that _adam_ himself might have so far corrupted his nature, as to render him more liable to pain, than in a state of true innocence he might have been, and that therefore he might be instrumental to propagate the seeds of several diseases, to his posterity: but had he never done this, his successors might have done it; and _every age_ has, perhaps, by intemperance and lasciviousness, been adding to the common stock of human diseases and calamities: propensities to vice might also be propagated in the same way, and that, and nothing besides, can (i think) account so well for their great and infinite variety. the doctor, with the rest of his brethren, are perpetually urging those common-place arguments, drawn from the practice of men; which in the general i have answer'd already: and, had i proper leisure, it would be no difficult matter to give a clear and distinct answer to every one of them: and these very gentlemen would, on other occasions, had they no favourite point to carry, reject such reasoning with all the contempt, and indignation, it deserves. it is with some reluctance, i find myself obliged to disapprove the sentiments of such wise and worthy grey hairs, to whom the world hath been long and deeply indebted for his many excellent services, both from the pen and the pulpit. i have read over mr. _j--s_'s book, in answer to taylor's _free and candid examination;_ and tho' i have no personal knowledge of that ingenious gentleman, yet i hope he will permit me to say, 'tis pity, great pity, that fine talents (pardon the expression) should be prostituted in the defence of such an unholy and incongruous system of religion. superior degrees of learning and knowledge are, in themselves, most excellent things, and eminently serviceable, when rightly applied to the honour and defence of truth: but, like a two edged sword, they cut both ways, and are also too frequently employed in the propagation of error. while i am thus rendering _human learning_, its just tribute of praise, _truth_ requires, that i should be free to detect those little arts, so often practised to deceive the unwary, and misguide mankind. as i am fully persuaded, the generality of those writers; who stick by this _covenant_, and endeavour to vindicate the honour, justice, and goodness of god therein, do it _only_ for decency sake, _and to put_ (as i observed) _a more plausible outside on their doctrines;_ i think it incumbent on me to _detect_ this _equivocal_ way of writing, and shew, that while the doctor is endeavouring to persuade you he _does not_ believe these doctrines in their most _harsh_ and _severe_ sense, there is reason to suspect he does notwithstanding, _secretly_ and _strongly_, believe them in that _very sense:_ nay, he seems to resolve _them_ very artfully into the _sovereignty_ and _majesty of god_. any man, who reads the book, may perceive, how greatly the doctor is _put to it_ for _arguments_, to answer _objections;_ and he himself knows it to be impossible to make any tolerable or reasonable defence, of such unreasonable and unaccountable doctrines: and therefore, lest his _own people_ should, from some expressions, which, at first sight, might look as though he was arguing merely upon a principle of _moral fitness_, suspect his sincerity, he has (second edition, _page_ 274) given strong intimations of his faith, as follows: "the doctrine of _reprobation_, in the most _severe_ and _absolute_ sense of it, stands in such a direct contradiction to all our notions of kindness and love to others, in which the _blessed god_ is set forth as our example, that our reason cannot tell how to receive it; yet if it were never so true, and never so plainly revealed in scripture, it would only be a doctrine which would require our humble assent, and silent submission to it; with awful reverence of the majesty and sovereignty of the great god, &_c_." this proves, i think clearly, on what authority the doctor himself believes these _doctrines;_ and whoever knows, how _common_ it is for men of _this_ faith, to make a specious shew of reasoning with others on a principle of moral fitness, and among themselves, without scruple, resolving all into mere _sovereignty_, will not think i have been too forward or severe in my observation. i _humbly_ presume, what i have offer'd against this notion of _god's sovereignty_, is a plain confutation of the doctor; and i here, with all due submission, invite _him_, or any of his _brethren_, to defend _the doctrines;_ and _this quotation_, against me. if they _do really_ resolve these doctrines into _god's sovereignty_, let them speak it out plainly; if they _do not_ believe them in this sense, let them speak that out plainly too; that we may clearly understand, in what _determinate sense_, they do believe them. the doctor has taken a great deal of pains to make the world believe, that christ died for all men, when it does not appear, that he himself believes any such thing. hear him, _page_ 89, "and methinks, when i take my justest survey of this lower world, with all the inhabitants of it, i can look upon it no otherwise, than as a huge and magnificent structure in ruins, and turned into a prison, and a lazar-house, or hospital; wherein lie millions of criminals, and rebels against their creator, under condemnation to misery and death, who are at the same time sick of a mortal distemper, and disorder'd in their minds, even to distraction: hence proceed those infinite follies, which are continually practised here; and the righteous anger of an offended god is visible in ten thousand instances: yet there are proclamations of divine grace, health, and life, sounding amongst them; either with a louder voice, or in gentler whispers, though very few of them take any notice thereof. but of this great prison, this infirmary, there is here and there one who is called powerfully, by divine grace, and attends to the office of reconciliation, and complies with the proposals of peace; his sins are pardoned, he is healed of his worst distemper; and tho', his body is appointed to go down to the dust, for a season, yet his soul is taken upwards to a region of blessedness; while the bulk of these miserable and guilty inhabitants, perish in their own wilful madness and by the just executions of divine anger." as i have hitherto troubled the reader with little quotation, and it being now so necessary to let us into the _true spirit_ of the doctor's belief, notwithstanding any seeming appearance to the contrary, i hope to be pardoned. you perceive here, that all are called, but the _greatest part_, in such a weak and imperfect manner, that is out of _their power_ to embrace the call, and so they perish as _unavoidably_ and _unjustly_, as though no such call were extended. the distinction, which is here made between moral and natural necessity, the doctor thinks sufficient to silence all objections, _page_ 285. i have endeavour'd to shew the contrary, and i hope with better success. again, what the doctor observes, _page_ 245, is worthy of notice,--"though there must be a _very good sense_, in which _christ_ may be said to die for all men, because the scripture uses this language; yet it does not follow, that the doctrine of universal redemption is found there: i cannot find that scripture once asserts that _christ_ redeemed all men, or _died_ to redeem them all." this is, i think, manifestly a _contradiction_, and the doctor, it seems, believes it, only because the scripture, as he thinks, reveals it. where is the difference between _dying to save all men_, and, _dying to redeem all men?_ and yet _jesus christ_, it seems, did the one, but not the other. according to him (the doctor) the scripture assures us, that is, the word of god assures us, both that _christ did_, and that he _did not_ die to redeem all mankind; which is a flat contradiction. in what good sense, i should be glad to know, could _christ_ be said to _die_ for _all men_, when god purposely, and peremptorily, _with-holds_ proper assistances to restore the _greatest part?_ if this be to die for _all men_, it is certainly not in a good, but in a very bad sense. but, perhaps, the _doctor_ means, _that man, consider'd in his primitive rectitude, has power sufficient to obey the gospel as proposed to sinners, and that_ adam's _posterity, consider'd as fallen in him, are under the same obligation to keep the law, as_ adam _was_. but of this i have already taken due notice, and therefore i need only put the doctor in mind of a few words of his, drop'd _page_ 340, in his _consideration of the state of dying infants_. he thinks, "it would be by no means agreeable, to have them condemned to a wretched resurrection and eternal misery, only because they were born of _adam_, the original transgressor." this is a rational sentiment, and i wish it were well improved; for it is better to suppose them entering on a new state of trial, or downright annihilation to be their portion: but what havock does this concession make with the doctor's other doctrines, of _christ's dying for all men in a good sense, of considering us in point of obligation to keep the law inviolable, the same as adam was before his fall;_ of god's either granting _no aids_ to enable us to _do this_, or such _as are too weak and insufficient to enable us thereto!_ we are, he allows, _under a moral incapacity to keep the law_, but not a _natural_ incapacity, and therefore god may justly exact our obedience. but pray consider, if both a _moral_ and _natural_ ability be requisite to keep god's laws, what signifies which of these is wanting, when we may as well be without _both_, as without _either_. it signifies little, what epithets we bestow on the word _necessity_. wherever it prevails; and whether it be _moral_ or _natural_, if it is not _self-caused_, but comes on man, either by the immediate decree of heaven, or by the _act of another_, it is _necessity_, _irresistible necessity_, and no distinction can palliate it. i allow indeed, when man is created upright, and furnished with sufficient understanding and ability to please the almighty; and yet, _abusing_ his liberty, becomes at length so enslaved to his passions and appetites, as to fall into this _moral debility_, the law of god is still his duty to observe: on the other hand, allowing mankind to have lost their _moral ability_ to practise virtue in the fall of _adam_, and that god, taking pity upon man, grants him sufficient _light_, to discern his state, and sufficient _power_, to obtain redemption from it, this man is also under the _same obligation_ to keep the law of god, as though his moral powers had never sustained any _decay_ or _loss_ in _adam;_ and i dare affirm, that in _no_ other sense, can man be accountable for the pravity of his will. and let the doctor observe this,--if it would be unsuitable to the mercy of god, in the case of infants not committing actual sin, to punish them eternally, _only because they were born of this first transgressor_, would it not be equally unkind, to leave such as arrive at mature age, under the power of those _restless_ and _irresistable_ propensities to evil, derived from _adam_, and to punish _them_ eternally, only because these propensities, derived in virtue of being born of the first transgressor, constantly, and _in spite_ of any thing we are able, considered in a moral and natural sense, to do to the contrary, produce _vice_ and _immorality?_ _all_ evil actions, consequent upon this propensity, are, in fact, as necessary and unavoidable to us, as the propensity itself, _where_ then, in point of innocence, can the difference be, _between_ having imputed guilt and this propensity, in time of infancy, and living long enough in this world, to feel, and shew to others, its arbitrary effects, in producing vice and impiety whether we will or no? and where then is the reason, for such very different treatment of infants and adult persons? i must observe one thing--the doctor and his brethren, as they make the work of salvation, a very easy and agreeable thing to the elect, on the one hand; so they assign the poor sinner a very _hard task_, on the other: _he that offends in one point is_, they say, _guilty of breaking the whole law_. here is a _plain instance_ of taking _scripture_ in a literal sense, when it can by no means be so understood. according to this, a man, that only _steals_, may be said to commit murder, and be _punished_ as a murderer as well as a thief; though we know he has not committed it. in the main, we may conscientiously observe and keep god's laws, and yet in time of _temptation_ and _weakness_ fall into some evil, will, god therefore _consider_ and _punish_ us as those who live in the daily breach and contempt of all his laws? no! for, on the contrary, god ever waits to be gracious to all such, as through inadvertence fall into sin, and are willing to forsake it. the view and intent of our apostle, in these words, seems to be of very _easy_ and _plain_ signification: there was in those early times, as appears from our saviour's frequently reproving the hypocrisy of that generation, a sort of people, who appeared zealous in the externals of religion, while at the same time they neglected things of far _greater moment:_ _woe unto you scribes and pharisees, ye pay tithe of mint and cummin; and have omitted the weightier matters of the law:_ mat. xxiii. _ver_. 23. they daringly violated god's laws in some of the most material and important instances, and complied with others in a mere formal ostentatious way; and were therefore guilty, in the divine view, of the breach of the _whole law;_ for _mere obedience_ upon improper motives to a _part_ of the law, while at the same time they allow'd themselves in the _known_ and _deliberate_ violation of _more weighty_ commands, was no true or proper obedience at all: and, in this sense, the _jewish_ sacrifices of the law, though commanded by the highest authority, were always esteemed an abomination; and the christian religion as well as the law, is certainly liable to abuses of the same kind, from men of hypocritical and corrupt minds, whom therefore this doctrine of the apostle _effectually_ and _peculiarly_ regards and reproves: and i appeal to all, if this construction of the sacred text be not more agreeable to reason and common sense, than that which the doctor has thought fit and convenient to bestow thereon. i beseech the doctor to consider how, according to his principles, this covenant could be proposed to _adam_, out of a kind and beneficent intention in the creator, when god knew, in the first place, that _adam_ would not keep it, and determined, in the second place, upon the breach of it, to leave the bulk of mankind to perish everlastingly, without mercy, without sufficient or suitable means of redemption; and what a _cruel joke_, upon the _calvinistical scheme_, of god's willing the _fall_, was here put upon _adam_, and all his posterity! to talk as some do, of our existing in _adam_ at the time of his transgression, is very absurd, when, as _intelligent_ and _free creatures_, it is evident, we did not exist at all. _sin is a transgression of some law, which we have at the same time power to keep_. god never requires impossibilities. he that made man, knows best what he is capable of and hath undoubtedly taken care to proportion the _duties_ he requires of man, to the _powers_ he hath bestowed on him. the contrary would be very hard dealing indeed--if a law be dispensed to me, i must in the first place have understanding sufficient to judge of its authority, and the obligations it lays me under; and, in the second place, i must also have power to keep it, otherwise it can never be a law suitable to me; and a man's _age_, _complexion_, _stature_, and _circumstances_, are as just causes for damnation, as the breach of a law which lies beyond the reach of his knowledge and abilities. but supposing, in the last place, that god did make such a covenant with _adam_, &_c_. (though i think i have shewn it to be impossible) let us see how the doctrines of _election_ and _preterition_ will turn out _then_. i have already endeavoured to make it appear, that god does not act in that arbitrary manner, which these gentlemen teach; that though he is indeed governed by no law without, or accountable to any for what he is pleased to do, yet his own rectitude of mind, is to him an invariable rule of righteousness, equally secure to all intents and purposes of a written law without: and this argues the adorable and incomparable excellency of his being who, though by nature he is infinitely above all power and authority whatever, yet his moral perfections continually prompt him to promote the happiness of the meanest of his creatures. it was _sovereign goodness_ (rather than _sovereign pleasure_) which prompted the almighty to create man, in order to communicate happiness to him; and if _adam's_ posterity might be said to fall in him, yet god must at least look on them in a more favourable manner, than if they had actually sinned themselves; and consequently it could never suit with his goodness to punish eternally _any one_ under this circumstance, without _first giving_ him an opportunity of recovering from his lapsed state; nor could he ordain the means on purpose to _save some_ by _electing grace_, without _saving all_. god does nothing without sufficient reason: he could save none under this circumstance, but as they were _in themselves_ objects of his pity and mercy; and if ever there was an object of mercy, here it is, an immortal soul condemned, for the fault of _another_, which it could by no means hinder or prevent, to suffer eternal torment. there is something greatly moving in such an object as this; and as _all adam's_ posterity were equally involved in his guilt, all are objects of mercy _precisely the same_, and therefore there is not the least ground for the difference which we are told is made by election; because 'tis making a _distinction_ where there is _no difference_. here is the race of _adam_, considered as _equally_ fallen in him, divided into two very unequal parts (equally in themselves, and altogether objects of mercy, if such an object can be) by the almighty himself. the smaller number he is at all events determined to save, and to destroy the greater number. in answer to this, i expect to hear that common, but _weak_ argument, drawn from an _earthly prince_, his extending pardon to _one_ criminal, and leaving _another_ to undergo the execution of his sentence. but this is of the same _fallacious kind_, as that drawn from the case of _rebellion_, and shews how _very hard_ the patrons of this doctrine are put to it for arguments. two men, condemned for one crime, may not be equally wicked, and consequently _one_ may better deserve pity than the _other_, and to extend it, is in itself a rational and worthy distinction, made between two _such criminals_. let us suppose, in order to illustrate the argument, that a man is _compelled_, by thieves, to go out on the highway, where he plunders, and is at length, with the rest, brought to justice; his sentence would doubtless be the _same_ as theirs: but when he is consider'd, as having acted not by choice, but _by necessity_, he must needs be an object of pity. nay, mere justice itself will plead strongly in his favour. apply this (so far as it belongs) to the doctrine of _original sin;_ which if it makes men sinners _at all_, it must be _by necessity_, there being no _possibility_ for us to prevent it; which is equal to the greatest constraint that can be produced or imagined, and consequently _all men_ must, under this consideration, be _at worst_ suitable objects of mercy. besides, the weakness of this argument will plainly appear, upon considering, with respect to _earthly princes_, that where the equity of making a _due distinction_ between one _criminal_ and another, is not the reason, why _one is pardoned_, and the other _left to suffer;_ it _always_ arises either from _caprice_, _interest_, _solicitation_, or from _misrepresentation_ of facts to monarchs; who, too often, _see_ and _hear_ through _others_, that are not always duly conscientious, to preserve inviolable the trust reposed in them; and whether such reasoning as this, can possibly affect the _almighty_, any man of common understanding may easily judge. but let them apply my argument on the _sovereignty of_ god against the _certainty_ of their election, and i believe they will find but little reason to boast of their doctrine of electing grace. they tell us indeed, that this doctrine of theirs, makes the death of _christ_ of more effect than ours, because it secures the salvation of _some_. but i have proved there can be no security in it; and surely that doctrine, which _puts all_ into a capacity of salvation, must be better, than that, which leaves _almost every man_ to perish; and if it was better to save a few, than to save none in this arbitrary manner, it must still have been better and more to the glory of _christ_, arbitrarily to have saved all mankind. they say also, that their doctrine of election is a much better ground for love and good works, than is that of _free grace_. but the contrary is apparent, because whoever thinks rightly, cannot be without this disquieting thought.--if god, in a mere arbitrary manner, and without any regard to previous fitness, has chosen me, and rejected another; how do i know but his mind may change hereafter, or that he may not reverse this decree? or if _unconditional election_ be the true doctrine of the gospel, and man is _equally dear_ and acceptable to god _without_, as he is _with_, good works, what inducement can such a person have to please god that way, when he is already as well pleased without them? if election is founded upon an _unconditional decree_, the natural inference (in all such as believe the doctrine, and themselves to be of the elect) must be this--if i am of the number of the elect, nothing can frustrate my happiness; i may gratify my favourite passions, and wallow in all kinds of wickedness, luxury and sensuality, and be equally acceptable to the almighty, as was _david_ in the sins of murder and adultery: on the contrary, if i am not of that number which shall be saved, all my pains and obedience will never procure me acceptance with god, and therefore i _will seek_ all possible gratifications in this life, seeing it is the only time and place wherein i can obtain any thing like happiness; nor can the liberty i take here increase my misery hereafter, the _precise degree_ of _that_ being fixed along with the decree of my damnation: though this persuasion of being set apart for everlasting torment, has more often the effects of desperation and _self-murder;_ and indeed the two extremes of _presumption_ and _despair_, are the natural brood and offspring of these doctrines, as the reverend and learned dr. _trapp_ has abundantly evinced, in his excellent discourse, _against the folly, sin, and danger of being righteous over much_. hypocrisy and persecution are also the genuine offspring of this faith; and _whenever_ it has been tried, persecution has grown up to a considerable maturity: for as they pretend to know the marks of elect and reprobate men, what can be more natural, than for those, who apprehend themselves to be the _former_, to persecute and take vengeance on the _latter_. hath not god, by his own decree of damnation, set them an example? and if he has set a mark on the reprobate, they (the elect) may very reasonably, in imitation of the _divine conduct_, endeavour to make them as wretched as possible here in this life, and _who shall lay any thing to the charge of god's elect?_ i am now shewing, what are the genuine effects of this doctrine, not charging consequences on such as neither do _see_ nor _approve_ of them: there is great difference in the conduct of men of this principle; and its natural effects are, by other things intervening, often prevented, the chief of which may, i believe, be want of power and opportunity; for tho' many, when out of power, might be apt to say (as _hazael_ did) _what is thy servant a dog, that he should do this evil?_ yet they would perhaps be in some danger of behaving as that great man did, when he came to be tried. some again, who tho' they profess the doctrine, are yet (i doubt not) often under the influence of god's _grace_, which, as it tends to humble the soul, and render it more loving and humane than before, naturally prevents the spirit of persecution from taking such deep root as otherwise it might. and here, though i do not pretend to be a _nice judge_ of the spiritual part of religion, yet i have heard such as have been accounted men of the best experience say, that when the grace of god operates on the soul, the ardent love of mankind is _inseparable therewith_. if then the better sort of those, who profess this doctrine, are ever sensible of this _most agreeable_ and humbling operation in the soul, i ask them, if it does not _naturally distend_ and enlarge their wishes, in behalf of all mankind? and if this spirit of love be the genuine effect of the operation of god's grace, what shall be said of that ineffable and immense fountain of grace and goodness, from whence it proceeds? but, on the other hand, it has been observed, that among mere _enthusiastick and traditional believers_, of the doctrine of election, their hypocrisy, deceit and dissimulation has overtop'd that of all the world besides, even beyond what human nature could be thought capable of, in its most wicked and corrupt state; in short, they seem to have made the deceit of _jacob_, and all other parallel places of scripture, that furnish the worst part of the lives of good men, a _standing rule_ of behaviour--what a blessed company has the lord set apart for himself! the _foreknowledge_ of god is supposed, by some, to belong to the argument of _predestination;_ but i think it wholly beside my present purpose, to enter circumstantially into it, for _this reason_--if, whatever god _foreknows_, he must also of necessity _foreordain;_ it is manifestly using _foreknowledge_ and _ordination_ to signify just the _same thing_, and, _in this light_, every argument against _fore-ordination_, must be equally strong against _foreknowledge_, so far as it affects the doctrines under consideration; and when these gentlemen can shew the contrary, or are willing to enter into the consideration of the _divine foreknowledge_, either _separate from_, or _connected with_, the doctrine of _fore-ordination_, i shall always be ready to receive information. this doctrine of electing grace, they exalt as an _incomprehensible mystery;_ so do the papists, with as good reason, that of _transubstantiation;_ for neither of them are mysteries, or incomprehensible, but _palpable errors_, whose absurdity we do _easily and fully comprehend;_ nor will the stale art of playing on the word _mystery_ amuse us any longer. another strange argument, which these men make use of, in order to set aside some passages of scripture, which are positive and express against them, is this, _that if god wills the salvation of all men, all must be saved, otherwise we may be said to conquer the will and grace of god_. to which the answer is very easy--man is made a _free creature_, and therefore god deals with him as such; because to make him free, and then arbitrarily _overrule_ his freedom, would be making him free to _no purpose_. the will of god is sometimes _positive_, and sometimes _conditional_. he gives laws, commands us to keep them, and promises eternal life to those who obey; nor can we suppose he commands us to obey, without willing our obedience. we may indeed _resist_ the operations of his grace: but to talk of _conquering_ god, is nonsense. he has made us free creatures; he wills our salvation, and has granted us such aids as are sufficient, if we use them aright, to bring us to happiness: this conduct in the divine being, is not only reasonable in itself, but _perfectly agreeable_ to many _plain_ and _express_ parts of scripture. the _weeping_ and _lamentation_ of _christ_ over _jerusalem_, is a strong proof of it: _how often would i have gathered thee, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings; but thou wouldest not!_ here was all done, that was fit and convenient to reclaim free beings; not only proper aids offer'd, but offer'd in the _most tender_ and affectionate manner, as is evident from the comparison of the hen, &_c_. and by the words _how often_, is set forth the _great patience and longsuffering of god:_ and notwithstanding all this, they resisted to their own destruction. god _willed_, or would have saved her, but she was stubborn and rebellious, and would not accept of salvation; did she therefore _conquer_ the almighty? suppose my father gives me a good education, a good employment, and a competent portion in money, and, besides all, is continually at hand, ready further to advise and assist me, whenever it may be necessary; yet i am obstinate and disobedient, and, by pursuing evil courses, fall into poverty, contempt, and ruin: i may indeed be said to _resist_, but in no _good sense_ to _conquer_ my father. besides, according to this absurd way of arguing, if god does all in believers, his laws are to be _kept_ by himself; with what propriety then can they be said to be given to man? he to whom the law is given is to keep it, not the being who gives it. i might here, very naturally, speak concerning the sacrifice of _christ's death_, and _his righteousness_ imputed to us; but i shall not now discuss it fully, only a few remarks may not be impertinent or useless. these two points appear to me to be much misunderstood; _sin_ is said to be infinite, because committed against an infinite god; and that therefore nothing but an infinite being can satisfy the justice of god for it: a fine story indeed, for men to amuse us with, who pretend to believe in _only one_ god: here is _one_ infinite being, to be satisfied for sin; and _another_, to satisfy him. and, what is still as bad or worse, it supposes, that an infinite being may, for a certain season, suffer or undergo a diminution of its happiness; which, in an infinite and unchangeable being, i take to be impossible. was it then _only_ the person, or _rational soul_ of _jesus christ_, that suffered, being upheld under it, by the infinite being himself? if so, what is become of the infinite being, that was to _suffer_ for sin; for does god make satisfaction to himself? 'till these gentlemen either renounce, or better explain this matter, they will, i hope, think very favourably of all who deal in absurd schemes of faith. the thing productive of these absurdities, is a _wrong notion_ of sin, and of the justice of god: sin, they say, is infinite, because _committed against an infinite god_. it is doubtless sometimes a great aggravation of it, that it is committed against god; but it is not so much his _greatness_, as our abusing his _goodness_, that aggravates the crime: as may appear from this short observation, that any favour, disinterestedly done, by a person of the meanest rank in life, lays the receiver under the same obligation, as though it were granted by the greatest man upon earth: it is the motive and the action, put together, that gives it its proper value to the receiver. god's authority may add some kind of sanction but no alteration of outward circumstances, in him who confers a benefit, can ever after change the nature of the action, or the obligations resulting from it. and, when we consider, on the other hand, that sin is committed by a frail finite being, very often in its unguarded moments, prompted by passion and appetite, and surrounded with the most powerful temptations; this proves more strongly, that it cannot be infinite. by the _justice_ of god, is not meant, that he cannot forgive sin without satisfaction, but that he _will_ not punish the innocent; he proposes himself as a pattern for our imitation, and bids us _forgive our offending brethren, if they repent and desire forgiveness:_ and he himself will therefore forgive on the same terms; for unless sin becomes so enormous, as to make punishment necessary, _repentance_ and _amendment_ is all that god expects. the gospel is proposed to sinners, on these terms; and as to the death of christ, it were unreasonable to think, he laid down his life by way of satisfaction to offended justice, in the manner these gentlemen understand it; but in testimony of the truth of his doctrines, and confirmation of god's _great love_ to the world. this was the cause of christ's coming in the flesh. god so loved the world, that he sent christ to save it, by such preaching and miracles, and other internal aids, &_c_. as were in themselves sufficient to beget faith in such as gave a proper attention; such a faith, in the soul, as was productive of morality and virtue in practice. it was an _original act_ of grace and goodness in god, to send christ into the world, to save sinners, and not (as some superstitiously teach) a mere compliance in god the father (and that, not without full satisfaction first made) to the _voluntary_ and _merciful_ intercession of christ the son. for then our salvation would be _owing only_ to the love of christ, and not _at all_ to god's love, who is here considered as a _rigorous_ and _unrelenting creditor_, that will not release the debtor, until full satisfaction be made; so that christ becomes our creditor, and god has no farther demand: and what need then can there be of intercession to god on our behalf, when the debt is already paid, and full satisfaction made? christ's coming into the world was _entirely owing_ to the father's mercy. his doctrine, miracles, &_c_. were what he had in commission from god, as a means to instruct and make the world happy; it is he who, instead of being averse to forgive frail man his offences, has through jesus _proclaimed pardon_ to _all_, on condition of repentance and amendment; and thro' the love of god it was also, that christ was appointed a mediator for sinful man: so that the whole affair arose from god's own mercy. i stand amazed at the gentlemen, against whom i am arguing; what a _scope_ do they give to the _sovereignty_ of god, in the doctrines of _election_ and _reprobation?_ and yet they won't _suffer it_ at all to operate, in the case of _forgiving sin_, on the terms of repentance and amendment. a small, yea _very small_ and reasonable allowance, in regard to the _exertion_ of this attribute, and in a _good cause_ too, would be sufficient to justify the mercy of god, in forgiving sin. if, as a sovereign, he punishes where no sin is, surely he may also, as a sovereign, forgive sin. so that this notion of the impossibility of god's forgiving sin, without satisfaction first made, is erroneous and despicable. repentance and amendment in the creature is, in the nature of things, a _much better_ satisfaction, than can be made by the act of another. by the _justice_ of god, i repeat it again, is meant, that he will not punish the innocent, and not that he cannot shew mercy to an offending, repenting, penitent creature, unless another sheds his blood for an atonement. nor is the righteousness of christ, _strictly speaking_, imputable to any one. the terms of the gospel are, _repent, and be converted, and your sins shall be blotted out:_ be _sorry_ and _amend_, and i will _forgive_ you. _the prayer of a righteous man availeth much;_ and god, in some cases, to shew his regard to the righteous, and to excite others to become righteous also, may possibly grant _that_, at the request of such a righteous person, which without, it might be improper to grant; and christ being our holy and righteous mediator, god may do more at his request, on our behalf, than he would do without it. not but that (_independent of_ and previous to the intercession of christ, at least to the account we have of it, in the new testament) god was _ever disposed_ to be favourable to man, and always ready to receive him, coming to him in a proper and becoming manner: for even this very christ, and his intercession, &_c_. is all ultimately the act of god, and flows from his unbounded love and goodness to man. so that _imputed righteousness_ can mean no more, than god's forgiving us, at the request of jesus christ (whom he sent on purpose to make that request, and to do every thing for the benefit and happiness of man) and not a _real transfer_ of christ's _personal_ righteousness, which is not only in itself impossible, but would, if true, take away all necessity of our becoming holy. the righteousness of christ is altogether different to what these men take it to be; it is a real state of righteousness, wrought in the soul by the operation of christ's _spirit_, man submitting thereto. i know there are some expressions in the _new testament_, which (if precipitantly understood, without regard had to the nature of the thing, and to other plain texts) seem _a little_ to favour these doctrines. i can't say, by what means _precisely_ the _bible_ came into its present condition; many things might concur to give us wrong apprehensions of its true sense and meaning, he that understands human nature will find, that men, who have been _great bigots_ in any way of religion, _will generally retain_ some of their former prejudices, even after, in the main, they may have changed their principles, prejudice in education is a leaven, not so easily purged out, as some may imagine; and 'tis possible, the _writings_ of st. _paul_ may have in them a tincture of this kind; besides what may have since crept in, by partiality or accident: against which, and _all errors_ of a like kind, a due regard to the _fundamental principles_, i have endeavoured to inculcate, will, i hope, abundantly secure us. these are some succinct observations, that i could not well avoid making; which perhaps may shortly be followed by something more _full_ and _comprehensive_, concerning the _virtue_ and _extent_ of christ's _death_, and the nature of _imputed righteousness_. what i have here delivered, concerning god's _sovereignty_, is not the result of a few, hasty, or loose thoughts, but the effect of long and mature deliberation. i have weighed over and over the arguments in my own breast, and tried their strength with people, the most likely to afford me satisfaction; and could i have found it in either way, the world had never been troubled with these _free and impartial thoughts_. permit me, before i make an end, just to observe, in regard to the controversy, between mr. _j--s_ and mr. _taylor_, on the scripture doctrine of _original sin;_ that mr. _j--s_, as well as dr. _w--s_, lays great stress on that frivolous distinction, mentioned a few pages back, of _moral_ and _natural_ necessity, to that degree, that mr. _taylor_ is treated somewhat _rudely_, for not perceiving the force of it; when i dare aver, _none_ but misguided zealots, could ever see any reason or argument in it: nor do some of these very men, who urge it, seem to believe it themselves. ask them how man can be justly accountable for evils, that proceed from a _nature depraved in_ adam, and they immediately leave _this distinction_, and recur to the _covenant;_ and this covenant they cannot support by any argument short of god's _sovereignty_, which they are welcome (if they can tell how) to improve to their own advantage. to say that man, in the fall, has natural powers to act rightly, and is therefore condemnable when he does not, tho', by necessity; he wants inclinations to be virtuous, would, to _use_ mr. _j--s_'s genteel language, _be a senseless falshood, and shew poverty of argument_ (i am loth to add as he does) _and effrontery too_. such rudeness deserves lamentation as well as reproof, nor do i on this occasion set before _him_ his _own words_ with any secret pleasure, but purely to shew mr. _j--s_, how agreeable such a liberty will appear, when, in return, it may be offered to himself. why is this favourite distinction urged, unless it be to shew, that because man has natural powers, 'tis his _own_ fault, if he does not employ them aright; but how does it appear, that such a power _only_, can render _man_ a whit better, or _more_ a _moral agent_, than he is, or would be, without it? if inclination to _virtue_, must _precede_ every truly virtuous action; and man's depravity under the fall, be _such_ as prevents his ever having such good inclinations, his natural ability to do good, must needs be a mere _joke_ and a _cypher_. just the same as, on the other hand, would be, the strongest inclinations to virtue, and _no_ natural power of complying with them in practice. as nothing short of _knowledge_ and _power_, power of both kinds, _natural_ and _moral_, can constitute man a _moral agent_, or proper subject of _law_, of rewards and punishments, either here, or hereafter; one would wonder to see this insignificant distinction urged at all in this controversy: for it is, at the best, a mere _parade of words;_ which prove nothing, except it be the want of truth and righteousness, in this doctrine of _original sin;_ or great _bigotry_, and defect of understanding, in its most accomplished patrons. and after all that is, or can be said, concerning _natural_ and _moral_ powers; it is doubtful, if such a depraved miserable wretch, as man under the fall is said by the _assemblies catechism_ to be, can (strictly speaking) have any power at all over his own thoughts and actions; the immediate cause and spring of action _is_ the _soul_, to which the _body_ is subservient only as an _instrument_, but has in itself, according to the best philosophy, no power to produce _voluntary_ or _self motion_. what is called _natural_ power in man, as opposed to _moral_, is at least, a power lodged in the soul, to give motion to the body. but these _volitions_ of the mind, and the immediate act of the soul upon the body, in order to produce _virtue_, depending on the mind's being in a state of _freedom_, able to chuse and prefer virtue, as better than vice; it is evident, that in a mind, totally abandoned to evil, _moral_ motives have not their due power over the man; and what we call his _natural_ power to be virtuous, is either suspended, or quite overpowered, by an evil and irresistable turn of inclination, arising from the _act_ of another; i mean, _adam_. man then, considered as a _moral_ agent, has power to _do_, or _not_ to _do_, the very same thing; be it good or evil. but this liberty of choice and action in the creature, as the _soul_ is but one, and also _the_ immediate source of all action in man, cannot properly, i think, be called _two_ distinct powers, but rather _different applications_ of _one_ and the _same power_ lodged in the soul. on the other hand, in such a _depraved creature_, as man under the fall is said to be, the power of _choosing_ and _refusing_, of being virtuous or vicious, which he _pleases_, is altogether lost and destroyed; and such a man, so far from having _natural_ and _moral_ powers, has (properly speaking) _no power_ at all remaining: all his thoughts and actions, like those of a machine, are merely involuntary; he is constantly impelled by something mightier than himself, and ever necessitated to think and act as he does: his being an intelligent creature, doth not alter the state of the case, or render him more an agent than a stock or a stone. in this sad condition, man can have no power at all to love and pursue virtue, untill the overruling principle, which determines all his thoughts and actions to the contrary, be removed, or he receive superaddition of understanding and strength agreeable thereto. my natural strength of body may be equal to four hundred weight; but what can this avail, while i am continually pressed down by four thousand? and all mr. _j--s_'s skill and criticism (_pages_ 71, 72) will not evade this reasoning. the distinction between immediate and remote causes of sin, is as trifling and inconclusive, as the 'forementioned distinction of _moral_ and _natural_ powers. those indeed, who can fancy themselves to be god's own dear and elect children, may reject all opposition with _scorn_, and without _examination_, and acquiesce readily in the most rigid and tyrannical system of religion, that renders the bulk of mankind miserable, while the elect may think themselves secure in the divine decree, _with an humble assent, and awful_ (it should be superstitious) _reverence of the majesty and sovereignty of the great god_. but what reason or recompence will that be to _him_, who under proper means and motives would have kept the commandments, and so have entered into life; who would have loved the lord his god, with all his heart, soul, and strength; and his neighbour as himself? or how can such a partial and tyrannical doctrine, be reconciled to the voice of reason in man, to our common notions of _right_ and _wrong_, to the general scope and tenour of the _holy scriptures_, or to that text in particular, which assures us, that _the almighty doth not grieve nor afflict the children of men willingly?_ _finis._ some christian convictions other books by the same author the creed of jesus and other sermons social aspects of the cross hymns of the kingdom of god edited by h.s. coffin and a.w. vernon _the same for use in baptist churches_ rev. charles w. gilkey, co-editor in a day of social rebuilding (second printing) university sermons (second printing) the ten commandments with a christian application to present conditions some christian convictions a practical restatement in terms of present-day thinking by henry sloane coffin minister in the madison avenue presbyterian church and associate professor in the union theological seminary, new york city _non enim omnis qui cogitat credit sed cogitat omnis qui credit, et credendo sogitat et cogitando credit_.--augustine copyright, 1915 by yale university press first published, 1915 second printing, 1915 third printing, 1916 fourth printing, 1920 to d.p.c. sociæ rei humanæ atque divinæ preface bishop burnet, in his _history of his own time_, writes of sir harry vane, that he belonged "to the sect called 'seekers,' as being satisfied with no form of opinion yet extant, but waiting for future discoveries." the sect of sir harry vane is extraordinarily numerous in our day; and at various times i have been asked to address groups of its adherents, both among college students and among thoughtful persons outside university circles, upon the fundamental beliefs of christianity. some of my listeners had been trained in the church, but had thrown off their allegiance to it; others had been reared in judaism or in agnosticism; others considered themselves "honorary members" of various religious communions--interested and sympathetic, but uncommitted and irresponsible; more were would-be christians somewhat restive intellectually under the usual statements of christian truths. it was for minds of this type that the following lectures were prepared. they are not an attempt at a systematic exposition of christian doctrine, but an effort to restate a few essential christian convictions in terms that are intelligible and persuasive to persons who have felt the force of the various intellectual movements of recent years. they do not pretend to make any contribution to scholarship; they aim at the less difficult, but perhaps scarcely less necessary middleman's task of bringing the results of the study of scholars to men and women who (to borrow a phrase of augustine's) "believe in thinking" and wish to "think in believing." they may be criticised by those who, satisfied with the more traditional ways of stating the historic christian faith, will dislike their discrimination between some elements in that faith as more, and others as less, certain. i would reply that they are intentionally but a partial presentation of the gospel for a particular purpose; and further i find my position entirely covered by the words of richard baxter in his _reliquiæ_: "among truths certain in themselves, all are not equally certain unto me; and even of the mysteries of the gospel, i must needs say with mr. richard hooker, that whatever men pretend, the subjective certainty cannot go beyond the objective evidence: for it is caused thereby as the print on the wax is caused by that on the seal. i am not so foolish as to pretend my certainty to be greater than it is, merely because it is a dishonour to be less certain. they that will begin all their certainty with that of the truth of the scripture, as the _principium cognoscendi_, may meet me at the same end; but they must give me leave to undertake to prove to a heathen or infidel, the being of god and the necessity of holiness, even while he yet denieth the truth of scripture, and in order to his believing it to be true." in preparing the lectures for publication i have allowed the spoken style in which they were written to remain; several of the chapters, however, have been somewhat enlarged. i am indebted to two of my colleagues, professor james e. frame and professor a.c. mcgiffert, for valuable suggestions in two of the chapters, and especially to my friend, the rev. w. russell bowie, d.d., of st. paul's church, richmond, va., who kindly read over the manuscript. contents introduction--some movements of thought in the nineteenth century which have affected christian beliefs 1 chapter 1. religion 23 chapter 2. the bible 49 chapter 3. jesus christ 78 chapter 4. god 118 chapter 5. the cross 140 chapter 6. the new life--individual and social 160 chapter 7. the church 181 chapter 8. the christian life everlasting 205 some christian convictions introduction some movements of thought in the nineteenth century which have affected christian beliefs when king solomon's temple was a-building, we are told that the stone was made ready at the quarry, "and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house." the structures of intellectual beliefs which christians have reared in the various centuries to house their religious faith have been built, for the most part, out of materials they found already prepared by other movements of the human mind. it has been so in our own day, and a brief glance at some of the quarries and the blocks they have yielded may help us to understand the construction of the forms of christian convictions as they appear in many minds. some of the quarries named have been worked for more than a century; but they were rich to begin with, and they have not yet been exhausted. some will not seem distinctive veins of rock, but new openings into the old bed. many blocks in their present form cannot be certainly assigned to a specific quarry; they no longer bear an identifying mark. nor can we hope to mention more than a very few of the principal sources whence the materials have been taken. the plan of the temple and the arrangement of the stones are the work of the spirit of the christian faith, which always erects a dwelling of its own out of the thought of each age. _romanticism_ has been one rich source of material. this literary movement that swept over germany, britain, france and scandinavia at the opening of the nineteenth century, itself influenced to some degree by the religious revival of the german pietists and the english evangelicals, was a release of the emotions, and gave a completer expression to all the elements in human nature. it brought a new feeling towards nature as alive with a spiritual presence- something far more deeply interfused whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, and the round ocean, and the living air, and the blue sky, and in the mind of man: a motion and a spirit, that impels all thinking things, all objects of all thought, and rolls through all things. it baptized men into a new sense of wonder; everything became for them miraculous, instinct with god. it quickened the imagination, and sent writers, like sir walter scott, to make the past live again on the pages of historical novels. sights and sounds became symbols of an inner reality: nature was to emerson "an everlasting hint"; and to carlyle, who never tires of repeating that "the highest cannot be spoken in words," all visible things were emblems, the universe and man symbols of the ineffable god. to the output of this quarry we may attribute the following elements in the structure of our present christian thought: (1) that religion is something more and deeper than belief and conduct, that it is an experience of man's whole nature, and consists largely in feelings and intuitions which we can but imperfectly rationalize and express. george eliot's adam bede is a typical instance of this movement, when he says: "i look at it as if the doctrines was like finding names for your feelings." (2) that god is immanent in his world, so that he works as truly "from within" as "from above." he is not external to nature and man, but penetrates and inspires them. while an earlier theology thought of him as breaking into the course of nature at rare intervals in miracles, to us he is active in everything that occurs; and the feeding of the five thousand with five loaves and two fishes, while it may be more startling, is not more divine than the process of feeding them with bread and fish produced and caught in the usual way. men used to speak of deity and humanity as two distinct and different things that were joined in jesus christ; no man is to us without "the inspiration of the almighty," and christ is not so much god _and_ man, as god _in_ man. (3) that the divine is represented to us by symbols that speak to more parts of our nature than to the intellect alone. horace bushnell entitled an essay that still repays careful reading, _the gospel a gift to the imagination._ one of our chief complaints with the historic creeds and confessions is that they have turned the poetry (in which religious experience most naturally expresses itself) into prose, rhetoric into logic, and have lost much of its content in the process. jesus is to the mind with a sense for the divine the great symbol or sacrament of the invisible god; but to treat his divinity as a formula of logic, and attempt to demonstrate it, as one might a proposition in geometry, is to lose that which divinity is to those who have experienced contact with the living god through jesus. a second quarry, which christianity itself did much to open, and from which later it brought supplies to rebuild its own temple of thought, is _humanitarianism_. beginning in the eighteenth century with its struggle for the rights of man, this movement has gone on to our own day, setting free the slaves, reforming our prisons, protesting against war and cruelty, protecting women and children from economic exploitation, and devoting itself to all that renders human beings healthier and happier. it found itself at odds with current theological opinions at a number of points. preachers of religion were emphasizing the total depravity of man; and humanitarians brought to the fore the humanity of jesus, and bade them see the possibilities of every man in christ. they were teaching the endless torment of the impenitent wicked in hell; and with its new conceptions of the proper treatment of criminals by human justice, it inveighed against so barbarous a view of god. they proclaimed an interpretation of calvary that made christ's death the expiation of man's sin and the reconciliation of an offended deity; in mcleod campbell in scotland and horace bushnell in new england, the atonement was restated, in forms that did not revolt men's consciences, as the vicarious penitence of the one sensitive conscience which creates a new moral world, or as the unveiling of the suffering heart of god, who bears his children's sins, as jesus bore his brethren's transgressions on the cross. they were insisting that the bible was throughout the word of god, and that the commands to slaughter israel's enemies attributed to him, and the prayers for vengeance uttered by vindictive psalmists, were true revelations of his mind; and humanitarianism refused to worship in the heavens a character less good than it was trying to produce in men on earth. these men of sensitive conscience did for our generation what the greek philosophers of the fifth century b.c. did for theirs--they made the thought of god moral: "god is never in any way unrighteous--he is perfect righteousness; and he of us who is the most righteous is most like him" (plato, _theæt_. 176c). from this movement of thought our chief gains have been: (1) a view of god as good as the best of men; and that means a god as good as jesus of nazareth. older theologians talked much of god's decrees; we speak oftener of his character. (2) the emphasis upon the humanity of jesus and of our ability and duty to become like him. spurred by romanticism's interest in imaginatively reconstructing history, many _lives of christ_ have been written; and it is no exaggeration to say that jesus is far better known and understood at present than he has been since the days of the evangelists. a third quarry is the _physical sciences_. as its blocks were taken out most christians were convinced that they could never be employed for the temple of faith. they seemed fitted to express the creed of materialism, not of the spirit. science was interested in finding the beginnings of things; its greatest book during the century bore the title, _the origin of species_; and the lowly forms in which religion and human life itself appeared at their start seemed to degrade them. law was found dominant everywhere; and this was felt to do away with the possibility of prayer and miracle, even of a personal god. its investigations into nature exposed a world of plunder and prey, where, as mill put it, all the things for which men are hanged or imprisoned are everyday performances. the scientific view of the world differed totally from that which was in the minds of devout people, and with that which was in the minds of the writers of the bible. a large part of the last century witnessed a constant warfare between theologians and naturalists, with many attempted reconciliations. today thinking people see that the battle was due to mistakes on both sides; that there is a scientific and a religious approach to truth; and that strife ensues only when either attempts to block the other's path. charles darwin wisely said, "i do not attack moses, and i think moses can take care of himself." both physicists and theologians were wrong when they thought of "nature" as something fixed, so that it is possible to state what is natural and what supernatural; "nature" is plastic, responding all the while to new stimuli, and the title of a recent book, _creative evolution_, indicates a changed scientific and philosophical attitude towards the world. from this scientific movement we shall find in our present christian convictions, with much else, these items: (1) the conception of the unity of all life. when goethe in a flash of insight saw the structure of the entire tree in a single leaf, and of the complete skeleton of the animal in the skull of a sheep, he gave the mind of man a new assurance of the unity that pervades the whole creation. and when scientific men asserted the universality of law, they made it forever impossible for us to divide life into separate districts--the secular and the sacred, the natural and the supernatural. principles discovered in man's spirit in its responses to truth, to love, to companionship, to justice, hold good of his response to god. there is a "law of the spirit of life in christ jesus"; and it must be ascertained and worked with. but "laws" are recognized as our labels for the discoveries we have made of god's usual methods of working, and they do not stand between us and him, barring our personal fellowship with him in prayer, nor between him and his world, excluding his new and completer entrances into the world's life. (2) the thought of development or evolution as the process by which religious ideas and institutions, like all other forms of life, live and grow in a changing world. (3) the abandonment of the attempt to prove god's existence and attributes from what can be seen in his world. we cannot expect to find in the conclusion more than the premises contain, and "nature" as it now is can never yield a personal and moral, much less a christian, god. and not from nature up to nature's god, but down from nature's god look nature through. (4) a readjustment of our view of the bible, which frankly recognizes that its scientific ideas are those of the ages in which its various writers lived, and cannot be authoritative for us today. (5) a larger view of god, commensurate with the older, bigger, more complex and more orderly world the physical sciences have brought to light. a fourth source of materials, which is but another vein of this scientific quarry, is _the historical and literary investigation of the bible_. this has not been so recently opened as is commonly supposed, but has been worked at intervals throughout the history of the church, and notably at the protestant reformation. luther carefully reexamined the books of the bible, and declared that it was a matter of indifference to him whether moses was the author of the pentateuch, pronounced the _books of the chronicles_ less accurate historically than the _books of the kings_, considered the present form of the books of _isaiah_, _jeremiah_ and _hosea_ probably due to later hands, and distinguished in the new testament "chief books" from those of less moment. calvin, too, discussed the authorship of some of the books, and suggested barnabas as the writer of the _epistle to the hebrews_. but the nineteenth century witnessed a very thorough application to the scriptures of the same methods of historical and literary criticism to which all ancient documents were subjected. the result was the discovery of the composite character of many books, the rearrangement of the biblical literature in the probable order of its writing, and the use of the documents as historical sources, not so much for the periods they profess to describe, as for those in and for which they were written. we can assign the following elements in our contemporary christian thought to these scholarly investigations: (1) the conception of revelation as progressive--a mode of thought that falls in with the idea of development or evolution. (2) the distinction between the bible as literature, with the history, science, ethics and theology of its age, and the religious experience of which it is the record, and in which we find the self-disclosure of god. (3) an historical rather than a speculative christ. we do not begin (however we may end) with a figure in the heavens, the eternal son of god, but with jesus of nazareth. this method of approaching him reinforces the emphasis on his manhood which came from humanitarianism. christianity, like the fabled giant, antæus, has always drawn fresh strength for its battles from touching its feet to the ground in the jesus of historic fact. it was so when francis of assisi recovered his figure in the thirteenth century, and when luther rediscovered him in the sixteenth. there can be little doubt but that fresh spiritual forces are to be liberated, indeed are already at work, from this new contact with the jesus of history. still another opening in the scientific quarry is _psychology_. the last century saw great advances in the investigation of the mind of man, which revolutionized educational methods, gave new tools to novelists and historians, and threw new light on every aspect of the human spirit. psychologists turned their attention to religion, and have done much to chart out the movements of man's nature in his response to his highest inspirations. they have altered methods of biblical education in our sunday schools, have shown us helpful and harmful ways of presenting religious appeals, and have given us scientific standards to test the value of the materials employed in public worship. we may ascribe the following elements in our christian thought to them: (1) the normal character of the religious experience. faith had been regarded as the product of deception or as an aberration of the human spirit; it now is established as a natural element in a fully developed personality. a psychological literary critic, sainte beuve, writes: "you may not cease to be a skeptic after reading pascal; but you must cease to treat believers with contempt." william james has given us a great quantity of _varieties of religious experience_, and he deals with all of them respectfully. (2) the part played by the will in religious experience. man "wills to live," and in his struggle to conserve his life and the things that are dearer to him than life, he feels the need of assistance higher than any he can find in his world. he "wills to believe," and discovers an answer to his faith in the unseen. this is a reaffirmation of the definition, "faith is the giving substance to things hoped for, a test of things not seen." and the student of religious psychology has now vastly more material on which to work, because the last century opened up still another quarry for investigation in _comparative religion_. an eighteenth century writer usually divided all religions into true and false; today we are more likely to classify them as more and less developed. investigators find in the varied faiths of mankind many striking resemblances in custom, worship and belief. it is not possible to draw sharp lines and declare that within one faith alone all is light, and within the rest all is darkness. everything that grows out of man's experience of the unseen is interesting, and no thought or practice that has seemed to satisfy the spiritual craving of any human being is without significance. our own faith is often clarified by comparing it with that of some supposedly unrelated religion. many a usage and conviction in ethnic cults supplies a suggestive parallel to something in our bible. the development of theology or of ritual in some other religion throws light on similar developments in christianity. the widespread sense of the superhuman confirms our assurance of the reality of god. "to the philosopher," wrote max müller, "the existence of god may seem to rest on a syllogism; in the eyes of the historian it rests on the whole evolution of human thought." under varied names, and with very differing success in their relations with the unseen, men have had fellowship with the one living god. it was this unity of religion amid many religions that the vedic seers were striving to express when they wrote, "men call him indra, mitra, varuna, agni; sages name variously him who is but one." this study of comparative religion has gained for us: (1) a much clearer apprehension of what is distinctive in christianity, and a much more intelligent understanding of the completeness of its answer to religious needs which were partially met by other faiths. (2) a new attitude towards the missionary problem, so that christians go not to destroy but to fulfil, to recognize that in the existing religious experience of any people, however crude, god has already made some disclosure of himself, that in the leaders and sages of their faith he has written a sort of old testament to which the christian gospel is to be added, that men may come to their full selves as children of god in jesus christ. a final quarry, which promises to yield, perhaps, more that is of value to faith than any of those named, is the _social movement_. in the closing years of the eighteenth century social relations were looked on as voluntary and somewhat questionable productions of individuals, which had not existed in the original "state of nature" where all men were supposed to have been free and equal. the closing years of the nineteenth century found men thinking of society as an organism, and talking of "social evolution." this conception of society altered men's theories of economics, of history, of government. nor did these newer theories remain in the classrooms of universities or the meetings of scientists; they became the platforms of great political parties, like the socialists in germany and france, and the labor party in britain. men are thinking, and what is more _feeling_, today, in social terms; they are revising legislation, producing plays and novels, and organizing countless associations in the interest of social advance. we are still too much in the thick of the movement to estimate its results, and we can but tentatively appraise its contributions to our christian thought. (1) it has given men a new interest in religion. the intricacies of social problems predispose men to value an invisible ally, and such prepossession is, as herbert spencer said, "nine-points of belief." the social character of the christian religion, with its father-god and its ideals of the kingdom, gives it a peculiar charm to those whose hearts have been touched with a passion for social righteousness. a recent historian of the thought of the last century, after reviewing its scientific and philosophic tendencies, makes the remark that "an increasing number of thinkers of our age expect the next step in the solution of the great problems of life to be taken by practical religion." (2) it has made us realize that religion is essentially social. men's souls are born of the social religious consciousness; are nourished by contact with the society of believers, in fellowship with whom they grow "a larger soul," and find their destiny in a social religious purpose--the kingdom of god. (3) it has taught us that religious susceptibility is intimately connected with social status. spiritual movements have always found some relatively unimpressionable classes. in primitive christian times "not many well-educated, not many influential, not many nobly born were called"; and in our own age the two least responsive strata in society are the topmost and the bottom-most--those so well off that they often feel no pressure of social obligation, and those without the sense of social responsibility because they have nothing. it is the interest of spiritual religion to do away with both these strata, placing social burdens on the former and imposing social privileges on the latter, for responsibility proves to be the chief sacrament of religion. (4) it has brought the church to a new place of prominence in christian thought. men realize their indebtedness for their own spiritual life to the collective religious experience of the past, represented in the church; their need of its fellowship for their growth in faith and usefulness; and the necessity of organized religious effort, if society is to be leavened with the spirit of christ. church membership becomes a duty for every socially minded christian. and the social purpose renders church unity a pressing task for the existing christian communions. john bunyan's pilgrim could make his progress from the city of destruction to the new jerusalem with a few like-minded companions; but a christian whose aim is the transformation of the city of destruction into the city of god needs the coöperation of every fellow believer. denominational exclusiveness becomes intolerable to the christian who finds a whole world's redemption laid on his conscience. (5) it demands a social reinterpretation of many of the church's doctrines, a reinterpretation which gives them richer meaning. the vicarious atonement of jesus christ, for example, becomes intelligible and kindling to those who have a social conscience and know something of bearing the guilt of others; and the new testament teaching of the holy spirit is much more real and clear to those who have felt the social spirit of our day lifting them out of themselves into the life of the community, quickening their consciences and sympathies, and giving them a sense of brotherhood with men and women very unlike themselves. vinet wrote a generation ago, "_l'esprit saint c'est dieu social_." we have by no means exhausted the list of quarries from which stones, and stones already prepared for our purpose, can be and are taken for the edifice of our christian convictions. the life of men with christ in god preserves its continuity through the ages; it has to interpret itself to every generation in new forms of thought. under old monarchies it was the custom on the accession of a sovereign to call in the coins of his predecessor and remint them with the new king's effigy. the silver and the gold remain, but the impress on them is different. the reminting of our christian convictions is a somewhat similar process: the precious ore of the religious experience continues, but it bears the stamp of the current ruling ideas in men's view of the world. but lifeless metal, however valuable, cannot offer a parallel to the vital experiences of the human spirit. the remolding of the forms of its convictions does more than conserve the same quantity of experience; a more commodious temple of thought enables the spirit of faith to expand the souls of men within. in theology by altering boundaries we often gain territory. we not only make the map of our soul's life with god clearer to ourselves, so that we live within its confines more intelligently; we actually increase the size of the map, and possess a larger life with god. chapter i religion religion is experience. it is the response of man's nature to his highest inspirations. it is his intercourse with being above himself and his world. religion is _normal_ experience. its enemies call it "an indelible superstition," and its friends assert that man is born believing. that a few persons, here and there, appear to lack the sense for the invisible no more argues against its naturalness than that occasionally a man is found to be colorblind or without an ear for music. mr. lecky has written, "that religious instincts are as truly part of our natures as are our appetites and our nerves is a fact which all history establishes, and which forms one of the strongest proofs of the reality of that unseen world to which the soul of man continually tends." some have sought to discredit religion as a surviving childishness. a baby is dependent upon its parents; and babyish spirits, they say, never outgrow this sense of dependence, but transfer that on which they rely from the seen to the unseen. while, however, other childish things, like ghosts and fairies, can be put away, man seems to be "incurably religious," and the most completely devout natures, although childlike in their attitude towards god, give no impression of immaturity. when one compares jesus of nazareth with the leaders in state and church in the jerusalem of his day, he seems the adult and they the children. and further, those who attempt to destroy religion as an irrational survival address themselves to the task of a sisyphus. although apparently successful today, their work will have to be done over again tomorrow. on no other battlefield is it necessary so many times to slay the slain. again and again religion has been pronounced obsolete, but passing through the midst of its detractors it serenely goes its way. when men laboriously erect its sepulchre, faith, like a child from the womb, like a ghost from the tomb, will arise and unbuild it again. its indestructible vitality is evidence that it is an inherent element in human nature, that the unbeliever is a subnormal man. religion is an affair of the _whole_ personality. some have emphasized the part feeling plays in it. pascal describes faith as "god felt by the heart," and schleiermacher finds the essence of religion in the sense of utter dependence. many of us recognize ourselves as most consciously religious in that serene and blessed mood in which the affections gently lead us on. our highest inspirations commonly come to us in a wistful yearning to be like the most high, in a sense of reconciliation with him, in a glowing enthusiasm for his cause, in the calm assurance of his guidance and protection, in the enlargement of our natures as they become aware of his indwelling. "we _feel_ that we are greater than we _know_." others give prominence to the rôle of the intellect. god is the most reasonable explanation of the facts of life. religious truths and men's minds harmonize as though they had been made for each other. the thought of deity gives them perfect mental satisfaction. dante tells us: "the life of my heart, that of my inward self, was wont to be a sweet thought which went many times to the feet of god, that is to say in thought i contemplated the kingdom of the blessed." and a present-day english thinker, mr. f.h. bradley, writes: "all of us, i presume, more or less are led beyond the region of ordinary facts. some in one way and some in another, we seem to touch and have communion with what is beyond the visible world. in various manners we find something higher which both supports and humbles, both chastens and transports us. and, with various persons, the intellectual effort to understand the universe is a principal way of their experiencing the deity." still others lay the chief stress upon the will. man wills to live; but in a universe like ours where he is pitted against overwhelming forces, he is driven to seek allies, and in his quest for them he wills to believe in a god as good as the best in himself and better. faith is an adventure; clement of alexandria called it "an enterprise of noble daring to take our way to god." we trust that the supreme power in the world is akin to the highest within us, to the highest we discover anywhere, and will be our confederate in enabling us to achieve that highest. kant found religion through response to the imperative voice of conscience, in "the recognition of our duties as divine commands." pasteur, in the address which he delivered on taking his seat in the académie française, declared: "blessed is he who carries within himself a god, an ideal, and who obeys it; ideal of art, ideal of science, ideal of the gospel virtues, therein lie the springs of great thoughts and great actions; they all reflect light from the infinite." but while all these views are correct in their affirmations, it is perilous to exalt one element in religious experience lest we slight others of equal moment. there is danger in being fractionally religious. no man really finds god until he seeks him with his whole nature. some persons are sentimentally believers and mentally skeptics; they stand at the door of the sanctuary with their hearts in and their heads out. writing as an old man, coleridge said of his youth, "my head was with spinoza, though my whole heart remained with paul and john." an unreasoning faith is sure to end in folly; it is a mind all fire without fuel. a true religious experience, like a coral island, requires both warmth and light in which to rise. an unintelligent belief is in constant danger of being shattered. hardy, in sketching the character of alec d'uberville, explains the eclipse of his faith by saying, "reason had had nothing to do with his conversion, and the drop of logic that tess had let fall into the sea of his enthusiasm served to chill its effervescence to stagnation." others, at the opposite extreme, are merely convinced without being converted. they are appealed to by the idea of god, rather than led into actual fellowship of life with him. a striking instance is the historian, edward gibbon, who, at the age of sixteen, unaided by the arguments of a priest and without the æsthetic enticements of the mass, was brought by his reading to embrace roman catholicism, and had himself baptized by a jesuit father in june, 1753. by christmas of 1754 he had as thoughtfully read himself out of all sympathy with rome. he was undoubtedly sincere throughout, but his belief and subsequent unbelief were purely matters of judgment. the bases of our faith lie deeper than our intelligence. we reach god by a passionate compulsion. we seek him with our reason only because we have already been found of him in our intuitions. still others use their brains busily in their religion, but confine them within carefully restricted limits. outside these their faith is an unreasoning assumption. their mental activity spends itself on the details of doctrine, while they never try to make clear to themselves the foundations of their faith. they have keen eyes for theological niceties, but wear orthodox blinders that shut out all disturbing facts. cardinal newman, for example, declared that dogma was the essential ingredient of his faith, and that religion as a mere sentiment is a dream and a mockery. but he was so afraid of "the all-corroding, all-dissolving skepticism of the intellect in religious inquiries" that he placed the safeguard of faith in "a right state of heart," and refused to trust his mind to think its way through to god. martineau justly complained that "his certainties are on the surface, and his uncertainties below." we are only safe as believers when, besides keeping the heart clean, we press bold to the tether's end allotted to this life's intelligence. those, again, who insist that in religion the willingness is all, forget that it seems no more in our power to believe than it is to love. we apparently "fall into" the one as we do into the other; we do not choose to believe, we cannot help believing. and unless a man's mind is satisfied with the reasonableness of faith, he cannot "make believe." romanes, who certainly wished for fellowship with the christian god as ardently as any man, confessed: "even the simplest act of will in regard to religion--that of prayer--has not been performed by me for at least a quarter of a century, simply because it has seemed so impossible to pray, as it were, hypothetically, that much as i have always desired to be able to pray, i cannot will the attempt." christianity has ever laid stress upon its intellectual appeal. by the manifestation of the truth its missionaries have, from paul's day, tried to commend themselves. we do not hear of "evidence societies" among non-christian faiths. when the emperor julian attempted to restore the ancient paganism, he did not argue for its superior credibility, but contented himself with abusing the creed of christians and extolling the beauty of the rituals of the religion it had supplanted. but the propaganda of the gospel of jesus is invariably one of persuasion, convincing and confirming men's minds with its truth. it would be as false, however, to neglect the part a man's willingness has in his faith. to believe in the christian god demands a severe moral effort. it can never be an easy thing to rely on love as the ultimate wisdom and power in the universe. "the will to believe," if not everything, is all but everything, in predisposing us to listen to the arguments of the faith and in rendering us inflammable to its kindling emotions. but no man can be truly religious who is not in communion with god with "as much as in him is." somebody has finely said that it does not take much of a man to be a christian, but it takes all there is of him. an early african christian, arnobius, tells us that we must "cling to god with all our senses, so to speak." and thomas carlyle gave us a picture of the ideal believer when he wrote of his father that "he was religious with the consent of his whole faculties." it is faith's ability to engross a man's entire self, going down to the very roots of his being, that renders it indestructible. it can say of those who seek to undermine it, as hamlet said of his enemies: it shall go hard, but i will delve one yard below their mines. as an experience, god is a discovery which each must make for himself. religion comes to us as an inheritance; and at the outset we can no more distinguish the voice of god from the voices of men we respect, than the boy samuel could distinguish the voice of jehovah from that of eli. but we gradually learn to "possess our possession," to respond to our own highest inspirations, whether or not they inspire others. pascal well says: "it is the consent of yourself to yourself and the unchanging voice of your own reason that ought to make you believe." so far only as we repeat for ourselves the discoveries of earlier explorers of him who is invisible have we any religion of our own. and this personal experience is the ground of our certainty; "as we have heard, so have we seen in the city of our god." religious experience, and even christian experience, appears in a great variety of forms; and there is always a danger lest those who are personally familiar with one type should fail to acknowledge others as genuine. the mystics are apt to disparage the rationalists; hard-headed, conscientious saints look askance at seers of visions; and those whose new life has broken forth with the energy and volume of a geyser hardly recognize the same life when it develops like a spring-born stream from a small trickle, increased by many tributaries, into a stately river. the value of an experience is to be judged not by its form, but by its results. fortunately for christianity the new testament contains a variety of types. with the first disciples the light dawns gradually; on st. paul it bursts in a flash brighter than noonday. the emotional heights and depths of the seer on patmos contrast with the steady level disclosed in the practical temperament of the writer of the _epistle of james_. but underneath the diversity there is an essential unity of experience: all conform to that which luther (as harnack summarizes his position) considered the essence of christian faith--"unwavering trust of the heart in god who has given himself to us in christ as our father." religious experience has been defined as man's _response_ to god; it often appears rather his _search_ for him. but that is characteristic only of the beginning of the experience. the experienced know better than to place the emphasis on their initiative in establishing intercourse with the divine. "we love, because he first loved us," they say. the apostle, who speaks of his readers as those who "have come to know god," stops and corrects himself, "or rather _to be known of god_." believers discover that god was "long beforehand" with them. their very search is but an answer to his seeking; in their every movement towards him, they are aware of his drawing. the verse which begins, "my soul followeth hard after thee," continues "thy right hand upholdeth me." religious experience, like all other, is limited by a man's capacity for it; and some men seem to have very scant capacity for god. it is not easy to establish a point of contact between a falstaff or a becky sharp and the father of jesus christ. there is no community of interest or kinship of spirit. "faith is assurance of things _hoped for_;" and where there is no craving for god, he is likely to remain incredible. prepossession has almost everything to do with the commencement of belief. it is only when circumstances force a man to feel that a god would be desirable that he will risk himself to yield to his highest inspirations, and give god the chance to disclose himself to him. it is a case of nothing venture, nothing have. faith is always a going out whither we know not, but in each venture we accumulate experience and gradually come to "know whom we have believed." without the initial eagerness for god which opens the door and sends us out we remain debarred from ever knowing. as the _theologia germanica_ puts it, "we are speaking of a certain truth which it is possible to know by experience, but which ye must believe in before ye know." the capacity for religious experience can be cultivated. faith, like an ear for music or taste in literature, is a developable instinct. it grows by contagious contact with fellow believers; as "the sight of lovers feedeth those in love," the man of faith is nourished by fellowship with the believing church. it is increased by familiarity with fuller and richer experiences of god; continuous study of the bible leads men into its varied and profound communion with the most high. it is enlarged by private and social worship; prayer and hymn and message were born in vital experiences, and they reproduce the experience. browning, in characteristic verse, describes the effect of the service upon the worshippers in zion chapel meeting: these people have really felt, no doubt, a something, the motion they style the call of them; and this is their method of bringing about, by a mechanism of words and tones, (so many texts in so many groans) a sort of reviving and reproducing, more or less perfectly (who can tell?), the mood itself, which strengthens by using. an unexpressed faith dies of suffocation, while utterance intensifies experience and leads to fresh expression; religion, like shelley's skylark, "singing still doth soar, and soaring ever singeth." above all, the instinct for the unseen is developed by exercise; obedience to our heavenly visions sharpens the eyes of the heart. charles lamb pictures his sister and himself "with a taste for religion rather than a strong religious habit." such people exclude themselves from the power and peace, the limitless enrichment, of conscious friendship with the living god. indeed it is not conceivable that a man can have really tasted fellowship with the most high without acquiring an appetite for more of him. the same psalmist who speaks of his soul as satisfied in god, at once goes on, "my soul followeth hard after thee." he who does not become a confirmed seeker for god is not likely ever to have truly found him. there is something essentially irreligious in the attitude portrayed in the biography of horace walpole, who, when queen caroline tried to induce him to read butler's _analogy_, told her that his religion was fixed, and that he had no desire either to change or to improve it. a believer's heart is fixed; his soul is stayed on god; but his experience is constantly expanding. constancy is perhaps an inaccurate word to employ of man's intercourse with the invisible. even in the most stedfast and unwavering this intercourse is characterized by tidal movements of devoutest awe sinking anon to farthest ebb of doubt. and in the world's life there are ages of faith and ages of criticism. both assurance and questioning appear to be necessary. professor royce asserts that "a study of history shows that if there is anything that human thought and cultivation have to be deeply thankful for, it is an occasional, but truly great and fearless age of doubt." and in individuals it is only by facing obstinate questionings that faith is freed from folly and attains reasonableness. nor can religious experience, however boldly it claims to know, fail to admit that its knowledge is but in part. our knowledge of god, like the knowledge we have of each other, is the insight born of familiarity; but no man entirely knows his brother. and as for the lord of heaven and earth, how small a whisper do we hear of him! some minds are constitutionally ill-adapted for fellowship with him because they lack what keats calls "negative capability"--"that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason. coleridge, for instance, would let go a fine isolated verisimilitude, caught from the penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge." we have to trust god with his secrets, as well as try to penetrate them as far as our minds will carry us. we have to accustom ourselves to look uncomplainingly at darkness, while we walk obediently in the light. "they see not clearliest who see all things clear." but to many it seems all darkness, and the light is but a phantom of the credulous. how do we know that we _know_, that the inference we draw from our experience is correct, that we are in touch with a living god who is to any extent what we fancy him to be? our experience consists of emotions, impulses, aspirations, compunctions, resolves; we infer that we are in communion with another--the christian god; but may not this explanation of our experience be mistaken? religious experience is self-evidencing to the religious. god is as real to the believer as beauty to the lover of nature on a june morning, or to the artistic eye in the presence of a canvas by a great master. men are no more argued into faith than into an appreciation of lovely sights and sounds; they are immediately and overwhelmingly aware of the invisible. the rest may reason, and welcome; 'tis we musicians know. faith does not require authority; it confers it. to those who face the sistine madonna, in the room in the dresden gallery where it hangs in solitary eminence, it is not the testimony of tradition, nor of the thousands of its living admirers throughout the world, that renders it beautiful; it makes its own irresistible impression. there are similar moments for the soul when some word, or character, or event, or suggestion within ourselves, bows us in admiration before the incomparably fair, in shame before the unapproachably holy, in acceptance before the indisputably true, in adoration before the supremely loving--moments when "belief overmasters doubt, and we know that we know." at such times the sense of personal intercourse is so vivid that the believer cannot question that he stands face to face with the living god. such moments, however, are not abiding; and in the reaction that follows them the mind will question whether it has not been the victim of illusion. john bunyan owns: "though god has visited my soul with never so blessed a discovery of himself, yet afterwards i have been in my spirit so filled with darkness, that i could not so much as once conceive what that god and that comfort was with which i had been refreshed." many a christian today knows the inspiration and calm and reinforcement of religion, only to find himself wondering whether these may not come from an idea in his own head, and not from a personal god. may we not be in a subjective prison from whose walls words and prayers rebound without outer effect? how far may we trust our experience as validating the inferences we draw from it? the christian thought of god is after all no more than an hypothesis propounded to account for the christian life. may not our experiences be accounted for in some other way? we must distinguish between the adequacy of our thought of god and the fact that there is a god more or less like our thought of him. our experience can never guarantee the entire correctness of our concept of deity; a child experiences parental love without knowing accurately who its parents are--their characters, position, abilities, etc. but the child's experience of loving care convinces the child that he possesses living parents. is it likely that, were god a mere fancy, a fancy which we should promptly discard if we knew it as such, our experience could be what it is? an explanation of an experience, which would destroy that experience, is scarcely to be received as an explanation. religion is incomparably valuable, and to account for it as self-hypnosis would end it for us as a piece of folly. can life's highest values be so dealt with? moreover, we cannot settle down comfortably in unbelief; just when we feel most sure that there is no god, something unsettles us, and gives us an uncanny feeling that after all he is, and is seeking us. we find ourselves responding, and once more we are strengthened, encouraged, uplifted. can a mere imagination compass such results? how shall we test the validity of the inference we draw from our experience? one test is the satisfaction that it gives to _all_ elements in our complex personality. one part of us may be deceived, but that which contents the entire man is not likely to be unreal. arthur hallam declared that he liked christianity because "it fits into all the folds of one's nature." further, this satisfaction is not temporary but persistent. in childhood, in youth, in middle age, at the gates of death, in countless experiences, the god we infer from our spirit's reactions to him meets and answers our changing needs. matthew arnold writes: "jesus christ and his precepts are found to hit the moral experience of mankind; to hit it in the critical points; to hit it lastingly; and, when doubts are thrown upon their really hitting it, then to come out stronger than ever." unless we are to distrust ourselves altogether, that which appeals to our minds as reasonable, to our hearts as lovable, to our consciences as commanding, and to our souls as adorable, can hardly be "such stuff as dreams are made on." nor are we looking at ourselves alone. we are confirmed by the completer experiences of the generations who have preceded us. "they looked unto him and were radiant." those thousands of beautiful and holy faces in each century, "lit with their loving and aflame with god," can scarcely have been gazing on light kindled solely by their own imaginations. and all their minds transfigured so together, more witnesseth than fancy's images, and grows to something of great constancy. religion has written its witness into the world's history, and we can appeal to an eloquent past. look at the generations of old, and see: who did ever put his trust in the lord, and was ashamed? or who did abide in his fear, and was forsaken? or who did call upon him, and he despised him? and its witness comes from today as certainly, and more widely, than from any believing yesterday. ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, out of every kindred and tongue and nation, throughout the world, testify what the god and father of jesus christ means to them. are we all self-deceived? nor are we limited to the experiences of those who at best impress us as partially religious. for the final confirmation of our faith we look to the ideal believer, who not only has an ampler religious experience than any other, but also possesses more power to create faith, and to take us farther into the unseen; we look unto jesus, the author and perfecter of faith. his life and death, his character and influence, remain the world's most priceless possession. was the faith which produced them, the faith which inspired him, an hallucination? there is contained in that life more proof that god is, than in all other approach of god to man, or of man to god. the other test of the correctness of our inference drawn from our religious experience is its practical value, the way in which it works in life. "he that willeth to do his will shall know." coleridge bursts out indignantly: "'evidences of christianity'! i am weary of the word. make a man feel the want of it; rouse him, if you can, to the self-knowledge of the need of it; and you may safely trust it to its own evidence." religion approaches men saying, "o taste and see that the lord is good." he cannot be good unless he _is_. a fancied deity, an invention however beautiful of men's brain, supposed to be a living being, cannot be a blessing, but, like every other falsehood, a curse. if our religion is a stained glass window we color to hide the void beyond, then in the name of things as they are, whether they have a god or not, let us smash the deceiving glass, and face the darkness or the daylight outside. "religion is nothing unless it is true," and its workableness is the test of its truth. behind the accepted hypotheses of science lie countless experiments; and anyone who questions an hypothesis is simply bidden repeat the experiment and convince himself. behind the fundamental conviction of christians are generations of believers who have tried it and proved it. the god and father of jesus is a tested hypothesis; and he who questions must experiment, and let god convince him. to commit one's self to god in christ and be redeemed from most real sins--turned from selfishness to love, from slavery to freedom; to trust him in most real difficulties and perplexities, and find one's self empowered and enlightened;--is to discover that faith works, and works gloriously. a man's idea of god may be, and cannot but be, inadequate; but it corresponds not to nothing existent, but to someone most alive. that which comes to us through the idea is witness of the reality behind it. nor are we confined to the witness of our personal discoveries. there is a social attestation of the workableness of faith. the surest way of establishing the worth of our religious experience is to share it with another; the strongest confirmation of the objective existence of him with whom we have to do is to lead another to see him. the most effective defender of the faith is the missionary. "it requires," as david livingstone said, "perpetual propagation to attest its genuineness." not they who sit and study and discuss it, however cleverly and learnedly, discover its truth; but they who spend and are spent in attempting to bring a whole world to know the redeeming love of one who is, and who rewards with indubitable sonship with himself those who prove wholeheartedly loyal. for our final assurance we appeal confidently to the future. the glory of the lord will only be fully revealed when all flesh see it together. but with personal certainty, based on our own experience, corroborated by the testimony of all the saints, we both wait hopefully and work tirelessly for the day when our god through christ shall be all in all. chapter ii the bible in terms of the definition of religion given in the last chapter, we may describe the bible as the record of the progressive religious experience of israel culminating in jesus christ, a record selected by the experience of the jewish and christian church, and approving itself to christian experience today as the self-revelation of the living god. the bible is a _literary_ record. it is not so much a book as a library, containing a great variety of literary forms--legends, laws, maxims, hymns, sermons, visions, biographies, letters, etc. judged solely as literature its writings have never been equalled in their kind, much less surpassed. goethe declared, "let the world progress as much as it likes, let all branches of human research develop to their utmost, nothing will take the place of the bible--that foundation of all culture and all education." happily for the english-speaking world the translation into our tongue, standardized in the king james' bible, is a universally acknowledged classic; and scarcely a man of letters has failed to bear witness to its charm and power. while most translations lose something of the beauty and meaning of the original, there are some parts of the english bible which, as literature and as religion, excel the hebrew or greek they attempt to render. the bible is a record of _religious experience_. it has but one central figure from _genesis_ to _revelation_--god. but god is primarily in the experience, only secondarily in the record. all thought succeeds in grasping but a fraction of consciousness; thought is well symbolized in rodin's statue, where out of a huge block of rough stone a small finely chiselled head emerges. with all their skill we cannot credit the men of faith who are behind the bible pages with making clear to themselves but a small part of god's self-disclosure to them. and when they came to wreak thought upon expression, so clear and well-trained a mind as paul's cannot adequately utter what he feels and thinks. his sentences strain and sometimes break; he ends with such expressions as "the love of christ which passeth knowledge," and god's "unspeakable gift." the divine revelation which is in the experience has been at times identified with the thought that interprets it, or even with the words which attempt to describe it. "faith in the thing grows faith in the report"; and fantastic doctrines of the verbal inerrancy of the bible have been held by numbers of earnest christians. certain recent scholars, acknowledging that no version of the bible now existing is free from error, have put forward the theory that the original manuscripts of these books, as they came from their authors' hands, were so completely controlled by god as to be without mistake. since no man can ever hope to have access to these autographs, and would not be sure that he had them in his hands if he actually found them, this theory amounts to saying with the nursery rhyme: oats, peas, beans, and barley grows, where you, nor i, nor nobody knows. we have not only to collate the manuscripts we possess and try to reconstruct the likeliest text, but when we know what the authors probably wrote, we must press back of their language and ideas to the religious experience they attempt to express. as writers the biblical authors do not claim a special divine assistance. luke, in his preface to his gospel, merely asserts that he has taken the pains of a careful historian, and paul and his various amanuenses did their best with a language in which they were not literary experts. the bible reader often has the impression that its authors' religious experience, like milton's sculptured lion, half appears "pawing to get free his hinder parts." or, to change the metaphor, now one portion of their communion with god is brought to view and now another, as one might stand before a sea that was illuminated from moment to moment by flashes of lightning. the bible is the record of an _historic_ religious experience--that of israel which led up to the consciousness of god in jesus and his followers. the investigation of the sources of hebrew religion has shown that many of its beliefs came from the common heritage of the semitic peoples; and there are numerous points of similarity between israel's faith and that of other races. this ought not to surprise us, since its god is the god of all men. but the more resemblances we detect, the greater the difference appears. the same legend in babylonia and in israel has such unlike spiritual content; the identical rite among the hebrews and among their neighbors developed such different religious meaning. this particular stream of religious life has a unity and a character of its own. its record brings into the succeeding centuries, and still produces in our world, a distinctive relationship with god. the bible is a record of _progressive_ religious experience. as every poet with a new message has to create his own public, so it would seem that god had slowly to evolve men who would respond to his ever higher inspirations. when scholars arrange for us the biblical material in its historical order, the advance becomes much more apparent. its god grows from a tribal deity to the god of the whole world; from a localized divinity dwelling on sinai or at jerusalem, as the greeks placed their gods on olympus, into the spirit who fills heaven and earth; from "a man of war" and a tribal lawgiver into the god whose nature is love. "by experience," said roger ascham, "we find out a short way by a long wandering," and it took at least ten centuries to pass from the god of moses to the father of jesus christ. obviously we must interpret, and at times correct, the less developed by the more perfect consciousness of god. the scriptures, like the land in which their scenes are laid, are a land of hills and valleys, of lofty peaks of spiritual elevation and of dark ravines of human passion and doubt and cruelty; and to view it as a level plain of religious equality is to make serious mistakes. _ecclesiastes_ is by no means on the same level with _isaiah_, nor _proverbs_ with the _sermon on the mount_. doctrines and principles that are drawn from texts chosen at random from all parts of the bible are sure to be unworthy statements of the highest fellowship with god. nor does mere chronological rearrangement of the material do justice to the progress; there was loss as well as gain. all mountain roads on their way to the summit go down as well as up; and their advance must be judged not from their elevation at any particular point, but from their successful approach towards their destination. the experiences of israel reach their apex in the faith of jesus and of his immediate followers; and they find their explanation and unity in him. in form the jewish bible, unlike the christian, has no climax; it stops, ours ends. christians judge the progress in the religious experience of israel by its approximation to the faith and purpose of jesus. the bible is a _selected_ record of religious experience. old testament historians often refer to other books which have not been preserved; and there were letters of st. paul which were allowed to perish, and gospels, other than our four, which failed to gain a place in the canon. a discriminating instinct was at work, judging between writings and writings. we know little of the details of the process by which it compiled the old testament. the jewish church spoke of its scriptures as "the law, the prophets, and the writings"; and it is probable that in this order it made collections of those books which it found expressed and reproduced its faith. in the time of jesus the old testament, as we know it, was practically complete, although there still lingered some discussion whether _esther, ecclesiastes_ and the _song of songs_ were sacred books. we should like to know far more than students have yet discovered of the reasons which jewish scholars gave for admitting some and rejecting other writings; but, whatever their alleged reasons, the books underwent a struggle for recognition, and the fittest, according to the judgment of the corporate religious experience of the devout, survived. the first christians found the jewish bible in use as containing "the oracles of god"; and as it had been their lord's bible it became theirs. no one of the first generation of christians thought of adding other scriptures. in that age the coming of the messiah and his kingdom in power were daily expected, and there seemed no need of writing anything for succeeding times. paul's letters were penned to meet current needs in the churches, and were naturally kept, reread and passed from church to church. as the years went by and disciples were added who had never known the lord in the days of his flesh, a demand arose for collections of his sayings. then gospels were written, and the new testament literature came into existence, although no one yet thought of these writings as holy scripture. three factors, however, combined to give these books an authoritative position. in the church services _reading_ was a part of worship. what should be read? a letter of an apostle, a selection of jesus' sayings, a memoir of his life, an account of the earliest days of the church. certain books became favorites because they were most helpful in creating and stimulating christian faith and life; and they won their own position of respect and authority. some books by reason of their _authorship_--paul or peter, for instance--or because they contained the life and teaching of jesus, naturally held a place of reverence. this eventually led to the ascription to well-known names of books that were found helpful which had in fact been written by others. for example, the _epistle to the hebrews_ was ultimately credited to paul, and the _second epistle of peter_ to the apostle peter. and, again, _controversies_ arose in which it was all important to agree what were the sources to which appeal should be made. the first collection of christian writings, of which we know, consisting of ten letters of paul and an abridged version of the _gospel according to luke_, was put forth by marcion in the second century to defend his interpretation of christianity--an interpretation which the majority of christians did not accept. it was inevitable that a fuller collection of writings should be made to refute those whose faith appeared incomplete or incorrect. in the last quarter of the second century we find established the conception of the bible as consisting of two parts--the old and the new covenant. this meant that the christian writings so acknowledged would be given at least the same authority as was then accorded to the jewish bible. early in the fourth century the historian, eusebius, tells us how the new testament stood in his day. he divides the books into three classes--those acknowledged, those disputed, and those rejected. in the second division he places the epistles of _james_ and _jude_, the _second epistle of peter_ and the _second_ and _third_ of _john_; in the first all our other books, but he says of the _revelation of john_, that some think that it should be put in the third division; in the third he names a number of books which are of interest to us as showing what some churches regarded as worthy of a place in the new testament, and used as they did our familiar gospels and epistles. by the end of that century, under the influence of athanasius and the church in rome, the new testament as it now stands became almost everywhere recognized. the reason given for the acceptance or rejection of a book was its _apostolic authorship_. only books that could claim to have been written by an apostle or an apostolic man were considered authoritative. we now know that not all the books could meet this requirement; but the church's real reason was its own discriminating spiritual experience which approved some books and refused others. canon sanday sums up the selective process by saying: "in the fixing of the canon, as in the fixing of doctrine, the decisive influence proceeded from the bishops and theologians of the period 325-450. but behind them was the practice of the greater churches; and behind that again was not only the lead of a few distinguished individuals, but the instinctive judgment of the main body of the faithful. it was really this instinct that told in the end more than any process of quasi-scientific criticism. and it was well that it should be so, because the methods of criticism are apt to be, and certainly would have been when the canon was formed, both faulty and inadequate, whereas instinct brings into play the religious sense as a whole. even this is not infallible; and it cannot be claimed that the canon of the christian sacred books is infallible. but experience has shown that the mistakes, so far as there have been mistakes, are unimportant; and in practice even these are rectified by the natural gravitation of the mind of man to that which it finds most nourishing and most elevating." in their attitude towards the canon all christians agree that the books deemed authoritative must record the historic revelation which culminated in jesus and the founding of the christian church. a roman catholic may derive more religious stimulus from the _spiritual exercises_ of ignatius loyola than from the _book of lamentations_, and a protestant from bunyan's _pilgrim's progress_ than from the _second epistle of john_; but neither would think of inserting these books in the canon. he who finds as much religious inspiration in some modern poet or essayist as in a book of the bible, may be correctly reporting his own experience; but he is confusing the purpose of the bible if he suggests the substitution of these later prophets for those of ancient israel. the bible is the spiritually selected record of a particular self-disclosure of god in a national history which reached its religious goal in jesus christ. romanists and protestants differ as to how many books constitute the canon, the former including the so-called _apocrypha_--books in the greek translation but not in the original hebrew bible. and they differ more fundamentally in the principle underlying the selection of the books. the roman catholic holds that it is the church which officially has made the bible, while the protestant insists that the books possess spiritual qualities of their own which gave them their place in the authoritative volume, a place which the church merely recognized. luther, in his celebrated dispute with dr. eck, asserted: "the church cannot give more authority or force to a book than it has in itself. a council cannot make that be scripture which in its own nature is not scripture." the council of trent, answering the reformers, in 1546, issued an official decree defining what is scripture: "the holy, ecumenical and general synod of trent, legitimately convened in the holy ghost ...receives and venerates with an equal piety and reverence all the books as well of the old as of the new testament ...together with the traditions pertaining both to faith and to morals, as proceeding from the mouth of christ, or dictated by the holy spirit, and preserved in the church catholic by continuous succession." then follows a catalogue of the books, and an anathema on all who shall not receive them "as they are contained in the old vulgate latin version." over against this the protestant takes the position that the books of the scripture came to be recognized as authoritative exactly as shakespeare, milton and wordsworth have been accorded their place in english literature. it was the inherent merit of _hamlet_ and _paradise lost_ and the _ode on the intimations of immortality_ that led to their acknowledgment. no official body has made shakespeare a classic; his works have won their own place. no company of men of letters officially organized keeps him in his eminent position; his plays keep themselves. the books of the bible have gained their positions because they could not be barred from them; they possess power to recanonize themselves. some are much less valuable than others, and it is, perhaps, a debatable question whether one or two of the apocryphal books--_first maccabees_, or _ecclesiasticus_, for instance--are not as spiritually useful as the _song of solomon_ or _esther_; but of the chief books we may confidentially affirm that, if one of them were dug up for the first time today, it would gradually win a commanding place in christian thought. and it is a similar social experience of the church--jewish and christian--which has recognized their worth. the modernist tyrrell has written: "it cannot be denied that in the life of that formless church, which underlies the hierarchic organization, god's spirit exercises a silent but sovereign criticism, that his resistlessly effectual judgment is made known, not in the precise language of definition and decree, but in the slow manifestation of practical results; in the survival of what has proved itself life-giving; in the decay and oblivion of all whose value was but relative and temporary." in a sense each protestant christian is entitled to make up a bible of his own out of the books which record the historical discoveries of god. he is not bound by the opinions of others, however many and venerable; and unless a book commends itself to his own spiritual judgment, he is under no obligation to receive it as the word of god to him. as a matter of fact every christian does make such a bible of his own; the particular passages which "grip" him and reproduce their experiences in him, they, and they alone, are his bible. luther was quickened into life by the epistles of paul, but spoke slightingly of _james_; many socially active christians in our day live in the prophets and the first three gospels, and almost ignore the rest of the bible. but individual taste, while it has preferred authors and favorite works, does not think of denying to milton, or wordsworth, or shelley, their place among english classics; a social judgment has assigned them that. a man who is not hopelessly conceited will regret his inability to appreciate a single one of the great authors, and will try to enlarge his sympathies. the christian will, with entire naturalness, be loyal to so much of the bible as "finds him," and humbly hope and endeavor to be led into ampler ranges of spiritual life, that he may "apprehend with all saints" the breadth, length, depth and height of the historic self-revelation of god. the bible is thus _a standard of religious experience_. if there is any question as to what man's life with god ought to be, it can be referred to the life recorded in these books. but men have often made the bible much more; confusing experience with its interpretation in some particular epoch, they used the bible as a treasury of proof texts for doctrines, or of laws for conduct, or of specific provisos for church government and worship. they forgot that the writers of the early chapters of _genesis_, in describing their faith in god's relationship to his world and to man and to history, had to express that faith in terms of the existing traditions concerning the creation, the fall, the deluge, the patriarchs. their faith in god is one thing; the scientific and historic accuracy of the stories in which they utter it is quite another thing. they did not distinguish between paul's life with god in christ, and the philosophy he had learned in gamaliel's classroom, or picked up in the thought of the roman world of his day. paul's religious life is one thing, his theology in which he tries to explain and state it is another thing. they read the plans that were made for the organization of the first churches, and hastily concluded that these were intended to govern churches in all ages. the chief divisions of the church claim for their form of government--papal, episcopal, presbyterian, congregational--a biblical authority. the religious life of the early churches is one thing; their faith and hope and love ought to abide in the church throughout all generations; the method of their organization may have been admirable for their circumstances, but there is no reason we should consider it binding upon us in the totally different circumstances of our day. latterly social reformers have been attempting to show that the bible teaches some form of economic theory, like socialism or communism. it lays down fundamental principles of brotherhood, of justice, of peaceableness, but the economic or political systems in which these shall be embodied, we must discover for ourselves in each age. it is the norm of our life with god; but it is not a standard fixing our scientific views, our theological opinions, our ecclesiastical polity, our economic or political theories. it shows forth the spirit we should manifest towards god and towards one another as individuals, and families, and nations; "and where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty." this brings us to the question of the _authority_ of the bible. there are two views of its authority; one that it contains mysteries beyond our reason, which are revealed to us, and guaranteed to us as true, either by marvellous signs such as miracles and fulfilled prophecies, or by the infallible pronouncement of the official church; the other is that the bible is the revelation of self-evidencing truth. the test of a revelation is simply that it reveals. the evidence of daylight lies in the fact that it enables us to see, and as we live in the light we are more and more assured that we really do see. advocates of the former position say: "if anything is in the bible, it must not be questioned; it must simply be accepted and obeyed." advocates of the latter view say: "if it is in the bible, it has been tried and found valuable by a great many people; question it as searchingly as you can, and try it for yourself, and see whether it proves itself true or not." these two views came into collision in the struggle for a larger faith which we call the reformation. augustine had stated the position which became traditional when he wrote, "i would not believe in the gospel without the authority of the church." but luther insisted on the contrary: "thou must not place thy decision on the pope, or any other; thou must thyself be so skilful that thou can'st say, 'god says this, not that.' thou must bring conscience into play, that thou may'st boldly and defiantly say, 'that is god's word; on that will i risk body and life, and a hundred thousand necks if i had them.' therefore no one shall turn me from the word which god teaches me, and that must i know as certainly as that two and three make five, that an ell is longer than a half. that is certain, and though all the world speak to the contrary, still i know that it is not otherwise. who decides me there? no man, but only _the truth_ which is so perfectly certain that nobody can deny it." and calvin took the same ground: "as to their question, how are we to know that the scriptures came from god, if we cannot refer to the decree of the church, we might as well ask, how are we to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, bitter from sweet." the truth of the religious experiences recorded in the bible is self-evidencing to him who shares these experiences, and to no one else. the bible has, in a sense, to create or evoke the capacities by which it is appreciated and verified. it is inspired only to those who are themselves willing to be controlled by similar inspirations; it is the word of god only to those who have ears for god's voice. there is a difference between the phrases: "it is certain," and "i am certain." in other matters we appeal to the collective opinion of sane people; but such knowledge does not suffice in religion. our fellowship with god must be our own response to our highest inspirations. the bible is authoritative for us only in so far as we can say: "i have entered into the friendship of the god, whose earlier friendship with men it records, and know him, who speaks as personally to my conscience through its pages, as he spake to its writers. the spirit that ruled them, the spirit of trust and service, controls me." this is john calvin's position. "it is acting a preposterous part," he writes in his _institutes_, "to endeavor to produce sound faith in the scriptures by disputations. religion appearing to profane men to consist wholly in opinion, in order that they may not believe anything on foolish or slight grounds, they wish and expect it to be proved that moses and the prophets spake by divine inspiration; but as god alone is a sufficient witness of himself in his own word, so also the word will never gain credit in the hearts of men, till it is confirmed by the testimony of the spirit." if, then, the authority of the bible depends upon the witness of the spirit within our own souls, its authority has definite limits. we can verify spiritually the truth of a religious experience by repeating that experience; but we cannot verify spiritually the correctness of the report of some alleged event, or the accuracy of some opinion. we can bear witness to the truthfulness of the record of the consciousness of shame and separation from god in the story of the fall of adam and eve; we must leave the question of the historicity of the narrative and the scientific view of the origin of the race in a single pair to the investigations of scholars. our own knowledge of jesus christ as a living factor in our careers confirms the experience his disciples had of his continued intercourse with them subsequent to his crucifixion; but the manner of his resurrection and the mode in which _post mortem_ he communicated with them must be left to the untrammelled study of historical students. the religious message of a miraculous happening, like the story of jonah or of the raising of lazarus, we can test and prove: disobedience brings disaster, repentance leads to restoration; faith in christ gives him the chance to be to us the resurrection and the life. the reported events must be tested by the judgments of historic probability which are applied to all similar narratives, past or present. the bible's authority is strictly _religious_; it has to do solely with god and man's life with man in him; and, when read in the light of its culmination in christ, it approves itself to the spirit of christ within christians as a correct record of their experiences of god, and the mighty inspiration to such experiences. surely it is no belittling limitation to say of this unique book that it is an authority _only on god_. every fundamental question of life is answered, every essential need of the soul is met, when god is found, and becomes our life, our home. and with such _self-evidencing_ authority in the books of the bible, it is a question of minor importance who were their authors and when they were written--the questions which the literary historical criticism undertakes to answer. luther put the matter conclusively when he said in his vigorous fashion: "that which does not teach christ is not apostolic, though peter or paul should have said it; on the contrary that which preaches christ is apostolic, even if it should come from judas, annas, pilate and herod." some persons have been greatly troubled in the last generation by being told that scholars did not consider the conventionally received authorships of many of the books of the bible correct, but thought that moses did not write the pentateuch, or david the _psalms_, or solomon the _proverbs_ or _ecclesiastes_, or isaiah and jeremiah more than parts of the books that bear their names, or john and peter all the writings ascribed to them. we are not to judge of writings by their authors, but by their intrinsic value. suppose shakespeare did not write more than a fraction of the plays associated with his name, or that he wrote none of them at all; the plays themselves remain as valuable as ever; their interpretation of life in its tragedy and humor, its heights and its depths, is as true as it ever was. whatever views of their composition or authorship may be reached by literary experts, the scriptures possess exactly the same spiritual power they have always possessed. the lord has been "our dwelling-place in all generations," whether moses or some other psalmist penned that line; and jesus is the bread of life, whether the apostle john or some other disciple whom jesus loved records that experience. scholars may make the meaning of the scriptures much plainer by their searching studies; and they must be encouraged to investigate as minutely and rigorously as they can. to be fearful that the bible cannot stand the test of the keenest study, is to lack faith in its divine vitality. to found a "bible defence league" is as unbelieving as to inaugurate a society for the protection of the sun. like the sun the bible defends itself by proving a light to the path of all who walk by it. the only defence it needs is to be used; and the only attack it dreads is to be left unread. and in speaking of the authority of the bible we cannot forget that it is not for christians the supreme authority. "one is your master, even christ." we must be cautious in speaking of the bible, as we commonly do, as "the word of god." that title belongs to jesus. the bible contains the word of god; he is for us _the_ word of god. we dare not overlook his untrammelled attitude towards the scriptures of his people, who let his own spiritual discernment determine whether a scripture was his father's living voice to him, or only something said to men of old time, and given temporarily for the hardness of hearts that could respond to no higher ideal. as his followers, we dare not use less freedom ourselves. we test every scripture by the spirit of christ in us: whatever is to us unchristlike in joshua or in paul, in a psalmist or in the seer on patmos, is not for us the word of our god: whatever breathes the spirit of jesus from _genesis_ to _revelation_ is to us our father's self-revealing speech. nor do we think that god ceased speaking when the canon of the bible was complete. how could he, if he be the living god? "truth," said milton, "is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition." the fountain of god's self-revealing still streams. religious truth comes to us from all quarters--from events of today and contemporaneous prophets, from living epistles at our side and the still small voice within; but as a simple matter of fact, its main flow is still through this book. when we want god--want him for our guidance, our encouragement, our correction, our comfort, our inspiration--we find him in the record of these ancient experiences of his self-unveiling. when near his death, after years of agony on his bed, when he himself had become a changed man, heinrich heine wrote: "i attribute my enlightenment entirely and simply to the reading of a book. of a book? yes! and it is an old homely book, modest as nature--a book which has a look modest as the sun which warms us, as the bread which nourishes us--a book as full of love and blessing as the old mother who reads in it with her trembling lips, and this book is _the_ book, the bible. with right is it named the holy scriptures. he who has lost his god can find him again in this book; and he who has never known him, is here struck by the breath of the divine word." chapter iii jesus christ three elements enter into every christian's conception of his lord--history, experience and reflection. jesus is to him a figure out of the past, a force in the present, and a fact in his view of the universe. whether we be discussing the christ of paul, or of the nicene theologians, or of some thoughtful believer today, we must allow for the memory of the man of nazareth handed down from those who knew him in the flesh, the acquaintance with the lord of life resulting from personal loyalty to his will, and the explanation of this lord reached by the mind, as, using the intellectual methods of its age, it tries to set his figure in its mental world. the jesus of the primitive church was one whom believers worshipped as the christ of god, in whose person and mission they saw the fulfilment of israel's prophecy and the inauguration of a new religious era. they represent their conception of him as corresponding to and created by his own consciousness of himself. he was aware of a unique relationship to god--he is his son, _the_ son. and because of this divine sonship he is the messiah, commissioned to usher in the kingdom of god, and to bring forgiveness and eternal life to men. this he does by becoming their teacher and their lowly servant, laying down his life for them in suffering and death, and rising and returning to them as their lord. he appeals to them for faith in god, for loyalty to himself as god's servant and son, and for trust in his divine power to save them. this conception of jesus is given us in documents which must be investigated and appraised as sources of historical knowledge. the four gospels are our principal informants, and no other writings in existence have been so often and so minutely examined. among scholars at present it is a common hypothesis that mark's is the earliest narrative; that this was combined with a _collection of sayings_ (compiled, perhaps, by matthew) and other material in our first gospel, and by another editor (probably luke) with the same or a similar _collection of sayings_ and still other material in our third gospel. later yet, a fourth evangelist interpreted for the world of his day the jesus of the first three gospels in the light of his own and the church's spiritual experience. the earlier sources, as is usually and naturally the case with literary records of the past, are considered historically more reliable than the later. the words of jesus in the form in which they are given in the synoptists are more nearly as jesus spoke them, than in the form in which they are recorded in _john_. there is a tendency, often found in kindred documents, to make events more marvellous as the tradition is handed on. in _mark_, for instance, the spirit descends upon jesus "as a dove," symbolizing the quietness with which the divine power possessed him; in _luke_, the symbol is materialized, and the holy spirit descends "in _bodily form_ as a dove." the writers interpret the narrative for their readers: _matthew_ takes jesus' ideal of the indissoluble marriage-tie, as it is given in _mark_, and allows, in the practical application of the ideal, divorce for adultery; he adds to jesus' word about telling one's brother his fault "between thee and him alone" further advice as to what shall be done if the brother be obdurate, ending with "tell it unto the church." _john_ substitutes for the many sayings of jesus in the earlier gospels, in which he appears to look forward to a speedy and sudden coming of his kingdom in power, other sayings, in which he promises to come again spiritually and dwell in his followers. on the other hand, in some particulars scholars think that the later writers had more accurate information, and used it to correct misunderstandings conveyed by their predecessors; the length of our lord's ministry, the procedure followed at the trial, the date of the crucifixion, are by many supposed to be more exactly given in _john_ than in the synoptists. in general there is no reason for questioning the data in the later sources, save as they seem to come from an interest of the church of their day, unrelated with the jesus of the earlier records. in such documents we must expect some events to be supported by more historic proof than others. the evidence for jesus' resurrection (to take a typical case), is far weightier than that for his birth of a virgin-mother. there is probably no scrap of primitive christian literature which does not assume the risen christ; and the origin of the christian church, and the character of its message and life, cannot be explained apart from the easter faith in the lord's victory over death and presence with his people in power. the virgin-birth rests on but two records (possibly on only one), neither of which belongs to the earlier strata of the tradition, and which are with difficulty reconciled with the more frequently mentioned fact that jesus is the son of david (an ancestry traced through joseph). but in discussing the historicity of the narratives, it is just to the evangelists to recall that their main purpose was not the writing of history as such, but the presentation of material (which undoubtedly they considered trustworthy historically) designed to convey to their readers a correct religious estimate of jesus christ. "these are written that ye may believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye may have life in his name." they do not often take the trouble to tell us on what evidence they report an event or a saying; they either did not know, or they did not care to preserve, the sequence of events, so that it is impossible to make a harmony of the gospels in which the material is chronologically arranged. but they spare themselves no pains to give _the truth of the religious impression of jesus_ which they had received. and when one compares all our documents, it is significant that they do not give us discordant estimates of the religious worth of jesus. the meaning for faith of the christ of _john_ is not at variance with the meaning for faith of the christ of _mark_ or of the christ of the supposed _collection of sayings_. the church put the four gospels side by side in its canon, and has continued to use them together for centuries, because it has found in them a religiously harmonious portrait of its lord. this is also true of the portraits of jesus to be found in the _acts_ and the epistles. the christ of the entire new testament makes upon us _a consistent religious impression_; and the unity of his significance for faith is all the more noteworthy because of the different forms of thought in which the various writers picture him. behind the primitive church stands an historic figure who so stamped the impress of his personality upon believing spirits, that, amid puzzling discrepancies of historical detail and much variety of theological interpretation, a single religious image of him remains. we, whose aim is not primarily to reconstruct the figure of jesus for purposes of scientific history, but to arrive at an intelligent conviction of his spiritual worth, are entirely satisfied with a portrait which correctly represents the religious impression of the historic jesus. two diametrically opposed classes of scholars have denied that in the christ of the gospels we possess such a trustworthy report. a very few have held that the evangelists do not record an historic life at all, but describe a saviour-god who existed in the faith of the church of the first century. the allusions, however, in the letters of paul alone to definite historical associations connected with jesus are sufficient to confute this view. there undoubtedly was a jesus of nazareth. moreover, the divine redeemers of mythology, of whom this theory makes so much, are most unlike the jesus of the gospels in moral character and religious power; and the old argument is still pertinent that it would have required a jesus to have imagined the jesus of the evangelists' story. a much larger number of scholars, determined beforehand by their philosophic views to reject all elements in the records which transcend usual human experience, have for several generations sought to reconstruct the figure of jesus on an entirely naturalistic basis. instead of the jesus of the gospels, they give us, as the actual man, jesus the sage, or the visionary, or the prophet, or the philanthropist, who, they think, was subsequently deified by his followers. such reconstructions handle the sources arbitrarily, eliminating from even the earliest of them that which clashes with their preconceptions. they fail to do justice to jesus' consciousness of himself, of his unique relation to god, of his all-important mission to men, as the critically investigated documents disclose it. historically, they do not give us a figure sufficiently significant for faith to account for the christian church; scientifically, their portraits do not long prove satisfactory, and are soon discarded on further investigation of the facts; and religiously, they do not appeal to christian believers as adequate to explain their own life in christ. it is not surprising that these attempts have failed. the historic jesus did not make the same impression upon everybody who met him; men's judgments of him varied with their spiritual capacities, and their spiritual capacities affected what he could do for them. there is enough historicity in the narratives to convince sober historians, whatever their faith or unfaith, that jesus existed as a man among men, and that he was conscious of a relationship to god and a significance for men which transcend anything in ordinary human experience. it requires something more than sound historic judgment to see in jesus what he saw in himself, or what peter saw in him when he called him "the christ of god." we can never prove to any man on the basis of historical research alone that the portrait of jesus in the gospels correctly represents the _religious_ impression of the historic jesus. when we deal with anything religious, a subjective element enters and determines the conclusion, exactly as the artistic spirit alone can appreciate that which has to do with art. the gospels as appreciations appeal only to the similarly appreciative. we can show that the earliest stratum of the gospel tradition, according to the most rigorous methods of critical analysis, gives us a jesus who possessed a meaning for his followers akin to the meaning the jesus of our four gospels possessed for the church of the first century, and possesses for the church of our day. only as jesus comes to have a supreme worth to any man can he believe that the estimate of their master in the minds of the first disciples can be the accurate impression of a real man. when, then, we speak of the christ of history, we mean not the figure of jesus as reproduced by scientific research apart from christian faith, but the christ of the four gospels, whose figure corresponds to the religious impression received from the historic jesus by his earliest followers. _lives of christ_ by historical students have their value when our main aim is historical information; but the best of them is poor indeed compared with our gospels when we wish to attain the life of christ's followers. the humblest reader of the new testament has the same chance with the most learned scholar of attaining a true knowledge of jesus for religious purposes; and jesus remains, as he would surely wish to remain, a democratic figure accessible to all in the simply told narratives of the evangelists. each age seems to have its own way of phrasing its religious needs; and various elements in the picture of jesus have been prized by the succeeding ages as of special worth. our generation finds itself religiously most interested in three outstanding features in the record of his life: (1) _his singular religious experience._ his first followers were impressed with his unique relation to god when they saw in him the awaited messiah. the narratives represent him as invariably trusting, loving, obeying the most high as the father, lord of heaven and earth. his sayings lay special stress on god's tender personal interest in every child of his, on his stern judgment of hypocrites, on his self-sacrificing love, and on his kindness to the unthankful and the evil. while it is not easy for us with the limited materials at hand to discriminate clearly between the elements in jesus' thought of god which he shared with his contemporaries, and those which were his own contribution, so discerning a believer as paul, reared in the most earnest circles of jewish thought, could not name the god to whom he had been brought through jesus, without mentioning jesus himself; god was to him "the god and father of our lord jesus christ." the deity paul worshipped may be described as that loving response from the unseen which answered the trust of jesus; or rather that personal approach to man from the unseen which produced jesus. men who had not been atheists before they became christians are addressed by another writer as "through jesus believers in god." it is not enough to say that in jesus' experience god was father; others before him, both within and without israel, had known the divine fatherhood. it was the fatherliness in god which evoked and corresponded to jesus' sonship, that formed his new and distinctive contribution. a mutual relationship is expressed in the saying: "no one knoweth the son, save the father; neither doth any know the father, save the son." moving familiarly as a man among men, jesus did not hesitate to offer them forgiveness, health, power, life; and to offer all these as his own possessions through his peculiar touch with the most high--"all things have been delivered unto me of my father." in the words of the late professor g.w. knox, "jesus set forth communion with god as the most certain fact of man's experience, and in simple reality made it accessible to everyone." his consciousness of god was not something wholly new; he was not "a lonely mountain tarn unvisited by any stream," but received into his soul the great river of a nation's spiritual life. he was the heir of the faith of his people, and regarded himself as completing that which a long line of predecessors had begun. he did not find it necessary to invent new terms to express his thought; but as he passed the old words through the alembic of his mind they came out with new meaning. his originality consisted in his discriminating appropriation of his inheritance, and in his using it so that it became alive with new power. madame de staël said that rousseau "invented nothing, but set everything on fire." jesus took the religion of israel, and lived its life with god, and after him it possessed a kindling flame it had never shown before. the faith of a small people in a corner of the roman empire, with a few thousands of proselytes here and there in the larger towns about the mediterranean, became in a generation a force which entirely supplanted the jewish missionary movement and rapidly spread throughout the world. (2) _a singular character._ more striking than anything jesus said or did is what he _was_. that which he worshipped in the god he trusted, he himself embodied. we can estimate his character best, not by trying to inventory its virtues (for a very similar list might be attributed to others of far less moral power) but by feeling the effect he had on those who knew him. they are constantly telling us how he amazed them, awed them, and bound them to himself. their superlative tribute to him is that, holding his own pure and exalted view of god, they felt no incongruity in thinking of him as beside god on the throne. it may have been their belief in his messiahship, accredited by his resurrection and destining him to come with power and judge the world, that led them to place him at the right hand of god; but there was the place where he seemed to them to belong. none have ever conceived god more highly than they who said, "god is love," and these men set jesus side by side with god. the evangelists do not attempt to describe what he was like; they let us hear him and watch him, as he lived in the memories of those who had been with him; and he makes his own impression. the crowning tribute is that we have no loftier adjective in our vocabulary than "christlike." (3) _a singular victory_--a victory over the world and sin and death. jesus believed in and proclaimed a new order of things in the world--the kingdom of god--in which his father's will should be realized. it was an order in which men should live in love with one another and with god, in which justice, kindness and faithfulness should prevail in all relationships, and in which all god's children's needs should be supplied, their maladies healed, their wrongs righted, their lives made full. this kingdom was already in the earth in himself and in the new life he succeeded in creating in those who followed him. it found itself opposed by physical forces that were injurious to humanity; and these he met fearlessly, sleeping in a storm so violent as to terrify his fisherman companions; and, what is more, he commanded these forces for his father's purpose in a way that amazed his first followers and is still amazing to us. the reports of his mighty works have to be carefully scrutinized by historical scholars, and no doubt the historicity of some of them is much more fully attested than that of others; but when every allowance is made for the ideas of a prescientific age in which miracles were relatively frequent, and for the possible growth of the marvellous elements in the tradition, enough remains to show that here was a personality whose power cannot be limited by our usual standards of human ability. judged by past or present conceptions of what is natural, his works were supernatural; he himself regarded them as the breaking into the world through him of the new order that was to be. he discouraged men's craving for the physically miraculous, and thought little of the faith in him produced by its display; but there can be no question of his extraordinary control of physical forces for the aims of his kingdom. it was, however, in the moral conflict between the divine order and things as they were, that he saw the decisive collision, and faced it with heroic faith in his father's victory. when the dominant authorities in church and state were about to crush him, he looked forward undismayed, and in the glowing pictures of fervent jewish men of hope he imaged the divine rule he proclaimed coming in power. he was to his followers the conqueror of sin. he went forth to wage war with evil in the world, because he was conscious that he had first bound the strong man, and could spoil his house. in an autobiographical parable he seems to have told them something of his own battle with temptation and of his victory. they found in him one who both shamed and transformed them; they saw him forgiving and altering sinners; and, above all, his cross, from the earliest days when they began to ask themselves what it meant, had for them redemptive force. he was to them the victor of death. however the historian may deal with the details of the narratives of the appearances of the risen jesus to his disciples, he cannot fail to recognize the conviction of jesus' followers that their lord had returned to them and was alive with power. we must remember that it was to faith alone that the risen jesus showed himself, and that no one outside the circle of believers (unless we except saul of tarsus) saw him after his death. historical research, independent of christian faith, may not be able positively to affirm the correctness of the easter faith of the disciples, for the data lie, in part at least, outside the range of such research. but the historian must leave the door open for faith; and he may go further and point out that faith's explanation best fits the facts. present faith finds itself prepared to receive the witness of the men of faith centuries ago. the attempt to banish jesus from our world signally failed; he was a more living and potent force in it after, than before, his death. this singular religious experience, character and victory we ascribe to the jesus of history through the tradition which preserves for us his religious impression upon his immediate followers. there are some who lay little stress upon the events of the past; like shelley's skylark, they are "scorners of the ground." why, they ask, should we care what took place in palestine centuries ago? the answer is that it is the roots which go down into historic fact which give the whole tree of christian faith its stability and vigor. a tree gathers nourishment and grows by its leaves; and christianity has undoubtedly taken into itself many enriching elements from the life about it in every age; but a tree without roots is neither sturdy nor alive. a christianity which disregards its origin in the jesus of genuine memory may label anything "christian" that it fancies, and end by losing its own identity; and a christianity which does not constantly keep learning of the jesus of the new testament, and renewing its convictions, ideals and purposes from him, ceases to be vital. we do not think of christianity as a fixed quantity or an unchanging essence, but as a life; and life is ever growing and changing. but with all its growth and change it keeps true to type, and the type is jesus christ. the gospels, which conserve the impress of that life upon men of faith, are anchors in the actual amid windy storms of speculation. we are not constructing a christ out of our spiritual experiences, but letting him who gave life to these early followers, through their memories of him, recreate us into his and their fellowship with god and man. their spiritual experiences are the sensitive plate which caught and kept for all time the image of the historic jesus; but their experience is a memory, and there must be a further experience in us upon which this memory throws and fixes his image before we know jesus christ for ourselves. unless a man's soul is unimpressionable, he cannot be faced with the christ of the new testament without being deeply affected. "we needs must love the highest when we see it," and to millions throughout the earth jesus is their highest inspiration. for them he ceases to belong to the past and becomes their most significant contemporary. they do not look back to him; they look up to him as their present comrade and lord; and in loyalty to him they find themselves possessed of a new life. in a previous chapter, we used the phrase "man's response to his highest inspirations" as a description of religious experience; and in responding to the appeal of jesus, his followers pass into the characteristically christian experience of the divine--an experience which involves two main elements: communion through jesus with god, and communion with jesus in god. _communion through jesus with god_. his singular religious experience they find themselves sharing to some degree. they repeat his discoveries in the unseen and corroborate them. god, the god and father of jesus christ, becomes their god and father, with whom they live in the trust and love and obedience of children. and for them jesus' consciousness of god becomes _authoritative_. it is not that they consider him in possession of secret sources of information inaccessible to them, but that, incomparably more expert, he has penetrated farther and more surely into the unseen, and they trustfully follow him. he does not lord it over them as servants, but leads them as his friends. "man," says keats, in a remark which illustrates jesus' method with his disciples, "man should not dispute or assert, but whisper results to his neighbor." he, who of old did not strive nor cry aloud, still so quietly gives those who obey him his attitude towards god, that they scarcely realize how much they owe him. only here and there a discerning follower, like luther, is aware how all-important is the contribution that comes through a conscious sharing of christ's revelation, "whosoever loses christ, all faiths (of the pope, the jews, the turks, the common rabble) become one faith." and when once jesus is authoritative for a man, he is the _supreme_ religious authority. a tolerant roman, like alexander severus, set statues of apollonius, christ, abraham, orpheus, "and others of that sort," in his lararium; and many today are inclined to make a similar religious combination. where christ is concerned, there can be for his followers no other "of that sort." we cherish every discovery of the divine by any saint of any faith which does not conflict with the revelation of jesus; but to those who have found him the way to the father, his consciousness of god is decisive. in the margin of his copy of bacon's _essays_, william blake wrote opposite some statement of that worldly-wiseman, "this is certain: if what bacon says is true, what christ says is false." a loyal christian must set every opinion he meets as clearly in the light of his lord's mind, and choose accordingly his course in the seen and in the unseen. when through jesus we are in fellowship with his god, jesus himself becomes to us _the revelation of god_. the deity to whom we are led through his faith discloses himself to us in jesus' character. what we call divine, as we worship it in one whom we picture in the heavens or indwelling within us, we discover at our side in jesus; and if we are impelled to speak of the deity of the father, when we characterize our highest inspirations from the unseen, we cannot do less than speak of the deity of the son, through whom in the seen these same inspirations pass to us. jesus himself awakens in us a religious response. we instinctively adore him, devote our all to him, trust him with a confidence as complete as we repose in god. we are either idolaters, or jesus is the unveiling in a human life of the most high; he is to us god manifest in the flesh. and jesus is also _the revelation of what man may become_. none ever had a sublimer faith in man than he who dared bid his followers be perfect as their father is perfect. he did not close his eyes to men's glaring unlikeness to god; he said to his auditors, "ye being evil"; he believed in the necessity of their complete transformation through repentance. but when he asked them to follow him, he set no limits to the distance they would be able to go. he did not warn them that they must stop at the foot of calvary, while he climbed to the top; or that they could not go with him in his intimacy with the father. some christians, out of reverence for jesus, think it necessary to draw a sharp line between him and ourselves, and remind us that we cannot overpass it; but he drew no such line. he believed in the divine possibilities of divinely changed men. as a matter of fact we find ourselves immeasurably beneath him, and, the more we long to be like him, the greater the distance between us seems to become. but he is as confident that he can conform us to his likeness, as that he himself is at one with his father. it is worth emphasizing that this personality in whom we find the revelation of god and the ideal of manhood is a figure in history. when an apostle was speaking of "the one mediator between god and men," he laid stress on the fact that he was "himself _man_." when a distinction is drawn between the christ of experience and the christ of history, we must not be confused. the content of the name "jesus" was given once for all in the impression made by the man of nazareth, one made "in all points" like ourselves. we may understand him better than those who knew him in the flesh; we may see the bearing of his life on many situations that were entirely beyond even his ken; and so we may have "a larger christ," exactly as succeeding generations sometimes form truer estimates of men than contemporaries; but all that is authentic in our "larger christ" was implicit in the man of galilee. that to which we respond as to god is the historic jesus mirrored in his disciples' faith. we agree with the eloquent words of tertullian: "we say, and before all men we say, and torn and bleeding under your tortures we cry out, 'we worship god through christ. count christ a man, if you please; by him and in him god would be known and adored.'" and our assurance that we can become like jesus rests on the fact that this life has been already lived. a mountain top, however lofty, we can hope to scale, for it is part of the same earth on which we stand; but a star, however alluring, we have no confidence of reaching. jesus' worth as an example to us lies in our finding in him "ideal manhood closed in real man." in fellowship through jesus with god we discover that his victory is vicarious; he conquered for himself _and for us_ the world and sin and death. he imparts his faith in the coming of the divine order in the world. his followers share his fearless and masterful attitude towards physical forces; when they appear opposed to god's purpose of love, the christian is confident that they are not inherently antagonistic to it: "to them that love god all things work together for good." what is called "nature" is not something fixed, but plastic; something which can be conformed to the will of the god and father of jesus. a pestilential panama, for instance, is not natural, but subnatural, and must be brought up to its divine nature, when it will serve the children of god. the rule of god in nature, like the kingdom in jesus' parables, must both be awaited patiently--for it will require advances in men's consciences and knowledge to control physical forces in the interest of love--and striven for believingly. and even when bitter circumstances seem, whether only for the present or permanently, inescapable, when pain and disaster and death must be borne, the christian accepts them as part of the loving and wise will of god, as his lord acquiesced in his own suffering: "the cup which the father hath given me, shall i not drink it?" and jesus confers his confidence in the alterability of the world of human relations. christians believe in the superiority of moral over material forces, in the wisdom and might of love. a life like christ's is pronounced in every generation unpractical, until under his inspiration some follower lives it; and slowly, as in his own case, its success is acclaimed. his principles, as applied to an economic institution such as slavery, or to the treatment of the criminal, are counted visionary, until, constrained by his spirit, men put them into practice, and their results gradually speak for themselves. his followers in every age have seemed fools to many, if not to most, of their judicious contemporaries; but cheered by his confidence, they venture on apparently hopeless undertakings, and find that he has overcome the world. jesus' victory over sin works in true disciples a similar conquest. christians label any unchristlikeness sin, and they vastly darken the world with a new sense of its evil, and are themselves most painfully aware of their own sinfulness. jesus' conscience has creative power, and reproduces its sensitiveness in theirs; they are born into a life of new sympathies and obligations and penitences. by his faith, and supremely by his cross, he communicates to his followers the assurance of god's forgiveness which reestablishes their intercourse with him, and releases his life in them; and jesus lays them under a new and more potent compulsion to live no longer unto themselves, but unto their brethren. jesus' conquest of death is to his followers the vindication of his faith in god, and god's attestation of him; and with such a god lord of heaven and earth, death has neither sting nor victory; it cannot separate from god's love; and it is itemized among a christian's assets. the face of death has been transfigured. aristides, explaining the christian faith about the year 125 a.d., writes, "and if any righteous man among them passes from the world, they rejoice and offer thanks to god; and they escort his body as if he were setting out from one place to another near." christians speak of their dead as "in christ"--under his all-sufficient control. _communion with jesus in god._ when the christian through jesus finds himself in fellowship with his god and father, he does not leave jesus behind as one whose work is done. he discovers that he can maintain this fellowship only as he constantly places himself in such contact with the historic figure that god can through him renew the experience. it is by going back to jesus that we go up to the father; or rather, it is through the abiding memory of jesus in the world that god reaches down and lifts us to himself. and at such times no christian thinks of jesus as a memory, but as a living friend. to him he addresses himself directly in prayer and praise, which would be meaningless were there no present communication between jesus and his disciples. we cannot say that we have an experience of communion with jesus which is distinguishable from our experience of communion with god; we respond through jesus to god. but if our god be the god of jesus, we cannot think of jesus as anywhere in the universe out of fellowship with him. his god would not be himself, nor would jesus be himself, were the fellowship between them interrupted; and we cannot think of ourselves as in touch with the one, without being at the same time in touch with the other. it is an apparently inevitable inference from our christian experience, when we attempt to rationalize it, that "our fellowship is with the father, and with his son jesus christ." in communion with god we are in a society which includes the father and all his true sons and daughters, the living here and the living yonder, for all live unto him. they are ours in god; and jesus supremely, because he is the mediator of our life with god, is ours in his and our father. we have already passed over into the division of our subject which we called _the christ of reflection_. all experience contains an intellectual element, and we never experience "facts" apart from the ideas in which we represent them to ourselves. but there is a further mental process when we attempt to combine what we think we have experienced in some relationship with all else that we know, and reach a unified view of existence. for example, when paul took the gospel out of its local setting in palestine, and carried it into the roman world, he had to interpret the figure of jesus to set it in the minds of men who thought in terms very different from those of the fishermen of galilee or the scribes at jerusalem. similarly john, who wrote his gospel for gentile readers, could not introduce jesus to them as the messiah, and catch their interest; he took an idea, as common in the thought of that day as evolution is in our own--the logos or word, in whom god expresses himself and through whom he acts upon the world--and used that as a point of contact with the minds of his readers. we have to connect the christ of our experience with our thought of god and of the universe. three chief questions suggest themselves to us: how shall we picture jesus' present life? how shall we account for his singular personality? how shall we conceive the union in him of the divine and the human, which we have discovered? the first of these questions faced the disciples when jesus was no longer with them in the flesh. when a cloud received him out of their sight, it did not take him out of their fancy; finding themselves still in communion with him, they had to imagine his present existence with god and with them. they used their current symbol for god--the most high enthroned above his world--and they pictured jesus as seated at the right hand of the throne of god. or they took some vivid metaphor of personal friendship--a figure knocking at the door and entering to eat with them--and found that a fitting interpretation of their experience. these were picturesque ways of saying that jesus shares god's life and ours. while our current modes of representing the divine do not localize heaven, the symbolic language of the bible has so entered into our literature, that in worship and in devout thought we find the new testament metaphors most satisfactory to express our faith. the second question was asked even during jesus' lifetime--"whence hath this man these things?" the new testament writers deal with the question of jesus' origin in a variety of ways. the earliest of our present gospels opens its narrative with the descent of the spirit upon jesus as he answers john's summons to baptism. it seems to explain his uniqueness by the extraordinary spiritual endowment bestowed upon him in manhood. the first and third gospels contain besides this two other traditions: they introduce jesus as the descendant of a line of devout progenitors, going back in the one case to david and abraham, and in the other still further through adam to god. they bring forward his spiritual heredity as one factor to account for him. side by side with this they place a narrative which records his birth, not as the son of joseph through whom his ancestry is traced, but of the holy spirit and a virgin-mother. this gives prominence to the divine and human parentage which brought him into the world. in paul and john and the _epistle to the hebrews_, there is incarnate in jesus a preexistent heavenly being--the man from heaven, the word who was from the beginning with god, the son through whom he made the worlds. they present us with a divine being made a man. this last conception is not combined by any new testament writer with a virgin-birth. when our new testament books were put together, the church found all four statements in its canon, and combined them (although some of them are not easily combined) in its account of jesus' origin. historical scholars have difficulty in tracing any of these accounts but the first directly to jesus himself; but they come from the earliest period of the church, and they have satisfied many generations of thoughtful christians as explanations of the uniqueness of the person of their lord. some of them do not seem to be as helpful to modern believers, and are even said to render him less intelligible. we must beware on the one hand of insisting too strongly that a believer in jesus christ shall hold a particular view of his origin; the diversity in the new testament presentations of christ would not be there, if all its writers considered all four of these statements necessary in every man's conception of his lord. and on the other hand, we must point out that it is a tribute to jesus' greatness that so many circumstances were appealed to to account for him, and that all of them have spiritual value. all four insist that jesus' origin is in god, and that in jesus we find the divine in the human. all four--a spiritual endowment, a spiritual heredity, a spiritual birth, the incarnation of god in man--may well seem congruous with the jesus of our experience, even if we are not intellectually satisfied with the particular modes in which these affirmations have been made in the past. the question of jesus' origin is not of primary importance; he himself judged nothing by its antecedents, but by its results--"by their fruits ye shall know them." no man, today, should be hindered from believing in christ, because he does not find a particular statement in connection with his origin credible. christ is here in our world, however he entered it, and can be tested for what he _is_. to know him is not to know how he came to be, but what he can do for us. "to know christ," melancthon well said, "is to know his benefits." the third question, how are we to conceive of the union of deity and humanity in him? is a problem which exercised the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries of the christian church to the exclusion of almost all others. the theologians of those times worked out (and fought out) the theory of the union of two "natures" in one "person," which remains the official statement of the church's interpretation of christ in greek, roman and protestant creeds. but the philosophy which dealt in "natures" and "persons" is no longer the mode of thought of educated people; and while we may admire the mental skill of these earlier theologians, and may recognize that an athanasius and his orthodox allies were contending for a vital element in christian experience, their formulations do not satisfy our minds. in the last century some divines advanced a modification of this ancient theory, naming it the kenotic or self-emptying theory, from the greek word used by st. paul in the phrase, "he _emptied_ himself." the eternal son of god is represented as laying aside whatever attributes of deity--omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.--could not be manifested in an entirely human life. the jesus of history _reveals_ so much of god as man can contain, but _is_ himself more. but we know of no personality which can lay aside memory, knowledge, etc. the theory begins with a conception of deity apart from jesus, and then proceeds to treat him as partially disclosing this deity in his human life; but the christian has his experience of the divine through jesus, and his reflection must start with deity as revealed in him. still later in the century, albrecht ritschl gave another interpretation of christ's person. he began with the completely human figure of history, and pointed out that it is through him we experience communion with god, so that to his followers jesus is divine; his humanity is the medium through which god reveals himself to us. this affirmation of his deity is an estimate, made by believers, of jesus' worth to them; they cannot prove it to any who are without a sense of christ's value as their saviour. any further explanation of how the human and the divine are joined in jesus, he deemed beyond the sphere of religious knowledge. our modern thought of god as immanent in his world and in men enables us, perhaps more easily than some of our predecessors, to fit the figure of christ into our minds. the discovery of the divine in the human does not surprise us. we think of god as everywhere manifesting himself, but his presence is limited by the medium in which it is recognized. he reveals as much of himself through nature as nature can disclose; as much through any man as he can contain; as much through the complete man as he is capable of manifesting. nor does this self-revelation of god in jesus do away for us with jesus' own attainment of his character. immanent deity does not submerge the human personality. jesus was no merely passive medium through which god worked, but an active will who by constant coöperation with the father "was perfected." if there was an "emptying," there was also a "filling," so that we see in him the fulness of god. how he alone of all mankind came so to receive the self-giving father remains for us, as for our predecessors, the ultimate riddle, a riddle akin to that which makes each of us "indescribably himself." and as for the origin of his unique person, we have no better explanations to substitute for those of the first century; the mystery of our lord's singular personality remains unsolved. while our reflections almost necessarily end in guesses, or in impenetrable obscurities, our experience of christ's worth can advance to ever greater certainty. we follow him, and find him the way, the truth and the life. we trust him and prove his power to save unto the uttermost. we come to feel that no phrase applied to him in the new testament is an exaggeration; our own language, like st. paul's, admits its inadequacy by calling him god's "_unspeakable_ gift." we see the light of the knowledge of the glory of god in his face; he is to us the light of life; and we live and strive to make him the light of the world. though we may never be able to reason out to our satisfaction how god and man unite in him, we discover in him the god who redeems us and the man we aspire to be. jesus is to us (to borrow a saying of lancelot andrewes') "god's as much as he can send; ours as much as we can desire." chapter iv god the word "god" is often employed as though it had a fixed meaning. his part in an event or his relation to a movement is discussed with the assumption that all who speak have in mind the same being. "god" is the name a man gives to his highest inspiration, and men vary greatly in that which inspires them. one man's god is his belly, another's his reputation, a third's cleverness. napoleon reintroduced the cult of the god of authority, by establishing the concordat with rome, because as he bluntly put it, "men require to be kept in order." a number of socially minded thinkers, of whom the best known is george eliot, deified humanity and gave themselves to worship and serve it. "whatever thy heart clings to and relies on," wrote luther, "that is properly thy god." a christian is one who clings to him in whom jesus trusted, one who responds to the highest inspirations of jesus of nazareth. and a glance over church history leaves one feeling that few christians, even among careful thinkers, have had thoroughly christian ideas of god. a principal fault has been the method used in arriving at the thought of god. men began with what was termed "natural religion." they studied the universe and inferred the sort of deity who made and ruled it. it was intricately and wisely designed; its god must be omniscient. it was vast; he must be omnipotent. it displayed the same orderliness everywhere; he must be omnipresent. in epochs when men emphasized the beneficence of nature--its beauty, its usefulness, its wisdom--they concluded that its creator was good. in an epoch, like the latter part of the nineteenth century, they drew a very different conclusion. charles darwin wrote, "what a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature." christians never stopped with the view of god drawn from "natural religion." they made this their basis, and then added to it the god of "revealed religion," contained in the bible. they selected all the texts that spoke of god, drawing them from _leviticus_ and _ecclesiastes_ as confidently as from the gospels and st. paul, and constructed a biblical doctrine of god, which they added to the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being of their inferences from nature. the god and father of jesus was thus combined with various, often much lower thoughts of deity in the bible, and then further obscured by the deity of the current views of physical and human nature. it is not surprising that few christians possessed a truly christian view of god. loyalty to jesus compels us to begin with him. if he is the way, we are not justified in taking half a dozen other roads, and using him as one path among many. we ask ourselves what was the highest inspiration of jesus, what was the being to whom he responded with his obedient trust and with whom he communed. we are eager not to fashion an image of divinity for ourselves, which is idolatry as truly when our minds grave it in thought as when our hands shape it in stone; but to receive god's disclosure of himself with a whole-hearted response, and interpret, as faithfully as we can, the impression he makes upon us. "god," writes tyndal, the martyr translator of our english new testament, "is not man's imagination, but that only which he saith of himself." our highest inspirations come to us from jesus, and he is, therefore, god's self-unveiling to us, god's "frankness," his word made flesh. responding to god through jesus, christians discover: first, that god is their christlike father, and that he is love as jesus experienced his love and himself was love. second, that god is the lord of heaven and earth. we do not know whether he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent; there is much that leads us to think that he is limited. he can do no more than love can do with his children, and love has its defeats, and crosses, and tragedies. but trusting the christlike father we more and more discover that he is sufficiently in control over all things to accomplish through them his will. he needs us to help him master nature, and transform it into the servant of man,--to control disease, to harness electricity, to understand earthquakes; and he needs us to help him conquer human nature and conform it to the likeness of his son. god's complete lordship waits until his will is done in earth as it is in heaven; but for the present we believe that he is wise and strong enough not to let nature or men defeat his purpose; that he is controlling all things so that they work together for good unto them that love him. and third, that god is the indwelling spirit. the christlike father lord, whom we find outside ourselves through the faith and character of jesus, becomes as we enter into fellowship with him, a force within us. he is the conscience of our consciences, the wellspring of motives and impulses and sympathies. we repeat, today, in some degree, the experience of the first disciples at pentecost; we recognize within ourselves the inspiring, guiding and energizing spirit of love. while we find god primarily through jesus, he reveals himself to us in many other ways: in the scriptures, where the generations before us have garnered their experiences of him; in living epistles in christian men and women, and in some who do not call themselves by the christian name, but whose lives disclose the spirit of god who was in jesus; in non-christian faiths, where god has always given some glimpse of himself in answer to men's search. christ is not for us confining but defining; he gives us in himself the test to assay the divine. nor do experiences which we label religious exhaust the list of our contacts with god. our sense of duty, whether we connect it with god or not, brings us in touch with him. many persons are unconsciously serving god through their obedience to conscience. it was said of the french _savant_, littré, that he was a saint who did not believe in god. he made the motto of his life, "to love, to know, to serve"; and no intelligent follower of him who said, "inasmuch as ye did it unto one of my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me," will fail to admit that in such a life there is a genuine, though unrecognized communion with god. in our own day when conscience is erecting new standards of responsibility, rendering intolerable many things good people have put up with, demonstrating the horror and hatefulness of war and forcing us to probe its causes and motives, discontenting us with our industrial arrangements, our business practices, our social order, god is giving us a larger and better ideal, a fuller vision of himself. we know what our christlike father is in jesus; but we shall appreciate and understand him infinitely better as he becomes embodied in the principles and ideals that dominate every home, and trade, and nation. again, our perception of beauty affords us a glimpse of god. the greeks embodied loveliness in their statues of the divine, because through the satisfaction which came to them from such exquisite figures their souls were soothed and uplifted. they have left on record how the calm and majestic expression of a face carved by a phidias quieted, charmed, strengthened them. dion chrysostom says of the figure of the olympian zeus, "whosoever among mortal men is most utterly toil-worn in spirit, having drunk the cup of many sorrows and calamities, when he stands before this image, methinks, must utterly forget all the terrors and woes of this mortal life." the greek christian fathers often tell us that the same sense of the infinitely fair, which was roused in them by such sights, recurred in a higher degree when their thoughts dwelt upon the life and character of jesus. clement of alexandria says, "he is so lovely as to be alone loved by us, whose hearts are set on the true beauty." our æsthetic and our religious experiences often merge; our response to beauty, whether in nature, or music, or a painting, becomes a response to god. wordsworth says of a lovely landscape that had stamped its views upon his memory: oft in lonely rooms, and mid the din of towns and cities, i have owed to them, in hours of weariness, sensations sweet, felt in the blood, and felt along the heart; and passing even into my purer mind with tranquil restoration:--feelings too of unremembered pleasure; such, perhaps, as have no slight or trivial influence on that best portion of a good man's life, his little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. shelley, while insistently denying or defying all the gods of accepted religion, finds himself adoring that beauty which penetrates and clasps and fills the world, scarce visible for extreme loveliness. surely the god christians adore is in these experiences, though men know it not. st. augustine believed that "all that is beautiful comes from the highest beauty, which is god." they who begin with the cult of beauty may have a conception of the divine that has nothing to do with, or is even opposed to, the god and father of jesus; but when his god is supreme, inspirations from all things lovely may vastly supplement our thought of him. "music on earth much light upon heaven has thrown." science, too, has its contribution to offer to our thought of him who is over all and through all and in all. truth is one, and scientific investigation and religious experience are two avenues that lead to the one reality faith names god. science of itself can never lead us beyond visible and tangible facts; but its array of facts may suggest to faith many things about the invisible father, the lord of all. present-day science with its emphasis upon continuity makes us think of a god who is no occasional visitor, but everywhere and always active; its conception of evolution brings home to us the patient and long-suffering labor of a father who worketh even until now; its stress upon law reminds us that he is never capricious but reliable; its practical mastery of forces, like those which enable men to use the air or to navigate under the water, recalls to us the old command to subdue the earth as sons of god, and adds the new responsibility to use our control, as the son of god always did, in love's cause. philosophy, too, which professor james has described as "our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means," helps us to make clear our idea of god. a philosopher is just a thoughtful person who takes the discoveries that his religious, moral, æsthetic, scientific experiences have brought home, and tries to set in order all he knows of truth, beauty, right, god. in attempting to philosophize upon their discoveries of god, christian thinkers have arrived at the doctrine of the trinity in unity. it was, first, an attempt to hold fast to the great foundation truth of the old testament that god is one. the world in which christianity found itself had a host of deities--a god for the sea and another for the wind, a god of the hearth and a god of the empire, and so on. today it is only too easy to obey one motive in the home and another in one's business, to follow one principle in private life and another in national life, and to be polytheists again. christian faith insists that "there is one god, the father, of whom are all things and we unto him." we adore one who is christlike love, and we will serve no other. we trust christlike love as the divine basis for a happy family life, and also for successful commerce, for statesmanlike international dealings, for the effective treatment of every political and social question. the inspirations that come to us from a glorious piece of music or from an heroic act of self-sacrifice, from some new discovery or from a novel sensitiveness of conscience, are all inspirations from the one god. at every moment and in every situation we must keep the same fundamental attitude towards life--trustful, hopeful, serving--because in every experience, bitter or sweet, we are always in touch with the one lord of all, our christlike father. in this unity christians have spoken of a trinity. paul summing up the blessing of god, speaks of "the grace of our lord jesus christ, and the love of god, and the communion of the holy spirit." he says, "through jesus we have our access in one spirit unto the father." he and his fellow believers had been redeemed from selfishness to love, from slavery to freedom; and they accounted for their new life by saying that, through the grace of jesus, they had come to experience the fatherly love of god, and to find his spirit binding them in a brotherhood of service for one another and the world. the new testament goes no further: it states these experiences of jesus, of god, of the spirit; but it does not tell us the exact relations of the three--how god is related to the spirit, or jesus distinct and at the same time one with the father. so acute a thinker as paul never seems to have worked this out. at one time he compares god's relation to his spirit to man's relation to his spirit ("who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? even so the things of god none knoweth, save the spirit of god"); and once he identifies the spirit with the glorified christ ("the lord is the spirit"). but while paul and other new testament writers did not feel the need of thinking out what their threefold experience of god implied as to his being, later christians did; and using the terms of the current greek philosophy, they elaborated the conception of three "persons" in one godhead. we have no exact equivalent in english for the greek word which is translated "person" in this definition. it is not the same as "a person" for that would give us three gods; nor is it something impersonal, a mode or aspect of god. it is something in between a personality and a personification. let us remember that this doctrine is not in the new testament, but is an attempt to explain certain experiences that are ascribed in the new testament to jesus, the father, the holy spirit. even the hardiest thinkers caution us that our knowledge of god is limited to a knowledge of his relations to us: augustine says, "the workings of the trinity are inseparable," and calvin, commenting on a passage whose "aim is shortly to sum up all that is lawful for men to know of god," notes that it is "a description, not of what he is in himself, but of what he is to us, that our knowledge of him may stand rather in a lively perception, than in a vain and airy speculation." but let us also recall that in this doctrine generations of christians have conserved indispensable elements in their thought of god:--his fatherhood, his self-disclosure in christ, his spiritual indwelling in the christian community. wherever it has been cast aside, something vitalizing to christian life has gone with it. but at present it is not a doctrine of much practical help to many religious people; and it often constitutes a hindrance to jews and mohammedans, and to some born within the church in their endeavor to understand and have fellowship with the christian god. we may adopt one of two attitudes towards it: we may accept it blindly as "a mystery" on the authority of the long centuries of christian thought, which have used it to express their faith in god--hardly a protestant or truly christian position which bids us "prove all things; hold fast that which is good"; or we may consider it reverently as the attempt of the christian church of the past to interpret its discovery of god as the father lord, revealed in christ, and active within us as the spirit of love; and use it in so far as it makes our experience richer and clearer, remembering that it is only a man-made attempt to interpret him who passeth understanding. the important matter is not the orthodoxy of our doctrine, but the richness of our personal experience of god. dr. samuel johnson said: "we all _know_ what light is; but it is not so easy to _tell_ what it is." christians know, at least in part, what god is; but it is far from easy to state what he is; and each age must revise and say in its own words what god means to it. here is a statement in which generations of believers have summed up their intercourse with the divine. have we entered into the fulness of their fellowship with god? do we know him as our father? this does not mean merely that we accept the idea of his kinship with our spirits and trust his kindly disposition towards us; but that we let him establish a direct line of paternity with us and father our impulses, our thoughts, our ideals, our resolves. jesus' sonship was not a relation due to a past contact, but to a present connection. he kept taking his being, so to speak, again and again from god, saying, "not as i will, but as thou wilt." his every wish and motive had its heredity in the father whom he trusted with childlike confidence, and served with a grown son's intelligent and willing comradeship. fatherhood meant to jesus authority and affection; obedience and devotion on his part maintained and perfected his sonship. further, we cannot, according to jesus, be in sonship with this father save as we are in true brotherhood with all his children. god is (to employ a colloquial phrase) "wrapped up" in his sons and daughters, and only as we love and serve them, are we loving and serving him. in jesus' summary of the law he combined two apparently conflicting obligations, when he said, "thou shalt love the lord thy god with _all_ thy heart, _and_ thou shalt love thy neighbor." if a man loves god with his all, how can there be any remainder of love to devote to someone else? what we do for any man--the least, the last, the lost,--we do for god. we do not know him as father, until we possess the obligating sense of our kinship with all mankind, and say, "_our_ father." do we know god in the son? there is a sense in which jesus is the "first person" in the christian trinity. our approach to god begins with him. in st. paul's familiar benediction, the grace of our lord jesus christ precedes the love of god. we know god's love only as we experience the grace of jesus. we cannot experience that grace except as we let jesus be lord. absolute and entire self-commitment to him allows him to renew us after his own likeness and equip us for service in his cause. he cannot transform a partially devoted life, nor use a half-dedicated man. those who yield him lordship, treating him as god by giving him their adoring trust and complete obedience, discover his godhood. to them he proves himself, by all that he accomplishes in and through them, worthy of their fullest devotion and reverence. he becomes to them god manifest in a human life. while in the order of our experience jesus comes first, as we follow him, he makes himself always second. he points us from himself to the father, like himself and greater; "my father is greater than i." there is a remoteness, as well as a nearness, in god; it is his "greaterness" which gives worth to his likeness. to use a philosophical phrase, only the transcendent god can be truly immanent. we prize immanuel--god _with_ us, because through him we climb to god _above_ us. jesus is the way; but no one wishes to remain forever en route; he arrives; and home is the father. jesus is the image of the invisible god; but the image on the retina of our eye is not something on which we dwell; we see through it the person with whom we are face to face. we know god our father in his son. every aspect of jesus' character unveils for us an aspect of the character of the lord of heaven and earth. every experience through which jesus passed in his life with men suggests to us an experience through which our father is passing with us his children. the cross on calvary is a picture of the age-long and present sacrifice of our god as he suffers with and for us. the open grave is for us the symbol of his unconquerable love, stronger than the world and sin and death. god's embodiment of himself in this son, made in all points like ourselves, attests the essential kinship between him and us--god's humanity and our potential divinity. do we know god in the spirit? his incarnation in jesus evidences his "incarnability," and his eagerness to have his fulness dwell in every son who will receive him. to know god in the spirit is so to follow jesus that we share his sonship with the father and have him abiding in us, working through us his works, manifesting himself in our mortal lives. our father is the great public spirit of the universe, the most responsible and responsive being in existence. the needs of all are claims on his service, their sins are burdens of guilt on his conscience, their joys and woes enlist his sympathy. he has his life in the lives of his children. the spirit is god's life in men, god living in them. to possess his will to serve, his sense of obligation, his interest and compassion, is to have the holy spirit dwelling and regnant in us. it was so that the father's spirit possessed jesus and made his abode in him; and the holy spirit is the spirit of the father and of the son in the christian community. and what a difference it makes whether we feel that the responsibilities our consciences force us to assume, the sympathies in which our hearts go out, the interests we are impelled to take, the resolves and longings and purposes within us, are just our own, or are god's inspirations! if they are simply ours, who knows what will come of them? if they are his, we can yield to them assured that it is god who worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure. our faith in god as self-imparting by his spirit makes possible our confident expectation that he can and will incarnate himself socially in the whole family of his children, as once he was incarnate in jesus. christians who devote themselves to fashioning social relations after the mind of christ, and inspiring their brethren with his faith and purpose, are conscious that through them the spirit of god is entering more and more into his world, revealing the father in the new community of love, which is being born. sir edward burne-jones once wrote: "that was an awful word of ruskin's, that artists paint god for the world. there's a lump of greasy pigment at the end of michael angelo's hog-bristle brush, and by the time it has been laid on the stucco, there is something there, that all men with eyes recognize as divine. think what it means: it is the power of bringing god into the world--making god manifest!" men and women who are molding homes and industries, towns and nations, so that they embody love, and influencing for righteousness the least and lowest of the children of men, are putting before a whole world's eyes the divine, are helping build the habitation of god in the spirit. through them god imparts himself to mankind. god over all--the father to whom we look up with utter trust, and from whom moment by moment we take our lives in obedient devotion; god through all--through jesus supremely, and through every child who opens his life to him with the willingness of jesus; god in all--the directing, empowering, sanctifying spirit, producing in us characters like christ's, employing and equipping us for the work of his kingdom, and revealing himself in a community more and more controlled by love: this is our christian thought of the divine--"one god and father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." chapter v the cross the human life in which succeeding generations have found their picture of god ended in a bloody tragedy. it was a catastrophe which all but wrecked the loyalty of jesus' little group of followers; it was an event which proved a stumbling block in their endeavor to win their countrymen to their lord, and which seemed folly to the great mass of outsiders in the roman world. it was a most baffling circumstance for them to explain either to themselves or to others; but, as they lived on under the control of their lord's spirit, this tragedy came gradually to be for them the most richly significant occurrence in his entire history; and ever since the cross has been the distinctive symbol of the christian faith. it had a variety of meanings for the men of the new testament; and it has had many more for their followers in subsequent centuries. we are not limited to viewing it through the eyes of others, nor to interpreting it with their thoughts. we are enriched as we try to share their experiences of its power and light; but we must go to calvary for ourselves, and look at the crucified with the eyes of our own hearts, and ask ourselves of what that cross convinces us. its first and most obvious disclosure is the unchristlikeness, and that means for us the ungodlikeness, of our world. we study the chief actors in this event, and conclude that had we known personally caiaphas, annas and pilate, and even herod and judas iscariot, we should have found them very like men we meet every day, very like ourselves, with a great deal in them to interest, admire and attract. and behind them we scan a crowd of inconspicuous and unnamed persons whose collective feelings and opinions and consciences were quite as responsible for this occurrence, as were the men whose names are linked with it; and they impress us as surprisingly like the public of our own day. it was by no means the lowest elements in the society of that age who took jesus to the cross; they were among the most devout and conscientious and thoughtful people of their time. nor was it the worst elements in them which impelled them to class him as an undesirable, of whom their world ought to be rid; their loyalties and convictions were involved in that judgment. they acted in accord with what was considered the most enlightened and earnest public opinion. we can think of no more high-minded person in jerusalem than young saul of tarsus, the student of gamaliel; and we know how cordially he approved the course the leaders of israel had taken in putting jesus out of the way. the cross is the point where god and his children, even the best of them, clash. at calvary we see the rocky coast-line of men's thoughts and feelings against which the incoming tide of god's mind and heart broke; and we hear the moaning of the resisted waves. the crucifixion is the exposure of the motives and impulses, the aspirations and traditions, of human society. its ungodlikeness is made plain. we get our definition of sin from calvary; sin is any unlikeness to the spirit of christ, revealed supremely in that act of self-sacrifice. the lifeless form of the son of god on the tree is the striking evidence of the antagonism between the children of men and their father. jesus completely represented him, and this broken body on the gibbet was the inevitable result. golgotha convinces us of the ruinous forces that live in and dominate our world; it faces us with the suicidal elements in men's spirits that drive them to murder the christlike in themselves; it tears the veil from each hostile thought and feeling that enacts this tragedy and exposes the god-murdering character of our sin. sin is deicidal. when that life of light is extinguished, we find a world about us and within us so dark that its darkness can be felt. the fateful reality of the battle between love and selfishness, knowledge and ignorance, between god and whatever thwarts his purpose, is made plain to us in that pierced and blood-stained figure on the cross. in the sense of being the victim of the ungodlike forces in human life, jesus bore sin in his own body on the tree. a second and equally clear disclosure is that of a marvellous conscience. what takes jesus christ to that tragic death? it is perfectly evident that he need not have come up to jerusalem and hazarded this issue; he came of his own accord; and we can think of dozens of reasons that might have induced him to remain in galilee, going about quietly and accomplishing all manner of good. why did he give up the opportunities of a life that was so incalculably serviceable, and apparently court death? jesus was always conscientious in what he did; he felt himself bound to the lives about him by the firmest cords of obligation, and whatever he attempted he deemed he owed men. if there was a zacchæus whose honesty and generosity had given way under the faulty system of revenue-collecting then in vogue, jesus considered himself involved in his moral ruin and obliged to do what he could to restore him: "i _must_ abide at thy house." if there were sick folk, their diseases were to him, in part at least, morally wrong, devil-caused (to use his first century way of explaining what we ascribe to inherited weakness or to blameworthy conditions); and demoniacal control over lives in god's world was something for which he felt himself socially accountable: "_ought_ not this woman, whom satan hath bound, to have been loosed?" if the church of his day was unable to reach large sections of the population with its appeal, if it succeeded very imperfectly in making children of the most high out of those whom it did reach, if with its narrowness and bigotry it made of its converts "children of hell," as jesus himself put it, if it exaggerated trifles and laid too little stress on justice, mercy and fidelity, he, as a member of that church, was chargeable with its failures, and must strive to put a new conscience into god's people: "i _must_ preach the good tidings of the kingdom of god." ibsen, the dramatist, wrote to his german translator, ludwig passarge, "in every new poem or play i have aimed at my own spiritual emancipation and purification--for a man shares the responsibility and the guilt of the society to which he belongs." jesus felt implicated in all that was not as it should be among the children of men, and cleared himself from complicity with it by setting himself resolutely to change it. he considered that the human brotherhood in its sinfulness exacted nothing less of him. it is commonly taught that the lord's prayer is a form that was suggested by jesus to his disciples, but that it could not have been a prayer which he himself used with them, because of its plea for forgiveness. it is true that it is introduced in our gospels as provided by the master for his followers, "when _ye_ pray, say." but millions of christians instinctively associate it with jesus' own utterances to the father. and may they not be correct? "forgive us _our_ debts," is a social confession of sin, in which our lord may well have joined, just as he underwent john's baptism of repentance, though himself sinless, in order to fulfil all righteousness. he regarded himself as indebted; his work, his teaching, his suffering, his death, were not to him a gift which he was at liberty to make or to withhold. in the "must" so often on his lips we cannot miss the sense of social obligation. he was (to borrow suggestive lines of shelley's) a nerve o'er which do creep the else unfelt oppressions of the earth. they came home to his conscience, and he could not shake them off. they were so many claims on him; he felt he owed the world a life, and he was ready to pay the debt to the last drop of his blood. "the son of man _must_ suffer and be killed." to the end he cast about for some less awful way of meeting his obligations. "my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me." but when no other alternative seemed conscientiously possible to him, he went to golgotha with a sense of moral satisfaction. "_ought_ not the christ to have suffered these things?" without any disturbing consciousness of having personally added to the world's evil, with no plea for pardon for his own sins on his lips but only for those of others, his conscience was burdened with the injustice and disloyalties, the brutalities and failures, of the family of god, in which he was a son, and he bore his brothers' sins on his spirit, and gave himself to the utmost to end them. a third disclosure of the cross is the incomparable sympathy of the victim. how shall we account for his recoil from the thought of dying, for his shrinking from this death as from something which sickened him, for the darkness and anguish of his soul in gethsemane at the prospect, and for the abysmal sense of forsakenness on the cross? his sensitiveness of heart made him feel the pain and shame of other men, a pain and shame they were frequently too stolid and obtuse to feel. he could not see able-bodied and willing workmen standing idle in the marketplace because no man had hired them, without sharing their discouragement and bitterness, nor prodigals making fools of themselves without feeling the disgrace of their unfilial folly. his parables are so vivid because he has himself lived in the experiences of others. "_cor cordium_" is the inscription placed upon shelley's grave; and it is infinitely more appropriate for the man of nazareth. in his sensitive sympathy we are aware of desperate tides of the whole great world's anguish forc'd through the channels of a single heart. we cannot account for his recoil from the cross, save as we remember his sense of kinship with those who were reddening their hands with the blood of the representative of their god. if we have ever stood beside a devoted wife in the hour when her husband is disgraced, or been in a home where sons and daughters are overwhelmed with a mother's shame, we have some faint idea of how jesus felt the guilt of his relatives when they slew him. he was the conscience of his less conscientious brethren: "the reproaches of them that reproached thee, fell on me." he realized, as they did not, the enormity of what they were doing. the utter and hideous ungodlikeness of the world was expressed for him in those who would have none of him, and cried: "away with him! crucify, crucify him." his keenness of conscience and his acute sympathy brought to his lips the final cry, "my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" the sinless sufferer on the cross, in his oneness with his brethren, felt their wrongdoing his own; acknowledged in his forsakenness that god could have nothing to do with it, for it was anti-god; confessed that it inevitably separated from him and he felt himself in such kinship and sympathy with sinning men that he was actually away from god. "that was hell," said old rabbi duncan, "and he tasted it." but our minds revolt. we do not believe that god deserted his son; on the contrary we are certain that he was never closer to him. shall we question the correctness of jesus' personal experience, and call him mistaken? we seem compelled either to do violence to his authority in the life of the spirit with god, or to our conviction of god's character. perhaps there is another alternative. a century ago the physicist, thomas young, discovered the principle of the interference of light. under certain conditions light added to light produces darkness; the light waves interfere with and neutralize each other. is there not something analogous to this in the sphere of the spirit? is not every new unveiling of god accompanied by unsettlements and seeming darkenings of the soul, temporary obscurations of the divine face? in all our advances in religious knowledge are we not liable to undergo fallings from us, vanishings, blank misgivings of the creature? and may it not have been god's coming closer than ever to the son of his love, or rather the son's coming closer to the father, as he entirely shared and expressed god's own sympathy and conscience, and was made perfect by the things which he suffered, that wrought in his sinless soul the awful blackness of the feeling of abandonment? in the sense of suffering sin's force, of conscientiously accepting its burden, of sensitively sympathizing with the guilty, jesus bore sin in his own body on the tree. and, as we stand facing the crucified, we cannot escape a sense of personal connection with that tragedy. the solidarity of the human family in all its generations has been brought home to us in countless ways by modern teachers; we are members one of another, and as we scan the cross this is a family catastrophe in which the actors are our kinsmen, and the blood of the victim stains us as sharers of our brothers' crime. and, further, as we look into the motives of christ's murderers--devout pharisee and conservative sadducee, roman politician and false friend, bawling rabble and undiscriminating soldiery, the host of indifferent or approving faces of the public behind them--they seem strangely familiar to us. they have been, they are still, alive by turns in us. the harmless spark of electricity that greets the touch of one's hand on a metal knob on a winter's day is one with the bolt of lightning that wrecks a giant oak. the selfish impulse, the narrow prejudice, the ignorant suspicion, the callous indifference, the self-satisfied respectability, which frequently dominate us and determine our decisions, are one with that cruel combination of motives which drove the nails in the hands and feet of the son of god. still further, the suffering of jesus never seems to an acute conscience something that happened once, but is over now. the figure that hung and bled on the tree centuries ago becomes indissolubly joined in our thought with every life today that is the victim of similar misunderstanding and neglect, injustice and brutality; and, while our sense of social responsibility charges us with complicity in all the wrong and woe of our brethren, that haunting form on calvary hangs before our eyes, and makes me feel it was my sin, as though no other sin there were, that was to him who bears the world a load that he could scarcely bear. we may say to ourselves that this is fanciful, that we were not the sanhedrin who condemned jesus, nor the roman procurator who ordered his execution, nor the scoffing soldiers who carried out his command; but the conscience which the cross itself creates charges us with participation in the murder of the son of god. that cross becomes an inescapable fact in our moral world, an element in our outlook upon duty, a factor tingeing life with tragic somberness. it forces upon us the conviction that it is all too possible for us to reenact golgotha, and by doing or failing to do, directly or indirectly, for one of the least of christ's brethren to crucify him afresh, and put him to an open shame. but if the cross seems to color life somberly, it also gilds it with glory. as we follow christ, we discover more and more clearly that all which we possess of greatest worth has come to us, and keeps coming to us, through him. what he endured centuries ago on that hill without the city wall is a wellspring of inspiration flowing up in the purest and finest motives in the life of today. there is a direct line of ancestry from the best principles in the lives of nations, and of men and women about us, running back to calvary. day after day we find ourselves and the whole world made different because of that tragic occurrence of the past, shamed out of the motives that caused it, and lifted into the life of the crucified. a recent dramatist makes the centurion, in the darkness at the foot of the cross, say to mary: "i tell you, woman, this dead son of yours, disfigured, shamed, spat upon, has built a kingdom this day that can never die. the living glory of him rules it. the earth is _his_ and he made it. he and his brothers have been molding and making it through the long ages; they are the only ones who ever really did possess it: not the proud; not the idle; not the vaunting empires of the world. something has happened up here on this hill today to shake all our kingdoms of blood and fear to the dust. the earth is his, the earth is theirs, and they made it. the meek, the terrible meek, the fierce agonizing meek, are about to enter into their inheritance." nor is this all of which that cross convinces us. we find ourselves giving that crucified man our supreme adoration; he is for us that which we cannot but worship. instinctively and irresistibly we yield him our highest reverence, trust and devotion. as we think out what is involved in the impression he makes upon us, we come to our conception of his deity; and through him we discover ourselves in touch with the highest there is in the universe, with the most high. calvary becomes, for those who look trustingly at the crucified, a window through which we see into the life of the lord of heaven and earth. jesus' sin-bearing is for us a revelation of the eternal sin-bearing of the god and father of us all. behind the cross of wood outside the gate of jerusalem we catch sight of a vast, age-enduring cross in the heart of the eternal, forced on him generation after generation by his children's unlikeness to their father--forced, but borne by him, in conscientious devotion to them, as willingly as jesus went to golgotha. if at calvary we find the rocky coast-line of human thought and feeling opposing the inflow of god, the incoming waters break into the silver spray of speech, and their one word is love. in this revelation of our father is the assurance of our forgiveness. such a god is not one who may or may not be gracious, as he wills; it is "his property always to have mercy." he would not be just in his own eyes, were he unmerciful; he is just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. like his son, he owes us himself; and his forgiveness is freely ours in the measure that we are able to receive it, that is, in the measure in which we have forgiven others. jesus at calvary proves himself both our substitute and our exemplar. he who finds and opens a trail to a mountain-top encounters and removes obstacles, which none of those who come after him need to meet; he makes the path _for them_. when the sinless jesus found himself socially involved with his brethren in the low valley of the world's sinfulness, and looked off to the summit of his father's perfectness, he felt a separation between the whole world and god; and he gave himself to end it. we shall never know the uncertainties that shrouded him and the temptations he faced, from the experience in the wilderness at the outset to the anguish of his spirit in gethsemane and the consciousness of dereliction on the cross. the "if it be possible" of his prayer suggests the alternative routes he sought to find, before he resigned himself to opening the path by his blood. since his death there is "a new and living way" for those who know him, which stretches from the lowest point of their abasement to the very peak of god's holiness. up that way they can pass by repentance and trust, and down it the mercy of god hastens to meet and lead them. they are forever delivered from the sense of exclusion from god; the way lies open. but he who knows a path must himself walk it, if he would reach its goal; and no one is profited by christ's sacrifice who does not give himself in a like sacrificial service; only so does he ever reach fellowship with the father. the cross convinces us that we must love one another in the family of god as our father in christ has loved us; and it further pledges us god's gift of himself, that is his holy spirit, to fulfil this debt of love. it speaks to us of one who offers nothing less than himself, and nothing less will do, to be the conscience of our consciences, the heart of our hearts, the life of our lives. we are lifted by the cross into a great redemptive fellowship, a society of redeemers--the redeeming father, the redeeming son and a whole company inspired by the redeeming spirit. we fill up on our part as individuals and as christian social groups--churches, nations, families--that which is lacking in the sufferings of christ for his kingdom's sake. the more christian our human society becomes, the more it will manifest the vicarious conscience of its lord, and feel burdened with the guilt of every wrong-doer, and bound to make its law-courts and prisons, its public opinion and international policies and all its social contacts, redemptive. through every touch of life with life, in trade, in government, in friendship, in the family, men will feel self-giving love akin to, because fathered by, the love of god commended to the world when christ died for sinners. while in a sense men will become all of them redeemers one of another, behind them all will ever lie the unique sacrifice of jesus. the singularity of that sacrifice lies not in the act but in the actor: "_he_ is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." every member of the redeemed society, however much he may owe to the sacrificial service of his brethren, will feel himself personally indebted to christ, who loved him and gave himself up for him. as the originator of the redemptive fellowship, the creator of the new conscience, the captain of our salvation who opened up the way through his death into the holiest of all, we give to jesus and to no other the title, "the lamb of god who taketh away the sins of the world." chapter vi the new life--individual and social the health department of a modern city is charged with a double duty: it has to care for cases of disease, and it has to suggest and enforce laws to keep the city sanitary. the former task--the treatment of sickness--is much more widely recognized as the proper function of the medical profession; the latter--the prevention of the causes of illness--is a newer, but a more far-reaching, undertaking. when pasteur was carrying on his investigations into the origins of certain diseases, most of the leading physicians and surgeons made light of his work: "how should this chemist, who cannot treat the simplest case of sickness nor perform the most trifling operation, have anything to contribute to medical science?" but pasteur's discovery of the part played by bacilli not only altered profoundly the work of physicians and surgeons, but opened up the larger task of preventive medicine. the gospel of christ, in its endeavor to make and keep men whole, faces a similarly double labor. it has its ministry of rescue and healing for sinning men and women; it has its plan of spiritual health for society. it comes to every man with its offer of rebirth into newness of life: "if any man be in christ, he is a new creature." it comes to society with its offer of a regenesis, a paradise of love on earth. the life of god enters our world by two paths--personally, through individuals whom it recreates, and by whom it remakes society; socially, through a new communal order which reshapes the men and women who live under it. the new testament speaks of both entrances of the spirit of god into human life: it pictures "_one_ born from above," and "the holy _city_ coming down from god out of heaven." the two processes supplement each other. consecrated man and wife make their home christian; a christian home renders the conversion of its children unnecessary; they know themselves children of god as soon as they know themselves anything at all. saved souls save society, and a saved society saves souls. religion must always be personal; each must respond for himself to his highest inspirations. a child may confuse the divine voice with that of its parents, through whom the divine message comes; but a day arrives when he learns that god speaks directly to him, perhaps differently from the way in which his parents understand his voice, and he must listen for himself alone. a job may take at second-hand the conventional views of god current in his day, and through them have some touch with the divine; but this will seem mere hearsay when the stress of life compels him to fight his way past the opinions of his most devout friends to a personal vision of god. religious experience is hardly worthy the name until one can say, "o god, thou art _my_ god." there is no sphere of life in which a man is so conscious of his isolation as in his dealings with his highest. the most serious decisions of his life--his apprehension of truth, his obedience to right, his response to love--he must settle for himself. space is but narrow--east and west--there is not room for two abreast. "each one of us shall give account of himself to god." in our consciousness of sin, in our penitence, in our faith, others may stimulate and inspire us, may point the way saying, "behold the lamb of god," may go with us in a common confession of guilt and a common aspiration towards the most high, but we are hardly conscious of their fellowship; it is the living god with whom we personally have to do. points have we all of us within our souls where all stand single. the gospel comes as a summons to men one by one. christ knocks at each man's door, offering the most complete personal friendship with him. were there but a single child of god astray, the good shepherd would adventure his life for him, and there is joy in the presence of the angels over _one_ sinner that repenteth. the evangel has always been good news to sinning people who wished to be different. in _adam bede_ mrs. poyser says of mr. craig, "it was a pity he couldna' be hatched o'er again, and hatched different." the gospel claims to be the power of god which can make the worst and lowest of men--an iago or a caliban--into sons of the most high in the measure of the stature of the fulness of christ. this has seemed incredible to most outsiders. celsus in the second century, in his attack on christianity, wrote, "it must be clear to everybody, i should think, that those who are sinners by nature and training, none could change, not even by punishment--to say nothing of doing it by pity." dickens' pecksniff "always said of what was very bad that it was very natural." but it has been the glory of the gospel that it could speak in the past tense of some at least of the sins of its adherents: "such _were_ some of you." individual regeneration will ever remain a large part of god's work through his church. unless we can raise the dead in sin to life in christ, we have lost the quickening spirit of god; so long as the world lieth in wickedness, every follower of jesus must go with him after men one by one, to seek and to save that which was lost. but a man's religious experience is vitally affected by social conditions. moses' protest against the slavery of the israelites in egypt sprang from his feeling that it hindered their fellowship with god. "let my people go," he felt god saying, "_that they may serve me_." mencius, the chinese sage, wrote: "if the people have not a certain livelihood, they will not have a fixed heart. and if they have not a fixed heart, there is nothing which they will not do in the way of self-abandonment. an intelligent ruler will regulate the livelihood of the people, so as to make sure that, above, they have sufficient wherewith to serve their parents, and, below, sufficient wherewith to support their wives and children; that in good years they shall always be abundantly satisfied, and that in bad years they shall escape the danger of perishing. after this he may urge them, and they will proceed to what is good." christian workers, today, know well how all but impossible it is to get a man to live as a christian, until he is given at least the chance to earn a decent living. but we have to be on our guard lest we overemphasize the force of circumstances either to foster or hamper a man's fellowship with god. the life of jesus is the irrefutable argument that the lord's song may be sung in a strange land. it is always possible to be a christian under the most unfavorable conditions, provided the christian does not shirk the inevitable cross. but the social order under which men live shapes their characters. ibsen calls it "the moral water supply," and religion is intensely interested in the reservoirs whence men draw their ideals. a glance over a few typical forms of social order will illustrate its influence on character: perhaps the noblest society of antiquity was the greek city state. it expected its citizens to be all of them warriors, statesmen, legislators, judges. it set a premium upon the virtues of courage, self-control, justice and public spirit. it delivered its citizens from that "greasy domesticity" which byron loathed in the typical englishman of the georgian epoch, and made them civic minded. but its ideal was within the attainment of but a fraction of the population. the slaves had no incentive to these virtues; and it is estimated that in athens in the fourth century b.c. there were 400,000 slaves and 100,000 citizens. the many did the hard work, debarred from the highest inspirations, in order that the privileged few might have freedom to achieve their lofty ideals. and outside the state, or the greek world, the rest of mankind were classed as "barbarians," to whom no greek ever thought of carrying his ideals. nominally christian europe in the middle ages presented in the feudal system a different type of society. a vast hierarchy in church and state, with the pope and emperor at the top, ran down through many gradations to the serf at the bottom. it was an improvement on the little greek state in that it embraced many more in a single order and bound them together with common faith and standards. it prized not the civic virtues, but the militarist qualities of loyalty, obedience, honor, chivalry. its typical hero is the chevalier bayard, the good knight without fear and without reproach. but a career like his is manifestly possible only to a few. the agricultural laborer chained to the soil, and the trader--often the despised jew confined to the ghetto--had no part in the life of chivalry. outside of christendom the saracen was to be converted or slain, and he was far oftener slain than converted. under the revival of classical ideals at the renaissance, in the new emphasis upon individual rights born of the reformation, in the rebellion of the puritan english and scotch against the divine right of kings and bishops to rule them against their conscience and will, in the revolution of 1789 and the napoleonic wars, the feudal system passed, and the commercial order took its place. its cherished virtues are initiative, industry, push, thrift, independence. as its _beau ideal_ it substitutes for the chevalier bayard the successful business man. it sincerely tries to open its privileges to everyone; and under favorable circumstances, in revolutionary america for instance, its ideals were accessible to practically every white inhabitant. the comte de ségur, one of the young french officers who came to take part in our war of independence, wrote: "an observer fresh from our magnificent cities, and the airs of our young men of fashion--who has compared the luxury of our upper classes with the coarse dress of our peasants and the rags of our innumerable poor,--is surprised on reaching the united states, by the entire absence of the extremes both of opulence and of misery. all americans whom we met wore clothes of good material. their free and frank and familiar address, equally removed from uncouth discourtesy and from artificial politeness, betokened men who were proud of their own rights and respected those of others." but under other conditions its ethical incentives are often without appeal to the man who lacks capital, or to the man with so large an assured income that he desires no more. it can do little for the dregs or the froth of society--those so oppressed that they cannot rise to its social responsibilities, and those so lightened that they do not feel them. it looks upon the so-called backward peoples as markets where it can secure raw materials needed for its factories--its rubber, ivory, jute,--or engage cheap labor, and as a profitable dumping-ground for its surplus products. it has done much for the less developed sections of the race by its missionaries, educators and physicians; but all their efforts have been almost offset by the evils of exploiting traders or grasping government agents, and the exported vices of civilization. christianity has a social order of its own--the kingdom of god. it is not an economic system, nor a plan of government, but a religious ideal--society organized under the love of god revealed in christ. this ideal it holds up in contrast with the existing social order in any age as a protest, a program and a promise. the kingdom _protests_ against any features in prevailing conditions that do not disclose christlike love. it scans the industrial world of today, and finds three fundamental evils in it: competition as a motive, arraying man against man, group against group, nation against nation, in unbrotherly strife; gain-seeking as the stimulus to effort, inducing men to invest capital, or to labor, primarily for the sake of the returns to themselves; and selfish ownership as the reward of success, letting men feel that they can do as they please with their own. certain callings, upon which the christian spirit has exerted a stronger influence, have already been raised above the level of the commercial world. it is not good form professionally for physicians, or ministers, or college professors to compete with each other and seek to draw away patients, parishioners or pupils; to exercise their callings mainly for the sake of financial gains; nor to regard as their own their skill, or inspiration, or learning. but as yet the butcher, the baker, the grocer, the banker, the manufacturer, the promoter, are not supposed to be on this plane. they are urged to compete, even to the extent of putting their rivals out of business, in defiance of an old jewish maxim, "he that taketh away his neighbor's living slayeth him," and in face of the lord's prayer in which we ask not for "my daily cake," but for "_our_ daily bread." they are expected to consider profits, dividends, wages, as the chief end in their callings; and if out of their gains they devote a portion to public uses, that is charity on their part. a few individuals are undoubtedly superior to the ideal set before them, and are as truly dedicated servants of the community as any physician or minister of the gospel, but they are a small minority; and the false ideal ruins characters, and renders the commercial world a battlefield, instead of a household of co-working children of god. it scans international relations, and finds patriotism still a pagan virtue. mr. lecky calls it "in relation to foreigners a spirit of constant and jealous self-assertion." when a tariff is under discussion, high, low or no duties are advocated as beneficial for the industries of one's own country, regardless of the welfare of those of other lands. the scramble for colonies with their advantages to trade, the imperialistic spirit that seizes possessions without respect to the wishes of their inhabitants, the endeavor to secure in other countries special concessions or large business orders at an extraordinary profit, are all sanctified under the name of patriotism. the peace of the world is supposed to be maintained by keeping nations armed to the teeth, so that rival powers will be afraid to fight, and huge armies and navies are labelled insurance against war. a sentence in a letter of erasmus has a singularly modern sound: "there is a project to have a congress of kings at cambrai, to enter into mutual engagements to preserve peace with each other and through europe. but certain persons, who get nothing by peace and a great deal by war, throw obstacles in the way." the armament argument for peace has been given its _reductio ad absurdum;_ but it is by no means clear that the world-wide war will free the nations from the burdensome folly of keeping enormous armies and navies. as christians we must protest without ceasing that international relations, based on mutual fear and maintained by the use of brute force, can never furnish the peace of christ. it scans the system of justice in its treatment of the wrong-doer, and declares that the crude attempt to fit the punishment to the crime, and to protect society by deterrent penalties, is not the justice of him who is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." divine justice is redemptive; and society, if it wishes to be christian, must pay the heavy cost of making all its contacts with the imperfect transforming. it scans the educational institutions of our land, and sees many students viewing learning only with reference to its immediate commercial availability, spurning all studies as "unpractical" which do not supply knowledge that can be coined into financial returns; and it sees many others without intellectual interest, prizing schools and colleges merely for their social pleasures, lazily choosing courses which require a minimum of labor, and disesteeming the great opportunities of culture and enrichment provided by the sacrificial studies and labors of the past. it insists that a moral revival is needed for an intellectual renaissance. all students must be baptized with a passion for social service, before studies that enrich the mind and enlarge the character will be pursued with eager devotion. the blight of irresponsibility is almost universal upon the students in the higher educational institutions of our country. so the christian social order contrasts itself with every phase and aspect of our present life, and exposes the impoverishing absence of the spirit of god. its protest is reinforced by widespread social restlessness and the feeling that the existing state of things has gone into moral bankruptcy. but the kingdom of god is no mere protest; it is a _program_ of social redemption. some thinkers flatly deny that christianity can provide a constructive plan for society. mr. lowes dickinson makes his imaginary chinese official write of the social teachings of jesus: "enunciated centuries ago, by a mild oriental enthusiast, unlettered, untravelled, inexperienced, they are remarkable not more for their tender and touching appeal to brotherly love, than for their aversion or indifference to all other elements of human excellence. the subject of augustus and tiberius lived and died unaware of the history and destinies of imperial rome; the contemporary of virgil and of livy could not read the language in which they wrote. provincial by birth, mechanic by trade, by temperament a poet and a mystic, he enjoyed in the course of his brief life few opportunities, and he evinced little inclination, to become acquainted with the rudiments of the science whose end is the prosperity of the state. the production and distribution of wealth, the disposition of power, the laws that regulate labor, property, trade, these were matters as remote from his interests, as they were beyond his comprehension. never was man better equipped to inspire a religious sect; never one worse to found and direct a commonwealth." jesus' teaching concerning the kingdom of god is contained in a handful of parables and picturesque sayings. it attempts no detailed account of a utopia; it lays down no laws; it offers the world a spirit, which in every age must find a body of its own. but this indefiniteness does not fit it the less, but the better, as the inspiration to social reconstruction. it affords scope for variety and endless progress. it can take up the social ideals of other ages and of other civilizations, and incorporate whatever in them is congruous with the christian social order. the ideals of greece and medieval europe and of our present commercialism, and the ideals of china, india and japan, are not to be thrown aside as rubbish, but reshaped and "fulfilled" by christlike love. it does not stultify human development by establishing a rigid system; but entrusts to thoughtful and conscientious children of god the duty of constantly readjusting social relations, so that they are adequate expressions of their father's spirit. in every age christians are compelled not only to voice their protest against the existing order, but to point out precisely what the spirit of christ demands, and try practically to embody it. the fact that our directions are not explicit is proof that god deals with us not as little children but as sons and daughters, not as servants but as friends. we have to think out for ourselves the economic system, the policies of government, the disciplinary methods, the educational ideals, that will incarnate the spirit of our father. the all-sufficient answer to the charge of the inadequacy of jesus as a guide to social welfare is the fact, that only in so far as we are able to express his mind in our social relations, do they satisfy us. the advances made in our generation are conspicuous instances of progress not away from, but up to him. the crash of our present commercial order in industrial strife, now scarcely heard in the greater confusion of a world at war, gives us the chance to come forward with the principles of jesus, and ask that they be given a trial in business enterprises that are based on coöperation, the joy of service as the incentive to toil, responsible trusteeship of that which each controls for the benefit of all the rest; in international relations where every nation comes not to be ministered unto but to minister, and loves its neighbors as itself--to ask that we seriously try the social order of love. john bright, unveiling the statue to cobden in the bradford exchange, said, "we tried to put holy writ into an act of parliament." we want the mind of christ put into commerce, laws, pleasures and the whole of human life. and we come forward with confidence, because the kingdom we advocate is not merely a protest and a program, but also a divine _promise_. the ideal of the kingdom of heaven to which our consciences respond is for us a religious inspiration, and has behind it a faithful god who would not deceitfully lure us to follow an illusive phantom. "according to his promise we look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness." the city of our hope has not been designed by us, but has been already thought out in god's mind and comes down out of heaven. in our attack upon existing injustices and follies we raise again the believing watchword of the crusaders, "_deus vult_" in our attempt to rear the order of love, which cynics pronounce unpractical, we fortify ourselves in the assurance that it is god's plan for his world, and that we shall discover a preëstablished harmony between the kingdom of heaven and the earth which we with him must conform to it. we encourage ourselves by recalling that, in the hearts of men everywhere and in the very fabric and structure of things, we have countless confederates. on one of motley's most glowing pages, we are told how, after the frightful siege and fall of haarlem, and with alkmaar closely invested by the duke of alva, when the cause of the netherlands seemed in direst straits, diedrich sonoy, the lieutenant governor of north holland, wrote the prince of orange, inquiring whether he had arranged some foreign alliance, and received the reply: "you ask if i have entered into a firm treaty with any great king or potentate; to which i answer, that before i ever took up the cause of the oppressed christians in these provinces, i had entered into a close alliance with the king of kings; and i am firmly convinced that all who put their trust in him shall be saved by his almighty hand. the god of armies will raise up armies for us to do battle with our enemies and his own." and the opening of the dykes brought the very sea itself to the assistance of the brave contestants for truth and liberty. the prayer on our lips, "thy kingdom come," we believe to be of god's own inspiring. the social order which we seek is his eternal purpose; and it has sworn confederates in sun and moon and stars of light, and in every human heart. we wait patiently and we work confidently, in the assurance that the god and father of jesus christ, the lord of heaven and earth, will not fail nor be discouraged, until he has set his loving justice in the earth, and his will is done among all the children of men, as it was once done by his well-beloved son. chapter vii the church no man's spiritual life starts with himself; there is no melchizedek soul--without father or mother. as our bodies are born of the bodies of others, as our minds are formed from the mental heritage of the race, our faith is the offspring of the faith of others; and we owe a filial debt to the christian society from which we derive our life with god. nor is any man's spiritual experience self-sustaining. our mental vitality diminishes if we do not keep in touch with thinking people; and brilliant men often lose their lustre for want of intellectual companionship. "iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." a christian's religious experience requires fellowship for its enrichment, and no large soul was ever grown or maintained in isolation. we are enlarged by sharing the wealthier spiritual life of the whole believing community. nor can a religious man contribute his spiritual endowment to the world without joining with kindred souls in an organized effort. edward rowland sill, speaking of his spiritual isolation, wrote to a friend: "for my part i long to 'fall in' with somebody. this picket duty is monotonous. i hanker after a shoulder on this side and the other." the intellectual life of the community organizes itself in schools and colleges, in newspapers and publishing-houses and campaigns of lectures. a learned man may do something by himself for his children or his friends; but he can do incomparably more for a larger public if he is associated with other learned men in a faculty, assisted by the publications of the press, and receives pupils already prepared by other teachers to appreciate his particular contribution. an earnest believer can accomplish something by himself for the immediate circle of lives about him; but he is immeasurably more influential when he invests his inspired personality in the church, where he finds his efforts for the kingdom supplemented by the work of countless fellow toilers, where the missionary enterprise bears the impetus of his consecration to thousands he can never see face to face, and where a lasting institution carries on his life-work and conserves its results long after he has passed from earth. the christian is dependent upon the church for his birth, his growth, his usefulness; and this christian community, or church, like the intellectual community, instinctively organizes itself to spread its life. there is an unorganized church, in the sense of the spiritual community, which shares the life of christ with god and man, as there is an unorganized intellectual community of more or less educated persons who possess the mental acquisitions of the race. but this intellectual community would lose its vitality without its educational agencies; and the spiritual community would all but die were it not for its institutions. the spiritual community is the church; it is organized in the churches. as christians we look back to discover jesus' conception of the church. we find it implicit in his life rather than explicit in his teaching. he was born into the jewish church which in his day was organized with its temple and priesthood at jerusalem, with its sanhedrin settling its law and doctrine, with its synagogues with their worship and instruction in every town and a ministry of trained scribes, and with a wider missionary undertaking that was spreading the jewish faith through the roman world. it was a community with its sectarian divisions of sadducees, pharisees and the like, but unified by a common devotion to the one god of israel and his law. jesus' personal faith was born of this church, grew and kept vigorous by continuous contact with it, and sought to work through its organization, for he taught in the synagogues and the temple. jesus does not seem to have been primarily interested either in the constitution, or the worship, or the doctrine of the jewish church. he criticised the spirit of its leaders, but did not discuss their official positions. he must have felt that much of the temple ritual was obsolete, and that many parts of the synagogue services were crude and dull, but he entered into their worship that he might share with fellow believers his expression of trust in his and their god. he did not invent a new theology, but used the old terms to voice his fuller life with god. he was primarily interested in the religious experience that lay back of government, worship and creed; and gave himself to develop it, apparently trusting a vigorous life with god to find forms of its own. so he never broke formally with the jewish church; and even after it had crucified their master, his disciples are found worshipping in its temple, keeping its festivals, and observing its law. but within this church jesus had gathered a group about himself, to whom he imparted his faith and purpose, and into whom he breathed his spirit. he taught them to think of themselves as salt and light to season and illumine the community about them. as leaders, he bade them become like himself servants of all. one was their master, they all were brethren. soon they developed a corporate feeling that separated them from their fellow jews, a corporate feeling jesus had to rebuke because of its exclusiveness: "master, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him because he followed not us. but jesus said, forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us." on the eve of his death he kept a supper with them, which pictured to them his sustaining fellowship with them and their comradeship with one another in him. and he left them with the consciousness that they were to carry forward his work, were possessed of his inspiring spirit and had his presence with them always. not by jesus' prescribed plans, but by his spiritual prompting the church came to be. "like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprang." it was not, then, organization, or ritual, or creed, that made the christian church, but oneness of purpose with christ. in the picture of its earliest days we see it maintaining jesus' intercourse with god by prayer; continuing to learn of him through those who had been closest to him; breaking the bread of fellowship with him and one another; expressing that fellowship in a mutually helpful community life; and all of its members trying to bear witness to others of the supreme worth of jesus. we get at what they think of themselves by the names they use: they are "disciples," pupils of the divine teacher; "believers," trusting his god; "brethren," embodying his spirit toward each other; "saints," men and women set apart to the one purpose of forwarding the kingdom; "of the way," with a distinctive mode of life in the unseen and the seen, following jesus, _the_ way. they called themselves the ecclesia--the called out for god's service; the household of faith--insiders in god's family, sharers of his plans; the temple of god--those in whose life with each other and the world god's spirit can be seen and felt; the body of christ--the organism alive with his faith and hope and love, through which he still works in the earth; the israel of god, the holy nation continuing the spiritual life and mission of god's people of old--no new church but the reformed and reborn church of god. the main point for them was that in this new community the spirit of god was alive and at work, producing in its members christlike characters and equipping them for christlike usefulness. a body without life is a corpse; and the church fairly throbbed with vitality. it naturally organized itself for work, but in organizing it was not conscious of conforming to some fixed plan already laid down, but of allowing the spirit freely to lead from day to day. christians found among themselves specially gifted men--apostles (of whom there were many beside the twelve), with talents for leadership and missionary enterprise--prophets, teachers; and they instinctively held these men highly in love for their works' sake. one thinks of a figure like paul, who claimed no human appointment or ordination, but whose divine authority was recognized by those who owed their spiritual lives to him. and beside this informal leadership of gifted individuals, a more formal chosen leadership came into existence. god's spirit used the materials at hand; and christians in various parts of the roman world had been accustomed to different types of organization in their respective localities, and these types suggested similar offices in the church. some had been accustomed to the town government of a palestinian village by seven village elders; and this may have suggested "the seven" chosen in jerusalem to care for the poor. some were brought up with the oriental idea of succession through the next oldest brother, and this may account for the position of eminence held by james, "the brother of the lord." some in gentile cities had been members of artisan societies, guilds with benefits in case of sickness or death, not unlike lodges among ourselves; and many hints, and perhaps offices (the overseer or bishop, for instance) were taken from them. some had been familiar with the roman relationship of patron and client, and when the little groups of converts were gathered together in a wealthier christian's house, he would be given something of the position of the roman _patronus_. still others had been trained in the synagogue, either as jews or as proselytes, and would naturally follow its organization in their christian synagogues. there seems to have been variety of form, and along with this variety a felt and expressed unity, with freest intercommunion and hearty coöperation for the evangelization of the world. throughout there was democracy, so that even a leader so conscious of divine authority as paul appeals to the rank and file, "i speak as to wise men; judge ye what i say." in worship, the church from its early days had the two fixed rites of baptism and the lord's supper; but beside them were most informal meetings for mutual inspiration. "what is it then, brethren: when ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. let all things be done unto edifying." here was room for variety to suit the needs of many temperaments. and in doctrine there is a similar freedom. one can see in all the christian speakers and writers in the new testament an underlying unity in great convictions:--the god and father of jesus christ is their one god; jesus is their one lord; they are possessed and controlled by the one spirit of love; they are confident in a victorious hope; they draw inspiration from the historic facts of jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection. but they interpret their inspirations in forms that fit in with their mental habits. the fisherman peter does not think with the mind of the theologically trained paul, nor does the unspeculative james phrase his beliefs in terms identical with those of the writer to the hebrews. jesus left his spirit in a group of men; that group gradually was forced out of the national jewish church, and became the church of christ, dominated by his living spirit and organizing itself for work, worship and teaching, out of the materials at hand among the peoples where it spread. we have taken this brief retrospect over the origin of the church not because it is important for us to discover the precise forms the church took at the start and reproduce them. it is nowhere hinted in the new testament that the leaders of these little communities are laying down methods to be followed for all time. indeed, they had no such thought, for they expected jesus to return in their lifetime and set up his kingdom; and they gave scant attention to forms of organization and doctrine that would last but a few years. nor is it reasonable to suppose that forms which were suited to little groups of people meeting in somebody's house, waiting for their lord's return, will answer for great bodies of christians organizing themselves to christianize the world. no institution can remain changeless in a changing world. "the one immutable factor in institutions," writes professor pollard, "is their infinite mutability." almost all the divisive factors in christendom are taken out of the past, by those who claim that a certain polity or creed or practice is that authoritatively prescribed for all time, by christ himself, or by his spirit through his personally appointed apostles. the chief question for the church to decide, when it considers its organization, is--what must we carry on from the past, and what can we profitably leave behind? the church of christ has always been and is one undivided living organism, composed of those who are so vitally joined to jesus christ that they share his life with god and men. our bodies are continually changing in their constituent elements, but remain the same bodies; the spirit of life assimilates and builds into its living structure that which enters the body. the church of christ in the world is constantly changing its components as the generations come and go; each new generation is in some respects unlike its predecessor in thought, in usage, in feeling; but the continuity of the spirit maintains the identity of the body of christ. we must carry forward the spirit of christ, and keep unbroken the apostolic succession of spiritual men and women, all of whom are divinely appointed priests unto god. we must realize that, as members in the body of christ, each of us must fulfil some function for the kingdom, or we are not living members, but paralyzed or atrophied. there is a continuity of life in the church that cannot be interrupted; we must inherit this life from the past, and we must pass it on to those who come after us. just as the first christians felt themselves the israel of god, so today we are conscious of being the heirs of patriarchs and prophets, apostles and martyrs, churchmen and scholars and missionaries, leaders of spiritual awakenings like francis of assisi, luther and wesley, theologians like clement, augustine, thomas aquinas, john calvin and jonathan edwards, and of countless humble and devoted believers who have been ruled by the spirit of the master. they have bequeathed to us a solemn trust; they have enriched us with a priceless heritage; they have transmitted to us their life with christ in god. the church comes to us saying: i am like a stream that flows, full of the cold springs that arose in morning lands, in distant hills; and down the plain my channel fills, with melting of forgotten snows. but the historic succession of christians through the centuries is not our sole connection with christ; we not only look _back_ to him, we also look _up_ and look _in_ to him, for he lives above and in us. the church is not a widow, but a bride; and shares its lord's life in the world today. the same spirit who lived and ruled in the church of the first days has been breathed on us, through the long line of apostolic-spirited men and women who reach back to jesus, and lives and rules in us. we must keep the unity of the spirit with the believers of the past, and with all who are spirit-led in the world today; and we must remember that "where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty." we are not bound by the precedents of bygone centuries in our organization; we are free to take from the past what is of worth to us, and we are free to let the rest go. is not the spirit of god as able to take materials at hand in our own age, and to use them for the government, the worship, the creed, the methods of the living church of christ? we cannot, of course, be content with an unrealized unity of the church. every little group of christians, in the first age, felt itself the embodiment in its locality of the whole church, and it was at one in effort with followers of jesus everywhere. it exercised hospitality towards every christian who came within its neighborhood, welcoming him to its fellowship and expecting him to use his gifts in its communion. we want the whole body of christ organized, so that it is vividly conscious of its unity, so that it does not waste its energy in maintaining needlessly separate churches, so that followers of christ feel themselves welcome at every table of the lord, and every gifted leader, accredited in any part of the church, is accepted as accredited in every other where he can be profitably used. the practical problem in church reorganization is identical with that which confronts society in politics and in industry--how to secure efficient administration while safeguarding liberty, how to combine the solidarity of the group with the full expression of its members' individualities. to be effective the church must work as a compactly ordered whole. individuals must surrender personal preferences in order that the church may have collective force. teamwork often demands the suppression of individuality. there will have to be sufficient authority lodged in those who exercise oversight to enable them to lead the christian forces and administer their resources. but we dare not curtail the freedom of conscience, or impede liberty of prophesying, or turn flexibility of organization into rigidity, lest we hamper the spirit, who divideth to every man severally even as he will. we do not want "metallic beliefs and regimental devotions," but the personal convictions of thinking sons and daughters of the living god, the spontaneous and congenial fellowship of children with their father in heaven, and methods sufficiently flexible to be adaptable to all needs. we look for an organization of the church of christ that shall exclude no one who shares his spirit, and that shall provide an outlet for every gift the spirit bestows, that shall bind all followers of christ together in effort for the one purpose--the kingdom of god--enabling them to feel their corporate oneness, and that shall give them liberty to think, to worship, to labor, as they are led by the spirit of god. meanwhile there are some immediate personal obligations which rest upon us. we cannot be factors in the organized church of christ, save as we are members of one of the existing churches. a christian should enroll himself either in that communion in which he was born and to which he owes his spiritual vitality, or else in that with which he finds he can work most helpfully. a christian who is not a church member is like a citizen who is not a voter--he is shirking his responsibility. we must free our minds from prejudice against those whose ways of stating their beliefs, whose modes of worship, whose methods of working, differ from our own. we are not to argue with them which of us is nearer the customs of the new testament; that is not to the point. wherever we see the spirit of christ, there we are to recognize fellow churchmen in the one church of god. we do not wish uniformity, but variety in unity; for only a church with a most varied ministry can bring the life of god to the endlessly diverse temperaments of men and women. we are not seeking for the maximum common denominator, and insisting that every communion shall give up all its distinctive doctrines, ritual, customs and activities. we do not want any communion to be "unclothed," but "clothed upon," that what is partial may be swallowed up of fuller life. dogmatists, be they radicals or conservatives, who insist on a particular interpretation of christianity, ecclesiastics who arrogantly consider their "orders" superior to those of other servants of christ as spiritually gifted and as publicly accredited, sectarians so satisfied with the life of their particular segment of the church that they do not covet a wider enriching fellowship, and churchmen whose conception of the task of the church is so petty that they fail to feel the imperative necessity of articulating all its forces in one harmoniously functioning organization, are the chief postponers of the effective unity of the body of christ. we have to consider the particular communion to which we ourselves belong, and ask whether there are any barriers in it that exclude from its membership or from its working force those who possess the spirit of christ, and so are divinely called into the church and divinely endowed for service. we must make our own communion as inclusive as we believe the church to be, or we are not attempting to organize the church of christ, but to create some exclusive club or sect of christians of a particular variety. we must study sympathetically the ways of other communions, and be prepared to borrow freely from them whatever approves itself as inspiring to christian character and work. a presbyterian will often refuse to avail himself of the great historic prayers, simply because he thinks he would be copying lutherans or episcopalians, forgetting that he is heir of the whole inheritance of the church, and that his own direct ecclesiastical forbears freely used a liturgy, and even composed some of the most beautiful parts of the book of common prayer; and an episcopalian will not cultivate the gift of expressing himself in prayer in words of his own because this is the practice of other communions. as every communion employs in its hymnal the compositions of men and women who in life were members of almost every branch of the church of christ, so each should as freely use methods of propaganda, or worship, or education, that have been found valuable in any communion. the more freely we borrow from one another, the more highly we shall prize one another, and the more completely we share the same life, the more quickly will our corporate oneness be felt. we must set our faces against allowing congregations to embrace but one social class, or several easily combined social strata in the community. in our american towns the protestant communions are separated more by social caste than by religious conviction. people attend the church where they find "their kind." poor people do not feel themselves at home, even spiritually, among the well-to-do, and the children of comfortable homes are not permitted to go to the same sunday school with the children of the tenements. class lines are as apparent, and almost as divisive, in our churches as anywhere else. the church of christ under such circumstances ceases to be a unifying factor in society; its teaching of brotherhood becomes a mockery. in every community there will be found some entirely unchurched social group; and the churches themselves will be impoverished by the absence of the spiritual appreciations to be found most developed in persons of that stratum. our denominational divisions tend to accentuate our social divisions. church unity, lessening the number of congregations in a locality, would help to make the churches that remained more socially inclusive. meanwhile the "one class church," in any but the very rare homogeneous community, ought to realize that, whatever christian service it may render, it is all the while doing the cause of christ a great disservice, and is in need of a radical reorganization and an equally radical spiritual renewal into its lord's wider sympathies. personally we must rigidly examine ourselves and test our right to be considered members of the body of christ. there are some new testament evidences of the spirit that we must still demand of ourselves. one is loyal obedience to jesus: "no man can say, jesus is lord, but in the holy spirit." a second is filial trust in god: "because ye are sons, god sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying, abba, father." a third is self-devoting love akin to that shown on calvary: "the fruit of the spirit is love;" "by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." and if the spirit is within us, he is eager to work through us. we may be quenching him by laziness, by timidity, by preoccupation. we are of the body of christ only as we are "members each in his part." above all we must constantly remind ourselves of the church's adequacy in god for its work. when we speak of the church we are apt to think first of its limitations; when paul spoke of the church its divine resources were uppermost in his mind--"the church which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." perhaps the church's greatest weakness is unbelief in its own divine sufficiency. we confront the indifference, the worldliness, the wickedness of men; we face an earth hideous with war and hateful with selfishness. we think of the church's often absurdly needless divisions, the backwardness of its thought, the coldness of its devotion, the inefficiency of many of its methods, the want of consecration in a host of its members, the imperfections and limitations of the best and most earnest of them; and we do not really expect any marked advance; we hardly anticipate that the church will hold its own. would not our lord chide us, "o ye of little faith! all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations"? "there are diversities of workings, but the same god who worketh all in all." the church exists to make the world the kingdom of god. in the holy city of john's vision there is no temple, for its whole life is radiant with the presence of god and of the lamb. in the final order there will be no church, for its task is finished when god is all in all. meanwhile the church has no excuse for being except as it continually renders itself less and less necessary. it has to lose itself in sacrificial service in order to save itself. it must never ask itself, "will the community support me?" but "can i inspire the community?" as it seeks to do god's will, it can count on him for daily bread; a more luxurious diet would not be wholesome for its spiritual life. it exists only to spend and be spent in bringing the children of god everywhere one by one under the sway of his love and presenting them perfect in christ, and in putting his spirit in control of homes, industry, amusements, education, government, and the whole life of human society, until we live in "realms where the air we breathe is love." chapter viii the christian life everlasting various factors combine to make it hard for men today to believe vividly in life beyond the grave. our science has emphasized the closeness of the connection between our spiritual life and our bodies. if there be an abnormal pressure upon some part of the brain, we lose our minds; an operation upon a man's skull may transform him from a criminal into a reputable member of society. it is not easy for us to conceive how life can continue after the body dies. diderot put the difficulty more than a century ago: "if you can believe in sight without eyes, in hearing without ears, in thinking without a head, if you could love without a heart, feel without senses, exist when you are nowhere and be something without extension, then we might indulge this hope of a future life." our modern view of the universe no longer leaves us a localized heaven and hell, and we have not the lively imaginations of those older generations to whom the unseen world was as real as the streets they walked and the houses in which they lived. one goes into such a burying place as the campo santo at pisa, or reads dante's _divina comedia_, and the painters who adorned the walls with frescoes depicting the future abodes of the blessed and the damned, and the poet who actually travelled in thought through hell and purgatory and paradise, were as keenly aware of these places as of neighboring italian towns. we lack a definite neighborhood in which to locate the lives that pass from our sight. religious authority is based, today, upon experience, and obviously experience can give no certain knowledge of things future. we are disposed to treat all pictures of the life to come, whether in the bible or out of it, as the projections of men's hopes. they are such stuff as dreams are made on. and at present we are absorbingly interested in the advance of _our_ world's life; we dream of better cities here, rather than of some golden city beyond our horizon; we care far more intensely for lasting earth-wide peace that shall render impossible such awful orgies of death as this present war, than for the peace of a land that lieth afar. men think of the immortality of their influence, rather than of what they themselves will be doing five hundred years hence, and of the social order that shall prevail in the earth in the year 2000, rather than of the social order of the celestial country. immortality is not so much disbelieved, as unthought of. but death is always man's contemporary; and no year goes by for any of us without regretted partings. and if we stop to think of it, we are all of us under sentence, indefinitely reprieved, if you will, but with no more than an interval between ourselves and the tomb. to every thoughtful person the question is forced home, "if a man die, shall he live again?" what did jesus christ contribute towards answering our question? he made everlasting life much more necessary to his followers than to the rest of men. by bringing life to light and showing us how infinitely rich it is, he kindled in us the passion for the second life, and rendered immortality indispensable for christians. christ enhances every man's worth in his own eyes. we find that we mean so much to him and to his god and father, that we come to mean infinitely more to ourselves. "if," writes a modern essayist, "a man feels that his life is spent in expedients for killing time, he finds it hard to suppose that he can go on forever trying to kill eternity. it is when he thinks on the littleness that makes up his day, on the poor trifles he cares for--his pipe, his dinner, his ease, his gains, his newspaper--that he feels so cramped and cribbed, cabined and confined, that he loses the power of conceiving anything vast or sublime--immortality among the rest. when a man rises in his aims and looks at the weal of the universe, and the harmony of the soul with god, then we feel that extinction would be grievous." and it is just this uplift into a new outlook that men find in jesus christ. a second century christian, writing to his friend, diognetus, characterizes christianity as "this new interest which has entered into life." we look upon each day with a fresh expectancy; we view ourselves with a new reverence. the waste wilderness within, from which we despaired of producing anything, must under christ's recreating touch become an eden, where we feel pison and euphrates roll round the great garden of a kingly soul. but is this emparadised life to be some day thrown aside? g.j. romanes, whose christian upbringing had instilled in him the distinctively christian appreciation of the value of his own life, when his scientific opinions robbed him of the hope of immortality, wrote: "although from henceforth the precept 'to work while it is day' will doubtless but gain an intensified force from the terribly intensified meaning of the words that 'the night cometh when no man can work,' yet when at times i think, as think at times i must, of the appalling contrast between the hallowed glory of that creed which once was mine, and the lonely mystery of existence as i now find it, at such times i shall ever feel it impossible to avoid the sharpest pang of which my instinct is susceptible." and jesus increases the significance of people for each other. he possessed and conveys the genius for appreciation. he came that life might become more abundant, and every human relation deeper, tenderer, richer. it is to love that death is intolerable. professor palmer of harvard, a few years ago, delivered a lecture upon _intimations of immortality in the sonnets of shakespere_, in which he showed that, when a man finds himself truly in love, mortality becomes unthinkable to him. and for christians love and friendship contain more than they do for other men. christ takes us more completely out of ourselves and wraps us up in those to whom we feel ourselves bound. he makes life touch life at more points, life draw from life more copious inspirations, life cling to life with more affectionate tenacity. he roots and grounds us in love, and that is to root us in the souls of other men; then to tear them from us irrevocably--parents, children, husband, wife, lover, beloved, friend,--is to leave us of all men most pitiable. love--the prisoned god in man- shows his face glorious, shakes his banner free, cries like a captain for eternity. again, christ gives men an ideal for themselves which in their threescore years and ten, more or less, they cannot hope to achieve: "be ye perfect as your father." jesus himself, in whom we see the father, is for us that which we feel we must be, yet which we never are. immortality becomes a necessity to any man who seriously sets himself to become like jesus. our mistakes and follies, the false starts we make, the tasks we attempt for which we discover ourselves unfit, the waste of time and energy we cannot repair, the tangled snarls into which we wind ourselves and which require years to straighten out, render this life absurd, if it be final. it cannot be more than a series of tentative beginnings, and if there be no continuation, the scheme of things is a gigantic blunder. if jesus does no more than supply us with an ideal hopelessly beyond our attainment and inspire us irresistibly to set out on its quest, he is no saviour but a tormentor. the fiend that man harries is love of the best. we are doomed to a few score years of tantalizing failure, and victory is forever impossible for sheer want of time. further, jesus gives men a vision of a new social order--the kingdom of god--a vision so alluring that, once seen, they cannot but live for its accomplishment. we are fascinated with the prospect of a world where hideous war is unthinkable; where none waste and none want, for brotherhood governs industry and commerce; where nations are animated by a ministering patriotism; and where every contact of life with life is redemptive. but the more fervently we long for this golden age, the more heartily and indignantly we protest against present stupidities and brutalities and injustices, the more passionately we devote ourselves to realize the kingdom, the more titanic this creation of a new order appears. nothing we know can remain unaltered; but the smallest improvement takes an unconscionably long while to execute. haste means folly, and we have to tell ourselves to go slowly. things as they are have a fixity which demands moral dynamite to unsettle. we ache with curiosity to see how our plans and purposes will work out; we would give anything to be in at the finish. but there is death. we just begin, and then--! mr. huxley, a thorough christian so far as his social hope went, though without a christian's faith, wrote to john morley, as age approached, "the great thing one has to wish for as time goes on is vigor as long as one lives, and death as soon as vigor flags." but the allusion to death set his mind on a painful train of thought, and he continued: "it is a curious thing that i find my dislike to the thought of extinction increasing as i get older and nearer the goal. it flashes across me at all sorts of times with a horror that in 1900 i shall probably know no more of what is going on than i did in 1800. i had sooner be in hell a good deal--at any rate in one of the upper circles, where the climate and company are not too trying. i wonder if you are plagued in this way." he was repeating the experience of the old greeks as it is expressed in pindar's _fourth pythian_: "now this, they say, is of all griefs the sorest, that one knowing good should of necessity abide without lot therein." it is glorious to hold up before ourselves the splendors of the age that is to be, to dream of our cities made over in ideals, of our land as a world-wide servant of righteousness and peace, of a whole earth filled with truth and beauty and goodwill; and glorious to give ourselves unremittingly to bring this consummation nearer. but can we be content with no personal share in it? are our lives merely fertilizer for generations yet unborn? oh, dreadful thought, if all our sires and we are but foundations of a race to be,- stones which one thrusts in earth, and builds thereon a white delight, a parian parthenon, and thither, long thereafter, youth and maid seek with glad brows the alabaster shade, and in processions' pomp together bent still interchange their sweet words innocent,- not caring that those mighty columns rest each on the ruin of a human breast,- that to the shrine the victor's chariot rolls across the anguish of ten thousand souls! tennyson once said to professor tyndall that, if he believed he were here simply to usher in something higher than himself in which he could have no personal part or lot, he should feel that a liberty had been taken with him. and when that something higher is the kingdom jesus proclaimed, its devotees cannot forego their longing to share in its perfected life. and, above all, jesus opens up for us an intimacy with god which is both unbearable and incredible without the hope of its continuation beyond the grave. to enter with jesus into sonship with the father, to share god's interests and sympathies and purposes, to become the partner of his plans and labors, and then to think of god as living on while we drop out of existence, is the crowning misery, or rather the supreme confusion. jesus would have pointed to some heartbroken man or woman, like jairus or the widow of nain or the sisters at bethany, and said, "if ye then, being evil, know how to care so intensely for your kindred, and would give your all to keep them with you forever, how much more shall your heavenly father insist on having his own with him eternally?" at professor huxley's own request three lines from a poem by his wife are inscribed upon his tombstone: be not afraid, ye waiting hearts that weep; for still he giveth his beloved sleep, and if an endless sleep he wills, so best. but in such a sentence what possible meaning can be put into the expression "his beloved"? can we conceive of god as really loving us, taking us into his secrets, using us in his purposes, letting us spend and be spent in the fulfilment of his will, and then putting us to an endless sleep? if jesus leads us into the life with god which we christians know, he renders immortality indispensable if god is to maintain his own self-respect. others may do without everlasting life; to some an endless sleep may seem welcome; life has been to them such a mistake and a failure, that they would gladly be quit of it forever; but to followers of jesus its continuance is a passionate and logical longing. ibsen puts into brindel's mouth the words: "i am going homewards. i am homesick for the mighty void; the dark night is best." jesus acclimatizes man's spirit to a far different home, and sets in his heart an altogether different eternity. so insistent are the demands of our souls for the persistence of life with our god in christ, that "if we have only hoped in christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable." already we have passed into jesus' second great contribution toward answering our question of the second life. he assures us of it because of the character of the father we come to know through him. jesus' faith in his own resurrection was based on his personal experience of god. the words from a psalm, which the early church applied to him, sound like an utterance some disciple may have overheard him repeating: thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave, neither wilt thou suffer thy devoted one to see corruption. thou madest known unto me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of gladness in thy presence. love is stronger than death, and for jesus god is love. it was this which made him "the god of the living." jesus could not imagine him linking himself with men, becoming the god of abraham, of isaac, of jacob, and allowing them to become mere handfuls of dust in a hittite grave. his love would hold them in union with him forever. jesus "abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light _through the gospel_"--through the good news concerning god. when he succeeds in convincing us that the universe is our father's house, it requires no further argument to assure us of its "many mansions." the unending fellowship with jesus' god of all his true children is an inevitable inference from what we know his and our god to be. we do not base our confident anticipation of everlasting life merely upon some saying of jesus, which we blindly accept because he said it, nor even upon the report of his own resurrection from the grave; these are too slight foundations for our assured expectation. we rest it firmly upon what we know of his and our father. immortality is not a mere guess nor a fervent wish; we have solid and substantial experience of what god is from all that he has done for his children and for ourselves. and experience worketh hope. faith looks both backwards and forwards, to what god has done and to what he consistently must do; and all the while faith looks upwards, and in his face reads a love that will not let us go. the easter victory of jesus is the vindication of his own faith. god, as lord of heaven and earth, is involved in our world's history; he has been responsible for its outcome from the beginning. if he let the truest son he ever had end his career in defeat and failure, he is a faithless and untrustworthy god. calvary was the supreme venture of faith; jesus staked everything on the responsiveness of the universe to love, in the trust that the god of the universe is love. "if christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain." but if the seeming triumph of wrong over right, of ignorance over truth, of selfishness over sacrifice, which took place at golgotha be but the prelude to a vaster victory, then the lord of earth has cleared himself, and proved himself worthy of the confidence of his children. and of the fact of that victory not only the first disciples are witnesses, but every man and woman since in whose life christ has been and is a present force. explain as we may the details of the resurrection narratives, conceive as we please of the manner in which christ made himself known to his followers in his post-resurrection appearances long ago, we know that he is "no dead fact stranded on the shore of the oblivious years," but a living force in our world today, and that easter triumphs are reenacted wherever his spirit animates the lives of men. history again and again has demonstrated that his labor has not been vain in god; that the whole structure and fabric of things responds to trust and love; that careers such as his cannot be holden of death, but find an ally in the universe itself, which sends them on through the years conquering and to conquer. that demonstration in history confirms jesus' trust in god, sets a public seal which the whole world can see to the correctness of his testimony to him whom he found in the unseen, and in whose cause he laid down his life. and jesus has made still another contribution to the answer of our question: it is through him that we form our pictures of the life to which we look forward so certainly. the new testament expectations center about jesus himself: "with me in paradise;" "where i am, there also shall my servant be;" "i go to prepare a place for you;" "so shall we ever be with the lord." men who had experienced christ's hold upon them, through all the divisive circumstances of life, had no doubt of his continuing grasp upon them through death; they spoke of the christian dead as "the dead in christ"--the dead under his transforming control. not death nor life could separate them from his love. since we see god, the lord of heaven, in jesus, the only and all-satisfying knowledge we have of the future life is that it will accord with the will of the father of jesus christ. of its details we can merely say, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which god hath prepared for them that love him." but we know god in christ: we are certain of many things that cannot be included in a life where his heart has its way; the city of our hope has walls; but it has also gates on all sides and several gates on every side, and we are certain of its hospitability to all that accords with the mind of christ. that which renders the life within the veil not all dark to us is the fact that "the lamb is the light thereof." there is a connection between it and our life today; the one lord rules earth and heaven; and him we know through jesus. humbly acknowledging that we know but in part, glad that the future has in store for us glorious surprises, we are convinced that for us there waits a life in god, in which his children shall attain their christlike selves in christlike fellowship one with another and with him, their christlike father. more than this who cares to know? more than this, for what can christians wish? _adhoesi testimoniis tuis, domine_. psalm, cxviii (119): 31, vulgate. printed in the united states of america religious reality a book for men a. e. j. rawlinson student of christ church, oxford; examining chaplain to the bishop of lichfield; priest-in-charge of st. john the evangelist, wilton road, s.w.; formerly tutor of keble college and late chaplain to the forces. with a preface by the bishop of lichfield 1918 preface by the bishop of lichfield this is a book which is wanted. thoughtful men, in every class, are not afraid of theology, _i.e._ of a reasoned account of their religion, but they want a theology which can be stated without conventions and technicalities; they do not at all care for a religion which pretends to do away with all mystery, but they are glad to be assured of the essential reasonableness of the christian faith; they do not expect a ready-made solution of the problem of evil, but they wish to see it honestly faced; above all, they want to know how christian truth bears on the real problems of life; the best of them are not at all afraid of a religion which makes big demands on them, but they know well enough the difficulty of responding to those claims, and their greatest need of all is to find and to use that life and power, coming from a living person, without which our best aspirations must fail and our highest ideals remain unrealized. these needs seem to me to be satisfactorily and happily met in the following pages. my friend and chaplain, mr. rawlinson, has had good means of knowing what men are and what they want. he has had to do with the undergraduate, with officers and men in the army, and with the ordinary civilian in parish life. he has been able to see the nature and needs of our british manhood at different angles, and he is the sort of man with whom men are not afraid to talk. he has had good opportunity of diagnosing the situation, and this book shows his skill in dealing with it. i do not find myself in agreement with everything in these pages, but when i am conscious of difference of view, i am no less grateful for the stimulus to thought. i am specially thankful that the writer has been so courageous in tackling the most difficult subjects. i know that the author's one desire is to help men to be more real in their religion. i share his hope, and i believe that this book will do much to accomplish it. author's preface this book has grown out of the writer's experience in preparing men and officers in military hospitals for confirmation. it represents, in a considerably expanded but--as it is hoped--still simple form, the kind of things which he would have wished to say to them, and to others with whom he was brought into contact, if he had had more time and opportunity than was usually afforded him. it seemed necessary to write the book, because there did not appear to be in existence any reasonably short book on similar lines which covered the ground of christian faith and practice as a whole, and which approached the subject from the point of view which seems to the writer to be the most real. the writer is consciously indebted in the first chapter to the discussion of our lord's teaching and character in dr. t. b. glover's fascinating book, _the jesus of history_. it is possible that there are other and unconscious obligations which have been overlooked. here and there acknowledgment is made in footnotes, and an occasional phrase, "lifted" from some other writer, has been placed in inverted commas. in chapter viii. of part i. the author has echoed the thought, and to a certain extent the wording, of parts of his own essay on "the principle of authority" in _foundations_. for help in the correction of the proofs, and for criticisms and suggestions which have led to numerous modifications and improvements in matters of detail, the thanks of the writer are due to various friends, and more particularly to his brother, lieutenant a. c. rawlinson, of the queen's own oxfordshire hussars; to the rev. austin thompson, vicar of s. peter's, eaton square; and to the rev. leonard hodgson, vice-principal of s. edmund hall, oxford. _november_, 1917. contents preface by the bishop of lichfield introduction part i the theory of the christian religion chap. i. the man christ jesus ii. the revelation of the father iii. the fellowship of the spirit iv. the holy trinity v. the problem of evil vi. sin and redemption vii. the church and her mission in the world viii. protestant and catholic ix. sacraments x. the last things xi. clergy and laity xii. the bible part ii the practice of the christian religion i. the christian aim ii. the way of the world iii. the spirit and the flesh iv. the works of the devil v. the kingdom of god vi. christianity and commerce vii. christianity and industry viii. christianity and politics ix. christianity and war x. love, courtship, and marriage part iii the maintenance of the christian life i. how to begin ii. prayer iii. self-examination and repentance iv. corporate worship and communion v. the devotional use of the bible vi. almsgiving and fasting introduction vital religion begins for a man when lie first discovers the reality of the living god. most men indeed profess a belief in god, a vague acknowledgment of the existence of "one above": but the belief counts for little in their lives. god, if he exists at all, must obviously be important: and it is conceivable that he prefers the dogmatic atheism of a man here and a man there, or the serious agnosticism of a slightly larger number, to the practical indifference of the majority. "there are two attitudes, and only two, which are worthy of a serious man: to serve god with his whole heart, because he knows him; or to seek god with his whole heart, because he knows him not." the ordinary englishman is in most cases nominally a christian. as a rule he has been admitted in infancy by baptism into the christian church. but he is ignorant of the implications of his baptism, and indifferent to the claims of a religion which he fails to understand. these pages are written with the object of explaining what, in the writer's judgment, the faith and practice of the christian church really is. part i the theory of the christian religion chapter i the man christ jesus it is best to begin with a study of the teaching and character of christ. scholars for about a hundred years have been studying the gospels historically, "like any other books." it is now reasonably certain that the first three gospels--those which we know as the gospels according to s. matthew, s. mark, and s. luke--though not, of course, infallible or accurate in their every detail, reflect nevertheless in a general way a trustworthy portrait of jesus as he actually lived. the sayings ascribed to christ in their pages bear the marks of originality. the outline of the events which they describe may be taken as being in rough correspondence with the facts. the gospels as a whole represent pretty faithfully the impression made by the life and character of jesus upon the minds and memories of those who knew him best. we are very apt to regard the gospels conventionally. an inherited orthodoxy which has made peace with the world takes them for granted as "a tale of little meaning, though the words are strong." an impatient reaction from orthodoxy sets them aside as incomprehensible or unimportant. it is worth while making the effort to empty our minds of prejudice, and to allow the gospels to tell their own tale. we shall find that they bring us face to face with a portrait of surprising freshness and power. it is the portrait of one who spent the first thirty years of his life in an obscure galilaean village, and who in early manhood worked as a carpenter in a village shop. he first came forward in public in connexion with a religious revival initiated by john the baptist. he was baptized in the jordan. what his baptism meant to him is symbolized by the account of a vision which he saw, and a voice which designated him as son of god. he became conscious of a religious mission, and was at first tempted to interpret his mission in an unworthy way, to seek to promote spiritual ends by temporal compromises, or to impress men's minds by an appeal to mystery or miracle. he rejected the temptation, and proclaimed simply god and his kingdom. he is said to have healed the sick and to have wrought other "signs and mighty works": but he set no great store by these things, and did not wish to be known primarily as a wonder-worker. he lived the life of an itinerating teacher, declaring to any who cared to listen the things concerning the kingdom of god. at times he was popular and attracted crowds: but he cared little for popularity, wrapped up his teaching in parables, and repelled by his "hard sayings" all but a minority of earnest souls. he gave offence to the conventionalists and the religiously orthodox by the freedom with which he criticized established beliefs and usages, by his championship of social outcasts, and by his association with persons of disreputable life. unlike john the baptist, he was neither a teetotaller nor a puritan. he was not a rigid sabbatarian. he despised humbug, hypocrisy, and cant: and he hated meanness and cruelty. he could be stern with a terrible sternness. his gaze pierced through all disguises, and he understood the things that are in the heart of man. he saw things naked. he has been called "the great son of fact." he was never under any illusions. he faced the hostility of public opinion with unflinching courage. he expected to be crucified, and crucified he was. he warned those who followed him to expect a similar fate. he claimed from men an allegiance that should be absolute: the ties of home and kindred, of wealth or position in the world, were to be held of no account: anything which stood in the way of entire discipleship to himself, however compelling its immediate claim, was to be sacrificed without hesitation for his sake. he saw nothing inconsistent between this concentration of men's allegiance upon his own person, and his insistence upon god as the one great reality that mattered. the motive of his whole life was consecration to the will of god. he was rich towards god, where other men are poor. the words were true of him, as of no one else, "i have set god always before me." his mission among men he fulfilled as a work which his father had given him to do. "lo, i come to do thy will, o god." he loved men, and went about doing good, because he knew that god loved men, and meant well by them, and desired good for them, and not evil. he was pitiful, because god is pitiful. he hated evil, because god hates it. he loved purity, because god is pure. he delighted in friendships both with men and women: but you could not imagine anything unclean in his friendships. he was not married, but he looked upon marriage as an utterly pure and holy thing, taught that a man should leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife so that they twain should be one flesh, and recognized no possibility of divorce except--and even this is not quite certain--on the ground of marital unfaithfulness. he had one and the same standard of purity for men and women. he loved children, the birds and the flowers, the life of the open air: but he was equally at home in the life of the town. he went out to dinner with anybody who asked him: he rejoiced in the simple hilarity of a wedding feast. he was a believer in fellowship, and in human brotherhood. he was everybody's friend, and looked upon no one as beyond the pale. he loved sinners and welcomed them, without in the least condoning what was wrong. he looked upon the open and acknowledged sinner as a more hopeful person from the religious point of view than the person who was self-satisfied and smug. he said that he came to seek and to save those who knew themselves to be lost. he chose twelve men to be in an especial sense his disciples--learners in his school. to them he sought to reveal something of his deeper mind. he tried to make them understand that true royalty consists in service; that if a man would be spiritually great he should choose for himself the lowest room, and become the servant of all; that the privilege of sitting on his right hand and on his left in his kingdom was reserved for those for whom it was prepared by his father; the important thing was whether a man was prepared to drink his cup of suffering, and be baptized with his baptism of blood. but he did speak of himself as king, he accepted the designation of himself as the christ of god, and spoke strange words about his coming upon the clouds of heaven to judgment. he held that by their relation to himself and to his ideals the lives of all men should be tested, and the verdict passed upon their deeds. for making these and similar claims he was convicted of blasphemy and put to death. his disciples failed to understand him. the gospels are full of the contrast between their minds and his. of the chosen twelve who, as he said, had continued with him in his trials and to whom he promised that they should eat and drink at his table in his kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of israel, one betrayed and one denied him when the time of crisis came, and the rest forsook him and fled. the fact that their faith and loyalty were subsequently reestablished--that the execution which took place on calvary was not the complete and summary ending of the whole christian movement--that, in the days that followed, the recreant disciples became the confident apostles, requires for its explanation the assertion in some form of the truth of the resurrection. with regard to the precise form which the resurrection took there may be room for differences of opinion: the accounts of the risen jesus in the various gospel records cannot be completely harmonized, and the story may here and there have been modified in the telling. the fact remains that apart from the assumption as a matter of historical truth that jesus was veritably alive from the dead, and that he showed himself alive to his disciples by evidences which were adequate to carry conviction to their incredulous minds, the origins of historical christianity cannot really be explained. in the gospel according to s. john it is stated that the crowds said of jesus, "this is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world": and so much, at the least, the average englishman is ready to admit: for to call jesus christ a prophet--even to call him the supreme prophet--is to claim for him no more than a good mohammedan claims for mohammed. the word "prophet" in itself means one who speaks on behalf of another: and a prophet is defined to be a spokesman on behalf of god. he is essentially a man with a message. in so far as he is a true prophet he is one who by an imperious inner necessity is constrained to declare to his fellows a word which has come to him from the lord. and the prophet's word is urgent: it brooks no delay. it is impatient of conventionalisms and shams. it breaks through the established order of things in matters both social and religious. it is dynamic, vivid, revolutionary. it goes to the root of things, with a startling directness, a kind of explosive force. it disturbs and shatters the customary placidities of men's lives. it forces them to face spiritual realities, to look the truth in the face. all this is true in a pre-eminent degree of the words of christ. there is a force and directness, an energy and intensity about his teaching, which is without parallel in the history of the world. it might have been thought impossible for his utterances, in any age or under any circumstances, to become conventionalized: but the miracle has been achieved. christianity is to the average englishman an established convention and nothing more. "blessed are the poor in spirit," said jesus: but _we_ say rather, "blessed are the rich in substance." "blessed are they that mourn": but that is not the general opinion. "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"--but who amongst us really believes it? "blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." "blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy": but to-day a more popular maxim is, "be not merciful unto them that offend of malicious wickedness." "blessed are the pure in heart"--and how many of us are that? "blessed are the peace-makers": but in a time of war they are not very favourably regarded. "blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake"--is that _your_ ambition, or mine? "ye are the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world"--then the earth, it is to be feared, is a somewhat insipid place, and its light comparable to darkness visible. "if any man will come after me, let him take up his cross, and follow me": but most of us make it a tacit condition of our christianity that we shall _not_ be crucified. is it not true that we habitually refuse to take seriously his teaching about man; that we water down his paradoxes and conventionalize his sayings; that we blunt the sharpness of his precepts, and shirk the tremendous sternness of his demands? and does his teaching about god fare any better? god was to jesus christ the one reality that mattered; is that in any serious sense true of us? god, he taught, cares for the sparrows, numbers the hairs of our heads, sees in secret, and reads our inmost hearts. god knows all about us, loves us individually, thinks out our life in all its relations, and makes provision accordingly. there is nothing which he cannot or will not do for his children. he is near and not far off: he is also on the throne of all things-the universe is in our father's hand, and his will directs it. "o ye of little faith, wherefore did ye doubt?" fear, on the ground that things are stormy, is a thing christ simply cannot understand. god, moreover, is loving and generous, royal and bounteous: forgiving sinners: sending his rain with divine impartiality upon the just and the unjust alike. "his flowers are just as beautiful in the bad man's garden." he loves even his enemies, for he is equally the father of all. and man is made for god, and belongs to god. god and man need one another: all that is requisite is that they should find one another: and that is the good news. the discovery of god is the pearl of great price, a treasure worth the sacrifice of everything else: the experience of a life-time, and a life-time's acquisitions, apart from god, are not worth anything at all. we who call ourselves christians, do we seriously believe these things? do we really share christ's outlook upon god, or his hope for man? is our view of life centred in god, as was his? or do his words of reproach fit us, as they fitted s. peter--"you think like a man, and not like god"? "the way to faith in god, and to love for man," it has been said, "is to come nearer to the living jesus." if we would learn christ's great prophecy about man and god, we must read the gospels over again, with awakened eyes. we must take seriously the man christ jesus. we must hear the words of his prophecy, and face honestly the challenge of his sayings. we must confront the central figure of the gospels in all its tremendous realism, watering down nothing, explaining nothing away; "wrestling with jesus of nazareth as jacob wrestled with the angel, and refusing to let him go except he bless us." in the end he does bless those who wrestle with him, and we shall not in the end be able to stop short of confessing him as god. for the message of the gospel story is ultimately not even the teaching of christ: it is christ himself. he, alone among the world's teachers, perfectly practised what he preached, and embodied what he taught. and therefore the truth of god and the ideal for man in him are one. in him we see man as he ought to be, man as he is meant to be. and because we instinctively judge that the highest human nature is divine, and because also we feel that god himself would be most divine and worshipful if we could conceive of him as entering in and sharing our human experience and revealing himself as man, those who have reflected most deeply about the matter have commonly been led to believe that so indeed it is. they have felt that in jesus christ man, as the mirror and the son of god, reflects the father's glory. they have felt that in jesus christ god, the eternal source of all things, has expressed and revealed himself in a human life: that god has spoken a word, a word which is the expression of himself: and that the word is christ. "have i been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, philip? he that hath seen me, hath seen the father." for there is, in truth, something in jesus of nazareth which compels our worship. and if we will take seriously the human jesus we shall discover in the end deity revealed in manhood, and we shall worship him in whom we have believed. but that, of course, is dogma: in other words, it is the deliberate judgment of christian faith. it is the expression, as a truth for the mind, of the value which a soul which is spiritually awake comes to set upon jesus because it cannot do otherwise. a judgment like that is the conclusion--it ought not to be taken as the starting-point--of faith. there are many, of course, who are willing to begin by assuming provisionally that it is true, upon the authority of others who bear witness to it: and that is not an unreasonable thing to do, provided a man afterwards verifies it in the experience of his own life. but belief in the divinity of jesus is too tremendous a confession lightly to be taken for granted by mere half-believers of a casual creed. convictions worth having must sooner or later be fought for: they must be won by the sweat of the brow. and if a man is not content permanently to defer to the authority of others, he ought not to begin by taking for granted the doctrine that jesus is god. he ought to begin as the apostles began, by taking seriously the _man_ christ jesus. chapter ii the revelation of the father it was characteristic of the ancient jews that they had a vital belief in the living god: and belief in god, and that of a far more real and definite kind than the modern englishman's vague admission of the existence of a supreme being, was a thing which jesus was able to take for granted in those to whom he spoke. god to the jew was the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob, holy and righteous, gracious and merciful: active and operative in the world, the controller of events: having a purpose for israel and for the world, which in the process of the world's history was being wrought out, and which would one day find complete and adequate fulfilment in the setting up of god's eternal kingdom. what jesus did by his life and teaching was to deepen and intensify existing faith in god by the revelation of god as father, and to revive and quicken the expectation of god's kingdom by the proclamation of its near approach. the application to god of the term "father" was not new: but the revelation of what god's fatherhood meant in the personal life and faith of jesus himself as son of god was something entirely new: while in jesus' preaching of the divine kingdom there was a note of freshness and originality, and a spiritual assurance of certainty, which carried conviction of an entirely new kind to the minds and hearts of those who listened. all the more overwhelming must have seemed to the disciples the disaster of their master's crucifixion. it was not merely that the hopes which in their minds had gathered about his person were shattered: their very faith in god himself, and in the goodness of god, was for the time being torn up by the roots. nothing but an event as real and as objective as the crucifixion itself could have reversed for them this impression of sheer catastrophe. the resurrection of jesus, which was for them the wonder of wonders, not only restored to them their faith in him as the christ of god, now "declared to be the son of god with power by the resurrection from the dead"; it also relaid for them the foundations of faith in god and in his goodness and love upon a basis of certainty henceforth never to be shaken. "this is the message which we have heard of him and declare unto you, that god is light, and in him is no darkness at all." meanwhile what of jesus himself--this christ, through their relationship to whom they had come by this new experience of the reality of god? in symbolical vision they saw him ascend up into the heavens and vanish from bodily sight: in pictorial language they spoke of him as seated at god's right hand. they were assured nevertheless-and multitudes in many generations have echoed their conviction--that he was still in their midst unseen, their living master and lord. instinctively they prayed to him. through him they made their approach to the father. he had transformed for them their world. he was the light of their lives. in him was truth. he was their way to god. all the great movement of christian thought in the new testament is concerned in one way or another with the working out of this experienced significance of jesus. the maturest expression of what he meant to them is contained in the great reflective gospel--an interpretation rather than a simple portrait of the historical jesus-which is ascribed by tradition to s. john. the christ of the fourth gospel is man, with all the attributes of most real and genuine manhood: but he is also more than man. he is the self-utterance--the word--of god. he came forth from god, and went to god. he is the revelation of the father, the expression of god's nature and being "in the intelligible terms of a human life." to have seen him is to have seen the father, because he and the father are one. he is the way, the truth, and the life: the bread that came down from heaven: the fountain of living water: the lamb of god, that taketh away the sin of the world. later christian orthodoxy never got farther than this. all that the formal doctrine of the incarnation--as expressed, for example, in such a formulary as the athanasian creed--can truly be said to amount to is just the double insistence that christ is at once truly and completely man, and also truly and completely god. the paradox is left unreconciled--"yet he is not two, but one christ." the godhead is expressed in manhood: in the manhood we see god. what does it mean to confess the deity of christ? it means just this: that we take the character of christ as our clue to the character of god: that we interpret the life of christ as an expression of the life of god: that we affirm the conviction, based upon deep and unshakable personal experience, that "god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself." what is the real question, the most fundamental of questions, which arises when we seek to interpret the world we live in? is it not just the question: what is the nature or character of the ultimate power or principle or person upon which or upon whom the world depends? is not every religion, every imagined deity, in one sense an altar to the unknown god? the venture of christian faith consists in staking all upon the assumption, the hypothesis abundantly verified in the life's experience of such as make it, that the character of the unknown god is revealed in christ: that the love of christ is the expression of the love of god, the sufferings of christ an expression of the suffering of god, the triumph of christ an expression of the eternal victory of god over all the evil and wickedness which mars the wonder of his creation. if we were to look primarily at the life of nature, we might be tempted to say that god was cruel. if we considered certain of the works of man, we might be tempted to conclude that god was devilish. looking at jesus we gain the assurance that god is love. we behold "the light of the knowledge of the glory of god in the face of jesus christ," and we are satisfied. and so we come to jesus--the prophet that is come into the world: and what we shall find, if we will suffer him to work his work in us, is this. he will change our world for us, and will transform it. he will redeem our souls, so that there shall be in us a new birth, a new creation. he will show us the father, and it shall suffice us. he will set our feet on the road to calvary, and we shall rejoice to be crucified with him. he will convert us--he will turn our lives inside out, so that they shall have their centre in god, and no longer in ourselves. he will bestow on us the spirit without measure, so that we shall be sons and daughters of the highest. and we shall know that we are of god, even though the whole world lieth in wickedness. and we shall know that the son of god is come, and that he hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and that we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ. chapter iii the fellowship of the spirit to know god and to find him revealed in jesus christ is not enough. to have set before one in the human life of jesus an ideal of character, a pattern of perfect manhood for imitation, if the message of the gospel were regarded as stopping short at that point, could only be discouraging to men conscious of moral weakness, of spiritual impotence and incapacity. it is probable that one of the reasons why the plain man to-day is so very apt to regard christianity as consisting in the profession of a standard of ideal morality to which he knows himself to be personally incapable of attaining, and which those who do profess it fail conspicuously to practise, is to be found in the entire absence from his mind and outlook of any conception of the holy spirit, or any belief in the availability of the spirit as a source of transforming energy and power in the lives of men. as a matter of fact, the doctrine of the holy spirit is of absolutely vital importance in the christian scheme: and like all the great christian doctrines, it has its basis in the realities of living experience. the opening chapters of the acts of the apostles set before us the picture of the earliest disciples, assured and no longer doubtful of the reality of the resurrection, waiting in jerusalem for a promised endowment of "power from on high." and the story of pentecost is the record of the fulfilment of "the promise of the father." we are making a mistake if we fix our attention primarily upon the outward symbols of wind and fire, or confuse our minds with the perplexities which are suggested by the references to "speaking with tongues." these things--however wonderful to the men of the apostolic generation--are in themselves only examples of the psychological abnormalities which not infrequently accompany religious revivals. they are, as it were, the foam on the crest of the wave: evidences upon the surface of profounder forces astir in the deeper levels of personality. the disciples felt themselves taken hold of and transformed. henceforth they were new men. "god had sent into their hearts through jesus christ a power not of this world: only such a power could achieve what history assures us was achieved by those early christians. by its compelling influence they found themselves welded together into a religious and social community, a fellowship of faith and hope and love, the true israel, the church of the living god. enabled to become daily more and more like jesus, they developed an ever fuller comprehension of his unique significance: and so they went about carrying on the work and teaching which he had begun on earth, certain that he was with them and energizing in them. they healed the sick in mind and body, they convinced jewish and pagan consciences of sin and its forgiveness, they created a new morality, and established a new hope: life and immortality were brought to light. and then, as need arose, they were inspired to write those books of the new testament, in which their wonderful experience of god at work in them remains enshrined, the norm and standard of christian faith and practice for all time. the power which enabled them to do all this they called the holy spirit." [footnote: _the holy spirit,_ by r. g. parsons, in _the meaning of the creed_. (s.p.c.k., 1917)] to be "filled with the spirit," to be "endued with power from on high," to be made free by the spirit, so as to be free indeed-released from the tyranny of a dead past, from bondage to law and literalism, from the power of sin and of evil habit--and to be brought forth into the glorious liberty of the sons of god: this was a very vital and essential part of what christianity meant in the experience of those first disciples. the new morality of the gospel, the new righteousness which was to exceed the righteousness of pharisees and scribes, was a thing as widely removed as possible from painful conformity to the letter of an external code: it was a fruit--a spontaneous outcome--of the spirit. s. paul has described for us the fruits of the spirit as he had seen them manifested in the lives of men--"love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control": they are the essential lineaments of the character of christ: they are summed up in the thirteenth chapter of 1 corinthians in s. paul's great hymn to charity or love, which itself reads like yet another portrait of the christ. a christianity which through the spirit brought forth such fruits was true to type. the spirit, in short, reproduced in men the life of filial relationship towards god: he is described as the spirit of adoption, whereby men are enabled to cry abba, father. the holy spirit, moreover, is a spirit of insight and interpretation, quickening men's faculties, enlightening their minds, enabling them to see, and to understand. he brings to remembrance the things of christ and unfolds their significance: under his inspiration christian preaching was developed, and a christian doctrine about christ and about god. in confident reliance upon his advocacy and his support the apostles were made bold to confront in the name of jesus a hostile world. is it any wonder that in the eyes of their contemporaries they appeared as men possessed, as men made drunk with the new wine of some strange ecstasy, or mad with the fervour of some inexplicable exaltation? yet the spirit did not normally issue in ecstasy. it is not the way of god to over-ride men's reason, or to place their individual personalities in abeyance. the operation of the spirit is to be seen rather--apart from his work in the gradual purification and deepening of character and motive, the bringing to birth and development in men's souls of the "new man" who is "christ in them, the hope of glory"--in the intensification of men's normal faculties and gifts, and the direction of their exercise into channels profitable to the well-being of the community. for the holy spirit is the spirit of brotherhood: and his gifts are bestowed "for the fitting of god's people for the work of mutual service": they are for the upbuilding of the body of christ. the real miracle of the christian life is simply the christian life itself: and that a man should love his neighbour as himself is at least as wonderful as that he should speak with tongues. reflecting upon the experience which had come to them, christian men came to see that the holy spirit, who was the spirit of the father and the son, was divine, even as jesus was divine. in this strange power which had transformed their lives they discovered god, energizing and operative in their hearts. instinctively they worshipped and glorified the spirit as the lord, the giver of life. those who have entered upon any genuine measure of christian experience are not prepared to say that they were wrong. the christian life depends upon the spirit, now as then. only in the power of the holy spirit is christianity possible, and no one ever yet made any real advance in personal religion except in dependence upon an enabling energy of which the source was not in himself. "it is the spirit that maketh alive." "the spirit helpeth our infirmities." "i know that in myself, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." "if ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly father give the holy spirit to them that ask him." it is because of our lack of any living or effectual belief in the holy spirit, and because of our consequent failure to seek his inspiration and to submit ourselves to his influence, that the christianity of men to-day is often so barren and so poor a thing; and the corporate life of christendom languishes for the same reason. the church is meant to be a fellowship, a brotherhood: the most real and living brotherhood on earth. men find to-day the realization of brotherhood in a regiment: they find it in a school or in a club: in a trade union: or in such an organization as the workers' educational association. they fail to find it in the church of christ. the church can never be a brotherhood save in the holy spirit: for christianity is essentially and before all things a religion of the spirit, and the external organization and institutions of the church, apart from "his vivifying breath, are a mere empty shell. where there is no vision the people perish: and it is only under the inspiration of the spirit that men see visions and dream dreams. come from the four winds, o breath, and breathe upon these dry bones of our modern churchmanship, that we may live: and so at last shall we stand upright on our feet, an exceeding great army, and go forth conquering and to conquer in the train of the victorious christ." chapter iv the holy trinity god, as christianity reveals him, is no cold or remote being, no abstract principle-of-all-things, reposing aloof and impersonal in the stillness of an eternal calm. he is rather the boundless energy of an eternal life--"no motionless eternity of perfection, but an overflowing vitality, an inexhaustible fecundity, the everlasting well-spring of all existence." he is the eternal creator of all things; not indeed in any sense which commits us to a literal acceptance of the mythology of genesis, but in the sense that the created universe has its origin in his holy and righteous will, and that upon him all things depend. "in affirming that the world was made by god, we do not affirm that it was ready-made from the beginning." the work of creation is still going on. god is eternally making all things new. the nature of god, in so far as the mind and affections of man are capable of knowing him and entering into relationships with him, is revealed in jesus christ his son, and the revelation is completed and made intelligible by the manifestation of the holy spirit. s. paul expressed the practical content of god's self-disclosure in his phrase "the grace of our lord jesus christ, and the love of god, and the fellowship of the holy ghost." later christian thinkers worked it out into the doctrine of the holy trinity, the conception of god as at once three in one, and one in three. to the plain man the doctrine of the holy trinity is something of a puzzle--on the face of it an arithmetical paradox; suggestive, moreover, of the abstract subtleties of speculation rather than of the concrete realities of religious life. but the doctrine did not have its origin, as a matter of historical fact, in any perverse love of subtlety or speculation. it certainly arose out of living realities of spiritual experience. it arose as the result of an attempt, on the part of the earliest christian believers, to think out the meaning of what had happened in their religious lives, and to express it in speech and thought. what was this thing that had come to them, this thing which had changed their whole outlook upon the world, which had transformed their very inmost souls and made them new men, full of a new vision and a new hope? something tremendous had happened in their lives. they were confident that it held the secret of _all_ life, for them and for others. it was a new, an overwhelming, a conclusive revelation of god. they proclaimed it: they were constrained also to think about it. they had to find ways of expressing it. they had to think out what it meant. there was jesus christ. who was he? what did he mean? what was his relation to man, and to god? certainly he had shed light upon god, and upon god's nature. through his teaching, his character, his life and death, the conception of god was filled with a new meaning. in him god was revealed with a fulness that had never been before. he disclosed more of god's inmost character, and more of the relation which he bears to men. "he that hath seen me hath seen the father"--the disciples felt that this witness was true. by admitting to their thought of god all that the life of jesus brought, they filled with fresh glory christ's favourite word for god--"your father which is in heaven." in jesus, they felt, god was expressed: his relationship to god was unique. they found the divine in him as in no other. they knew that god was in that life because he had spoken and acted there. "through the eyes of jesus" god looked out upon the world, and in jesus' love and purity and yearning for the sinful and the heavy-laden, god himself became visible. they knew now what god was like. god was like christ. it was his glory that shone in jesus' face. it was a new vision of him when "jesus of nazareth passed by." in the grace--that is, the beauty, the glory and attractiveness--of the lord jesus christ they saw a revelation of the love of god, a love that yearned over the fallen and the sorrowful, a love that suffered, and through suffering brought redemption. but there was something more. it was not simply that in jesus christ god had been brought near, so that they felt they knew god as never before. there was in the experience which had come to them more than simply a revealer and a revealed. there was the spirit which took possession of them, a transforming inward power: a power able to reproduce in them, by a process of growth from more to more, that character of christ in whose lineaments they had discerned the nature of the eternal god himself. there was a presence abiding in their midst, dwelling within them, a breath of the divine life which every christian knew: a presence which brought strength and comfort, power and love and discipline, and bore fruits of love and joy and peace. who or what was it? an influence from on high? yes: but it seemed more intimate, more personal than any mere "influence," more indissolubly one with them, knitting them into a fellowship in which they were united with the father and the son. "truly our fellowship is with the father, and with his son jesus christ." the spirit which bore such fruits in them, which brought them into so intimate a fellowship with god in christ, they recognized as the spirit of god, as the presence in them of very god himself. god, they felt, was not a being far off, an influence telling upon men from a distance. he was the very secret of life, "closer than breathing, nearer than hands and feet," so that each soul was meant to be a sacred "temple of god," "god abiding in him and he in god." god came in the son, god had come also and equally in the spirit. the eternal source of all things, who was known and worshipped as the living one even before christ came, was made more fully known in christ, and now he was still more intimately made known in the inmost spiritual life of every day. that was christian experience. that was the experience out of which the doctrine of the trinity arose. it arose out of an attempt to think the thing out. if we to-day find the doctrine difficult, at least the experience was and is both simple and profound. and we cannot help thinking about it. it may be that sometimes we think we would rather be content to say simply with s. john that "god is love." and that is truly the simplest of christian creeds. if we were able fully to understand it, it would be sufficient. "holy trinity, whatever else it may signify, is a mode of saying 'holy love.'" but as a matter of fact it is only through the revelation of the grace of the lord jesus christ and the fellowship of the holy spirit that we can ever come to understand the love of god. in the christian gospel god is revealed first as father, secondly as sufferer, thirdly as the spirit of eternally victorious life: and it takes the whole threefold revelation to express with any fulness the rich wonder of what is meant by saying that god is love. our minds cannot help passing from the contemplation of the threefold character of god's self-revelation to the thought of a certain threefoldness in god himself. we have to find room and place for such a thought--the thought that god is _eternally_ love, that he is _eternally_ father, son, and spirit--and yet at the same time not depart from the fundamental christian conviction that god is one. it is to be feared that many christian people do sometimes come dangerously near to believing in three separate gods, and what we call unitarianism is a one-sided protest against such a tendency. god is indeed a unity: and so far unitarianism is right. but unitarianism is less than the full christian faith in god, because it fails to do justice to the full riches of christian experience, the many-sided wonder of god revealed in christ, and made real to us here and now by the operation of the spirit in our hearts. we are driven to say that god is not only one, but three in one. nevertheless, if any one finds the _theory_ of the holy trinity difficult let him not be overmuch dismayed. let him learn to know god as father and jesus christ as lord and saviour: let him learn to know the holy spirit as an energy of eternal life and inspiration in his heart. he will then be _in effect_ a trinitarian believer, even though the theologians seem to him to talk a language which he does not understand: even though--to tell the truth--he is not greatly interested by what they say. at the same time, there is need that people should think out the meaning of the christian revelation of god: perhaps that they should think it out afresh. it is possible to be technically orthodox and correct in doctrine and yet to miss the true reality of what god means. the conception of god as father implies that god has eternally a son: the life of jesus christ as son of god reveals to us the quality of that divine fatherhood to which his sonship corresponds. the spirit, as the divine energy proceeding from the father and the son, is the assurance that the life of god can never be self-contained or aloof, but is for ever going forth from himself, so as to be eternally operative and active, alike in the processes of nature and in the lives of men. for "the spirit of the lord filleth the world," and the divine wisdom "reacheth from one end to the other mightily, and sweetly ordereth all things." it follows that christianity, the religion of the spirit, can never stand still. not stagnation, but life, is its characteristic note, even "that eternal life which was with the father, and hath been manifested unto us." the church which is truly alive unto god, and aflame with the spirit of allegiance to him who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, the church which is truly quickened and inspired by the spirit of truth and love and power, will always be ready to "live dangerously" in the world, not shrinking timorously from needed change or experiment, not holding aloof from conflict and adventure and movement, but facing courageously all new situations and new phases whether of life or of thought as they arise, shirking no issues, welcoming all new-found truth, bringing things both new and old out of her treasure-house, so that she may both "prove all things" and also "hold fast that which is good." there are conceptions of god proclaimed from christian pulpits which are less than the full christian conception of god. the god who is eternal energy and life and love, the god who is revealed in christ, and whose spirit is the spirit of freedom and brotherhood and truth, is neither the tyrant god of the calvinist, nor the dead-alive god of the traditionalist, nor the obscurantist god of those who would decry knowledge and quench the spirit. neither, again, is god the god of militarists, a god who delights in carnage--even though it should be the carnage of germans; or the god who is thought of by his worshippers as being mainly the god of the sacristy, a kind of "supreme guardian of the clerical interest in europe." least of all is god the commonplace deity of commonplace people, a sort of placid personification of respectability, the god whose religion is the religion of "the conservative party at prayer." he is a consuming energy of life and fire. his eyes are "eyes of flame," and his inmost essence a white-hot passion of sacrifice and of self-giving. at the heart of his self-revelation there is a cross, the eternal symbol of the almightiness of love: the cross which is the source and the secret of all true victory, and newness of life, and peace. this, and none other, is the god whom truly to know is everlasting life, and whom to serve is liberty. for he it is who has made us unto himself, with hearts that are restless until they rest in him. to do his will is to realize the object of our existence as human beings: for it is to fulfil the purpose for which we have our being, the end for which we were created; even to glorify god, and to enjoy him for ever. chapter v the problem of evil but are not the evil and misery of the world, is not all that which we know as "sin" and pain, in manifest contradiction to this christian conception of a god of love? most certainly they are: and it has been the strength of christianity from the beginning that--unlike many rival systems and philosophies, including the "christian science" movement of modern times--it has always faced facts, and in particular has never regarded pain and sin, disease and sorrow and death, as anything but the stubborn realities which in point of fact they are. if we ask, indeed, how and why it was that evil, whether physical or moral, originally came into the world, the gospel returns no answer, or an answer which, at best, merely echoes the ancient mythology of jewish traditional belief--"by the envy of the devil sin entered into the world, and death by sin": an answer which indeed denies emphatically that evil had its origin in god, and declares its essential root to lie in opposition to his will, but without attempting any explanation of the difficulty of conceiving how opposition to the will of god is possible. the gospel is concerned with issues that are practical rather than strictly theoretical: and the really practical problem with regard to evil is not how it is to be explained but how it is to be overcome. if we ask how evil first arose, the only honest answer is that we do not know: though we can see how the possibility, at least, of moral evil (as distinct from mere physical pain) is implicit of necessity in the existence of moral freedom. the question is sometimes asked, "if god is omnipotent, why does he permit evil?" but the doctrine of divine omnipotence is misconceived when it is interpreted to mean that god is able to accomplish things inherently self-contradictory. god is omnipotent only in the sense that he is supreme over all things, and able to do all possible things. he is not able to do impossible things: and to make man free, and yet to prevent him from doing evil if he so chooses, is a thing impossible even to god. man is left free to crucify his maker, and he has availed himself of his freedom by crucifying both his maker and his fellow-man. if we ask, "why does not god prevent war? why does he permit murder and cruelty and rapine?" the answer is that he could only prevent these things by dint of over-riding the will of man by force: and moreover that it is not the method of god to do for man what man is perfectly well able to do for himself. for wars would cease if men universally desired not to fight. we are really raising a much more difficult question if we ask, "why does god allow cancer?" and to this, it may be, there is no completely satisfactory answer to be given: though it is possible to see that cancer and other diseases have a biological function, and also to recognize that the endurance of pain in some cases (though not in all) ennobles and deepens character. the writer of the epistle to the hebrews does not hesitate to say of christ himself that he "learned obedience by the things which he suffered." in general it must be said that christianity does not afford any complete theoretical solution of the problem of evil: what it does is to provide a point of view which sets evil in a new light, and which is adequate for the purposes of practical life. it teaches us that physical suffering, so far as it is inevitable, is to be endured and turned to spiritual profit, as a thing which is capable of bearing fruit in the deepening and discipline of character: and that moral evil is to be overcome, by the power of the grace of god in christ. if we ask, "why should the innocent suffer?" the christian answer is contained in the cross. "christ also suffered, being guiltless": and although, if christ were regarded simply as a man and nothing more, this fact would merely intensify the problem, the matter assumes a different complexion if christ be regarded as the revelation of god. for if so, then suffering enters into the experience of god himself, and so far from god being indifferent to the sorrow and misery of the world, he shares it, and is victorious through it. "in all their affliction, he was afflicted." god is himself a sufferer, the supreme sufferer of all, and finds through suffering the instrument of his triumph. but if this be true, then all suffering everywhere is set in a new and a transfiguring light, for it assumes the character of a challenge to become partaker in the sufferings and triumph of the christ. "can ye drink of the cup that i drink of?" so interpreted, suffering ceases to be a ground of petulance or of complaint. it is discovered to have a value. it is judged to be worth while. and it is possible to find in such a faith the grounds of a conviction that behind and beneath all suffering is the love which redeems it and the purpose which shall one day justify it, and that in very truth no sparrow falls to the ground without the heavenly father's knowledge and care. chapter vi sin and redemption the gospel affirms that men are called to be sons of god; to be perfect, as the heavenly father is perfect. the correlative of this ideal view of man as he is meant to be is a sombre view of man as he actually is. "if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of god." sin is essentially a falling short, a missing of the mark, a failure to correspond with the purpose and the will of god. it need not necessarily involve--though of course it does in many instances involve--the deliberate transgression of a moral law which the conscience of the individual sinner recognizes as such. there are sins of omission as well as of commission, sins of ignorance as well as of deliberate intent. the fact that the conscience of a given individual does not accuse him, that he is not aware of himself as a sinner before god, is no evidence of his moral perfection, but rather the reverse. jesus christ, who possessed the surest as well as the sanest moral judgment the world has ever known, held deliberately that the open and acknowledged sinner, just because he was aware of his condition, was in a more hopeful spiritual state than the man who through ignorance of his own shortcomings believed himself to be righteous. the pharisee, who compared himself with others to his own advantage, was condemned in the sight of god. the publican, who would not so much as lift up his eyes unto heaven, but judging himself and his deeds by the standard of god's holiness acknowledged himself a sinner, went away justified rather than the other. it is probably true that the ordinary man to-day is not worrying about his sins: but if so, the fact proves nothing except the secularity of his ideals and the shallowness of his sense of spiritual issues. it means, in short, that he has not taken seriously the standard of christ. for the measure of a man's sin is simply the measure of the contrast between his character and the character of christ. it is likely enough that many of us will never discover that we are sinners until we have deliberately tried and failed to follow christ. the moment we do try seriously to follow him, we become conscious of the presence within ourselves of "that horrid impediment which the churches call sin." we discover that we are spiritually impotent: that there is that in us which is both selfish and self-complacent: that there is a "law of sin in our members" which is in conflict with the "law of the spirit of life": and that "we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves." we are at the mercy of our own character, which has been wrongly moulded and formed amiss by the sins and follies, the self-indulgences and the moral slackness of our own past behaviour. we are, indeed, "tied and bound by the chain of our sins." to have realized so much is to have reached the necessary startingpoint of any fruitful consideration of the christian gospel of redemption. the appeal of the cross of christ is to the human consciousness of sin; and the first effect of a true appreciation of the meaning of the cross is to deepen in us the realization of what sin really is. the crucifixion of christ was not the result of any peculiarly unexampled wickedness on the part of individuals. it was simply the natural and inevitable result of the moral collision between his ideals and those of society at large. the chief actors in the drama were men of like passions with ourselves, who were actuated by very ordinary human motives. it is indeed easy for men to say, "if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets": but in so saying they are merely being witnesses unto themselves that they are the children of them which killed the prophets. are we indeed so far removed beyond the reach of the moral weakness which yields against its own better judgment to the clamorous demands of public opinion, as to be in a position to cast stones at pilate? are we so exempt from the temptation to turn a dishonest penny, or to throw over a friend who has disappointed us, as to recognize no echo of ourselves in judas? have we never with the sanhedrin allowed vested interests to warp our judgment, or resented a too searching criticism of our own character and proceedings, or sophisticated our consciences into a belief that we were offering god service when as a matter of fact we were merely giving expression to the religious and social prejudices of our class? have we never, like the crowds who joined in the hueand-cry, followed a multitude to do evil? there appears in the midst of a society of ordinary, average men--men such as ourselves--a man ideally good: and he is put to death as a blasphemer. that is the awful tragedy of the crucifixion. what does it mean? it means that a new and lurid light is thrown upon the ordinary impulses of our mind. it means that we see sin to be exceeding sinful. that is the first salutary fruit of a resolute contemplation of the cross. the cross shows us, in a word, what we are doing when we sin: consciously or unconsciously, we are crucifying that which is good. if we are able to go further, and by faith to discover in the character and bearing of the son, crucified upon the cross, the revelation of the heart of the eternal father, there dawns upon our minds a still more startling truth: consciously or unconsciously, we are crucifying god. assuming, that is to say, that god is such as christianity declares him to be, holy, righteous, ideal and perfect love, caring intensely for every one of his creatures and having a plan and a purpose for each one, then every failure of ours to correspond with the purpose of his love, every falling short of his ideal for us, every acknowledged slackness and moral failure in our lives, much more every wilful and deliberate transgression of the moral law, is simply the addition of yet a further stab to the wounds wherewith love is wounded in the house of his friends. "father, forgive them; they know not what they do"--the words of the crucified are the revelation of what is in fact the eternal attitude of god: they are the expression of a love that is wounded, cut to the heart and crucified, by the lovelessness, the ingratitude, the tragedy of human sin, but which nevertheless, in spite of the pain, is willing to forgive. but the cross is no mere passivity. it is more than simply a revelation of divine suffering, of the eternal patience of the love of god. it is the expression of god in action: a deed of divine selfsacrifice: a voluntary taking upon himself by man's eternal lover of the burden of man's misery and sin. there is a profound truth in the saying of s. paul, that the son of god "loved me, and gave himself for me": as also in s. peter's words about the christ "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness." there is no need to import into the phrases of the new testament writers the crude transactional notions of later theology, no need to drag in ideas about penalties and punishments. the sole and sufficient penalty of sin is simply the state of being a sinner [footnote: sin, of course, may involve consequences, and the consequences may be both irrevocable and bitter; nor is it denied that fear of consequences may operate as a deterrent from certain kinds of sin. what is denied is that such consequences are rightly to be described as "punishment."]: and the conception of _vicarious_ "punishment" is not merely immoral, but unintelligible. vicarious _suffering_, indeed, there is: an enormous proportion of the sufferings of mankind--and the sufferings of christ are a conspicuous case in point--arise directly as the result of others' sin and may be willingly borne for others' sake. and christ died because of his love for men, and as the expression of the love of god for men. he who "wholly like to us was made" sounded the ultimate depths of the bitterest experience to which sin can lead, even the experience of being forsaken of god. "so god loved the world." regarded thus, the cross is at once a potent instrument for bringing men to repentance, and also the proclamation of the free and royal forgiveness of men's sins by the heavenly father. "what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, god sending his own son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." forgiveness must be received on the basis of repentance and confession as the free and unmerited gift of god in christ: but the redemption which christ came to bring to men does not stop short at the bare gift of initial forgiveness. the cross cannot rightly be separated from the resurrection, nor the resurrection from the bestowal of the spirit. the forgiveness of past transgressions carries with it also the gift of a new life in christ and the power of the indwelling spirit to transform and purify the heart. and this is a life-long process--a process, indeed, which extends beyond the limits of this present life. the old adam dies hard, and the victory of the spirit over the flesh is not lightly won. in the life-story of every christian there are repeated falls: there is need of a fresh gift of forgiveness ever renewed. it is only over stepping-stones of their dead selves that men are enabled to rise to higher things. but already in principle the victory is won. "in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us." we see in christ the first-fruits of redeemed humanity, the one perfect response on the side of man to the love of god. and through christ, our representative, self-offered to the father on our behalf, we are bold to have access with confidence unto the throne of god and in him to offer ourselves, that so we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. chapter vii the church and her mission in the world the god and father of jesus christ loves every human being individually, cares for each and has a specific vocation for each one to fulfil. this doctrine of the equal preciousness in the sight of god of all human souls is for christianity fundamental. but the correlative of divine fatherhood is human brotherhood: just because god is love, and fellowship is life and heaven, and the lack of it is hell, god does not redeem men individually, but as members of a brotherhood, a church. the church is simply the people of god. it is the fellowship of redeemed mankind, the community of all faithful people throughout this present world and in the sphere of the world beyond--one, holy, apostolic (i.e. missionary), and catholic, that is, universal. death is no interruption in that society, race is no barrier, and rank conveys no privilege. "there is neither greek nor jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, scythian, bond nor free: but christ is all, and in all": over the church the gates of death prevail not: and "ye are all one man in christ jesus." furthermore, the church is described as the body, that is, the embodiment, of christ: the instrument or organ whereby the spirit of christ works in the world. her several members are individually limbs or members in that body, and their individual gifts and capacities, whatever they may be, are to be dedicated and directed to the service of the body as a whole, and not to any sectional or selfish ends or purposes. in practical churchmanship, rightly understood, is to be discovered the clue to the meaning and purpose of human life. again, the church is by definition international. the several races and nationalities of mankind have each their specific and individual contribution to make to the church's common life, in accordance with their specific national temperaments and genius. all of them together are needed to give adequate expression in human life to the many-sided riches of god in christ. the church is incomplete so long as a single one remains outside. the idea, therefore, of a so-called "national" church, as a thing isolated and self-contained, is intrinsically absurd. therefore also the church is missionary. she exists in order to proclaim to all the world the good news of the love of god. she exists to bring all men everywhere under the scope of christ's redemption, and to claim for the spirit of christ the effectual lordship over all human thought and life and activity. it is her threefold task at once to develop and make real within her own borders the life of brotherhood in christ, to evangelize the heathen by declaring to them the satisfaction of their instinctive search for god in the answering search of god for them, and to labour for the discovery and application of christian solutions to the problems of industry and commerce, of politics and social life and international affairs. in so far as the church has been true to the spirit of christ she has succeeded; in so far as she has made compromises with the world, and in every generation has in greater or less degree been disloyal to the standards of her master, she has failed. in every generation there has been partial and obvious failure, side by side with real, if partial and in some ways less immediately obvious, success. but the church can never wholly fail and must one day wholly succeed, for the reason that behind her is the omnipotence of the love of god. chapter viii protestant and catholic the last chapter sketched the ideal of the church and her essential mission. the realization of that ideal in the existing church, visibly embodied here in earth is extremely fragmentary and imperfect. the church that is one, and holy, and apostolic, and catholic, the brotherhood in christ of all mankind, knit into unity by the fellowship of the holy spirit, remains a vision of the future, though a vision which, once seen, mankind will never relinquish until it be accomplished. "i believe in the holy catholic church," it has been said, "but i regret that she does not as yet exist." what does exist is a bewildering multiplicity of competing "denominations," whose points of difference are to the plain man obscure, but whose mutual separation is in his eyes an obvious scandal and an offence both against charity and against common sense. why cannot they agree to sink their differences, and to unite upon the broad basis of a common loyalty to christ? to what purpose is this overlapping and conflict? the reluctant tribute of the ancient sceptic--"see how these christians love one another"--has become the modern worldling's cynical and familiar jibe; and when to the spectacle of christian disunion is added the observation that professing christians of all denominations appear to differ from other men, for the most part, "solely in their opinions" and not in their lives, the impulse to cry "a plague upon all your churches" may seem all but irresistible. yet the problem is not susceptible of any cheap or hasty solution. unity is the church's goal; but the church cannot arrive at unity by mere elimination of differences. agreement to differ is not unity: an agreement to pretend that the differences were not there would not even be honest. what is needed is a sympathetic study of the divergent traditions and principles which lie behind existing differences, with a view to discovering which are really differences of principle, and which rest merely upon prejudice. unity, when it comes, can only be based upon mutual understanding and synthesis. the task will not be easy, and the time is not yet. meanwhile the individual's first duty is to be loyal in the first instance [footnote: of course in the last resort no loyalty is due to any lesser authority than that of truth, wheresoever it is found and whatsoever it turns out to be.] to the spiritual tradition and discipline of the "denomination" to which he in fact belongs, unless and until he is led to conclude that some other embodies a fuller and more synthetic presentation of religious truth. it is a mistake for a man to be content either to remain in ignorance of his own immediate spiritual heritage or to refuse to try to understand what is distinctive and vital in the religious heritage of others. most fatal of all is the attempt to combine personal loyalty to christ with the repudiation of organized christianity as a whole. true loyalty to christ most certainly involves common religious fellowship upon the basis of common membership in the people of god. as a matter of fact, so soon as the various sects and denominations into which modern western christianity is divided are seriously examined, they are seen to fall into three main types or groups. standing by herself is the church of rome, venerable, august, impressive in virtue of her unanimity, her coherence, her ordered discipline, and her international position, representing exclusively the ancient catholic tradition, and making for herself exclusive claims. at the opposite end of the scale there are the multitudinous sects of protestantism, differing mutually among themselves but tending (as some observers think) to set less and less store by their divergences and to develop towards some kind of loosely-knit federation--a more or less united evangelical church upon an exclusively protestant basis. between the two stands the church of england, reaching out a hand in both directions, presenting to the superficial observer the appearance of a house divided against itself; representing nevertheless, according to her true ideal, a real attempt to synthesize the essentials of catholicism with what is both true and positive in the protestant tradition. protestantism stands for the liberty of the individual, for freedom of thought and of inquiry, for emphasis upon the importance of vital personal religion, for the warning that "forms and ceremonies" are of no value in themselves, but only in so far as they are the expression and vehicle of the spirit. protestantism proclaims the liberty of christian prophesying, the free and unimpeded access of every human soul to the heavenly father, the spiritual equality of all men in the sight of god. the protestant tradition is jealous for the evangelical simplicity of the gospel, and in general may be said to represent the principle of democracy in religion. catholicism, on the other hand, bears witness to the glory of churchmanship, to the importance of corporate loyalty to the christian society, to the value of sacramentalism, and the rich heritage of ancient devotional traditions, of liturgical worship and ordered ecclesiastical life. for catholicism rites and sacraments are not anomalies, strange "material" excrescences upon a religion otherwise "spiritual." they are themselves channels and media of the spirit's operation, vehicles of life and power. catholicism is more inclusive than protestantism, including, indeed, some things which protestants are apt to insist should be excluded. the future would seem to lie neither with the negations of pure protestantism nor with a catholicism wholly unreformed; but rather with a liberalized catholicism which shall do justice to the truth of the protestant witness. for the present the best opportunity for the working out of such a liberalized catholicism is to be found within the church of england: and it is from the point of view of an english churchman that the remainder of this book will be written. chapter ix sacraments it is sometimes asked whether the sacraments of the christian church are two or more than two in number. the answer depends in part upon how the term "sacrament" is defined. but the wisest teaching is that which recognizes in particular sacraments--such as baptism and the supper of the lord--the operation of a general principle which runs throughout all human experience, in things both sacred and profane. "i have no soul," remarked a well-known preacher on a famous occasion, "i have no soul, because i _am_ a soul: i _have_ a body." it would be difficult to express more aptly the principle of sacraments, or--what comes to the same thing--the true relationship of the material to the spiritual order. we are accustomed, in the world as we know it, to distinguish "spirit" from "matter": and we are tempted, by the mere fact that we draw a distinction between them, to think and speak at times as though spirit and matter were necessarily opposed. this is a great mistake. matter, so far from being the opposite or the contradiction of spirit, is the medium of its expression, the vehicle of its manifestation. spirit and matter are correlatives, but the ultimate reality of the world is spiritual. it is the whole purpose and function of matter to express, to embody, to incarnate, the spirit. the preacher, therefore, was quite right. "i _am_ a soul": that is, i am a personality, a spirit: and to say that is to give expression to the fundamental truth of my existence: i _am_ a soul, and i am _not_ a body. but "i _have_ a body": that is, my personality is embodied or incarnate: i have a body which serves as the vehicle or instrument of my life as a man here upon earth: a body which is the organ of my spirit's self-expression and the medium both of my life's experience and of my intercourse with other men. i think, and my thoughts are mediated by movements of the brain. i speak, and the movements of my vocal chords set up vibrations and sound-waves which, impinging upon the nerves of another's ear, affect in turn another's brain: and the process, regarded from the point of view of the physiologist or the scientific observer, is a physical process through and through: yet it mediates from my _mind_ to the mind of him who hears me a meaning which is wholly spiritual. this principle of the mediation of the spiritual by the material is the principle of sacramentalism. it is the principle of incarnation, which runs throughout the world. the body is in this sense the sacrament of the spirit, sound is the sacrament of speech, and language the sacrament of thought. so in like manner water is the sacrament of cleansing, hands laid upon a man's head are the sacrament of authority or of benediction, food and drink are the sacrament of life. all life and all experience are in a true sense sacramental, the inward ever seeking to reveal itself in and through the outward, the outward deriving its whole significance from the fact that it expresses and mediates the spirit: so it is that a gesture--a bow or a salute--may be a sacrament of politeness, a handshake the sacrament of greeting and of friendship, the beauty of nature a sacrament of the celestial beauty, the world a sacrament of god. it is in the light of this general principle of sacraments that the specific sacraments of christianity are to be understood. in baptism the water of an outward washing is the sacrament both of initiation into a spiritual society, and also of the cleansing and regenerating power of god. in confirmation the church's outward benediction, of which the bishop is the minister, is the sacrament of an inward gift of spiritual strength. in absolution words outwardly pronounced by human lips are a sacrament of divine forgiveness and a pledge to assure us thereof. in the eucharist the outward elements of food and drink are the sacramental embodiment of christ and the vehicles of his outpoured life. other sacraments, or rites commonly reckoned sacramental, we need not here particularly consider. [footnote: matrimony and holy orders are discussed in different connexions elsewhere in this book. the sacrament of unction, by which is meant the anointing of the sick with oil in the name of the lord with a view to their recovery (to be distinguished from the mediaeval and modern roman use of "extreme unction" as a preparation for death), has been revived sporadically within the church of england in recent times, but is not usually for the plain man of more than academic importance or interest.] _baptism and confirmation_ baptism is the sacrament of christian initiation, whereby a man is made visibly a member of the christian fellowship. converts were originally baptized in adult life, as they are to-day in the mission field. the candidate publicly renounced his heathen past and made a profession of his faith in christ and his desire to be loyal to his church. as a sinner in need of redemption he went down into the water, and was three times immersed in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost. the rite conveyed an assurance of the forgiveness of sins. the going down into the water symbolized the burial of the dead past. the coming up out of the water expressed the idea of resurrection to newness of life in christ. the new-made christian was said to be born again of water and of the spirit: the "old adam" was slain, the "new man" raised up. the candidate was henceforward a "member of christ," a "child of god," an "inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." he was admitted both to the privileges and to the responsibilities of church membership. it remained only that he should walk worthily of his christian profession, and to this end hands were laid upon his head in benediction, with prayer that he might be made strong by the indwelling power of the holy spirit. confirmation was thus the complement of baptism, and the two things normally went together. the same order is still commonly observed today in the case of persons baptized in adult life, and has the advantage of making the significance of both rites, and their mutual relation, at once more vivid and more intelligible. but the question arose, in the second christian generation, of the status of children in relation to the church. might children be admitted to membership in infancy, or must they wait until they were adult? the church decided that they were admissible, provided there were reasonable assurance that they would be christianly brought up. why should a child grow up in heathenism? had not the lord said, "suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not"? there seemed no reason why children should not be brought at once within the sphere of christian regeneration. but if children were baptized in infancy, it was plainly essential that they should at a later stage receive systematic instruction in christian faith and practice; and the western church (though not the eastern) adopted the practice of separating confirmation from baptism, and deferring the former until such instruction had been received. the plan has obvious advantages, though it tends to obscure in some respects the essential meaning of confirmation and its original close relation to the sacrament of baptism. in modern usage baptism is normally administered by a priest, confirmation always by a bishop. candidates are received by the latter upon the assurance of one of his subordinate clergy that they are adequately instructed and rightly disposed by faith and penitence to receive the gifts of the holy ghost--"the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the lord." as an immediate preliminary to the actual rite the candidate solemnly and deliberately declares his acceptance of the obligations and implications of his baptism. the laying on of hands which follows is in one aspect the recognition by the bishop, as chief pastor of the flock of christ in his own diocese, that the candidate is henceforward of communicant status. in another aspect it is the bestowal through prayer of a fuller gift of the holy ghost, whereby the candidate is "confirmed" (_i.e._ made strong). it should be noted that the bishop's prayer for each candidate is not that he may be made magically perfect there and then, but that he may "daily increase" in god's holy spirit "more and more," until he come to god's "everlasting kingdom." _the sacrament of repentance_ it must be admitted that very large numbers of those who are confirmed lapse at an early stage in their lives from the communion of the church and never return. the causes of this are various, and there is no one sovereign or universal remedy. sometimes it is to be feared that there has been either lack of intelligence or lack of thoroughness in the candidates' preparation. in not a few cases what has really happened is that the young communicant has been led into the commission of some sin of a kind which his own conscience recognizes as grave, so that he feels that he has spoilt his record and failed to "live up to" his profession. to go back to communion, he thinks, would in these circumstances be a kind of mockery. unfortunately he does not know--since too often he has not been taught--any effectual method of spiritual recovery and renewal. what is needed in such cases is a real doctrine and practice of christian repentance. it is the universal teaching of the christian church that forgiveness is freely available for all those who truly repent. a man who, laying aside self-justification, will freely acknowledge his offences and shortcomings before god, and that in a spirit not of self-pity, self-loathing or self-contempt, but of sorrow at having brought discredit upon the christian name and done what in him lies to crucify the son of god afresh, may freely claim and find in christ forgiveness and inward peace. this gospel or message of the forgiveness of sins it is part of the mission of the christian church to set forth. it is her mission to set it forth not merely as a piece of good news proclaimed in general terms to the world at large, but as a healing assurance brought home in detail, as need may require, to the individual consciences of sinners. "whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." the words may have been uttered by the historical jesus of nazareth, or they may not-they are ascribed to the risen christ in the fourth gospel. in any event they represent the church's conviction of her authority to exercise a reconciling ministry, to remit sins and to retain them. in early times such grave offenders as by their deeds had brought scandal upon the christian name were excluded from christian fellowship until reconciled by penance; and many whose sins, being secret, might otherwise have escaped detection, preferred to make open confession of them in the christian assembly. "confess your faults one to another," writes s. james, "and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." the ancient system of public "penance" (_i.e._ penitence) was for a time at least revived in a modern form by wesley.[footnote: the "class-meeting" of strict wesleyanism is said to have originally involved mutual confession of sins among the members of the "class."] its application to notorious offenders is described in the english prayer-book as a "godly discipline," the restoration of which is "much to be wished." but it is hardly practicable under the conditions of modern church life, and it has disadvantages as well as advantages. its working in the early days of the church was not found to be wholly for good. burdened consciences nevertheless require relief: and sin is not merely a private affair between the soul and god; it is also an offence against the brotherhood. a system grew up under which the need was met by the substitution, in the majority of cases, of private for public penance. confession was made, no longer before the whole assembly, but privately before the bishop, whose office it was, both as pastor of the flock and as representative of the church, to declare forgiveness or "absolution," and to restore penitents to communion. at a later date presbyters or priests were also authorized, as delegates of the bishop for this and other purposes, to receive confessions and to absolve penitents. in this way arose in the church what came to be known as the sacrament of penance, or the practice of sacramental confession. it was ranked as a sacrament for the reason that the inward assurance of god's pardon is in this connexion outwardly mediated by words of absolution audibly pronounced. in medieval times there grew up a regular system of the confessional and an elaborate science of the guidance and direction of souls. recourse to sacramental confession was made obligatory for all christians at least once in the year. [footnote: this is still the formal rule of the church of rome.] the system came to be attended by many superstitions and abuses, frequently it was exploited in the interests of a corrupt sacerdotalism, sometimes it was associated with a degrading casuistry. but the confessional met and meets a real human need; and while protestantism, as a whole, broke away at the time of the reformation in a violent reaction from the whole theory and practice of sacramental confession, the church of england quite deliberately retained it. it was abolished as a compulsory obligation. it was made less prominent in the church's system. but as a means of spiritual reconciliation and spiritual guidance, freely open to such as for any reason desire to make use of it, it was retained; and in the case of persons who for reasons of conscience hesitate to present themselves for holy communion it is specifically urged in the book of common prayer as the needed remedy. [footnote: see the closing paragraph of the first of the three lengthy exhortations to holy communion, printed immediately after the "prayer for the church militant" in the prayerbook.]the words of s. john xx. 23 are quoted in the anglican formula of ordination to the priesthood; and a form of words to be used by the priest in the private absolution of penitents is prescribed in the office for the visitation of the sick. as regards the theory of the confessional it is important to bear certain things in mind. the confession is made primarily to god, secondarily to his church. the priest is the church's accredited delegate and representative. he acts not in virtue of any magical powers inherent in himself, either as an individual or as a member of any so-called sacerdotal caste. if he declares the penitent absolved it is as pastor of the flock, and as one officially authorized by the church to be her mouthpiece for these purposes. the ultimate absolving authority, under god, is the christian society as a whole. it is a confessor's duty to assure himself of the reality of the penitent's contrition, and to enjoin that restitution or amends shall be made for any wrong which has been done, in all cases in which amends or restitution is possible. he may also give advice and counsel for the guidance of the spiritual life; and it is customary to enjoin the performance of a "penance," which in modern practice usually takes the form of some minor spiritual exercise of a more or less remedial kind. the acceptance of the penance is regarded as an enacted symbol of submission to the church's judgment. (the mediaeval theory that the penance is of the nature of a punishment or penalty imposed by the church upon her erring members ought, i think, to be repudiated. it is perhaps permissible to differ from the moral theology of borne in holding that it is not essential to impose a penance at all, while recognizing the value in most cases of suggesting some definite act of self-discipline or observance, of a kind adapted to the penitent's circumstances and needs). the confessor is, of course, bound in the strictest way not to reveal anything said to him in confession, or to broach the subject again to the penitent without the latter's express permission, or to allow his subsequent manner or behaviour to be influenced in any the least degree by what has been confessed. it is highly unfortunate that the practice of sacramental confession should have been made the subject of controversy, and as a consequence of this that the church's teaching with regard to it should have been either unhealthily suppressed or obtruded out of season. there are without doubt numerous cases in which such a spiritual remedy is badly needed. there are burdened souls needing absolution and there are perplexed souls needing guidance. what is desirable is that the actual teaching of the church of england on this subject should be plainly and frankly set before her members, and that opportunities should be afforded them of making their confessions if they desire or need to do so. it is the plain duty of a parish priest to provide such opportunities for his people. he is as plainly going beyond his duty if he tries to enforce the practice of sacramental confession as a necessary obligation. there are differences of opinion as to how widespread is the spiritual need to which confession ministers. there are reasons for thinking that it is more widespread than is commonly recognized. but it is of vital importance that no one should be pressed or brow-beaten into going to confession, or should do so, in any circumstances, otherwise than by his own voluntary act. _the sacrament of holy communion_ throughout christian history and in all parts of christendom the central and highest focus of christian worship and devotion, and the great normal vivifying channel of spiritual renewal and power, has been the sacrament of holy communion. it has been celebrated amid great diversities of liturgy and ritual and circumstance, and has been known by many different names and titles--mass, eucharist, communion, sacrifice: essentially it is one thing--the sacrament of the body and blood of christ. the gospels record that at the last supper on the night of his betrayal the lord jesus took bread and blessed and broke it, saying, "take, eat: this is my body, which is for you: do this in remembrance of me": and that in like manner he took a cup of mingled wine and water, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: do this, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me." with the exceptions of the society of friends and the salvation army, every existing "denomination" of christians has continued in one form or another the observance of this mystical meal. in the roman church, and in many parishes of the church of england, it is celebrated daily; and it is evident from the provisions of her prayer-book that the church of england intends that there shall be a celebration of the communion in all normal parishes at least on all sundays and holy days. historically the institution of the weekly eucharist is deeply rooted in the tradition of the church, and is the origin of the christian sunday, the christians met together week by week to keep on the day of the lord's rising that memorial of the crucified yet risen christ which is also christ's gift of himself to men. it would have seemed unthinkable in the early days of christianity for any baptized christian, who was not prevented by unavoidable circumstances from being present, to be absent on the lord's day from the lord's table. it ought to be equally unthinkable to-day. with regard to the significance of the sacrament, a man's view is necessarily coloured partly by his own experience as a communicant, and partly by the extent to which he is disposed to attach weight to the devotional traditions of christendom as a whole; and it is worth remembering that forms of teaching about holy communion which are intellectually crude may represent a real, though an infelicitous, attempt to express in thought certain elements in eucharistic experience which are deep and real, and to which more attenuated types of doctrine fail to do justice. the celebration of the eucharist is from one point of view an enacted drama, a doing over again in the name and in the person of christ of that which christ did in his own person on the night of the last supper. bread is taken and blessed and broken and offered to god in thanksgiving: wine in like manner is poured out and blessed and offered together with the bread. and the bread and the wine symbolize the body and the blood of christ--the body that was broken and the blood that was shed--the life that was freely given for the life of the world. the whole drama of the eucharist is thus deeply symbolical; but the bread and the wine are more than _mere_ symbols in the modern sense of that word. they are a sacrament of christ himself, who by means of them manifests his presence in the midst of his worshipping disciples to be the bread of life and the food of souls. "this is my body"--that is, "this embodies me: where this is, i am: receiving this, you receive me." "this is my blood"--that is, "this is my life: my life which is given for you: my life which in death i laid down and in rising again from the dead i resumed: my life which is to be the principle of spiritual life in you." "except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.... he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and i in him." there is, then, in the communion of the body and blood of christ a manifestation of christ's real presence, a spiritual presence indeed, which is discerned by the spiritual vision of christian faith, but a presence of which the reality is independent of individual faithlessness, though not independent of the faith of the christian church as a whole. this doctrine of the real presence (as it is called) of course does not imply that christ is absent from his church at other times or in other connexions. we believe that all times and places are present to the mind of christ, and that therefore at all times and in all places we are in his presence. we believe, further, that christ through the spirit is embodied, however inadequately, in his church, and that he dwells spiritually in the hearts of christian men. there is nothing, however, in these truths to exclude the further truth that his presence is specially manifested through the bread which embodies him and the wine which is his blood. bread and wine, solemnly set apart for the purpose of communion and hallowed by the spirit in response to the prayer of the church, possess henceforward a significance which did not belong to them before. they are now vehicles or sacraments of the body and blood of christ. the purpose of the manifestation of christ's presence in holy communion is that we should receive him, and a participation in the service which stops short of actual communion is so far incomplete. but it is gratuitous to assume that the reality of the sacramental presence is limited to the moment of actual or individual reception, and it is untrue to say that attendance at the service, apart from individual reception, is unmeaning. the habitual attendance of persons who are not regular communicants--unless it be in the case of those who for any reason are as yet unconfirmed--falls short of full discipleship and is intrinsically undesirable. but this objection does not apply to attendance at the service on the part of communicant churchmen who yet on a particular occasion do not communicate: and to attend throughout the service without personally communicating is a procedure infinitely preferable to the irreverent modern custom, still prevalent in too many parishes, of leaving the church in the course of a celebration of the communion, and before the consecration has taken place. it is unfair to those who are preparing to receive communion that their devotions should be disturbed by the noisy egress of a large body of worshippers. it is also quite unintelligible that any churchman who considers seriously the meaning of the eucharist should be content to depart before the liturgical drama has reached its climax. as regards actual reception of holy communion, it is a partaking of christ, who gives himself therein to his disciples to be in them a spiritual principle of life and power. s. paul discovers in the eucharist a spiritual food and drink which is the reality to which the manna and the water from the rock of hebrew story correspond as types and shadows, and he declares that the bread which we break is a sharing of the body of christ, and that the cup of blessing which we bless is a sharing of his blood. at the same time the communion is not to be interpreted in any gross or carnal manner, or in such a way as to give colour to the ancient taunt of celsus, the heathen critic, that christians were self-confessed cannibals. the fourth gospel, which, in a context that is in a general sense eucharistic, ascribes to our lord strong phrases about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, proceeds in the same context to explain that "it is the spirit that giveth life," that "the flesh," in itself, "profiteth nothing." "the sayings which i have spoken unto you are spirit and are life." in other words, we are to understand that when our lord uses the terms "flesh" and "blood" he means the spirit of which his life in the flesh was the expression, and the life of which his outpoured blood was the principle: that the inward reality of the eucharist is to be discovered, not in any quasi-material fleshly embodiment which the bread conceals, or in any quasi-literal blood, but rather in the spirit and the life of christ himself. the bread is his body in the sense that it is an embodiment of his spirit: the wine is his blood in the sense that it mediates his life. the sacrament is to be understood as a "point of personal contact with jesus christ." rightly to receive communion is to hold spiritual converse with the risen lord and to find in him the bread of life, the food and sustenance of the soul. so it is that the eucharist, at once supremely natural and wholly supernatural, is the meeting-place of earth and heaven. from one point of view our worship is in the heavenly places in christ jesus. it is "with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven," that we laud and magnify god's holy name. we join in an eternal act of worship, which is that of the whole church, the departed with the living, whose adoration ascends continually before the throne of god. if we like to express it so, we are pleading the eternal sacrifice: we are uniting ourselves, in desire and in intention, with christ's eternal self-devotion and oblation of himself. calvary itself was in a sense but the enacted symbol, the supreme outward expression, of our lord's sacrifice, of which the inward essence is eternal. it is the self-offering of a will that was wholly dedicated to god on others' behalf, obedient even unto death, and through death triumphant: the will of one "who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to god," and who now, being ascended into the heavens, for ever liveth to make intercession for us. looking at the eucharist from this point of view we are bold to approach the throne of god and to offer christ on our behalf--"behold the lamb of god that taketh away the sin of the world": but we proceed also to offer ourselves in christ--"here we offer and present unto thee, o lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice unto thee." and so doing we are made one with christ and one in him with each other. the eucharist has a social aspect which is too little regarded. it is the sacrament of holy fellowship. "we that are many are one bread, one body," wrote s. paul, "for we all partake of the one bread." the holy communion is the sacrament of the unity of all christians in christ. the scandal of a divided christendom shows itself perhaps most of all in the fact that it prevents intercommunion. for that very reason it appears to many persons unreal, and therefore wrong, to practise isolated acts of inter-communion while ecclesiastical differences remain unresolved: it is to conceal the fact of actual disunion beneath the cloak of immediate sentiment. yet there is a true sense in which, through the spirit, we _are_, in the act of communion, made one with the fellowship of all faithful people whether in the sphere of this earthly life or in the world that is beyond death and tears: with all those, of whatever race or rank or age or country, who amid whatever diversity of language and liturgy and denominational loyalty, have named the name of christ and received the life of christ in obedience to his command as they understood it. there is no bond comparable to this bond, and no equality like the equality of those who, high and low, rich and poor, one with another, kneel side by side as brothers and sisters at the common table of the lord. and lastly there is a further point. the body of christ is a broken body and the blood is blood that is shed. "this is my body which is for you"--for you, and never for myself. the bread is the bread of sacrifice and the cup is the stirrup-cup of service: and part, surely, and a great part, of the meaning of the words, "do this in remembrance of me," is "break your bodies in union with my body broken: give your lives in sacrifice for others, as i have given mine." the eucharist, rightly regarded, is the mainspring and motive-power of service, the principle of a life that is crucified. and all those who in their day and generation have spent their lives unselfishly and used themselves up in promoting causes not their own are partakers in that holy fellowship. at this present time of war and tumult, when all the powers of hell are abroad and leagued together for the onset, we think of that which alone can be the redemption of war, even the self-devotion of those who, hating the whole devilish business and going into it only because they saw no alternative to duty's clear and imperative call, have been counted worthy to show forth the love than which no man hath greater, even to lay down their lives for their friends. there is no one so unfortunate as not to have known some such men. and at the communion service "in the act of conscious incorporation into the fellowship of the love of jesus," it may be given to us in some measure to understand these things, and to know that we are become partakers in the power of a world-wide crucifixion, a fellowship of broken bodies and lives poured out in christ: and to know also--with a knowledge that is not of this world--that somehow, in it and through it, the spirit of god in christ will bring redemption. so wonderful, so many-sided, and so full of meaning is this sacrament: so great is the measure of their loss who, professing and calling themselves christians, are content to ignore the last injunction of the christ to his disciples on the night before he died that we might live. chapter x the last things "it is appointed unto men once to die, and after death the judgment." "he shall come again in glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end." "i believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." jesus christ spoke in symbolical language of his coming in the clouds of heaven as son of man with power and great glory, and declared that the divine verdict upon the lives and deeds of men should be determined by their relationship to him and to his ideals. both in the days of the apostles, and for the most part among succeeding generations of christian people down to the present time, it would seem that a more literal signification was attached to his words than they will really bear. the truth of the divine judgment upon men's lives nevertheless stands. "god is a great judge, strong and patient: and god is provoked every day." we must, however, be careful, in thinking of the reality of divine judgment, to interpret the justice of god in the light of the christian revelation of his love. the attitude of god towards sinners is never anything but love, though a love that is holy and righteous, and never merely sentimental. god as christ reveals him can never impose or inflict a merely external penalty upon a sinner, other than the supreme penalty of being simply what he is, viz. a soul who by his own deliberate actions has separated himself from goodness and from god. it is important in thinking of the judgment to remember that the essence of judgment is neither the sentence nor the penalty: it is simply the verdict, whereby moral and spiritual realities are revealed, shams and disguises are stripped off, and evil is separated from good. [footnote: the associations of an english law-court, in which the verdict is the work of the jury, are here misleading.] if our lord, speaking in parables, declared, of such as had neglected to do good, that "these shall go away into eternal punishment," a considerable body of orthodox opinion in the christian church has always held that the punishment in question consists essentially in the "penalty of loss"--the loss of goodness and of god, the loss of capacity for the life which is life indeed--rather than in any imagined "penalty of sense," or purposeless prolongation of pain. the imagery which our lord employed to describe the spiritual condition known as "hell" is taken from the valley of hinnom, a ravine just outside the walls of jerusalem, in which fires were continually maintained for the destruction of refuse, and maggots preyed on offal. the imagery is sufficiently terrible; but it suggests the destruction of waste products in god's creation, rather than the prolonged torture of living beings. it may well be that a soul, which by persistent and deliberate rejection of every appeal of the divine love even to the very end--in this life or beyond--has become so wholly self-identified with evil as to be finally incapable of life in god, passes, of necessity, out of sentient existence altogether. we do not know. what we do know is, in the first place, that wickedness is of its very nature instinct with the eternal quality of "hell"; and, in the second place, that god is love, and that god "desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live." just as the term "hell" expresses the condition of a soul which by its own act and deed and deliberate choice has become wholly selfidentified with evil, so the term "heaven" expresses the spiritual state of the pure in heart, to whom it is given to see god. so regarded, heaven is simply the ideal consummation of progressive spiritual advance, the perfect fruition of that "beatific vision" which the saints of god desired. it has ever been the conviction of the christian church that her members are already, even in this present life, made partakers in the life of heaven, just in proportion as their affections are set upon things above and not upon things in the earth. what is begun here is continued more perfectly hereafter; but it is unreasonable to assume that at the moment of death the ultimate fulness of "heaven" is immediately attained. the church, therefore, has believed in an intermediate state, sometimes called "purgatory," a condition of progressive purification and spiritual growth, characterized at once by a deepening penitence for the sins and failures of the past, and by a deepening joy in god's more perfect service. moreover, since the christian salvation is a social salvation, those who have departed this life in god's faith and fear shall not without us be made perfect. none can enter fully into the joy of the lord until the whole of god's great world-purpose is accomplished, and all are gathered in. this brings us to the consideration of the christian belief in the second advent and the final kingdom of god. it has already been remarked that the terms in which this belief is expressed are symbolical and should not be taken literally. just because we ourselves, under the conditions of life here upon earth, are immersed in the stream of time, the idea of an ending of the world-process, a final passing over of time into eternity, is to us, in the strict and literal sense of the words, unthinkable. only under the form of imagery and symbol is it in the nature of things possible for the idea of the last great drama to be expressed, or rather, suggested: it is impossible for our minds to grasp, in any more exact or effectual manner, the reality which the imagery is meant to symbolize. it may be that the event expressed by the dramatic picture of the second advent of the christ is simply the revelation of the fact of his eternal presence at once as saviour and as judge; however this may be, the picture stands for the assurance of his final triumph, and the vindication of his kingdom in its fulness: and as such it is the object of christian hope--"hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done; in earth, as it is in heaven." if we ask what is the positive nature of the christian hope and what the final character of the life of heaven, the answer is that we cannot fully say, that we know only in part, "we see obscurely, as in a mirror." in hymn and ecstasy and vision men have sought to find expression for the substance of things hoped for, and they have failed. "eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive, the things that god hath prepared for them that love him." the book of the revelation essays to paint a picture of the heavenly state, and for the most part succeeds in setting before our minds a noble imagery; but in the end its language is most convincing when it tells us what heaven is _not_. "they shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more, neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. and god shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." negatives and contrasts--the picture of a state of things contrasted with all that in the world as we know it is amiss; we cannot _positively_ envisage heaven. only we believe that "there remaineth a rest for the people of god," where nevertheless they rest not day or night from his perfect service. "beloved, now are we sons of god, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him: for we shall see him as he is." here this chapter might end: but with regard to the nature of the christian conception of the life of the world to come there is something more to be said: for the church's creed contains the assertion of a belief in the resurrection of the body, or even, in the latin form of the apostles' creed, and in the translation which appears in the prayer-book service for baptism, in the resurrection of the flesh. the plain man may be tempted, brushing aside such a doctrine in its plain and literal acceptation as a manifest impossibility, either to hold aloof from a church which retains such an affirmation in her creed, or else to conclude hastily that the words are meant only as a picturesque way of expressing a belief in the immortality of the soul. either attitude would be a mistake. it is true that a literal resuscitation of christian corpses on some future day of resurrection would be neither possible nor desirable. nevertheless the christian doctrine of the life to come involves more than a bare assertion of the immortality of the soul. the body is the embodiment or vehicle of the spirit; the spirit disembodied would be a mere wraith, a phantasm of the living man. the life of the world to come is not unreal or shadowy as compared with the concrete reality of the life of earth: it is a life richer and fuller, more concrete and more glorious than the life of earth. the church by her doctrine of the resurrection means to affirm that the full reality of that which made the living man what he was is carried over into the life beyond. the buried corpse is not "the body that shall be." "there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." as to the nature of the future embodiment of the spirit in the life beyond the grave we are ignorant. "god giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own." but we believe that "the deeds done in the body" here upon earth while we are yet tabernacling in the flesh necessarily affect and determine the character of the spiritual embodiment which shall be ours hereafter. for this reason we hold our bodies sacred, as being temples of the holy ghost. "the body is not for fornication, but for the lord; and the lord for the body." christianity can have nothing to do with the notion that the defilement of the body is without effect in the pollution of the soul. [note.-for a fuller treatment of the subjects of the second advent and the resurrection of the body the writer may be allowed to refer to chapters iii. and iv. in his book, _dogma, fact and experience_ (macmillan & co., 1915).] chapter xi clergy and laity the clergy are not the church. they are a specialized class within it. they are men who believe themselves to be called by god to give themselves for life to the particular work of caring directly for the spiritual interests of their fellows. to this end they are set apart by ordination. they hold the commission and authorization of the church to minister the word and sacraments of the gospel in the name of christ and of the brotherhood. their task is high and difficult. it is not wonderful if they fail. but solemn prayer is offered for them at their ordination: and the answer to the church's prayers is according to the measure of the church's faith. the historical or catholic system of ministry in the church consists of a hierarchy in three orders or gradations. to the order of bishops belongs oversight or pastorate-in-chief. it is not the business of a bishop to be prelatical, or to lord it over god's heritage, but to be the servant of the servants of god. a bishop is consecrated to his office by not less than three of those who are already bishops. he exercises all the functions of the christian ministry, including those of confirmation and ordination and the right to take part in episcopal consecrations. priests and deacons are a bishop's delegates for certain purposes. a priest may have charge of a "parish" or subdivision of a diocese, and is competent to celebrate the eucharist, to bless, to baptize, and to absolve. he is also authorized to preach, and to give instruction in christian doctrine. he may not confirm or ordain apart from the bishop, though he may co-operate with the latter in ordinations to the priesthood. he is ordained to his ministry by the bishop acting in conjunction with certain representatives of the priesthood who take part with him in the laying on of hands. deacons are subordinate ministers appointed to assist parish priests in the work of parochial visiting and also, within certain limits, in the conduct of divine worship and the administration of the sacraments. they may read parts of the service, but have no authority to bless or to absolve. they may preach by express and specific license from the bishop. they may not celebrate the eucharist, but may assist the priest who does so by reading the gospel and administering the chalice. they are ordained to their office by the bishop, and in most cases, though not invariably, proceed subsequently to the priesthood. [footnote: in the absence of a bishop or priest, a deacon is competent to baptize. in the absence of any of the clergy baptism may also, in cases of urgency, be administered by a layman, and in the absence of a man, by a woman.] the principles which underlie this system of catholic order in the church are important. the devolution of authority to minister through the episcopate safeguards the continuity of the church's corporate life and tradition, and secures that ministerial functions shall be exercised in the name and by the authority of the christian society as a whole. moreover through the ordered succession of the bishops the tradition of ministerial authority is carried back certainly to subapostolic, and perhaps also actually to apostolic, times: it represents in principle christ's commission to his apostles--"as the father hath sent me, even so send i you." at the same time it is important that the doctrine of the ministry should not be allowed to become "sacerdotalist" in a wrong sense. the christian priesthood is not in possession of any magical or exclusive powers. the essence of priesthood is the dedication of life as a whole to the service of god on behalf of others: and in this sense every christian man is meant in his ordinary daily life and business to be a priest of god and a servant of his brethren. what the church to-day needs most chiefly is a body of laymen who will take seriously their vocation. a layman is not a christian of inferior type, on whose behalf the clergy are expected to display a vicarious spirituality: he is simply an unordained member of the people of god. the hope of the future is that laymen should do their part, not merely by supporting the efforts of the clergy, but by exercising their own proper functions as living members of christ. the church--and especially the church of england--is in vital need of reform. the recently launched "life and liberty" movement is a hopeful sign of the determination of a certain number of clergy and laity that reform shall be secured. in particular it is essential that the church should recover freedom of self-government in spiritual things, and liberty to adapt her machinery and organization to changing needs, by the readjustment of her relation towards the state. this may or may not involve disestablishment, and disestablishment in turn, if it should take place, need not necessarily involve, but in practice would probably involve, some measure of partial disendowment. the church must be prepared for all eventualities, and must be ready, should necessity arise, to take cheerfully the spoiling of her goods. for liberty is essential at all costs. in the movement for life and liberty, as in every other department of her work, the church needs the co-operation of her laity. it is their duty both to be informed in ecclesiastical affairs, and to make their voices heard. it is part of the programme of church reformers to give the laity, through elected representatives, a more effective voice in church affairs. the administration of finance and the raising of funds for work both at home and abroad is more particularly their province, but there is no single department of church affairs in which the layman ought not to have his share, though no doubt the bishops in virtue of their office have a special responsibility in matters of doctrine. certainly there is need of a much greater extension of lay preaching, and a freer recognition of the capacity of many laymen to lead the worship and intercessions of their brethren. the administration of the sacraments, with the partial exception of baptism, is reserved for those to whom it is committed: but this need not and does not apply to the ministries of preaching and of prayer. clerical autocracy, where it exists, ought resolutely and firmly to be broken down. it has to be admitted that between clergy and laity at present there is a regrettable and widespread cleavage. the clergy are widely criticized, and it is certain that they have many faults. one who belongs to their number cannot help being conscious of some at least of the failings both of himself and of his class. but the faults are not all upon one side. it may be suspected that those who criticize the clergy with the greatest freedom are not always those who pray for them most earnestly. to affirm that the laity get, upon the whole, the clergy they deserve would be too hard a saying: but it is sometimes forgotten that the clergy are recruited from the ranks of the laity, and that, when not dehumanized by an undue professionalism of outlook, they are human. many of them would be frankly grateful for friendly co-operation and criticism on the part of the lay members of their flocks. one of the difficulties about preaching is that the clergy in many instances do not really know what is in the layman's mind. the life of the church in england will not proceed along healthy lines until there is greater mutual candour between laymen and clergy. at present laymen will not talk freely about matters of religion in the presence of the clergy because they imagine (often quite wrongly) that the latter would be shocked. it sometimes happens conversely that the clergy hesitate to express their real minds for fear that laymen would be shocked. this attitude of mutual reserve is hopeless. no christian, lay or clerical, has any business to be shocked at any expression of opinion whatever, orthodox or unorthodox, whether in faith or in morals. either side may disagree with the other; but either ought to be prepared to listen to what the other has to say. chapter xii the bible the bible is the "sacred book" of christianity, as the koran is the sacred book of mohammedanism; with this difference, however, that christianity, as the religion of the spirit, can never be, like mohammedanism, a "religion of the book," any more than it can be, like ancient judaism, a religion of the law. the biblical writings include two main collections of books, known as the old testament and the new testament respectively, of which the latter alone is distinctively christian. intermediate between the two "testaments" in point of date are the writings known as the "apocrypha," which though inferior, for the most part, in spiritual value to the fully canonical books, and frequently omitted from printed editions of the bible, are regarded by the church as canonical in a secondary sense. the various books of the bible originally became canonical, that is, were included in the "canon" or collection of sacred writings, on the ground that they were read aloud or recited in the course of divine worship. the old testament canon comprises the books customarily read aloud in the jewish synagogue, together with certain other writings associated with them. the books of the new testament are a similar collection of early christian writings which were read side by side with the old testament in christian worship. the selection of these particular writings for the purpose was determined in part by the church's recognition of their spiritual value and in part by the regard which was paid by the christian community to the religious authority of those by whom they were believed to have been written. speaking generally, we may say that the old testament is the religious literature of judaism. it is the literary deposit of the spiritual life of a nation, the written record and monument of a progressive process of religious development. it begins at the level of folklore and primitive tribal cults, such as are portrayed or reflected, for example, in parts of the pentateuch and in the books of judges and samuel. it culminates, in the utterances of the greatest of the prophets and in many of the psalms, at the highest levels of religious attainment which are discoverable anywhere in history prior to the coming of our lord. the old testament will always have a value for christianity: in part because many of the religious lessons which it conveys can never be superseded even by christianity itself: in part because the study of it provides the general knowledge of judaism, and of jewish institutions and modes of thought, which is necessary for the proper understanding of the religious background of the gospels, and of much else in the new testament as well: in part also because the two revelations--the jewish and the christian--hang together, interlocking with one another as anticipation and fulfilment, in a manner which is singularly impressive. the various books of the old testament, nevertheless, require to be read by christians with discrimination, and with a clear realization of their jewish character. there is much in the old testament as it stands which is liable to mislead the simple and cause needless difficulty. there are, moreover, numerous passages, and not a few entire books, which except in the light of historical criticism and scholarly guidance are not really intelligible. but the study of the old testament as reinterpreted in our own generation by research and scholarship is a fascinating subject. it requires little in the way of technical equipment, and there is no reason in the world why it should be monopolized by specialists. to have even the most general acquaintance with the methods and results of critical study brings with it a great transformation of outlook. the old testament writers come to life again wonderfully when they are set in their proper historical context, and the result is a clear gain in spiritual values. the best general introduction to the whole subject is dr. w. b. selbie's book, _the nature and message of the bible_ (student christian movement, 3s. 6d.). canon nairne's volume, _the faith of the old testament_ (layman's library, longmans, 2s. 6d.) is an illuminating survey designed specially to bring out the religious value of the old testament, [footnote: those who may desire a more detailed and comprehensive treatment of the literary problems of the old testament should consult g. b. gray, _a critical introduction to the literature of the old testament_ (duckworth, 2s. 6d.).] and for commentaries upon individual books _the century bible_ (t. c. and e. c. jack, 3s. each volume) is to be recommended. the books of the new testament are the classical literature of christianity in a much fuller and more obvious sense. here, again, there is much that apart from the use of a good commentary will be found hardly intelligible: but the greater part of the new testament, and especially the gospels, can be read with profit by the ordinary man apart from any extraneous aids. it is well to remember that s. paul's epistles were written at an earlier date than any of the gospels, and that they represent the occasional correspondence of a hard-worked missionary. of the gospels the first three have much in common, and the gospels of s. matthew and s. luke are based partly upon that of s. mark. s. mark is said to have been the companion of s. peter, and is probably the author of the gospel which bears his name. it may be taken to represent his reminiscences of s. peter's preaching. the gospel now known as that according to s. matthew appears to be the work of a compiler who fitted into the framework of s. mark's story a considerable amount of additional matter, drawn chiefly from a collection of "sayings of jesus" which an early christian writer declares to have been made by s. matthew in aramaic. s. matthew's name, it is thought, was subsequently attached to the resulting document, since it contained a large preponderance of material derived from his book on our lord's sayings. the name of the actual compiler of the first gospel has not survived. s. luke's gospel is a compilation made upon somewhat similar lines, and is based, in large measure, upon the same two sources: but the author's researches extended also more widely, and his gospel contains a large proportion of matter peculiar to itself, which critics commonly regard as being of high historical value. the author of the book was a greek doctor who attended upon s. paul, accompanying the latter in his travels, and writing the acts of the apostles as a second volume in continuation of his gospel. the acts is partly based upon a kind of diary which s. luke kept of his experiences as s. paul's companion and physician. it is probable that both the first and the third of our four gospels were in existence shortly before, or at the latest very shortly after, the destruction of jerusalem by the romans in the year 70 a.d. the second gospel, since they both drew upon it, must be even earlier. the gospel according to s. john is of a somewhat later date, and bears a different character. it is reflective and meditative, and is penetrated throughout by a mystical symbolism. in many ways it suggests rather a spiritual interpretation of the significance of jesus than a literal portrait of him. again, it is the product of a greek rather than of a jewish atmosphere, though its narrative presents so many touches of extraordinary vividness, and the author shows so exact a knowledge of jewish institutions and conditions of life in palestine, that it is difficult not to think that the book must have been written by a jew who knew judaism before its downfall. it is supposed that the writing dates from the closing years of the first century, and tradition declares that the author was s. john in old age at ephesus. this statement is, however, in dispute, and the authorship of the gospel is uncertain. in point of fact, it does not matter who the writer was. there is no one of the interpreters of jesus who had drunk more deeply of his spirit than had he: nor is there any of the books of the new testament which brings jesus closer to us than the gospel according to s. john, or speaks home with greater power to the heart and affections of the simplest christian. part ii the practice of the christian religion chapter i the christian aim christianity in practice means the dedication of life to the unselfish service of god and man, in the light of the ideals of jesus christ, and in the power of an inward spiritual life which is hid with christ in god. the christian, renouncing such merely worldly ideals as selfadvancement, personal or family ambition, the accumulation of money, or the enjoyment, for their own sake, of the things which money can buy, is called to seek first and in all things god's kingdom and his righteousness, in the assurance that whatever may be really necessary for the advancement of this aim will in due course be added unto him. he is not to expect to find the practice of his religion to be, in a worldly sense, profitable; and the practice of his religion is to cover the whole of life. the desperate attempt to combine the service of god with that of mammon is therefore to be abandoned. if riches increase, he is not to set his heart upon them. if poverty be his lot, he is to embrace poverty as a bride. the aim and object of his life is not to be to get his own will done, but to discover what for him is the will of god, and to do it. he is to be the slave of god in christ, a living instrument in the hands of another, called to co-operate in a purpose not his own, though a purpose which he is to embrace, and to _make_ his own, in a spirit of loyal sonship. this means, among other things, that life is to be interpreted in terms of vocation. it means that for every man there is a "calling," a particular line of life which god intends him to follow, a specific piece of service to god and to his neighbour which he is called upon to render. the motto of a christian's life is to be the motto of his master--"my meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work." gifts and capacities, aptitudes for any special work, are therefore "talents," to be used in accordance with the will and purpose of the giver. opportunities and endowments, whatsoever they may be, are opportunities and endowments for service. it does not necessarily follow from this that a realization of the truth of christianity, and an awakening to the claims of religion, will lead to any outward change or radical alteration in the general conception of a man's life-work. it may or it may not do so. there are indubitably cases in which a man is called upon to abandon his previous career--to forsake prospects, however promising, or to renounce wealth and possessions, however entangling--in order to become (for example) a minister of the church or a missionary of the gospel, or to enter a religious order. our lord's command to the rich young ruler, that he should give up all that he had, in order to follow christ along the paths of homelessness and poverty, is a call which sounds still with a literal force in the ears of a certain number of his disciples. the inner spirit, moreover, of detachment from the world and from the things of the world, the readiness to abandon wealth and worldly position if need so require, and the refusal to be ensnared by them, are in any case demanded of all. the vocation, however, of the majority of men is already determined by their circumstances, or by their training and general aptitudes. it is only the few, comparatively speaking, who are called to become monks or missionaries, or priests devoid of "prospects." the majority will best serve god and their neighbour by "carrying on" in their existing occupations: and in most cases they are incidentally called also, sooner or later, to matrimony. but god calls no man to idleness. it is the duty of every christian, rich as well as poor, unless he be incapacitated by bodily sickness or infirmity, to be engaged in some work of general service to the community: and a man who proposes seriously to practise the christian religion needs to ask himself, with regard to the work or occupation in which he is engaged, or by which he earns his bread, whether he can say truly that he believes it to be the work which his father has given him to do: whether it can be interpreted, not simply as a means of livelihood, but as a service rendered in christ's name to society at large. if it cannot so be interpreted, then plainly it is no work which a christian should be doing. there are ways of making a living which, are definitely unchristian. the work of a shoe-black or of a tradesman or of an actor may be as true a piece of christian service as that of a doctor or a bishop. the work of a burglar or of a bookmaker could not be so regarded. christianity--it cannot be too strongly insisted--means the christianization of life as a whole. it is in the daily round and the common task that christ is most chiefly to be served. "whatsoever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the lord jesus, giving thanks to god and the father by him." religion is a wider thing than piety, and it is a false pietism which would regard it as consisting mainly of pious practices. the cultivation of the inner spiritual life by means of the practices of christian devotion is indeed essential in its place and its degree. the life of the spirit languishes if it is not fed. but except these things issue in the practical service of christ in daily life they are worse than futile. they degenerate either into formalism and hypocrisy, or into spiritual selfindulgence. "herein is my father glorified, that ye bear much fruit." "by their fruits ye shall know them." and the "fruits" of christian living are to be discovered, not in the hours spent in devotion, but in the manifestation amid the activities of the market-place of that temper of righteousness and peace and joy in the holy ghost, and that spirit of unselfish service, which should be their normal product. what is needed is a wider conception of churchmanship and a truer doctrine of vocation. all honest work in which a christian can lawfully engage should be regarded as an expression of his churchmanship--as truly work done for the church of god in obedience to a vocation from on high as is the work of a priest or a teacher of religion. it is at least partly because the majority of laymen do not so interpret their work in life that in so many cases they are discovered to be in effect living for the sake of their leisure and regarding their daily work as uninteresting drudgery, with the result that life as a whole comes to be for them dreary and profitless and stale. a christian man's life-work ought not to have the character of drudgery, but of sheer delight in god's service. but is such an ideal really practicable? it is literally practicable to a greater extent than most men think. it ought to be practicable universally. at the same time there is no disguising the fact that large numbers of men to-day find themselves in circumstances to which such a doctrine cannot without palpable unreality be applied. the structure of existing society under modern industrial conditions forces multitudes, by an evil economic pressure, into mechanical, uncongenial, and soul-destroying occupations: and the conditions of some men's labour in the world as it is are such that it would be sheer blasphemy to regard them as a product of the will of god. the problem of the christianization of the social order is one of the greatest of the tasks confronting the christian church. its solution has hardly yet begun to be attempted. in the meantime the mass of christian people, in virtue of their acquiescence, are accomplices in the denial to the disinherited classes of the conditions and opportunities which make life worth living for themselves. so long as it continues to be possible for a man who genuinely desires to learn and labour truly to get his own living to starve in the midst of plenty: so long as multitudes are constrained to work under conditions which rob their labour of all interest, of all idealism, and of all hope: so long as sweating, and destitution, and such conditions of life as obtain in the more densely crowded areas of our great towns continue to exist: so long will it be the duty of every christian to be a social reformer, and to have a conscience permanently troubled with regard to wealth and social advantage. [footnote: mr. george lansbury's _your part in poverty_ (george alien and unwin, ltd., is.) is a book worth reading in this particular connexion.] meanwhile the christian ideal of life stands. it is the ideal of consecration to service. it means discipleship in christ's school of unselfishness, both individual and corporate: for there is a selfishness of the family, of the class, or of the nation, which bears as bitter fruit in the world as does the selfishness of the individual. christianity, in a word, means the carrying out into daily practice of the ideal of the _imitatio christi_, the imitation of jesus christ, in the spirit if not in the letter. it means that as he was, so are we to be in the world. it means that all things, whatsoever we do, are to be done in his spirit and to his glory: that our every thought is to be led captive under the obedience of christ. it means that we are to love god because god first loved us, and to love men because they are our brothers in the family of god: because love is of god, and every one that loveth is born of god and knoweth god. it means that we are to consecrate all comradeship and loyalty and friendship, all sorrow and all joy, by looking upon them as friendship and loyalty and comradeship in christ, as sorrow and joy in him. it means that we are to live glad, strong, free, clean lives as sons of god in our father's house. it means also struggle and hardship. it means truceless war against the spirit of selfishness, against everything that tends to drag us down, against the law of sin in our own members. it means a truceless war against low ideals and tolerated evils in the world about us. it means soldiership in the eternal crusade of christ against whatsoever things are false and dishonest and unjust and foul and ugly and of evil report. it is an ideal which, considered in isolation from the christian gospel of redemption and the power of the holy spirit, could only terrify and daunt a man who had a spark of honesty in his composition: and for this reason the mass of men refuses to take it seriously. it is an ideal which, in the case of all who do take it seriously, convinces them of sin. nevertheless to lower the ideal, to abate one jot of its severity, to compromise, on the score of human weakness, though it were but in a single particular, the flawless perfection of its standard, were to prove false to all that is highest within us, and traitor to the cause of christ. "never, o christ--so stay me from relenting--shall there be truce betwixt my flesh and soul." chapter ii the way of the world the three traditional enemies of the christian life are symbolized under the headings of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and the classification has a certain convenience. the "world" stands in this connexion for human society in so far as it is organized apart from christ. it is obvious that "the way of the world," as represented by the general outlook of conventional society, is in many respects in manifest conflict with the principles of the gospel. the existing social order is the product of a compromise between inherited influences and standards which are in a certain sense broadly christian, and the natural man's instinctive selfishness in matters both individual and social. the conflict against the spirit of worldliness which should be one of the marks of a genuine christian life is beset by peculiar difficulties, precisely because in a society which is in some respects partially christian the issues are confused. public opinion indubitably tolerates many things which should not be tolerated, and condones others which should not be condoned. but public opinion approves much that is good, and does lip-service to a variety of christian ideals, even while reserving the reality of its devotion for the worship of success and material comfort. perhaps it may be said that the most fundamental characteristic of essentially "worldly" opinion is absence of idealism. worldliness is the principle of contentment with things as they are. against worldliness, so defined, the christian is committed to a conflict all along the line, since even in those regions of life and conduct in which the standards recognized by the world are right and good so far as they go, "the good is the enemy of the best." to rest content at any point with what has already been attained is fatal to all spiritual advance. it is, in effect, the death of the soul. mr. william temple has remarked that in the conflict of christians against the devil and the flesh the public opinion of the church, as visibly organized, is on their side, but that in their conflict with the world it is decidedly against them. that is an over-statement, but it conveys a truth. undoubtedly the church has made compromises with the world, a fact which arises partly as the result of the inclusion within her fold of a large proportion of merely nominal members whose christianity is no more than an inherited or conventional tradition. a further point of importance is this. two thousand years is not a long period in relation to the scale of the world's history as a whole, and christianity is still a comparatively young religion. the problem of worldliness is mainly a problem of the relation of the church to the social order; and there are reasons why it was natural that the working out of the christian ideal of conduct should first have been developed in relation to the affairs of private and domestic life. christians in the early days were a "little flock," surrounded by a society whose standards and conventions and beliefs were frankly pagan and hostile. so long as these conditions obtained the issues were plain: the contrast in ideals between church and world stood out sharp and clear. the world, it was held, was ready to perish, and destined at no distant date to do so. "the whole world," writes s. john, "lieth in wickedness." the church stood apart as the spiritual brotherhood of god's elect who were called to assist at the obsequies of a world which was in process of passing away. "the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of god abideth for ever." the words contain an eternal truth: but in their literal sense they expressed a mistaken judgment. the world--that is, secular society-did not pass away. it is with us still. for a period of some three hundred years it persecuted the church. at the end of that period it accepted baptism, but not its implications. the church has been engaged ever since in the task of attempting to christianize the heathen within her own borders. the church was outwardly secularized: and the minority who could not tolerate the secularization of her ideals took refuge in the hermit's cell or in the cloister. in these retreats was developed the practice of christianity as an art or science of individual sanctity, but at the cost of a certain aloofness from the rough and tumble of workaday life. the christianity of the middle ages was fertilized from the cloister, with the result that the spiritual ideals even of those christians who remained "in the world" tended to be coloured by the monastic tradition. the christian man of the world who took seriously the practice of his religion aimed at reproducing at second hand the christianity of the monk. the salvation of the individual soul tended to be regarded as the supreme end of christian endeavour, rather than the service of the brethren. the reformation, when it came, did nothing to diminish this individualism of the religious outlook, but rather accentuated it. the whole emphasis of protestantism was thrown upon the life of the individual soul in relation to god, to the comparative neglect of the importance of the conception of membership in the church. to the ordinary worldling the advent of protestantism meant simply that he need no longer trouble to go to mass or to confession. the protestant who took his religion seriously became a puritan, a type resembling the monk of catholicism in his attempted isolation from the world, yet lacking the peculiar otherworldly mysticism of the monkish character at its best, and having a peculiar knack of making religion appear repellent to the ordinary man. the emergence of the ideal of a genuinely social christianity, aiming not at escape from the world by way of flight, but at the deliberate conquest of the world for christ by the resolute application of christian standards to the ordinary life of men in society, is of comparatively recent date. it began in this country with the writings of kingsley and maurice, and various living teachers both in england and in america have carried on their work. it is one of the misfortunes of germany that she has had no corresponding movement. as a consequence we are confronted at the present time with the spectacle of various leaders of religious thought in germany, too honest not to perceive the glaring contrasts between the way of the world and the precepts of the gospel, deliberately maintaining the position that christianity is solely adapted to be a religion of private life, and that christian standards and ideals have no application as between class and class, or as between nation and nation. to adopt such an attitude is to abandon all hope of the redemption of society. it is to condemn the world in perpetuity to a fate of which the present war is the appropriate symbol. the war is, in effect, a kind of sacrament of the power of antichrist. it is the outward and visible sign of the inward character and essence of a civilisation founded upon principles which are the opposite of those of the gospel. neither men nor nations, in the world as we have known it, have been wont to love their neighbours as themselves. the way of the world is, and has been, the way of selfishness. this is not any the less true because the world's selfishness has been to a considerable extent unconscious, and has arisen rather from absence of thought than from deliberate badness of heart. the world does not always realize how cruel are its ways towards the weak and the socially unfortunate, or towards those who, for whatever reason, transgress its code. for the world _has_ a code of its own, both in manners and in morals, though the basis of its code is convention, and its standard respectability rather than virtue. the world is very apt to show itself implacable towards those whom it regards as being beyond its pale, and to exhibit, in effect, the spirit and temper which, when manifested in the religious sphere, we know and loathe as pharisaism. pharisaism, like worldliness, has penetrated to an alarming extent into the church of england. parallel and proportionate to the world's selfishness is its cynicism. this also is largely unconscious. lacking any true insight into spiritual realities, the world lacks vision and lacks hope. it presumes always that "the thing which has been, it is that which shall be." it beholds the evil that is done under the sun, and pronounces it inevitable. it fails to understand that to pronounce any evil inevitable is to be guilty of blasphemy against the god of heaven. against the spirit of the worldly world, its selfishness and cynicism, its conventional judgments and shallowness of mind, the christian is called deliberately to make war. the church exists to be to the world and its ways a permanent challenge: to be the champion in all circumstances and times of righteousness and truth; to insist upon bringing to bear on human life in all its relationships, both corporate and individual, the spirit of brotherhood, which is the spirit of christ. it was a true instinct which led s. ignatius loyola to pray on behalf of the order which he founded that it might be hated by the world. "marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.... if ye were of the world, the world would love his own." if the world does not hate the church it is not because the world has become christian, but because worldliness has taken possession of the church. the world to-day regards the church as not worth hating, as a negligible quantity. when the church is once more ready to be crucified, then the opposition of the world will be revived, and the church will suffer martyrdom afresh. chapter iii the spirit and the flesh sins of the flesh include all forms of slackness and bodily selfindulgence. a christian is called to assert the supremacy of the spirit over the flesh by controlling his bodily impulses and disciplining his desires. there is, therefore, a true christian asceticism. but asceticism, in so far as it is genuinely christian, is never an end in itself. it is a discipline which promotes efficiency. it is to be compared to an athlete's training, not to the selfmutilation of a fakir. there is in christianity no doctrine of the unlawfulness of bodily pleasures in themselves. "the son of man came eating and drinking." for christianity every creature of god in itself is good, and a man's bodily impulses are god-given endowments of his nature. what is essential is that their exercise should be controlled and subordinated to the higher purposes of the spirit, that they should be directed to their proper ends, and that they should not be allowed to get out of hand. christians are not meant to be puritans, but they are meant to be pure. the battle against fleshliness in all its forms is a battle which has to be fought and won in every christian's life. apart from the question of certain unmentionable forms of perverted sexual vice, the sinfulness of what are commonly classified as "sins of the flesh" consists in wrongful indulgence or lack of self-control in respect of that which in itself is legitimate and good. the christian ideal is not abstinence, but temperance. a christian will be temperate, for example, in sleep, food, alcohol, and tobacco. intemperance means slavery to a habit, the loss of spiritual selfmastery, whereby the whole character is enervated, and efficiency, both physical and moral, is impaired. "all things are lawful," as s. paul says, but a christian is not to allow himself to be brought "under the _power_ of any." he is meant to live hard and to live clean. the practice of fasting, that is, of deliberate temporary selfdiscipline in these matters, even below the standard of what would normally be a reasonable indulgence, is a valuable means of asserting and retaining the self-mastery which is essential to christian freedom. but fasting should not be allowed to become a mechanical observance, or erected into an unduly rigid law. the fish-dinner upon fridays and other fast-days of the church is, as a modern dignitary has remarked, innocuous; and it has the value which belongs to conformity to a rule or recommendation of the christian brotherhood; but whether or not it is observed in practice, it is hardly adequate by itself to the purposes of christian self-discipline. it appears to be a fairly widespread delusion in some sections of society that a christian must necessarily be a teetotaller. the ideal christian policy, here as elsewhere, if we may judge from the example of our lord, would seem to be that of a temperate use of the gifts of god. it is unfortunate that in this country most of the societies which exist for the purpose of promoting temperance have virtually committed themselves to the confusion of temperance with total abstinence, and their fanaticism is, in the judgment of many persons, a hindrance to genuine reform. but it cannot reasonably be denied that drunkenness, and the still wider prevalence of an excessive drinking which falls short of actual drunkenness, is a frightful evil in the national life; and what is commonly known as the "liquor interest" plays a sinister part as an organized obstructive force standing in the way of needed reforms. the number of public-houses and drinkingbars in english towns and villages is monstrously out of proportion to any reasonable needs of the population: and it must be more than ordinarily difficult for brewers and publicans, under existing conditions, to resist the temptation to exploit for the sake of gain the weaknesses of others. a christian need not be a teetotaller in order to have this problem upon his conscience, and to be ready to support, by his vote and influence, some considered and constructive policy of reform. a man who by experience finds that alcohol is to him personally a temptation will be wise if he becomes a teetotaller. "if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut it off." in certain social environments it may also be wise for a man to become a total abstainer, not in his own interests, but for the sake of others with whom he is brought into immediate contact. there can be no question but that drunkenness, which is a vice both degrading and repulsive in itself, is in many strata of english social life still far too lightly regarded. it is, moreover, worth remarking that even a degree of indulgence in alcohol which would commonly be regarded as falling well within the limit of temperance is regarded by some authorities as having the effect--which actual drunkenness certainly has--of stimulating sexuality: and when all is said, probably the most insistent of fleshly temptations, at least in the earlier years of manhood, are those which are connected with the life of sex. many make shipwreck upon these rocks through lack of knowledge or want of thought; but neither thought nor knowledge will avail to safeguard a man's purity apart from sound moral principle: nor are even moral principles effectual in the hour of strong temptation apart from the grace of god. christianity teaches that to every man there is entrusted, in virtue of his manhood, the seed of life as a divine treasure. it is meant not to be turned into a means of self-indulgence, or suffered to run riot in a blaze of passion, but to be restrained and safeguarded in purity against the day--if the day arrives--upon which a man is called to use it for the purpose for which it was given him, namely, that of bringing new lives into the world through union with a woman in pure marriage. most men are sorely tempted to lack of self-control, and to the misuse of their sexual endowment in a variety of ways: and the maintenance of chastity--never an easy ideal--is made doubly difficult by the fact that in the existing social system marriage, except among the poorer classes, is commonly deferred until an age much later than that at which a man becomes physically mature, and also by the widespread prevalence, in masculine society, of a corrupt public opinion which regards sexual indulgence as morally tolerable, or even as essential to physical health. this latter doctrine, even were it as true as it is in fact false, would not in any case justify a man in taking advantage of a woman's ruin: but experience shows that there is no form of sin or indulgence which so effectually degrades a man's moral outlook, blunts his finer perceptions, and destroys the instinct of chivalry within him, as does the sin of fornication. the majority of those who practise promiscuous sexual intercourse are found to greet with frank and obviously genuine incredulity the assertion that there exists a not inconsiderable proportion of men whose lives are clean; while at the other end of the scale men of pure lives and clean ideals often find it difficult to believe that more than a small minority of peculiarly degraded individuals are clients of the women of the streets. the publication of the report of the royal commission on venereal diseases, taken in conjunction with what is known or suspected with regard to the state of morals in the army, has had the effect of drawing public attention to certain aspects of these problems. the victorian convention of prudery has to a great extent been discarded. the subject is freely discussed, and it is generally acknowledged that something must be done. there is danger, however, lest public opinion, rightly concerned to promote measures for the eradication of disease, should ignore the essentially moral aspect of the matter. a christian man is here concerned, not simply with the personal struggle against the temptations of sex in his own life, but with a further conflict on behalf of christian ideals against the public opinion of the world. for if ecclesiastical opinion in the past has been both prudish and pharisaic, the public opinion of the world is frankly cynical. roughly speaking, the world expects the majority of women to be pure, acquiesces in the prostitution of the remainder, and treats masculine immorality as a venial offence. numbers of would-be reformers--of the male sex--are not ashamed to advocate, in private if not in public, the establishment of licensed brothels on the continental model. it ought not to be necessary to say that no christian man can possibly tolerate a proposal to give deliberate public sanction to the prostitution of a certain proportion of the nation's womanhood to the lusts of men, or acquiesce in the complacent sex-selfishness which is concerned only for the physical health of sinners of the male sex. the point of view of the christian church is determined by that of our lord, who on the one hand numbered a reclaimed prostitute among his intimate friends, and on the other taught that whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart. the church, therefore, differs from the world, first in holding that what is wrong for women is equally wrong for men, that there is one and the same standard in these matters for both sexes, namely, absolute sexual purity; and secondly, in extending equally to the fallen of both sexes the promise of divine forgiveness upon identical terms, namely, genuine repentance, unreserved confession, desire and purpose of amendment, and faith in god. the world, which condones the iniquity of the man who falls, is apt to be uncommonly hard upon the fallen woman, forgetting that she also is a sister for whom christ died, and that the woman who to-day plays the part of a temptress of men was originally, in the majority of cases, more sinned against than sinning. very few of those who ply the trade of shame will be found to have adopted such a mode of life, in the first instance, of their own unfettered choice. we are members one of another, and society as a whole, which both creates the demand and provides the supply, must share the guilt of their downfall. this book is written primarily for men: and there are therefore other aspects of the life of sex upon which it is necessary to touch, though they are difficult matters to handle. it is well known that large numbers of men in boyhood, either through untutored ignorance of the physiology of their own bodies, or as a result of the corrupt example and teaching of others, become addicted to habits of solitary vice, in which the seed of life within them is deliberately excited, stirred up and wasted, to the sapping of their physical well-being and the defilement of their minds. habits of self-abuse, when once they are established, are apt to be extremely difficult to break. the minds of their victims are liable to be morbidly obsessed by the physical facts of sex, and their thoughts continually directed into turbid channels. but it is possible by the grace of god to conquer, though there may be relapses before the final victory is won. it is important neither on the one hand to belittle the gravity of the evil, nor on the other to grow hopeless and despondent, but to have faith in god. it is also a counsel of common sense to distract the mind, so far as possible, in other directions, and to avoid deliberately whatever is likely to prove an occasion or stimulus to this particular form of sin. the battle of purity can only be successfully fought in the region of outward act if the victory is at the same time won in the region of thought and desire. books and pictures, or trains of thought and imagination, which are either unclean in themselves, or are discovered by experience to be sexually exciting to particular individuals, ought obviously to be avoided by those concerned, and the mind directed towards the contemplation of whatsoever things are true and honest and just and pure and lovely and of good report. in the hour of strong temptation it is often best, instead of trying to meet the assault directly, to change the immediate environment, or in some other way to concentrate the mind: for example, to sit down and read a clean novel until the stress of the obsession is past. physical cleanliness, plenty of healthy exercise in the open air (it is unfortunate that the circumstances of many men's lives do not give adequate opportunity for this), temperance in food, and especially--in the light of what has been said above--temperance in drink, are all incidentally of value as aids to the maintenance of purity. so also is the avoidance of the habit of lying in bed in a semi-somnolent condition after true sleep has finally departed. a christian's body is meant to be a temple of the holy ghost, and no other spirit, whether of impurity or of sloth, should be allowed to have domination over him. other sins there are which should not be so much as named among christian men-those, namely, in which men with men work that which is unseemly, and burn with lust one towards another. it is necessary to refer to these, because their prevalence is said to be increasing. a considerable proportion of men are temperamentally liable to be sexually attracted by members of their own sex; and passionate friendships, in which there is an element which is in the last analysis sexual, are not uncommon both between boys and youths at the age of early manhood, and between men of mature age and adolescents. the true character of these relationships is not always in their initial stages obvious, even to those concerned. as a guiding principle it may be laid down that a friendship between members of the same sex begins to enter upon dangerous ground whenever an element of jealousy betrays itself, when there is a desire habitually to monopolize the other's company to the exclusion of third persons, or when the life and interests of the one appear to be disproportionately wrapped up in the concerns and doings of the other. friendships of this character are always selfish and may all too easily become impure. it is the business of a christian man to be on his guard and to love his male friends not as a woman is loved and not in a spirit of selfish monopoly, but with the pure and clean and essentially unselfish affection of christian manhood. a word may be said, lastly, with regard to prurient and polluted talk and unclean stories. against these a christian man will do well firmly and resolutely to set his face. such things defile the mind. they are injurious both to him that hears and to him that speaks, in that they tend to engender a mental atmosphere in which the suggestions of actual vice are likely to meet with an enfeebled power of resistance. of course it is possible to be too tragical on the subject of "language," and to exaggerate the harm done by "smoking-room" stories. but whatever is definitely unclean is definitely evil, and should be both avoided and discouraged. to assume, however, a pious demeanour and to appear to be shocked is a fatal method of protest. christians have no business to be shocked, nor are they meant to be prigs. there are other forms of social pressure which are more effective. it is, moreover, sometimes possible to combine moral reprobation with a sense of humour. chapter iv the works of the devil the devil is from one point of view a figure of jewish and christian mythology. the jews, like other early peoples, believed in the existence of evil spirits or demons, to whose malignant agency they ascribed various diseases, both functional and organic, and in particular those unhappy cases of obsession, fixed idea, and multiple personality, which we should now class under the general head of insanity, and treat in asylums for the mentally deranged. the new testament writings are full of this point of view, which is of course largely foreign to our minds to-day. the ordinary englishman is not a great believer in devils or spirits of evil: though he does in some instances believe in ghosts, and is inclined to the practice of what in former ages was called necromancy--the attempt to establish an illicit connexion with the spirits of the departed--under the modern name of psychical research. there are, no doubt, some forms of psychical research which are genuinely scientific and legitimate. it is probable enough that there exists a considerable area of what may be called borderland phenomena to which scientific methods of inquiry may be found applicable, and which it is theoretically the business of science to investigate. but it is a region in which the way lies readily open to all kinds of superstition and self-deceit. the pursuit of truth for its own sake is essentially a religious thing: but the motives of many amateur dabblers in psychical research are far from being truly religious or spiritual. much popular spiritualism, whether it assumes the form of table-turnings, of spirit-rappings, or of mediumistic seances, is thoroughly morbid and undesirable, and the christian church has rightly discouraged it. it is not, however, necessary to believe literally in the devil, or in devils--concerning whose existence many persons will prefer to remain agnostic--in order to find in the figure of the devil, as he appears in biblical and other literature, a convenient personification of certain forms of evil. there is an atmosphere of evil about us, a kingdom of evil, over against the kingdom of good: and there are suggestions and impulses of evil which from time to time arise in our minds, which--whatever may be the literal truth about them--not infrequently present the appearance of having been prompted by some mysterious external tempter. certainly deeds have been done in the present war which can only be described as devilish. the war has revealed on a large scale and in unmistakable terms the evil of which the heart of man is capable, and how thin in many cases is the veneer which separates the outwardly civilized european from the primitive savage. "for this purpose was the son of god manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." and by the works of the devil we may understand especially cruelty, malice, envy, hatred and all uncharitableness, the spirit of selfishness which wars against love, and the spirit of pride which ignores god. we see these things exhibited upon the large scale in the conspicuous criminals among mankind, whom we are sometimes tempted to regard as devils incarnate. we need to be on our guard against the beginnings of them, and indeed in many cases their actual presence in an undetected but fairly developed form, in ourselves. christian men are to be kindly affectioned one towards another in brotherly love: in honour preferring one another--which is easier to say than to do. they are to refrain from rendering evil for evil, and to learn under provocation to be self-controlled. they are to be in charity with all men, and so far as it lies within their own power (for it takes two to make peace, as it takes two to make a quarrel) they are to live peaceably with all men. wrath and clamour, lying and evil-speaking, back-biting and slandering, are all of the devil, devilish. contrary to the works of the devil, which may be summed up under the three headings of lying, hatred, and pride, are the christian ideals of truthfulness, love, and humility, with regard to each of which a few words may usefully be said. (i) the devil is described in the new testament as "a liar and the father thereof." a christian is to be true and just in all his dealings, abhorring crookedness: for the essence of lying is not inexactitude in speech, but deceitfulness of intention. christian veracity means honesty, straightforwardness, and sincerity in deed as well as in word. a writer of fiction is not a liar: to improve in the telling an anecdote or a story is not necessarily to deceive others in any culpable sense; and moralists have from time to time discussed the question whether there may not be circumstances in which to tell a verbal lie is even a moral duty--_e.g._ in order to prevent a murderer or a madman from discovering the whereabouts of his intended victim. but casuistical problems of this kind do not very frequently arise, and in all ordinary circumstances strict literal veracity is the right course to pursue. [footnote: of course such social conventions as "not at home," "no trouble at all," or "glad to see you," "no, you are not interrupting me," etc., are hardly to be classed as "lies," since they do not as a rule seriously mislead others, but are merely an expression of the will to be civil.] christian truthfulness, however, is in any case a much wider thing than merely verbal truth-telling: it implies inward spiritual reality, a genuine desire to see things as they are, a thirst of the soul for truth, and a hatred of shams. the worst form of lying is that in which a man is not merely a deceiver of others but is self-deceived, and suffers from "the lie in the soul." the religion of christ is always remorselessly opposed to every form or kind of humbug or of sham. jesus christ is the supreme spiritual realist of history. in his view the "publican" or acknowledged sinner is preferable to the pharisee or hypocrite for the precise reason that the former is a more genuine kind of person than the latter. and to tell the truth in this deeper sense, that is, genuinely to face realities and to refuse to be put off with shams, to see through the plausibilities and to detect the hollowness of moral and social pretences and conventionalities, to have, in short, the spiritual and moral instinct for reality, is a much harder thing than to be verbally veracious. the true veracity can come only from him who is the truth: it is a gift of the spirit, and proceeds from god who knows the counsels of men's hearts, and discerns the motives and imaginations of their minds. it follows that just as every lie is of the devil, so all truth, of whatever kind, is of god. the lord is a god of knowledge, and every form of intellectual timidity and obscurantism is contrary to godliness. there can never be any opposition between scientific and religious truth, since both equally proceed from god. the christian church is ideally a society of free-thinkers, that is, of men who freely think, and the genuine christian tradition has always been to promote learning and freedom of inquiry. it is worth remembering that the oldest and most justly venerable of the universities of europe are without exception in their origin ecclesiastical foundations. if the love of truth and the spirit of freedom which inspired their inception has at particular epochs in their history been temporarily obscured, if there is much in the ecclesiasticism both of the past and of the present which is reactionary in tendency and spirit, at least there have never been lacking protesting voices, and the authentic spirit of the gospel tells always upon the other side. "ye shall know the truth," says a new testament writer, "and the truth shall make you free." [footnote: the manifestations of the persecuting spirit and temper are not confined to the sphere of religion; the intolerance of the platform or of the press can be as bigoted as that of the pulpit: and secular governments also can persecute--not only in france or in prussia. that it is part of the mission of christianity to cast out the evil spirit of persecution, to destroy intolerance as it has destroyed slavery, is none the less true, in spite of the fact that both slavery and persecution have in the past found christian defenders.] (ii) in the second place, hatred is of the devil, and love is of christ: the christian is to love even his enemies. in a time of war, that is to say, whenever actual enemies exist, the natural man discovers in such an ideal only an immoral sentimentalism, and the doctrinaire pacificist occasionally uses language which gives colour to the charge. but christianity has nothing in common with sentimentalism, and christian is no merely sentimental affection which ignores the reality of evil or explains away the wrongfulness of wrong. in order to love his enemies it is not necessary for a christian to pretend that they are not really hostile, to make excuses for things that are inexcusable, or to be blind to the moral issues which may be at stake. it has rightly been pointed out that "love your enemies" means "want them to be your friends: want them to alter, so that friendship between you and them may become possible." more generally what is meant is that the christian man is by the grace of god, to conquer the instinct of hatred and the spirit of revenge within his own heart, to be willing to serve others (his enemies included) at cost to himself in accordance with the will of god, to desire on behalf of all men (his enemies included) the realization of their true good. for wrongdoers chastisement may be the truest kindness. to allow a man, or a nation, to pursue an evil purpose unchecked would be no real act of love even towards the nation or the individual concerned. to offer opposition, if necessary by force, may in certain circumstances be a plain duty. that which we are to love, in those whose immediate aspect and character is both unlovely and unlovable, is not what they are, but what they are capable of becoming. we are to love that element in them which is capable of redemption, the true spiritual image of god in man, which can never be totally effaced. we are to remember that for them also the son of god was crucified, that we also have need of forgiveness, and that "god commendeth his own love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, in due time christ died for the ungodly." (iii) the third great manifestation of the spirit and temper which is of the devil, devilish, is pride, which by christian writers upon these subjects is commonly regarded as the deadliest of the so-called "deadly sins," on the ground that it logically involves the assertion of a false claim to be independent of god, and is therefore fatal in principle to the religious life. pagan systems of morality distinguish between false pride, the foolish conceit of the man who claims for himself virtues and capacities which he does not in fact possess, and proper pride, the entirely just appreciation by a man of his own merits and accomplishments at neither more nor less than their true value. the christian ideal of humility is apt from this point of view to appear either slavish or insincere. the issue between christian and pagan morals here depends upon the truth or falsehood of the christian doctrine of god and of his relation to man. once let a man take seriously the avowal that "it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves," once let him grant the position that his life belongs to god and not to himself, and concur in the judgment of spiritual experience that whatever is good in him is the result not of his own efforts in independence of his maker, but of the divine spirit operative within him, and it becomes obvious that "boasting"--as s. paul expresses it--"is excluded." at the same time christian humility is not self-depreciation. it has nothing in common either with the spirit of uriah heep, or with the false diffidence which refuses on the ground of personal insufficiency a task or vocation to which a man is genuinely called. these are both equally forms of self-consciousness. humility is forgetfulness of self. the true pattern and exemplar of humility is the christ, who claimed for himself the greatest role in the whole history of the world, simply on the ground that it was the work which his father had given him to do. "i seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth." the secret of humility is devotion to the will of god. chapter v the kingdom of god christianity in the last three chapters has been considered on its negative side as involving a conflict against temptation. but the christian ideal is positive rather than negative. we have only to think for a moment of the character and life of christ in order to realize how ludicrously impoverished a conception of the gospel righteousness is that which regards it as exhausted by the meticulous avoidance of sin. "christian purity," it has been said, "is not a snowy abstinence but a white-hot passion of life towards god." the same might be said of other christian virtues. positively regarded, the christian ideal of life means sonship towards god and citizenship in his kingdom. the precise signification of the phrase, "kingdom of god," or "kingdom of heaven," in the language of the new testament has been the theme of controversy and discussion among scholars. it is impossible to enter here into the technicalities of the dispute. broadly speaking, it may be laid down without much fear of contradiction that the kingdom of god means the effectual realization, in every department of human life and upon a universal scale, of the sovereignty of god as christ reveals him. it is the vision of the goal of human history. it is meant to be a leading motive and inspiration of christian life. "i will not cease from mental strife, nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, till we have built jerusalem in england's green and pleasant land." it is quite true that, according to the thought of the new testament writers, the mystic jerusalem is not a city built by mortal men upon this earth, but something which is wholly the gift of god, a city not made with hands, descending from god out of heaven. the kingdom of god in its fulness is no product of human striving. it is the achievement of a divine purpose, the manifestation in the end of the days of the completed mystery of the divine will. nevertheless it is the mission of the church to prepare the way of the kingdom, and it is for christian men to live as sons of the divine kingdom even now, that is, as men in whose hearts and lives god and none other is enthroned as king and lord. this means that everything that is good in human life is to be redeemed by being offered to god, and that everything that is vile and evil is to be eliminated and cast out. "the son of man shall send forth his messengers, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend." "there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie." "the kingdom of god is righteousness and peace and joy in the holy ghost." the ideal of the christian life, therefore, is something infinitely richer and more positive than the merely negative morality of the ten commandments. it is the ideal of the divine kingdom. it is a positive devotion to the will of god. it means co-operation with the divine will and purpose, a will and a purpose which, by the patient operation of the divine spirit, is in the course of world-history slowly but surely being worked out, amid all the immediate chaos and welter of events, to its goal in the revelation of the jerusalem which is from above. that is why the christian is bidden to pray continually, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven." if a man does not want the divine kingdom, or does not believe in it, he ought not to pray for it. if he does want it and pray for it, he ought also to work for it. and though no man may fully understand it, yet if a man is to pray for it and work for it at all, he needs to have at least some partial understanding of what it means. it is worth while, therefore, instead of dismissing the idea as a vague dream or an empty phrase, to try and fill it with some measure of positive meaning for us men here and now. what is the will of god for humanity? and what is meant by preparing the way of the lord? some things at least we may say are certainly included in the will of god, and some things are as certainly excluded. "it is not the will of your father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." a christian church which took seriously its vocation to go before the lord and to prepare his ways would be effectively and vigorously concerned with problems so prosaic as the rate of infantile mortality and the allied questions of housing and sanitation, with the insistence that the conditions of life among the poorer classes of the community shall be such as make decent living possible, and with the provision of a minimum of leisure and of genuine opportunities of liberal education for all who have the will and the capacity to profit by them. the combined ignorance and apathy of the people of england with regard to questions of education, which has made possible the shelving of mr. fisher's education bill in deference to the opposition of vested interests, is little to the credit of the christian church in these islands, and grievously disappointing to those who had hoped at last for a real instalment of constructive reform. [footnote: it is now stated that the bill is to be reintroduced and passed, with certain modifications. it is to be hoped that the modifications will not be such as to destroy its effectiveness as an instrument of real reform. it remains true that the bill was imperilled by the apathy and ignorance of the rank and file of churchmen and christians generally, though it is fair to say that the bishops demonstrated unanimously in its favour.] a system of education, moreover, which was truly christian, would provide not merely for the training of mind and body, and for instruction--on the basis of some inter-denominational modus vivendi yet to be achieved--in morality and religion. it would secure equally for the children of all classes opportunities for the training of the aesthetic faculties, for the cultivation of art and imagination, for the filling of life with colour and variety and movement. the intolerable ugliness of the domestic architecture of our cities and towns is a totally unnecessary offence to god and man; and the drabness and monotony of the life of huge masses of the population, who find in the rival attractions of the gin-palace and the cinema the only means of distraction at present open to them--this also is something which cannot possibly be regarded as being in accordance with the will of god. the redemption of society from all that at present makes human life sordid or hideous is a real part of what the ideal of the kingdom means. it is a part of the task laid upon the christian church in preparing the way of the lord and making straight his paths. included also in the will of god for humanity is the evangelization of the world, the perfecting of the church, the bringing of all nations and races into a spiritual unity in christ jesus. christianity claims by its very nature to be the absolute religion: the climax and fulfilment of the whole process of man's religious quest: the synthetic and unifying truth, in which whatever is true and positive and permanently valuable in the religious systems of the non-christian world is gathered up and made complete. of christ it has been written that "how many soever be the promises of god, in him is the yea." in christ is the fulfilment of the unconscious prophecies of the religions of the heathen world, nor is there any true solution of the problems of comparative religion except this. the christian church is in principle and of necessity missionary, and apart from the vitalizing breath of the missionary spirit the life of the church languishes and dies. but the true spirit and method of christian missions is not a narrow proselytism. there are indeed things in many of the lower religions of the world which are dark and evil. there are regions of the earth which are full of base and cruel and degrading superstitions, immoral rites and practices against which the church of christ can only set its face, and with which it can make no terms. these are works of the devil which the son of god was manifested to destroy. but there is much in the higher religious thought of paganism which christ comes not to destroy but to fulfil, and christianity can fulfil and interpret to the higher religions of paganism just that which is truest and most positive in their own spiritual message. conversely, it is probable that there are in christianity itself elements which will only be fully interpreted and understood when the spiritual genius of nations at present pagan has made its proper contribution to christian thought. for our own sake as well as for theirs it is important that the nations should be evangelized and brought to a knowledge of the truth. when we say the lord's prayer we are praying, among other things, for the success of christian missions. and if christianity contains within itself the true solution of the problem of comparative religion, it contains also, in germ and potentiality, the solution of the problems of race and caste, and of the international problem also. not until men have learnt the secret of brotherhood in christ will the white and the coloured races treat one another as brothers. not until the nations, as nations, are genuinely christian and have learnt, in their dealings one with another, to manifest the spirit of unselfishness and love, will the day be in sight when they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and be content to learn war no more. this too, if the gospel means anything at all, is part of the will of god for the human race. it is part of what is involved in the prayer, "thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." it is an integral and vitally important element in the christian hope of the kingdom. the redemption of society, the evangelization of the world, the bringing together into the corporate wholeness of a world-wide catholic church of the fragmentary christianity of the existing multitude of sects, the elimination of war from the earth, and the breaking down, as the result of a conscious realization of human unity in christ, of the dividing barriers of colour and race and caste-all these are essential elements in the christian vision. the man of the world may, and probably will, pronounce each and all of them to be chimerical, the baseless fabric of a dream. he will find no thoughtful man who is genuinely christian to agree with him. for these things are, quite certainly, part of the will of god for humanity. they are involved of necessity in any effectual realization in human life of the sovereignty of the father who is revealed in christ. and because god is god, the goal, for the christian man, is within the horizon-"the kingdom of heaven is at hand." in any case, be the goal near or be it far off, it is as a citizen of that kingdom, and of none other, that the christian man will set himself to live. he will enthrone god in his own heart as king and lord, and will hold fast the heavenly vision which it has been given to him to see. "as we look out into the future," says a modern writer,[footnote: the rev. w. temple, in an address delivered at liverpool on "problems of society" in 1912, and published by the student christian movement in _christ and, human need._] "we seem to see a great army drawn from every nation under heaven, from every social class, from every section of christ's church, pledged to one thing and to one thing only-the establishment of christ's kingdom upon earth by his method of sacrifice and the application of his principle of brotherhood to every phase of human life. and as they labour there takes shape a world much like our own, and yet how different! still individuals and communities, but the individual always serving the community and the community protecting the individual: still city and country life, with all their manifold pursuits, but no leading into captivity and no complaining in our streets: still eastern and western, but no grasping worldliness in the west, no deadening pessimism in the east: still richer and poorer, but no thoughtless luxury, no grinding destitution: still sorrow, but no bitterness: still failure, but no oppression: still priest and people, yet both alike unitedly presenting before the eternal father the one unceasing sacrifice for human life in body broken and blood shed: still church and world, yet both together celebrating unintermittently the one divine service, which is the service of mankind. and in that climax of a vision, which, if we are faithful, shall be prophecy, what is it that has happened? "'the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our god and of his christ.'" chapter vi christianity and commerce this chapter ought properly to be written by a layman who is also a christian man of business. it is inserted here mainly to challenge inquiry and to provoke thought. the writer has no first-hand acquaintance either with business life or with business methods. he desires simply to chronicle an impression that the level of morality in the business world has been declining in recent years, and that the more thoughtful and candid of christian laymen in business are beginning to be deeply disquieted. it is not uncommon to be confronted by the statement that it is impossible in modern business life to regulate conduct by christian standards. the impression exists that if large numbers of business men abstain from the outward observances of religion, it is in many cases because they are conscious of a lack of correspondence between sunday professions and weekday practice, and have no desire to add hypocrisy to existing burdens upon conscience. the clergy are by the circumstances of their calling sheltered from the particular difficulties and temptations which beset laymen in the business world. their exhortations are apt to sound in the ears of laymen abstract and remote from life. if the situation has been diagnosed correctly the matter is serious. what is suggested is not that men to-day are deliberately more unprincipled than were their fathers, but that modern conditions have made the way of righteousness more difficult. things have been speeded up. the competitive struggle has been intensified. men are beset, it has been said, by a "moral powerlessness." they are "as good as they dare be." absorbed in money-making, and pressed hard by unscrupulous rivals, they cannot afford to scrutinize too narrowly the social consequences of what they do, or the strict morality of the methods which they employ. honesty, as experience demonstrates, is by no means always the best policy from a worldly point of view. "the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." this being so, it is to be feared that men are apt to prefer the wisdom of the serpent to the harmlessness of the dove. moreover the man of business in the majority of cases does not stand alone. he is a breadwinner on behalf of others. very commonly he regards it as a point of honour to refrain from disclosing to those at home his business perplexities and trials. it is assumed that they would not be understood, or that in any case it is unfair to burden wife and children with financial troubles. in the result it sometimes happens that a man's foes are found to be they of his own household, and that for the sake of wife and child he stoops to procedures which his own conscience condemns, and which those for whose sake he embarks upon them would be the first to disapprove. a wife, it may be suggested, ought to share the knowledge of her husband's difficulties, and to be willing, if need so require, to suffer loss and diminution of income as the price of her husband's honour. a wife takes her husband in matrimony "for poorer" as well as "for richer," for sickness and poverty as well as for health and wealth. it is a tragedy that in modern marriages too often only the more pleasurable alternative is seriously meant. enough has been said to make it evident that in the world of modern business there is a battle to be fought on behalf of christ. precisely for the reason that the vocation of a christian in this sphere is in some ways the most difficult it is also the most necessary. there is a call for courage and consecration, for hard thinking and readiness for sacrifice, and from the nature of the case it must be mainly a laymen's battle. there may have to be financial martyrdoms for the sake of christ before the victory is won. but the prize and the goal is worth striving for, for it is nothing less than the redemption of a large element in human life from the tyranny of selfishness and greed. [footnote: it may, of course, be argued that so long as the competitive system prevails in the business world, a christian man in business must compete, just as in the existing state; though in an ideally christian world competition would be replaced by co-operative and war would be unknown. this is perfectively true. but it should be possible, nevertheless, to hold fast the christian ideal as a regulative principle even under present conditions. only in proportion as this is done is the redemption of business life a possibility.] in principle the issues are clear enough. the interchange of commodities is a service rendered to the community. it ought to be so regarded, and the service rendered, rather than the gain secured, should be its inspiration and motive. the service of man is a form of the service of god, and the operations of financiers and business men ought to be capable of interpretation as forms of social service. it is only as this spirit is infused into the lives and practice of men in business that the world of business can be saved from degenerating into a soulless mechanism, dominated by the idea of purely selfish profit, or a tissue of dishonest speculation and sordid gambling. the business man, like any other servant of the community, is entitled to a living wage. he is not entitled either by chicanery and trickery, or by taking advantage of the needs of others and his own control of markets, to become a "profiteer." profiteering in time of war is condemned by the common conscience. it is equally to be condemned in time of peace. the christian man in business will stand for integrity and just dealing, for human sympathy and the spirit of service, for the renunciation of profits which are unreasonable and unfair. his function is not to exploit the community in his own personal or sectional interests, but to be a servant of the christian commonwealth. some procedures and some methods of making money the christian man will feel himself debarred from employing. for the rest what is needed is mainly a change of heart, a shifting of emphasis, a modification of the inward spirit and motive of business life. chapter vii christianity and industry labour problems have always existed, but the development of industrialism as we know it to-day is comparatively modern. it dates from the introduction of machinery and mechanical transport, and coincided in its beginnings with the vogue of the so-called "manchester school" in political and economic theory. the modern world of industry has been built up by the enterprise of capitalists working upon the basis of unrestricted competition. joint-stock companies and "trusts" are simply capitalistic combinations for the exploitation of industrial opportunities upon a larger scale. the economic theorists of the manchester school regarded wages as necessarily governed by the working of the "iron law" of supply and demand. it was the "interest" of the employer to buy such labour as was required at as cheap a rate as possible. it was assumed that in this, as in other matters of "business," his procedure must be determined wholly by self-interest, to the exclusion of "sentimental" considerations. individual employers might be better than their creed, and in the smaller "concerns" the relations between employer and employed were often humanized by personal knowledge and intercourse. with the advent of the joint-stock company this no longer held good. "a corporation has no bowels." directors were not personally in contact with their workpeople, and their main consideration was for their shareholders. the whole tendency of the industrial order of society as it developed was in the direction of the exploitation of the workman in the interests of "capital." it was not that members of the employing class were consciously inhuman. it was simply that they were blinded to the human problems which were involved. they had become accustomed to regard as natural and inevitable a wage-slavery of the many to the few. labour was a commodity in the market. the workman was a unit of labour. regarded from the point of view of capital he represented simply the potentiality of so many foot-pounds of more or less intelligentlydirected energy _per diem_. his life as a human being, apart from the economic value of his labour, was from the "business" point of view irrelevant. the system was based upon a lie. "treat human beings as machines as much as you will, the fact remains that they are incurably personal." the wage-slaves of the modern world asserted their personality, and the modern socialist-labour movement is the result. the forces of organized labour have won some notable victories. they are a recognized power in the land. there are those who hope, and those who fear, that they will in the end become socially and politically omnipotent. it is now generally recognized that society prior to the war was on the brink of a struggle between the classes of great bitterness, and that the social condition of the country after the war is likely to be fraught with formidable possibilities. there are many observers who regard a social revolution, in one form or another, as inevitable. much, no doubt, will depend upon the temper of the returning troops, both officers and men. that men and officers have learnt to know and to respect one another upon the battlefield is acknowledged, but those who imagine that herein is contained a solution of social and labour problems are likely to prove grievously disappointed. a great deal of nonsense is being talked about the effects of "discipline" upon the men. military discipline has its admirers: but men of mature years and civilian traditions who in the present conflict have served _in the ranks_ of his majesty's army are not included among their number. they have submitted to discipline for the period of their military service. they are quite able to recognize that it is essential to the efficiency of the army as a fighting machine. but they conceive themselves to have been fighting for freedom: and their own freedom and that of their children and of their class is included in their eyes among the objects for which they fight. they will be more than ever jealous, after the war, of their recovered liberties, and determined to assert them. it is probable that one result of demobilization will be an enormous accession of strength to the ranks of the socialist and labour parties. the "class war" with which society was threatened before the european war broke out is not likely to be a less present danger when "that which now restraineth" is removed by the conclusion of peace. what in relation to these problems is the message of the christian church? the distinctively christian ethic is based not upon selfassertion but upon self-sacrifice, not upon class distinctions but upon brotherhood. "let no man seek his own, but each his neighbour's good." the principle is of corporate as well as of individual application. in an ideally christian society, the interests of "labour" would be the sole concern of "capital," the interests of "capital" the sole concern of "labour": and the message of the church to the contending parties should be, now as always, "sirs, ye are brethren." neither party, however, is likely at present to pay much heed to such a message, which is apt to sound like an abstract and theoretical truism remote from the actualities of life. in point of fact, the large sections of the population who live permanently near or below the poverty line are largely precluded by lack of leisure from entering into the christian heritage of the spiritual life, and are too much obsessed by the daily struggle for material existence to have patience with exhortations to regard with sympathy either the temptations or the good intentions of the well-to-do. the latter in turn are apt to resent any attempt to stir in them a social conscience with regard to the problems of poverty or the fundamental causes of labour "unrest," to regard the security of dividends as conveniently guaranteed by the laws of god, and to hold, in a general way, that everything has hitherto been ordered for the best in the best of all possible worlds. the church--and more particularly the church of england--is commonly regarded both by "labour" and by "capital" as traditionally identified with the conservative party in politics. the church-going classes love to have it so, and the world of labour not unnaturally holds aloof. it is nevertheless sufficiently obvious that the future of civilization after the war will be largely in the hands (or at the mercy) of organized labour. and it is worth remembering that our saviour died not for the rich only, but for the poor, having moreover himself lived and worked as a labouring man. there are those who regard the spirit of idealism and world-wide brotherhood by which the labour movement is inspired as the most profoundly christian element in the life of the modern world, and the existing cleavage between labour and the church as a tragedy comparable only to the tragedy of the war. it is the plain duty of a christian man to do what in him lies to remedy this cleavage, to think hard and honestly about social problems from a christian point of view, and to make it his business to have an adequate understanding and sympathy with the real character and motives of labour aspirations and ideals. chapter viii christianity and politics politics at their worst are a discreditable struggle between parties and groups for selfish, and sectional ends, full of dishonesty and chicanery and corruption. it is often recognized at the present time as desirable that none should be for party, but all for the state. the christian ideal goes further than this: it is that none should be for party, but all for the kingdom of god, and for the state only in so far as the state is capable of being made the instrument of that higher ideal. the christian man is not to hold aloof from political life, but to seek, so far as his personal effort and influence can be made to tell, to christianize the political struggle. in every contested election he is bound to think out in the light of christian ideals the issues which are at stake, without either prejudice or heat, and to register his vote in accordance with his conscience under the most solemn sense of responsibility before god. he is bound, of course, to be a reformer, standing for cleanness of methods, probity of motives, honest thinking, class unselfishness, and the elimination of abuses and malpractices. he will tend in most cases to be a crossbencher, in the sense of being independent of party caucuses and concerned only for social and political righteousness. a christian man who has leisure and opportunity can render enormous service by going into politics, more especially into municipal politics, which are too often surrendered to the tender mercies of corrupt, narrow-minded, or interested local wire-pullers. there is an enormous field of unselfish social service and opportunity lying open to christian laymen in this connexion. there can be no truer form of work for the church of god than the work of a municipal councillor who seeks not popularity but righteousness. the carrying over of christian ideals into national and international politics is equally indispensable. in the sphere of international affairs in particular, while other nations have, for the most part, rendered official lip-service from time to time to ideals of international morality, it has been reserved for germany to declare openly for the repudiation of "sentiment," and for a policy of undisguised cynicism and _real-politik_. the doctrine that the state as such is exempt from moral obligation towards its neighbours, and that the whole political duty of man is exhausted in the service of his country and the promotion of her purely selfish interests and "will to power," has been exhibited in action by the prussian government in such a fashion as to incur the moral reprobation of the world. the cynical doctrines of _real-politik_, the belief that the "interests" of the state are in politics and diplomacy paramount, and that "the foreigner" is a natural enemy, the belief that in all international relationships selfish and self-interested considerations must really determine policy, are unfortunately by no means unrepresented, though they are not unchallenged, in the political life of other countries besides germany. there are influential publicists in england to-day the _principles_ of whose political thinking are really prussian. it remains to be seen whether, when the time comes for peace to be made between the nations, the forces of international idealism will prove strong enough to carry the day, or whether we shall have a merely vindictive and "realist" peace which will contain within itself the seeds of future wars. there can be no question but that a christian man is bound to stand both for the freedom of oppressed nationalities and for the right of all peoples freely to determine their own affairs, and also for the duty of nations as of individuals to love their neighbours as themselves, and to seek primarily not their own but each other's good. if these professions are to be more than nominal they must mean a readiness for national sacrifices and for national unselfishness in time of peace as in time of war. chapter ix christianity and war christianity is opposed to war, in the sense that if men and nations universally behaved as christians, wars would cease. the ideal of the kingdom of god involves the reign upon earth of universal peace. war is, therefore, in itself, an unchristian thing. it is, moreover, a barbarous and irrational method of determining disputes, since the factors which humanly speaking are decisive for success in war, viz. the organized and unflinching use of superior physical force, are in principle irrelevant to the rights or wrongs of the cause which may be at stake. the victories of might and right do not invariably coincide. it is not surprising, therefore, that a certain proportion of christians--the quakers, for example, and many individuals who have either been influenced by the teaching of tolstoy, or else, thinking the matter out for themselves, have arrived at similar conclusions to those of tolstoy and the quakers--should hold that in the event of war a man's loyalty to his earthly city must give way to his loyalty to his heavenly king in this matter. experience shows that there are men who are prepared to suffer persecution, imprisonment, or death itself rather than violate their principles by service in the armed forces of the crown. there are obviously circumstances conceivable in which it would be the duty of all christians to become "conscientious objectors." such circumstances would arise in any case in which the state endeavoured to compel men's services in a war which their conscience disapproved. in the present european war it so happens that there are probably no englishmen who regard the german cause as righteous and the allies' cause as wrong. the problem of conscientious objection has, therefore, only arisen in the case of those christians who hold the abstract doctrine of the absolute wrongness, in whatever circumstances, of all war as such. there are those who, though personally rejecting this doctrine, consider that those who hold it are wrong only in that they are spiritually in advance of their time. the majority, however, of christians have felt that the pacifist or quaker doctrine is not merely impracticable under present conditions, but that it rests upon a fallacious principle. for it appears to deny that physical force can ever be rightfully employed as the instrument of a moral purpose. in the last resort it is akin to the anti-sacramental doctrine which regards what is material as essentially opposed to what is spiritual. the questions at issue are not really to be solved by the quotation of isolated texts or sayings of our lord from the gospels. what is really in dispute is the question of the form which, in the context of a given set of national and political circumstances, may rightfully be given to the application of the christian principle of universal, righteous, and self-sacrificing love. no one can dispute the fact that in certain circumstances christianity may demand the readiness to die for others. are there any circumstances in which christianity may demand the readiness to _slay_ for others, either personally, or mediately through service in a military machine which as a whole is the instrument of a national purpose only to be achieved through the slaughter of those in the ranks of the opposing armies? the majority of christians have answered this question in the affirmative. they have held that there are circumstances in which the claims of love are more genuinely and adequately acknowledged by taking part in warfare than by abstaining from it. they have insisted that there are circumstances in which it is no true act of love, even towards the aggressor, or perhaps towards the aggressor least of all, to permit him to achieve an evil purpose unchecked: that resistance, even by force of arms, may be in the truest interests of the enemy himself. they have maintained that it is possible to fight in a christian temper and spirit, without either personal malice or hatred of the foe: that not all killing is murder, and that to rob a man of physical life, as an incident in the assertion of the claims of righteousness, is not, from the point of view of those who believe in human immortality, to do him that ultimate and essential injury which it might otherwise be held to be. no one, however, who has had anything to do with modern war can doubt that it is intrinsically beastly and devilish, or that it is apt to arouse passions, in all but the saintliest of men, which are of an extremely ugly kind. to affirm that it is possible, as a matter of theory, to fight in a wholly christian spirit and temper, is not to assert that in actual practice more than a small minority of soldiers succeed in doing so. it is possible to be devoutly thankful that when the issue was posed by the conduct of the germanic powers in the august of 1914 the british empire replied by entering upon war, to hold that it was emphatically the right thing to do, and that it represented a course of conduct more intrinsically christian than neutrality would have been. but it is not possible to maintain with truth that the british nation as a whole has been fighting either in a christian temper or from christian motives. it is undeniable that uglier motives and passions have crept in. sermons in christian pulpits upon such themes as the duty of forgiveness or the christian ideal of love towards the enemy have been neither frequent nor popular. undoubtedly the german government in its general policy, and particular units of the german army and navy upon many occasions, have acted in such a way as to give provocation of the very strongest kind to the unregenerate human impulses of hatred and of revenge. it is not surprising, though it is regrettable, that under the influence of this provocation many persons, otherwise christian, have either frankly abandoned the christian doctrine of human brotherhood, or else have denied that the germans are to be regarded as human beings. on the whole, and speaking very broadly, it may be said that the troops have shown themselves more christian in these respects than have the civil population, though there are many exceptions upon both sides. it is to be feared that the church, in so far as she has been represented by her clergy (though here, again, there are many exceptions), has been too anxious to be identified with a merely jingo patriotism to exercise any very appreciable influence in restraint of unchristian passions. it is to be hoped and anticipated that there will be a strong reaction after the war both against militarism and the less desirable aspects of the military mind, and also against the belligerent temper and spirit--especially, perhaps, on the part of the men who have themselves served and suffered in the field. chapter x love, courtship, and marriage no element in christian practice has been more widely challenged in modern times than the christian ideal of marriage. our lord's standard in these matters was simple and austere. "whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart." "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication" (the exceptive clause is of disputed authenticity) "causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." the _state_ in certain cases gives legal sanction to "adultery" in this latter sense, and there is a vocal and probably increasing demand that legal facilities for divorce upon various pretexts, with liberty of remarriage, shall be further extended. the divorce law reform union has announced its intention to promote in parliament a bill which, if carried, would have the effect of reducing legal marriage to a contract terminable after three years' voluntary separation by the will of either party. doubtless a robust opposition will be offered by christian people to the adoption of so lax a conception of marriage even by the state. experience in other countries seems to show that unlimited facilities for divorce do not tend to the promotion either of happiness or of morals. but it needs to be recognized that the state, as such, is concerned only with the legal aspect of marriage as a civil contract, and that it has to legislate for citizens not all of whom profess christian standards even in theory. the law of the state may well diverge from that of the church with regard to this matter, though it does not follow that so lax a standard as that which is now proposed would be in the best interests even of the state. the church regards christian marriage as indissoluble. in cases of adultery she counsels reconciliation, wherever possible, upon the basis of repentance on the part of the guilty and forgiveness on the part of the injured partner. if this is not possible the church sanctions, if need so require, separation, but not remarriage. there are also unfortunately other cases in which the married relationship proves so intolerable as to render a temporary or permanent separation admissible as a last resort. the remarriage of either party during the lifetime of the other is nevertheless held to be unchristian. with the practical difficulties which beset the church in the attempt to maintain within the circle of her own membership a stricter standard than that which is recognized by the civil law and by society at large we are not here concerned. our concern is with the christian standard as a positive ideal, on the effective maintenance of which, as christians believe, depends the stability of the home and the christian family, and the redemption of sex-relations from mere animalism and grossness. a christian husband takes his wife in matrimony "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death them do part, according to god's holy ordinance." the step is irrevocable. the union is intended to be life-long. it has, moreover, in view not only "the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other," but also "the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the lord, and to the praise of his holy name." a few words may usefully be said under these heads. (i) marriage ought to be based upon love; and love, though naturally and normally involving the element of sexual attraction, ought to include also other and deeper elements. a christian man who has lived a clean and disciplined life ought to be sufficiently master of his passions to avoid mistaking a merely temporary infatuation for such a genuine spiritual affinity as will survive the satisfaction of immediate desires and prove the stable basis of a life-companionship. hasty marriages are a common and avoidable cause of subsequent unhappiness. it is obviously undesirable that couples should enter upon matrimony until there has been a sufficiently prolonged and intimate acquaintance to enable them to become reasonably sure both of themselves and of one another. in many cases there is much to be said for regarding betrothals in the first instance as provisional. it is better to break them off at the last moment than to marry the wrong person. the victorian conventions with regard to all these matters were thoroughly bad. girls were brought up in carefully-guarded ignorance of the implications of matrimony and shielded by perpetual chaperonage from anything approaching comradeship with the opposite sex. eventually they were in many cases stampeded into a marriage which had its origin either in a clandestine flirtation or in the designing operations of some match-making relative, who made it her business first to "throw the young people together" and then to suggest that they were virtually committed to one another by the mere fact of having met. the reaction which has taken place against all this is upon the whole salutary. the new social tradition which is growing up makes it possible for the unmarried of both sexes to meet one another with comparative freedom, and to establish relations of friendship, which may subsequently ripen into love, unhampered by any such morbidly exciting atmosphere of intrigue and suggestion on the part of relatives and friends. but the new freedom of social intercourse, if it is not in its turn to prove disastrous, demands on the part of the young of both sexes a higher standard both of responsibility and selfcontrol, and of knowledge of what is implied in the fact of sex. the experience of married life is, moreover, not likely to prove a success, save in rare instances, unless there is between the parties a real community of interests and tastes, unanimity, so far as may be, of ideals and of religious convictions, and at least no very great disparity of educational and intellectual equipment. (ii) a christian marriage includes among its purposes the procreation of children. it is here most of all that unanimity of ideal and of conviction between husband and wife is essential. a man and a woman ought not to take one another in marriage without first being assured of each other's mind upon this subject. "if marriage is to be a success each must learn respect for the other's personality, real give and take, and the horror of treating the other just as a means to his own pleasure, whether spiritual, intellectual, or physical: and both must think seriously of the responsibilities of parenthood. husband and wife must work out their ideals together, in perfect frankness and sincerity, and it is impossible to have true and sacred ideals of their joint physical life unless there is the same openness and understanding and sympathy on this point as on all others." [footnote: _ideals of home_, by gemma bailey (national mission paper, no. 43).] there must be mutual consideration and self-control: the need for self-restraint and continence does not disappear with the entry upon marital relations: it is if anything intensified. there is a real problem here which needs to be thought out. to the practice of "race-suicide," by which is meant the artificial restriction of parentage by the use of mechanical or other "preventives," christian morality is violently opposed. on the other hand, it may reasonably be held that people ought not to bring children into the world in numbers which are wholly out of relation to their capacity to feed, clothe, educate, and train them. "the enormous families of which we hear in early victorian times were not quite ideal for the mother or the children, nor for the father if he were not well off." [footnote: _ibid_] it may be found necessary in practice to limit the size of the family either upon economic grounds or (in particular instances) in the interest of the mother's health. it is to be feared, however, that the modern tendency in both respects is to shirk the responsibilities of parenthood on grounds which are thoroughly selfish. the victorian doctrine that "when god sends mouths he sends food to fill them" may have been unduly happy-go-lucky. the recent remark of an officer in a certain british regiment, that since he and his wife had only l8000 a year between them, he felt that he could not afford to have more than one child, was entirely shameless. it would seem, moreover, that the comparative childlessness of modern marriages is sometimes due not to the husband's reluctance, upon economic grounds, to beget children, but to the wife's reluctance to bear them, a reluctance which in some cases arises either from such shrinking from the physical pain and sacrifice of motherhood as goes beyond what is really justified, or from mere self-indulgent absorption in social pursuits and pleasures. there ought to be in a christian marriage more of the true spirit of adventure and romance, a greater readiness for sacrifice, a more willing acceptance of parental responsibilities, and of the obligation of self-denial for the children's sake. there can be no question but that modern families-with the paradoxical exception of the families of the very poor--have been tending to be smaller than they either need be or ought to be. at the same time it is generally conceded that _some_ measure of limitation is in most cases reasonable and necessary. the vitally important thing is that such necessary and reasonable limitation should be secured not by artificial evasion of the consequences of intercourse, but by self-control and deliberate temporary abstinence at certain periods from the intercourse of sex. [footnote: it may be suggested that in cases of genuine perplexity it is advisable to consult, as occasion may require, either a medical man who is also a christian, or a wise--and preferably a married--spiritual guide.] for the union of the sexes in marriage is according to the mind of the christian church an essentially pure and holy thing. it is a sacrament of the fusion of two personalities, whereby they are at once individually and mutually enriched, and at the same time mystically and spiritually knit together in such a way as to become in the sight of god indissolubly one: the unity of husband and wife being comparable, according to a famous saying of s. paul, to the unity which exists between christ and his church. now, although, from this point of view, the significance of married life is to a great extent impoverished and frustrated, if intercourse is so regulated as to render the marriage childless not in fact merely, but in intention, yet it does not follow that procreation must be directly in view on every individual occasion, since the mystical value of intercourse as a spiritual sacrament of love may still exist in independence of such intention. it is nevertheless, surely, clear that a christian man and his wife are morally precluded from coming together except with a deep sense of the sacredness of what they do and of its intimate connexion with the mysteries of life and birth, and a corresponding readiness, in the event of conception taking place, to accept the ensuing responsibility for the child as a sacred trust from god, "the father from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named." with the use of "preventives" and other devices, which degrade into a mere means of carnal satisfaction an act which is meant to bear a deeply spiritual and religious meaning, the christian interpretation of marriage seems plainly and obviously incompatible. a few words may be added with regard to the upbringing and education of children. here, again, there has been a reaction--which upon the whole is good--from the unduly rigorous disciplinary methods of the past. it may be doubted, however, whether the reaction has not in some cases been carried too far. children ought to be controlled and disciplined by their parents, and no expenditure of care and thought and tact is too great to devote to the rightful training of their characters. but experience seems to show that parents sometimes fail to recognize that their children grow up. it is important that in proportion as they grow towards maturity of character and independence of personality the strictness of parental discipline should be gradually relaxed. at a certain stage the real influence of parents upon their children will depend upon their refusal to assert direct authority. not a few of the minor tragedies of home life arise from the ill-judged action of parents who treat as children sons and daughters who are virtually grown up. the problem of the religious education of children cannot here be discussed in detail, but three or four leading principles may be suggested. (1) it ought not to be necessary to say that children should not be taught to regard as true statements or doctrines which their parents believe to be in fact false. this applies in particular to certain views of the bible. the ideal should be so to teach the child that in later life he may have nothing to unlearn. (2) when children are old enough to read they should be encouraged to read the gospels. they ought not, however, to read the old testament, with the exception of certain psalms and other specially selected passages, until they are of an age to distinguish what is christian from what is jewish, and to recognize the principle of religious development. (3) children should be taught in the first instance the practice rather than the theory of religion: devotions in which doctrine is implicit, rather than doctrine as such. as their minds expand they will ask the reasons for what they do and the meaning of the worship in which they engage, and they will need to have suggested to them an elementary, but not a stereotyped, theology. they should from the beginning be encouraged to think and question freely on religious subjects. (4) they should occasionally accompany their parents to church, and in particular should from time to time be present when the latter receive holy communion. they should have the service explained to them in a simple fashion, and should be encouraged to look forward to the time when they will be confirmed, and become communicants themselves. part iii the maintenance of the christian life chapter i how to begin the practice of christianity depends for its possibility upon the existence and maintenance within the soul of an inward principle of spiritual life towards god. the reason why so many nominal christians fail conspicuously to manifest the fruits of christianity in their lives is simply that they have no vital personal experience of the power and efficacy of the life in christ. they have never been effectually gripped by the religion which they nominally profess. they are not transformed, or in process of being transformed, by the holy spirit's power. the plain man, confronted by the christian ideal, if he does not at once dismiss it as impracticable, is apt to ask, or at least to wonder, how he is to begin. it is a question to which no cut-and-dried answer can be given. but at least no beginning is likely to lead to very much in the way of fulfilment which does not sooner or later involve something like personal "conversion" of heart. conversions may be sudden, or they may be gradual: but religion, if it is to be a reality, means in the end the establishment of vital personal relations with the living christ. it means the acceptance of his challenge, self-surrender to his appeal, the combination of an acknowledged desire to serve him with acknowledged impotence and bankruptcy before god. sooner or later the spirit convinces men of sin. either a man, essaying light-heartedly to follow christ, discovers in the very attempt his inability to do so, and is found traitor to his master's cause in the first encounter: or else, it may be, at the very outset, the consciousness of what has been wrong in conduct and character and motive in the past stands as a damning record between his soul and god, and forbids him without repentance to take service in the campaign of christ at all. the consciousness of sin as a "horrid impediment" in the soul is not, of course, true penitence until a man has been brought to realize in the light of the cross that the difference between what he is and what he might have been is treachery to him whose man (in virtue of his baptism) he was meant to be, and that by being what he is, and acting as he has acted, he has consciously or unconsciously contributed to the wounds wherewith eternal love is wounded in the house of his friends. the measure of a man's penitence, whether early or late developed in him, is very apt to be the measure of his spiritual insight and of his spiritual sincerity. the familiar words of the hymn- "they who fain would serve thee best are conscious most of wrong within," are profoundly true to christian experience. but repentance--which is sorrow for sin in the light of the cross--is abortive and merely results in spiritual paralysis unless it issues in confession--that is, frank and open acknowledgment before god, and if need be also before his church--and the seeking and finding of reconciliation and forgiveness as the unmerited gift of god in christ. there are those in whose case the inward conviction of sin and the realization of the need for pardon are the first impulses of awakening spiritual life. there are others with whom it is not so. they are conscious of the attractiveness of the man christ jesus. they would desire to be on his side and to be of the number of his disciples. they are dimly aware, or at least they more than half suspect, that in him is to be found the satisfaction of a need for which their soul cries out. with s. peter they find themselves saying to christ, "lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life," but they cannot as yet with any inward reality profess themselves consciencestricken with regard to the past. they are not aware of themselves as conspicuous sinners, or indeed, it may be, as sinners at all. the experience of penitence and of divine forgiveness must come to them, if it is to come at all, at a later stage. it is not by that postern that they enter upon the way of the spirit. but the way is in either case the way of fellowship, and the spirit is the spirit of discipline. the newly found spiritual life, however awakened, needs to be maintained and fostered by fellowship in the church, by regular habits of christian devotion, by faithful communion in the sacrament of life. plainly, if a man is not already confirmed, his first step must be to be prepared for confirmation: if he has been confirmed, but has lapsed from communion, he must resume the communicant life. he needs to claim the status and privilege of effective membership in the body of christ, and to form for himself a rule of inward life and discipline. rules of devotional life must necessarily vary in accordance with a man's surroundings and opportunities, and perhaps in some of their details in accordance with a man's temperament. but at least there ought to be a rule of regular private prayer, a rule of regular communion, a rule of bible-reading or "meditation," and a rule of self-denial and orderliness in daily personal life. chapter ii prayer prayer is a difficult matter, both in theory and in practice. but it is essential to learn to pray. it is important to recognize that the scope of christian prayer is much wider than mere intercession or petition. it is the communion of the soul with god, and its purpose is union with the life of god in identity of purpose with his will. the beginning of prayer is a _sursum corda_, a lifting up of the heart to god. it is well to remember that true prayer is never a solitary act, even when a man prays in solitude. we pray not as individuals but as members of a family, and our prayer is spiritually united and knit together with the common prayer-life of the universal church, of which it forms a part. we pray, moreover, not to wrest to our private ends the purposes of god, not to induce him, so to speak, to do our wills instead of his, but to unite our wills with his will, as children who have confidence in their father. true prayer is offered in the name of christ--that is, it is prayed in his spirit, according to his mind and will. it can never, therefore, be selfish or self-centred. the lord's prayer is its model and its type. a few words may be said in explanation of this prayer. it begins with a recognition of the common fatherhood of god. it is only as members of his family that we can approach him: he is in no sense our personal or private god, but the common father of us all. and our father is "in heaven"--that is, supreme, eternal, the lord and ruler of all things. his name is holy, and to be hallowed: it is in reverence and deepest worship that we bow before him. he is king, and we pray that his kingship may be realized, in earth as it is in heaven: and that his will may be done--that is the supreme desire of our hearts, and the highest object of our petitions. and therefore we are vowed to his service: and because we are sure that he will supply whatever we really need to that end, we pray in confidence for daily needs both spiritual and bodily--"give us this day our daily bread." and remembering that we are unprofitable and faithless and disloyal servants we ask forgiveness for our sins, well knowing that we can only be forgiven as we ourselves are ready to forgive. and so looking to the future and mindful of our frailty we pray that god will not lead us into "temptation" or trial, without at the same time providing a way of deliverance from the assaults of evil. the prayer customarily ends with an ascription of praise and glory to god. that is the type and model of christian prayer: and prayer is truly christian just in so far as the spirit and temper of the lord's prayer inspires it. we can only pray rightly in the holy spirit. "we know not what to pray for as we ought: but the spirit helpeth our infirmities." as for the technique of prayer, a man, on kneeling or standing to pray, will do well to spend a short time first in silence and recollection, waiting in stillness upon god, remembering his presence, his holiness, his love, and his responsiveness to his children's cry. let him next make an act of adoration, spoken or unspoken, and invoke god the holy spirit to enable him to pray aright. then let him pour out before god all that is in his heart, his troubles, his anxieties, his perplexities, his sins: let him ask for forgiveness: let him give thanks: let him pray for the coming of god's kingdom, in its various aspects: commending to god's guidance and protection all right causes and aspirations in the world, in things both social and political and international, in things ecclesiastical, in things moral and religious and missionary: let him add personal and private intercessions for those near and dear to him and for those whom he meets in the daily intercourse of life: and let him end as he began, in a few moments of quiet waiting upon god. that is the general scheme of a christian's private prayers. they should include in due proportion the several elements of adoration, thanksgiving, penitence, petition, and intercession. they need not be lengthy. "use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." it is quality and not quantity of prayer that counts. and the prayers of a busy man must necessarily be short. but it is worth while taking time and trouble over the ordering of one's prayers. a man's intercessions, in particular, are not likely in practice to have the width, the range, and the variety which are desirable, unless they are planned and ordered in accordance with a coherent scheme which is thought out in advance. it is the part of wisdom to keep a note-book, in which names and subjects for intercessory prayer may be jotted down and distributed over the days of the week for use in due rotation. such schemes, however, if drawn up and used, should be revised from time to time, and not suffered to become a mechanical burden or a legal bondage. there should be freedom and spontaneity in a christian's prayers. it is well to have rules, and to try not to be prevented by mere slackness from keeping them. but it is important to see to it that the self-imposed rule is so framed as to prove genuinely conducive to reality in prayer, and suitably adapted to opportunity and circumstance: and it is very often a good thing from time to time, in the interests of freedom, quite deliberately to break one's rules. with regard to forms and methods of prayer, it is desirable that men should learn to pray freely in their own words, or even in no words at all. provided a man remembers reverence, he need not stand on ceremony with god. but it is advisable also to use books and manuals of prayer --at any rate in the first instance: to use them, but not to be tied to them. many such manuals have been compiled and published within recent years: the majority of them are unsatisfactory in varying degrees. a few, however, can confidently be recommended: especially _prayers for the city of god_, compiled by g. c. binyon (longmans); _prayers for common use_ (universities mission to central africa, dartmouth st., westminster); and _sursum corda, a handbook of intercession and thanksgiving _, arranged by w. h. frere and a. l. illingworth (a. e. mowbray and co., ltd.). prayer need not be confined to stated hours and times. interpreting prayer at its widest, the ideal should be to "pray without ceasing." it was said of an early christian writer that his life was "one continuous prayer": and it is well to form the habit of inwardly lifting up the heart to god from time to time in the midst of daily cares and business. where churches are kept open it is often possible in passing to spare time to enter and kneel for two or three minutes in quiet and recollection before god: but it is perfectly possible to pray inwardly at any time and in any environment. fixed times of prayer, nevertheless, there must also be: and a man should at least pray in the morning upon rising and in the evening before going to bed. if a time can also be secured for midday prayer, so much the better: but this is more difficult. to have formed a really fixed and stable habit of daily prayer is an enormous step forwards in christian life. much depends upon learning to rise regularly at a fixed hour before breakfast: and this in turn depends upon a regularity in going to bed, which under modern conditions of life it is not always easy to achieve. if a man is obliged to be up so late at night that it is morally certain that he will be too tired to pray with much reality before turning in, he should endeavour, if it is at all possible, to secure some time for prayer at an earlier stage in the evening. difficulties in the life of prayer beset everybody. thoughts have a way of wandering, the "saying" of prayers tends to become mechanical, moods vary, and there are times in most men's lives when they feel it almost impossible to pray with any sense of reality. a man should not lightly be discouraged. he may be recommended to remind himself that god knows all about it, and that the resolute offering of his will to god at such times, in defiance of distraction and difficulty, has special value. it is well to take god into one's confidence. "if god bores you, tell him that he does." he is no exacting tyrant, but a father caring for his sons. those who care to do so may find _prayer and some of its difficulties_, by the rev. w. j. carey (mowbray & co.), a helpful book to read in this connexion. a final word may be said with regard to a theoretical difficulty which many people feel in connexion with the intercessory and petitionary sides of prayer. since god's will, it may be argued, is presumably going to be done in any case, and since he knows the real needs both of ourselves and of our friends better than we do, what is the point of praying for them? to many people it may be a sufficient practical answer to refer to the example and precept of christ, who both taught and practised intercessory prayer. but it is possible to go a little further, and to point out that it appears to be god's will, not merely that such and such a thing should be done, but that it should be done in response to our human prayers. true it is that "your father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him": but our lord emphasized this truth, not as a round for regarding prayer as futile or unnecessary, but as a reason for praying. for prayer is an expression of the filial spirit towards our father, and the more simply and naturally we approach god as children, making our petitions before him with childlike hearts, the more truly will our prayers be in accordance with that spirit of sonship which is the mind of christ. at the same time, the knowledge that our father is wiser as well as greater than we will forbid us to clamour for what in wisdom is denied us, and will in general govern the spirit and scope of our petitions. just as our lord points out that an earthly father, if asked for bread, will not give his child a stone, so conversely in the experience of every christian it often happens that in his blindness he asks a stone, and is given bread. but no christian will ask deliberately and knowingly for stones. chapter iii self-examination and repentance "the unexamined life," said plato, "is not worth living." similar advice was given by marcus aurelius. the practice of self-examination, therefore, is not distinctive of christianity: it is an obvious dictate of wisdom, wherever life and conduct are regarded seriously, that a man should from time to time take stock of himself in the light of his ideals and learn to know and recognize in detail where and how he has fallen short, and what are the besetting sins and weaknesses against which he must contend. the christian man will judge and try his life by the standards of christ, with growing sensitiveness of conscience as spiritual experience deepens: not shrinking from the confession of sin and failure, desiring not to be self-deceived, but to know and to acknowledge the truth. there is nothing in this of priggishness or unreality. it is a necessary discipline. the christian life is meant to bear the fruit of a character developing in growing likeness to the character of christ: but none is suddenly made perfect: the old adam dies hard: and the christian by confession of repeated failure may at least learn the lesson of humility and self-distrust. the rightful complement of self-distrust is trust in god: the rightful issue of self-examination and confession is the realization of divine forgiveness, fresh courage, and a new start. the very core of the gospel is here. he who has bidden men forgive those who trespass against them "unto seventy times seven" is not to be outdone in generosity by man. but in order that sin may be forgiven it must be acknowledged as sin against god and treachery to christ, and repented of with true sorrow of heart. repentance is not mere self-contempt, self-pity, or remorse. it is sorrow for sin, which has for its motive the love of god and the realization that human sin meant and means in the experience of god the cross. nothing so deepens the religious life as true repentance, nor is there anything so fatal to true religion as self-righteousness. "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." "to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." but the first prerequisite of repentance is self-knowledge--a difficult matter. gross carnal offences, strong and flagrant sins, if such there be, are obvious and upon the surface. the subtler sins of the spirit-thoughtlessness, for example, or snobbishness or priggishness and pride--though we are quick to remark upon them in others, are apt in our own case to pass undetected. it is the spirit who convinces men of sin. only as we are resolute to enter into "the mind of the spirit" can we hope to know ourselves as in the sight of god we really are. the matter is complicated by the fact that those who, as things are, most systematically practise self-examination and confession of sin too often view the matter in a somewhat narrowly ecclesiastical spirit, and make use of forms of self-examination which mix up real and serious moral offences with "sins" which are merely ceremonial, trivial, or imaginary, as though the two stood precisely upon the same level. "one must abstain from sexual sin _and_ not go to dissenting places of worship; one must not steal _and_ must be sure to abstain from meat on fridays." a man's own sense of reality should enable him to guard against this sort of thing, and if fixed forms of selfexamination are used, to use them with discretion. the forms most commonly suggested in manuals of devotion are based upon the ten commandments. this is in accordance with the teaching of the compilers of the english prayer-book, who, after bidding intending communicants to "search and examine" their "own consciences (and that not lightly, and after the manner of dissemblers with god)," proceed to lay down that "the way and means thereto is: first, to examine your lives and conversations by the rule of god's commandments: and whereinsoever ye shall perceive yourselves to have offended, either by will, word or deed, there to bewail your own sinfulness, and to confess yourselves to almighty god, with full purpose of amendment of life." the commandments are, however, as they stand, both negative in form and judaistic in character, and if used in this way as a "rule" of christian conduct must be spiritualized and reinterpreted in the light of the gospel. the second and fourth commandments, in particular, are in their literal significance obsolete for christians: it is a false puritanism which would forbid sculpture and religious symbolism in the adornment of a christian church, nor is any one in the modern world likely to confuse the symbol with the thing symbolized: while the observance of the sabbath is part of that older ceremonial "law" from which s. paul insisted that christian converts should be free (coloss. ii. 16). there is, however, a spiritual idolatry which consists in allowing any other object than the glory of god and the doing of his will to have the primary place in the determination of conduct--there are men who worship money, or comfort, or ambition, or their own domestic happiness, or even themselves. and the commandment about the sabbath, though it has no literal value to-day (and certainly no direct bearing upon the sanction or significance of sunday) may serve to suggest the important principle that a man is responsible before god for the use he makes of his time, and that it is a religious duty (not confined to any particular day of the week) to distribute it in due proportion, according to circumstance and opportunity, with proper regard to the rightful claims of work, of worship, and of recreation and rest. the remaining commandments are capable of being similarly interpreted as suggesting broad positive principles rather than as merely prohibiting wrong actions of a particular and definite kind: and so treated they form as convenient a framework as any other for a scheme of questions for self-examination. it is possible, however, that some men may prefer to use as their basis some standard more distinctively christian than the ancient law of judaism--for example, the beatitudes (matt. v. 1-12) or the "fruits of the spirit" (gal. v. 22). a man will in any case do well either to frame or to adapt his own scheme for self-examination, with special regard paid to whatever he may discover by experience to be a besetting sin or weakness, or a temptation to which he is particularly exposed. it should be remembered that the measure of what is wrong in a man's life is the measure of the contrast between his character and that of christ, and that the chief flaws in christian character and achievement (which are also those most likely to pass undetected) are not uncommonly such as fall under the head of "sins of omission" rather than of commission--the leaving undone of what ought to have been done, the failure to exhibit positively in relation to god and man the qualities of faith and hope and love. a man should ask himself wherein he has chiefly failed, and come short of the glory of god: whether he is loyally observing any self-imposed rule of life and discipline, and fulfilling any resolutions which may have been made, or any obligations which have been undertaken. having made in this manner an honest attempt to discover his own shortcomings and failures before god, let him with equal honesty confess them, seek forgiveness, and in the spirit of repentance and restored sonship start again. the late lieutenant donald hankey, better known as "a student in arms," criticizes churchmen of a certain type as being unwholesomely preoccupied with the thought of their sins, and allowing their consciences to become a burden to them. they should, he says, 'think less of themselves, and trust the holy spirit more. the advice is excellent: but morbid scrupulosity is not a common fault of english laymen. the habit, as mr. chesterton expresses it, of "chopping up life into small sins with a hatchet" is, of course, to be avoided: but the purpose of self-examination and self-knowledge is not to encourage morbid introspection, but by frank acknowledgment and repentance to get rid of the past and with recovered hope and serenity to reach forward towards the future. a man cannot "walk in the spirit" unless he is inwardly "right with god." with regard to sacramental confession, the rule of the church of england is sane and clear. it may be expressed by saying that "none _must_, but all _may_, and some _should_" make use of it. in the case of a conscience seriously burdened in such a way that a man hesitates to present himself for holy communion unabsolved, to go to confession is obviously the right remedy. there are other cases in which men find by experience that it helps them to be more honest and candid with themselves, with god, and with the church, if they go to confession from time to time as a piece of self-discipline and a needed spiritual tonic. yet others discover that they flounder less in spiritual things, and that their religious life is deepened and made stronger, if they place themselves for a time under wise direction. systematic direction, of course, has obvious dangers. it may tend to destroy independence of character. it may cause a man to become "priestridden." but the dangers are not inevitable, and there are without doubt cases in which it is of value. much obviously depends upon the wisdom and common sense of the director. the prayer-book refers penitents to a "discreet and learned" minister of god's word. if a man proposes to practise habitual confession he will do well to assure himself of the discretion and learning of the priest whose help he seeks. the method of making a sacramental confession is simple. selfexamination is made beforehand, the results being, if need be, written down, either in full, or in the form of notes to assist the memory. a first confession should cover the whole life so far as remembered, from childhood upwards: subsequent confessions the period since the last was made. the confession should aim at completeness, an effort being made to remember not only specific acts of wrongdoing, but slight failings and weaknesses of character and the general lines and tendencies of faulty spiritual development. symptoms should, if possible, be distinguished from causes, habits and tendencies and besetting sins from isolated acts. cases in which a sin has been deliberate should be noted as such: but there should be no dwelling upon extenuating circumstances or intermingling of claims to virtues or graces of character with the admission of defects. no names may be mentioned, nor may third persons be incriminated by any form of words which would enable the confessor to recognize their identity. the priest hears the confession sitting in a chair. the penitent kneels beside him and confesses as follows:--"i confess to god almighty, the father, the son and the holy ghost, before the whole company of heaven, and before you, that i have sinned in thought, word, and deed, by my own fault. especially i accuse myself that (since my last confession, which was...ago) i have committed the following sins.... [here follows the confession in detail: after which]. ... for these and all my other sins which i cannot now remember, i humbly ask pardon of god, and of you, father, penance, counsel and absolution. wherefore i ask god to have mercy upon me, and you to pray for me to the lord our god. amen." the confessor then gives advice and counsel according to his wisdom, commonly imposes a penance, and if assured of the sincerity of the penitent, pronounces absolution according to the form prescribed in the prayer-book office for the visitation of the sick. chapter iv corporate worship and communion the really essential thing is the communion. there may be minor outward differences as to the manner of its celebration: you shall find in one parish a tradition of puritan bareness, in another a full and rich ceremonial symbolism, with lights and vestments. a man may have his personal preferences, but it is a mistake to attach undue importance either to the presence or to the absence of the external adjuncts of worship. what matters is the body and blood of christ. a man must have his own regular rule with regard to communion. to communicate spasmodically or upon impulse at irregular intervals is not the way to build up a stable christian character. where circumstances make possible the leading of a fairly regular life and give adequate opportunity for preparation beforehand, weekly communion is the best rule. where this is not possible, a fortnightly or even a monthly rule may in particular cases be the best. preparation for communion should be real, but need not be elaborate. it should be made overnight, and should include a review of the period since the last communion was made, prayers for pardon and new resolves, if possible a short meditation on the essential meaning of the sacrament, and the selection of some particular theme to be the focus of intercession at the service itself. at the actual service it is well to arrive early, with a few moments to spare for quiet and recollected prayer before the liturgy begins. the first part of the service is preparatory. any pauses or intervals should be filled up by private prayers.[footnote: forms and suggestions which, may be used by those who find them helpful are provided for this purpose in any manual of devotion.] from the moment of consecration until the end of the service the mind should be concentrated as far as possible upon the thought of christ's realized presence. a man should go up to the altar to receive communion as one desiring to meet his lord and to be renewed in him, returning subsequently to his place to render thanks for so great a gift. when the service is over it is best not to hurry out of church, but to linger for further thanksgiving and prayer as occasion serves. it is an ancient rule or custom of the church to receive holy communion fasting, giving precedence to the food of the soul over that of the body. to insist rigidly upon such a rule in any and every set of circumstances is a piece of unintelligent and unchristian legalism: but many persons are of opinion that to observe it wherever it is reasonably possible to do so makes for reality. there is a real value in the element of asceticism and self-discipline involved in the effort to rise early and come fasting to church: and the fast may be interpreted as a kind of outward sacrament of the inward reality of spiritual preparation--a preparation of the body corresponding to the preparation of the soul, it is, moreover, an advantage of the early morning hour that the mind is undistracted by the occupations and diversions of the day. for all these reasons the early morning communion is to be preferred to communion at a later hour. whether a man is a weekly communicant or not, he should _in any case be present as a worshipper_ at holy communion sunday by sunday, and should regard attendance at the weekly eucharist as the most essential part of church-going. no one who makes it a rule of his life to be present on sundays and other festivals of the church at holy communion ever has cause to regret having done so. a man who for any reason (_e.g._ by the nature of his employment) is debarred from attending regularly on sundays should, if possible, secure an opportunity of regular attendance at holy communion on a week-day. there are usually churches to be found, at least in the towns, which have an early morning eucharist daily throughout the week: and advantage can also be taken of this if on any particular occasion the regular sunday communion has been missed. if neither sunday nor week-day opportunities are available, the need should be met by what is known as "spiritual communion": that is to say, a man should read over the liturgy in private, unite himself in spirit with the eucharist as celebrated in the particular church with which he happens to be most familiar (as representing for him the worship of the church universal), and pray that he may receive the spiritual benefits of communion though deprived for the time being of the actual sacrament. apart from the "early service," which is now almost universal, schemes of worship upon sunday mornings vary in different parishes. in some churches matins and litany are sung and a sermon preached, a late eucharist without music being commonly celebrated about noon: in other parishes matins is said quietly without music at a comparatively early hour, and the eucharist is solemnly sung, with a sermon, as the principal service of the forenoon, usually without more than a very limited number of communicants, partly because if the bulk of the congregation communicate at a sung eucharist the service becomes intolerably long, and partly because the majority of those desiring to receive communion have done so fasting at an earlier hour. in large towns a man can usually find churches of either type according to his preference. in "single-church areas" he ought for the sake of fellowship and good example to conform, as a rule, to what is customary. it is desirable, in a general way, to be identified with the corporate worship of the parish: but it is worth remarking that, apart from the weight due to this general consideration, there is no particular sacredness about the hour of eleven o'clock, and a man who has communicated before breakfast, and perhaps contemplates attendance, later on, at evensong, may not unreasonably feel justified in devoting the forenoon of sunday (which is usually his solitary morning's leisure in the week) to other purposes than those of worship. if the preacher is worth listening to (which is not invariably the case) it is a good thing to go and hear him: and it is well, therefore, to attend one or other of the services (morning or evening) at which a sermon is preached. but it is not essential to attend both: and the question may be raised whether one sermon a sunday is not as much as most men can profitably digest. a sermon is in any case (except at the eucharist) a detachable appendix to a church service; and it is both possible and legitimate either to attend the service and leave the church before the sermon, or to avoid the service and come in time to hear the sermon, according to preference or opportunity. as regards external details of observance, kneeling, and not squatting, should be the attitude adopted for prayer. it is customary to turn eastwards for the creed, and in some churches, though not in others, to kneel at the reference to the incarnation in the course of the nicene creed. it is also a common practice in some churches to genuflect (_i.e._ to drop for a moment upon one knee) on rising from one's place to go up to the altar to communicate, in reverence for the blessed sacrament. a man should adapt his personal usage in these minor details to whatever appears to be customary in the particular church in which he is worshipping. it is often extremely difficult for the clergy to know personally the men of their congregations, since it is rare in most neighbourhoods for the men to be at home during the hours when it is possible for the clergy to visit. in these circumstances a man ought to be willing to take the initiative in making himself known to the clergy of his parish, and to co-operate as far as possible in any effort which may be made, through parochial church councils or otherwise, to develop the spirit of fellowship in a congregation. there is very often about anglican church worship a stiffness and frigidity which badly needs to be broken down. appropriated seats, where they exist, are a particular curse, and anything which can be done in the way of abandoning chosen seats, even if "bought and paid for," to strangers in the interests of charity is a real piece of christian service. a stranger ought not to be made to feel uncomfortable, but to be welcomed in every possible way. the ideal is that every church, in every part of it, should be free and open at all times to all comers. chapter v the devotional use of the bible it is to be feared that the habit of reading the bible in private for purposes of devotion has largely dropped out of modern usage, partly by reason of the general stress and urgency of modern life, and partly because men do not quite know what to make of the bible when they read it. they are aware of the existence of what are called "critical questions," but they do not know precisely the kind of differences which criticism has made. it is a pity to acquiesce in an attitude of this kind, and it is greatly to be desired that the habit of reading the bible regularly and becoming familiar with its contents should be revived. there are two distinct methods of reading the bible which are of value. one is to take a particular book and to read it straight through like a novel, in order to get the impression of the writer's message as a whole. advantage may be taken of occasional opportunities of sunday or week-day leisure for this purpose. if the book is studied with the help of a good commentary, so much the better. a man who would be ashamed to be wholly unfamiliar with modern or classical literature ought to be equally ashamed to be wholly unfamiliar with the literature of the hebrews. the second method of reading the bible consists in the devotional study of particular passages, sometimes called by the formidable name of "meditation." the parts of the bible best adapted for this purpose are the gospels, certain portions of the epistles, many of the psalms, and portions of the greater prophets. the essence of the method is to read over a short passage quietly after prayer for spiritual guidance, to browse over it for a few minutes and follow out any train of thought which may be suggested by it, to apply its message in whatever way may seem most real and practical to the spiritual problems of immediate daily life, and to conclude with prayer and resolution for the future. it is not practicable for the majority of men to make such a "meditation" a matter of daily habit, though this may easily be possible for people of leisure. but it may be suggested that it is both practicable and abundantly worth while for ordinary people to allot at least half an hour a week for such a purpose. our fathers unquestionably fed and nurtured their souls to an extraordinary degree by spiritual reading. it ought to be possible for modern people, in spite of modern distractions, to acquire and maintain the capacity to do the same. chapter vi almsgiving and fasting the two things were originally closely connected. men fasted in order to give to others the savings which resulted from a reduced expenditure on personal needs. "lent savings" represent a modern revival of this idea. the essence of christian almsgiving is that it should be the expression of christian charity or love: and love means the willingness to serve others, at cost to self. gifts and subscriptions which represent merely the largess of a man's superfluity and cost nothing in the way of personal self-denial are not really in this sense almsgiving. the gospel prefers the widow's mite to the rich man's large but not really generous contribution, in cases where the larger sum represents the lesser personal cost. it was the rule of the ancient jewish law that a man should give away a tenth part of what he possessed, but this ought not to be adopted under modern conditions as a literal precept. the poor cannot afford to spare so large a fraction of their incomes. the wealthy can in many cases give away a much larger proportion without feeling particularly stinted. it is the duty of every man whose income is above the line of actual poverty (_i.e._ exceeds what is necessary for the literal subsistence in food, shelter, and clothing of himself and those dependent upon him for support) to consider with his own conscience before god what proportion should be set aside for educational and other purposes, and what proportion should be directly given away in charity. anonymous subscriptions are the best, and the amount available for distribution should be carefully allocated as between rival claims. details, of course, must vary: but a certain proportion should in any case be given for the purposes of directly religious work at home and abroad. a man who really believes in the universality of the gospel will in particular subscribe to the full extent of his capacity to foreign missions. with regard to fasting it has been suggested in an earlier chapter of this book that there should be some personal rule of self-denial in a man's life. a table of fasts and days of abstinence is printed in the prayer-book, though the church of england does not normally prescribe in detail how such days are to be observed. it is worth remarking that the spirit is not necessarily in contradiction to the letter; but meticulous outward observances are not of the essence of christianity, nor is it desirable to obtrude such observances in an ostentatious manner in mixed society. the rule of the gospel with regard both to almsgiving and to fasting is that such things should be done in secret. it is usual, however, for church people, at least in normal circumstances, to pay some special regard to the observance of lent, and particularly of holy week, as a season of fasting and self-denial, and also (with a less degree of strictness) to the four weeks of advent as leading up to christmas. it is a good thing to enter into the observance of these and other seasons of the christian year so far as circumstances permit: and at the least to make a point, if it is at all possible, of reading during lent and advent a more or less serious book of a religious or theological kind, or in other ways endeavouring to deepen, by some special practice or observance, the inward devotional life. the sunday collects, epistles, and gospels are of course appointed with special reference to the significance of the various seasons in the church's year, and provide suitable passages for private meditation at such times. advantage may also be taken of the special courses of sermons and additional services provided in almost every parish during the seasons of lent and advent. loyalty to the brotherhood in matters even of minor observance is a great principle to be borne in mind in this connexion. there is usually a method in the church's madness, and her prescriptions and counsels are the product of a very considerable empirical acquaintance with the workings of the human soul. the end theology and the social consciousness a study of the relations of the social consciousness to theology by henry churchill king professor of theology and philosophy in oberlin college _second edition_ hodder & stoughton new york george h. doran company copyright, 1902 by the macmillan company set up and electrotyped september, 1902 reprinted february, 1904; july, 1907; august, 1910; april, 1912. to the members of the harvard summer school of theology of the year 1901 in recognition of their interest in the lectures that formed the basis of this book preface there is no attempt in this book to present a complete system of theology, though much of such a system is passed in review, but only to study a special phase of theological thinking. the precise theme of the book is the relations of the social consciousness to theology. this is the subject upon which the writer was asked to lecture at the harvard summer school of theology of 1901; and the book has grown out of the lectures there given. in preparing the book for the press, however, the lecture form has been entirely abandoned, and considerable material added. the importance of the theme seems to justify a somewhat thorough-going treatment. if one believes at all in the presence of god in history--and the christian can have no doubt here--he must be profoundly interested in such a phenomenon as the steady growth of the social consciousness. hardly any inner characteristic of our time has a stronger historical justification than that consciousness; and it has carried the reason and conscience of the men of this generation in rare degree. having its own comparatively independent development, and yet making an ethical demand that is thoroughly christian, it furnishes an almost ideal standpoint from which to review our theological statements, and, at the same time, a valuable test of their really christian quality. in attempting, then, a careful study of the relations of the social consciousness to theology, this book aims, first, definitely to get at the real meaning of the social consciousness as the theologian must view it, and so to bring clearly into mind the unconscious assumptions of the social consciousness itself; and then to trace out the influence of the social consciousness upon the conception of religion, and upon theological doctrine. the larger portion of the book is naturally given to the influence upon theological doctrine; and to make the discussion here as pointed as possible, the different elements of the social consciousness are considered separately. it should be noted, however, that the question raised is not the historical one, how, as a matter of fact, has the social consciousness modified the conception of religion or the statement of theological doctrine? but the theoretical one, how should the social consciousness naturally affect religion and doctrine? in this sense, the result might be called, in president hyde's phrase, a "social theology"; but, as i believe that the social consciousness is at bottom only a true sense of the fully personal, i prefer myself to think of the present book as only carrying out in more detail the contention of my _reconstruction in theology_--that theology should aim at a restatement of doctrine in strictly personal terms. so conceived, in spite of its casual origin, this book follows very naturally upon the previous book. some of the same topics necessarily recur here; and references to the _reconstruction_ have been freely made, in order to avoid all unnecessary repetition. that this social sense of the fully personal has finally a real and definite contribution to make to theology, i cannot doubt. i can only hope that the present discussion may be found at least suggestive, particularly in the analysis of the social consciousness, and in the treatment of mysticism and of the ethical in religion, as well as in the consideration of the special influence of the elements of the social consciousness upon the restatement of doctrine. of the doctrinal applications, the application to the problem of redemption may be considered, perhaps, of most significance. henry churchill king. oberlin college, june, 1902. contents introduction page the theme 1 the real meaning of the social consciousness for theology introduction the point of view of the theologian 5 chapter i the definition of the social consciousness 9 i. the sense of the like-mindedness of men 9 ii. the sense of the mutual influence of men 11 1. contributing lines of thought 11 2. the threefold form of the conviction 13 iii. the sense of the value and sacredness of the person 16 iv. the sense of obligation 18 v. the sense of love 20 chapter ii the inadequacy of the analogy of the organism as an expression of the social consciousness 23 i. the value of the analogy 23 ii. the inevitable inadequacy of the analogy 24 1. it comes from the sub-personal world 24 2. access to reality, only through ourselves 24 3. mistaken passion for construing everything 25 iii. the analogy tested by the definition of the social consciousness 27 chapter iii the necessity of the facts of which the social consciousness is the reflection, if ideal interests are to be supreme 29 i. the question 29 ii. otherwise, no moral world at all 30 1. the prerequisites of a moral world 30 (1) a sphere of law 30 (2) ethical freedom 30 (3) some power of accomplishment 31 (4) members one of another 32 2. the ideal world requires, thus, the facts of the social consciousness 32 chapter iv the ultimate explanation and ground of the social consciousness 35 i. how can it be, metaphysically, that we do influence one another? 35 1. not due to the physical fact of race-connection 36 2. we are not to over-emphasize the principle of heredity 37 3. not due to a mystical solidarity 39 4. grounded in the immanence of god 40 ii. what is required for the final positive justification of the social consciousness, as ethical? 44 1. must be grounded in the supporting will of god 44 2. god's sharing in our life 48 3. the consequent transfiguration of the social consciousness 49 the influence of the social consciousness upon the conception of religion introduction 53 chapter v the opposition of the social consciousness to the falsely mystical 55 i. what is the falsely mystical? 55 1. nash's definition 55 2. herrmann's definition 56 ii. the objections of the social consciousness to the falsely mystical 57 1. unethical 58 2. does not give a really personal god 58 3. belittles the personal in man 59 4. leaves the historically, concretely christian 62 chapter vi the emphasis of the social consciousness upon the personal relation in religion, and so upon the truly mystical 66 i. the social consciousness tends positively to emphasize the personal relation in religion 66 1. emphasizes everywhere the personal 66 2. requires the laws of a deepening friendship in religion 67 3. requires the ideal conditions of the richest life in religion 68 ii. the social consciousness thus keeps the truly mystical 70 1. the justifiable and unjustifiable elements in mysticism 71 (1) emotion, the test 71 (2) subjective tendency 72 (3) underestimating the historical 72 (4) tendency toward vagueness 73 (5) tendency toward pantheism 73 (6) tendency to extravagant symbolism 76 2. the protest in favor of the whole man 78 3. the self-controlled recognition of emotion 82 chapter vii the thorough ethicizing of religion 86 i. the pressure of the problem 86 ii. the statement of the problem 87 iii. the answer 89 1. involved in relation to christ 89 2. the divine will felt in the ethical command 90 3. involved in the nature of god's gifts 91 4. communion with god, through harmony with his ethical will 92 5. the vision of god for the pure in heart 92 6. sharing the life of god 93 7. christ, as satisfying our highest claims on life 94 8. the vision of the riches of the life of christ, ethically conditioned 96 9. the moral law, as a revelation of the love of god 98 chapter viii the emphasis of the social consciousness upon the historically christian 102 i. the social consciousness needs historical justification 102 ii. christianity's response to this need 103 the influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrine chapter ix general results 105 i. the conception of theology in personal terms 106 ii. the fatherhood of god, as the determining principle in theology 109 iii. christ's own social emphases 111 iv. the reflection in theology of the changes in the conception of religion 113 chapter x the influence of the deepening sense of the like-mindedness of men upon theology 115 i. no prime favorites with god 116 ii. the great universal qualities and interests, the most valuable 117 iii. essential likeness under very diverse forms 121 iv. as applied to the question of immortality 124 v. consequent larger sympathy with men, faith in men, and hope for men 127 vi. judgment according to light, and the moral reality of the future life 132 chapter xi the influence of the deepening sense of the mutual influence of men upon theology 136 i. the real unity of the race 136 ii. deepening the sense of sin 139 iii. mutual influence for good in the attainment of character 145 1. application to the problem of redemption 147 2. the consequent ethical and spiritual meaning of substitution and propitiation 150 iv. mutual influence for good in our personal relation to god 160 1. in coming into the kingdom 160 2. in fellowship within the kingdom 162 3. in intercessory prayer 164 v. mutual influence for good in confessions of faith 167 1. complete uniformity of belief and statement impossible 169 2. complete uniformity of belief and statement undesirable 171 vi. the consequent importance of the doctrine of the church 177 chapter xii the influence of the deepening sense of the value and sacredness of the person upon theology 179 i. the recognition of the personal in man 180 1. man's personal separateness from god 180 2. emphasis upon man's moral initiative 181 3. man, a child of god 183 ii. the recognition of the personal in christ 184 1. christ, a personal revelation of god 184 2. emphasizing the moral and spiritual in asserting the supremacy of christ 185 3. the moral and spiritual grounds of the supremacy of christ 188 (1) the greatest in the greatest sphere 188 (2) the sinless and impenitent one 192 (3) consciously rises to the highest ideal 194 (4) realizes the character of god 195 (5) consciously able to redeem all men 196 (6) complete normality under this transcendent god-consciousness and sense of mission 197 (7) the only person who can call out absolute trust 198 (8) the one, in whom god certainly finds us 199 (9) the ideal realized 200 4. christ's double uniqueness 201 5. the increasing sense of our kinship with christ, and of his reality 205 iii. the recognition of the personal in god. 207 1. the steady carrying through of the completely personal in the conception of god. guarding the conception 208 2. god is always the completely personal god 212 (1) consequent relation of god to "eternal truths" 212 (2) eternal creation 214 (3) the unity and unchangeableness of god 216 (4) the limitations of the conception of immanence 217 3. deepening the thought of the fatherhood of god 218 (1) history, no mere natural process 218 (2) god, the great servant 219 (3) no divine arbitrariness 220 (4) the passibility of god 221 4. as to the doctrine of a social trinity 222 5. preëminent reverence for personality, characterizing all god's relations with men 226 (1) reflected in christ 226 (2) in creation 230 (3) in providence 232 (4) in our personal religious life 233 (5) in the judgment 237 (6) in the future life 240 theology and the social consciousness introduction _the theme_ no theologian can be excused to-day from a careful study of the relations of theology and the social consciousness. whether this study becomes a formal investigation or not, the social consciousness is so deep and significant a phenomenon in the ethical life of our time, that it cannot be ignored by the theologian who means to bring his message to men really home. this book is written in the conviction that, while men are thus moved as never before by a deep sense of mutual influence and obligation, they have also as deep and genuine an interest as ever in the really greatest questions of religion and theology. interests so significant and so akin cannot long remain isolated in the mind. they are certain soon profoundly to influence each other. and this mutual influence of theology and the social consciousness form the theme of this book. two questions are naturally involved in this theme. first: has theology given any help, or has it any help to give, to the social consciousness?--the question of the first division of the book. second: has the social consciousness made any contribution, or has it any contribution to make, to theology?--the question of the second and third divisions. that is to say: on the one hand, have the great facts which theology studies any help to give to the man who faces the problem of social progress--of the steady elevation of the race? on the other hand, has the great fact of the immensely quickened social consciousness of our time, with all that it means, any help to give to the theologian in his attempt to bring the great christian truths really home to men, to make them more real, more rational, more vital? or again: on the one hand, do theological doctrines--the most adequate statements we can make of the great christian truths--best explain and best ground the social consciousness, so as best to bring our entire thought in this sphere of the social into unity? is the christian truth so great that it not only includes all that is true in this new social consciousness--is fully able to take it up into itself and to make it feel at home there--but also, so great that it alone can give the social consciousness its fullest meaning, alone enable it to understand itself, and alone furnish it adequate motive and power? is the social consciousness, in truth, only a disguised statement of christian convictions, and does it really require the christian religion and its thoughtful expression to complete itself? must the social consciousness say, when it comes to full self-knowledge,--i am myself an unmeaning and unjustified by-product, if there is not a god in the full christian sense? and, so saying, confirm again the great christian truths? this is the question of the first division. on the other hand, since the task of any given theologian is necessarily temporary, and since any marked modification of the consciousness of men will inevitably demand some restatement of theological doctrine, the question here becomes--to what changed points of view in religion and theology, to what restatements of doctrine, and so to what truer appreciation of christian truth, does the new social consciousness naturally lead? how do the affirmations of the social consciousness, as the outcome of a careful, inductive study of the social evolution of the race, affect our theological statements? this is the question of the second and third divisions of the book. our discussion must of course assume and build on the conclusions of sociology, and of new testament theology, especially the conclusions concerning the social teaching of jesus. the real meaning of the social consciousness for theology introduction _the point of view of the theologian_ first, then, what is the real meaning of the social consciousness, as the theologian must view it? the answer to this question involves a preliminary one: what is the point of view of the theologian in any investigation? one can only give his own answer. first of all, the theologian, as such, is an _interpreter_, not a tracer of causal connections. he builds everywhere upon the scientific investigator, and takes from him the statement of facts and processes. with these he has primarily nothing to do. with reference to the social consciousness, therefore, he does not attempt to do over again the work of the sociologist; he asks only, what does the social consciousness, in the light of the whole of life and thought, mean; not, how did it come about? the theologian, too, is a _believer in the supremacy of spiritual interests_; this is his central contention. he affirms strenuously, with the scientific worker, the place and value of the mechanical; but he is certain that the mechanical can understand itself even, only as it is seen to be simple means, and thus clearly subordinate in significance. his problem is, therefore, everywhere, that of ideal interpretation, not of mechanical explanation. but, while he has nothing to do with the scientific tracing of immediate causal connections, he recognizes causality itself as requiring an ultimate explanation, that cannot be mechanically given. the theologian must be in this, then, an _ideal_ interpreter, and an inquirer after the _ultimate_ cause. the theologian assumes, moreover, the legitimacy and value of the fact of _religion_; for theology is simply the thoughtful, comprehensive, and unified expression of what religion means to us. the meaning of the social consciousness to the theologian involves, therefore, at once the question of its relation to religious conviction. the point of view of the christian theologian involves, besides, the _reality of the personal god_ in personal relation to persons. theology is in earnest in its thought of god, and knows that god is everywhere to be taken into account; that, if there is a god at all, he is not to be exiled into some corner of his universe, but is intimately concerned in all, is at the very heart of all; and that, therefore, it is not a matter of merely curious interest or of subsidiary inquiry, whether we are to look at our questions with god in mind. finally, the christian theologian tries everywhere to make his point of view _the point of view of christ_. the theology, upon which he ultimately stakes his all, is christ's theology. he knows that there is much concerning which he cannot refuse to think, but upon which christ has not expressed himself either explicitly or by clear inference; but in all this unavoidable supplementary thinking he aims to be absolutely loyal to the spirit of christ. from this point of view of the christian theologian, now, what does the social consciousness mean? the answer may be given under four heads: (1) the definition of the social consciousness; (2) the inadequacy of the analogy of the organism, as an expression of the social consciousness; (3) the necessity of the facts, of which the social consciousness is the reflection, if ideal interests are to be supreme; (4) the ultimate explanation and ground of the social consciousness. these four topics form the subjects of the four chapters of the first division of our inquiry. chapter i _the definition of the social consciousness_ the simplest and probably the most accurate single expression we can give to the social consciousness, is to say that it is a growing sense of the real brotherhood of men. but five elements seem plainly involved in this, and may be profitably separated in our thought, if that is to be clear and definite:--a deepening sense (1) of the likeness or like-mindedness of men, (2) of their mutual influence, (3) of the value and sacredness of the person, (4) of mutual obligation, and (5) of love. i. the sense of the like-mindedness of men[1] if a society is "a group of like-minded individuals," if the "all-essential" requisites for coöperation are "like-mindedness and consciousness of kind," as giddings tells us, then certainly a prime element in the social consciousness is likeness and the sense of it--a growing sense of the mental and moral resemblance and "potential resemblance" of all men, and of all classes of men, though not equality of powers. "equality of need" among men, too,[2] to which sociology comes as one of its surest conclusions, implies a common capacity, even if in varying degrees, to enter into the most fundamental interests of life, and so points unmistakably to the essential likeness of men in the most important things. so, too, sociology's unquestioning assertion that both smaller and larger groups of men constantly tend toward unity, assumes potential resemblance. and the uniform experience and prescription of social workers, that _really_ knowing "how the other half lives" brings increasing sympathy, also affirm the fundamental likeness of men. every painstaking investigation of a social question comes out at some point or other with a fresh discovery of a previously hidden, underlying resemblance between classes of men. from the careful, inductive study of social evolution, too, the men of our day see, as no other generation has seen, that the great force always and everywhere at work in that evolution has been likeness and the consciousness of it. for all these reasons, this generation believes, as men never believed before, in the essential like-mindedness of men; and this deepening sense of the like-mindedness of men is certainly one element in the modern social consciousness. ii. the sense of the mutual influence of men a second element in the social consciousness, and, perhaps, that which has most of all characterized it through the larger period of its growth, is the strong sense of the mutual influence of men--that we are all "members one of another." 1. _contributing lines of thought._--it is worth seeing how firmly planted the idea is. several lines of thought have united to induce men to emphasize--perhaps even to over-emphasize--this way of thinking of society. the influence of natural science, in the first place, has been inevitably in this direction. its root idea of the universality of law forces upon one the thought of a world which is a _coherent_ whole, a unity with universal forces in it, in which every part is inextricably connected with every other. so, too, the acceptance of the theory of evolution has led science to regard the whole history of the physical universe as an organic growth. psychology, also, with its present-day emphasis, in baldwin and royce, upon the constant presence and fundamental character of _imitation_, and its insistence upon the still more fundamental impulsiveness of consciousness which dewey believes underlies imitation,[3] is really proclaiming exactly this element of the social consciousness. and the whole assertion by the later psychology of the unity of man--mind and body, and of the complex intertwining of all the functions of the mind, is in closest harmony with a similar view of society. philosophy, too, is exerting all along a half-unconscious pressure toward the thought of the organic unity of society. that philosophy may exist at all, it must start from the assumption of a universe, a real unity of truth, and its problem is to find a _discerned_ unity. it knows no unrelated being, and, consequently, whether it theoretically accepts the formulation or not, it must admit that, as a matter of fact, to be is to be in relations. it asserts as a universal fact, what natural science and psychology both affirm in their own respective spheres, the concrete relatedness of all. it cannot well deny the same thought when applied to society. its repeated attempts, moreover, to conceive all as a developing unity, and the profound influence of the analogy of the organism upon its history, both further sustain the organic view of society. christianity, as well, has been a powerful factor in this direction from the beginning, for it really first gave the idea of humanity.[4] 2. _the threefold form of the conviction._--sustained, now, by all these movements in natural science, psychology, philosophy, and christianity, this thought of the mutual influence of men has taken three forms: that mutual influence is inevitable, isolation impossible; that mutual influence is desirable, isolation to be shunned; that mutual influence is indispensable, isolation blighting. (1) this second element in the social consciousness has meant, then, in the first place, a growing sense of the inevitableness of the mutual influence of all men, and of all classes of men; that we are all parts of one whole, each part unavoidably affected by every other; that we are bound up in one bundle of life with all men, and cannot live an isolated life if we would; that we do influence one another whether we will or not, and tend unconsciously to draw others to our level and are ourselves drawn toward theirs; that we joy and suffer together whether we will or not, and grow or deteriorate together. (2) but the mutual influence of men means more than this: not only that we do inevitably affect one another in living out our own life, but a growing sense of the fact that we are obviously not intended to come to our best in independence of one another; that we are made on so large a plan that we cannot come to our best alone; that we are evidently made for personal relations, and that, therefore, largeness of life for ourselves depends on our entering into the life of others. (3) but even more than this is true. it is not only that entering into the life of others is a help in my life, it is _the_ great help, the one great means, the indispensable, the essential condition of all largeness of life; it is the very meaning of life,--life itself. we are to find our life only in losing our life. life is the fulfilment of relations. when we try to run away from the variety and complexity of these relations, we are running away from life itself. the indispensableness of these relations to others is assumed, also, in the assertion by the sociologist of an evolution toward a society, at once more and more complex, and more and more perfect. but if i grow in the growth of another, the other grows in my growth. if the only thing of value that i can finally give is myself, the value of that gift depends upon the largeness and richness of the self given. for love's own sake, therefore, i must grow, must strive to bring to its highest perfection that work which is given me to do. a person is a social being called to contribute to the whole, in the line of his own best possibilities. one's largest ministry to others is to be rendered, then, through sacred regard for one's own calling, considered as exactly his place of largest service. or, to put it the other way: i can come to my best only in work so great and in associations so large that i may lose myself in them in perfect objectivity. the mutual influence of men, therefore, is unavoidable, is desirable, is indispensable; isolation impossible, hindering, blighting. this is the true solidarity of the race, in which there is no fiction, no hiding in the inconceivable, and no pretense. iii. the sense of the value and sacredness of the person the third element in the social consciousness, the sense of the value and sacredness of the person, follows naturally from the sense of like-mindedness and of mutual influence, but needs distinct and emphatic statement. it is less easily separable than the other elements named, and, indeed, may be made to include all the others, and does, in a way, carry all with it. thus broadly conceived, it has seemed to the writer that--with the return to the historical christ--it might well be called the most notable moral characteristic of our time.[5] but, though less easily and definitely discriminated, one who knows deeply the modern social consciousness would surely feel that the very heart of it had been omitted, if this growing sense of the value and sacredness of the person did not come to strong expression. reverence for personality--the steadily deepening sense that every person has a value not to be measured in anything else, and is in himself sacred to god and man--this it is which marks unmistakably every step in the progress of the individual and of the race. without it, whatever the other marks of civilization, you have only tyranny and slavery; with it, though every trace of luxury and scientific invention be lacking, you have the perfection of human relations. this sense of the value and sacredness of the person not only characterizes increasingly the whole social and moral evolution of the race, but it is to be seen in the clearly conscious demand for equality of rights, and, especially--to take a single example--in the growing recognition that the child is an individual with his own rights; that he has a personality of his own of a sanctity inviolable by the parent; that there are clear bounds beyond which no one may go without personal outrage. the recognition by psychology of respect for personality as one of the three or four most fundamental conditions--if not the most essential of all--of happiness, of character, and of influence, is explicit confirmation of the truth of this element of the social consciousness. iv. the sense of obligation but the elements of the social consciousness already named lead directly to a growing sense of obligation. every man carries in himself his only possible standard of measurement of all else. a growing sense of the likeness of other men to himself quickens at once, therefore, the sense of obligation, and leads naturally to the golden rule. recognition of mutual influence, too, inevitably carries with it a deeper sense of obligation; for, if we do affect others constantly, then we are manifestly under obligation not only to do direct service to others, but so to order our own lives as to help, not to hinder, others. the sense of the value and sacredness of the person plainly looks to the same deepening of obligation. as an element of the social consciousness, the sense of obligation means for a given individual, a growing sense of responsibility for all; and for society at large an increase in the number of those who feel the obligation to serve. the growth in each of these directions cannot be questioned. there is no privileged class, in whose own consciences there is not being recognized more and more the right of the claim that they must justify themselves by service which shall be as unique as their privilege. in consequence, the conception of the governing classes is steadily changing, for both the governed and the governing, to some recognition of christ's principle, that he who would be first must be servant of all. the sharp insistence of the sociologist that "organization must be for the organized" expresses the same thought. one must add sociology's double assertion, that society is really advancing toward its goal, and yet that a chief condition of the progress of society is unselfish leadership.[6] this can only mean that there is, increasingly, unselfish leadership, more and more of conscious, willing coöperation on the part of men in forwarding the social evolution. none of us can return to the older attitude of comparative indifference, nor can we honestly defend it. we do have obligations and we own them; we are judging ourselves increasingly by christ's test of ministering love. v. the sense of love and the social consciousness ends necessarily in love, in the broader, ethical meaning of that word. we shall never feel that the social consciousness is complete, short of real love. all the other elements of the social consciousness lead to love and are included in it. even the sociologist must bring in as necessary results of the consciousness of kind--sympathy, affection, and desire for the recognition of others;[7] and he finds these always more or less distinctly at work among men. these further considerations from the study of evolution confirm this result: that man is preëminently the social animal;[8] that with man we have clearly reached the stage of persons and of personal relations;[9] that the very existence and development of man required love at every step;[10] and that the chief moral significance of man's prolonged infancy is probably to be found in the necessary calling out of love.[11] so, too, it has become constantly more and more clear that our obligation, what we owe to others, is ourselves; and the giving of the self is love. it seems to be thrust home upon social workers everywhere that there is no solution of any social problem without a personal self-giving in some way on the part of some; that there is no cheaper way than this very costly one of love, of the giving of ourselves--whether in the family, or in charity, or in criminology. the point, already noted, that the progress of society depends on leaders who will serve with unselfish devotion, is only another emphasis upon love as an indispensable element of the social consciousness. and the social goal--equality, brotherhood, liberty, when these terms are given any adequate ethical content--is absolutely unthinkable in any really vital sense without love. any attempted definition of love, moreover, resolves at once into what we mean by the social consciousness. if we define love as the giving of self, this is exactly what, with growing clearness and insistence, the social consciousness demands. if with herrmann we call love, "joy in personal life"--joy, that is, in the revelation of personal life, this can only come in that trustful, reverent, self-surrendering association to which the social consciousness exhorts. if with edwards we call love, willing the highest and completest good of all, we reach the same result. or if with christ in the beatitudes, or with paul in the thirteenth of i corinthians, we study the characteristics of love, we shall hardly doubt that a complete social consciousness must have these marks of love. these elements, then, make up the social consciousness: the sense of like-mindedness, of mutual influence, of the value and sacredness of the person, of obligation, and of love; and all these, with their implied demands, only point to what a person must be if he is to be fully personal. with this definition in mind, we may now ask, whether the analogy of the organism can adequately express the social consciousness. [1] cf. giddings, _elements of sociology_, pp. 6, 10, 65, 66, 77. [2] cf. giddings, _op. cit._, p. 324. [3] see _the new world_, sept., 1898, p. 516. [4] cf. lotze, _the microcosmus_, vol. ii, p. 211. [5] see king, _reconstruction in theology_, chap. ix, pp, 169 ff. [6] see giddings, _op. cit._, pp. 302, 320-322. [7] cf. giddings, _op. cit._, pp. 65, 66. [8] cf. giddings, _op. cit._, p. 241. [9] see king, _reconstruction in theology_, pp. 92-96. [10] cf. drummond, _the ascent of man_, pp. 272 ff. [11] cf. john fiske, _the destiny of man_, p. 74; drummond, _op. cit._, p. 279 ff. chapter ii _the inadequacy of the analogy of the organism as an expression of the social consciousness_[12] i. the value of the analogy the analogy of the organism has played so large a part in the history of thought, especially in the consideration of ethical and social questions, that it is well worth while to ask exactly how far this analogy is adequate, although the danger of the abuse of the analogy is probably somewhat less than formerly. it may be said at once that it is, undoubtedly, the very best illustration of these social relations that we can draw from nature, and it is of real value. it has had, moreover, as already indicated, a most influential and largely honorable history in the development of the thought of men. its classical expression is in the epoch-making twelfth chapter of i corinthians, which makes so plain the ethical applications of the analogy. ii. the inevitable inadequacy of the analogy 1. _comes from the sub-personal world._--but it ought clearly to be seen, on the other hand, that, considered as a complete expression of the social consciousness, it is necessarily inadequate; and it is of moment that we should not be dominated by it. too often it has been made to cover the entire ground, as though in itself it were a complete expression and final explanation of the social consciousness, instead of a quite incomplete illustration. for, in the first place, the very fact that the analogy comes from the physical world, from the sub-personal realm, makes it certain that it must fail at vital points in the expression of what is peculiarly a personal and ethical fact. we cannot safely argue directly from the physical illustration to ethical propositions. 2. _access to reality, only through ourselves._--moreover, in this day of extraordinary attention to the physical world, it is particularly important that we should keep constantly in mind that we have direct access to reality only in ourselves; that man is himself necessarily the only key which we can use for any ultimate understanding of anything; or, as paulsen puts it, "i know reality as it is in itself, in so far as i am real myself, or in so far as it is, or is like, that which i am, namely, spirit."[13] we are not to forget that, in very truth, we know _better_ what we mean by persons and personal relations, than we do what we mean by members of a body and by organic relations; and, further, that in point of fact, all those metaphysical notions by which we strive to think things are ultimately derived from ourselves; and that then we illogically turn back upon our own minds, from which all these notions came, to explain the mind in the same secondary way in which we explain other things. 3. _mistaken passion for construing everything._--natural science, with its sole problem of the tracing of immediate causal connections, naturally provokes a persistent, but nevertheless thoroughly mistaken, "passion," as lotze calls it,[14] "for construing everything,"--even the most real and final reality, spirit; which wishes to see even this real and final reality explained as the mechanical result of the combination of simpler elements, themselves, it is to be noted, finally absolutely inexplicable. such perverse attempts will be widely hailed, by many who do not understand themselves, as highly scientific. and one who refuses to enter upon such investigations will be criticized by such minds as "hardly getting into grips with his subject." but it is a false application of the scientific instinct that leads one to seek mechanical explanation for the final reality, or that urges to precision of formulation beyond that warranted by the data. it is from exactly this falsely scientific bias that theology needs deliverance. "for," as aristotle reminds us, "it is the mark of a man of culture to try to attain exactness in each kind of knowledge just so far as the nature of the subject allows." there is a wise agnosticism that is violated alike by negative and by positive dogmatism. it is often overlooked that there is an over-wise radicalism that assumes a knowledge of the depth of the finite and infinite, quite as insistent and dogmatic as the view it supposes itself to be opposing. "i know it is not so," it ought not to need to be said, is not agnosticism. the guiding principle in a truly scientific theology is this, as lotze suggests: just so far as changing action depends upon altering conditions, we have explanatory and constructive problems to solve, and no farther. no philosophical view can do without a simply given reality. and we shall never succeed in understanding by what machinery reality is manufactured--in "deducing the whole positive content of reality from mere modifications of formal conditions."[15] we shall not allow ourselves to be misled, therefore, by the scientific sound of the _detailed_ application of the analogy of the organism to the facts of the social consciousness. and it is a satisfaction to see that the clearest sociological writers are coming to agree that there is strictly no "social mind" that can be affirmed to exist as a separate reality, supposed to answer to society conceived in its totality as an organism. iii. the analogy tested by the definition of the social consciousness when, now, we test the analogy of the organism by its competency to express the full meaning of the social consciousness, as it has been defined, we must say that the analogy but feebly expresses the likeness of men; it best expresses the inevitableness of mutual influence, though even here there is no understandable ultimate explanation; it fairly expresses the desirableness and indispensableness of mutual influence, but, of course, with entire lack of ethical meaning; and it quite fails to express the sense of the value and the sacredness of the person, the sense of obligation, and the sense of love. we need to see and feel exactly these shortcomings, if we are not to abuse the analogy. there is no social consciousness that will hold water that does not rest on what phillips brooks called "a healthy and ineradicable individualism," in the sense of the recognition of the fully personal. we are spirits, not organisms, and society is a society of persons, not an organism, in a strict sense. why should we wish to make society less significant than it is? [12] cf. king, _op. cit._, pp. 92 ff., 179. [13] _introduction to philosophy_, p. 373. [14] _the microcosmus_, vol. i, p. 262. [15] lotze, _the microcosmus_, vol. ii, pp. 649 ff. chapter iii _the necessity of the facts, of which the social consciousness is the reflection, if ideal interests are to be supreme_ i. the question with this positive and negative definition of the social consciousness in our minds, a third question immediately suggests itself to one who wishes to go to the bottom of our theme. why must the facts, of which the social consciousness is the reflection, be as they are if ideal interests are to be supreme? what has a theodicy to say as to these facts? why, that is, from the point of view of the ideal--of religion and theology--why are we constituted so alike? so that we must influence one another? so that the results of our actions necessarily go over into the lives of others? so that the innocent suffer with the guilty and the guilty profit with the righteous? so that we must recognize everywhere the claim of others? so that we must respect their personality? and so that we must love them? ii. otherwise no moral world at all the answer to all these world-old questions may perhaps be contained in the single statement, that otherwise we should have no moral world at all. there would be no thinkable moral universe, but rather as many worlds as there are individuals, having no more to do with one another than the chemical reactions going on in a set of test-tubes. 1. _the prerequisites of a moral world._ for our human thinking, assuredly, there are certain prerequisites, that the world may be at all a sphere for moral training and action. what are these prerequisites for a moral world? there must be, in the first place, a _sphere of universal law_, to count on, within which all actions take place. in a lawless world, action could hardly take on any significance--least of all ethical significance. that freedom itself should mean anything in outward expression, there must be the possibility of intelligent use of means toward the ends chosen. there must be, in the second place, some _real ethical freedom_, some power of moral initiative. we need not quarrel about the terms used; but, as paulsen intimates, no serious ethical writer ever doubted that men have at least some power to shape their own characters.[16] without that assumption, we have a whole world of ideas and ideals--many of them the realest facts in the world to us--that have no legitimate excuse for being, that are simple insanities of the most inexplicable sort. the very meaning of the personality, indeed, which the social consciousness must demand for men, is some real existence for self, that is, some real self-consciousness and moral initiative. and freedom is not enough; there must be also _some power of accomplishment_. to ascribe mere volition to man seems, it has been justly said, sophistical. results are needed to reveal the character of our acts, even to ourselves--to make that character real. lotze's charge that the world is imperfect because it might have been so made that only good designs could be carried out, or so that the results of evil volitions would be at once corrected,[17] is itself similarly sophistical. such a world, in which the outward results of action never appear, would be but a play-world after all--only a nursery of babes not yet capable of character. it could be no fit world for moral training. and still more, not less, must this law of the necessary results of actions hold in our relations to other persons. there can be, least of all, a moral universe where we are not _members one of another_. character, in any form we can conceive it, could not then exist. our best, as well as our worst, possibilities are involved in these necessary mutual relations. moral character has meaning only in personal relations. the results, therefore, which follow upon action, if the character of our deed is to have reality for us, must be chiefly personal. the realm of character has fearful possibilities. this _is_ no play-world. we can cause and be caused suffering, and our sin necessarily carries the suffering, if not the sin, of others with it. 2. _the ideal world requires, thus, the facts of the social consciousness._--all this could be changed in any vital way only by shutting up every soul absolutely to itself, and with that result life has simply ceased. for we cannot really conceive a person as having any reason for being without such relations. he would be constantly baffled at every point, for he is made for persons and personal relations. love, too, the highest source of both character and happiness, requires everywhere personal relations. religion itself, as a sharing of the life of god, would be impossible without some relation to others; for god, at least, could not be separated from the life of all. that is, persons, love, religion, in such a world, have gone. this, then, simply means that the ideal world ceases to be, with the denial of the facts that the social consciousness reflects. we must be full persons, social beings in the entire meaning demanded by the social consciousness--hard as the consequences involved often are--if ideal interests are to be supreme. indeed, the very moral judgment, that incessantly prompts the problem of evil for every one of us, is required, for its own existence, to assume the validity of the relations about which it questions. for it complains, for the most part, of those facts that follow inevitably from the necessary mutual influence of men; but the chief sources of the joy it requires, that it may justify the world, lie in these same mutual relations. it assumes, thus, in its claims on the world, the validity and worth of the very relations of which it complains in its criticism of the world. or, slightly to vary the statement, the major premise, even of pessimism, is that a really justifiable world must have worth in the joy it yields in personal life, impossible out of the personal relations of a real moral universe. and there can be no moral universe without the facts reflected in the social consciousness. the ideal world requires, then, the facts of the social consciousness. [16] _system of ethics_, pp. 467 ff. [17] _philosophy of religion_, p. 125. chapter iv _the ultimate explanation and ground of the social consciousness_ the most important and fundamental inquiry as to the possible help of theology to the social consciousness still remains: what is the ultimate explanation and ground of the social consciousness? this question includes two: (1) how can it be metaphysically that we do influence one another? (2) what is required for the final positive justification of the social consciousness as ethical? theology's answer to both questions is found in the being and character of god, the creative and moral source of all. i. how can it be, metaphysically, that we do influence one another? first, then, how can it be that we do influence one another? what is the final explanation of the constant fact of our reciprocal action? for in our final thinking we may not ignore this question. 1. _not due to the physical fact of race-connection._--it may be worth while saying, first, that the physical fact of race-connection, if that could be proved, would be no sufficient explanation. the race may, or may not, be dependent upon a single pair, but in any case this is not the essential connection. the race is one by virtue of its essential likeness, however that comes about. men might have sprung out of the ground in absolute individual independence of one another, and yet if there were such actual like-mindedness as now exists, the race would be as truly one as it now is, and as capable of reciprocal action, and its members under the same obligation to one another. no ideal interest is at stake, then, in the question of the actual physical unity of the race as descended from one pair. one may say, of course, that the physical unity of the race would naturally result, according to the laws apparently prevailing in the animal world, in likeness. and this may, therefore, seem to him the most natural proximate explanation. but, even so, it is well to know that our entire _moral_ interest is in the essential likeness and mutual influence of men, however brought about, and not in the physical unity of men. theology has no occasion to continue its earlier excessive and quite fundamental emphasis upon this physical unity. moreover, such an explanation is necessarily but proximate. back of it lies the deeper question, why just these laws, and modes of procedure? 2. _we are not to over-emphasize the principle of heredity._--nor can theology, from any point of view, afford to over-emphasize the principle of heredity if it wishes to keep human initiative at all. it is a dangerous alliance which the old-school theology with its racial sin in adam has been so ready to make with the principle of heredity. that principle, as they wish to use it, proves quite too much; and careful thinkers, really awake to ideal interests, may well rejoice in the comparative relief which science itself, through the probably somewhat exaggerated protest of the weismann or neo-darwinian school, seems likely to afford from the incubus of a grossly exaggerated heredity. the main interest for the ideal view lies right here. we can see why this law of the "inheritance of acquired characteristics," in professor james' language, "_should not_ be verified in the human race, and why, therefore, in looking for evidence on the subject, we should confine ourselves exclusively to lower animals. in them fixed habit is the essential and characteristic law of nervous action. the brain grows to the exact modes in which it has been exercised, and the inheritance of these modes--then called instincts--would have in it nothing surprising. but in man the negation of all fixed modes is the essential characteristic. he owes his whole preëminence as a reasoner, his whole human quality of intellect, we may say, to the facility with which a given mode of thought in him may suddenly be broken up into elements, which re-combine anew. only at the price of inheriting no settled instinctive tendencies is he able to settle every novel case by the fresh discovery by his reason of novel principles. he is, _par excellence_, the educable animal."[18] to over-emphasize the principle of heredity, then, is to strike at one of the most fundamental distinctive human qualities, and so to endanger every ideal interest. the growing like-mindedness of men and their mutual influence are not forthwith to be ascribed to an omnipotent principle of heredity. 3. _not due to a mystical solidarity._--nor is the mutual influence of men to be explained by any mystical solidarity of the race considered as a _finite_ whole. it is a simple and reasonable scientific demand, that we should not assume a mysterious, indefinable and incalculable cause, where known and intelligible causes suffice to explain the phenomena in question. do we need, or can we intelligently use, a mystical solidarity? the only solidarity of the race which we seem really to need, or with which we seem able intelligently to deal, is the actual like-mindedness and the actual personal relations themselves--the reciprocal action of spirits--the only kind of reciprocal action which we can finally fully conceive. any other finite solidarity than this, though it has often figured in theology, seems to me only a name without significance. in any case, we need to insist in theology, much more than we have, upon that unity of the race which is due to the actual likeness of men and their actual mutual personal influence. such a unity we know and can understand, and it is of the highest ethical and spiritual importance. but to make much of the physical unity is to ground the spiritual in the physical; and, on the other hand, to take refuge in a mystical solidarity--and this is often felt to be a rather deep procedure--for whatever theological purpose, is to hide in the fog of the obscure and unintelligible. 4. _grounded in the immanence of god._--but back of all finite phenomena, we may still ask for an ultimate explanation of the possibility of any reciprocal action even between spirits. and it is, perhaps, this ultimate explanation after which the idea of a mystical solidarity of the race is blindly groping. unless one chooses to accept reciprocal action as a necessarily given fact in any universe (and this position, i think with f. c. s. schiller, may be reasonably defended),[19] he must somewhere in his thinking ask for its final explanation. and most of those, who try to think things through, feel this pressure. and metaphysics, we do well to remember with professor james, "means only an unusually obstinate attempt to think clearly and consistently."[20] as lotze puts it: "how a cause begins to produce its _immediate_ effect, how a condition is the foundation of its direct result, it will never be possible to say; yet that cause and effect _do_ thus act must be reckoned among those simple facts that compose the reality which is the object of all our investigation. but there is an intolerable contradiction in the assumption that, though two beings may be wholly independent the one of the other, yet that which takes place in one can be a cause of change in the other; things that do not affect each other at all, cannot at the same time affect each other in such a manner that the one is guided by the other."[21] this question is fairly thrust upon us by the facts of the social consciousness. how can it be that we do so influence one another? how is our reciprocal action metaphysically possible? the answer of theistic philosophy to this question is found in the being of god. upon the metaphysical side, theistic philosophy affirms that we can ascribe independent existence in the highest sense only to god. all else is absolutely dependent for its existence and maintenance upon him. the kind of reality that we demand for man is not that he be _outside_ of god, independent of him; this would not make man more, but less. every thorough-going theistic view must have this at least in common with pantheism, that it recognizes everywhere a real immanence of god. we are, because god wills in us. this metaphysical relation of the finite to the infinite, to be sure, is not to be conceived spatially or materially; nor, least of all, is it be so conceived as to deny a real self-consciousness and a real moral initiative to the finite spirit; but it does involve the absolute dependence of all the finite upon the will of god. as to our _being_, we root solely in god. and the unity and consistency of the being of god are the actual ground of our possible reciprocal action. only so is that contradiction of which lotze spoke avoided. we are not independent of one another, because we are all alike dependent for our very being upon god. and we are thus members one of another, ultimately, only through him. the further fact, that we are never fully able to trace causal connections anywhere; that even in the clearest case no possible analysis of one stage in the process enables us to prophesy, independently of experience, the next stage, also compels us to admit that the full cause is not really present in any of the finite manifestations we can follow; that we have always to take account of the "hidden efficacy of the infinite everywhere at work," and so must recognize once again the indubitable immanence of god, the absolute dependence of the finite upon his will, and our reciprocal action as possible only through him.[22] or, to put the same thing a little differently, any adequate theory of causality seems to lead us up inevitably to purpose in god. as professor bowne states it:[23] "the fundamental antithesis of purpose and causation is incorrect. the true antithesis is that of mechanical and volitional causality." and he intimates the probability that all causality, even in the physical world, is ultimately volitional. "it becomes a question," he says, "whether true causality can be found in the phenomenal at all, and not rather in a power beyond the phenomenal which incessantly posits and continues that order according to rule." the unity and consistency of the immanent will of god, then, are the ultimate metaphysical ground of all reciprocal action. the mutual influence, that is, even of spirits, finds its final full explanation only in god. the social consciousness, therefore, so far as it is an expression of the possibility and inevitableness of our mutual influence, is a reflection of the immanence of the one god in the unity and consistency of his life. but this, after all, is not the most important element of the social consciousness. so far as it is _ethical_ at all, it can have no final explanation in the metaphysical, considered as mere matter of fact. we are driven, therefore, to ask the second question involved in the subject of the chapter. ii. what is required for the final positive justification of the social consciousness as ethical? 1. _must be grounded in the supporting will of god._--it is not enough that we should be able to think of the unity of one life pervading all, or even of one will upholding all. if the social consciousness, as distinctly ethical, is to have any final justification, it must be able to believe that it is in league with the eternal and universal forces; that the fundamental trend of the universe is its own trend; in other words, that the deepest thing in the universe is an ethical purpose conceivable only in a person; that the ideals and purposes of finite beings expressed in the social consciousness are in line with god's own; that the loving holy purpose of the infinite will quickens and sustains and surrounds our purposes. let us distinctly face the fact that, unless the social consciousness can be so grounded in the very foundation of the universe, it must remain an illogical and unjustifiable fragment in the world, without real excuse for being. that is, if the social consciousness is not to be an illusion, it must be, as professor nash contends, cosmical, and not merely individual, and ethics must root in religion. this is the very heart of his stimulating book, _ethics and revelation_, expressed, for example, in such sentences as these: "nothing save a sense of deep and intimate connection with the solid core of things, nothing save a settled and fervid conviction that the universe is on the side of the will in its struggle for that whole-hearted devotion for the welfare of the race, without which morality is an affair of shreds and patches, can give to the will the force and edge suitable to the difficult work it has to do. but this sense of kinship with what is deepest and most abiding in the universe--what else is meant by pure religion." and again: "we, as founders and builders of the true society, find ourselves shut up to an impassioned faith in the sincerity of the universe and the integrity of the fundamental being. our religion is a deep and wide synthesis of feeling, whereby that personal will in us, which grounds society, comes into solemn league and covenant with the fundamental being. here is the focus-point of the prophetic revelation. at this point, the deep in god answers to the deep in man.... all that he is he puts in pledge for the perfecting of the society he has founded."[24] paulsen expresses only the same fundamental conviction, from the point of view of the philosopher, and, at the same time, the heart of his own solution of the relation between knowledge and faith, when he says: "there is one item, at least, in which every man goes beyond mere knowledge, beyond the registration of facts. that is his own life and his future. his life has a meaning for him, and he directs it toward something which does not yet exist, but which will exist by virtue of his will. thus a faith springs up by the side of his knowledge. he believes in the realization of this, his life's aim, if he is at all in earnest about it. since, however, his aim is not an isolated one, but is included in the historical life of a people, and finally in that of humanity, he believes also in the future of his people, in the victorious future of truth and righteousness and goodness in humanity. whoever devotes his life to a cause believes in that cause, and this belief, be his creed what it may, has always something of the form of a religion. hence faith infers that an inner connection exists between the real and the valuable within the domain of history, and believes that in history something like an immanent principle of reason or justice favors the right and the good, and leads it to victory over all resisting forces." and paulsen holds that this implicit faith characterizes necessarily every philosophical theory. "what the philosopher himself accepts as the highest good and final goal he projects into the world as its good and goal, and then believes that subsequent reflections also reveal it to him in the world."[25] we must be able, then, to believe that the best we know--our highest ideals--are at home in the world, or give up all faith in the honesty of the world, and all hope of philosophy, to say nothing of religion. ultimately, now, this means that nothing short of full christian conviction is needed to support the social consciousness. we need to be able to believe that the spirit of the life and death of christ is at the very heart of the world. nothing less will suffice. and this is exactly the support which the christian revelation offers to the social consciousness. 2. _god's sharing in our life._--but if the social consciousness is only a true reflection of god's own desire and purpose, then in a sense far deeper than the merely metaphysical, our life is the very life of god. he shares in it. and no man can really see what that means, and not find a new light falling on all the world, and himself carried on to take up a new confession of faith in the solemn words of another: "for the agony of the world's struggle is the very life of god. were he mere spectator, perhaps, he too would call life cruel. but in the unity of our lives with his, our joy is his joy, our pain is his." and from the vision of this self-giving life of god we turn back to our own place of service, saying with matheson: "if thou art love then thy best gift must be sacrifice; in that light let me search thy world."[26] we probably cannot better express this unity of our highest ethical life with the life of god than by renewing our old faith that we are children of a common father, who have come, under god's own leading--so far as a social consciousness is ours--voluntarily to share in god's loving purpose in the creation and redemption of men. we do not work alone; nay, we are co-workers with god. 3. _the consequent transfiguration of the social consciousness._--and as soon as we have thus really and deeply come into the meaning of christ's thought of god as father, and into his revelation in his life and death as to what the spirit of that fatherhood is, we turn back to the elements of our social consciousness to find them all transfigured. our _likeness_ is the likeness of common children of god reflecting the image of the one father, capable of character and of indefinite progress into the highest. our _mutual influence_ roots in a real fatherhood, both in source of being and in the one purpose of love, alike creating and redemptively working for all. our _sense of the value and sacredness of the person_ now for the first time gets its full justification. men are not only creatures capable of joying and suffering, but children of god with a preciousness to be interpreted only in the light of christ, and with the "power of the endless life" upon them. concerning the value of the person, it is worth stopping just here, to notice that it is peculiarly true of the social consciousness, that it is not free to ignore such considerations upon immortality as those which weighed most with john stuart mill and sully. of the hope of immortality, mill says: "the beneficial influence of such a hope is far from trifling. it makes life and human nature a far greater thing to the feelings, and gives greater strength as well as greater solemnity to all the sentiments which are awakened in us by our fellow-creatures, and by mankind at large." and sully adds: "i would only say that if men are to abandon all hope of a future life, the loss, in point of cheering and sustaining influence, will be a vast one, and one not to be made good, so far as i can see, by any new idea of services to collective humanity."[27] our _sense of obligation_ deepens with all this deepening of the value of men, and our conscience becomes only a true response to god's own life and character--in no mere figurative sense the voice of god in us. and our _love_ becomes simply entering a little way into god's own love, a sharing more and more in his life. and when one has once seen the social consciousness so transfigured in the light of christ's revelation, he must believe that then, for the first time, he has seen the social consciousness at its highest, and that it is impossible for him to go back to the lower ideal. if the social consciousness is not an illusion, christ's thought of god and of the life with god ought to be true; and if the world is an honest world, it is true. it is not only true that christ has a social teaching, but that the social consciousness absolutely requires christ's teaching for its own final justification. the christian truth _is_ so great that it alone can give the social consciousness its fullest meaning, alone can enable it to understand itself, and alone can give it adequate motive and power; for, in keim's words, "to-day, to-morrow, and forever we can know nothing better than that god is our father, and that the father is the rest of our souls."[28] [18] james, _psychology_, vol. ii, pp. 367, 368. [19] _the philosophical review_, may, 1896, p. 228. [20] _psychology_, briefer course, p. 461. [21] _microcosmus_, vol. ii, p. 599. [22] see king, _reconstruction in theology_, pp. 54, 84, 102. [23] _theory of thought and knowledge_, pp. 91, 111. [24] _ethics and revelation_, pp. 50, 243, 244. [25] _introduction to philosophy_, pp. 8, 9, 313. [26] _searchings in the silence_, p. 46. [27] quoted by orr, _the christian view of god and the world_, pp. 160, 72. [28] quoted by bruce, _the kingdom of god_, p. 157. the influence of the social consciousness upon the conception of religion introduction from the question of the support which christian faith and doctrine give to the social consciousness, we turn now to the second part of our inquiry: how does this growing social consciousness, not by any means always consciously religious, naturally react upon and affect our conceptions of religion and of theological doctrines? in this inquiry, we cannot always be sure historically of the exact connection, and, for our present purpose, this is not of prime importance. but we can see, for example, in this second division of our theme, the relations of religion and the social consciousness, and how religion must be conceived if the social consciousness is fully warranted; and this is the main question. if the definition of theology which has been suggested be adopted--the thoughtful and unified expression of what religion means to us--then it is obvious that any change in conception or emphasis in religion will necessarily affect theological statement. our inquiry as to the influence of the social consciousness, therefore, naturally begins with religion. the discussions of this division, moreover, will really include all that part of theological doctrine which has to do with the growth into the life with god. the natural influence of the social consciousness upon the conception of religion may be, perhaps, summed up in four points, which form the subjects of the four succeeding chapters: (1) the social consciousness tends to draw religion away from the falsely mystical; (2) it tends to emphasize the personal relation in religion, and so keeps the truly mystical; (3) it tends to emphasize the ethical in religion; (4) it tends to emphasize the concretely historically christian in religion. chapter v _the opposition of the social consciousness to the falsely mystical_ i. what is the falsely mystical? two very clear answers made from different points of view deserve attention. 1. _nash's definition._--in trying to set forth the "main mood and motives of religious speculation" in the early christian centuries, professor nash takes, as perhaps the two strongest influences in determining the type of man to whom christian apologetics had then to appeal, philo and plotinus, and says: "by what road shall the mind enter into a deep and intimate knowledge of god? that is the decisive question. plotinus the gentile and philo the jew are at one in their answer. the reason must rise above reasoning. it must pass into a state that is half a swoon and half an ecstasy before it can truly know god. philo gave up for the sake of his theory, the position of the prophets. plotinus, for the same theory, forsook the position of plato and aristotle. the prophets conceived the inmost essence of things, the being and will of god, as a creative and redemptive force that guided and revealed itself through the career of a great national community. plato and aristotle conceived the essence of life as a labor of reason; and, for them, the labors of reason found their sufficient refreshment and inspiration in those moments of clear synthesis which are the reward of patient analysis. revelation came to the prophet through his experience of history. to the philosopher it came through hard and steady thinking. but philo and plotinus together declared these roads to be no thoroughfares. the greek and the jew met on the common ground of a mysticism that sacrificed the needs of sober reason and the needs of the nation to the necessities of the monk."[29] mysticism is here conceived as unethical, unhistorical, and unrational. 2. _herrmann's definition._--herrmann's definition of mysticism is the second one to which attention is directed. he says: "when the influence of god upon the soul is sought and found solely in an inward experience of the individual; when certain excitements of the emotions are taken, with no further question, as evidence that the soul is possessed by god; when, at the same time, nothing external to the soul is consciously and clearly perceived and firmly grasped; when no thoughts that elevate the spiritual life are aroused by the positive contents of an idea that rules the soul--then that is the piety of mysticism. he who seeks in this wise that for the sake of which he is ready to abandon all beside, has stepped beyond the pale of christian piety. he leaves christ and christ's kingdom altogether behind him when he enters that sphere of experience which seems to him to be the highest."[30] the marks of mysticism for herrmann, then, are: that it is purely subjective; that it is merely emotional and unethical; and hence that it has no clear object, and is abstract, unrational, unhistorical, and so unchristian. ii. the objections of the social consciousness to the falsely mystical against this neo-platonic, falsely mystical conception of religion, the social consciousness seems to be clearly arrayed, and, so far as the social consciousness influences religion, it will certainly tend to draw it away from this falsely mystical idea. 1. _unethical._--for, in the first place, this neo-platonic conception of religion has nothing distinctly ethical in it. the ethical is manifestly not made the test of true religious experience, as it is in the new testament. the social consciousness, on the other hand, is predominantly and emphatically ethical, and can have nothing to do with a religion in which ethics is either omitted or is wholly subordinate. at this point, therefore, the pressure of the social consciousness is strongly against a neo-platonic mysticism. 2. _does not give a real personal god._--in the second place, the social consciousness cannot get along with the falsely mystical, because it does not give a real personal god. let us be clear upon this point. is not herrmann right when he says that all that can be said of the god of this mysticism is "that he is not the world? now that is precisely all that mysticism has ever been able to say of god as it conceives him. plainly, the world and the conception of it are all that moves the soul while it thinks thus of god. only disappointment can ensue to the soul whose yearning for god in such case keeps on insisting that god must be something utterly different from the world. if such a soul will reflect awhile on the nature of the god thus reached, the fact must inevitably come to the surface that its whole consciousness is occupied with the world now as it was before, for evidently it has grasped no positive ideas--nothing but negative ideas--about anything else. mysticism frequently passes into pantheism for this very reason, even in men of the highest religious energy; they refuse to be satisfied with the mere longing after god, or to remain on the way to him, but determine to reach the goal itself, and rest with god himself."[31] now we have already seen that the social consciousness can find adequate support and power and motive only in faith that its purpose is god's purpose, that the deepest thing in the universe is an ethical purpose, conceivable only in a personal god; and, therefore, neither an empty negation nor pantheism can ever satisfy it. 3. _belittles the personal in man._--the false mysticism, moreover, belittles the personal in man as well as in god; for it does not treat with real reverence either the personality, the ethical freedom, the sense of obligation, or the reason of man. this whole thought of "a state that is half a swoon and half an ecstasy" is a sort of swamping of clear self-consciousness and definite moral initiative, in which the very reality of man's personality consists. it is a heathen, not a christian, idea of inspiration which demands the suppression of the human, whether in consciousness, in will, in reason, or by belittling the sense of obligation to others. but mysticism has at least tended toward failure in all these respects. and yet, from the time that paul argued with the corinthians against their immense overestimation of the gift of speaking with tongues, this fascination of the merely mystical has been felt in christianity. (1) the very mystery and unintelligibility of the experience, (2) its ecstatic emotion, (3) its sense of being controlled by a power beyond one's self, and (4) its contrast with ordinary life--all these elements make the mystical experience seem to most all the more divine, although in so judging they are applying a pagan, not a christian, standard. so far as these experiences have value, it is probably due to the strong and realistic sense which they give of being in the presence of an overpowering being. if thoroughly permeated and dominated with other elements, this sense is not without its value. but it is interesting to notice that, although paul does not deny the legitimacy of the gift of speaking with tongues, he nevertheless absolutely subordinates it, and insists that the most ecstatic religious emotions are completely worthless without love. evidently the considerations which weighed most with the corinthians in valuing the gift of unintelligible ecstatic utterance weighed little with paul; and one can see how paul implicitly argues against each of those considerations: (1) god is not an unknown, mystic force, but the definite, concrete god of character, shown in christ. (2) he speaks to reason and will as well as to feeling, and he best speaks to feeling when he speaks to the whole man. true religious emotion must have a rational basis and must move to duty. (3) religion, he would urge, is a self-controlled and voluntary surrender to a personal god of character, not a passive being swept away by an unknown emotion. (4) god has most to give, be assured, he would have added, in the _common_ ways of life. now, in every one of these protests, the social consciousness instinctively joins. it cannot rest in a conception of religion that belittles the personal in god or man; for it is itself an emphatic insistence upon the fully personal. and it can, least of all, get on with the mystical ignoring of the rational and the ethical, for it holds that the social evolution moves steadily on to a rational like-mindedness, and to a definitely ethical civilization. giddings puts the sociological conclusion in a sentence: "it is the rational, ethical consciousness that maintains social cohesion in a progressive democracy."[32] now that which is clearly recognized as the goal in the relations of man to man will not be set aside as unwarranted or subordinate in the relations of man to god. and we may depend upon it. 4. _leaves the historically, concretely christian._--once more, the social consciousness cannot approve of the mystical conception of religion in its ignoring, in its highest state, the historically and concretely christian. with mysticism's subjective, emotional, and abstract conception of the highest communion with god, and of the way thereto, the historical and concrete at best can be to it only subordinate means, more or less mysteriously connected with the attainment of the goal, and left behind when once the goal is reached. the social consciousness, on the other hand, requires historical justification, and definitely builds on the facts of the historical social evolution. in the case of the prophets and psalmists, for example, who alone in the ancient world most fully anticipated the modern social feeling, the social consciousness plainly arose in the face of the concrete historical life of a people. no result of modern old testament criticism is more certain. so that, speaking of "the religious aspects of the social struggle in israel," mccurdy can use this strong language: "it is not too much to say that this conflict, intense, uninterrupted, and prolonged, is the very heart of the religion of the old testament, its most regenerative and propulsive movement. to the personal life of the soul, the only basis of a potential, world-moving religion, it gave energy and depth, assurance and hopefulness, repose and self-control, with an outlook clear and eternal."[33] but it was this standpoint of the prophets that the falsely mystical conception of religion abandoned. we may well take to heart, in our estimate of mysticism, the gradual but steady elimination of ecstasy in the development of israel, and its practically total absence in those we count in the highest sense prophets.[34] the social consciousness, moreover, has almost entirely to do with men, and hence naturally must lay stress on human history, rather than on nature, as a source of religious ideas. indeed, it will have no doubt that what nature is made to mean religiously will be chiefly determined by the prevalent social ideals. it can, therefore, least of all ignore the historical in christianity. the social consciousness recognizes increasingly, too, with the clearing of its own ideals and with the deepening study of the teaching of jesus, that it really is only demanding, in the concrete, and in detailed application to particular problems, and to all of them, the spirit shown in its fullness only in christ, as professor peabody's eminently sane treatment of the social teaching of jesus seems to me fairly to have proven. the social consciousness, therefore, cannot help becoming more and more consciously and emphatically christian. in a single sentence, because of the steps of its own long evolution, the social consciousness instinctively distrusts the highly emotional, unless it is manifestly under equally strong rational control, and unless it has equal ethical insight and power, and is historically justified. it tends, therefore, necessarily to draw away from the falsely mystical in religion, which is lacking in all these respects. and the same reasons, which array the social consciousness against the falsely mystical in religion, lead it into natural sympathy with a positive emphasis upon the personal, the ethical, and the historically concretely christian in religion. [29] nash, _ethics and revelation_, p. 33. [30] herrmann, _the communion of the christian with god_, pp. 19, 20. [31] herrmann, _op. cit._, p. 27. [32] giddings, _elements of sociology_, p. 321; cf. also pp. 155 ff, 302, 320, 327. [33] mccurdy, _history, prophecy, and the monuments_, vol. ii, p. 223; cf. pp. 214, ff. [34] g. a. smith, _the book of the twelve prophets_, vol. i, pp. 30, 84, 89; cornill, _the prophets of israel_, pp. 41, 46; _the expository times_, jan., feb., 1902, article, _prophetic ecstasy_. chapter vi _the emphasis of the social consciousness upon the personal relation in religion, and so upon the truly mystical_ i. the social consciousness tends positively to emphasize the personal relation in religion 1. _emphasizes everywhere the personal._--the social consciousness sees man as preëminently the social animal, made for personal relations, irrevocably and essentially knit up with other persons. it deepens everywhere our sense of persons and of personal relations. it may be itself almost defined as the sense of the fully personal. religion, then, if it is to be most real to men of the social consciousness, must be personally conceived, that is, must be distinctly seen to be a personal relation of man to god. and this conception, as the highest we can reach, is to be followed fearlessly to the end; only guarding it against wrong inferences from the simple transference to god of finite conditions, and recognizing exactly in what respects the personal relation to god is unique.[35] the social consciousness, moreover, as we have seen, must have a conception of religion that can really justify the social consciousness, and, therefore, must do justice to the fully personal in god and man; and this need also leads the social consciousness naturally to the conception of religion as a personal relation. 2. _requires the laws of a deepening friendship in religion._--when this conception is carried out, it is found that growth in the religious life, in communion with god, follows the laws of a deepening friendship.[36] these laws can, therefore, be known and studied and formulated; and religion, at the same time, ceases to be unintelligible and ceases to be isolated--cut off from the rest of life, and becomes rather that one great fundamental relation which gives being and meaning and value to all the rest. in absolute harmony, then, with the genesis of the social consciousness, religion, in this conception, is bound up with the whole of life; and we catch a glimpse of the real and final unity of life in true love, the relation to god and the relation to man each helping everywhere the other. if religion is truly a personal relation, and its laws are those of a deepening friendship, then every human relation, heartily and truly fulfilled, becomes a new outlook on god, a revelation of new possibilities in the religious life. and, on the other hand, in that mutual self-revelation and answering trust upon which every growing personal relation is built, every fresh revelation of god is an enlarging of our ideal for our relations to others. even biblical literature, perhaps, furnishes no more perfect example of the interplay of the human and divine relations than hosea's account of his own providential leading through the human relation into the divine, and back again from the divine to a still better human. 3. _requires the ideal conditions of the richest life in religion._--and if religion is to be justified in its supreme claims by the social consciousness, it must be felt to offer, besides, the ideal conditions of the richest life. as a personal relation to god, religion need not shrink from this test. our great needs are character and happiness. psychology seems to me to point to two great means and to two accompanying conditions of both character and happiness. the means are association and work; the corresponding conditions are reverence for personality, and objectivity--the mood of both love and work. the great essentials, therefore, to the richest life are (1) association in which personality is respected, and (2) work in which one can lose himself. now, when would these conditions become ideal? on the one hand, as to association, when the association is with him who is of the highest character and of the infinitely richest life, and relation to whom is fundamental to every other personal relation; when, secondly, god is made concrete and real to us in an adequate personal revelation of his character, and of his love toward us; and when, third, the association is individualized for each one, who throws himself open to god, in god's spiritual presence in us, constantly and intimately, and yet _unobtrusively_, coöperating with us. and, on the other hand, as to work, when the work is god-given work, to which one is set apart, and in which he may lose himself with joy. these are the ideal conditions of the richest life. just these ideal conditions jesus declared actualities. for the fulfilment of just these, in the case of his disciples, he prayed in his double petition,--"keep them," "sanctify them," "keep them in thy name," that is, through the divine association. "sanctify them"--set them apart unto their god-given work. "as thou hast sent me into the world, even so have i also sent them into the world." such a conception of religion can fairly claim to meet, broadly and deeply, the most exacting demands of the social consciousness for emphasis upon the personal relation in religion. ii. the social consciousness thus keeps the truly mystical i have no predilection for the term mystical, and would gladly confine it to what i have termed the neo-platonic or falsely mystical, were it not that, in spite of the dictionaries and the histories of philosophy and the histories of doctrine, the term is used in two quite different senses. many, it seems to me, are defending what they call the mystical in religion, who have no idea of defending what herrmann and nash call mystical. and many, on the other hand, are defending and teaching the falsely mystical through an undefined fear that else they will lose the truly mystical. theology and religion both greatly need a clear discrimination of terms here. many are involved, in both living and thinking, in a self-contradiction, which they feel but cannot state; and are urging with themselves and with others a means of religious life and a corresponding method of conception, which really contradict their highest convictions in other lines of life and thought. can we find our way out of this confusion? if one studies carefully the historical representatives of mysticism, and especially such a strong type as jacob böhme, whom erdmann calls the "culmination of mysticism," and still keeps his head, certain dangers in mysticism, it would seem, must become apparent. and it may be worth while to attempt a brief, but definite, analysis of the justifiable and unjustifiable elements in these mystical movements. 1. _the justifiable and unjustifiable elements in mysticism._--(1) the first danger in mysticism seems to me to be the tendency to make simple emotion the supreme test of the religious state. whether this emotion is thought of as ecstatic--such as some of the old mystics called "being drunk with god," or, as quietistic--in which imperturbability, passionlessness, become the highest good--is comparatively indifferent. the justifiable element here is the insistence that religion is real and is life; for feeling is perhaps the most powerful element in the sense of reality. so james says: "speaking generally, the more a conceived object excites us, the more reality it has."[37] the unjustifiable element is the perilous subjection of the rational and ethical. such a view must always lack any positive and adequate conception of our active life and vocation in the world. (2) a second closely connected danger in mysticism is the tendency toward mere subjectivism. there is here a justifiable element in the emphasis on one's own personal conviction and faith; an unjustifiable element in the tendency to underrate anything but the purely subjective, to ignore all correcting influences from others, from the church, and from the scriptures. (3) a third danger follows from this: the marked tendency to underestimate the historical. the justifiable element here is, again, the emphasis on personal conviction and faith; the unjustifiable element is the tendency toward the greatest one-sidedness, and toward emptiness, especially of ethical content. advising our young people simply to "listen to god," without the strongest insistence upon the historical revelation of god at the same time, is exposing them to the great danger of mistaking for an indubitable, divine revelation the veriest vagary that may chance in their empty-mindedness next to come into their thought. with the reason in supposed abeyance, the door is thus thrown open to the grossest superstitions. honest attempts to deepen the religious life may thus become dangerous assaults upon true religion. (4) a fourth danger in mysticism is so strong a tendency toward vagueness, that the common mind is not without warrant in identifying mysticism and mistiness. the justifiable element here is in the real difficulty of expressing the full content of the entire religious experience; the unjustifiable element is, once more, the slighting of the historical, the ethical, and the rational, especially in talking much of the contradictions of reason, and of what is above reason. mysticism naturally lacks positive content. (5) another danger--the tendency toward pantheism--comes in partly, as herrmann has suggested, as a meeting of this lack of content, and partly as the logical outcome of such an insistence upon losing oneself in god as amounts to a being swept out of one's self--a loss of clear and rational self-consciousness, which is next interpreted speculatively as a real absorption in god, and is then made the goal. this is the familiar road of indian and neo-platonic mysticism, and its phenomena are real enough, but probably of only the slightest religious significance. tennyson tells somewhere of the immense sense of illumination that came to him once from simply repeating monotonously his own name--"alfred tennyson, alfred tennyson." this may be as effective as looking at the end of one's nose and ceaselessly reiterating "om," as does the hindu ascetic. a still shorter and more certain method is through nitrous-oxide-gas intoxication, of which professor james says: "with me, as with every other person of whom i have heard, the key-note of the experience is the tremendously exciting sense of an intense metaphysical illumination. truth lies open to the view in depth beneath depth of almost blinding evidence. the mind sees all the logical relations of being with an apparent subtlety and instantaneity, to which its normal consciousness offers no parallel; only as sobriety returns, the feeling of insight fades, and one is left staring vacantly at a few disjointed words and phrases as one stares at a cadaverous-looking snow-peak from which the sunset glow has just fled, or at the black cinder left by an extinguished brand." "the immense emotional sense of reconciliation," he felt to be the characteristic mood. "it is impossible to convey," he says, "an idea of the torrential character of the identification of opposites as it streams through the mind in this experience."[38] now it is not safe to ignore such facts, when we are seriously trying to estimate the religious significance of intense emotional experiences, the reality of which we need not at all question. the vital question is, not that of the reality of the experiences, but that of the real cause of the experiences; and the only possible test of this is rational and ethical. but from this test, mysticism tends from the start to shut itself off, and so, assuming the experience to be truly religious, ends often in virtual pantheism. the justifiable element in this insistence upon absorption in god is the necessary moral relation of complete surrender to god. the unjustifiable element is in belittling the personal in both god and man, and in making essentially religious an experience that has almost nothing of the rational and ethical in it, and that, on that very account, fosters the irreverent familiarity with christ so deplored by more than one careful student of mysticism. a natural and common and most dangerous accompaniment of such an intense emotional experience is the tendency afterward, to excuse sin in oneself. in the case of the most conscientious, it is worth noting, such an emphasis upon intense experiences tends to lead them to distrust the reality of the normal christian experience if they have not had these intense emotions, or if they have had them, tends to bring them into despair when they find these marked experiences actually proving less powerful in effects upon life than they had expected. (6) the last danger in mysticism, to which reference will be made, is the tendency to extravagant symbolism. this is closely connected with "the immense emotional sense of reconciliation," and is much stronger by nature in some than in others. the born mystic finds his own subjective views symbolized everywhere, and is in grave danger of being led into an ingenious, practically unconscious intellectual dishonesty. the justifiable element here is that sense of the unity and worth of things which is the most fundamental conviction of our minds. the unjustifiable element has been sufficiently indicated. the justifiable elements in mysticism, then, may be said to include: the insistence on the legitimate place of feeling in religion as a real and vital experience; the emphasis on one's own conviction and faith; the real difficulty of expressing the full meaning of the religious experience; the demand for a complete ethical surrender to god; and the faith in the real unity and worth of the world in god. now if one tries to bring together these justifiable elements in mysticism, the truly mystical may all be summed up as simply a protest in favor of the whole man--the entire personality. it says that men can experience and live and feel and do much more than they can logically formulate, define, explain, or even fully express. living is more than thinking. 2. _the protest in favor of the whole man._--the element to which mysticism has tried most to do justice is feeling, and so it has been liable to a new and dangerous one-sidedness. but the truly mystical must be a protest alike against a narrow juiceless intellectualism, against a narrow moralistic rigorism, and against a blind and spineless sentimentalism. it is a protest particularly against making the mathematico-mechanical view of the world the only view; against making logical consistency the sole test of truth or reality; against ignoring all data, except those which come through the intellect alone; that is, against trying to make a part, not the whole, of man the standard; in other words, against ignoring the data which come through feeling and will--emotional, æsthetic, ethical, and religious data, as well as those judgments of worth which underlie reason's theoretical determinations. man stands, in fact, everywhere face to face with an actual world of great complexity, that seems to him at first what james says the baby's world is, "one big blooming buzzing confusion;" "and the universe of all of us is still to a great extent such a confusion, potentially resolvable, and demanding to be resolved, but not yet actually resolved, into parts."[39] in one sense, man's whole task is to think unity and order into this confusion. the problem really becomes that of thinking the universe through in several kinds of terms, and then finally bringing all together into one comprehensive view. all these are alike ideals which the mind sets before itself. the easiest of these problems is the attempt to think the world through, in mathematico-mechanical terms. but the attempt to think the world through in æsthetic or ethical or religious terms is equally legitimate, though it is more difficult. not only, then, is the mathematico-mechanical view not the sole justifiable view, but it really has its justification in an ideal, and success in this attempt affords just encouragement for the hope of success in the other more difficult problems.[40] the truly mystical holds, then, that the narrow intellectualism is unwarranted, because natural science, the mechanical view of the world, is itself an ideal--the "child of duties," as münsterberg calls it--and so cannot legitimately rule out other ideals; because we have just as immediate a conviction concerning the worth, as concerning the logical consistency of the world; because a narrow intellectualism would make conscious life but a "barren rehearsal" of the outer world, without significance; because if we can trust the indications of our intellect, we ought to be able to trust the indications of the rest of our nature; and because, thus, the only possible key and standard of truth and reality are in ourselves--the whole self, and "necessities of thought" become necessities of a reason which means loyally to take account of all the data of the entire man. and the same point may be thus stated. we use the word rational in two quite distinct senses: in the narrow sense, as meaning simply the intellectual; in the broad sense, as indicating the demands of the entire man. the true mysticism stands for the broadly rational. so, too, we speak of the necessary fundamental assumption of the honesty or sincerity of the world; but this includes two quite distinct propositions: one, that the world must be thinkable, conceivable, construable, a logically consistent whole, a sphere for rational thinking,--where the test is consistency; the other, that the world must be worth while, must not mock our highest ideals and aspirations, must in some true and genuine sense satisfy the whole man, be a sphere for rational living,--where the test is worth. all our arguments go forward upon these two assumptions. now, a true mysticism contends that the second principle is as rational as the first, though it must be freely granted that it is not as easy to employ it for detailed conclusions, and it is consequently much more liable to abuse. the true mysticism wishes to be not less, but more, rational. it knows no shorthand substitute for the hard and steady thinking of the philosopher, or for the historical experience of the prophet; it needs and uses both. in all this, it is plain that the truly mystical is a legitimate outgrowth of the emphasis of the social consciousness upon recognition of the entire personality. phillips brooks finds just this in the intellectual life of jesus. "the great fact concerning it is this," he says, "that in him the intellect never works alone. you never can separate its workings from the complete operation of the entire nature. he never simply knows, but always loves and resolves at the same time."[41] 3. _the self-controlled recognition of emotion._--moreover, it probably may be fairly claimed that all of the mystical recognition of the emotional which is valuable or even legitimate, is preserved, and far more safely and sanely conceived, in a strictly personal conception of religion. it may well be doubted, if it is possible in any other way, both to do justice to feeling in religion, and at the same time to keep feeling in its proper place. is it possible briefly to indicate both the recognition of emotion and the control of emotion in religion? the true mysticism recognizes that the supreme joy is "joy in personal life"--joy in entering into the revelation of a person; and it believes with reason that a growing acquaintance with god must have such heights and depths of meaning as no other personal relation can have. it is not, therefore, afraid or distrustful of true emotion--of joy or peace, of intense longing or of keen satisfaction--in the religious life. but the true mysticism knows at the same time that deep revelation of a person is made only to the reverent, that the conditions are in the highest degree ethical, and above all must be recognized to be so in religion. it does view, then, with deep distrust an emotional emphasis in religion that ignores the ethical. it cannot forget that christ thought that everything must be tested by its fruits in life. paul, too, insisted on applying the test of an active ministering love to the highly valued emotional experiences of the corinthians; and writes to the galatians that there is but one infallible proof of the working of the spirit in them--a righteous life: "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." and a true mysticism knows that the spirit, reverent of personality, leads to a self-restraint that does not seek the emotional experience simply as such on _any_ conditions; but, knowing the supreme psychological conditions of happiness and character and influence, it loses itself in an unselfish love and in absorbing work, and understands that it must simply let the experiences come. it will have nothing, therefore, to do with strained emotion, or with the working up of feeling for its own sake. it seeks health, not merely the signs of health. it prizes, therefore, the joy that simply proclaims itself as the sign of the normal life and so positively strengthens and cheers, but it will have nothing of the strain of emotion which is drain. it is interesting to notice that it is exactly this true psychological attitude concerning the emotional life that phillips brooks believed that he found perfectly reflected in jesus. "the sensitiveness of jesus to pain and joy," he says, "never leads him for a moment to try to be sad or happy with direct endeavor; nor, is there any sign that he ever judges the real character of himself or any other man by the sadness or the happiness that for the moment covers his life. he simply lives, and joy and sorrow issue from his living, and cast their brightness and their gloominess back upon his life; but there is no sorrow and no joy that he ever sought for itself, and he always kept a self-knowledge underneath the joy or sorrow, undisturbed by the moment's happiness or unhappiness."[42] how far from this objectivity and this healthful emotional life is the atmosphere of most of our devotional books, and, one might say, of all the manuals of ordinary mysticism! that this difficulty should confront us in devotional literature is very natural; for such writing commonly aims to give the emotional sense of reality in religion; and is, therefore, particularly under the temptation to show and to produce a straining after the emotion, as for its own sake. moreover, the very introspection, almost inevitably involved in the reading and writing of devotional books, tends to bring about an artificial change in the religious experience, and so to introduce into it the abnormal. but the social consciousness, so far as it affects religion, not only tends to draw away from the falsely mystical, and to emphasize the personal, and so to keep the truly mystical, but it is even more plain that it must tend to insist upon the ethical in religion. [35] cf. king, _reconstruction in theology_, p. 201 ff. [36] _op. cit._, pp. 210 ff. [37] james, _psychology_, vol. ii, p. 307. [38] james, _the will to believe_, pp. 294, 295. [39] _psychology_, briefer course, p. 16. [40] cf. james, _psychology_, vol. ii, 633-677; especially 633, 634, 667, 671, 677; münsterberg, _psychology and life_, pp. 23-28. [41] brooks, _the influence of jesus_, p. 219. [42] _the influence of jesus_, p. 156. chapter vii _the thorough ethicizing of religion_ i. the pressure of the problem the social consciousness looks to the thorough ethicizing of religion. if the social consciousness is to be regarded as historically justified, it must believe that this growing sense of brotherhood and consequent obligation is simply our response to the on-working of god's own plan, god's own will expressing itself in us. the purpose to recognize the will of god, thus necessarily involves the recognition of human relations, since, as soon as conscience is strongly stirred in any direction, religion can but feel, in this demand of conscience, the demand of god, and, therefore, must bring the convictions of the social consciousness into religion. indeed, it may be well believed that kaftan is right in his insistence that it is exactly through the practical, that is, in the realm of the ethical, that knowledge arises from faith.[43] in any case, it is evident that the old problem of faith and works, of religion and ethics, of the first and second commandments, meets us here in a way not to be put aside. with an ethical demand so insistent as that of the social consciousness no religion can be at peace that is not with equal insistence ethical. we are bound, then, to show how communion with god, the supreme desire to find god, necessarily carries with it active love for men. we must show how we truly commune with god in such active service. the social consciousness, thus, positively thrusts upon every religious man, who believes in it, the problem of the thorough ethicizing of religion. or, to put the matter in a slightly different way, if the sense of the value and the sacredness of the person is one of the two greatest moral convictions of our time, then religion must be clearly seen to hold this conviction, or lose its connection with what is most real and vital to us. this is the problem. ii. the statement of the problem all will probably agree that religion is communion with god. we have seen why the social consciousness cannot accept a falsely mystical view of that communion. for similar reasons, it must make absolutely subordinate all non-ethical and simply mysterious means which make no appeal to the conscience and to the reason--the falsely sacramental. only the person is truly sacramental. much else may be of value, but the touch of personal life is the only absolute essential in religion. we have seen, also, why the social consciousness tends to regard religion as a strictly personal relation. our problem thus becomes: how does the desire for personal relation with god, the desire for god himself, lead directly into the ethical life--into the full and practical recognition of the ethical demands of the social consciousness? to guard against any possible misconception, it is, perhaps, well to say at the start that the desire for a personal relation with god has no purpose of returning by another route to the false position of mysticism, in the claim of special private revelations that are exclusively for it. it expects, rather, personal conviction of that great revelation that is common to all, and, moreover, it knows well that no personal relation is essentially sensuous, and it certainly looks for no sensuous relation to god. it may be worth while, too, to reverse our question for a moment, and ask how morality necessarily involves religion. the true moral life is the fulfilment of all personal relations, and as such can least of all omit the greatest and most fundamental relation which gives being and meaning and value to all the rest--the relation to god. the fully moral life, therefore, must include religion. the unity of the two may be thus seen. but the present inquiry looks at the matter from the other side, and seeks a careful and thoroughgoing answer to the question: why is the christian religion, as a personal relation to god, necessarily ethical? iii. the answer 1. _involved in relation to christ._--in the first place, then, it probably may be safely claimed that there is no test of the moral life of a man so certain as his attitude toward christ. setting aside, now, any special religious claims of christ altogether, and recognizing him only as earth's highest character, the supreme artist in living, who knows the secret of the moral life more surely and more perfectly than any other, he becomes even so the surest touch-stone of character; and the iron filings will not be more certainly attracted to the magnet than will the men of highest character be attracted to christ when he is really seen as he is. there is no test of character so certain as the test of one's personal relation to the best persons. the personal attitude toward christ is the supreme test. in receiving him, in becoming his disciples in a completer sense than we own ourselves the disciples of any other, we make the supreme moral choice of our lives; and, if no more is true than has been already said, we so accept as a matter of fact the fullest historical revelation of god at the same time. the ethical and religious here fall absolutely together. and all the subsequent choices of our christian life, if true to christ, are necessarily moral. 2. _the divine will felt in the ethical command._--in the second place, the sense of the presence of god, of the divine will laid upon us, if we have the religious feeling at all, comes to us nowhere in our common life so certainly and so persistently as in a sense of obligation which we cannot shake off, a sense of facing a clear duty. to run away from this, we are made to feel, is plainly to run away from god. is this not a simply true interpretation of the common consciousness? here, then, the religious experience is in the very sphere of the ethical, and identical with it. 3. _involved in the nature of god's gifts._--again, god's gifts in religion are of such a kind that they simply cannot be given to the unwilling soul; just to receive them, therefore, implies willingness to use them; and faith becomes inevitably both "a gift and an activity." however one names god's gifts in religion, so long as the relation is kept a spiritual one at all, receiving the gift requires a real ethical attitude in the recipient. a real forgiveness, for example, involves personal reconciliation, restored personal relations; and reconciliation is mutual. one cannot, then, be said in any true sense to accept forgiveness from god who is not himself in an attitude of reconciliation with god, of harmony of will with him. in the same way, peace with god, the gift of the spirit, life, god's own life, cannot be really given to any man without an ethical response on his part in a definite attitude of will. anything arbitrary here is, therefore, necessarily shut out. god's gifts in religion are of such a kind that they simply cannot be given to the unwilling soul. they are not things to be mechanically poured out on men. we have no need, consequently, to guard our religious statements in this respect. we cannot even receive from god the spiritual gifts of the religious relation without the active will. here, too, religion is certainly ethical. 4. _communion with god, through harmony with his ethical will._--or, one may say, desire for real communion with god seeks god himself, not things, or some experience merely. but the very center of personality is the will; any genuine seeking of god himself, therefore, to commune with him, requires unity with his ethical will. the deepest religious motive is at the same time, thus, an impulse to character. 5. _the vision of god for the pure in heart._--christ's own statement--"blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see god"--suggests another aspect of this essential unity of the religious and the ethical. the connection in the beatitude is no chance one. the highest and completest revelation of personality, human or divine, can be made only to the reverent. god reveals himself to the reverent soul, and most of all to the pure--to those souls that are reverent of personality throughout and under the severest pressure. therefore, the pure in heart shall see god. "the secret of the lord is with them that fear him."[44] the vision of god requires the spirit that is reverent of personality, and this spirit is the abiding source of the finest ethical living. 6. _sharing the life of god._--but perhaps the clearest and most satisfactory putting of the relation is this. the very meaning of religion is sharing the life of god. as soon, now, as god is conceived as essentially holy and loving, a god of character, a living will and not a substance--and christianity to be true to itself, must always so conceive him--so soon religion and morality are indissolubly united. god's life, according to christ's teaching, is the life of constant and perfect self-giving. to share the life of god, therefore, to share his single purpose, is to come into the life of loving service. the two fall together from the point of view of the social consciousness. and we are "saved," we come into the real religious life, only in the proportion in which we have really learned to love. "everyone that loveth is begotten of god, and knoweth god."[45] the old separation of religion and character is impossible from this point of view. 7. _christ, as satisfying our highest claims on life._--but we may still profitably press the question: is the christian religion--the special faith in the revelation of god in christ, the best way to righteousness? does it necessarily, most naturally, most spontaneously, and most joyfully carry righteousness of life with it? if this is to be true, christian faith, in herrmann's language, "must give men the power to submit with joy to the claims of duty."[46] it may be doubted whether any one has dealt with this question as satisfactorily as herrmann himself, and a few sentences may well be quoted from his discussion. "we know that the ordinary instinctive way in which men seek the satisfaction of all the needs of life makes it impossible to submit honestly to the demands of duty, and we see, also, the falsity of the childish idea of the mystics that this instinct should be extirpated; it follows, then, that we can only seek moral deliverance in a true and perfect satisfaction of our craving for life.... now just such a feeling of perfect inner contentment is possible to the christian, and he has it just in proportion as he understands that god turns to him in christ.... this is redemption, that christ creates within us a living joy, whose brightness beams even from the eye of sorrow, and tells the world of a power it cannot comprehend. and the power that works redemption is the fact that in our world there is a man whose appearance can at any moment be to us the mighty word of god, snatching us out of our troubles and making us to feel that he desires to have us for his own, and so setting us free from the world and from our own instinctive nature."[47] christ, that is, has no desire to withdraw himself from the test of the largest life. he is able to satisfy the highest demands for life. he courts the trial. he claims to offer life, the largest life. "i came," he says, "that they may have life, and may have it abundantly."[48] his way of deliverance is not negative but positive, not limiting but fulfilling. he is able to give such largeness of life in himself, such inner satisfaction of the craving for life, as makes a lower life lose its power over us, the larger and higher life driving out the meaner and lower. this is positive victory, supplanting the lower with the higher; just as in literature, in music, in friendship, and in love, we expect the best to break down the taste for the lower. 8. _the vision of the riches of the life of christ, ethically conditioned._--but the thought of christ's satisfying our highest claim on life deserves to be carried further, if it is to be saved from vagueness and to have its full power with us. the highest value in the world is a personal life. so christ has made us feel. it is finally the only value, for all other so-called values borrow their value from persons. the highest joy conceivable is entering into the riches of another's personal life through his willing self-revelation. now it is no fine fancy that the supremely rich life of the world's history is christ's. god can only be known, if we are not to fall back into the vagaries of mysticism, in his concrete manifestation; and god opens out in christ, the new testament believes, the inexhaustible wealth of his own personal life. it is god's highest gift, the gift of himself. "no one knoweth the son save the father; neither doth any know the father, save the son, and he to whom the son willeth to reveal him."[49] "this is life eternal, that they should know thee, the only true god, and him whom thou didst send."[50] so it seemed to paul: "unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the gentiles the unsearchable riches of christ."[51] do we not here catch a glimpse of what the depth of that satisfaction with the inner life of god in christ may be? "for he who hath the heart of god sufficed, can satisfy all hearts,--yea, thine and mine." only the riches of a personal life can satisfy our claim on life, our desire for life; and, ultimately, we can be fully satisfied only with god's own life in the fullest revelation he can make of it to us men. only this can be "the unspeakable gift." the thirst for god, for the living god, is a simply true expression of the human heart when it comes to real self-knowledge. but the riches of the personal life of christ are necessarily hidden to one who does not come into the sharing of christ's purpose. the condition of the vision is ethical. the very satisfaction, therefore, of our craving for life constantly impels to a more perfect union with the will of christ; for such complete entering into the life of another with joy implies profound agreement. the desire for life, therefore, for god's own life, for communion with god, itself impels to character. faith does here give "the power to submit with joy to the claims of duty," and religion is ethical in the very heart of it. 9. _the moral law, as a revelation of the love of god._--the same unity of the religious and ethical life is helpfully seen, if we put the matter in one further and slightly different way. only the christian religion, faith in god as father revealed in christ, enables us to welcome the stern demands of duty and so gives us inner deliverance, joy, and liberty in the moral life; for now the moral demand is seen, not as task only, but as opportunity. for christ, the law of god is a revelation of the love of god; it is a gracious indication--a secret whispered to us--of the lines along which we are to find our largest and richest life; it is not a limitation of life, but a way to larger life. not, then, the avoidance, as far as possible, of the law of god, but the completest fulfilment of it is the road to life--following the hint of the law into the remotest ramifications, and into the inmost spirit, of the life. the other attitude which assumes that the law is a hindrance to life is a distinct denial of the love of god. it implies that god lays upon us demands which are not for our good. it refuses to accept as reality christ's manifestation of god as father. real belief in the love of god, on the other hand, must take the fearful out of his commands. to be "freed from the law," now, has quite a different meaning: not the taking off from us of the moral demand, but the inner deliverance, that would not have the command removed, but finds life _in_ it, and obeys it freely and joyfully. only a thoroughgoing and fundamental faith in the fatherhood of god can bring such inner deliverance, even as we have seen that only such a faith can really ground the social consciousness. and such a faith only christ has proved adequate to bring. with this light, now, we feel, in every demand of duty, the presence of god, and in this presence of god the pledge of life, not a limitation of life. the religious life desires god, and it finds god never so certainly as in the purpose fully to face duty. every one of the relations of life is, thus, turned to with joy by the religious man, as sure to be a further channel of the revelation of god. the thirst for god drives to the faithful fulfilment of the human relation. religion becomes joyfully ethical. nor is there any possibility of abandonment to the will of god _in general_, as the mystic seems often to feel. god's will means particulars all along the way of our life; and there is no communion with god except in this ethical will in particulars. at no point, therefore, can the religious life withdraw itself from the daily duty and maintain its own existence. the constant inevitable condition of the religious communion is the ethical will. our providential place is god's place to find us. where god has put us, just there he will best find us. this is further seen in the fact that the true christian experience is a constant paradox: god ever satisfying, and yet ever impelling--never allowing us to remain where we are, but holding up to us the always higher ideal beyond; the law is ever, "of his fulness we all received, and grace in place of grace."[52] the deepening communion with god is only through a constantly deepening moral life. such a thoroughgoing ethicizing of religion as the social consciousness demands, we need not hesitate, therefore, to believe is possible. the truer religion is to its own great aspiration after god, the more certainly is it ethical. but the social consciousness, so far as it influences religion, not only tends to draw away from the falsely mystical, and to emphasize the personal and the ethical, it also tends to emphasize in religion the concretely, historically christian. [43] cf. _american journal of theology_, oct., 1898, p. 824. [44] psalm 25:14. [45] i john 4:7. [46] _the communion of the christian with god_, p. 230. [47] _op. cit._, pp. 232-234. [48] john 10:10. [49] matt. 11:27. [50] john 17:3. [51] eph. 3:8. [52] john 1:16. cf. herrmann, _op. cit._, pp. 92, 93. chapter viii _the emphasis of the social consciousness upon the historically christian in religion_ the fact that the social consciousness tends to emphasize in religion the concretely historically christian, has been so inevitably involved in the preceding discussions, that it can be treated very briefly. i. the social consciousness needs historical justification the justification of the social consciousness, we have seen,[53] must be preëminently from history. neither nature nor speculation can satisfy it. it needs to be able to believe in a living god who is in living relation to living men. it needs just such a justification as historical christianity, and only historical christianity, can give; it needs the assurance of an objective divine will in the world, definitely working in the line of its own ideals. it needs also to be able to give such definite content to the thought of god as shall be able to satisfy its own strong insistence upon the rational and the ethical as historical. ii. christianity's response to this need if religion is to be a reality to the social consciousness, then, there must be a real revelation of a real god in the real world, in actual human history, not an imaginary god, nor a dream god, nor a god of mystic contemplation. this discernment of god in the real world, in actual history, is the glory even of the old testament; and it came, as we have seen, along the line of the social consciousness. and it is such a real revelation of the real god that christianity finds preëminently in christ. it can say to the social consciousness: make no effort to believe, but simply put yourself in the presence of a concrete, definite, actual, historical fact, with its perennial ethical appeal; put yourself in the presence of christ--the greatest and realest of the facts of history,--and let that fact make its own legitimate impression, work its own natural work; that fact alone, of all the facts of history, gives you full and ample warrant for your own being. if this be true, it can hardly be doubted that, so far as the social consciousness understands itself and influences religion at all, it will tend to emphasize, not to underestimate, the concretely, historically christian. the natural influence of the social consciousness upon religion, then, may be said to be fourfold: it tends to draw away from the falsely mystical; it tends to emphasize the personal in religion, and so to keep the truly mystical; it tends to emphasize the ethical in religion; and it needs the concretely, historically christian. [53] cf above, pp. 59 ff. the influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrine chapter ix _general results_ the question of this third division of our inquiry is this: to what changed points of view, and to what restatements of doctrine, and so to what better appreciation of christian truth, does the social consciousness of our time lead? the question is raised here, as in the case of the conception of religion, not as one of exact historical connection, but rather as a question of sympathetic points of contact. it means simply: with what changes in theological statements would the social consciousness naturally find itself most sympathetic? certain general results are clear from the start, and might be anticipated from any one of several points of view. i. the conception of theology in personal terms in the first place, the social consciousness means, we have found, emphasis on the fully personal--a fresh awakening to the significance of the person and of personal relations. its whole activity is in the sphere of personal relations. hence, as in the conception of religion, so here, so far as the social consciousness affects theology at all, it will tend everywhere to bring the personal into prominence, and it certainly will be found in harmony ultimately with the attempt to conceive theology in terms of personal relations. these are for the social consciousness the realest of realities; and if theology is to be real to the social consciousness, then it must make much of the personal. theology, thus, it is worth while seeing, is not to be personal _and_ social, but it will be social--it will do justice to the social consciousness--if it does justice to the fully personal; for, in the language of another, "man is social, just in so far as he is personal."[54] the foreign and unreal seeming of many of the old forms of statement, it may well be noted in passing, has its probable cause just here. they were not shaped in the atmosphere of the social consciousness. they got at things in a way we should not now think of using. the method of approach was too merely metaphysical and individualistic and mystical, and the result seems to us to have but slight ethical or religious significance. the arguments that now move us most, in this entire realm of spiritual inquiry, are moral and social rather than metaphysical and mystical. it is interesting to see, for example, how such arguments for immortality as that of the simplicity of the soul's being--and most of those used by plato--and how such arguments even for the existence of god as those of samuel clarke from time and space, have become for us merely matters of curious inquiry. we can hardly imagine men having given them real weight. a similar change seems to be creeping over the laborious attempts metaphysically to conceive the divinity of christ. the question is shifting its position for both radical and conservative to a new ground--from the metaphysical and mystical to the moral and social; though some radicals who regard themselves as in the van of progress have not yet found it out, and so find fault with one for not continually defining himself in terms of the older metaphysical formulas and shibboleths. the considerations, in all these questions and in many others, which really weigh most with us now, are considerations which belong to the sphere of the personal spiritual life. ultimately, no doubt, a metaphysics is involved here too; but it is a metaphysics whose final reality is spirit, not an unknown substance--locke's "something, i know not what." the unsatisfactoriness of even so honored a symbol as the apostles' creed, as a permanently adequate statement of christian faith, must for similar reasons become increasingly clear in the atmosphere of the social consciousness. one wonders, as he goes carefully over it, that so many concrete statements could be made concerning the christian religion, which yet are so little ethical. the creed seems almost to exclude the ethical. it has nothing to say, except by rather distant implication, of the character of god, of the character of christ, or of the character of men. the life of christ between his birth and his death are untouched. the considerations that really weigh most with us--as they did with the apostles--in making us christians, certainly do not come here to prominent expression. this whole difference of atmosphere is the striking fact; and were it not that we instinctively interpret its phrases in accordance with our modern consciousness, we should feel the difference much more than we do. what the previous discussion has called the truly mystical--the recognition of the whole man, of the entire personality--is coming in increasingly to correct both the falsely mystical and the falsely metaphysical. we are arguing now, in harmony with the social consciousness, from the standpoint of the broadly rational, not from that of the narrowly intellectual. ii. the fatherhood of god, as the determining principle in theology one might reach essentially the same general results from the influence of the social consciousness, by seeing that, so far as it deepens for us the meaning of the personal, it will deepen immediately our conception of the fatherhood of god--the central and dominating doctrine in all theology--and so affect all theology. for, with a change in the conception of god, no doctrine can go wholly untouched. every step into a deeper feeling for the personal--and the growth of the modern social consciousness is undoubtedly a long step in that direction--deepens necessarily religion and theology. perhaps the possible results here can be illustrated in no way better than by recalling patterson dubois' putting of the needed change in the conception of the proper attitude of a father toward his child. we are not to say, he writes: "i will conquer that child, no matter what it may cost him," but we are to say, "i will help that child to conquer himself, no matter what it may cost me." now that change in point of view is a well-nigh perfect illustration of the social consciousness in a given relation, and it cannot be doubted that it is a true expression of christ's thought of the fatherhood of god; but has it really dominated through and through our theological statements? manifestly, what it means to us that god is father depends on what we have come to see in fatherhood. and principal fairbairn, in the second part of his _the place of christ in modern theology_, has given us a good illustration of how much it means for theology to be in earnest in making the fatherhood of god the determining doctrine in theology. iii. christ's own social emphases again, if the general influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrine is to be recognized at all, it is evident that a christian theology must take full account of christ's own social emphases. by loyalty to these, it will expect best to meet the need of an enlightened social consciousness. it will strive thus--to use professor peabody's instructive summary of "the social principles of the teaching of jesus"--to be true to "the view from above, the approach from within, and the movement toward a spiritual end; wisdom, personality, idealism; a social horizon, a social power, a social aim. the supreme truth that this is god's world gave to jesus his spirit of social optimism; the assurance that man is god's instrument gave to him his method of social opportunism; the faith that in god's world god's people are to establish god's kingdom gave him his social idealism. he looks upon the struggling, chaotic, sinning world with the eye of an unclouded religious faith, and discerns in it the principle of personality fulfilling the will of god in social service."[55] and every one of these three great social principles of jesus has obvious theological applications, not yet fully made. the social consciousness, indeed, well illustrates fairbairn's admirable statement of how progress is to be expected in theology. "the longer the history [of christ]," he says, "lives in the [christian] consciousness and penetrates it, the more does the consciousness become able to interpret the history in its own terms and according to its own contents. the old pagan mind into which christianity first came could not possibly be the best interpreter of christianity, and the more the mind is cleansed of the pagan the more qualified it becomes to interpret the religion. it is, therefore, reasonable to expect that the later forms of faith should be the truer and purer."[56] now the social consciousness itself is a genuine manifestation of the spirit of christ at work in the world, and the mind permeated with this social consciousness is consequently better able to turn back to the teaching of jesus and give it proper interpretation. iv. the reflection in theology of the changes in the conception of religion once more, theology, as an expression of religion, will at once reflect any change in the conception of religion. the influence of the social consciousness upon religion, already traced, will, therefore, inevitably pass over into theology. this means nothing less than a changed point of view, in the consideration of each doctrine. for theology must then recognize clearly that it can build on no falsely mystical conception of communion with god; but, while keeping the elements in mysticism which are justified by the social consciousness, it will require of itself throughout a formulation of doctrine in terms that shall be thoroughly personal, thoroughly ethical, and indubitably loyal to the concretely historically christian. many traditional statements quite fail to meet so searching a test; but no lower standard can give a theology that should fully meet the demands of the social consciousness. the general results of the influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrine, then, may be said to include: the emphasis upon the fully personal, and so conceiving theology in terms of personal relation; the deepening of the conception of the fatherhood of god, and making this the determining principle in theology; the application of the social principles of the teaching of jesus to theology; the reflection in theology of the natural changes in the conception of religion wrought by the social consciousness. now any one of these general results indicates the certain influence of the social consciousness upon theology, and any one might be followed out into helpful suggestions for the restatement of theological doctrines. but we shall probably most clearly and definitely answer the question of our theme, if we ask specifically concerning the several elements of the social consciousness: how does a deepening sense of the like-mindedness of men, of the mutual influence of men, of the value and sacredness of the person, of personal obligation, and of love, tend to affect our theological point of view and mode of statement? and our inquiry will follow these separate questions in separate chapters, except that for the purposes of theological inference, the last three may be appropriately grouped together. [54] nash, _ethics and revelation_, p. 259. [55] peabody, _jesus christ and the social question_, p. 104. [56] fairbairn, _the place of christ in modern theology_, p. 186. chapter x _the influence of the deepening sense of the like-mindedness of men upon theology_ in definitely considering the influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrines, our first question becomes: how does the deepening sense of the like-mindedness of men affect theology? obviously, here, the change will be largely one of mood. we shall look at our themes with a different feeling, and so speak differently, modifying our methods of putting things in those slight ways that do not seem specially significant to one who judges in the mass, but mean very much to one who feels the finer implications of personal life. these finer changes no one can hope to follow out in detail. certain of these finer changes will naturally find incidental expression in the course of the more formal treatment. but our attention must be mainly given to the statement of some of the most important of the plainer results of the principle in theology. i. no prime favorites with god in the first place, this conviction of the like-mindedness of men means that there can be no prime favorites with god. it can hardly help affecting the thought of election. election will, indeed, be thought of as qualified by the character of the chosen; for even paul's argument in romans clearly recognizes this, and is, in fact, itself a distinct argument against a narrow doctrine of election, as others have recognized.[57] but, beyond this, the conviction of the like-mindedness of men will especially view election as a choice for service. the divine method of election must be in harmony with christ's fundamental principle of his kingdom, and with the developing social consciousness: "whosoever shall be first among you, shall be servant of all."[58] it is no accident that this thought of election as choice for preëminent service, which is indeed soundly biblical, has come into special prominence in these days of the social consciousness. the same change is passing over our view of the "elect," as of the "privileged" and "governing" classes. we shall not return to the older feeling of prime favorites of god, and the problem of evil will find herein a certain alleviation. we shall feel increasingly that each race and each individual have their calling and have their compensating advantages; and that, when it comes down to the final test of opportunity, the differences in opportunity between individuals are far less than they seem; for to each one is given the possibility of the largest service any man can render--the possibility of touching closely with the very spirit of his life a few other lives. "there are compensations," as james says, "and no outward changes of condition in life can keep the nightingale of its eternal meaning from singing in all sorts of different men's hearts."[59] ii. the great universal qualities and interests, the most valuable moreover, since equality of need among men,[60] implies, as we have seen, a common capacity--even if in varying degrees--of entering into the most fundamental interests of life, this belief in the essential likeness of men is likely to carry with it that most wholesome conviction for theology, that the great universal qualities and interests are the most valuable. not that which distinguishes us from one another, but that which we have in common is most valuable. as howells tells the boys in his _a boy's town_, "the first thing you have to learn here below, is that in essentials you are just like every one else, and that you are different from others only in what is not so much worth while."[61] this consideration is no small help in facing that most difficult problem for any ideal view of the world--the problem of evil. in god's world, we feel that the most common things ought to be the best. and this growing conviction of the social consciousness comes in to confirm our faith. the constant and simple insistence of christ on receptivity as a fundamental quality in his kingdom is built, in fact, on an optimistic faith in the value of the common things. it is interesting to notice the varied confirmations of the value of the common. how often we have to feel that the deepest discussions come out with only deeper insight into the great common truths; and, on the other hand, that in stilted philosophizing, what seems at first sight a great discovery, proves only a perversely obscure way of putting a common truth. it is the very mission of genius--of the poet in the larger sense, we are coming to feel, to bring out the value of the common. his distinctive mark is that he has kept a fresh sense for the great common experiences of life. so kipling prays: "it is enough that through thy grace i saw naught common on thy earth. take not that vision from my ken." so, the greatest in art, hegel contends, has a universal appeal. it is a wholesome and heartening conviction, i say, to bring into theology, that the really best things are common, accessible to all, actually shared in, to an extent beyond that which our superficial vision seems to show. for, after all, this conviction of the social consciousness is only bringing home to us, in a new and appreciable way, christ's own optimism and his own faith in the love of the father. it is only another illustration of fairbairn's principle of the christian consciousness becoming more christian, and so better able to understand and interpret christ. and it leads us back by this route of the social consciousness, to emphasize in life, and in our theological thinking upon the conditions of entering the kingdom of god, christ's own insistence upon the two universally human characteristics found in every child--susceptibility and trust, which, voluntarily cherished, become teachableness and belief in love. if god is father indeed, and we are intended to come to our best in association with him, these qualities must be the most fundamental ones. and they imply no lack of virility, either, for the highest self-assertion, as professor everett pointed out in his criticism of nietzsche, is in complete self-surrender to such a will as god's. "when jesus said, 'he that loseth his life shall save it,' he said in effect--the self-surrender to which i call you is the truest self-assertion. we find thus in the teachings of christianity a summons to strength far greater than that implied by the self-assertion which is most characteristic of the teachings of nietzsche, because it is the assertion of a larger self."[62] our outlook becomes well-nigh hopeless, when we make our tests of admission to the kingdom so much more exclusive than christ himself made them. iii. essential likeness under very diverse forms it is particularly important for theology that this conviction of the like-mindedness of men has come from a growing power to discern essential likeness under very diverse forms; for this consideration bears not only on the problem of natural evil, but also on the problem of sin and of the progress of christianity. we have taken some curiously diverse paths to this understanding of diverse lives. travels, history, biography, autobiographical fragments, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and--to no small degree--fiction, with its stories of out-of-the-way places and out-of-the-way peoples and of unfamiliar classes,--all have been thoroughfares for the social consciousness here. we are slowly learning to see the likeness under the differences, and so to transcend the differences even between occidental and oriental. all this means much, not only for our practical missionary putting of the truth, but also for our final theological statements. they will inevitably grow simpler, larger, more universally human, and at the same time more deep and solid. we are slowly learning, too, to discern a deep inner content of life under conditions that have no appeal for us, and to see like ideals and aspirations under very diverse forms of expression. take, for example, these three or four sentences--a small part of that quoted by professor james in his essay, _on a certain blindness in human beings_,--from stevenson's _lantern-bearers_: "it is said that a poet has died young in the breast of the most stolid. it may be contended rather that a (somewhat minor) bard in almost every case survives, and is the spice of life to his possessor. justice is not done to the versatility and the unplumbed childishness of man's imagination. his life from without may seem but a rude mound of mud; there will be some golden chamber at the heart of it in which he dwells delighted."[63] and, later, on the side of ideals, stevenson is quoted once again: "if i could show you these men and women all the world over, in every stage of history, under every abuse of error, under every circumstance of failure, without hope, without help, without thanks, still obscurely fighting the lost fight of virtue, still clinging to some rag of honor, the poor jewel of their souls!"[64] and now, having quoted howells and stevenson as theological authorities, i shall be pardoned if, for a moment, i erect kenneth grahame's _golden age_ into a "theological institute": "see," said my friend, bearing somewhat on my shoulder, "how this strange thing, this love of ours, lives and shines out in the unlikeliest of places! you have been in the fields in early morning? barren acres, all! but only stoop--catch the light thwartwise--and all is a silver network of gossamer! so the fairy filaments of this strange thing underrun and link together the whole world. yet it is not the old imperious god of the fatal bow--+herôs hanikate machan+--not that--nor even the placid respectable +storgê+--but something still unnamed, perhaps more mysterious, more divine! only one must stoop to see it, old fellow, one must stoop!"[65] it means very much for the sanity of our outlook on life, and for any possible theodicy, that we can believe the heart of such a view as this for which stevenson and grahame are here contending. and what is all this attempt to get away from this "certain blindness in human beings," of which professor james speaks, but a growing into one of the fixed habits of jesus, what phillips brooks calls "his discovery of interest in people whom the world generally would have found most uninteresting?" "and this same habit," he adds, "passing over into his disciples, made the wide and democratic character of the new faith."[66] iv. as applied to the question of immortality it may probably be safely said that this steadily growing conviction of the social consciousness, of the essential likeness of all men, which is daily confirmed afresh, and the more confirmed the more careful the study, is not likely to take kindly to the idea--which comes into a part of dr. mcconnell's argument concerning immortality, in his interesting book, _the evolution of immortality_--that living creatures classed as men on physical grounds are not, therefore, to be so classed on psychical grounds.[67] the considerations and illustrations brought forward by dr. mcconnell, in connection with this proposition, i cannot think would seem at all conclusive to either the trained psychologist or sociologist. it is exactly the like-mindedness of men which the social consciousness affirms, and it has not come hastily to its conclusion. it will not quickly surrender that conclusion. there _is_ an "evolution of immortality," and it has been age-long, but it is pre-human. the belief in immortality so far as it does not rest purely on the question of the moral quality of a given human life (where the hypothesis of "immortability" may properly enough come in) is grounded upon characteristics--like that of the possibility of absolutely indefinite progress[68]--which in sober scientific inquiry cannot safely be denied to any man, and must be denied to all creatures below man. in any case, the new theory of "immortability," so far as it is based upon the proposition here considered, has its battle to fight out with this established conviction of the social consciousness of the essential like-mindedness of all men. there are various considerations, not all of them wholly creditable, which will lead many to turn a willing ear to this new prophesying; but, though it makes much of evolution, it seems to me to have the whole trend of the social evolution against it, and to give the lie to that patient sympathetic insight into the lives of other classes and peoples, which is one of the finest products of the ethical evolution of the race. if one is tempted to believe that a good large share of the human race are really brutes in human semblance,--and our selfishness and pride and impatience and unloving lack of insight and desire to dominate may naturally tempt in this direction,--let him read that chapter of professor james to which reference has already been made, _on a certain blindness in human beings_, and its pendant, _what makes a life significant_. it may help his theology. let him recall the words of phillips brooks concerning this "strange hopelessness about the world, joined to a strong hope for themselves, which we see in many good religious people." "in their hearts they recognize indubitably that god is saving them, while the aspect of the world around them seems to show them that the world is going to perdition. this is a common enough condition of mind; but i think it may be surely said that it is not a good, nor can it be a permanent, condition. god has mercifully made us so that no man can constantly and purely believe in any great privilege for himself unless he believes in at least the possibility of the same privilege for other men."[69] v. consequent larger sympathy with men, faith in men, and hope for men this whole conviction of the social consciousness, of the like-mindedness of men, leads naturally to increased _sympathy with men_, and this in turn to still better discernment of moral and spiritual realities. and this is of prime importance for the theologian; for sympathetic insight, it must never be forgotten, is the true route to spiritual verities. so far as our insight into actual human life becomes truer, so far our theology becomes clearer and more reasonable. this conviction leads also to increased _belief in men_, and consequently to increased belief in the effectiveness of the higher appeals. the temptation to disbelief in man was one of the underlying temptations of christ as he looked forward to his work; but he turned resolutely from it, and refused to build his kingdom on any lower appeal that implied a lack of faith in men. nothing seems to me more wonderful in christ than his marvelous faith in man; for, though he has the deepest sense of the sin of men, there is not the slightest trace of cynicism in his thought or life. this recognition of likeness under diversity, too, leads to increased _hope for men_, here and hereafter. in james' words: "it absolutely forbids us to be forward in pronouncing on the meaninglessness of forms of existence other than our own.... neither the whole of truth nor the whole of good is revealed to any single observer.... no one has insight into all the ideals. no one should presume to judge them off-hand."[70] this thought helps us to greater hope for men, because, indeed, it helps us to the discernment of genuine ideals under very different forms of life, of the universal sense of duty and some loyalty to it, though there is great diversity of judgment as to what is duty.[71] but, it is here to be noted, also, that the thought of the like-mindedness of men brings greater hope, because it helps to the discernment of likeness, even under difference in important terms used. we are coming to see that there is sometimes, at least, a really strong religious faith where men do not acknowledge the term. thus, bradley says: "all of us, i presume, more or less, are led beyond the region of ordinary facts. some in one way, and some in others, we seem to touch and have communion with what is beyond the visible world. in various manners we find something higher, which supports and humbles, both chastens and transports us. and," as a philosopher he adds, "with certain persons, the intellectual effort to understand the universe is a principal way of thus experiencing the deity."[72] even where the term deity would be entirely abjured, we have seen with paulsen,[73] that a real faith essentially religious in character may be clearly manifest. we are even coming to see that men may seem to themselves to be contending upon opposite sides of so fundamental a question as that of the personality of god, and yet be near together as to their own ultimate faith and attitude, and possibly even as to their real philosophical views of god; but the same term has come to have such different connotations for the men, from their different education and experience, that they simply cannot use it with the same meaning. i have not the slightest desire to reduce the concrete, ethical, definitely personal religion of jesus to the ambiguities of philosophical dreamers; the world is going to become more and more consciously and avowedly christian. but i do not, on the other hand, as a christian theologian, wish to shut my eyes to great essential likenesses in fundamental faiths and ideals and aspirations, because they are clothed in different garb. the life and teaching of jesus have worked and are working in the consciousness of men far beyond the limits our feeble faith is inclined to prescribe. there is doubtless much "unconscious christianity," much "unconscious following of christ."[74] and we are only following christ's own counsel, when we refuse to forbid the man who is working a good work in his name, though he follows not with us.[75] certainly, if we accept the witness of a man's life against the witness of his lips when the witness of his lips is right, we ought to accept the witness of his life against the witness of his lips when the witness of his lips is wrong. with reference to all the preceding inferences from the deepening sense of the like-mindedness of men, it is particularly worthy of note, that this conviction of the essential likeness of men has come into existence side by side with the growing conviction of the moral unripeness of many men, and in spite of that conviction. the careful study of different social classes is forcing upon both the scientific sociologist and the practical social worker, the sense of the ethical immaturity of men. but deeper than this recognition of moral unripeness, deeper than the vision of the sad defectiveness of moral and spiritual ideals and standards, deeper than the clear sense of the immense differences among men as to _what_ is duty, deeper than the differences in even the most important terms used, lies this great conviction of likeness--that all men are moral and spiritual beings, made for relation to one another and to god; that they have ideals that have a wide outlook implicit in them, and have some loyalty to these ideals; that they do have a sense of obligation; that the moral and spiritual life is a reality, a great universal human fact. vi. judgment according to light, and the moral reality of the future life it is no accident, now, that accompanying this double social conviction, there has come into theology a new insistence upon the principle of judgment of a man according to his light, and consequently also, what professor clarke calls "a tendency toward the recognition of greater reality and freedom in the other life, and thus toward the possibility of moral change."[76] our conception of the future life was certain to be modified by the social consciousness; and it may be doubted if any influence of the social consciousness upon theology can be more clearly traced historically than this. the motives that have been working in our minds here include, on the one hand, a wholesome sense of the imperfection of even the best human lives; a glad discernment, on the other hand, of the presence of genuine ideals in lives where we had thought there were none; the certainty that, as dr. clarke says, "for at least one-third of mankind the entire life of conscious and developed personality is lived in the other world;"[77] an experienced unwillingness to say, where we cannot see, the precise point at which the very diverse lives of men under very diverse conditions come to full moral maturity; and the conviction that a life that is to be moral at all must be moral everywhere and through all time, and that where even we can see a little, god can see much more. all these motives, now, make us refuse, with christ, to answer the question, "are there few that be saved?" and both with increasing hope, and with that increasing sense of the seriousness and significance of life which so characterizes the social consciousness, to urge: "strive to enter in." the growing sense of the likeness of men does affect our thought of the future life. the best men, under the clearest light, have only begun; for the best, there is still much need of growth. who has not begun at all? for whom is there no growth? let us make no mistake here. it is no light-hearted indifference to character, to which the genuine social consciousness leads. no age, indeed, ever saw so clearly as ours that the most essential conditions of happiness are in character, or was more certain that sin carries with it its own inevitable consequences. it is not a less, but a more, profound sense of the seriousness of the problem of moral character, that makes us hesitate to dogmatize concerning the future life. to bring together, now, the conclusions of the chapter: the first element in the social consciousness--the deepening sense of the likeness of men--seems likely to affect theology, especially by modifying the thought of election through emphasis upon choice for service, and through the clear recognition that there are no prime favorites with god; by strengthening the conviction that the great common qualities and interests are the most valuable, and that genuine and largely common ideals may be found under very diverse forms and conditions; and thus, on the one hand, by opposing the denial of the psychical likeness of men, as applied to the problem of immortality, and, on the other hand, by bringing us to larger sympathy with men, to larger faith in men, and to larger hope for men; and, finally, by laying new emphasis upon judgment according to light, and upon the moral reality and freedom of the future life. [57] cf. e. g., clarke, _outline of christian theology_, p. 145. [58] mark 10:44. [59] james, _talks on psychology and life's ideals_, p. 301. [60] cf. giddings, _elements of sociology_, p. 324. [61] howells, _a boy's town_, p. 205. [62] _the new world_, dec., 1898, pp. 702, 703. [63] james, _talks on psychology and life's ideals_, p. 237. [64] _op. cit._, p. 282. [65] p. 112. [66] brooks, _the influence of jesus_, p. 253. [67] mcconnell, _the evolution of immortality_, pp. 75 ff. [68] cf. james, _psychology_, vol. ii, pp. 348 ff., p. 367; lotze, _the microcosmus_, book v, especially vol. i, pp. 713, 714. [69] _the candle of the lord, and other sermons_, p. 154. [70] _talks on psychology and life's ideals_, pp. 263, 265. [71] cf. above, p. 121 ff. [72] bradley, _appearance and reality_, pp. 5, 6. [73] cf. above, pp. 46, 47. [74] cf. fremantle, _the world as the subject of redemption_, pp. 250 ff, 320 ff; lyman abbott, _the outlook_, dec. 24, 1898. [75] mark 9:38, 39; cf. matt. 10:40-42. [76] _an outline of christian theology_, p. 475. [77] _op. cit._, p. 469. chapter xi _the influence of the deepening sense of the mutual influence of men upon theology_ from this first element of the social consciousness, we turn now to the second, and ask, how does the deepening sense of the mutual influence of men affect theology? i. the real unity of the race 1. first, then, taken with the sense of the likeness of men, it can hardly be doubted that sociology's strong feeling of the mutual influence of men deepens for theology the thought of the real, not the mechanical, unity of the race. the theologian believes, more than he did, in a race whose unity is preëminently moral, rather than physical or mystical. the truly scientific position for the theologian seems to be, to make no mysterious assumptions, where well-known causes are sufficient to account for the facts; and those causes which the social consciousness clearly sees to be at work seem, in all probability, adequate to account for the facts in discussion so far as those facts are finite at all.[78] the theologian knows, then, a true moral universe, with a unity which is that of the close personal, mutual relations of like-minded spiritual beings. the natural goal of such a race, the only one in which they can truly find themselves, is the kingdom of god. this conception of christ is first thoroughly at home with us, when we see that the true unity of the race is that of personal moral relation. so far as men turn from that goal, this same racial unity of the inevitable and most intimate personal relations converts them into something approaching ritschl's conception of an opposing "kingdom of sin." are we prepared to be thoroughly loyal to just this conception of the unity of the race throughout our theological thinking; and so to give up cherished ideas of "common," "transmitted," "inherited," or "racial" sin or righteousness, of "mystical solidarity," and racial ideal representation, etc.? it probably may be said with truth that few, if any, theological systems have been thus loyal. indeed, under what seems a mistaken application of the social consciousness, and particularly under the misleading influence of the analogy of the organism, men have believed themselves attaining a deeper theological view, when they have, in fact, turned away from the sober teaching of the social consciousness. it may not be in vain for our theology to hear and receive with patience a sociologist's definition of the "social mind." upon this point professor giddings says explicitly: "there is no reason to suppose that society is a great being which is conscious of itself through some mysterious process of thinking, separate and distinct from the thinking that goes on in the brains of individual men. at any rate, there is no possible way yet known to man of proving that there is any such supreme social consciousness." nevertheless, he adds: "to the group of facts that may be described as the simultaneous like-mental-activity of two or more individuals in communication with one another, or as a concert of the emotions, thought, and will of two or more communicating individuals, we give the name, the social mind. this name, accordingly, should be regarded as meaning just this group of facts and nothing more. it does not mean that there is any other consciousness than that of individual minds. it does mean that individual minds act simultaneously in like ways and continually influence one another; and that certain mental products result from such combined mental action which could not result from the thinking of an individual who had no communication with fellow-beings."[79] just so far, it may well be supposed, and no farther may we go, in theology, in moral and spiritual inferences from the unity of the race. we are members one of another for good and for ill, one in the unity of the inevitable, mutual influence of like-minded persons. ii. deepening the sense of sin and this conviction, in the second place, not only deepens our sense of the real unity of the race, it deepens also the sense of sin. and we can hardly separate here the influence of the third element of the social consciousness--the sense of the value and sacredness of the person. as against a rather wide-spread and often expressed contrary feeling, this deepening sense of sin may yet, it is believed, be truthfully maintained, _so far as the social consciousness is really making itself felt_. there are some disintegrating tendencies here, no doubt, like the tendency under some applications of evolution and evolutionary philosophy to turn all sin into a necessary stage in the evolution. but had not drummond reason to say: "there is one theological word which has found its way lately into nearly all the newer and finer literature of our country. it is not only _one_ of the words of the literary world at present, it is perhaps _the_ word. its reality, its certain influence, its universality, have at last been recognized, and in spite of its theological name have forced it into a place which nothing but its felt relation to the wider theology of human life could ever have earned for a religious word. that word, it need scarcely be said, is sin."[80] contrast this modern sense of sin with the almost total lack of it among even so gifted a people of the ancient world as the greeks, and feel the significance of the phenomenon. but it is particularly to be noted that this sense of sin in literature is largely due to a keener social conscience. in fact, if the social consciousness is not a thoroughly fraudulent phenomenon, it could hardly be otherwise; for the social consciousness, in its very essence, is a sense of what is due a person; and sin is always ultimately against a person, failure to be what one ought to be in some personal relation, including finally all the relations of the kingdom of god. we simply cannot deepen the sense of the meaning and value of personal relations, and not deepen, at the same time, the sense of sin. the meaning of the golden rule, and so the sense of sin under it, deepens inevitably with every step into the meaning of the person. if the one great commandment is love, then the sin of which men need most of all to be convicted is lack of love. the self-tormenting and fanciful sins of some of our devotional books very likely are less felt. but the very existence of the social consciousness seems to be proof that there never was so much good, honest, wholesome sense of real sin as to-day--such sin as christ himself recognizes in his own judgment test. it may be that, in temporary absorption in the human relations, the relation of all this to the all-father may seem forgotten; even so, we may well remember christ's "ye did it unto me." but, in fact, we must go much farther and say, the social consciousness can only be true to itself finally, as it goes on to see its acts in the light, most of all, of that single, personal relation which underlies all others. we have already seen that the social consciousness requires for its own justification its grounding in the manifest trend of the living will of god. with this felt identification of the will of god with love for men, men can still less shake off easily the conviction of sin. probably, most religious men argue a diminishing sense of sin, because they feel that less is made of those consequences of sin which have been usually connected with the future life. there may be real danger here from shallow thinking; but here, too, the social consciousness has only to be true to itself to be saved from any shallow estimate of the consequences of sin here or hereafter. as the sin itself is always, finally, in personal relations, so the most terrible results of sin, in this life and in all lives, are in personal relations. what it costs the man himself in cutting him off from the relations in which all largeness of life consists, what it costs those who love him, what it costs god,--this alone is the true measure of sin. so judged, sin itself is feared as never before. surely, principal fairbairn is right in saying: "and so even within christendom, sin is never so little feared as when hell most dominates the imagination; it needs to be looked at as it affects god, to be understood and feared."[81] but it is the inevitable result of the social consciousness to bring us to the deepest conviction of all these personal relations, and so to the deepest conviction of sin. another consideration deserves attention. we have a growing conviction that our social ideal is personally realized only in christ, and we have given unequaled attention to that life and have such knowledge of it, in its detailed applications, as no preceding generation has ever had. this simply means that we have both such a sense of our moral calling, and are face to face with such a living standard, as must steadily deepen in us a genuine sense of real sin, in our falling so far short of the spirit of christ. theology needs, further, to make unmistakably clear, and to use the fact, that _this mutual influence of men holds for good_ as well as for evil; that few greater lies have ever been told, than the insinuation that only evil is contagious, the good not. and this conviction of the contagion of the good, of mutual influence for good, concerns theology particularly in three ways, all of which may be regarded simply as illustrations or aspects of the one kingdom of god. we are members one of another (1) in attainment of character, (2) in personal relation to god, and (3) in confession of faith. and each of these forms of mutual influence will need careful attention. in considering separately here attainment of character and relation to god, it is not meant for a moment to admit that separation of ethics and religion which has been already denied, but only to single out for distinct treatment the one most important and fundamental relation of life--relation to god. we are certainly never to forget that the indispensable condition of right relations to god, is that a man should have been won into willingness to share god's own righteous purpose concerning men. iii. mutual influence for good in the attainment of character we know no deeper law in the building of character, than that righteous character comes through that association with the best in which there is mutual self-giving. the problem of character implies not only a bare recognition of a man's moral freedom, but a sacred respect at every point for his personality. if a man is ever to have character at all, it must be absolutely his own; he must be won freely into it. in this free winning to character, no association counts for its most that is not mutual. i become in character most certainly and rapidly like that man with whom i constantly am, to whose influence i most fully surrender, and who gives himself most completely to me. we may analyze the phenomenon psychologically, as, indeed, we have already done in showing that a true personal relation to christ necessarily carries with it a true ethical life. and that which held true for religion cannot be false for theology, we may be sure. but, in any case, we always come back finally to the fact, that character is truly and inevitably contagious in an association in which there is mutual surrender. character is caught, not taught. the inner strength of another life to which we surrender is, as phillips brooks somewhere says, "directly transmissible." i suspect that the ultimate psychological principle at work here is that of the impulsiveness of consciousness. but, whether that be true or not, the witness to this contagion is wide-spread among students of men. "the greatest gift the hero leaves his race," one of our great novelists says, "is to have been a hero." in almost identical language, a great ethical and philosophical writer adds: "the noblest workers of our world bequeath us nothing so great as the image of themselves. their task, be it ever so glorious, is historical and transient, the majesty of their spirit is essential and eternal." but one might still think, here, only of an example. the other life, however, must be more to me than mere example. for the highest attainment in character i need the association of some highest one, who will give himself to me unreservedly. redemption to real righteousness of life cannot be without cost to the redeemer. and it is a psychologist, facing the ultimate problem of will-strengthening, who urges in words that might seem almost to look to christ: "the prophet has drunk more deeply than any one of the cup of bitterness; but his countenance is so unshaken, and he speaks such mighty words of cheer, that his will becomes our will, and our life is kindled at his own."[82] it _is_ the one great certain road to character--as it is to appreciation of every value--to stay in the presence of the best, in self-surrender to it. no wonder christ said, "i am the way." 1. _the application to the problem of redemption._--it is hardly possible to ignore this one great known law of character-making, which the social consciousness so presses upon us, in any thinking that is for a moment worth while concerning our redemption by christ. and whatever our point of view, this consideration ought to have weight with us. nay, must we not make it necessarily the very center of all our thought here? for all the realities in this problem of redeeming a man from sin to righteousness are intensely personal, ethical, spiritual. now, are we to reach a deeper view of redemption, by turning away from the deepest ethical fact to the unethical? do we so ground our view the more securely? is there something holier than the holy ethical will seen realized in christ's life and death? for, if it is the will in his death by which we are sanctified,[83] there can be no sharp separation of the life and death. must we not rather expect that the clearest light, on the holiest in god and our personal relation to him, will be thrown by the holiest we know in life, in our human personal relations? is not the precise method of redemption, then, to no small degree, cleared for us right here, in this conviction of the social consciousness of the contagion of the good in a self-surrendering association--the only solidarity of which we can be certain? christ saves us, in the only certain way we know that any man is ever saved to better living, through direct contagion of character, through his immediate influence upon us. the power of the influence of a redeeming person must depend upon two facts: the richness of the self that is given, and the depth of the giving. the supremely redeeming power must be the giving of the richest self, unto the uttermost. god has not yet done his best for men, until he gives himself in the fullest manifestation which can be made through man to men, and gives to the uttermost, with no drawing back from any cost. is it not because, after all, back of all theories and even in spite of theories, men have seen in the life and death of christ just this eternal giving of god himself, that they have been caught up into some sharing of the same spirit, and so felt working directly and immediately upon them the supremest redeeming power the world knows? the cross of christ has been god's not only _saying_, "i will help that child to conquer himself, whatever it costs me," but god doing it, and perpetually doing it. not less than that must be the cost of a man's redemption. character is directly transmissible in an association in which there is mutual self-giving. it is most easily so transmissible, only at its highest, in its most perfect manifestation, in its completest self-giving at any cost. the self-giving on the part of one trying to win another into character must precede the self-giving of the sinner; for the sinner's own willingness to yield himself to the influence of the character of the other must first of all be won. this initial winning of the coöperative will of the other is the heart of the whole battle. and here the power relied on is not only the unconscious contagion and imitation of character that enlists a man's interest almost by surprise, but also the mightiest influence men know in breaking down the resisting will and winning men consciously and with final abandon--the influence of a patient, long-suffering, persistent, self-sacrificing love that cannot give the sinning one up. most certainly, then, redemption cannot be without cost to the redeemer of men--not only that cost to the hero of the superior showing of superior character in a superior task, but that other cost, indissolubly linked indeed with this, of reverently, patiently, to the bitter end, helping another to conquer himself--the inevitable suffering of all redemptive endeavor for those whom one loves. this involves (1) suffering in contact with sin, (2) suffering in the rejection by those sinning, and most of all, (3) suffering in the sin itself of those one loves because one loves them--suffering which is the more intense, the more one loves. 2. _the consequent ethical and spiritual meaning of substitution and propitiation._--can we go yet a step farther here? it may be fairly taken for granted that where the church has strongly and persistently stood for certain modes of putting a doctrine--though the precise putting may be unfortunate--that in all probability there is there some real and important truth after which the consciousness of the church is dimly feeling. starting, now, from this same great law of the contagion of character and the inevitable influence of an association in which there is mutual self-giving, is it not possible to show that there is a strict ethical and spiritual sense that we can understand, in which christ's suffering may be truly called vicarious, and himself a substitute for us, and a propitiation? it is, of course, not for a moment forgotten that, in dr. clarke's language, "a god who will himself provide a propitiation has no need of one in the sense which the word has ordinarily borne. some richer and nobler meaning must be present if the word is appropriate to the case."[84] but it is not likely that a purely ethical and spiritual view of the atonement, which sees the problem as a strictly personal one--and this seems to the writer the only true position--can ever succeed in the hearts of the great body of the membership of the churches, if it cannot show, at the same time, that it is able in some real way to take up into itself these thoughts of substitution and propitiation. the writer finds much of the old language about the atonement as offensive to his moral sense as any man well can. but that there is an absolutely universal human need for something like that to which the old language of substitution and propitiation looked, he cannot doubt. it seems to show itself in this, that no man with real moral sense, probably, cares to put himself at the end of his life, say, in the attitude of the pharisee rather than in that of the publican. if one sets aside all spectacular elements in the judgment, and even denies altogether any great single final assize for all men, still he cannot avoid the thought of some judgment upon his life. as dr. clarke says again: "we are not our own masters in going out of this world; we go we know not whither. yet our going is not without its just and holy method. our place and lot in the life that is beyond must be determined righteously, in accordance with the life that we have lived thus far, that the next stage in our existence may be what it ought to be."[85] however, now, that judgment of god may be expressed, no man can hope to face the test proposed by christ in the twenty-fifth of matthew, still less the test implied in christ's own life, and feel that he has _already_ attained. he knows himself to be at best only a faulty growing child, with some real spirit of obedience in his heart. and it is particularly to be noted, that exactly that man must stand most definitely for the reality of some genuinely ethical judgment, who has most insisted upon the necessarily ethical character of the religious life. moreover, the normal experience of the deepening christian life is an increasing sense of sin. upon this point, too, the social consciousness is witness. what, now, makes it possible for a man to expect, in any sense, a favorable judgment of god upon his life? if god makes any separation of men in the world to come, he certainly cannot divide them into perfect and imperfect men. judged by any complete standard, all are imperfect. or if, without separation, god in any sense, in the most inner way, passes judgment, how does approval fall upon any? and upon whom does it fall? must not every man who wishes to be clear and honest with himself fairly face these questions? and christ's own thought of god as father must be our key here. and the matter may well be counted worth a more careful analysis than it often gets. how does a father distinguish between what he calls an obedient and a disobedient child? both are faulty. how in any fair sense may one be called obedient? to the earthly father, that child is called an obedient child, not who is deliberately setting his will against his father's with no intention to coöperate with the father's purpose for him, but whose loyal intention is to do the father's will, really to coöperate with the father in the father's own purpose for the child's life. when, now, this child is carried away by some gust of temptation and disobeys, and then returns in penitence to the father, evidently viewing the sin, so far as his experience allows, as the father views it, and heartily putting it away, the father, _either with or without penalty_, restores the child to full personal relation to himself; and that is the vital point. and, though he neither judges the past life as without failure, nor expects the future to be without failure, he approves the child, as in a true sense obedient. he is an approved child. what is it that satisfies the father in such a case? upon what does he rely in his hope for matured character in the child? what, in biblical language, "covers" for the father the actual disobediences of the past and the certain disobediences of the future, and enables him in a sense to ignore both in his approval of the child? certainly, the present purpose of the child, the child's honest intention to coöperate with the father in the father's purpose for him. yes; but as certainly, it seems to the writer, _not that alone_. the father's hope for his child's steady growth in righteousness depends not only on the child's present intention, but much more upon the father's own intention never to give up in his attempt at any cost to help that child to conquer himself.[86] the father may be said here in a true sense to propitiate himself; and his own fixed purpose has become a partial substitute for the wavering purpose of the child. and the child's full righteousness is seen, not merely in an attitude of immediate present obedience, but especially in his loyal acceptance of his filial relation--in his honest surrender to his father's influence. and the father can now say, because my child accepts heartily his relation to me, and honestly throws himself open to it to let it be to him all it can and work its own work in him, i may approve him; for this relation to me which he so takes has only to go on, to work out its complete results in a matured character. in the hearty acceptance of this filial relation to me, there is contained the promise of the end. just this attitude exactly, and no other, it seems to the writer, god takes toward men in his revelation in christ. christ is god's own showing forth of himself. "god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself."[87] "propitiation," beysclag truly says, "is blotting out, making amends for sin in god's eyes. now what can cover the sin of the world in god's eyes? only a personality and a deed which contain the power of actually delivering the world from its sin."[88] we have seen, it may be hoped, just how god's self-revealing in christ does have this actual power, and becomes, thus, a true propitiation in the highest moral sense, in the only sense in which god can wish a propitiation, and in the only sense in which we can ever need a propitiation. our final hope for that true salvation, which is the sharing of the life of god and the involved likeness of character with god, is in god's own long-suffering, redeeming activity. only as _that_ may be remembered, in connection with our surrender to it, may we hope to stand approved before the judgment of god. we are not judged alone before the judgment of god. in a very real sense the judge himself stands with us. not what god is able to believe about this man thought of as standing alone, but what he may believe about this man standing in a living, surrendering association with himself, is the ground of judgment. we may not separate here the work of god and the work of christ, as the new testament does not separate them. in constant reliance upon the constant redeeming activity of the father here and hereafter, we children go hopefully on our way. put into the language of the blood covenant, where the blood has all its significance as life--the giving of life, the sharing of life, the closest and most indissoluble union of lives--this is to say, there is no atonement, no reconciliation, no remission of sins, no forgiveness--and these are all essentially identical terms--without shedding of blood, that is, without complete giving of life on both sides, christ giving himself not only _for_ us in seeking us out, but _to_ us in complete reconciliation and renewal of life. it means that only god, the very life of god, sharing god's life, can really save one from his sins. god must pour his life into one, and he does, in christ. this seems to be the heart of the whole matter; but certain considerations may be still added, as indicating how far a purely ethical and spiritual view of the atonement may go, in meeting the human need expressed in these older terms of substitution and propitiation. there must be a wrath of god against wilful sin, a complete disapproval of it, and all the more because god loves the sinner. god is a consuming fire for sin in us, because he loves us. that wrath cannot be propitiated, that disapproval cannot be satisfied, in any effective way, so long as the sin continues. the punishment of the sin in its inevitable consequences, will go on in the very fidelity of god. but for any real satisfaction of god, the sin itself must cease, and there must be assurance of righteousness to come. the sinner must come to share god's hatred of the sin and god's positive purpose of love. hence the expiation of the sin, the propitiation of the wrath of god, the satisfaction of god--so far as these terms still have meaning, and so far as they express christ's work--consist (1) in winning men to repentance, to sharing god's hatred of their sin, (2) in helping men to a real power against sin, and (3) in the assurance of perfecting righteousness which is contained in the relation to god honestly accepted by men. when, now, the unfilial spirit is thus changed into a completely filial spirit--through the fullest acceptance by the child of the father's purpose for him, and through the child's throwing himself completely open to the influence of the father--the personal relation _is_ thereby inevitably changed, personal reconciliation is achieved. it is impossible to think it otherwise. and so the chief pain in the previous relation is done away both for god and man; though the punishment, in the consequences of sin in other respects, is not thereby set aside. but, further, so far now as the power of this new personal relation to god in christ begins actively to counteract the consequences of sin in us, as it will assuredly do, god's work in christ becomes a direct substitute for that punishment of us that would else inevitably follow. and yet the process is wholly ethical; for the results of righteousness can actually occur in us, only in so far as we come into harmony with christ's purpose for us. even so far, we may believe, does the social consciousness, in its emphasis upon the mutual influence of persons go, in leading us into the secret of the attainment of character--into the heart of god's redemption of men. iv. mutual influence for good in our personal relation to god what, now, in the second place, does the mutual influence of men for good mean for theology in the individual relation to god? here it may be said at once, that faith is as directly contagious as character. 1. _in coming into the kingdom._--we are introduced through others into all spheres of value, including friendship even with god. in the atmosphere of those who already feel the value, our interest is aroused; we find it possible at least to take those initial steps of a dawning attention, which give the value opportunity to make its own impression upon us, and bring us to an appreciation, to a faith of our own. only so is that most difficult of all tasks in the redemption of a man--that first stirring of a new appetite, a new desire, a new aspiration, a new ideal--accomplished. we are members one of another here to an extent that deserves ever fresh emphasis. we cannot too often say to ourselves, had it not been that there were those who actually entered into the meaning of the revelation of god in christ--who, in john's language, "beheld his glory"--the record of that revelation never could have come down to us. christianity must have perished at its birth. "hence," in the vital language of herrmann, "the picture of his inner life could be preserved in his church or 'fellowship' alone. but, further, this picture so preserved can be understood only when we meet with men on whom it has wrought its effect. we need communion with christians in order that, from the picture of jesus which his brotherhood has preserved, there may shine forth that inner life which is the real heart of it. it is only when we see its effects, that our eyes are opened to its reality so that we may thereby experience the same effect. thus we never apprehend the most important element in the historical appearance of jesus until his people make us feel it. the testimony of the new testament concerning jesus is the work of his church, and its exposition is the work of the church, through the life which that church develops and gains for itself out of this treasure which it possesses."[89] the christian is no melchizedek, then, without father or mother; he comes into life in a community of life, and usually, moreover, through the personal touch of some other individual life. it is the one primal law, of life through life. 2. _in fellowship within the kingdom._--and not only in coming into the kingdom, but also within the religious fellowship of the kingdom, we are emphatically members one of another. in bringing us into that love which is god's own life, god evidently has no intention of allowing us to cut ourselves off from our brethren, to climb up to heaven by some little individual ladder of our own. that humility or open-mindedness, which constitutes the first beatitude and the initial step into the kingdom, and that self-sacrificing love, which constitutes the last beatitude and the crown of the christian life, are both possible and cultivable only in personal relations to others. no man ever got them alone. and, for this very reason, in the discussion of the religious life, we found the new testament guarding most carefully against all over-estimation of marvelous experiences as such. for these tended to make a man feel that he had such an individual ladder of his own to heaven, and had no need, consequently, of his brethren; and so led him into the very reverse of the fundamental christian qualities--into unteachableness instead of humility and open-mindedness, and into censoriousness instead of love. that objective attitude which is essential in all character and work and happiness, cannot be unimportant in our specifically religious life. even in this most individual relation to god, then, men's outlook is varied and but partial. we need to share, and can share, one another's visions. the meaning of the many-sidedness of even a great human personality gets home to us only so--through the various impressions gained by different men. much more can god be revealed to us, even approximately, only so. the great and surpassing value of the new testament lies exactly herein, that it gives the varied impressions upon the first christian generation of god's supreme revelation--the most important individual reflections of christ. the new testament comes to stand, thus, in no merely external and mechanically authoritative relation to the life and faith of the church, but in the most interior and vital relation. and bible study gets a new significance for us, as we see it, as at one and the same time our chief way to our own vision of god's actual, concrete self-revelation, and our deliverance from our merely subjective dreaming. we come to share in some living way the vision of these others who have seen most directly and most largely. 3. _in intercessory prayer._--one particular application to our religious life, of this conviction of the social consciousness of our mutual influence, seems worthy of mention--its bearing upon intercessory prayer. few other things in religion, one may suspect, seem less real to modern men. can we ground the matter a little more deeply for ourselves, and give it reality, by showing its close connection with this deep-rooted conviction of the social consciousness? we have already seen,[90] if character and love are to be realities to us, if the world is to be a real training-ground for moral character, and not a mere play-world--a nursery continually set to rights from without, that we must all be most closely knit together; that our choices must have effects in the lives of others; that we must be bound up in one bundle of life. and we do affect one another's lives in a thousand ways. in manifold directions we condition the happiness and temptations of one another. the unspoken mood of another, an expression of countenance, a tone, an emphasis, may affect our whole day. now, if the spiritual world is real at all, it is to be counted upon. apparently, there is such a thing, for example, as a spiritual atmosphere in an audience--not, it may well be supposed, a magical matter, but really determined by the tone of the minds composing the audience. the actual mood of the hearers and of the speaker makes a difference. results, great and important, are so changed often quite unconsciously. it may well be that god is the medium in all this. the attitude of the auditors is like unconscious, silent praying to god--the praying of their life, of their spirit. but, whether one cares to look at this special case in such a way or not, we are, in any event, in our spiritual lives in the deepest way members one of another. our spiritual condition inevitably affects others. we cannot sow to the flesh and reap life anywhere, in ourselves or in others. this is particularly true, of course, of those to whom we are bound in the closest life relations. that this is absolutely true in normal personal relations, when we are in the presence of our friends, all of us fully believe. the question simply is, may this law of mutual influence hold of those bound up with our lives even when they are distant from us or estranged? in giving the privilege of intercessory prayer, it may well be believed, god simply allows us to be, even then, what we are always so fully under other circumstances--an influence upon them, a condition of the good and growth of others. _he simply allows the regular law of the spiritual and moral world to hold without exception._ we are still, though distant or estranged, members one of another. it would be a very human, defective, faulty god, who could not put us thus in touch with our loved ones everywhere. but this is possible through _him_, and therefore in prayer, and under strictly ethical and spiritual conditions, and not as a matter of mere whimsical and wilful will on our part, and it opens no door to magical superstition. is not the recognition of the place and value of intercessory prayer, then, an only just extension of the prime conviction of the social consciousness? v. mutual influence for good in confessions of faith theology has, once more, in the third place, to recognize the importance of mutual influence for good in confession of faith, in creeds. when, to-day, we seek the common grounds of belief for christian thinkers, so far as the social consciousness really moves us, we approach the problem in a way somewhat different from that of previous generations. we do not now seek to elaborate a second, modern westminster confession; nor do we seek a mere average of christian ideas that in reality expresses no one's whole living thought. still less is there sought the barest minimum of christian belief. rather, in harmony with the social consciousness, we seek a unity that is organic. our age, therefore, must recognize that, in the confession of its faith as in all else, we are genuinely members one of another. the unity sought not only tolerates differences, but welcomes and justifies them, as themselves helps to a deeper unity. it believes in equality, but not in identity. it is true that christianity looks everywhere to life; and we may be sure that any statement of christian doctrine that does not obviously bear on living is still inadequate and incorrect. it is true that we do well to emphasize the strictly religious and practical purpose of the bible; that the bible is interested in both nature and history so far and only so far as either reveals god and inspires to godly living. it is true that in all christian thinking christ is our ultimate appeal. but, on the other hand, we must not confuse the issue. we cannot expect agreement in detailed intellectual statements even with fullest loyalty to christ, and the most earnest desire after truth. to each his own message. nor can we confine, nor is it desirable to confine, expressions of christian faith to the merely practical side. we need to seek to _understand_ the meaning of our christian experience, not only for the sake of our intellectual peace, but also for the sake of deepening our christian experience itself. now, it is here contended that in our confessions of christian faith we need one another, and that complete uniformity of belief and statement is both impossible and undesirable. 1. _complete uniformity of belief and statement impossible._--it is impossible, for, in the first place, it is difficult, in any case, to tell our real inner creed. some of its most important articles are quite certain to be implicit and unconfessed, even to ourselves. the only important creed, in the case of the individual, is that which finds its expression in life. there are assumptions implied in deeds and spirit; and the spirit of a man throws more light on his real creed than his formal statements do. his doctrines may be radical, his spirit thoroughly constructive, or _vice versa_. if all thought tends to pass into act, as modern psychology insists, we have a right to urge that those articles of a man's creed which find expression in living, are for him the really important articles. the will has a creed, as well as the intellect, and the real creed is the creed of life rather than of lips; it is wrought out, rather than thought out. and this real, inner, living creed probably no man can state with accuracy even in his own case. and if he is ever able even approximately to do so, it will be at the end, rather than at the beginning, of his life's work and experience. moreover, complete uniformity of belief and statement is impossible, for, even exactly the same words cannot mean the same to different individuals, for they are interpreted out of a different experience; they cannot mean precisely the same thing, even to the same individual, at different times, for his interpreting experience, too, is a changing thing. we need sometimes to remind ourselves that there is never any literal transfer of thought from mind to mind, still less from statement to mind; all thinking of even the most passive kind has an element of creation in it, for terms must be interpreted, and the interpretation is inevitably limited by previous experience. sabatier[91] is quite right, therefore, in asserting that credal statements must change their meaning just as words change. but it is to be noted that this principle means not only that unalterable doctrine, in this sense, is impossible between the generations; but also that identical doctrine is impossible in the same generation. out of the different experiences, too, grow the different points of view and the different emphases. and these different points of view, and the different distribution of emphasis, give the same creed very different meanings for different men. it is as impossible to avoid this, as it is to avoid change and individuality. it is true of a man's creed as of his environment, that the only effective portions are those to which he attends--those which he emphasizes, not those to which he gives a bare assent; and this varying attention and emphasis cannot be the same in different individuals. the only logical outcome of a thorough-going attempt to reach an identical creed is the church of one member. 2. _complete uniformity of belief and statement undesirable._--but complete uniformity of belief and statement is not only impossible; it is undesirable. for, in the first place, it is only by these differing but supplementary finite expressions that we can approximate to the infinite truth. like leibnitz's mirrors in the market-place, it is only by combining the points of view of all that a complete representation is possible. we need one another here, as elsewhere; we need the fellowship of the church, and of the whole church; the strictly individual view must be fragmentary. our message needs the supplement of the messages of others; through each member god has something unique to say. they without us, we without them, are not to be made perfect. we need to share, in such measure as is possible, the experiences of others; but this is possible only through vital contact. moreover, we are not to forget how truth comes--not by surrender of convictions, not by the silence of each, but by each standing earnestly for the truth which is given to him, in a union of conviction and charity. for only he who has convictions can be tolerant, as only he who has fears can be courageous. once more, we cannot and must not simply repeat each other. nothing is so fatal to spiritual life as dishonesty. to attempt an identical creed involves something of such untrue repetition of the experience of others. for, as herrmann has said, doctrines are an expression of life _already present_, and are of value only so; they are not themselves a condition of life. if the doctrines we profess are not the honest expression of a real life in us, they are a hindrance, not a help. "conscious untruth tends to drive from christ." for every one of these reasons, now, it is positively undesirable to forbid varying theories or to check the varied expressions of christian faith, whether in accordance or not with certain standard formulas. a growing life requires a growing expression, which must be justified by its history, not dogmatically by reference to some supposed fixed standard of doctrine in the past. the very meaning and health of christian fellowship demand that we should welcome and encourage the honest expression of the varied manifestations of the one spirit, that we may be the more certain to get the whole truth, the whole life which god intends. we are members one of another, in doctrine as in life. it becomes increasingly clear, thus, where the real christian unity is, and where the common grounds of christian belief must be sought. the real unity of christians is in their common life, in the common experience, in the possession of the common personal self-revelation of god in christ, in the inworking of the one spirit. it is the meaning of this one central christian experience, which we strive to express in our doctrinal statements. our _expressions_ must vary; the life, the personal relation to god, is one. the best analogy we have of the case lies in what the same great friend means to different persons. our creeds are at best poor and partial expressions of the meaning for us of the divine friendship, of god's self-revelation to us. it is, then, precisely in our christian experience and in that personal relation to god revealed in christ which makes a man a christian at all, that all the common grounds of christian belief lie. the solution of christian unity here, that is, is not by increasing abstraction, but by frank concreteness; not by false simplicity, but by living fullness; not by relation to propositions, but by relation to facts; not by emphasis on natural religion, but by emphasis on historical religion; not by bringing nature into prominence, but human nature; not by relation to things, but by relation to persons, to the one great world fact, the one person, to christ. "i am the way." the christian faith is faith in a person; the christian confession of faith is confession of christ. and if we are really in earnest with this word christian, we already have our basis of unity in our personal relation to christ, our common lord. but that personal relation to god in christ is always more than a credal statement _can_ express, though we may never cease to attempt such expression; and for the sake of the larger realization, by ourselves and by the church, of the meaning of the personal relation to christ, we must welcome every honest expression of his christian life by another. altogether, we shall at best but dimly shadow forth its full meaning. and such a concrete relation to the personal christ is a far better test of genuine christian faith than any creed, whether more or less elaborate, since in the personal relation character inevitably comes out; and any test that allows even for the moment the ignoring of the ethical, cannot remain even intellectually adequate, for christian doctrine looks always and certainly to life. even if one is thinking _only_ of the correct intellectual expression of the common christian life--the maintenance of orthodoxy, so far as that is possible to us--it should be remembered that the most conservative of all influences is love of a person, and, by no means, subscription to a set of propositions. would christ so think? would he so speak?--these are questions far more certain to keep christian _thinking_ true, than any intellectual test of man's devising. we do not expect, therefore, we do not seek, any common grounds of belief for christian thinkers, other than are involved in the simple fact that we are christians at all, in the common recognition of the revelation of god in christ--of the lordship of christ. we confess christ. for, "no man can say, jesus is lord, but in the holy spirit." and "other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is jesus christ." now, in this common confession, it is here especially maintained, we are, as everywhere, "members one of another" and need one another; and the unity we seek, therefore, is not the unity of identical credal statement--which can only make us isolated atoms not necessary to one another--but the deeper and larger organic unity of the richly varying manifestations of the common life in christ. we may come, through the witness of another, to an appreciation of christ which is really our own, but to which we should not have come if the other had not spoken. men do mutually influence one another for good, in their confessions of christian faith. vi. the consequent importance of the doctrine of the church in this recognition of the vital and essential importance of mutual influence in the attainment of character, in the individual relation to god, and in creed, theology is brought to a new sense of the significance of the doctrine of the church. on the one hand, it cannot derive its importance from having to do with an unalterably fixed and infallibly organized external authority; and, on the other hand, it can be no longer an unimportant addendum concerned only with methods of organization and government, and with ecclesiastical ordinances and procedure. so far as the social consciousness has influence upon theology at this point, theology must see that the doctrine of the church is the doctrine of that priceless, living, personal fellowship, in which alone christian character, christian faith, and christian confession can arise and can continue. the doctrine of the church becomes thus the doctrine of the very life and growth of christianity in the world. it is the doctrine of the real kingdom of god, christ's own great central theme. [78] cf. above, pp. 35 ff. [79] _the elements of sociology_, pp. 119, 120, 121. [80] _the ideal life_, p. 149. [81] _the place of christ in modern theology_, p. 455. [82] james, _psychology_, vol. ii, p. 579. [83] cf. hebrews 10:10. [84] _an outline of christian theology_, p. 335. [85] _op. cit._, p. 459. [86] cf. romans 8:26-39. [87] ii corinthians 5:19. [88] _the theology of the new testament_, vol. ii, p. 448. [89] _the communion of the christian with god_, p. 61; cf. p. 87. [90] cf. above, p. 32. [91] _the vitality of christian dogmas and their power of evolution._ chapter xii _the influence of the deepening sense of the value and sacredness of the person upon theology_ in the discussion of the influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrine, we turn now to ask concerning the third element of the social consciousness, how does the deepening sense of the value and sacredness of the person affect theology? and with this sense of the value and sacredness of the person, we may well include, so far as the influence upon theology is concerned, the remaining elements of the social consciousness--the deepening sense of obligation, and of love. for, as we have already seen, the sense of obligation and of love follow so inevitably from a deep sense of the value and sacredness of the person, that it would be a needless refinement, probably, to try to analyze out their separate influence upon theological thinking. we should find them all leading us to essentially the same great emphases. when, now, through the social consciousness, the personal has become the supreme value for us, and regard for it our eternal motive and goal, we cannot fail to demand that theology give a real personality to god and man--a consciousness marked, in professor howison's language, with "that recognition and reverence of the personal initiative of other minds which is at once the sign and the test of the true person."[92] i. the recognition of the personal in man in the first place, the social sense of the value and sacredness of the person will emphasize the full personality of man. 1. _man's personal separateness from god._--the sense of the value of the person cannot admit for a moment such a one-sided emphasis upon a universal cosmic evolution, or upon the immanence of god, as should make impossible a true personality in man. it seeks, in its view of both god and man, a really "_personal_ idealism." it does not forget, but earnestly asserts, the dependence of all other spirits upon god; and, consequently, looks for no metaphysical separateness in this sense from god. but a genuine recognition of the personality of man does require that man be conceived as separate from god in just this sense: (1) that he has a clear self-consciousness of his own, and (2) that he has real moral initiative, which makes his volition truly his own. these two factors constitute all of separateness that need be demanded for man. possessing these, he is "outside of god" in the only sense in which a "personal idealism" feels concerned to assert separateness. but for these factors it is concerned; for without them, it believes, no truly ideal view, no moral world, no religious life, are possible. 2. _emphasis upon man's moral initiative._--in particular, the application of the sense of the value and sacredness of the person in theology, means the emphatic recognition of the moral initiative of man--of the possession of a real will of his own. the whole social consciousness, especially in this third element of it, rests upon the assumption that man has worth, as a being capable of character as well as of happiness, and so deserves in some worthy sense to be called a child of god. if the social consciousness is, as we have seen, with any fairness to be called the recognition of the fully personal,[93] this reverence for the personal initiative of men cannot be lacking in it. its influence upon theology at this point, therefore, is hardly to be doubted. and theology itself is vitally concerned. for the whole possibility of the conceptions of government and providence requires this. these terms are words without meaning, having absolutely no place in theology or philosophy, if man has no moral initiative. nor should it escape our notice, that we strike at the very root of all possible reverence for god, if we deny a real initiative to man. we have no possible philosophic explanation of either sin or error, consistent with any real reverence for god, if a true human will is denied.[94] in professor bowne's vigorous language: in a system of necessity "every thought, belief, conviction, whether truth or superstition, arises with equal necessity with every other.... on this plane of necessary effect the actual is all, and the ideal distinctions of true and false have as little meaning as they would have on the plane of mechanical forces.... the only escape from the overthrow of reason involved in the fact of error lies in the assumption of freedom." moreover, if real human initiative is denied to men, we conceive god as having really less respect for persons in his dealing with them, than the most elementary ethics requires of men in their relations to one another. a one-sided doctrine of immanence, thus, degrades both man and god. it degrades man, in denying to him a true personality, and so making him simply a thing. it degrades god, in making him the real responsible cause of all sin and error, and in making him treat possible persons as things. the influence of the social consciousness, which leads us to measure the moral growth of a man and of a civilization by the deepening sense of reverence for the person, is fairly decisive at this point. it _must_ see in god the most absolute guarding of man's personality, and especially of his moral initiative. 3. _man, a child of god._--the christian faith, that man is a child of god, is a faithful expression of the insistence of the social consciousness upon the recognition of the full personality of man. it expresses both man's entire dependence upon god for his being and maintenance, and at the same time his infinite value and sacredness as a spirit made in the image of god, capable of indefinite progress, and capable of personal relation to god. it voices thus christianity's characteristic "humbly-proud" conception of man--humble in view of the eternal and infinite plans of god; proud, as "called to an imperishable work in the world." it is, indeed, but a concrete statement of that faith in love at the heart of things, and in the all-embracing plan of a faithful god, which we found required, if the social consciousness itself was to have any justification.[95] ii. the recognition of the personal in christ in the second place, under this impulse of the sense of the value and sacredness of the person, theology is likely to insist on the recognition of the personal in the conception of christ. 1. _christ a personal revelation of god._--this recognition of the personal in christ will mean, first, that we are to conceive christ as a _personal_ revelation of god, rather than as containing in himself a divine substance.[96] it cannot forget, that if god is a person, and men are persons, the adequate self-revelation of god to men can be made only in a truly personal life; and that men need above all, in their relation to god, some manifestation of his ethical will, and this can be shown only in the character of a person. a merely metaphysical conception of the divinity of christ in terms of substance or essence, as these are commonly thought, must, therefore, wholly fail to satisfy. we must be able to recognize and bow before the personal will of the personal god revealed in christ, if we are really to find god through him. a strong sense of the personal, then, such as the social consciousness evinces, must see in christ, above all, a personal revelation of a person. 2. _emphasizing the moral and spiritual in asserting the supremacy of christ._--this implies that the dominant sense of the value and sacredness of the person will certainly tend to bring into prominence the moral and spiritual in asserting the supremacy of christ, rather than the metaphysical or the simply miraculous. so far as these latter come into its representation at all, they will follow rather than precede, and be accepted because of the moral and spiritual, or as simply working hypotheses enabling us to bring into a thought-unity what we have to recognize in the moral and spiritual realm. if one faces the matter fully and frankly, is it not plain that christians of all shades of belief are increasingly finding the real reason for their faith in christ in his moral and spiritual supremacy? many may choose to _express_ their faith in him, when once reached, in terms of the miraculous or metaphysical; but the miraculous and the metaphysical are not the primary _reasons_ for their faith. it is the inner spirit of christ himself which really masters us and calls out our confident faith and our eager submission. and it is only when we have already gotten this sense of the stupendousness of his personality, that the so-called miraculous in his life becomes to our thought natural and fitting, and we are driven to think him standing in some unique relation to god and so requiring to be conceived in unique metaphysical terms. it is easy, no doubt, to indulge in a false polemic against the miraculous and metaphysical. one of the surest bits of autobiography we have from christ, the narrative of the temptations, implies, as sanday has acutely pointed out,[97] the clear consciousness on the part of christ of the possession of what we call supernatural powers. it is a far less simple problem to rid the gospels of the miraculous element, than our age, with its greatly exaggerated estimate of the mathematico-mechanical view of the world, is likely to think. the so-called miraculous in connection with christ is not to be impatiently and dogmatically set aside.[98] so, too, the demand of thought, that we form finally some metaphysical conception of the great personality which we meet in christ cannot be denied as wholly illegitimate. all this is to be freely granted and asserted. but it is of the greatest importance for christian thought, that it still keep christ's own absolute subordination of both the miraculous and metaphysical to the moral and the spiritual. the same narrative of the temptation, that so clearly implies supernatural powers in christ, has its whole point in christ's answering determination absolutely to subordinate these supernatural powers to moral and spiritual ends. his whole ministry evinces the greatest pains upon this point. and he evidently thinks a theory of his metaphysical relation to god (as ordinarily conceived) of so little vital importance that even such slight hints as we get of it in the new testament apparently do not come from him at all. the present tendency, therefore, naturally demanded by the social consciousness, to emphasize the moral and spiritual in christ in asserting his supremacy, is quite in harmony with christ's own insistence. he will be followed for what he is in himself. the real supremacy of christ, his truest divinity, we may be sure, comes out for our time in those statements which we are able to make concerning his inner spirit. here, and here only, the real power of his personality gets hold upon us. what are these grounds of the supremacy of christ? how is it that we come to god through him? 3. _the moral and spiritual grounds of the supremacy of christ._[99]--(1) in the first place, _jesus christ is the greatest in the greatest sphere_, that of the moral and spiritual; and this, by common consent of all men. both the depth and the consensus of conviction concerning christ are profoundly significant. if our earth has ever seen one of whom it could be truly said, he is a moral and spiritual authority, preëminently the one great authority in this greatest sphere,--that person is jesus christ. seeing the moral problem more broadly than any other ever saw it, tracing the motives of life more deeply than any other ever traced them, applying those principles of the life which he sees with a tact and delicacy and skill that no other ever approached, speaking with an authority in this moral and spiritual sphere to which no other can for a moment lay claim,--this man is easily the greatest in the greatest sphere. it is, perhaps, to say only the same thing in a little different way, when one says with fairbairn, that christ is transcendent among founders of religion, "and to be transcendent here is to be transcendent everywhere, for religion is the supreme factor in the organizing and the regulating of our personal and collective life."[100] the present age is, more than any other, the age of the scientific study of religion. the last forty years, indeed, have seen such attention to the study of comparative religion as the world never saw before. what has been the outcome of that study? to make the relative position of jesus among the founders of religion lower? i do not so understand it. no, the outcome is such that it is a manifestly inadequate statement to say, that he is transcendent among the founders of religion. the very most that we may hope to say about the founder of any other religion is, that in some single particular at a long distance he can be brought into comparison with jesus. but let one think for a moment what it means for a man to be a founder of religion. we talk of leadership. do we know what a founder of religion does? he makes the light, in which millions of men look upon all the events of their life, in which they see the past of the world's history, in which they look forward to the entire future. the very mood and atmosphere of men's lives are determined by these founders of religion; and among these preëminent leaders, jesus, beyond all mistake, is transcendent. let the nature of his kingdom, too, be his witness. he calmly aims to found a kingdom that shall be spiritual, universal, eternal. one must face the fact that this man of nazareth in syrian galilee, purposes in coolness of deliberation to found a kingdom that shall be absolutely spiritual, that shall make no appeal to any of the lower elements of man; one must see that this man, in those temptations through which he passed concerning the form of his work, deliberately set aside the kingdom by bread, the kingdom by marvel and ecstasy, and the kingdom by force, and purposed to found a kingdom solely upon moral and spiritual forces. and observe that he confidently expects this kingdom to be universal--appealing to men of all races and of all times, and to be eternal--still standing when all else shall have passed away. and upon his belief in this character of his kingdom he stakes his life, and calmly gives to himself as the goal of his life the establishment of just such a kingdom; and remains to the end confident of his success. the mere vitality of will in such a purpose is hard to take in, and alone may well give us pause. and because he is the greatest in the greatest sphere, transcendent among founders of religion, the founder of a kingdom spiritual, universal, and eternal, he becomes for us a "personalized conscience," a spiritual, moral authority for us even beyond our own conscience--an authority that grows upon us with our growth, and submission to which is earth's highest moral test. (2) and there must be added to this first proposition, that jesus is the greatest in the greatest sphere, a second: _he alone is the sinless and impenitent one._ and it is to be noticed that it is this man who sees more clearly than any other the moral and spiritual, who knows, as no other does, what character is and what moral life means,--it is he, who claims to be the sinless one. no other ever intelligently made this claim; for no other was it ever intelligently made. the words of the great historian ranke seem to us to be simple truth when he says: "more guiltless and more powerful, more exalted and more holy has naught ever been on earth than his conduct, his life, and his death. the human race knows nothing that could be brought even afar off into comparison with it." only such an one could intelligently make for himself the claim of sinlessness. and for no other was this claim of sinlessness ever intelligently made. men know each other too well to make it for others when moral consciousness has fully awakened. but he fights his battle in the wilderness, and there is no record of failure so far as he himself can see it, and none that disciple ever ascribed. and this claim of sinlessness for christ is to be urged, not so much because of any special statements by christ as because of that remarkable fact to which dr. bushnell has called attention,--his impenitence. jesus alone among all good men is a man of "impenitent piety;" and by this he is marked off absolutely from every other good man. what happens in the life of any other good man is this: that, as he goes forward, the sense of sin grows upon him, the ideal rises before him and he feels increasingly that his own life is inferior to it. of jesus this is not true. he shows no sign of consciousness of failure. there is no evidence that he feels that he has fallen short in any degree. he is absolutely without that universal characteristic of all other good men, absolutely without penitence. contrast him for a moment with the man, who perhaps all would agree was the greatest of all his disciples, the man to whose devotion there seems to be no limit--the apostle paul; and notice, that years after his persecution of the church and of the cause of jesus, with growing sense of what jesus is, and of his own inexhaustible debt to him, there comes over him with increasing, not lessening, power the sense of his sin, and he writes to the ephesians, "unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given me that i might preach unto the gentiles the unsearchable riches of christ;" and in one of the very last letters that comes down to us from him, says again, "faithful is the saying and worthy of all acceptation, that christ jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom i am chief." what evidence have we that christ ever felt in the slightest degree such penitence? (3) but more than this is true. _with the highest ideal, jesus not only does not consciously fall short of it, but consciously rises up to it_, and, as herrmann says, "compels us to admit that he does rise to it." it were very much that a man with any ideal, however inferior, should be able to say to himself, i have not fallen short of this ideal; but that one, who sees more clearly than any other in the realm of the moral and spiritual, and who has an ideal of simply absolute love and of unbounded trust in god,--that he should show not only no consciousness of falling short, but should consciously rise to his ideal and compel us to admit that he rises to it: this is a fact unparalleled in the history of the world. it is far more than mere sinlessness; there is here a positiveness of moral achievement so great--a fact so tremendous--that we seem able but feebly to take it in. (4) and even that is not all. _jesus has such a character that we can transfer it feature by feature to god_, not only with no sense of blasphemy, not only with no sense of his coming short, but with complete satisfaction. i do not now ask at all as to any man's metaphysical theory about jesus christ; i only ask that it be noticed that those who question common theories altogether still get their ideal of god from jesus christ; and that this is the wonderful thing that has happened on our earth: that there has once lived a man--daily moving about among men, a concrete circumstantial account of whose life in many particulars we have--the features of whose character one can transfer absolutely to god and say, that is what i mean by god. one simply cannot add anything to the character of god himself in the highest moments of his imagination, that is not already revealed in jesus christ. i take it that the words of fairbairn are literally true: he was "the first being who had realized for men the idea of the divine." when, therefore, philip said to him, "lord, show us the father and it sufficeth us," he could only reply as he might any day to us, "have i been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the father." (5) and one cannot stop here. _jesus is consciously able to redeem all men._ with such sense of the meaning of sin and of moral conduct as no other ever had, understanding, therefore, the sin and need of men as no other ever did, and having such a vision of what it is perfectly to share the life of god as no other ever had, still, facing the masses of men, he could say to himself, "i am able to take these men and lift them into the very presence of god and present them spotless before the throne of his glory." have we taken in what it means, that, in the consciousness of a man in form like ourselves, there could be, even for a moment, the actual belief that he was the one that was to take away the sin of the world, and had power to redeem men absolutely unto god? in another's words: "jesus knows no more sacred task than to point men to his own person." he is himself god's greatest gift, himself "the way, the truth, the life,"--not only fighting his own battles, but consciously able to redeem all men. (6) this simply implies, as dr. denison has suggested, that _jesus has such god-consciousness and such sense of mission as would simply topple any other brain that the world has ever known into insanity_, but which simply keeps him sweet, normal, rational, living the most wholesome and simple and noble life the world has ever seen. how are we to explain that fact? on the one hand, the sense of being of even a little importance in the kingdom of god proves singularly intoxicating to men. how often, when one is strongly possessed by the idea that he is a special channel of manifestation for god, do moral sanity, influence, and character all suffer! on the other hand, there is no burden of suffering that men can bear so great as suffering in the sin of one loved--thus bearing the sin of another. but here is one who can believe that, when men come to him and simply see him as he is, they catch their best vision of god; here is one who bears consciously the sin of all men, and who can believe that he has absolute power to revolutionize the lives of other men and make them what they were meant originally to be, children of god; and yet, believing this, can, under that consciousness, keep sweet and normal, wholesome and simple, energetically ethical and thoroughly rational,--can keep sane. indeed, he lives a life so sane, that, to pass even from some of our best religious books into the simple atmosphere of the story of his life often seems like passing from the super-heated, artificially lighted, heavily perfumed and exhausted atmosphere of the crowded drawing-room into the open fresh air of day under the heaven of god. in the very act of the most stupendous self-assertion, jesus can still characterize himself as "meek and lowly of heart," and we feel no self-contradiction--so completely has he harmonized for even our unconscious feeling his transcendent self-consciousness and his humble simplicity of life. has the world anywhere a phenomenon comparable to this? (7) in consequence of all this, _jesus is in fact the only person in the history of the race who can call out absolute trust_. as little children, we knew something of what it meant to have complete trust. there were a few years when it seemed to us that there was nothing in either power or character that was not true of our fathers and mothers. we soon lost such trust, even as children. is there any way back to the childlike spirit? let us ponder these golden words of herrmann: "the childlike spirit can only arise within us when our experience is the same as a child's; in other words, when we meet with a personal life which compels us to trust it without reserve. only the person of jesus can arouse such trust in a man who has awakened to moral self-consciousness. if such a man surrenders himself to anything or any one else, he throws away not only his trust, but himself." there has been one life lived on earth, in whose hands one may put himself with absolute confidence and have no fear as to the result. jesus, and jesus alone, can call out absolute trust. (8) moreover, _jesus is the only life ever lived among men in whom god certainly finds us, and in whom we certainly find god_. and, once again, i am not now asking whether one is able to come to any theory of the nature of christ. that is a matter of comparative indifference. the great fact is this: that there has been lived among us men such a life that, if a man will simply put himself in the presence of it and stay there, he will have brought home to him with unmistakable conviction the fact that god is, and is touching him and that he is touching god; that, coupled with such a sense as he never had before of his sin, there will be also the sense of forgiveness and reconciliation with god, and so, such evidence of the contact of god with his life as he can find nowhere else. so harnack believes: "when god and everything that is sacred threaten to disappear in the darkness, or our doom is pronounced; when the mighty forces of inexorable nature seem to overwhelm us, and the bounds of good and evil to dissolve; when, weak and weary, we despair of finding god at all in this dismal world,--it is then that the personality of christ may save us." (9) and all this means, finally, that _jesus is for us the ideal realized_. let not the commonplaceness of the words rob us of their meaning. the fact is far enough from the commonplace. philosophy must always tell us that we have no right to expect anywhere a realized ideal, except in the absolute whole of things. certainly, we never find in any of the inferior spheres a fully realized ideal. what does it mean, then, that in this highest of all spheres, the sphere of the moral and spiritual life, we have the ideal realized; that our very highest vision is a fact? what is there that one would add to, what, that one would take away from, the life of christ, that it might be more completely than it is the ideal realized? "but thee, but thee, o sovereign seer of time, but thee, o poet's poet, wisdom's tongue, but thee, o man's best man, o love's best love, o perfect life in perfect labor writ, o all men's comrade, servant, king or priest,- what _if_ or _yet_, what mole, what flaw, what lapse, what least defect or shadow of defect, what rumor, tattled by an enemy, of inference loose, what lack of grace even in torture's grasp, or sleep's, or death's, oh, what amiss may i forgive in thee, jesus, good paragon, thou crystal christ?" 4. _christ's double uniqueness._--it seems hardly possible to do justice to the facts now passed in review, without recognizing, at least, that they point to a double uniqueness on the part of christ in his relation to god, reflected in his own language concerning himself and in the spontaneous confessions of his disciples in all times. he alone, in the emphatic sense, is _the_ son. the contrasts between christ and other men, which the simple facts of the life and consciousness of christ have compelled us to make, naturally, then, demand recognition from thought. the recognition of the facts _is_ the vital matter, but thought can hardly see them unmoved. how are we to _think_ of christ? with clear remembrance, now, that christian teaching itself insists upon the kinship of god and men; that absolute barriers, therefore, cannot anywhere be set up; that a revelation unrelated to all else could be no revelation; and that christ himself often pointed out the likeness between his own life and work and those of his disciples;--still we may not ignore actual differences, and must honestly strive to do justice to them in our own conception of christ. one may not forget that there is much here that we can hardly hope ever to fathom; and that into this secret of christ's relation to the father theology has often tried to press with a precision of statement that was quite beyond its possible knowledge, and that damaged rather than helped the religious consciousness; but one may try to think in simple, straightforward fashion what the facts mean. now these actual and momentous moral and spiritual differences already pointed out seem, at least, to assert, i say, a genuine double uniqueness in christ. christ's relation to god is absolutely unique, that is, in two senses: in the absolutely unique purpose of god concerning him; in the absolutely perfect response of christ to that purpose. if one chooses to use the language, he may say, that the first uniqueness is metaphysical; the second, ethical.[101] first, then, god has a purpose concerning christ, that he has concerning no other, for he purposes to make in him his supreme self-manifestation. this sets him apart from all others. his transcendent sense of god and sense of mission only correspond to the absolute uniqueness of this eternal purpose of god concerning him. we are utterly unable to see that they could be borne by any being that we know as man. he is the manifested god--"the visible presentation of the invisible god." this cannot be said, in the same sense, of any other. now, our only adequate statement of the inner reality--the essential meaning--of any being, can be given only in terms of the purpose which god calls that being to fulfil. to see, then, that god's purpose concerning christ is absolutely unique, and that god's purpose is, to make in christ the completest possible personal manifestation of himself, is to see that christ's essential relation to the father is absolutely his own, unshared by any other. and, it may be added, there is no reason why this purpose of god concerning christ should not be regarded as an eternal purpose, eternally realized. but christ is as clearly unique in his simply perfect response to this purpose of god. our facts seem to point directly to the conclusion, that in him there was no moral hindrance to the fullness of the revelation god would make through him. his life is perfectly transparent, allowing the full glory of the character of god to shine through it. the harmony of his will with god's will is complete. if it be said that this last uniqueness is, after all, only difference in degree from other men, it must be answered, first, that degree here is so vast as to be practically kind. this is the perfect of christ set over against the varyingly imperfect of all other men. moreover, to ask here for difference in kind in any other sense, is probably to make an unintelligent and impossible demand; for, in the nature of the case, the relations involved are spiritual and personal, and there cannot be, in strictness, in the fulfilment of such relations any real differences in kind. 5. _the increasing sense of our kinship with christ, and of his reality._--side by side with this recognition of the nature of christ's uniqueness, there deserves to be set, as another outcome of the emphasis upon conceiving christ as a personal revelation of god, the increasing sense of our kinship with christ and of his reality. the connection here is by no means accidental, though it may seem almost paradoxical. we have plainly come in our day to our clearest recognition of the divinity of christ through the sense of his transcendent character. but revelation in character requires the reality of his human life. the very route, therefore, by which we have most certainly reached our sense of christ's divinity, leads also to an increasing sense of kinship with christ, and so of his reality. so long as we seemed driven to conceive the divinity of christ in terms that had no relation and no meaning for human life, just so long must he seem to us to be really moving in another world and to take on the unreality of that other world quite hidden from us. but now christ's life has meaning; we can enter into it and feel that it is real. with all its transcendence, the life does not move now simply in the sphere of the mysterious. it is no unreal drama, no play-struggle,--utterly failing to meet our real moral and spiritual needs. least of all, in this supreme work for man, can the revealing life be only a show. it feels real. it is real. and, with clear sense of the inevitable inadequacy of the analogy, we still rest confidently in the conviction that god's relation to christ may be best conceived after the analogy of the relation of the spirit of god to our spirits; and that, when we try to press beyond that, we are attempting to rise into that sphere of a supposed supra-personal, for which we have no possible organ of vision, and where, therefore, we are thinking not more, but less, truly.[102] with this sense of the reality of the personal, spiritual life of christ, there naturally comes home to us the appropriateness and _practicability of his ideals_. they are seen to belong to us more surely, and properly to make demands upon us. it is, probably, not too much to say that, under the influence of the social consciousness, there has been a definite, growing approach to christ's way of thinking, and to his ideal of life. this means a consciousness increasingly christian in tone, and, therefore, in turn, increasingly better able to interpret the teaching and life of christ, and so to give promise of a more christian theology. none of us, probably, are fully conscious of the more subtle inconsistencies of even our best theological thinking, when measured by a completely christian spirit. at least, with the insistence upon christ as a personal revealer of a personal god, it must become more true that the meaning of all terms for the work of christ shall be more clearly reasonable, more consistently ethical, and more completely spiritual; and then the immediate rooting of christian theology in the christian religion can be seen and felt. iii. the recognition of the personal in god the sense of the value and sacredness of the person must lead to the special recognition of the personal not only in man and in christ, but also in god. we have already seen reasons for believing that the social consciousness is peculiarly bound strongly to emphasize the personality of god, as in the end absolutely essential to its own justification. the social consciousness represents an ethical movement that can live only in the atmosphere of the personal. 1. _the steady carrying through of the completely personal in the conception of god. guarding the conception._--this pressure of the social consciousness toward an imperative faith in the fully personal god is most valuable, as offsetting the tendency in many quarters toward a scientific or even idealistic pantheism or monism that is quite impersonal. "for," in the language of professor howison, "the very quality of personality is, that a person is a being who recognizes others as having a reality as unquestionable as his own, and who thus sees himself as a member of a moral republic, standing to other persons in an immutable relationship of reciprocal duties and rights, himself endowed with dignity, and acknowledging the dignity of all the rest."[103] as this is preëminently the spirit of the social consciousness, it is plain that we have in the social consciousness an increasingly powerful motive for guarding the full personality of god. it needs particularly to be noted, that we know no _definite_ "supra-personal." pantheism or any impersonal monism is forced, therefore, when it leaves the personal conception of god, to take a lower line of development, not a higher. the result is, that it is obliged to deny the highest attributes to god, and then, as browning is fond of arguing, man steps at once into the place of god. men cannot permanently remain satisfied with a philosophical view, of which that is the logical outcome. certainly, such a view can get no support from the social consciousness, with its deep conviction of the supreme value and sacredness of the person. moreover, it is not to be forgotten, in estimating the value of a cosmic monism, that what the cosmological really means, ethically and religiously, to a people, must always depend upon their social ideals. the natural in itself contains no command. for any effective vital interpretation, therefore, even of its impersonal absolute, pantheism is constantly thrown back upon the personal. only a clear, steady carrying through by theology of the completely personal in its conception of god can ultimately satisfy this sense of the value and sacredness of the person. professor nash does not speak too strongly when he says: "to fulfil her function the church must develop the doctrine of a divine personality. she has not always been true to it in the past. too often, by her sacraments, by her theology, by her theory of inspiration, she has glorified the impersonal."[104] now, such an attempt, it is perhaps worth saying once more, is not to be thought of as a running away from a thorough-going metaphysical investigation. it rather takes the ground, indicated in the earlier discussion, of what may be called, in professor howison's language, personal idealism; and holds that spirit, person, _is_ for us the ultimate metaphysical fact: the one reality to which we have immediate access; the reality from which all our metaphysical notions are originally derived; and, in consequence, the one reality which we can take as the key to the understanding of all else. and it believes that even essence and substance, the great words of the old metaphysics, can be really understood only as they are interpreted in personal terms. ultimately, theology would hold, this would mean the interpretation of the essence of things in terms of the purpose of god concerning them--what he meant them to be. in the attempt, then, clearly and steadily to carry through the conception of god as completely personal, theology may well guard carefully certain points. in the first place, theology does not mean to transfer to god human limitations; rather, it conceives him to be the only complete personality with perfect self-consciousness and full freedom, no part of whose being is in any degree foreign to himself. nor, in the second place, does it mean to forget that the personal relations in which god stands to other persons are unique, and that, in three definite respects: that conviction of the love of god, as of no other, must underlie, as a great necessary assumption, all our thinking and all our living; that god is himself the source of the moral constitution of man, which must thus be regarded as an expression of the personal will of god, and the personal relation to god so have universal moral implications such as no other personal relation can have; and in that god is such in his universal love for all, that it is impossible to come into right personal relation to god, and not at the same time come into right relation to all moral beings.[105] 2. _god is always the completely personal god._--if, now, theology is to do justice to the demands of the social consciousness for a full recognition of the personal in god, it must see clearly that god is _always_ the completely personal god. certain conclusions, not always admitted, are believed to follow from this position. (1) _the consequent relation of god to "eternal truths."_--in the first place, there can be no sphere of eternal truths, thought of as either created outright by the will of god, or as existing of themselves independently of god and only to be recognized by him. the difficulty is not merely that at least one of these views would put god in the same dependent relation to truth as we finite beings, and thus practically put a god above god. nor is the difficulty merely that it is impossible to think the real existence of such a sphere of eternal truth, since truths or laws can be said to exist only in one of two ways: either as the actual mode of action of reality, or as the perception and formulation in an observing mind of that mode of action. and these difficulties are both sufficiently serious. but, from our present point of view, the great difficulty is, that trying to conceive god as either creating or coming to the recognition of truth, assumes, as lotze points out, a _fragmentary_ god, a god for whom truth is _not yet_. it assumes an action of the will of god apart from his reason, that is, a god not yet completely personal, not yet the full god of truth and character. a god for whom truth and duty are not yet, is certainly no true person. most, if not all, of our metaphysical puzzles connected with the relation of god to what we call eternal truths, seem to me to grow out of this thought of an essentially fragmentary god. we are driven, consequently, to a denial of both the scotist and thomist positions, as ordinarily conceived. it is true neither that the truth is true and the good is good because god wills it, nor yet that god wills the true because it is true and the good because it is good. both views alike assume the possibility of a fragmentary god, a god for whom at some time truth and goodness were not yet. but god has _always_ been the completely personal god of truth and love, never a bare will and never a bare intellect. hence, neither as an independent object to be recognized, nor yet as the external product of his will, can we think of the realm of eternal truth and goodness. we must rather say, god alone is the eternal being and absolute source of all, always complete in the perfection of his personality; and, therefore, what we call the eternal truths are only _the eternal modes of god's actual activity_. this alone seems to the writer to give a thorough-going theistic view, free from self-contradiction.[106] (2) _eternal creation._--but, further, if god is to be thought as _always_ the completely personal god, we are led, also, immediately to the doctrine of eternal creation. if god has had always a completely personal life, his entire being must have been always in exercise. can we really think of such a god as simply quiescent, and not as always active? is not his activity involved in his complete personality? the thought of his possible quiescence arises probably out of an unconscious, but nevertheless unwarranted, transfer to god of our finite separation of will and act. but god is here, too, no fragmentary god; he has always been the completely personal god, always acting. a second consideration carries us to the same conclusion. theologians have felt that they have made a distinct step in advance in tracing creation to love in god, as, for example, principal fairbairn does. but this gives no real help as an explanation of creation as _beginning in time_; for one must at once ask, was not the love of god eternal, and if this were the real reason leading to creation, must not, then, creation be eternal? so far as i am able to see, there is nothing to lose and much to gain in clearness and satisfactoriness of thought in a frank acceptance of the doctrine of eternal creation. not, of course, in the sense of an eternal dualism, in the sense of the thought of an eternity of matter set over against god, but in the clear sense of the eternal creative activity of god. and to such a doctrine of eternal creation, the social consciousness, in its emphasis on the completely personal, seems to me to lead. (3) _the unity and unchangeableness of god._--and, once more, if god is always the completely personal god, we shall conceive his own unity not as monotonous self-identity, but only as consistency of meaning. we shall not, therefore, transfer to god, pluming ourselves meanwhile upon a highly philosophical view, the mechanical unchangeableness of a rock; but we shall be rather concerned with the consistency of his character and the unchangeableness of his loving will, which would be the very reasons for his changing, adapting attitude toward his changing children. from this point of view, too, the sphere of law and the sphere of the actual, will seem to us, necessarily, to root in the sphere of the ideal; the _is_ and the _must_, to rest in the _ought_; though we may not hope to trace the connections in detail. in a god, then, who is a completely harmonious person, never acting in fragmentary fashion, whose will and whose reason and whose love are never at cross purposes--only in such a god can the world find its adequate and unifying source. the world itself has real unity only in so far as it is the expression of the consistency of meaning of the purpose of god concerning it. and this same thought of the consistency of the meaning of the purpose of god, i have elsewhere argued,[107] saves us from the necessity of a self-contradictory conception of the miraculous or supernatural, by its recognition of the dominant spiritual order. it also enables us to see, with professor nash, if the word personal is given sufficient breadth, that "the true supernatural is the personal, and wheresoever the personal is discovered, whether in the life of conscience or the life of reason, whether in israel or greece, there the supernatural is discovered. upon this conception of the supernatural as the personal, apologetics must found the claims of christianity. the divine and the human personality stand within 'nature,' that is, within the total of being. but they both, the human as well as the divine, transcend the scope and reach of visible nature."[108] (4) _the limitations of the conception of immanence._--indeed, it ought to be clearly recognized on all sides by those who believe in religion at all, that we cannot so exclusively emphasize the immanence of god, as many are now doing, and have a god at all, beyond the finite manifestations. when the matter is so conceived, there is no real personal god with whom there can be any personal communion. religion, thus, in any ordinary sense of it, is by this process made simply impossible; positivism is the only logical result, and frederic harrison becomes the one sole, clear-sighted prophet among us, a lone voice crying in the wilderness. such an outcome is possible for any, because, and in so far as, they are not true to the social consciousness in its demand for the completely personal god, who, in martineau's language, is a genuinely "free spirit."[109] 3. _deepening the thought of the fatherhood of god._--but the influence of the social consciousness in its deepening sense of the value and sacredness of the person, of obligation and of love, not only tends to insist upon the completely personal in the conception of god, but also tends to deepen our thought of the fatherhood of god. (1) _history no mere natural process._--no mere on-going of an unfeeling absolute, whatever name be given it, will ever satisfy the social consciousness. the new sense of the sorrow and ethical meaning of the historical process demands, in the first place, that history shall not be regarded as a mere necessitated development, but a movement in which men effectively coöperate, never more consciously and clearly than to-day; and secondly, it demands a _god_ who cares, who loves, who guides. history cannot be a mere holocaust to god. (2) _god, the great servant._--rather, as we saw in the fourth chapter, the social consciousness requires a god whose purpose shall completely support its own purpose, and so requires us, with fairbairn, to put fatherhood before sovereignty, not sovereignty before fatherhood, and requires us definitely to conceive god after christ, as self-giving ministering love. it is one of the anomalies of christian history, that the church has been so slow to cast off a pagan conception of god, and to come to a truly christian view. we can hardly take in christ's own revelation of god without some sharing in his sympathy for men. some experience of our own is needed to unlock the revelation. and, so, the steady deepening of the social consciousness, both as to the value of the person and as to the sense of obligation, has certainly helped us to see that if god is to be highest, he must be love, and thus the great servant, with transcendent obligations, entering really and sympathetically into all our life. (3) _no divine arbitrariness._--with such a conception of god, every trace of arbitrariness disappears. calvinism, however strenuously insisted upon, means a far different thing for any man who really feels the pressure of the modern social consciousness, who has come to some real sense of the value and sacredness of the person, that is, who really sees god in christ. the great truth of calvinism, that god is the ultimate source of all, was perhaps never more secure than to-day; but that god, who is the absolute and ultimate source of all, is the fully personal god, whose will is never divorced from his reason and love, who knows no such abstraction as a bare and empty omnipotence without content or direction, but who is himself always living love. the bane of much so-called calvinism is in this supposition of a fragmentary god, like a motion without direction or rate of speed. arbitrary decrees are conceivable only from such a fragmentary god, not yet full and complete in his reality and personality. (4) _the passibility of god._--it would seem, also, that any vital defense of the fatherhood of god, required by the social consciousness, involves further the frank admission of the passibility of god, whether it has the look of an ancient heresy or not. we must unhesitatingly admit that, without which god can be no real god to us. "theology has no falser idea than that of the impassibility of god. if he is capable of sorrow, he is capable of suffering, and were he without the capacity for either he would be without any feeling of the evil of sin or the misery of man. the very truth that comes by jesus christ may be said to be summed up in the passibility of god."[110] with the growing sensitiveness of the social consciousness, the problem of suffering and of sin presses increasingly, and itself almost compels the assertion of the passibility of god. nothing less can satisfy our hearts, nor indeed allow us to keep our reverence for god. certainly, with the increasingly clear vision, which the social consciousness is giving us, of sympathetic, unselfish, definitely self-sacrificing, loving leadership even among men, we shall not rest satisfied with less in god. we must have a suffering, seeking, loving god; because our father, suffering in our sin, bearing as a burden the sin of each, and not satisfied while one child turns away; no mere on-looker, but in all our afflictions, himself afflicted. the cross of christ, then, is only an honest showing of the actual facts of god's seeking, suffering love. 4. _as to the doctrine of a social trinity._--one inference for theology widely drawn from the social consciousness, it ought in fairness, perhaps, to be said, seems to me unjustified,--the doctrine of a so-called "social trinity." one must question the constant cool assumption made in these discussions of a social trinity, that this view is the only alternative to what is called an "abstract simplicity." in any case, one would suppose, we must have in god all the richness and complexity of a complete personal life, freed from the limitations of finite personality. something of the much that that involves we have been trying to point out. here certainly is no "abstract simplicity." moreover, the conception of a social trinity, so far as the writer can see, carries us inevitably to a tritheism of the most unmistakable kind. "social" involves full personality. nothing requires more complete personality than love, which the view affirms to exist between the persons of the immanent trinity, between the distinctions in the very godhead. the relations of christ to god were, of course, distinctly and definitely personal; but it must not be forgotten that we are not permitted, on any careful theological view, to transfer these directly to the immanent relations of the godhead. the distinction drawn by dr. w. n. clarke,[111] between the doctrine of the biblical trinity and the doctrine of the triunity, i count of decided value; but after one has made the distinction, one may doubt the value of the contribution made by the doctrine of the triunity. the really immanent relations of the godhead are necessarily hidden from us, and are, also, so far as the writer can see, without ethical or religious significance for us, except in the way of possible injury through substituting some supposed altogether mysterious and incomprehensibly sacred, for the well-known and truly sacred shown in the ethical relations of common life. the doctrine of the triunity seems to have been originally intended to enable the church to hold the divinity of christ. if we now get at that and hold that from quite a different point of view, the older way becomes less essential. we must, indeed, keep the ancient treasure, but we need not keep it in the same ancient chest. none of us--not the most orthodox--really find the _reasons_ for holding the divinity of christ in the doctrine of the triunity. it is interesting to observe how widely separated from the doctrine of the triunity are the considerations which really move men to faith in the divinity of christ. that doctrine is, at the very most, only our philosophical supplement intended to bring that, which on other grounds we have come to believe, into unity with our thought of god. but, at least, we must so conceive the divinity of christ, as not to get two or three gods. and a "social trinity" does not seem to me to avoid that, except in terms. however, therefore, we are to solve our problem, we are not to take _that_ way out. what dr. clarke calls the biblical doctrine of the trinity, on the other hand, seems to me to contain the very heart of christianity, whatever philosophical theory we put beneath it; and it became, therefore, as expressed in the baptismal and benediction formulas, the great daily confession of the church, since it strongly expresses that of which we have been speaking,--the living love of god, a life of absolutely self-giving love, of eternal ministry. the biblical trinity is, in truth, what it has sometimes been called, the trinity of redemption; and, for me, directly emphasizes the great facts of redemption. here there are three great facts: first, the fatherhood of god, that god is in his very being father, love, self-manifesting as light, self-giving as life, self-communicating, pouring himself out into the life of his children, wishing to share his highest life with them, every one. second, the concrete, unmistakable revelation of the father in christ, revealed in full ethical perfection, as an actual fact to be known and experienced; no longer an unknown, hidden, or only partially and imperfectly revealed god, but a real, living god of character, counting as a real, appreciable, but fully spiritual fact in the real world. and, third, the father revealing himself by his spirit in every _individual_ heart that opens itself to him, in a constant, intimate, divine association, which yet is never obtrusive, but reverent of the man's personality, making possible to every man the ideal conditions of the richest life. what metaphysical theory we put under that confession of our full christian faith, does not seem to me to be of prime importance. men may count it of great importance; but it can hardly be of first importance, since, at the very most, only the beginnings of such a theory can be found in the great new testament confession of christ. 5. _preëminent reverence for personality, characterizing all god's relations with men._--but the very heart of the conviction, on the part of the social consciousness, of the value and sacredness of the person, is its _reverence for personality_; and this thought has much significance for theology, for, if this judgment of the social consciousness is justified, it must be regarded as preëminently characterizing god in all his relations with men. (1) _reflected in christ._--when, in the first place, we turn to christ as the supreme revelation of god, we cannot fail to see that this reverence for the personal marks every step he takes. it begins, of course, in the priceless value which christ gives to each person, as a child of the living, loving father. and it seems to determine his _whole method_ with his generation and with his disciples. it is shown in the initial battle in the temptations, as to the form his work was to take, and as to the means to be employed. there was here, as we have seen, from the start an absolute subordination of all unspiritual and unethical methods in the building of the kingdom. there is to be no over-riding of the free personality anywhere. he faced successively the temptations to place his dependence on the mere meeting of men's material needs--the kingdom by bread; the temptation to place his dependence on that which appealed most strongly to the oriental mind--the use of wonder-working power--the kingdom by marvel or ecstasy; the temptation to place his dependence on force--the kingdom by force. but christ sees clearly that god is no mere supplier of bread; that god is no mere wonder-worker, no mere giver of wonderful experiences; and that god is not a tyrant to conquer by force. everywhere, therefore, he sets aside whatever may override the free personality. he would replace all the attractive and seemingly rapid methods of the kingdom by bread, the kingdom by marvel, and the kingdom by force, with the slow and tedious and costly but reverent method of the spiritual kingdom by spiritual means, the kingdom of god by god's way--of a trust freely won, a humility spontaneously arising, a love gladly given. he can take no pleasure in any kingdom but one of free persons. in the same way, in his dealings with the inner circle of his disciples, there seems to have been the most scrupulous regard for their own needed initiative. he apparently makes no clear announcement of himself as messiah even to the disciples until late in his public ministry, and, then, only after they have been brought, through weeks, if not months, of unusually close personal contact and impression of his spirit, into their own confession of him. he steadily abjures, that is, all dogmatism about himself, and leads them along by a purely spiritual method to a confession of him, that may be truly their own. there is no piling up of proof-texts from the old testament, to show that he is the messiah. he seems never to have attempted any proof with his disciples. indeed, he seems purposely to have chosen the rather ambiguous title, "the son of man," that men might be left free to come by moral choice to him. the surpassingly significant fact, that christ's chief work in the establishment of the kingdom of god, as seems to me beyond doubt, was his personal association with a few men; that, probably, a full third, perhaps more, of his very brief so-called public ministry was taken up with a period of definitely sought comparative retirement with the inner circle of the disciples--all this points to the same recognition of the fundamental importance in christ's eyes of such a reverence for the person. the kingdom of god can be founded only by the full winning of free persons into his discipleship. the kingdom is first and last a kingdom of free persons, in dr. mulford's language, always a "republic of god." professor peabody's emphasis on the essential importance of christ's individualism, that "jesus approaches life from within, through the inspiration of the individual,"[112] it need not be said, goes upon the same assumption of christ's reverence for the person. in his really public ministry the same spirit appears; for jesus seems to me here constantly to be standing with a kind of moral shudder between the spirit of contempt in the pharisees and sadducees, and the outraged personality of the common people, even of the publicans and sinners. he feels the contempt even for these least, as a blow in his own face. that glimpse which the revelation gives us of christ standing and knocking at the heart's closed door, is a true picture forevermore not only of the attitude of christ's earthly life, but of god's eternal relation to us. men may over-ride and outrage us, and even think that they show the more love thereby; god, never. this principle, then, we may take as absolutely crucial, in our judgment of god's dealings with us. (2) _in creation._--it is fundamental even in creation. the very fact of the creation of persons implies it. such a creation can have no significance, if, in the language already quoted from howison, god's "consciousness is void of that recognition and reverence of the personal initiative of other minds which is at once the sign and the test of the true person." and if love is, for a moment, to be thought of as the motive of creation, it required for any satisfaction of it, persons who could freely respond to that love. the definite bestowal of the fateful gift of moral freedom, with the practical certainty of sin--the creation of beings who could choose against him--shows how deeply planted in the very being of god is this principle of reverence for the person. here, too, the impossibility of arbitrary divine decrees meets us. this would be treating a person as a thing, and god himself may not do that and remain god. if a man cannot see his way to a faith both in the divine foreknowledge and in the moral initiative of men, therefore, he must not hesitate to choose even the divine nescience of the free acts of men, rather than think of god as compelling men. our whole moral universe tumbles about our ears, if he who is the source of all is not in earnest with persons. and yet there is much theological thinking, of which the common notions of a personal reign of christ on the earth may be taken as an example, that practically looks to a kingdom by compulsion. a kingdom of free spirits cannot be merely decreed. (3) _in providence._--and this same principle of reverence for personality must be felt to be the guiding motive and key, as well, in the providence and government of god. god keeps his hands off. he must so act as to call out, not to suppress, individual initiative. this is, perhaps, the deepest reason for a sphere of law, that there may be a realm in which a person can have his own free development, uninterfered with by any moral compulsion. if, now, this sphere of law is to be any true training ground for character, as we saw in the third chapter, results must not be forthwith set aside, the mutual influence of men must hold all along the line. even in the case of great evils, god does not step in at once to set things right. character is an exceedingly costly product. this is no play-world, either as to mutual influence or as to freedom. god guards most jealously the freedom and personality of men. he never forgets that character must be from within. he will not accept, as christ would not, a faith compelled by "signs." hence, too, we are left to _ask_, and much is left to depend on our asking. so, also, god does not remove all difficulties and give sight in place of faith. he seems even careless, often, of how things go; for he would not only appeal to the heroic in us, but he wishes to make it impossible for us to confuse prudence and virtue in ourselves or others, and so to give us the opportunity and the joy of a real moral victory, of knowing that we have made a genuinely unselfish surrender to the right. in the light of this deep-lying principle of god's sacred reverence for the person, one learns to hush his former complaints, and with full heart to thank god that he lives in a world where righteousness and happiness do not always seem to fall together, and where, therefore, he can "serve god for naught." oh, let us know, that it is not that god does not care, but that he cares so much--too much to sacrifice to present comfort the character of the child he loves--too much to shut him out from his highest opportunity. (4) _in our personal religious life._--and the same principle holds in our personal religious life. the unobtrusiveness of god's relation to us, of which we often complain, is rather to be taken as evidence of his sacred respect for our own moral initiative, and proof of his careful adaptation to our moral need. wherever a strong personality is in relation to a weaker, the stronger must maintain a conscientious self-restraint, lest he dominate the personality of the other, to the other's moral injury and to the hindering of his individuality. it _is_ possible for a boy to be injuriously "tied to his mother's apron-strings." much more is it necessary that god's relation to us should not be obtrusive. god must guard our freedom and our individuality. he must even take pains to hide his hand, as a strong, influential, but wise friend would do. as we go higher, our life is and must be increasingly one of faith, the father's relation less and less obtrusive.[113] the times of vision are given to make us patient in our progress toward the goal. and after the vision comes often what rendel harris calls "the dark night of faith, when every step has to be taken in absolute dependence upon god and assurance that the vision was truth and was no lie."[114] we need the invisible god for character. it is for this reason, no doubt, that god makes so rare use of overwhelming experiences in the religious life. he would be chosen with clear and rational self-consciousness, and so he rarely overpowers. and even in experiences which seem most overpowering, if the person is really awake to their true ethical and spiritual import, they will probably be found delicately adapted to call out the individual's own response. but for most of us such experiences prove a real temptation, because we allow the passively emotional to absorb our attention, and so lose the ethical and spiritual fruit. where these marvelous experiences have been most marked, and have plainly given real help, they seem still, usually, to have been needed because of some false conception of god and the spiritual world that required a powerful corrective. here they seem really to have been granted, as probably the transfiguration of christ was to the disciples, as a concession to men's weakness, god consenting reluctantly to use for the time a lower line of appeal, because men are unable to rise to the higher appeal. we have already seen the danger of the neo-platonic over-estimation of emotional experience, and of sudden and magical crises in religion; and this danger is especially seen in much that is said concerning the work of the holy spirit. it seems as if it were simply true, for many earnest and sincere christians, that the superstitions, which they had conscientiously put aside elsewhere in religion, all came back in their thought of the work of the spirit. here their relation to god has ceased to be thought of as a personal or moral or truly spiritual one; and they are looking more or less definitely for bodily thrills, for marked and overwhelming emotional experiences, or for sudden transformations--hardly to be called transformations of character--in the passive half-magical removal of temptations altogether. that is, they are looking for moral and spiritual results from unmoral and unspiritual processes. the exact point is this: doubtless we are not narrowly to limit what the personal influence of the personal spirit of god may do in transforming human life--the possibilities probably far transcend what we think--but we are clearly to see that the relation is personal, that the influence is spiritual and under strictly ethical conditions, if we are to escape from simply pagan superstition. let us see that, if god is a personal spirit and not an impersonal substance, then, as herrmann says, he "communes with us through manifestations of his inner life, and when he consciously and purposely makes us feel what his mind is, then we feel himself."[115] and, then, let us add, as has been already earlier said, that the deepening life in the spirit becomes plainly a deepening personal friendship and communion with god, with laws--those of a growing friendship--that we may study and know and obey; and among these laws, none is of more central importance than this of the reverence for the person. (5) _in the judgment._--and when we turn to god's relation to us in the judgment, we can be sure, i think, of a further application of this principle, contrary to common teaching and expectation. we have no reason to look forward to a time when the secrets of all, or of any, hearts shall be laid bare to all. in so doing, god would violate, it seems to me, the principle of his entire dealing with men, and give the lie to his own revelation in christ and in history. for myself, dr. clarke's words carry immediate conviction: "no man needs to know the secrets of his neighbor, and be able to trace the justice of god through his neighbor's life, and no man who respects the sacredness of individuality will desire it. neither revelation of his own secrets nor knowledge of another's seems a good thing to a self-respecting soul."[116] even the judgment itself proceeds, no doubt, in clear recognition of the free personality. we are "judged by the law of liberty." and we really choose our own destiny, as phillips brooks suggests in one of his most striking paragraphs. "by this law we shall be judged. how simple and sublime it makes the judgment day! we stand before the great white throne and wait our verdict. we watch the closed lips of the eternal judge, and our hearts stand still until those lips shall open and pronounce our fate, heaven or hell. the lips do not open. the judge just lifts his hand and raises from each soul before him every law of constraint whose pressure has been its education. he lifts the laws of constraint, and their results are manifest. the real intrinsic nature of each soul leaps to the surface. each soul's law of liberty becomes supreme. and each soul, without one word of commendation or approval, by its own inner tendency, seeks its own place.... the freeing of souls is the judging of souls. a liberated nature dictates its own destiny. could there be a more solemn judgment seat? is it not a fearful thing to be judged by the law of liberty?"[117] and we may be most certain, that, in any judgment by god, there can be no thought of "human waste." the man must remain for god, to the end, a child of god, a person of sacredness and value, to be dealt with always as capable of character. and it is along just this line that, independently of exegetical grounds, it seems to me, we are led to a decisive rejection of the doctrine of annihilation. and i know no more convincing putting of the matter than this brief but comprehensive statement of fairbairn: "if there is any truth in the fatherhood, would not annihilation be even more a punishment of god than of man? the annihilated creature would indeed be gone forever--good and evil, shame and misery, penalty and pain, would for him all be ended with his being; but it would not be so with god--out of his memory the name of the man could never perish, and it would be, as it were, the eternal symbol of a soul he had made only to find that with it he could do nothing better than destroy it."[118] (6) _in the future life._--doubtless our difficulties are not at an end even so; but, at least, our conception of god is saved from self-contradiction; and the father is seen as suffering in the sin of the son, and perpetually desiring and seeking his return, never satisfied so long as any child of his still refuses his place in the father's love. this deep-going principle of reverence for personality, with which we are dealing, is the finest flower of human ethical development, and seems completely to shut out the possibility of compulsion by god at any time in the future life. a person will never be treated as a thing. the soul that turns to god must be won voluntarily. and if, then, the abstract possibility of endless resistance to god by men cannot be denied; so neither can the possibility--perhaps one might even say, the practical probability--be denied that god, in his infinite love and patience and wisdom, may finally win them all out of their resistance. and the eternal hope is at least open; but it is open, it should be noted, only upon the fulfilment by men of precisely those moral conditions which hold now in the earthly life, and which ought now to be obeyed. there will never be an easier way to god. it is shallow thinking that supposes that, if there be any possibility of turning to god in the future life, it is of small moment that one should now put himself where he ought to be. the full results of all our evil sowing, we must receive. the utmost that on any rational theory, then, can be held out to men, is the hope that, facing a greater heritage of evil than now they face, they might return to god under the same condition of absolute moral surrender, which now holds, and the fulfilment of which is now far more easily possible to them. and it ought not to be overlooked that, even if the principle of reverence for personality be much less far-reaching than is here affirmed, the annihilation of a soul by god could seem justified only upon the assumption that god foresaw the entire future, and knew that the soul would never turn to righteousness and god. but if the doctrine of annihilation is to be justified on _that_ ground, it is to be observed, that the same foreknowledge would have enabled god to know before creation all the finally incorrigible, if there were to be any such, and so he need not have called these into being at all. a goal, therefore, as great if not far greater, than that offered by the annihilation theory would be, thus, attainable simply upon the same assumption that must rationally be made by that theory, and, at the same time, the great objection to that theory--its violation of personality--would be avoided. it seems probable that this very principle of reverence for personality contains the chief reason why more has not been revealed to us concerning the future life. christianity is very far from satisfying our curiosity here. it gives little more than the absolutely needed assurance of the fact and worth of the life beyond. details are either quite lacking, or given only in broadest symbols. this reticent silence of revelation seems needed if our individual initiative is not to be hindered, either by excess of motive on the one hand, or by the depression of an unappreciated ideal on the other hand. on the one hand, that is, so far as we could understand a detailed revelation of the future life, to set it forth with the realism of the present life would be to interfere with that unobtrusive relation of god to us, which we have seen to be so necessary to our highest moral training. we need, in this time of our training, a certain obscurity of spiritual truth; we need to walk by faith, not by sight. to be able so obviously to weigh the eternal realities against the temporal, would hinder rather than help our growth in loyal, unselfish character. on the other hand, if a complete and indubitable revelation of the future life were given us, no doubt there would be much that could make but small appeal to us, and might even prove positively depressing, because we have not yet the experience which would interpret to us its meaning and open to us its joy. our earthly life may furnish us an analogy. the joy of a grown man is often preëminently in his work, but he would find it difficult to explain to a child the source of his joy. and if the child were told that there would come a time in a few years when his chief joy would be found in work, the prospect would probably not seem to him inviting. the wisest of us may be as little prepared to enter in detail into the meaning of the future life. we may be content to know that the future life is, and is of value beyond that which we can now understand; and we may be assured that at least what we have already seen to be the ideal conditions of the richest life,[119] as now we understand life, will be fully met in the future life. we can hardly doubt, therefore, that the two great centers of the life beyond must be association and work; though we may not know the precise forms that these will take, nor how greatly both may deepen beyond our present conception. steadily deepening personal relations, rooted in the one absolutely satisfying relation to god in christ, there must be; and work, in which one may lose himself with joy, because it is god's work. this, at least, the future life will contain. we can hardly go farther with assurance. but perhaps even this may suggest, that men may vary much in the proportionate emphasis laid upon these two great sources of life, and still alike come into a genuine and rewarding relation to god. that god has counted individuality among men to be of prime significance, the facts of creation hardly allow us to doubt. possibly it is only another application of this same principle of reverence for the person, in the recognition of that individuality which has its great joy in work, which is to be found in what professor george f. genung suggestively calls "an apocalypse of kipling." in kipling's poem to wolcott balestier, professor genung sees "the discovery of a religion, or assignable and eternally rewardable relation to god, in those whose inner life is not introspective or self-expressive." their spiritual life "serves god with the joy which comes of following and satisfying, in the sphere of his plans, the eager bent of a conquering will." "it is the religion of work and of daring." and "it is only in the open vision of an eternal world that their secular ardor, which was unconsciously serving god all along, begins to come to the perception of a transcendent master and to be transformed into an adoration, an obedience and loyalty, a 'will to serve or to be still as fitteth our father's praise.'" it is quite possible that through our very failure to enter into god's own deep reverence for the person, in the recognition of man's divinely given individuality, as well as through failure to recognize the essential like-mindedness of men, we have been shutting the door of hope, where god has not shut it, and have limited beyond warrant the divine mercy. even in the life of heaven men cannot be all alike. "who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. yea, he shall be made to stand; for the lord hath power to make him stand."[120] [92] _the limits of evolution_, p. x. [93] cf. above, pp. 22, 66, 106. [94] see especially bowne, _theory of thought and knowledge_, pp. 239, 377, 378; james, _the will to believe_, pp. 145 ff. [95] cf. above, p. 44 ff [96] see king, _reconstruction in theology_, pp. 241 ff. [97] hastings, _dictionary of the bible_, vol. ii, p. 626. [98] see king, _reconstruction in theology_, chaps. vi and vii. [99] i aim here to bring out with some fullness the significance of the propositions briefly summarized in the _reconstruction in theology_, p. 244; and i venture to repeat, also, two quotations from that book, because they fit so closely into the argument here. [100] _the place of christ in modern theology_, p. 378. [101] cf. king, _reconstruction in theology_, pp. 232, 233, 248, 249. [102] see king, _reconstruction in theology_, p. 209; and below, p. 209. [103] _the limits of evolution_, p. 7. [104] _ethics and revelation_, p. 270. [105] cf. king, _reconstruction in theology_, pp. 205 ff. [106] cf. lotze, _the microcosmus_, vol. ii, pp. 690 ff. [107] see _reconstruction in theology_, chapter vi. [108] _ethics and revelation_, p. 270. [109] see the fuller statement in the _reconstruction in theology_, pp. 96-108. [110] fairbairn, _the place of christ in modern theology_, p. 483. [111] _outline of christian theology_, pp. 161, ff. [112] _jesus christ and the social question_, p. 101. [113] cf. fairbairn, _the place of christ in modern theology_, pp. 434, 435. [114] _union with god_, p. 109. [115] _the communion of the christian with god_, p. 143. [116] _an outline of christian theology_, p. 464. [117] _the candle of the lord and other sermons_, p. 197. [118] _the place of christ in modern theology_, p. 467. [119] see above, pp. 68 ff. [120] romans 14:4. index abbott, lyman, reference to, 131. _american journal of theology, the_, reference to, 86. analogy of organism. see organism. annihilation, doctrine of, why rejected, 239 ff. arbitrariness, excluded in god, 220 ff. aristotle, quoted, 26; his position abandoned by mysticism, 56. association, personal, in redemption, 149 ff; in personal relation to god, 159 ff; in confessions of faith, 167 ff. assumption of the book, 3. atonement, in the light of social consciousness, 147 ff, 150 ff; the cost of, 150; substitution and propitiation in, 150 ff; analogy of father and child in, 154 ff; blood covenant applied to, 157. baldwin, j. m., reference to, 12. biblical trinity, 224, 225. blood covenant, as applied to doctrine of atonement, 157. böhme, jacob, referred to, 71. bowne, b. p., on causality and purpose, 43; on freedom, 182, 183. bradley, f. h., on the religious feeling in philosophy, 129. brooks, phillips, reference to, 28, 146; on the intellectual life of jesus, 81; on the emotional life of jesus, 84; on the universal interest of jesus, 124; on the likeness of men, 126; on judgment according to the law of liberty, 238. bruce's _the kingdom of god_, reference to, 52. bushnell, h., on impenitence of jesus, 193. calvinism, 220. causality and purpose, 42, 43. christ, see jesus. christian, the historically, emphasized by the social consciousness, 102 ff. christianity, as contributing to sense of mutual influences, 13; sometimes unconscious, 130. church, the, importance of the doctrine of, 177 ff. clarke, w. n., referred to, 116, 224; quoted, 132, 133, 152; on propitiation, 151; on doctrine of trinity and triunity, 223; on revelation of inner life at judgment, 237. common qualities and interests, most valuable, 177 ff. confessions of faith, christian fellowship in, 167 ff; uniformity in, impossible, 169 ff; and undesirable, 171 ff. corinthians, first, twelfth chapter of, as expression of analogy of organism, 23; against false mysticism, 60-61, 83. cornill, reference to, 64. creation, eternal, 214 ff; reverence for person in, 230 ff. creed, christian fellowship in, 167 ff; uniformity in, impossible, 169 ff; and undesirable, 171 ff. denison, j. h., referred to, 197. devotional literature, difficulty in, 84; referred to, 141. dewey, john, referred to, 12. drummond, h., reference to, 21; on sin, 140. du bois, patterson, on true spirit of fatherhood, 110. edwards, jonathan, referred to, 22. election, in paul, 116; a choice for service, 116. emotion, extreme emphasis on, a danger in mysticism, 71; cf. 135 ff. eternal creation, 214 ff. "eternal truths," god's relation to, 212 ff. ethical, the, in religion, 86 ff; proofs that religion must be, 89 ff. ethicizing of religion, 89 ff; involved in relation to christ, 89; the divine will in ethical command, 90; involved in nature of god's gifts, 91; communion with god through harmony with his will, 92; the vision of god for the pure in heart, 92; sharing the life of god, 93; christ, as satisfying our claims on life, 94; attraction to christ, ethically conditioned, 96; the moral law, a revelation of the love of god, 98. ethics and religion, 87, 89 ff. everett, c. c, criticism of nietzsche, 120. _expository times, the_, reference to, 64. fairbairn, a. m., his _the place of christ in modern theology_, mentioned, 110; on the christian consciousness, 112; referred to, 119, 196, 215, 234; on sense of sin, 143; on christ as transcendent, 189; on passibility of god, 221; on annihilation, 239. faith, necessity of, in life, 43, 44. faith in men, increased by sense of likeness, 128. father and child, the analogy of, applied to redemption, 154 ff. favorites, none with god, 116 ff. fellowship, christian, help of, in coming into kingdom, 159 ff; within the kingdom, 162 ff; in intercessory prayer, 164 ff; in confessions of faith, 167 ff. fiske, john, reference to, 21. freedom, in man, 181 ff; bowne on, 182, 183; references on, 182. fremantle, w. h., reference to, 141. friendship, laws of, as holding in religion, 67. future life; moral reality of, 132 ff; reverence for person in, 240 ff. galatians, epistle to, referred to, 83. genung, g. f., on "an apocalypse of kipling," 245. giddings, f. h., reference to, 9, 10, 19, 20, 62, 117; on the "social mind," 138. god, immanence of, as related to social consciousness, 40 ff; his will, ethical basis of social consciousness, 44 ff; sharing in our life, 48; will of, felt in ethical command, 90; his gifts require ethical attitude to receive them, 91, 92; our sharing his life, 93; we cannot do his will in general, 100; a thoroughly personal conception of, needed, 207 ff; guarding the conception of, 208 ff, 211; suprapersonal in, 209; nash on doctrine of personality of, 210; always completely personal, 212 ff; relation to eternal truths, 212 ff; as eternally creating, 214 ff; unity and unchangeableness of, 216 ff; limiting conception of immanence of, 217 ff; deepening thought of fatherhood of, 218 ff; as the great servant, 219; no arbitrariness in, 220; passibility of god, 221; trinity in, 222 ff. grahame, kenneth, on love, 123; referred to, 124. harnack, a., on christ, 200. harris, j. r., quoted, 234. hegel, on greatest in art, 119. heredity, not to be over-emphasized, 37; james, on, 37, 38. herrmann, w., referred to, 22, 70, 173; his definition of mysticism, 56, 57; on pantheistic tendency in mysticism, 58, 74; on our satisfaction in christ, 94; on the help of the fellowship of the church, 161; on christ's rising to his ideals, 194; on christ's calling out absolute trust, 199; on personal relation to god, 237. historical, the, under-estimated by mysticism, 72. historical justification needed by social consciousness, 59 ff, 102 ff. historically, the, christian, emphasized by the social consciousness, 102 ff. history, no mere natural process, 218 ff; god in, vii, 219. holy spirit, doctrine of, often made superstitious, 236. honesty of the world, double meaning of, 80. hope for men, increased by sense of likeness, 128. hosea, as illustration of inter-play of human and divine relations, 68. howells, w. d., his _a boy's town_, quoted, 118; referred to, 123. howison, g. h., on the person, 180, 208, 230; referred to, 210. humanity, idea of, from christianity, 13. ideal view, requires the facts of the social consciousness, 29 ff, 32 ff. imitation, to be avoided, 172 ff. immanence of god, as metaphysical ground of facts of social consciousness, 40 ff; lotze on, 40, 41; limitations in conception of, 217 ff. "immortability," discussed, 124 ff. immortality, j. s. mill on, 50; sully on, 50; doctrine of, as affected by sense of likeness of men, 124 ff; references on, 125. indian mysticism, 74. israel, significance of its social struggle, 63; ecstasy among its prophets, 64. james, william, on heredity, 37; on metaphysics, 40; on sense of reality, 72; on nitrous-oxide-gas intoxication, 74; on the world as a confusion, 78; reference to, 79, 122, 124, 126; on compensations, 117; on varied ideals, 128; on catching faith and courage, 147. jesus, brooks on his intellectual life, 81; on his emotional life, 84; relation to, necessarily ethical, 89, 94, 96; satisfies our highest claims on life, 94; his social emphases, 111 ff; brooks on his interest in the uninteresting, 124; the great christian confession, 174 ff; loyalty to, best assurance for doctrine, 175; the personal in, 184 ff; a personal revelation of god, 184 ff; the moral and spiritual in his supremacy, 185 ff; grounds of his supremacy, 188 ff; among founders of religion, 189 ff; his sinlessness, 192 ff; his impenitence, 193; rises to highest ideals, 194 ff; shows character of god, 195 ff; consciously able to redeem all men, 196; transcendent god-consciousness and sense of mission, 197 ff; calls out absolute trust, 198 ff; in him god certainly finds us, 199 ff; the ideal realized, 200 ff; his double uniqueness, 201 ff; sense of kinship with, and reality of, 205 ff; divinity of, as related to trinity, 224; reverence for person in, 226 ff. judgment, according to light, 132 ff; how god's can be favorable, 153 ff; reverence for person in, 237 ff; according to law of liberty, 238 ff. kaftan, j., referred to, 86. keim, quoted, 52. king, references to his _reconstruction in theology_, 16, 20, 23, 43, 67, 185, 187, 188, 203, 205, 212, 217, 218. kipling, r., on the value of the common, 119; g. f. genung on, 245. lanier, s., quoted, on christ, 201. leibnitz, referred to, 172. life, the richest, ideal conditions of, 68 ff. like-mindedness of men, 9 ff; an element of social consciousness, 9 ff, 47; influence on theology, 115 ff; summary on, 134; seen under diverse forms, 121 ff. lotze, reference to, 13, 25, 31, 42, 213, 214; on passion for construing everything, 25, 26; on immanence of god, 40. love, sense of, 20; element in social consciousness, 20, 51; as motive in creation, 215. man, the personal in, 180 ff; separateness from god, 180 ff; freedom in, 181 ff; a child of god, 183 ff. matheson, george, on sacrifice, 49. mcconnell, s. d., objection to one part in his argument as to immortality, 124 ff. mccurdy, on the significance of the social struggle in israel, 63. metaphysical, not to be emphasized, in conception of christ, 185 ff; how to be thought, as to christ, 203, 204; in doctrine of trinity, 226. mill, j. s., on immortality, 50. moral world, prerequisites of, 30 ff; sphere of law, 30; ethical freedom, 30; some power of accomplishment, 31; members one of another, 32. mistiness in mysticism, 73. moral initiative in men, 181 ff. moral law, a revelation of the love of god, 98. mulford, e., referred to, 229. münsterberg, h., referred to, 79; reference to his _psychology and life_, 79. mutual influence of men, 11 ff; contributing lines of thought, 11 ff; threefold form of the conviction, 13 ff; as element of social consciousness, 11 ff, 50; influence upon theological doctrine, 136 ff; for good, 144 ff; in attainment of character, 145 ff; in personal relation to god, 160 ff; in confession of faith, 167 ff. mystical, the falsely, opposition of the social consciousness to, 55 ff, 57 ff; nash's definition of, 55, 56; herrmann's definition of, 56, 57; unethical, 58; no real personal god, 58; belittles personal in man, 59; paul's rejection of, 60, 61; leaves historically christian, 62 ff. mystical, the truly, emphasized by the social consciousness, 66 ff, 70 ff; requires laws of a deepening friendship, 67; requires ideal conditions of the richest life, 68; protest in favor of whole man, 78 ff; its self-controlled recognition of emotion, 82 ff. mysticism, its relation to the social consciousness, 55 ff; false, 55 ff; true, 66 ff, 70 ff; justifiable and unjustifiable elements in, 71 ff; its dangers: emotionalism, 71; subjectivism, 72; under-estimating historical, 72; mistiness, 73; pantheism, 73 ff; symbolism, 76. justifiable elements in, summed up, 77. nash, h. s., on ethical basis of social consciousness in will of god, 45 ff; his definition of the mystical, 55, 56; referred to, 70; on doctrine of divine personality, 210; on the supernatural, 217. neo-darwinian school, referred to, 37. neo-platonic mysticism, 55 ff, 74. _new world, the_, reference to, 12, 120. neitzsche, criticism of, by everett, 120. obligation, sense of, 18 ff; element in social consciousness, 18, 51. organism, analogy of, 23 ff; value of, 23; classical expression in i cor. 12; inadequacy of, for social consciousness, 24 ff: comes from the sub-personal world, 24; access to reality only through ourselves, 24; mistaken passion for construing everything, 25; tested by definition of social consciousness, 26 ff. orr's _the christian view of god and the world_, reference to, 51. pantheism, tendency to, in mysticism, 58, 74. paul, his rejection of the falsely mystical, 60, 61, 83. paulsen, on key to reality, 25; reference to, 30, 129; on necessity of faith, 46, 47. peabody, f. g., referred to, 65; on the social principles of jesus, 111; on christ's individualism, 229. person, value of, 16 ff, 50; influence of sense of value of, on theology, 179 ff; reverence for, characterizing all god's relation to men, 226 ff. personal, the, recognition of, 179 ff; recognition of, in man, 180 ff; recognition of, in christ, 184 ff; recognition of, in god, 207 ff. "personal idealism," 180, 181, 210. personal relation, in religion, emphasized by social consciousness, 66 ff; leads to the truly mystical, 70 ff. philo, as representative of mysticism, 55. _philosophical review, the_, reference to, 40. philosophy, as contributing to sense of mutual influence, 12. plato, his position abandoned by mysticism, 56. plotinus, as representative of mysticism, 55. prophets, the, their standpoint abandoned by philo, 55; their sense of the significance of the social struggle in israel, 63; ecstasy in, 64. propitiation, ethical meaning of, 150 ff, 156, 158 ff. providence, reverence for person in, 232 ff. psychology, as contributing to sense of mutual influence, 12. purpose and causality, 42, 43. race-connection, not prime cause of unity of men, 35 ff. race, real unity of, 136 ff; its solidarity, how conceived, 16, 35, 30, 137. ranke, on christ, 192. rational, two senses of, 80. _reconstruction in theology_, references to, 16, 20, 23, 43, 67, 185, 187, 188, 203, 205, 212, 217, 218. redemption, as viewed from point of view of mutual influence for good, 147 ff; the cost of, 150; substitution and propitiation in, 150 ff. religion, and theology, 6, 113; influence of the social consciousness upon, 53 ff, 70 ff; the personal relation in, emphasized by the social consciousness, 66 ff; its thorough ethicizing demanded by social consciousness, 86 ff; and ethics, 87; a supreme factor in life, 189. reverence for the person characterizing all god's relations to men, 226 ff; reflected in christ, 226 ff; in creation, 230 ff; in providence, 232 ff; in the personal religious life, 233 ff; in the judgment, 237 ff; in the future life, 240 ff. ritschl, a., referred to, 137. royce, josiah, reference to, 12. sabatier, a., reference to, 171. sanday, w., reference to, 187. schiller, f. c, s., reference to, 40. science, as contributing to sense of mutual influence, 11. scotist position as to god, 213. separateness from god, meaning of, 180 ff. sin, sense of, deepened by social consciousness, 139 ff; drummond on, 140; lack of sense of, among greeks, 140; when most feared, 143. smith, g. a., reference to, 64. social consciousness, definition, 9 ff; elements in, 9 ff; meaning of, for theology, 5 ff; analogy of organism, inadequate for, 24 ff; analogy, tested, 26 ff; necessity of its facts for ideal interests, 29 ff; the question, 29; else, no moral world, 30 ff, 32 ff; ultimate explanation and ground of, 35 ff; metaphysical ground, 35 ff: not due to physical race-connection, 35 ff; nor primarily to heredity, 37 ff; nor to mystical solidarity, 37 ff; but to immanence of god, 40 ff; ethical basis, 44 ff; supporting will of god, 44; nash on, 45; paulsen on, 46; god's sharing in our life, 48 ff; consequent transfiguration of, 49 ff. its influence upon religion, 53 ff; opposed to the falsely mystical, 57 ff; emphasizes personal relation in religion, and so the truly mystical, 66 ff; demands the ethicizing of religion, 86 ff; needs historical justification, 102 ff; its influence upon theological doctrine, 105 ff: general results, 105 ff; influence of like-mindedness of men, 115 ff; of mutual influence of men, 136 ff; of sense of value of person, 179 ff. "social mind," real meaning of, 138; giddings on, 138. "social trinity," 222 ff. solidarity, a mystical, not to be pressed, 39. solidarity of race, often falsely conceived, 16, 35, 39, 137 ff. stevenson, r. l., on the poetical and ideal in men, 122; referred to, 123, 124. subjectivism, tendency to, in mysticism, 72. substitution, ethical meaning of, 150 ff, 158 ff. sully, j., on immortality, 50. supra-personal, the, in god, 209. symbolism, strong tendency to, in mysticism, 76. sympathy with men, increased by sense of likeness, 127. tennyson, his self-hypnotism, 74. theme of the book, 1 ff. theologian, the, an interpreter, 5; a believer in the supremacy of spiritual interests, 6; assumes the fact of religion, 6; assumes a personal god, 7; takes point of view of christ, 7. theologian's, the, point of view, 5 ff. theology, and religion, 6, 113; in personal terms, 106 ff; fatherhood of god, determining principle in, 109; as influenced by social consciousness, 105 ff; general results in, 105 ff; influence of likeness of men on, 115 ff; influence of mutual influence of men on, 136 ff; influence of value of person on, 179 ff. thomist position as to god, 223. trinity, doctrine of, 222 ff; biblical, 224, 225. "trinity, social," 222 ff. tritheism, involved in a real social trinity, 222 ff. triunity of god, doctrine of, 223 ff. "truths, eternal," god's relation to, 212 ff. unchangeableness of god, 216 ff. unconscious christianity, 130. uniqueness, a double, in christ, 201 ff; metaphysical, 203, 204; ethical, 204, 205. value and sacredness of person, 16 ff; sense of, element in social consciousness, 16, 50. weismann, referred to, 37. transcriber's notes: page 182, "god" changed to "god". inconsistent hyphenation retained. apparent printer's punctuation errors corrected. italics indicated by _underscores_ and transliterated greek by +plus signs+. [transcriber's note: the plus (+) symbol is used in this etext to indicate bolded text.] the new theology by r. j. campbell, m.a. minister of the city temple, london new york the macmillan company 1907 _all rights reserved_ copyright, 1907, by the macmillan company. set up and electrotyped. published march, 1907. reprinted april, 1907. introduction this book has been undertaken at the request of a number of my friends who feel that recent criticisms of what has come to be called the new theology ought to be dealt with in some comprehensive and systematic way. with this suggestion my own judgment concurs, but only so far as my own pulpit teaching is concerned. i cannot pretend to speak for anyone else, and therefore this monograph must not be understood as an authoritative exposition of the views held and expounded by other preachers who may be in sympathy with the new theology. from its very nature, as i hope the following pages will show, the new theology cannot be a creed, but its adherents have a common standpoint. my only reason for calling this book by that title is that a considerable section of the public at present persists in regarding me as in a special way the exponent of it; indeed from the correspondence which has been proceeding in the press it is evident that many people credit me with having invented both the name and the thing. it is of little use objecting to the name, for to all appearance it has come to stay and is gradually acquiring a marked and definite content. so long as it is clearly understood that this book is but an outline statement of my own personal views, the title will do no harm. the controversy which is not yet over has been fruitful in misunderstandings of all kinds, and a great many of the criticisms passed upon my teaching have been wholly due to a mistaken notion of what it really is. in so far as any of those criticisms have been directed against me personally, i have nothing to say; i hope i can leave my vindication to the judgment of whatever public may feel an interest in my work. the best rejoinder that could be made to the various criticisms of the teaching itself would be to publish them side by side, for they neutralise one another most effectually. but a better and more useful thing to do is to let the public know just what the teaching is and leave it to the test of time. i do not greatly object to having it described as "new." the fundamental principle of the new theology is as old as religion, but i am quite willing to admit that in its all-round application to the conditions of modern life it is new. i do not see why a man should be ashamed of confessing that he does his own thinking instead of letting other people do it for him. this book, then, is not the author's _apologia pro vita sua_. it is intended as a concise statement of the outlines of the teaching given from the city temple pulpit. it is neither a reply to separate criticisms nor an _ex cathedra_ utterance. i think i am usually able to say what i mean, and in the following pages my object is to say what i mean in such a way that everyone can understand. contents chapter i. the name and the situation ii. god and the universe iii. man in relation to god iv. the nature of evil vi. the eternal christ vii. the incarnation of the son of god viii. the atonement.--i. association of the doctrine with jesus ix. the atonement.--ii. semitic ideas of atonement x. the atonement.--iii. the doctrine in christian history and experience xi. the authority of scripture xii. salvation, judgment, and the life to come xiii. the church and the kingdom of god xiv. conclusion the new theology chapter i the name and the situation +religion and theology.+--religion is one thing and theology another, but religion is never found apart from a theology of some kind, for theology is the intellectual articulation of religious experience. every man who has anything worthy to be called a religious experience has also a theology; he cannot help it. no sooner does he attempt to understand or express his experience of the relations of god and the soul than he finds himself in possession of a theology. the religious experience may be a very good one and the theology a very bad one, but still religion and theology are necessary to each other, and it is a man's duty to try to make his theology as nearly as possible an adequate and worthy expression of his religion. he will never succeed in doing this in a permanent fashion, for the content of religious experience is, or should be, greater than any form of statement. but theology is everyone's business. we cannot afford to leave it to experts or refrain from forming our own judgment upon the pronouncements of experts. to speak of theology as though it had an esoteric and an exoteric side, one for the man in the study and the other for the man in the world, is a practical heresy of a most dangerous kind. neither should theology be confounded with ecclesiasticism. it is my conviction that the battle with ecclesiasticism has long since been decided, and civilisation has nothing to fear from the official priest. those who spend their time in protesting against sacerdotal pretensions are only beating the air--"we shall never go to canossa," as bismarck said. no, the real danger to spiritual religion, and therefore to the immediate future of mankind in every department of thought and action, arises from practical materialism on the one hand and an antiquated dogmatic theology on the other. i hope it will be understood by readers of these pages that in any references i may make to dogmatic theology i am passing no reflection upon the scientific theologian whose work is being done in the field of historical criticism or archaeology or any of the departments of scientific research into the subject-matter of religion. most of my readers will understand quite well what i mean. everyone knows that, broadly speaking, certain ways of stating christian truth are taken for granted both in pulpit and pew; the popular or generally accepted theology of all the churches of christendom, catholic and protestant alike, is fundamentally the same, and somehow the modern mind has come to distrust it. there is a curious want of harmony between our ordinary views of life and our conventional religious beliefs. we live our lives upon one set of assumptions during six days of the week and a quite different set on sunday and in church. the average man feels this without perhaps quite realising what is the matter. all he knows is that the propositions he has been taught to regard as a full and perfect statement of christianity have little or nothing to do with his everyday experience; they seem to belong to a different world. he does not know how comparatively modern this popular presentation of christianity is. what is wanted therefore is a restatement of the essential truth of the christian religion in terms of the modern mind. _the new theology and the immanence of god._--where or when the name new theology arose i do not know, but it has been in existence for at least one generation. it is neither of my invention nor of my choice. it has long been in use both in this country and in america to indicate the attitude of those who believe that the fundamentals of the christian faith need to be rearticulated in terms of the immanence of god. those who take this view do not hold that there is any need for a new religion, but that the forms in which the religion of jesus is commonly presented are inadequate and misleading. what is wanted is freshness and simplicity of statement. the new theology is not new except in the sense that it seeks to substitute simplicity for complexity and to get down to moral values in its use of religious terms. our objection is not so much to the venerable creeds of christendom as to the ordinary interpretations of those creeds. and, creeds or no creeds, we hold that the religious experience which came to the world in jesus of nazareth is enough for all our needs, and only requires to be freed from limiting statements in order to lay firm hold once more upon the civilised world. the new theology is an untrammelled return to the christian sources in the light of modern thought. its starting point is a re-emphasis of the christian belief in the divine immanence in the universe and in mankind. this doctrine is certainly not new, but it requires to be placed effectively in the foreground of christian preaching. in the immediate past the doctrine of the divine transcendence--that is, the obvious truth that the infinite being of god must transcend the infinite universe--has been presented in such a way as to amount to a practical dualism, and to lead men to think of god as above and apart from his world instead of expressing himself through his world. i repeat that this dualism is practical, not theoretical, but that it exists is plain enough from such statements as that of the present-day theologian who speaks of god's "eternal eminence, and his descent on a created world." this kind of theologising leads straight to the conclusion that god is to all intents and purposes quite distinct from his creation, although he possesses a full and accurate knowledge of all that goes on in it and reserves to himself the right to interfere. in what sense language like this leaves room for the divine immanence it is difficult to see. the new theology holds that we know nothing and can know nothing of the infinite cause whence all things proceed except as we read him in his universe and in our own souls. it is the immanent god with whom we have to do, and if this obvious fact is once firmly grasped it will simplify all our religious conceptions and give us a working faith. +the decline of organised christianity.+--for a generation or more in every part of christendom there has been a steady drift away from organised religion as represented by the churches, and the question is being seriously asked whether christianity can much longer hold its own. protestant controversialists frequently draw attention to the decline of church-going in latin countries as evidence of the decay of sacerdotalism, particularly in the church of rome. but outside latin countries it is not one whit more noticeable in the church of rome than in any other church. the masses of the people on the one hand and the cultured classes on the other are becoming increasingly alienated from the religion of the churches. a london daily paper made a religious census some years ago and demonstrated that about one-fifth of the population of the metropolis attended public worship, and this was a generous estimate. women, who are more emotional, more reverent, and more amenable to external authority than men, usually form the majority of the worshippers at an ordinary service. mr. charles booth in his great work on the "life and labour of the people in london" asserts that the churches are practically without influence of any kind on the communal life. this i believe to be an exaggeration, but it will hardly be denied that the average working, business, or professional man looks upon the churches almost with indifference. in many cases this indifference passes into hostility or contempt. intelligent men take little notice of preachers and sermons, and the theologically-minded layman is such a rarity as to be noteworthy. most significant of all, perhaps, is the fact that much of the moral earnestness of the nation and of social redemptive effort exists outside the churches altogether. i am well aware that there is a great deal of snarling criticism of the churches which springs from selfish materialism, and i gladly recognise that in almost any ordinary church to-day brave and self-denying work is being done for the common good, but this does not invalidate my general statement. the plain, bald fact remains that the churches as such are counting for less and less in civilisation in general and our own nation in particular. one of the ablest of our rising young members of parliament, a man of strong religious convictions and social sympathies, recently declared that we were witnessing the melancholy spectacle of a whole civilisation breaking away from the faith out of which it grew. to be sure, the same thing has been said before and has proved to be wrong. it was said in the eighteenth century when men with something of the prophet's fire in them preached the gospel of the rights of man, declaring at the same time that institutional religion was at an end, utterly discredited, and impossible of acceptance by any intelligent being. in france during the revolution the populace turned frantically upon the established faith, tore it to shreds, burlesqued it, and set up the worship of the goddess of reason, as they called it, typified by a parisian harlot. in england a devitalised deism laid its chilly hand not only upon the world of scholars and men of letters, but even upon the church. an english king is reported to have said that half his bishops were atheists. and yet, somehow, religion reasserted itself all over the civilised world. napoleon with shrewd insight realised that the people could not do without it, and so effected the concordat with rome which has now been dissolved; wesley began the movement in england which has since created the largest protestant denomination in the world; germany produced a succession of great preachers and scholars the like of whom had hardly ever been known in europe before. +will religious faith regain its power?+--will this happen again? for assuredly christianity has for the moment lost its hold. can it recover it? i am sure it can, if only because the moral movements of the age, such as the great labour movement, are in reality the expression of the christian spirit, and only need to recognise themselves as such in order to become irresistible. the waggon of socialism needs to be hitched to the star of religious faith. but have the churches spiritual energy enough to recover their lost position? that depends upon themselves. if they consent to be bound by dogmatic statements inherited from the past, they are doomed. the world is not listening to theologians to-day. they have no message for it. they are on the periphery, not at the centre of things. the great rolling river of thought and action is passing them by. scientific scholarship applied to the study of christian origins is extremely valuable, but the defender of systems of belief couched in the language of a by-gone age is an anachronism and the sooner we shake ourselves free of him the better. the greatest of all the causes of the drift from the churches is the fact that christian truth has become associated in the popular mind with certain forms of statement which thoughtful men find it impossible to accept not only on intellectual but even on moral grounds. certain dogmatic beliefs, for example, about the fall, the scriptural basis of revelation, the blood-atonement, the meaning of salvation, the punishment of sin, heaven and hell, are not only misleading but unethical. what sensible man really believes in these notions as popularly assumed and presented, and what have they to do with christianity? they do not square with the facts of life, much less do they interpret life. they go straight in the teeth of the scientific method, which, even where the christian facts are concerned, is the only method which carries weight with the modern mind. the consequence is that religion has come to be thought of as something apart from ordinary everyday life, a matter of churches, creeds, and bible readings, instead of what it really is,--the coördinating principle of all our activities. to put the matter in a nutshell,--popular christianity (or rather pulpit and theological college christianity) does _not_ interpret life. consequently the great world of thought and action is ceasing to trouble about it. +theologians and preachers rarely realise the situation.+--one would think that the men whose business it is to teach religious truth would see this and ask themselves the reason why. to an extent they do see it, but they never seem to think of blaming themselves for it except in a perfunctory kind of way. they talk about religious indifference, the need for better and more effective methods, and so on. the professional theologian rarely does even as much as this. he takes himself very seriously; sniffs and sneers at any suggestion of deviation from the accepted standards; mounts some denominational chair or other and thunders forth his view of the urgent necessity for rehabilitating truth in the grave-clothes of long-buried formulas. i mean that the language he habitually uses implies some kind of belief in formulas he no longer holds. he hardly dares to disinter the formulas themselves,--that would not be convenient even for him,--but he goes on flapping the shroud as energetically as ever, and the world does not even take the trouble to laugh. wherever and whenever religious agencies succeed it is rarely because of the driving power of what is preached, but because the preacher's gospel is glossed over or put in the background. we have popular services by the million in which devices are used to attract the public which ought not to be necessary if their framers had any real message to declare. but they have not. popular pulpit addresses rarely or never deal with the fundamental problems of life. the last thing one ever expects to hear in such addresses is a real living representation of the beliefs the preacher professes to hold. he makes passing allusions to them, of course, such as appeals to come to the cross, and such like, but they generally sound unreal, and the pill has to be sweetly sugared. the ordinary way of preaching the gospel is to avoid saying much about what the preacher believes the gospel to be. to be sure there are many social activities in connection with christian churches. if it were not for these the churches would have to be shut up. they are quite admirable in their way, and often produce excellent results, but they imply another gospel than the one supposed to be preached from the pulpits. they ignore dogmatic beliefs, and assume the salvability of the whole race and the possibility of realising the kingdom of god on earth. wherever the churches are alive to-day, and not merely struggling to keep their heads above water, it is not their doctrine but their non-theological human sympathy that is doing it. this, then, is the situation. the main stream of modern life is passing organised religion by. where is the remedy to be found? +we seek to save religion rather than the churches.+--let me say plainly that i do not think our object should be to find a remedy which will save the churches. that would be putting the cart before the horse. what is wanted is a driving force which will enable the churches to fulfil their true mission of saving the world, or, to put it better still, will serve to bring mankind back to real living faith in god and the spiritual meaning of life. hardly anyone would seriously deny that the world is waiting for this. men are not irreligious. on the contrary there is no subject of such general interest as religion; it takes precedence of all other subjects just because all other subjects are implied in it. religion is man's response to the call of the universe; it is the soul turning towards its source and goal. how could it fail to be of absorbing interest? what is wanted is a message charged with spiritual power, "where there is no vision the people perish." mere dogmatic assertions will not do. the word of god is to be known from the fact that it illuminates life and appeals to the deepest and truest in the soul of man. that message is here now. it is being preached, not by one man only, but the wide world over. god has spoken, and woe betide the churches if they will not hear. religion is necessary to mankind, but churches are not. from every quarter of christendom a new spirit of hope and confidence is rising, born of a conviction that all that is human is the evidence of god, and that jesus held the key to the riddle of existence. although this comes to us as with the freshness of a new revelation, it is not really new. it is the spirit which has been the inspiration of every great religious awakening since the world began. in this country and in other parts of the english-speaking world that spirit is becoming associated with the name the new theology. to associate it with any one personality is to belittle the subject and to obscure its real significance. there are many brave and good men in the churches and outside the churches to-day, men of true prophetic spirit, who would reject utterly the name new theology, but who are thoroughly imbued with this new-old spirit and are leading mankind toward the light. in the church of rome the movement is typified by men like father tyrrell, whose teaching has led to his expulsion from the jesuit order, but not, so far, from the priesthood. the present condition of the church of rome is not unhopeful to those who believe as i do that that venerable church has been used of god to great ends in the past and that her spiritual vitality is by no means exhausted. father tyrrell and such as he are nearer in spirit to the new theology men than are the latter to those protestants who pin their faith to external standards of belief. it is a curious but indisputable fact that the most extreme anti-romanist protestants are themselves in the same boat with rome: they insist on the absolute necessity for external authority in matters of belief and are unwilling to trust the individual soul to recognise truth as it comes. in all the churches those who believe in the religion of the spirit should recognise one another as brothers. in the church of england a large and increasing band of men are looking in this direction and are making their influence felt. of these perhaps the most outstanding is archdeacon wilberforce, but he is by no means alone. a movement has begun in the lutheran church. it has existed for a long time in french protestantism as represented by the late auguste sabatier and his friend réville. in the congregational and other evangelical churches of england and america the same attitude is being taken by many who are not even aware that the name new theology is being applied to it. in this country the movement in the free churches is typified by men like the rev. t. rhondda williams of bradford. there are many unitarians who are preaching it; indeed, there are some who would assert that the new theology is only unitarianism under another name. but, as i shall hope to show, this is very far from being the case. it may or may not be professed by exponents of unitarianism, but it is not a surrender to unitarianism. +the new theology is spiritual socialism.+--the great social movement which is now taking place in every country of the civilised world toward universal peace and brotherhood and a better and fairer distribution of wealth is really the same movement as that which in the more distinctively religious sphere is coming to be called the new theology. this fact needs to be realised and brought out. the new theology is the gospel of the kingdom of god. neither socialism nor any other economic system will permanently save and lift mankind without definitely recognised spiritual sanctions, that is, it must be a religion. the new theology is but the religious articulation of the social movement. the word "theology" is almost a misnomer; it is essentially a moral and spiritual movement, the recognition that we are at the beginning of a great religious and ethical awakening, the ultimate results of which no man can completely foresee. +and also the religion of science.+--again, the new theology is the religion of science. it is the denial that there is, or ever has been, or ever can be, any dissonance between science and religion; it is the recognition that upon the foundations laid by modern science a vaster and nobler fabric of faith is rising than that world has ever before known. science is supplying the facts which the new theology is weaving into the texture of religious experience. chapter ii god and the universe +what religion is.+--all religion begins in cosmic emotion. it is the recognition of an essential relationship between the human soul and the great whole of things of which it is the outcome and expression. the mysterious universe is always calling, and, in some form or other, we are always answering. the artist answers by trying to express his feeling of its beauty; the scientist answers by recognising its laws and unfolding its wonders; the social reformer answers by his self-denying labours for the common good. in each and every case there is in the background of experience a conviction that the unit is the instrument of the all; religion is implied in these as in all other activities in which man aims at a higher-than-self. but religion, properly so-called, begins when the soul consciously enters upon communion with this higher-than-self as with an all-comprehending intelligence; it is the soul instinctively turning toward its source and goal. religion may assume a great many different and even repellent forms, but at bottom this is what it always is: it is the soul reaching forth to the great mysterious whole of things, the higher-than-self, and seeking for closer and ever closer communion therewith. the savage with his totem and the christian saint before the altar have this in common: they are reaching through the things that are seen to the reality beyond. +what the word "god" means.+--but what name are we to give to this higher-than-self whose presence is so unescapable? the name matters comparatively little, but it includes all that the ordinary christian means by god. the word "god" stands for many things, but to present-day thought it must stand for the un-caused cause of all existence, the unitary principle implied in all multiplicity. everyone of necessity believes in this. it is impossible to define the term completely, for to define is necessarily to limit, and we are thinking of the illimitable. but we ought to understand clearly that to disbelieve in god is an impossibility; everyone believes in god if he believes in his own existence. the blankest materialist that ever lived, whoever he may have been, must have affirmed god even in the act of denying him. professor haeckel declares his belief in god on every page of his "riddle of the universe," the famous book in which he says that god, freedom, and immortality are the three great buttresses of superstition, which science must make it her business to destroy. so far science has only succeeded in giving us a vaster, grander conception of god by giving us a vaster, grander conception of the universe in which we live. when i say god, i mean the mysterious power which is finding expression in the universe, and which is present in every tiniest atom of the wondrous whole. i find that this power is the one reality i cannot get away from, for, whatever else it may be, it is myself. theologians will tell me that i have taken a prodigious leap in saying this, but i cannot help it. how can there be anything in the universe outside of god? whatever distinctions of being there may be within the universe it is surely clear that they must all be transcended and comprehended within infinity. there cannot be two infinities, nor can there be an infinite and also a finite beyond it. what infinity may be we have no means of knowing. here the most devout christian is just as much of an agnostic as professor huxley; we can predicate nothing with confidence concerning the all-comprehending unity wherein we live and move and have our being, save and except as we see it manifested in that part of our universe which lies open to us. one would think that this were so obvious as to need no demonstration. but how do ordinary church-going christians talk about god? they talk as though he were (practically) a finite being stationed somewhere above and beyond the universe, watching and worrying over other and lesser finite beings, to wit, ourselves. according to the received phraseology this god is greatly bothered and thwarted by what men have been doing throughout the few millenniums of human existence. he takes the whole thing very seriously, and thinks about little else than getting wayward humanity into line again. to this end he has adopted various expedients, the chief of which was the sending of his only begotten son to suffer and die in order that he might be free to forgive the trouble we had caused him. i hope no reader of these words will think i am making light of a sacred subject; i never was more serious in my life. what i am trying to show is that, reduced to its simplest terms, the accepted theology of the churches to-day is pitiably inadequate as an explanation of our relationship to this great and mysterious universe. there is a beautiful spiritual truth underneath every venerable article of the christian faith, but as popularly presented this truth has become so distorted as to be falsehood. it narrows religion and belittles god. it is dishonouring to human nature, and is absolutely ludicrous as an interpretation of the cosmic process. of course, the dogmatic theologian will maintain that this is a caricature of the way in which the relationship of god to the world is set forth in religious treatises and from the christian pulpit. but is it? i think i can appeal with confidence to the thoughtful man who has given up going to church as to whether it is or not. the god of the ordinary church-goer, and of the man who is supposed to teach him from study and pulpit, is an antiquated theologian who made his universe so badly that it went wrong in spite of him and has remained wrong ever since. why he should ever have created it is not clear. why he should be the injured party in all the miseries that have ensued is still less clear. the poor crippled child who has been maimed by a falling rock, and the white-faced match-box maker who works eighteen hours out of the twenty-four to keep body and soul together have surely some sort of a claim upon god apart from being miserable sinners who must account themselves fortunate to be forgiven for christ's sake. faugh! it is all so unreal and so stupid. this kind of god is no god at all. the theologian may call him infinite, but in practice he is finite. he may call him a god of love, but in practice he is spiteful and silly. i shall have something to say presently about the twin problems of pain and evil; but what so-called orthodoxy has to say is not only no solution of them, it is demonstrably false to the religion of jesus. +every man believes in god.+--for the moment what i want to make clear is this. no man should refuse to assert his belief in god because he cannot bring himself to believe in the god of the typical theologian. remember that the real god is the god expressed in the universe and in yourself. the question is not whether you _shall_ believe in god, but how much you _can_ believe about him. you may think with haeckel that the universe is the outcome of the fortuitous interaction of material forces without consciousness and definite purpose behind them, or you may believe that the cosmos is the product of intelligence and "means intensely and means good," but you cannot help believing in god, the power revealed in it. as i write these words i am seated before a window overlooking the heaving waste of waters on a rock-bound cornish coast. it is a stormy day. the sky is overcast toward the western horizon; on the east shafts of blue and saffron have pierced the pall of darkness and flung their radiance over the spreading sea. the total effect is strangely solemnising. the suggestion of titanic forces conveyed in the rush of wind and wave upon the unyielding cliffs, conjoined to the majestic march of the storm-clouds across the heaven from the west, is somehow elevated and composed by the mystic light that streams from the east. i have never seen anything quite like it before. it tells me of a beneficent stillness, an eternal strength, far above and beyond these finite tossings. it whispers the word impossible to utter, the word that explains everything, the deep that calleth unto deep. so my god calls always to my deeper soul, and tells me i must read him by mine own highest and best, and by the highest and best that the universe has yet produced. thus the last word about god becomes the last word about man: it is jesus. materialists may tell me that the universe does not know what it is doing, that it goes on clanking and banging, age after age, without end or aim, but i shall continue to feel compelled to believe that the power which produced jesus must at least be equal to jesus. so jesus becomes my gateway to the innermost of god. when i look at him i say to myself, god is _that_, and, if i can only get down to the truth about myself, i shall find i am that too. +what does the universe mean?+--but why is there a universe at all? why has the unlimited become limited? what was the need for the long cosmic struggle, the ignorance and pain, the apparently prodigal waste of life and beauty? why does a perfect form appear only to be shattered and superseded by another? what can it all mean, if indeed it has a meaning? this is what thinkers have been asking themselves since thought began, and i have really nothing new to say about it. what i have to say leads back through hegelianism to the old greek thinkers, and beyond them again to the wise men who lived and taught in the east ages before jesus was born. it is that this finite universe of ours is one means to the self-realisation of the infinite. supposing god to be the infinite consciousness, there are still possibilities to that consciousness which it can only know as it becomes limited. any of my readers to whom this thought is unfamiliar have only to look at their own experience in order to see how reasonable it is. you may know yourself to be a brave man, but you will know it in a higher way if you are a soldier facing the cannon's mouth; you will know it in a still different way if you have to face the hostility and prejudice of a whole community for standing by something which you believe to be right. perhaps you have a manly little son; he, like you, may believe in his sterling good qualities. but wait till he has gone out to fight his way in life; then you will realise what he is worth, and so will he. it is one thing to know that you are a lover of truth; it is another thing to realise it when your immediate interest and your immediate safety would bid you hedge and lie. do not these facts of human nature and experience tell us something about god? to all eternity god is what he is and never can be other, but it will take him to all eternity to live out all that he is. in order to manifest even to himself the possibilities of his being god must limit that being. there is no other way in which the fullest self-realisation can be attained. thus we get two modes of god,--the infinite, perfect, unconditioned, primordial being; and the finite, imperfect, conditioned, and limited being of which we are ourselves expressions. and yet these two are one, and the former is the guarantee that the latter shall not fail in the purpose for which it became limited. thus to the question, why a finite universe? i should answer, because god wants to express what he is. his achievement here is only one of an infinite number of possibilities. "god is the perfect poet who in creation acts his own conceptions." this is an end worthy alike of god and man. the act of creation is eternal, although the cosmos is changing every moment, for god is ceaselessly uttering himself through higher and ever higher forms of existence. we are helping him to do it when we are true to ourselves; or rather, which is the same thing, he is doing it in us: "the father abiding in me doeth his works." no part of the universe has value in and for itself alone; it has value only as it expresses god. to see one form break up and another take its place is no calamity, however terrible it may seem, for it only means that the life contained in that form has gone back to the universal life, and will express itself again in some higher and better form. to think of god in this way is an inspiration and a help in the doing of the humblest tasks. it redeems life from the dominion of the sordid and commonplace. it supplies an incentive to endeavour, and fills the heart with hope and confidence. to put it in homely, everyday phraseology, god is getting at something and we must help him. we must be his eyes and hands and feet; we must be labourers together with him. this fits in with what science has to say about the very constitution of the universe; it is all of a piece; there are no gaps anywhere. it is a divine experiment without risk of failure, and we must interpret it in terms of our own highest. chapter iii man in relation to god +what is man?+--so far we have seen that the universe, including ourselves, is one instrument or vehicle of the self-expression of god. god is all; he is the universe and infinitely more, but it is only as we read him in the universe that we can know anything about him. we have seen, too, that it is by means of the universe and his self-limitation therein that he expresses himself to himself. now what is our relation to this process? what are we to think about ourselves? who or what are we? a witty frenchman once sardonically remarked, "in the beginning god created man in his own image, and man has ever since been returning the compliment by creating god in his." but what else can we do? it follows from what has already been said that we know nothing and can know nothing of god except as we read him in the universe, and we can only interpret the universe in terms of our own consciousness. in other words, man is a microcosm of the universe. what the universe may be in reality we do not know,--though i am not so sure as some people seem to be that appearance and reality do not correspond,--we can only know it in so far as it produces sense images on our brain and enters into our individual consciousness. the limits of my subject forbid that i should enter into a discussion of philosophic idealism, but i think i ought to confess at once that i can only think of existence in terms of consciousness: nothing exists except in and for mind. the mind that thinks the universe must be immeasurably greater than my own, but in so far as i too am able to think the universe, mine is one with it. all thinking starts with a paradox, even the famous saying of descartes, "i think, therefore i am"; and my paradox seems at least as reasonable as any other, and has fewer difficulties to encounter than most. i start then with the assumption that the universe is god's thought about himself, and that in so far as i am able to think it along with him, "i and my father (even metaphysically speaking) are one." it cannot be demonstrated beyond dispute that any two human beings think the same universe. strictly speaking, it is certain that they do not in every detail. but the common dominator of our experience, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, is the assumption that in the main the universe is pretty much the same for one man as it is for another. when i speak of the rolling sea, my neighbour does not understand me to mean the waving trees, but i cannot prove that he does not. if he is consistent in seeing water as trees and trees as water, his mind must be constituted differently from mine and yet i may never know it. so, by an almost unperceived act of faith, we have to take for granted that our separate individualities meet and become one to some extent in our common experience of this great universe, which is at that same time the expression of god. the real universe must be infinitely greater and more complex than the one which is apparent to our physical senses. this becomes probable, even on material grounds, the moment we begin to examine into the nature of sense perception. the ear is constituted to hear just so many sounds; beyond that limit at either end of the scale we can hear nothing, but that does not prove that there are no more sounds to hear. similarly the eye can distinguish five or seven primary colours and their various combinations; beyond that limit we are colour-blind. but suppose we were endowed to hear and see sounds and colours a million times greater in number than those of which we have at present any cognizance! what kind of a universe would it be then? but that universe exists now; it is around and within us; it is god's thought about himself, infinite and eternal. it is only finite to a finite mind, and it is more than probable that spiritual beings exist with a range of consciousness far greater than our own, to whom the universe of which we form a part must seem far more beautiful and fuller of meaning than it seems to us. imagine a man who could only see grey hues and could only hear the note a on the keyboard. his experience would be quite as real as ours, and indeed the same up to a point, but how little he would know of the world as we know it. the glory of the sunset sky would be hidden from him; for him the melting power of the human voice, or of a grand cathedral organ, would not exist. so, no doubt, it is in a different degree with us all. the so-called material world is our consciousness of reality exercising itself along a strictly limited plane. we can know just as much as we are constituted to know, and no more. but it is all a question of consciousness. the larger and fuller a consciousness becomes, the more it can grasp and hold of the consciousness of god, the fundamental reality of our being as of everything else. +the subconscious mind.+--of late years the comparatively new science of psychology has begun to throw an amount of valuable light upon the mystery of human personality. as the result of numerous experiments and investigations into the normal and abnormal working of the human mind, psychologists have discovered that a great deal of our ordinary mental action goes on without our being aware of it. this unconscious cerebration, as it is called, can hardly be seriously disputed, for every new addition to our psychological knowledge goes to confirm it. hence we are hearing a great deal about the subconscious mind, or subliminal consciousness as some prefer to call it. now that our attention has been directed to it, we are coming to see, as is usual with every new discovery, that after a fashion we knew it all along. the subconscious mind seems to be the seat of inspiration and intuition. genius, according to the late f. w. h. myers, is "an up-rush of subliminal faculty." we have all heard of the distinguished lady novelist who declares that when she has chosen her theme she is in the habit of committing it to her subconscious mind and letting it alone for a while. she is not aware of any mental process which goes on, but sooner or later she finds that the theme is ripe for treatment; she knows what she thinks about it, and the work of stating it can profitably begin. poets, preachers, and musicians can bear testimony of a somewhat similar kind. the thoughts which are most valuable are those which come unbidden, rising to the surface of consciousness from unknown depths. the best scientific discoveries are made in much the same way; the investigator has an intuition and forthwith sets to work to justify it. reason, by which we ordinarily mean the conscious exercise of the mental faculties, plods along as if on four feet; intuition soars on wings. truly astonishing things are frequently done by the subconscious mind superseding and controlling the conscious mind in exceptional states of emotion, especially in the case of people who are not quite normal; but there is no one, however stolid and commonplace, who does not owe far more to his subliminal consciousness than he does to what he calls his reason; indeed reason has comparatively little to do with the way in which people ordinarily conduct themselves, although we may like to think otherwise. now what is this subconscious mind whose importance is so great and of whose nature we know so little? that is a question upon which psychology has not yet pronounced, but there are not a few who regard it as the real personality. evidently it is not only deeper but larger than the surface mind which we call reason. our discovery of its existence has taught us that our ordinary consciousness is but a tiny corner of our personality. it has been well described as an illuminated disc on a vast ocean of being; it is like an island in the pacific which is really the summit of a mountain whose base is miles below the surface. summit and base are one, and yet no one realises when standing on the little island that he is perched at the very top of a mountain peak. so it is with our everyday consciousness of ourselves; we find it rather difficult to realise that this consciousness is not all there is of us. and yet, when we come to examine into the facts, the conclusion seems irresistible, that of our truer, deeper being we are quite unconscious. +the higher self.+--several important inferences follow from this position. the first is that our surface consciousness is somewhat illusory and does not possess the sharpness and definiteness of outline which we are accustomed to take for granted when thinking of ourselves. to ordinary common sense nothing seems more obvious than that we know most that is to be known about our friend john smith, with whom we used to go to school and who has since developed into a stolid british man of business with few ideas and a tendency toward conservatism. john is a stalwart, honest, commonplace kind of person, of whom brilliant things were never prophesied and who has never been guilty of any. his wife and children go to church on sundays. john seldom goes himself because it bores him, but he likes to know that religion is being attended to, and he does not want to hear that his clergyman is attempting any daring flights. he has a good-natured contempt for clergymen in general because he feels somehow that, like women, they have to be treated with half-fictitious reverence, but that they do not count for much in the ordinary affairs of life; they are a sort of third sex. but, according to the newer psychology, this matter-of-fact englishman is not what he seems even to himself. his true being is vastly greater than he knows, and vastly greater than the world will ever know. it belongs not to the material plane of existence but to the plane of eternal reality. this larger self is in all probability a perfect and eternal spiritual being integral to the being of god. his surface self, his philistine self, is the incarnation of some portion of that true eternal self which is one with god. the dividing line between the surface self and the other self is not the definite demarcation it appears to be. to the higher self it does not exist. to us it must seem that to all intents and purposes the two selves in a man are two separate beings, but that is not so; they are one, although the lower, owing to its limitations, cannot realise the fact. if my readers want to know whether i think that the higher self is conscious of the lower, i can only answer, yes, i do, but i cannot prove it; probabilities point that way. what i want to insist upon here is that we are greater than we seem, that we have a higher self, and that our limited consciousness does not involve a separate individuality. our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; the soul that rises with us, our life's star, hath had elsewhere its setting, and cometh from afar. not in entire forgetfulness, and not in utter nakedness, but trailing clouds of glory do we come from god who is our home. the great poets are the best theologians after all, for they see the farthest. the true being is consciousness; the universe, visible and invisible, is consciousness. the higher self of the individual man infolds more of the consciousness of god than the lower, but lower and higher are the same thing. this may be a difficult thought to grasp, but the time is rapidly approaching when it will be more generally accepted than it is now. +the unity of humanity.+--another inference from the theory of the subconscious mind is that of the fundamental unity of the whole human race. indeed all life is fundamentally one, but there is a kinship of man with man which precedes that of man with any other order of being. here again the spiritual truth cuts across what seem to be the dictates of common sense. common sense assumes that i and thou are eternally distinct, and that by no possibility can the territories of our respective beings ever become one. but even now, and on mere everyday grounds, we are finding reason to think otherwise. you are about to make an observation at table and some member of your family makes it before you; you are thinking of a certain tune and someone begins to hum it; you have a certain purpose in mind and, lo, the same thought finds expression in someone else, despite all probabilities. oh, you may remark, this is only thought transference. precisely, but what are you except your thought? all being, remember, is conscious of being. the infinite consciousness sees itself as a whole; the finite consciousness sees the same whole in part. ultimately your being and mine are one and we shall come to know it. individuality only has meaning in relation to the whole, and individual consciousness can only be fulfilled by expanding until it embraces the whole. nothing that exists in your consciousness now and constitutes your self-knowledge will ever be obliterated or ever can be, but in a higher state of existence you will realise it to be a part of the universal stock. i shall not cease to be i, nor you to be you; but there must be a region of experience where we shall find that you and i are one. +the self is god.+--a third inference, already hinted at and presumed in all that has gone before, is that the highest of all selves, the ultimate self of the universe, is god. the new testament speaks of man as body, soul, and spirit. the body is the thought-form through which the individuality finds expression on our present limited plane; the soul is a man's consciousness of himself as apart from all the rest of existence and even from god--it is the bay seeing itself as the bay and not as the ocean; the spirit is the true being thus limited and expressed--it is the deathless divine within us. the soul therefore is what we make it; the spirit we can neither make nor mar, for it is at once our being and god's. what we are here to do is to grow the soul, that is to manifest the true nature of the spirit, to build up that self-realisation which is god's objective with the universe as a whole and with every self-conscious unit in particular. where, then, someone will say, is the dividing line between our being and god's? there is no dividing line except from our side. the ocean of consciousness knows that the bay has never been separate from itself, although the bay is only conscious of the ocean on the outer side of its own being. but, the reader may protest, this is pantheism. no, it is not. pantheism is a technical term in philosophic parlance and means something quite different from this. it stands for a fate-god, a god imprisoned in his universe, a god who cannot help himself and does not even know what he is about, a blind force which here breaks out into a rock and there into ruskin and is equally indifferent to either. but that is not my god. my god is my deeper self and yours too; he is the self of the universe and knows all about it. he is never baffled and cannot be baffled; the whole cosmic process is one long incarnation and uprising of the being of god from itself to itself. with tennyson you can call this doctrine the higher pantheism if you like, but it is the very antithesis of the pantheism which has played such a part in the history of thought. +its relation to free will.+--but then, another will remonstrate, it does away with the freedom of the will. well, here is a slippery subject sure enough, and one upon which more nonsense has been talked probably than any other within the range of philosophical or theological discussion. have i anything new to say about it? probably not, but i think i can focus the issue and show what we must recognise in order to have a rational grasp of the subject. thinkers have talked too much in the past about the separate faculties of human nature as though they could be divided into reason, feeling, action, and so on. but they are beginning to talk differently now. they are coming to see that a human being cannot be cut up like that. the reason is the whole man thinking, judging, comparing. feeling accompanies reason and is never found apart from it, for reason implies consciousness, and without consciousness nothing that can properly be called feeling exists. the will is simply the whole man acting. now i will frankly confess that in strict logic i can find no place for the freedom of the will. i will defy anyone to do so if he knows much about the laws of thought. but, as the late mr. lecky said in his "map of life," and mr. mallock has since pointed out in "the reconstruction of belief," we are compelled to overleap logic when considering this matter. no argument will convince us that we have not some power of individual self-direction and self-control. the most thoroughgoing determinist that ever lived forgets his determinism even while he argues about it. it must be amusing even to himself to see how he enjoys scoring off his opponent, thus taking for granted in the heat of controversy the very freedom he sets out to deny. the assumption at the bottom of every vigorous argument is that the other party might have held other views, and ought to have held other views than those assailed. the position of the determinist in effect is this: you must believe you have no freedom to choose anything, otherwise you are to blame for choosing wrongly. of course the consistent determinist would evade this _reductio ad absurdum_ by saying that he is as much necessitated in blaming his opponent for holding wrong views as the opponent is for refusing to give them up. he might also tell me that i am arguing for free will in an obscurantist fashion by admitting at the outset that in strict logic i can find no place for it. but i am not arguing for free will at all. i am simply showing that by the very constitution of our minds we cannot avoid taking some measure of free will for granted. even the determinist who scouts this view and calls it absurd is by his own action a convincing demonstration of its truth. +only the infinite has perfect freedom.+--but this contention is something more than mere logic chopping. it points to a truth too high for a finite mind to grasp, namely, that whatever our moral freedom may be, it must consist with the all-directing universal will. there is no such thing as perfect freedom in a finite being. perfect freedom belongs only to infinity; finiteness implies limitations. popular theology usually assumes, or appears to assume, that every individual is a perfectly free agent able at all times to distinguish and to choose between the higher and the lower, and as liable to choose the one as the other. there is another kind of theologising, of course, which speaks of the weakened or corrupted will due to our fallen nature, that i must let alone for the present. what i want to point out is that there is not, and never has been, an act of the will in which a man, without bias in either direction, has deliberately chosen evil in the presence of good. under such circumstances no being in his sober senses would ever choose evil; enlightened self-interest alone would forbid the possibility of such a choice. freedom of the will in this sense has never existed. the truth is that we should not be conscious of the possession of a will but for the conflict between desire and duty, or the necessity of choosing between one impulse and another. after all, the moral choices of life are but few in number. the things we go on doing day by day are the things that for the most part we know we must do, and we scarcely reflect upon the matter. when some question emerges which demands a moral choice we know it at once by the fact that we have to take our limitations into account. something has to be overcome if the higher is chosen, and, without that overcoming, there is no real assertion of the will. it is no heroism in me to avoid getting drunk, but it may mean a tremendous assertion of the moral reserves in some poor fellow who knows the power of the drink craving. the same observation holds good of all human life. my weak points are not my neighbour's, and his are not mine. neither of us is in a position to estimate the other's strength of will, but we both know that in our own case an absolutely unfettered moral choice has never been made. but for our limitations and imperfections we should know nothing whatever of the choice between right and wrong. free will, in the sense of unlimited freedom of choice, does not exist. the only freedom we possess is like that of a bird in a cage; we can choose between the higher and the lower standing ground, a choice called for by the very fact that we are in prison, but we cannot choose where the cage shall go. no doubt these considerations will meet with the disapproval of some people who think themselves orthodox. they will object to being told that every man has a higher self than that of which he is immediately conscious; that fundamentally the individual is one with the whole race and with god; that no one possesses absolute free will. to them it may seem an absurdity to maintain these positions. but if they say so, they will convict themselves of absurdity, for, with the exception of the last, christian doctrine already affirms them all of jesus. according to the received theology, jesus was god, and yet he did not possess the all-controlling consciousness of the universe. he was also man, and yet he was before all ages. all creation proceeds from and centres in him, and yet he was able to limit himself in such a degree as to be ignorant of much that was going on in his own universe. if so-called orthodoxy finds it no difficulty to assert these things as being true of jesus, it will not find it easy to show good reason why the same should not be true of all humanity. for the moment i neither assert nor deny the uniqueness of jesus. all i am concerned to show is that if it is not intellectually _impossible_ to affirm certain things about the consciousness of jesus and the limitation of his true being in his earthly life, it is not impossible to affirm them of mankind. some of my critics have contended that this view of the relationship of man to god hails not from palestine but from oxford and is an outcome of the philosophy of t. h. green. but i think it can be shown that its pedigree is considerably longer than that. whether it hails from palestine or not, it is explicitly stated in the fourth gospel: "he that hath seen me hath seen the father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the father? believest thou not that i am in the father, and the father in me? the words that i speak unto you i speak not of myself: but the father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. believe me that i am in the father, and the father in me." those who object to my statement of the fundamental identity of god and man will have to explain away such passages as this, and there are plenty of them. but, it may be urged, this is meant to apply only to jesus. that i do not believe; i think the exceedingly able writer of the fourth gospel knew better; but for the moment i will not contest the point. granted that it does apply only to jesus, what then? the very things which the critics declare to be impossible of personality in general in relation to god, they are affirming already of at least one personality, that of jesus. if jesus was god and yet prayed to god, if his consciousness was finite and yet one with the infinite, it is clear that in this one instance the seemingly impossible was not impossible. those who insist upon the fundamental distinction between human personality and the being of god are thus on the horns of a dilemma. present-day orthodoxy cannot consistently attack this position. the only telling criticism that can be directed against it is that which proceeds from the side of scientific monism. a thoroughgoing monist might reasonably contend that up to a certain point i have been arguing for a monistic view of the universe, in company with practically the whole scientific world, and have then given the case away by admitting a certain amount of individual freedom. i confess it looks like it; i have had to face the antinomy. i see that there is no escape from the assertion of the fundamental unity of all existence, and yet by the very constitution of the human mind we are compelled to take for granted a certain amount of individual initiative and self-direction. i think of the human will much as i do about the mariner's compass. it is well known that the needle does not always point steadily and consistently to the pole; its tiny aberrations have to be taken into account. but these are no real hindrance to the sailing of the ship, and the compass itself cannot run away. again, some of my friends have been pointing out that, while the new theology regards all mankind as "being of one substance with the father," our consciousness of that being is our own. i freely admit this while maintaining that there is no substance but consciousness. what other kind of substance can there be? therefore i hold that when our finite consciousness ceases to be finite there will be no distinction whatever between ours and god's. the distinction between finite and infinite is not eternal. the being of god is a complex unity, containing within itself and harmonising every form of self-consciousness that can possibly exist. no one need be afraid that in believing this he is assenting to the final obliteration of his own personality; if such obliteration were possible, our present personality could possess no permanent value even for god. no form of self-consciousness can ever perish. it completes itself in becoming infinite, but it cannot be destroyed. chapter iv the nature of evil +the problem not insoluble.+--before going on to say more about human personality, especially the personality of jesus, it is requisite that we should determine our attitude toward a great question which in manifold forms has beset the human intellect ever since the dawn of history, namely, the problem of evil. it is still the fashion to declare this problem insoluble, but i have the audacity to believe that it is not so; mystery there may be, but it is not chiefly mystery. i will even go so far as to assert that the problem had been solved in human thought before christianity began. what i have to say about it now is ancient thinking confirmed by present-day experience. evil is a negative, not a positive term. it denotes the absence rather than the presence of something. it is the perceived privation of good, the shadow where the light ought to be. "the devil is a vacuum," as a friend of mine once remarked to the no small bewilderment of a group of listeners in whose imagination the devil was anything but a vacuum. evil is not an intruder in an otherwise perfect universe; finiteness presumes it. a thing is only seen to be evil when the capacity for good is present and unsatisfied. evil is not a principle at war with good. good is being and evil is not-being. when consciousness of being seeks further expression and finds itself hindered by its limitations, it becomes aware of evil. a little reflection ought to convince anyone that this is the true way to look at the question of evil. instead of asking how evil came to be in the universe, we should recognise that nothing finite can exist without it. infinity alone can know nothing of evil because its resources are illimitable and--if i may be permitted the expression--every need is supplied before it can be felt. evil and good are not like two armies in deadly conflict with each other for the possession of the city of god. we ought not to say that when one is in the other is out, but rather when one _is_ the other is _not_. the very word "good" implies evil. one is positive and the other negative. good only emerges in our experience in contrast with evil, and the ideal existence must be that in which good and evil are both transcended in the life eternal, when struggle and conflict are no more. in our present state of existence evil is necessary in order that we may know that there is such a thing as good, and therefore that we may realise the true nature of the life eternal. look at that shadow on the pavement cast by the row of houses between your vision and the rising sun. until the sun made his presence felt, you did not even know there was a shadow. presently as the light giver climbs beyond and above this temporary barrier you will watch the shadow shrink and disappear. where has it gone? if it were an entity in itself, it would have moved off somewhere else, but you are well aware that it has not done so, for it never had any real existence; real as it seemed, so real that you were able to give it a name, it never did more than show the place that needed to be filled with light. when the light came the shadow was swallowed up. so it is with every kind of evil, no matter what. your perception of evil is the concomitant of your expanding finite consciousness of good. the moment you see a thing to be wrong you have affirmed that you know, however vaguely, what is required to put it right. even when evil comes in the form of a calamity that lessens and diminishes your previous experience of good, as in an earthquake or a pestilence, this statement as to its true nature is in no way invalidated. it is not a thing in itself, it is only the perceived privation of what you know to be good, and which you know to be good because of the very presence of limitation, hindrance, and imperfection. +the relation of evil and pain.+--but to most minds evil is almost synonymous with pain, at any rate in our experience it is associated with pain. when men begin questioning the goodness of god because of the evil of the world, they usually mean the pain of the world. perhaps their thought about sin is to some extent an exception; sin and pain are not necessarily immediately associated in the theological mind. but what is pain? properly speaking it is not in itself evil, but rather the evidence of evil, and also in a different way the evidence of good. pain is life asserting itself against death, the higher struggling with the lower, the true with the false, the real with the unreal. when a baby cries for food he does so in unconscious obedience to the law of life; a stone does not cry for food. when a strong man suffers in the grip of a fell disease, the life within him is fighting for expression against something that seems to be extinguishing it. the suffering is caused by the effort of the life to retain its hold on the form, and yet if the disease succeeds in breaking the form it has only released the life to find expression in some higher form. when a guilty man suffers the tortures of remorse, it means that the truth within him is declaring itself against the falsehood, although it does not follow that it will immediately conquer. this is what pain is: it is life pressing upon death, and death resisting life. if a traveller falls asleep in the snow, or a sailor is nearly drowned, the process of recovery is always painful because the returning life has to overcome death. carry the same principle through the whole range of human experience, physical, mental, and moral, and it will indicate the real significance of all the pain which has ever been endured or ever will be endured by mankind. still this would not satisfy everyone who feels compassion for cosmic suffering. professor huxley has told us that there is no sadder story than the story of sentient life upon this planet, and in so saying he has the testimony of modern science behind him. a vast amount of attention has been directed to this phase of the subject within the past fifty years. we seem to be more sensitive to the presence of pain as well as more sympathetic than our fathers were, and this tendency shows itself in a recognition of the solidarity of humanity with the lower creation. theology has had practically nothing to say about the suffering or even about the significance of the myriad forms of life which exist below the human scale. but why ought they to be ignored? indeed, how can they be ignored? the theology that has nothing to say about my clever and loyal four-footed companion, with his magnanimity, his sensitive spirit, and even his moral qualities, omits something of considerable importance to a thorough and consistent world-view. "not a sparrow falleth to the ground without your father," said one who spake as never man spake. i think it was schopenhauer who once remarked, "the more i see of human nature the more i respect my dog." now the new theology finds no difficulty in recognising the importance of the brute creation, for it believes in a practical recognition of the solidarity of all existence. there is no life that is not of god, and therefore no life can ever perish, whatever may become of the form. if we can explain human suffering, the same explanation covers the suffering of all sub-human life. +the true extent of the problem of pain.+--but the problem is not so large as it looks. when we hear of a terrible event like the jamaica disaster, we are apt to jump to the conclusion that the amount of suffering in the world is specially and enormously greater because of it. but that is not so. our standard of measurement is a false one. the amount of pain endured depends upon the consciousness enduring it and upon its capacity for looking before and after. besides we only suffer individually, and therefore all the pain of the world is comprised within the experience of the being who suffers most, whoever that may be. we ought to estimate the actual amount of cosmic suffering by the intensity of the suffering borne by any one individual at any one time. we are not immediately conscious of all the woe of the universe; we are each of us conscious of our own, even though it may be caused by sympathy with others; and the world's woe taken as a whole is not greater than the amount borne by him whose consciousness of it is greatest. this is what we may call the intensive as contrasted with the extensive observation of the problem of pain. it is a kind of barometrical measurement. we do not gauge the weather by adding together the figures of all the storm-glasses in the world; the rise or fall of the mercury in any one of them, especially the best one among them, comprehends the whole. here is the problem of pain in a nutshell. the whole appalling tale of cosmic suffering can be compressed within the limits of the individual consciousness which has endured the most. +the purpose of pain.+--nor is there the slightest need to be afraid of it. theologians may tell us that we should never have known anything about it but for man's first disobedience, and humanists may maintain that it is impossible to reconcile it with belief in the goodness of god; but they are both wrong. there are some things impossible even to omnipotence, and one of them is the realisation of a love which has never known pain. if creation is the self-expression of god, pain was inevitable from the first. for what is the nature of god? according to the christian religion it is love. and what is love? here is another slippery word which has had some contradictory connotations in the course of its history. some time ago mr. g. bernard shaw delivered a lecture at the city temple on the "religion of the british empire," in the course of which he said that, if i knew as much about stage-plays as he did, i should distrust the word "love," for it was bound up with an amount of false and gusty sentiment. he himself preferred the word "life" to express what i meant by the word "love." but love is too good a word to be given over to the sentimentalists, although mr. shaw was perfectly right as to the way in which it has been misused. love _is_ life, the life eternal, the life of god. jesus and his new testament followers used both terms as expressive of the innermost of god. the life of god is such that in the presence of need it must give itself just as water will run down hill; this is the law of its being. where no need exists, that is, where life is infinite, love finds no expression. to realise itself for what it is, sacrifice, that is self-limitation, becomes necessary. love is essentially self-giving. it is the living of the individual life in terms of the whole. in a finite world this cannot but mean pain, but it is also self-fulfilment. "whosoever shall save his life shall lose it, but whosoever will lose his life shall find it." this profound saying of jesus is older even than jesus; it is the law of god's own being, the law of love, the means to the realisation of the life eternal. it is so plain and simple, and withal so sublime, that we cannot but see it to be true, and can do no other than bow before it. the law of the universe is the law of sacrifice in order to self-manifestation. in this age-long process all sentient life has its part, for it is of the infinite, and to the infinite it will return. when, therefore, you feel compassion for the rabbit which is being killed by the weasel, or the stag that falls before the hounds, you can remember at the same time that this is not meaningless cruelty, but the operation of the same law that governs the highest activities of your own soul. you are right to feel the compassion; you were meant to feel it; and there is good reason why you should, for the suffering is real enough to awaken it. but do not forget that the suffering is not quite what it appears to you; it is only yours as it enters into your own consciousness and you suffer along with the actual victim. compassion in such a case is the initial impulse toward self-offering, the desire to take the victim's place. but the suffering of the rabbit or the stag is to be measured by the consciousness of the rabbit or the stag, not by yours. in the slaughter nothing perishes but the form, the life returns to the soul of the universe. +the nature of sin.+--what, then, is sin? in the light of the foregoing considerations that question should not be difficult to answer. some of my recent critics have been declaring that i deny the existence of sin, and am teaching that as there is no sin there is no need for atonement. this looks like wilful misrepresentation, for my words on the subject have been clear enough and i have nothing to un-say, but perhaps it would be better to allow that the critics have made the mistake of rushing into print without carefully examining the utterances which they denounce. let me say, then, that sin is the opposite of love. all possible activities of the soul are between two poles,--self on the one hand and the common life on the other. everything we can think or say or do is in one or other of these directions; we are either living for the self at the expense of the whole, or we are fulfilling the self by serving the whole. sin is therefore selfishness. if the true life is the life which is lived in terms of the whole, then the sinful life is the life which is lived for self alone. no man, however depraved, succeeds in living the selfish life all the time; if he did he would sink below the level of the brutes. sin makes for death; love makes for life. sin is self-ward; love is all-ward. sin is always a blunder; in the long run it becomes its own punishment, for it is the soul imposing fetters upon itself, which fetters must be broken by the reassertion of the universal life. sin is actually a quest for life, but a quest which is pursued in the wrong way. the man who is living a selfish life must think, if he thinks about it at all, that he can gratify himself in that way, that is, he can get more abundant life. but in this he is mistaken; he is trying to cut himself off from the source of life. he is like a man seated on the branch of a tree and sawing it off from the trunk. but when theologians talk of the wrath of god against sin, and the wrong which sin has inflicted upon god, they employ figures of speech which are distinctly misleading. in fact, they do not seem to have a clear idea as to what sin really is. they use vague language about it as though it were some kind of corporate offence against god of which the whole race has been guilty without being able to help it, and which no individual can escape although he is as much to blame as if he could. but sin has never injured god except through man. it is the god within who is injured by it rather than the god without. it is time we had done with the unreal language about the judge on the great white throne, whose justice must be satisfied before his mercy can operate. the figure contains a truth which everyone knows well enough, but it is not easy to recognise it under this form. +the fall.+--the theological muddle is largely caused by the inability of many people to free themselves from archaic notions which have really nothing to do with christianity, although they have been imported into it. the principal of these, in relation to the question of sin, is the doctrine of the fall. this doctrine has played a mischievous part in christian thought, more especially perhaps since the reformation. in broad outline it is as follows: man was created originally innocent and pure,--for what reason is not quite clear, but it is said to be for the glory of god,--but by an act of disobedience to a divine command he fell from his high estate and in his fall dragged down the whole creation and blighted posterity. things have been wrong ever since, and god has been angry not only with the original transgressor but with all his descendants. god is a god of righteousness and therefore in a future world he will torture every human being who dies without availing himself of a certain "plan of salvation" designed to give him a chance of escape. this is a queer sort of righteousness! the plan of salvation consists in sending his own son--a son who has existed eternally, which the rest of us have not--to live a few years on earth and go through a certain programme ending with a violent death. in consideration of this death, god undertakes to forgive his erring children, who could not help being sinners, and yet are just as much to blame as if they could, but only on consideration that they "believe" in time to flee from the wrath to come. if they happen to die half a minute too late, repentance will be of no avail. dogmatic theologians must really excuse me for paraphrasing their words in this way. i know they do not put the case with such irritating clearness, but this is what they mean. their forefathers used to put it plainly enough. turn up john knox's "confession of faith," for instance, and it will be found that my statement of the case is mildness itself compared to his; john saw no necessity for mincing matters. it may be contended that no orthodox theologian of any repute now believes in an actual historical fall of the race. perhaps not, but theological writers go on using language which implies it and so do preachers of the gospel. i do not mean that they are dishonest, but they cannot get their perspective right. they think that by giving up belief in a historical fall of the race they would have to give up a great deal more. without the fall they do not know what to say about sin, salvation, the atonement, etc. they are mistaken in this supposition, as i trust i have already shown to some extent when discussing the question of sin, and as i shall hope to show more clearly still when we come to deal with the atonement. what i now wish to insist upon is that it is absolutely impossible for any intelligent man to continue to believe in the fall as it is literally understood and taught. +the genesis account.+--it is popularly supposed that the doctrine is derived from the book of genesis, but that is hardly the case. no doubt the genesis myth about adam and eve in the garden of eden forms the background of it, but it is not consonant with the doctrine itself. the genesis narrative says nothing about the ruined creation or the curse upon posterity. there is no hint of individual immortality, much less of heaven and hell; no christ, no cross, no future judgment, no vicarious atonement. it is a composite primitive story. a careful examination of its constituents will show that more than one account of the event has been drawn upon to supply materials for the narrative as it now stands. the legend was in existence as oral tradition ages before it became literature. how old it may be we have no means of knowing with certainty, but the parallel stories in other semitic religions are of great antiquity and had originally no ethical significance whatever. the genesis story of the fall exercised no influence upon old testament religion; it is scarcely alluded to in the best old testament writings, some of them earlier probably than the genesis account itself. it was not until after the great captivity that it showed any tendency toward becoming an article of faith. at the time when jesus was born it had passed into the popular jewish religion. there is a psychological reason for the gradual transformation of a primitive legend into a religious dogma. the jewish nation has fallen upon evil days. for generations after the great captivity they had been ground under the heel of a succession of foreign masters. under the cruel rule of antiochus epiphanes, about the middle of the second century b.c., their very religion seemed likely to be crushed out by merciless persecution. it was no wonder that the serious minds of the day became inclined to look upon the present as being but the ruin of the past, the sorry remainder of what had once been an ideal world. this tendency showed itself in various ways, the chief of which was a looking back to the great days of david and solomon as the period of israel's brightest splendour and prosperity. of this i must say a little more presently when we come to consider the genesis of the idea of the kingdom of god. another way in which the same tendency showed itself was that of taking the legend of the fall more or less literally. a suffering generation could hardly help thinking of their woes as being the result of some primitive act of transgression. this is the way in which the rabbis came to speak of the fall as being an actual fact of religious and ethical importance. +the doctrine transferred to christianity.+--a similar set of political and social conditions carried the doctrine over into christianity, chiefly through the influence of the apostle paul who had received a rabbinical training. not only hebrews but greeks had begun to feel that the world was decaying and perhaps nearing the end. they idealised the past and contrasted it with the present. all civilisation lay under the dominion of rome, and rome herself was subject to a military dictator. the heart of the world-wide empire was a hotbed of corruption where every form of vice took root and flourished. the greek thinkers and scholars despised their masters, but their own heroic days were gone and they were helpless to cast off the yoke. they had no pericles now, no leonidas, no miltiades. gone were the men of thermopylae, marathon, and salamis. these were lesser, darker days. with a sure instinct men were ceasing to feel any confidence in the future of this pagan civilisation. it had its great elements, but the signs of disruption were already apparent and no one could foresee what would take its place. the mood of the time is reflected in the pages of tacitus and juvenal. into this atmosphere came christianity with its doctrine of the holy love of god and its adoring faith in jesus. but both judaism and hellenism had already the tendency to look back toward a better and happier time and to think of the present as a fall from it. paul felt this like everyone else, and forthwith took some kind of a fall for granted when unfolding his system of thought. it is doubtful whether he took the genesis story literally or not, and he certainly made adam the type of the unideal or earthly man who had become estranged from god. he was too great a man to be pinned down to mere literalism in a question of this kind, so in his use of the terms supplied by the rabbinical version of the legend he glides easily into the statement of the obvious truth that the adam, or lower man, or earthly principle in every human being, needs to be transformed by the uprising of the christ or ideal man, within the soul. "for as in adam all die, even so in christ shall all be made alive." "the first man is of the earth earthy: the second man is the lord from heaven." here, then, we have the origins of the doctrine of the fall. right through christian history the tendency has run to look upon the world as the ruins of a divine plan marred by man's perversity and self-will. it is time we got rid of it, for it has had a blighting, deadening influence upon hopeful endeavour for the good of the race. it is not integral to christianity, for jesus never said a word about it and did not even allude to it indirectly. it implies a view of the nature and dealings of god with men which is unethical and untrue. surely, if god knew beforehand that the world would go wrong, the blame for catastrophe was not all man's. if he were so baffled and horror-stricken by the results as the dogmatic theologian makes out, he ought to have been more careful about the way he did his work at the beginning; a world which went wrong so early and so easily was anything but "very good," although he pronounced it to be so according to the genesis writer. besides, why should a trivial act of transgression have sent it all wrong? we take leave of our common sense when we talk of man's first disobedience and the fruit of that forbidden tree. to be sure milton did not believe it himself when he wrote that line, but his puritan associates and catholic ancestors did, and orthodoxy professes to do so still, though it does not know quite how to put it without falling into absurdity. again, why should god feel himself so much aggrieved by adam's peccadillo? if it were not for the theological atmosphere which surrounds the question, we should see at once that it was ridiculous. why should the consequences continue through countless generations? remember this was supposed to be the very start of humanity's career. what a dreary, hopeless outlook was left to it! the notion is incredible, and most of the clear-headed men who hold it would scout it without discussion if they heard of it now for the first time. as it is, however, they go on talking of the "awful holiness" of god, the offence against the divine majesty, and so on. but what is this divine holiness? i can well remember that as a child i used to tremble at the thought of it, for somehow, like a good many other people, i had been taught to think of the divine holiness as synonymous with merciless inflexibility. but holiness, righteousness, justice, mercy, love, are but different expressions of the same spiritual reality. one might go on multiplying these considerations for ever, but there is no need to do so. sufficient has been said to demonstrate the fact that the doctrine of the fall is an absurdity from the point of view both of ethical consistency and common sense. +science and the fall.+--after this it is almost superfluous to point out that modern science knows nothing of it and can find no trace of such a cataclysm in human history. on the contrary, it asserts that there has been a gradual and unmistakable rise; the law of evolution governs human affairs just as it does every other part of the cosmic process. this statement is quite consistent with the admission that there have been periods of retrogression as well as of advance, and that the advance itself has not been steady and uniform from first to last; there have been long stretches of history during which humanity has seemed to mark time and then a sudden outburst of intellectual activity and moral achievement. it could hardly be maintained, for instance, that the athens of socrates was not superior to the france of fulk the black of anjou, or that the assyria of asshur-bani-pal was not quite as civilised as the germany of the ninth century a.d. alfred russel wallace has shown in his popular book, "the wonderful century," that the latter half of the nineteenth century witnessed a greater advance in man's power over nature than the fifteen hundred years preceding it. there are some people who maintain that while the material advance is unquestionable, the intellectual advance is on the whole more doubtful, and that, morally speaking, human nature is no different from what it ever was. but i do not think any serious historian would say this. intellectually, the average man may still be inferior to plato,--though even plato did not understand the need for exact thought as modern philosophers do,--but civilisation as a whole has produced a higher level of intellectual attainment than had been reached by plato's world. a civilisation in which four-fifths of the people were helots kept in ignorance in order that an aristocratic few might enjoy the benefits of culture was not equal to ours, great and glaring as the defects of ours may be. again, while it is only too sadly true that modern civilisation contains plenty of callous selfishness, gross injustice, and abominable cruelty, it can hardly be denied that these relics of our brute ancestry are universally deplored, and that society recognises them to be inimical to its well-being and seeks to get rid of them. thank god, as anthony trollope said, that bad as men are to-day they are not as men were in the days of the caesars. if the new theology controversy had arisen a few hundred years ago, theological disputants would not have wasted time in writing newspaper articles; they would have met in solemn conclave and condemned the heretic to be flayed alive or hung over a slow fire or treated in some similarly convincing manner. of course it is remotely possible that some of them would like to do it now, but public opinion would not let them; things have changed, and the change is in the direction of a higher general morality. if any man feels pessimistic about the present, let him study the past and he will feel reassured. those who maintain that society is not morally better but only more sentimental, beg the question. what they call sentimentalism is greater sensibility, greater sympathy, a keener sense of justice. what is the moral ideal but love? every advance in the direction of universal love and brotherhood is a moral advance. the sternness of stoicism or puritanism was an imperfect morality. the grandeur and impressiveness of it were due to the fact that stoics and puritans for the most part took their ideal seriously; they aimed at something high and dedicated their lives to it. this dedication of the life to something higher than self-interest is of the very essence of true morality, and its highest reach is perfect love. we are a long way from that yet, although the ideal was manifested two thousand years ago. the average man to-day is certainly not nobler than the apostle paul, nor does he see more deeply into the true meaning of life than did john the divine, but the general level is higher. slowly, very slowly, with every now and then a depressing set-back, the race is climbing the steep ascent toward the ideal of universal brotherhood. it is sometimes maintained by thinkers who account themselves progressive that the law of evolution holds good of mankind so far as our physical constitution is concerned, but that a special act of creation took place as soon as the physical frame was sufficiently developed to become the receptacle of a higher principle, and that then, and not till then, "man became a living soul." but it is impossible to square the circle in this way, and to contrive to get the doctrine of the fall in by the back door, so to speak. the idea in the minds of those who hold this view appears to be that the tenant of the body which had been so long in preparation was a simple but intelligent and morally innocent personality who forthwith proceeded to do all that adam is credited with and therefore spoiled what would otherwise have been a harmonious and orderly development; what we now see is not evolution as god meant it, but evolution perverted by human wrong-headedness. but this theory contains more difficulties than the older one it aims to replace. it makes god even more incompetent then the traditional view does. for untold ages, apparently, he has been preparing the world for the advent of humanity, only to find that the moment humanity enters it the whole scheme is spoiled. but we need not seriously consider this view; the facts are overwhelmingly against it. the history, even of the most recent civilisations, is, comparatively speaking, only as old as yesterday, whereas the presence of human life on this planet is traceable into the almost illimitable past. but the farther we go back in our investigation of human origins the less possible does it appear that the primitive man of theological tradition has ever existed. the adam of the dogmatic theologian is like the economic man of the older school of writers on political science, the man who always wants to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest, and whose one consistent endeavour is to seek pleasure and avoid pain; he has never existed. +divine immanence and its fall.+--besides, we do not want him to exist. the fall theory is not only impossible in face of the findings of modern science; it is a real hindrance to religion. so far from having to give it up because science would have nothing to say to it, the difficulty would be to retain it and yet have anything like a rational view of the relation of god and the world. it has already been stated that the starting-point of the new theology is a recognition of the truth that god is expressing himself through his world. this truth occupied a place in religious thought ages before modern science was thought of; science has confirmed it, but has not compelled us to think it; if science had never existed, it would still remain the only reasonable ground for an adequate explanation of the relation of man to the universe. it simplifies all our questionings and coördinates all our activities. there is not a single one in the whole vast range of human interests which it does not cover. there is nothing which humanity can do or seek to do which is not immediately dependent upon it. the grandest task and the lowliest are both implied in it. it declares the common basis of religion and morality. religion is the response of human nature to the whole of things considered as an order; morality is the living of the individual life in such a way as to be and do the most for humanity as a whole; it is making the most of one's self for the sake of the whole. morality is not self-immolation. to jump off london bridge would be self-immolation, but it would not be an act conducive to the welfare of the community; it might indeed be a very selfish and cowardly act. true morality involves the duty of self-formation and the exercise of judgment and self-discipline in order that the individual life may become as great a gift as possible to the common life. it will therefore be seen at once that there is a vital relation between morality and religion; the one implies the other even though the fact may not always be recognised, and both are based upon the immanence of god. +the truth beneath the doctrine of the fall.+--but never yet has a particular doctrine or mode of stating truth held its own for any length of time in human history unless there was some genuine truth beneath it, and the doctrine of the fall is no exception. it does contain a truth, a truth which can be stated in a few words, and which might be inferred from what has already been said about the relationship of man and god. the coming of a finite creation into being is itself of the nature of a fall, a coming down from perfection to imperfection. we have seen the reason for that coming down; it is that the universal life may realise its own nature by attenuating or limiting its perfection. if i want to understand the composition of the ordinary pure white ray, i take a prism and break it up into its constituents. this is just what god has been doing in creation. our present consciousness of ourselves and of the world can reasonably be accounted a fall, for we came from the infinite and unto the infinite perfection we shall in the end return. i do not mean that our present consciousness of ourselves is eternal; i only assert that our true being is eternally one with the being of god and that to be separated from a full knowledge of that truth is to have undergone a fall. but this fall has no sinister antecedents; its purpose is good, and there is nothing to mourn over except our own slowness at getting into line with the cosmic purpose. another way of describing it would be to call it the incarnation of god in nature and man, a subject about which i must say more in another chapter. this view of the meaning and significance of the fall can be traced in all great religious literature. perhaps one of the best statements of it that has ever been made is the one set forth by paul of tarsus in the eighth chapter of his letter to the romans: "for i reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. for the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of god. for the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by the reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of god. for we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." passages like this make it impossible to believe that paul was ever really tied down to the literal rabbinical view of adam's transgression and its consequences; and these words are a clear statement of the truth that the imperfection of the finite creation is not man's fault but god's will, and is a means toward a great end. chapter v jesus the divine man +the centrality of jesus.+--all that has been said hitherto is but a preparation for the discussion of the greatest subject that at present occupies the field of faith and morals, that of the personality of jesus and his significance for mankind. it has been repeatedly pointed out both by friends and foes of the new theology that the ultimate question for the christian religion is that of the place occupied by its founder. who or what was jesus? how much can we really know about him? what value does he possess for the religious consciousness to-day? all other questions about the christian religion are of minor importance compared with these, and if we are prepared with an answer to these we have by implication answered all the rest. christianity is in a special sense immediately dependent upon its founder. no other religion has ever regarded its founder as christians regard their master. christianity draws its sustenance from the belief that jesus is still alive and impacting himself upon the world through his followers. other great religions trace their origin to the teaching and example of some exceptional person; christianity does the same, but with the added conviction that jesus is as much in the world as ever and that his presence is realised in the mystic union between himself and those who know and love him. if this be true, it is a fact of the very highest importance and one which can neither be passed over nor relegated to a subordinate position. christianity without jesus is the world without the sun. if, as i readily admit, the great question for religion in the immediate future is that of the person of jesus, the sooner we address ourselves to it the better. before discussing what theology has to say of him let us note in general terms what the civilised world is saying, theology or no theology. i suppose the most out-and-out materialist would admit that in the western world the name of jesus exercises an influence to which no other is even remotely comparable. perhaps he would even go so far as to admit that there is no name anywhere which means so much to those who hear it. it is not merely that the strongest civilisation on earth reverences that name, but that there is no other civilisation which can produce a parallel to it. the nearest approach to it is that of gautama, and i think it would be generally admitted that the influence even of this mighty and beautiful spirit has never possessed the immediacy, intensity, and personal value which distinguish that of jesus. it might be maintained with some show of reason that the civilisation of christendom, although it is now being copied by non-christian communities such as japan, is not necessarily the highest because it happens to be the strongest, and that it is even regarded with contempt by the best representatives of some more ancient faiths. still that is not quite the point. the point is that the name of jesus, which stands for a moral ideal which is the very negation of materialism, commands a reverence, and indeed a worship, the like of which no other has ever received in the history of mankind. it is no use trying to place jesus in a row along with other religious masters. he is first and the rest nowhere; we have no category for him. i am not trying to prove the impossible, namely, that christianity is the only true religion and the rest are all false. we shall get on better when that kind of nonsense ceases to be spoken. all i am concerned to emphasise is that somehow jesus seems to sum up and focus the religious ideal for mankind. his influence for good is greater than that of all the masters of men put together, and still goes on increasing. it is a notable fact that although churches and creeds are losing their hold upon the modern mind, the name of jesus is held in greater regard than ever. we have heard of a meeting of workmen cheering jesus and hissing the churches. in our day most people are agreed that in jesus we have the most perfect life ever exhibited to humanity. it is not only christians who take this view; everyone, or nearly everyone, does so. some years ago a book was published which bore on the title-page the question, "what would jesus do?" the book was not very well written, and i do not think the writer would have claimed that it contained anything original, but it had an enormous sale simply because of its attempt to answer the question on the covers. the most unlikely people bought and read it, people who never went to church and would not dream of doing so. from indications such as these one is justified in asserting that our western civilisation has accepted as true that, no matter who jesus was, his character represents the highest standard for human attainment. in seeking moral excellence the individual and the race are thus moving toward an ideal already manifested in history. the most effective taunt that can be levelled at inconsistent christians is that they are unlike their master. criticisms of the character of jesus are now few in number, and usually take the form of declaring that it is impracticable or impossible, not that it is undesirable or imperfect. some, no doubt, would maintain that perhaps the real jesus did not answer to the ideal which christians have formed of him, but that is another question. here we are now face to face with the unescapable fact that the greatest moral and religious force in the world is embodied in the name of jesus, and this by general consent. +the jesus of traditional theology.+--but what has traditional christian theology to say about jesus? here we enter a region in which the ordinary man of the world does not live and is never likely to live, but we cannot afford to ignore it. according to the received theology, jesus was and is god and man in a sense in which no one else ever has been or ever will be. as the shorter catechism has it, following the language of the ancient creeds, "there are three persons in one god, the same in substance, equal in power and glory," and jesus is the second of the three. this kind of statement cannot but be confusing to the ordinary mind of to-day if only because the word "person" does not mean to us quite the same thing that it meant to the framers of the ancient creeds. strange as it may seem to some of my readers, i believe what the creeds say about the person of jesus, but i believe it in a way that puts no gulf between him and the rest of the human race. this, i trust, will become clearer as we proceed; it seems to me to be implied in any real belief concerning the immanence of god. i think even the athanasian creed is a magnificent piece of work if only the churches would consent to understand it in terms of the oldest theology of all! but, according to conventional theology, the second person in the trinity, who was coequal and coeternal with god the father, laid aside his glory, became incarnate for our salvation, was born of a virgin, lived a brief suffering life, wrought many miracles, died a shameful death, rose again from the tomb on the second morning after he had been laid in it, and ascended into heaven in full view of his wondering disciples. in fulfilment of a promise made by him shortly before the crucifixion, and repeated before the ascension, he and the father conjointly sent the third person in the trinity to endue with power from on high the simple men whose duty it now became to proclaim the gospel of salvation to the world. jesus is now on the throne of his glory, but sooner or later he will come again to wind up the present dispensation and to be the judge of the quick and the dead at a grand assize. there is a sense in which all this is true, but it is commonly expressed in such a way that the truth is lost sight of. literally understood it is incredible. the only way to get at the truth in every one of these venerable articles of the christian faith will be to shed the husk, and that we must do without hesitation or compromise. a more accurate historic perspective would save us from the crudities so often preached from the pulpits in the name of christian truth, crudities which repel so many intelligent men from the benefits of public worship. there never has been the slightest need for any man of thoughtful mind and reverent spirit to recoil from the fundamentals of the christian creed. rightly understood they are the fundamentals of human nature itself. +godhead and manhood.+--the first in order of thought is that of the godhead of jesus. as regards this tenet i think it should be easily possible to show that the most convinced adherent of the traditional theology does not believe and never has believed what he professes to hold. the terms with which we have to deal are deity, divinity, and humanity. a good deal of confusion exists concerning the interrelation of these three. it is supposed that humanity and divinity are mutually exclusive, and that divinity and deity must necessarily mean exactly the same thing. but this is not so. it follows from the first principle of the new theology that all the three are fundamentally and essentially one, but in scope and extent they are different. by the deity we mean--and i suppose everyone means--the all-controlling consciousness of the universe as well as the infinite, unfathomable, and unknowable abyss of being beyond. by divinity we mean the essence of the nature of the immanent god, the innermost and all-determining quality of that nature; we have already seen that according to the christian religion the innermost quality of the divine nature is perfect love. show us perfect love and you have shown us the divinest thing the universe can produce, whether it knows itself to be immediately directed and controlled by the infinite consciousness of deity or whether it does not. it is clear, then, that although deity and divinity are essentially one, the latter is the lesser term and is dependent for its validity upon the former. humanity is a lesser term still. it stands for that expression of the divine nature which we associate with our limited human consciousness. strictly speaking, the human and divine are two categories which shade into and imply each other; humanity is divinity viewed from below, divinity is humanity viewed from above. if any human being could succeed in living a life of perfect love, that is a life whose energies were directed toward impersonal ends, and which was lived in such a way as to be and do the utmost for the whole, he would show himself divine, for he would have revealed the innermost of god. now let us apply these definitions to the personality of jesus. granted that the devotion of christians has been right in recognising in him the one perfect human life, that is, the one life which consistently and from first to last was lived in terms of the whole, what are we to call it except divine? in a sense, of course, everything that exists is divine, because the whole universe is an expression of the being of god. but it can hardly be seriously contended that a crocodile is as much an expression of god as general booth. it is wise and right, therefore, to restrict the word "divine" to the kind of consciousness which knows itself to be, and rejoices to be, the expression of a love which is a consistent self-giving to the universal life. "god is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in god and god in him." general booth is divine in so far as this is the governing principle of his life. jesus was divine simply and solely because his life was never governed by any other principle. we do not need to talk of two natures in him, or to think of a mysterious dividing line on one side of which he was human and on the other divine. in him humanity was divinity and divinity, humanity. does anyone think that this brings jesus down to our level? assuredly it does not; we are far too prone to be ruled by names. to the ordinary christian this explanation of the divinity of jesus may seem equivalent to the denial of his uniqueness, but it is nothing of the kind. i have already devoted some little space to emphasising the obvious fact that it is impossible to deny the uniqueness of jesus; history has settled that question for us. if all the theologians and materialists put together were to set to work to-morrow to try to show that jesus was just like other people, they would not succeed, for the civilised world has already made up its mind on that point, and by a right instinct recognises jesus as the unique standard of human excellence. but this is not to say that we shall never reach that standard too; quite the contrary. we must reach it in order to fulfil our destiny and to crown and complete his work. to stop short of manifesting the perfect love of god would be to fail of the object for which we are here and to render the advent of jesus useless. christendom already knows this perfectly well, although it has not always succeeded in expressing it with perfect clearness. "beloved, now are we sons of god, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he (or rather it) shall appear, we shall be like him." in our practical religion we all, even the most reactionary of us, regard the divinity of jesus just in this way. it has no other value. we talk of imitating him, conforming to his likeness, showing his spirit, and so on. when we want a model for courage, fidelity, gentleness, humility, unselfishness, we promptly turn to jesus. even in our relations with god we try to follow his lead; instinctively we range ourselves with him when we address the universal father; until we come to creed-making we never think of putting him on the god side of things and ourselves on another. catholic or protestant, orthodox or unorthodox, unitarian or trinitarian, we all accept in practice the identity of the divine and human in jesus and potentially in ourselves. but you make him only a man! no, reader, i do not. i make him the only man--and there is a difference. we have only seen perfect manhood once and that was the manhood of jesus. the rest of us have got to get there. +jesus and deity.+--this brings us to the further question of the deity of jesus. as a matter of fact, as i have already indicated, this question, too, has long been settled in practice. if by the deity of jesus is meant that he possessed the all-controlling consciousness of the universe, then assuredly he was not the deity for he did not possess that consciousness. he prayed to his father, sometimes with agony and dread; he wondered, suffered, wept, and grew weary. he confessed his ignorance of some things and declared himself to have no concern with others; it is even doubtful how far he was prepared to receive the homage of those about him. if there be one thing which becomes indisputable from the reading of the gospel narratives it is that jesus possessed a true human consciousness, limited like our own, and, like our own, subject to the ordinary ills of life. once again everybody knows this after a fashion. the most determined of so-called orthodox controversialists would hardly try to maintain that the consciousness of jesus was at once limited and unlimited. to do so would be an impossible feat; if jesus was the deity, he certainly was not the _whole_ of the deity during his residence on earth, whatever he may be now. but, it may be objected, in his earthly life he was the deity self-limited: "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," etc. quite so, but see where this statement leads. the new theology can consistently make it, but it is difficult to see how that newer theology which calls itself orthodoxy manages to do so. does the self-limitation of jesus mean that the deity was lessened in any way during the incarnation? why, of course not, we should all say; the deity continued with infinite fulness unimpaired above and beyond the consciousness of jesus. then are we to understand that this self-limitation of jesus meant that the eternal son, or second person in the trinity, the word by whom the worlds were made, quitted the throne of his glory and lived for thirty-three years as a jewish peasant? i think the dogmatic theologian would have some hesitation in giving an unqualified affirmative to this question, for the difficulties implied in it are practically insurmountable. was the full consciousness of the eternal word present in the babe of bethlehem, for instance? if not, where was it? questions like these cannot be answered on the lines of the conventional christology. the plain and simple answer to all of them is to admit that the jesus of history did not possess the consciousness of deity during his life on earth. his consciousness was as purely human as our own. any special insight which he possessed into the true relations of god and man was due to the moral perfection of his nature and not to his metaphysical status. he was god manifest in the flesh because his life was a consistent expression of divine love and not otherwise. but he was not god manifest in the flesh in any way which would cut him off from the rest of human kind. according to the received theology, jesus and jesus only, out of all the beings who have ever trodden the road which humanity has to travel, existed before all ages. we live our threescore years and ten and then pass on into eternity; he was eternal to begin with. he comes to earth with a hoary antiquity behind him, a timeless life to look back upon; we have just fluttered into existence. surely any ordinary intelligence can see that this kind of theologising puts an impassable gulf at once between jesus and every other person who has ever been born of an earthly mother. certainly it does, the theologian may declare, and rightly so, for that gulf exists; he assumed human nature, but he was eternally divine before he did so, and we are not. i do not need to refute this argument; the trend of modern thought is already doing so most effectually. it is a gratuitous assumption without a shred of evidence to support it. besides, unfortunately for this kind of statement, the scientific investigation of christian origins, and the application of the scientific method to the history of christian doctrine have shown us how the dogma of the deity of jesus grew up. it was a comparatively late development in christianity, and its practical implications never have been accepted, although at one time there was a danger that the winsome figure of jesus would be removed altogether from the field of human interest and regard. the jesus of michael angelo's "last judgment" is a terrifying figure without a trace of the lowly nazarene about him, and yet this was the jesus of the conventional christianity of the time. it was through this dehumanising of jesus in christian thought and experience that mariolatry arose in the roman church. could anything be more grotesque than the suggestion that the mother of jesus should need to plead with her son to be merciful with frail humanity? and yet this is what it came to; the figure of mary was introduced in order to preserve a real humanity in our relations with the godhead. all honour to those who have called us back to the real jesus, the jesus of galilee and jerusalem, the jesus with the prophet's fire, the jesus who was so gentle with little children and erring women, and yet before whom canting hypocrites and truculent ecclesiastics slunk away abashed. upon this recovered jesus the world has now fixed its adoring gaze, and it will not readily let him go again. +divine manhood and unitarianism.+--but then, someone will protest, this is sheer unitarianism after all; you do not believe in the jesus who is the object of the faith of christendom, but in one who was only a man among men; you do not think of him as very god of very god. not so fast; we are busy with names again. most of us have a tendency to think that if we can get a doctrine labelled and pigeonholed, we know all about it, but we are generally mistaken. this is not unitarianism, and i do believe that jesus was very god, as i have already shown. we have to get rid of the dualism which will insist on putting humanity and deity into two separate categories. i say it is not unitarianism, for historic unitarianism has been just as prone to this dualism as the extremest trinitarianism has ever been. like trinitarianism it has often tended to regard humanity as on one side of a gulf and deity as on the other; it has emphasised too much the transcendence of god. the sentence quoted above from an orthodox trinitarian divine about "god's eternal eminence and his descent on a created world" might just as well have been employed by an out-and-out unitarian. modern unitarianism is in part the descendant of eighteenth-century deism which insisted upon the transcendence of god almost to the exclusion of his immanence; it thought of god as away somewhere above the universe, watching it but leaving the machine pretty much to itself. unitarianism in the course of its history from the first century downward has passed through a good many phases. present-day unitarianism is preaching with fervour and clearness the foundation truth of the new theology, the fundamental unity of god and man. but it does not belong to it exclusively, and i decline to be labelled unitarian because i preach it too. the new theology is not a victory for unitarianism. if ever the english-speaking communities of the world should come to be united under a single flag, would it be just and wise to call them all americans? no doubt some of our american cousins would like to think so, but there is enough of virility and solid worth on the british side of the question to make that description impossible. the title would be a misnomer, and in fact an absurdity. the case in regard to the connection of the new theology with unitarianism is not dissimilar. it is only sectarian unitarians who would try to claim it for their own denomination; the best and most outstanding exponents of unitarianism would not wish to do anything of the kind, for they know well enough that historically speaking they have not consistently stood for it any more than any other denomination. the new theology does not belong to any one church but to all. for my own part i would not even take the trouble to try to turn a roman catholic into a protestant. let every man stay in the church whose spiritual atmosphere and modes of worship best accord with his temperament, but let him recognise the deeper unity that lies below the formal creeds. the old issue between unitarianism and trinitarianism vanishes in the new theology; the bottom is knocked out of the controversy. unitarianism used to declare that jesus was man _not_ god; trinitarianism maintained that he was god _and_ man; the oldest christian thought, as well as the youngest, regards him as god _in_ man--god manifest in the flesh. but here emerges a great point of difference between the new theology on the one hand and traditional orthodoxy on the other. the latter would restrict the description "god manifest in the flesh" to jesus alone; the new theology would extend it in a lesser degree to all humanity, and would maintain that in the end it will be as true of every individual soul as ever it was of jesus. indeed, it is this belief that gives value and significance to the earthly mission of jesus; he came to show us what we potentially are. this is a great and important issue, which requires to be treated in a separate chapter. chapter vi the eternal christ in the course of christian history a good deal of time has been occupied in the discussion of the metaphysical question of the complex unity of the divine nature; and the result has been the doctrine of the trinity, a conception which, it has been claimed, at once satisfies and transcends the operations of the human intellect. most non-theological modern minds are, however, somewhat suspicious of the doctrine of the trinity; it seems rather too speculative and too remote from ordinary ways of thinking to possess much real value. but this is quite a mistake. we cannot dispense with the doctrine of the trinity, for it, or something like it, is implied in the very structure of the mind. it belongs to philosophy even more than to religion, and to the sphere of ethics not less. i daresay even the man in the street knows, quite as certainly as the man in the schools, that a metaphysical proposition underlies the doing of every moral act, even though it may never be expressed. all thinking starts with an assumption of some kind, and without an assumption thought is impossible. this is just as true of the strictest scientific processes as it is of deductive reasoning, and indeed it is interesting to watch the way in which within recent years idealistic philosophy and empirical science have joined hands. does physical science, then, imply the doctrine of the trinity? yes, unquestionably it does, after a fashion, for it starts with an assumption which takes it for granted. perhaps this would be news to professor ray lankester, and such as he, but i think i could convince them that i am right if i had them face to face. to use the mind at all we have to assume this doctrine even though we may not actually formulate it. christianity did not invent it; it clarified and defined it, but in principle it is as old as the exercise of human reason. +the basal assumption of thought.+--after making a comprehensive assertion of this kind i suppose i am bound to justify it, and i do not shrink from the task. i say that all thinking starts with an assumption of some kind, and exact thought requires that that assumption shall be the simplest possible, the irreducible minimum beneath which we cannot get. now when we start thinking about existence as a whole and ourselves in particular, we are compelled to assume the infinite, the finite, and the activity of the former within the latter. in other words we have to postulate god, the universe, and god's operation within the universe. look at these three conceptions for a moment and it will be seen that every one of them implies the rest; they are a trinity in unity. the primordial being must be infinite, for there cannot be a finite without something still beyond it. we know, too, that to our experience the universe is finite; we can measure, weigh, and analyse it--an impossible thing to do with an infinite substance. and yet if we think of infinite and finite as two entirely distinct and unrelated modes of existence, we find ourselves in an impossible position, for the infinite must be that outside of which nothing exists or can exist; so of course we are compelled to think of the infinite as ever active within the finite, the source of change and motion, the exhaustless power which makes possible the very idea of development from simplicity to complexity. if the universe were complete in itself, change would not occur, and a cosmic process, evolutionary or otherwise, would be inconceivable. here, then, we have the basal factors of any true theology, philosophy, or science. readers of haeckel's "riddle of the universe" will note that that eminent materialist, who professes to do away with the very idea of god, takes these factors for granted; and yet i suppose he would object to being told that he believes in the doctrine of the trinity. but he does, for he begins by assuming infinite space filled to the farthest with matter ponderable and imponderable, and forthwith proceeds to weigh, measure, and divide the latter as though it were finite! here are two terms of the doctrine of the trinity at once. we get the third as soon as professor haeckel sets to work to explain the cosmic process, for as he does so he is all the while taking for granted that the infinite is pressing in and up through the finite, evolving beauty and order, light and life. +the moral basis of the doctrine.+--but it may be contended that these bare bones of the doctrine of the trinity are not the doctrine as it enters into spiritual experience. i admit the fact while asserting strongly that but for this framework of intellectual necessity the doctrine would be unknown to faith and morals. it is sometimes stated that the doctrine of the trinity was formulated in order to account for jesus, but that is only incidentally true. its framers took the materials for it over from greek thought, and even greek thought probably inherited it from an older civilisation still, if indeed there were any necessity to inherit it. i contend that if we had never heard of the doctrine in connection with jesus, we should have to invent it now in order to account for ourselves and the wondrous universe in which we live. unquestionably, however, it is from the point of view of religion and morals that the doctrine has most significance, and therefore has become indissolubly associated with the personality of jesus; and it is easy to see how this has come about. thinkers have always been compelled to construe the universe in terms of the highest known to man, namely, his own moral nature. it was natural, therefore, that while they thought of the universe as an expression of god, they should think of it as the expression of that side of his being which can only be described as the ideal or archetypal manhood. the infinite being of god is utterly incomprehensible to a finite mind, and in regard to it the most devout saint is as much an agnostic as the most convinced materialist. but we are justified in holding that whatever else he may be god is essentially man, that is, he is the fount of humanity. there must be one side, so to speak, of the infinitely complex being of god in which humanity is eternally contained and which finds expression in the finite universe. humanity is not a vague term; we have already seen something of what it is. we ought not to interpret it in terms of the primeval savage, or even of average human nature to-day, but in terms of what we have come to feel is its highest expression, and that is jesus. if we think therefore of the archetypal eternal divine man, the source and sustenance of the universe, and yet transcending the universe, we cannot do better than think of him in terms of jesus; jesus is the fullest expression of that eternal divine man on the field of human history. here, then, we have the first and second factors in the doctrine of the trinity morally and spiritually construed. +the divine man.+--the idea of a divine man, the emanation of the infinite, the soul of the universe, the source and goal of all humanity, is ages older than christian theology. it can be traced in babylonian religious literature, for instance, at a period older even than the old testament. it played a not unimportant part in greek thought, and philo of alexandria, a contemporary of jesus, works it out in some detail in his religio-philosophic system, which aimed to combine the wide outlook of greek culture with the high seriousness of hebrew religion. it is a true, indeed an inevitable, conception, if we hold anything like a consistent view of the immanence of god in his universe. with what god have we to do except the god who is eternally man? this aspect of the nature of god has been variously described in the course of its history. it has been called the word, the son, and, as we have seen, the second person in the trinity. for various reasons i prefer to call it--or rather him--the eternal christ. i do this because, for one thing, the word "christ" is a living word with a clearly marked ethical content and a great religious value. originally, of course, it was but the greek equivalent of the hebrew messiah, and meant the "anointed one," the person chosen for a special divine work. but in the new testament, especially the writings of st. paul, as well as all christian history through, it is associated on the one hand with the personality of jesus, and, on the other, with the fontal or ideal man who contains and is expressed in all human kind. according to the new testament writers, jesus was and is the christ, but in his earthly life his consciousness of the fact was limited. but, as we have come forth from this fontal manhood, we too must be to some extent expressions of this eternal christ; and it is in virtue of that fact that we stand related to jesus, and that the personality of jesus has anything to do with us. here is where the value of our belief in the interaction of the higher and the lower self comes in. fundamentally our being is already one with that of the eternal christ, and faith in jesus is faith in him. jesus is not one being and the christ another; the two are one, and jesus seems to have known it during his earthly ministry. he lived his life in such a way as to reveal the very essence of the christ nature. he is therefore central for us, and we are complete in him. here is the goal of all moral effort--christ. here, too, is the highest reach of the religious ideal--christ. "for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the father, and was manifested unto us." +the christ of st. paul.+--i am persuaded that we have here the key to the christology of that great thinker and preacher, the apostle paul. it is this ideal or eternal christ who is the object of his faith and devotion. he even goes so far as to warn his readers not to dwell too much upon the limited earthly jesus, but upon his true being in the eternal reality: "wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." he does not say, "to me to live is jesus," but, "to me to live is _christ_." if ever there was a christian who really loved jesus with passionate and whole-hearted devotion, it was the apostle paul, but he says almost nothing about the earthly ministry of his lord. he seems to have had a vivid impression as to what the character of jesus was really like, and he gave himself up to the worship of this with all his heart; but he does not draw for us any of the beautiful gospel pictures of the jesus in the peasant's dress who taught on the hillsides of galilee, went about doing good, was a welcome guest in the home at bethany, lived a true human life, and died a shameful death. paul always thought of him, and truly, as the lord who came down from heaven, but he does _not_ draw a sharp line of distinction between him and the rest of humanity. he calls jesus "the first-born among many brethren." he speaks of the summing up of all things in christ, and of the final consummation when god shall be all in all. here is the new theology with a vengeance. paul requires to be rescued from the inadequate and distorting interpretations his thought has received in the course of its history. he brought this conception of the eternal christ into christianity from pre-christian thought, saw it ideally revealed in jesus, and then bade mankind respond to it and realise it to be the true explanation of our own being. sometimes he appears to deviate from this view, and to say things inconsistent with it, but that we need not mind; he saw it, and that is enough. it forms the foundation of his gospel. chapter vii the incarnation of the son of god +jesus all that christian devotion has believed him to be.+--so far we have seen that the personality of jesus is central for christian faith. we deny nothing about him that christian devotion has ever affirmed, but we affirm the same things of humanity as a whole in a differing degree. the practical dualism which regards jesus as coming into humanity from something that beforehand was not humanity we declare to be misleading. our view of the subject does not belittle jesus but it exalts human nature. let this be clearly understood and most of the objections to it will vanish. briefly summed up, the position is as follows: jesus was god, but so are we. he was god because his life was the expression of divine love; we too are one with god in so far as our lives express the same thing. jesus was not god in the sense that he possessed an infinite consciousness; no more are we. jesus expressed fully and completely, in so far as a finite consciousness ever could, that aspect of the nature of god which we have called the eternal son, or christ, or ideal man who is the soul of the universe, and "the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;" we are expressions of the same primordial being. fundamentally we are all one in this eternal christ. this is the most difficult statement of all to make clear, for the average westerner cannot grasp it; it is different from his ordinary way of looking at things. the best way of demonstrating it, as i have already shown, is to draw attention to the fact that christian orthodoxy has all along been affirming the mystic union between christ and the soul, and that the limited earthly consciousness of jesus did not prevent him from being really and truly god. why should we not speak in a similar way about any other human consciousness? if we could only get men to do so habitually and sincerely, it would be the greatest gain to religion that could possibly be imagined. in the third chapter i have pointed out that psychological science is doing much to help us toward this realisation. we are beginning to see, however hard it may be to understand it, that our limited individual consciousness is no barrier to the true identification of the lesser with the larger self. what christian doctrine, therefore, has been affirming of jesus for hundreds of years past is receiving impressive confirmation from modern science and is being seen to be true of every human being--that is, the lesser and the larger are one, however little the earthly consciousness may be able to grasp the fact. to me this is a most helpful and inspiring truth, one of the most important that has ever found a place in christian thought; it elucidates much that would otherwise be obscure. it enables us to see how the human and divine were blended in jesus without making him essentially different from the rest of the human race; it enables us to realise our own true origin and to believe in the salvability of every soul that has ever come to moral consciousness. if this truth will not lift a man toward the higher life, i do not know one that will. it is the truth implied in all redemptive effort that has ever been made, and in every message that has ever gripped conscience and heart; it is, as the nicene creed has it, "the taking of the manhood into god." +the preëminence of jesus.+--lest anyone should think that this position involves in the slightest degree the diminution of the religious value and the moral preëminence of jesus, let me say that it does the very opposite. nothing can be higher than the highest, and the life of jesus was the undimmed revelation of the highest. faith to be effective must centre on a living person, and the highest objective it has ever found is jesus. he is no abstraction but a spiritual reality, an ever-present friend and guide, our brother and our lord. no one will ever compete with jesus for this position in human hearts. when i speak of the eternal christ, i do not mean someone different from jesus, although i certainly do mean the basal principle of all human goodness; jesus was and is that christ, and we can only understand what the christ is because we have seen him. whole-hearted faith in him has proved itself to be the most effective means to the manifestation of our own christhood. +jesus and the incarnation.+--this thought at once opens up another great question to which we have already alluded, that of the incarnation of this eternal christ or son of god in the finite universe. according to the received theology the incarnation of god in human life was limited to the life of jesus only, and through him to mankind. i purposely say popular theology because the best christian thought has always known better. popular theology has it that jesus, the only-begotten eternal son of god, took human flesh and a human nature, was conceived by the holy ghost in the womb of a virgin, and was born into the world in a wholly miraculous way--a way which stamps him as different from all that were ever born of woman before or since. it seems strange that belief in the virgin birth of jesus should ever have been held to be a cardinal article of the christian faith, but it is so even to-day. there is not much need to combat it, for most reputable theologians have now given it up, but it is still a stumbling-block to many minds. perhaps, therefore, a brief examination of the subject may not be altogether out of place. +the virgin birth not demonstrable from scripture.+--the virgin birth of jesus was apparently unknown to the primitive church, for the earliest new testament writings make no mention of it. paul's letters do not allude to it, neither does the gospel of st. mark. "in the fulness of time," says the great apostle, "god sent forth his son born of a woman." he was "of the seed of david according to the flesh," but nowhere does paul give us so much as a hint of anything supernatural attending the mode of his entry into the world. mark does not even tell us anything about the childhood of the master; his account begins with the baptism of jesus in jordan. the fourth gospel, although written much later, ignores the belief in the virgin birth, and even seems to do so of set purpose as belittling and materialising the truth. the supposed old testament prophecies of the event have nothing whatever to do with it. the famous passage, "behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name immanuel," is a reference to contemporary events, and the word translated "virgin" simply means a young woman. it is a prophecy of the birth of a prince whose work it should be to put right for judah what the reigning king ahaz had been putting wrong. the story in the seventh of isaiah is as follows: ahaz, a rather weak ruler, was greatly concerned by the news that rezin, king of syria and pekah, king of northern israel, had formed an alliance against him and were marching on jerusalem. in his extremity this monarch of a petty state turned toward the mighty ruler of assyria, the greatest military power in the world, and asked his help against the combination. isaiah, statesman as well as prophet, saw that this was a wrong move. assyria was aspiring to universal dominion, and to form an alliance with the military master of that mighty state would be to supply him with an excuse for further interference. the policy of ahaz was therefore as suicidal as that of john balliol when he called in edward the first to adjudicate on his claim to the crown of scotland, or the policy of spain when she called in napoleon. sargon, king of assyria, was overturning thrones in all directions, profiting by the divisions and jealousies of his foes. the great empires of egypt and babylonia went down before him as well as the smaller states. the condition of things in this ancient world was just like that of europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century when the star of napoleon was in the ascendant. for ahaz to turn for help to sargon was to court disaster in the end. isaiah saw this and went out to meet ahaz one day "at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field"--a vivid descriptive touch. the king was apparently preparing to stand a siege in his capital and was making sure of the water supply. isaiah's remonstrance was in substance: you need not take so much trouble with your preparations; syria and israel will have more than enough to do presently to defend their own borders from sargon. besides, men like rezin and pekah are not men to be afraid of in any case; they have neither strength nor skill. but do not for heaven's sake call in sargon; if you do you will supply him with an excuse for meddling and we shall never get rid of him. this was good counsel, but ahaz was too short-sighted and panic-stricken to take much notice of it, so in oriental fashion isaiah goes on to paint a picture of future disaster. the land, he says, will soon be laid waste, and future generations will rue the policy now being determined upon. in the end, of course, things will come all right, for god will not abandon his people. a better and wiser prince shall arise who shall restore prosperity to judah. that prince is not yet born, but when he is, his name shall be called immanuel,--god with us. in another place he describes him as wonderful counsellor, divine hero, father everlasting, prince of peace. "butter and honey shall he eat," because there will be nothing else left after assyria has swept over the country, but the discipline may have good results in the end, and will serve to bring judah to her senses. there is something strikingly modern about all this, and it is a good example of the way in which the same conditions arise over and over again in the course of human history. it is plain to be seen that the prophecy here indicated was only the shrewd common sense of a wise and patriotic man who loved his country and believed in god. but what on earth have his words to do with the birth of jesus? it is only by a very long stretch of the pious imagination that they can be held to apply to christianity at all. they have an interest of their own, and a very considerable interest, too, even from the point of view of religion; but isaiah would have been considerably astonished to be told that they would have to wait seven hundred years for fulfilment. to a certain extent they were fulfilled soon afterward in the advent of the well-meaning but not very brilliant king hezekiah. i have dwelt upon this passage at some length because it is a fair example of the way in which old testament literature has been pressed into the service of christian dogma. what i am now saying, as i need hardly point out, is not my _ipse dixit_; expert biblical scholarship has been saying it for a long time, but somehow or other its bearing upon generally accepted dogmas is not popularly realised. it can hardly be maintained that christian preachers who know the truth about these matters and refrain from stating it plainly are doing their duty to their congregations. no old testament passage whatever is directly or indirectly a prophecy of the virgin birth of jesus. to insist upon this may seem to many like beating a man of straw, but if so the man of straw still retains a good deal of vitality. +the virgin birth in the gospels.+--the only two gospels in which the virgin birth is alluded to are matthew and luke, and the nativity stories contained in these are very beautiful, especially those peculiar to luke. but the two gospels are mutually contradictory in their account of the circumstances attending the miraculous birth. each contains a genealogy which professes to be that of joseph, not of mary, and these are inconsistent with each other. what has the genealogy of joseph got to do with the birth of jesus if jesus were not his own son? the conclusion seems probable that in the earlier versions of these gospels the miraculous conception did not find a place, or else that two inconsistent sources have been drawn upon without sufficient care being taken to reconcile them. but this is not the only discrepancy. matthew gives bethlehem as the native place of joseph and mary, luke says nazareth. matthew says not a word about the census of cyrenius as the motive for the journey to bethlehem, but leads us to suppose that the holy family were already in residence there. then again he tells us of the coming of the wise men from the east, their public inquiry as to the whereabouts of the holy child, the jealousy of herod, the massacre of the innocents, and the flight into egypt. luke says nothing about these things, but gives us an entirely different set of wonders, including the attendance of an angelic host and the annunciation to the shepherds. so far from recording any massacre, or any hasty flight, he tells us that some time after his birth the babe was taken to the temple at jerusalem to be presented to the lord, and that afterwards he and his parents "returned into galilee to their own city nazareth." according to matthew nazareth was an afterthought and only became the residence of the holy family after the return from egypt. these accounts do not tally, and no ingenuity can reconcile them. the nativity stories belong to the poetry of religion, not to history. to regard them as narrations of actual fact is to misunderstand them. they are better than that; they take us into the region of exalted feeling and give us a vision of truth too great for prosaic statement. christianity would be poorer by the loss of them, but they are not indigenous to christianity. they have their parallels in other religions, some of them much older than the advent of jesus. the beautiful legends surrounding the infancy of gautama, for example, are startlingly similar to those contained in the first and third gospels. like jesus, the buddhist messiah is stated to have been of royal descent and was born of a virgin mother. at his birth a supernatural radiance illuminated the whole district, and a troop of heavenly beings sang the praises of the holy child. later on a wise man, guided by special portents, recognised him as the long-expected and divinely appointed light-bringer and life-giver of mankind. when but a youth he was lost for a time and was found by his father in the midst of a circle of holy men, sunk in rapt contemplation of the great mystery of existence. the parallel between these legends and the christian version of the marvels attending the birth of jesus is so close as to preclude the possibility of its being altogether accidental. there must have been a connection somewhere, and indeed there is no need to think otherwise, for nothing is to be gained or lost by admitting it. +christianity not dependent on a virgin birth.+--but why hesitate about the question? the greatness of jesus and the value of his revelation to mankind are in no way either assisted or diminished by the manner of his entry into the world. every birth is just as wonderful as a virgin birth could possibly be, and just as much a direct act of god. a supernatural conception bears no relation whatever to the moral and spiritual worth of the person who is supposed to enter the world in this abnormal way. the credibility and significance of christianity are in no way affected by the doctrine of the virgin birth otherwise than that the belief tends to put a barrier between jesus and the race and to make him something which cannot properly be called human. those who insist on the doctrine will find themselves in danger of proving too much, for, pressed to its logical conclusion, it removes jesus altogether from the category of humanity in any real sense. like many others, i used to take the position that acceptance or non-acceptance of the doctrine of the virgin birth was immaterial because christianity was quite independent of it, but later reflection has convinced me that in point of fact it operates as a hindrance to spiritual religion and a real living faith in jesus. the simple and natural conclusion is that jesus was the child of joseph and mary and had an uneventful childhood. +the truth in the doctrine of the virgin birth.+--and yet, as with every tenet which has held a place in human thought for any considerable length of time, there is a great truth contained in the idea of a virgin birth. it is the truth that the emergence of anything great and beautiful in human character and achievement is the work of the divine spirit operating within human limitations. this idea is very ancient, and there is no great religion which does not contain it in some form or other. one form of it, for example, can be discerned in the babylonian creation myth with its parallel in the book of genesis. the home of the primitive chaldeans, the stock whence israelites, babylonians, assyrians, and other semitic communities sprang, was in the low-lying territory surrounding the persian gulf. during the rainy seasons these lands were flooded by the overflow of the great rivers. the sun of springtime, rising upon this mass of waters which stretched in every direction as far as the eye could see, drew forth from their bosom the life and beauty of summer flowers and fruit. from observation of this regularly recurring phenomenon the primitive semites constructed their creation myth, one version of which appeared in the first chapter of the book of genesis, a version much later than the babylonian, but an outgrowth of the same idea. they thought of a primeval waste of water covering everything. as the writer of the genesis account has it: "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." in the babylonian version this primeval water was personified as a woman--tiamat. they thought of the sun of heaven as impregnating this virgin matrix with the seeds of cosmic life--quite an accurate conception from the modern point of view. later on this idea became spiritualised in a much higher degree. the religious mind came to regard the physical, mundane, or distinctively human principle as the matrix upon which the spirit of god brooded, bringing to the birth a divine idea. and this is perfectly true too, as anyone can see. nothing great and noble in human experience can be accounted for merely in terms of atoms and molecules. that is where materialism always comes to grief, for on its own premises it cannot account for the emergence of intelligence and all the higher qualities of human nature. a divine element, a spiritual quickening, is required for the evolution of anything godlike in our mundane sphere; it is a virgin birth. lower acting upon lower can never produce a higher. it is the downpouring and incoming of the higher to the lower which produces through the lower the divine manhood which leaves the brute behind. this is the sense in which it is true that jesus was of divine as well as human parentage. we do not account for him merely by saying that he was the son of joseph and mary and the descendant of a long line of prophets, priests, and kings; we have to recognise that his true greatness came from above. +true of all higher human experience.+--the same thing holds good in a lesser degree of everything worthy of jesus in human experience. we do not account for any man's goodness or greatness by pointing to his ancestry. heredity may account for a great deal, but it is inadequate as an explanation of genius or high moral achievement. if we go back far enough, we shall find that our ancestry was barbarous, and, judging from its tendencies, not at all likely to produce the christ-man of future ages. wherever the christ-man appears, we have to acknowledge that the principal factor in his evolution is the incoming of the divine spirit. it is only another way of stating what has already been stated above, that the true man or higher self is divine and eternal, integral to the being of god, and that this divine manhood is gradually but surely manifesting on the physical plane. the lower cannot produce the higher, but the higher is shaping and transforming the lower; every moral and spiritual advance is therefore of the nature of a virgin birth--a quickening from above. the spiritual birth described in the conversation between our lord and nicodemus as given in the third of john is, properly speaking, a virgin birth. "that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." "ye must be born anew," or, literally, "quickened from above." every man who deliberately faces towards the highest, and feels himself reënforced by the spirit of god in so doing, is quickened from above; the divinely human christ is born in him, the word has become flesh and is manifested to the world. +human history one long incarnation.+--if now we can turn our thoughts away for a moment from the individual to the race and think of humanity as one being, or the expression of one being, we shall read this truth on a larger scale. all human history represents the incarnation or manifesting of the eternal son or christ of god. the incarnation cannot be limited to one life only, however great that life may be. it is quite a false idea to think of jesus and no one else as the son of god incarnate. it is easy to understand the loving reverence for jesus which would lead men to regard him as being and expressing something to which none of the rest of us can ever attain, but in affirming this we actually rob him of a glory he ought to receive. we make him unreal, reduce his earthly life to a sort of drama, and effect a drastic distinction in kind between him and ourselves. if he came from the farther side of the gulf and we only from the hither; if we are humanity without divinity, and he divinity that has only assumed humanity,--perfect fellowship between him and ourselves is impossible. but it is untrue to say that any such distinction exists. let us go on thinking of jesus as christ, the very christ of glory, but let us realise that that same christ is seeking expression through every human soul. he is incarnate in the race in order that by means of limitation he may manifest the innermost of god, the life and love eternal. to say this does not dethrone jesus; it lends significance to his life and work. he is on the throne and the sceptre is in his hand. we can rise toward him by trusting, loving, and serving him; and by so doing we shall demonstrate that we too are christ the eternal son. to think of all human life as a manifestation of the eternal son, renders it sacred. our very struggles and sufferings become full of meaning. sin is but the failure to realise it; it is being false to ourselves and our divine origin; it is the centrifugal tendency in human nature just as love is the centripetal. there is no life, however depraved, which does not occasionally emit some sign of its kinship to jesus and its eternal sonship to god. wherever you see self-sacrifice at work you see the very spirit of jesus, the spirit of the christ incarnate. i find it everywhere, and it interprets life for me as nothing else can. take up any work of fiction, no matter what, and you will find the author instinctively preaching this truth. look into any commonplace, everyday life, no matter whose, and you will find it exemplified. many a selfish bad man has one tender spot in his nature, his affection for his child, and for the sake of that child he will deny himself as he has never dreamed of doing for anything else; so far as that one influence is concerned he actually reverses the principle which governs the rest of his life. i have read of an african negress who on one occasion was beaten nearly to death by the brute to whom she was slave and paramour. her murderer, for such he was, was arrested and placed on trial for his misdemeanour, in accordance with the rough justice of the white man in his dealings with the native. in the night the poor dying woman crawled painfully to the tree against which the ruffian lay bound, cut his cords, and set him free. it was her last act in this life; in the morning she was found lying dead on the spot whence the prisoner had fled. this particular story may or may not be true, but the same kind of thing has been true a million times in human history. what was the spirit in this benighted woman of the african wilds but the christ spirit, the self-giving spirit seen with such unique sublimity in the life of jesus? look abroad all through the world, look back upon the slow, upward progress of humanity to its home in god, and you will read the story of the incarnation of the eternal son. never has there been an hour so dark but that some gleams of this eternal light have pierced the murky pall of human ignorance and sin; never have bitter hate and fiendish cruelty gone altogether unrelieved by the human tenderness and self-devotion that testify of god. indeed without the limitation, the struggle, and the pain, how would this christ spirit ever have known itself? granted that self-surrender had never been called for by the conditions of life, granted that our resources had always known themselves infinite, and that which is worthiest and sublimest in the nature of god and man alike could never have been revealed. this is why the eternal son has become incarnate; this is what we are here to do, and upon the faithful doing of it depends our experience of the joy that the world can neither give nor take away. the life and death of jesus are the central expression and ideal embodiment of this age-long process, a process the consummation of which will be the glorious return and triumphant ingathering of a redeemed and perfectly unified humanity to god. "and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that god may be all in all." chapter viii the atonement +i. association of the doctrine with jesus+ +importance of the subject.+--this brings us to a subject, which, more than any other, with the exception of that of the person of jesus, has come under discussion at the present time. in the course of christian history it has created a more extensive literature than probably any other doctrine. i mean the subject variously known as salvation, redemption, atonement, and with which the terms forgiveness, expiation, reconciliation, ransom, justification, propitiation, satisfaction, sanctification, and such like have been commonly associated. the christian doctrine of atonement, as we may call it for convenience, bulks so large in christian thought that all others may be held to be dependent upon it, even that of the person of jesus; for, according to the received theology, jesus became incarnate for our redemption, and that redemption can only be accomplished by one who is very god. +the need for an adequate explanation.+--but there is no subject upon which modern christian thought is less coherent than this. we are constantly hearing the statement that a rational theory of the atonement is badly wanted, or that it is our duty to preach the fact without a theory, or that the atonement is such a mystery that no theory is possible and we must just accept it on faith. this confession of helplessness shows that there is something seriously wrong with the conventional presentation of the doctrine. but i do not think the atonement is such a very great mystery after all, and it ought to be possible to get at the heart of it without stultifying the intellect. anyhow, let us try. +the usual theological method of expounding it.+--as a rule treatises on the atonement begin with an examination of the scripture passages which are supposed to have a bearing upon it. then follows a careful examination and criticism of the various theories of it which have successively held the field during its history; the author concludes by giving us his own. i do not propose to follow that method, for it does not possess a living interest for the mind of to-day; the psychological should take precedence of the historical. i do not feel called upon to take the doctrine of atonement for granted and then proceed to try to find a place for it in christian experience. on the contrary, i prefer to take human nature for granted and inquire whether it needs anything like a doctrine of atonement. if it does not, let the doctrine go; if it does, let us see that the doctrine is presented in a reasonable fashion. if it cannot be presented reasonably, it is not wanted. but i think it is wanted, and more than wanted; it is already taken for granted by everyone who thinks seriously about life, whether it is called by its theological name or not. +outline of present-day accepted belief in regard to it.+--before i proceed to attempt to justify these statements let me ask my readers to call to mind the outline of what they have been taught in reference to this great fundamental of the christian faith. part of it has already been indicated, for it was hardly possible to avoid it when considering such a subject as that of the nature of evil or the divinity of jesus. roughly stated it is as follows: our fallen humanity is separated from and under the displeasure of god. god longs to save us from our sin, but justice demands that he must punish us. the world is already an unhappy place because of sin, but what we endure here is nothing to what we shall have to endure presently when we cross the river of death; we shall all go to hell, a place of never-ending torment, unless some means can be found of justifying us before god ere we pass over. this means has been found in the self-devotion of the second person in the trinity. the sinless son of god took upon himself the likeness of sinful humanity, was born into this world, lived here for a few years, suffered a violent death, and then reascended to his father to make unceasing intercession for mankind. it was the dying of the death that was the all-important thing. it was in consideration of this death that god agreed to pardon sin. jesus was put to death because god had arranged that he should be put to death, and because jesus was willing to be put to death, in order that a satisfactory offering might be made to divine justice for the sins of the world. god had to punish someone before he could be free to forgive his erring children, and therefore with the consent of jesus he punished him. the whole scheme was prearranged in heaven, cross and all, and therefore jesus was not taken by surprise when the end came; he was, in fact, a party to it, and his murderers were in a sense only the instruments of a beneficent, foreordained plan. god accepts this sacrifice as a full and complete equivalent for all that humanity deserves, but we must individually appropriate it by faith or it will not avail for us; we shall go to hell all the same. if on the other hand we do claim the benefit of this finished work, the merits of the redeemer are imputed to us; we are held to be justified before god, and are gradually sanctified by the holy spirit operating within our souls and fashioning us into the moral likeness of our lord. +conventional view both true and false.+--to say that these statements are wholly untrue is impossible, for they everyone contain a truth of considerable value, but as popularly stated they are misleading. this view of the atonement is unethical, and, in my judgment and that of many others, has wrought a good deal of mischief in the past and bewilderment in the present. some readers of these pages will no doubt find fault with me for stating it so baldly, and will maintain that no front-rank theologian or preacher would enunciate it in these terms to-day. once again i can only repeat that they use language which implies it, and it seems impossible to resist the conclusion that they are driven to use the vaguer language because of their own feeling that the balder statement, which their predecessors made without hesitation, is intellectually and morally impossible, and yet they do not know what to put in its place. they are reluctant to give up the belief that in some way or other the death of jesus on calvary actually effected something in the unseen by making god propitious toward us and removing the barrier which prevented him from freely forgiving human sin. of course they add other and valuable elements in their discussion of the theme, but this is their central idea and they seldom get away from it. the typical theologian never seems to think of looking at the death of jesus from the purely human point of view, and yet surely this is the only legitimate thing to do when trying to get at the heart of the subject. it is what we should do in any other case of a like kind; we should never dream of doing anything else. we have no business to begin speculating upon transcendental questions until we have examined the purely human causes of such an event as the crucifixion of jesus. when an adherent of the so-called orthodox view of the doctrine of the atonement is pressed to say just what he supposes the death of jesus to have effected in the mind of god so as to free humanity from its curse, he usually takes refuge in phrases about the "mystery of the cross," and so on. he does not say in plain language exactly what he means, for the truth is he does not know; he only believes what he has been told, and has persuaded himself that it is of the utmost value to christian experience, which it is not and never was. the doctrine as popularly held is not only not true but it ought not to be true; it is a serious hindrance to spiritual religion. why in the world should god require such a sacrifice before feeling himself free to forgive his erring children? and why should it be regarded as in any real sense a substitute for what is due from us or any equivalent for what we should otherwise have to bear? once more, perhaps, the dogmatic theologian will pull me up sharply and say that i am misrepresenting him, but i think i am on fairly safe ground in declaring that this is what the ordinary man in the pew as well as the man in the street understands by the saving work of jesus, and he does so because of the language of the pulpit backed by the theological college preceptor. if this is the atonement, there is little wonder that thoughtful minds will have nothing to say to it and that so many good people are puzzled to know what to think about it. +the human causes of the crucifixion of jesus.+--if the death of jesus took place under similar circumstances to-day, we should be in no doubt as to what to call it. it was a barbarous and wicked murder instigated by base and unscrupulous men who wanted to get rid of a dangerous teacher. we do not need to search far in order to find reasons for the tragedy. there were reasons enough in the antagonism which had long existed between jesus and the ecclesiastical rulers of judea. jesus held and taught a certain ideal concerning human life and its relation to god. at the beginning of his brief public ministry he seems to have thought that his invitation to men to realise their divine sonship would meet with a ready response, and that therefore the kingdom of god would without great difficulty be established upon earth through the working of the spirit of love in human hearts. at first he gained an extensive hearing because the jewish people were willing and ready to listen to any teacher who would hold out to them some hope of a better and happier day. consequently he was for a time extremely popular, and even the pharisees deliberated as to whether he might prove to be the long-expected leader who should restore the kingdom to israel. but this attitude soon changed. people and rulers alike became disappointed with jesus. they were looking for a kingdom which should come by force, and jesus for one which should come by love. they wanted material benefits forthwith, while to jesus these were altogether a secondary matter. then, too, he became an inconvenience. his standard of rectitude was exacting. he saw through the hypocrisies and villanies of many of those who posed as the guides and directors of the nation, and he was not silent about them. he spoke out without fear or hesitation. what other people had been thinking and dared not say he said without pausing to consider what the consequences might be. no wonder the ecclesiastics came to feel that he must be silenced at any cost. it can hardly be supposed that people in general were offended by his plain language concerning those in high places, but then they wanted him to do something besides talk. they wanted to see him drive out the roman without delay and inaugurate the era of power and plenty. jesus saw well enough what the end of all this must be. he must either temporise a little, or go away and hide, or go straight on doing his work until the night came and he could work no more. he decided for the last-named course, leaving the results to god. it was in the line of his duty to go up to jerusalem for the feast of the passover, so to jerusalem he went. he could hardly have been under any delusion as to what awaited him there. the crowds in the capital were very excited about him; his name was on every lip, and there were many who would have declared for him at once if he had only offered himself as the national champion against the foreigner. but by this time priests, pharisees, and scribes understood that, in their sense of the word, a national champion he would never be. the crisis was reached at the cleansing of the temple. the moral greatness, the tremendous impressiveness, of the personality of jesus were never more clearly demonstrated than on this occasion. there was no earthly reason why dove-sellers, money-changers, priests, and temple officials should be driven pell-mell out of precincts they had come to look upon as their own, except that they were overawed by the stern majesty of this wonderful galilean. for a brief hour jesus was master of the situation; the next day he was arrested. the thing had to be done secretly and quickly, but those who planned it calculated rightly. no sooner was jesus made a prisoner than the populace turned against him and clamoured for his destruction. those who know something of mob psychology will readily understand this. human passion easily swings from adoration to hate, as history has shown over and over again. if a strong man fails in a conflict of forces in a time of great public excitement, he is rarely allowed to sink quietly into oblivion; the mob turns upon him with the savagery of a wild beast. napoleon was one day driving through the streets of paris amid cheering crowds. one of his suite remarked to him that it must be gratifying to see how his subjects loved him. "bah!" said the emperor, "the same rabble would cheer just as madly if i were going to the guillotine." he was right. it was just the same with this jerusalem crowd. the populace thought that the jesus who had seemed so strong was not so strong after all, and therefore their base fury vented itself upon him just as priests and pharisees had foreseen. these were the immediate causes of the death of jesus. his execution was a judicial murder done to gratify sacerdotal spite and popular passion, and the men who took part in it were guilty of what has proved to be the blackest deed in history. the same type of man exists to-day, as he has existed in every age, and if jesus came again without saying who he was, history would repeat itself. i do not suppose his enemies would nail him on a wooden cross,--public opinion would forbid that now, thanks to nineteen centuries of his gospel,--but they would find some means of making him suffer, and they would invoke his own name to justify them in doing it. +the reason why there was no supernatural interference.+--but is this all that can be said about the matter? where does god come in? why was a crime of this sort ever permitted? why has the memory of it actually become a religious dogma? other people have been put to death quite as unjustly, and the results, though great, are not to be compared with those which have followed from the death of jesus. why is this? as we have already seen, the popular view of the doctrine of atonement presumes that this foul deed was in some way, as the scripture has it, by "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of god." was it really so? was the whole dreadful drama merely a programme to be gone through in all its appointed stages, ending with the cry of the victim, "it is finished"? there is one sense, and only one, in which such a deed can be said to have been by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of god, and that is that god did not interfere to save jesus from the last dread ordeal. he allowed wickedness to do its worst, and thereby made the disinterested nobleness of the character of jesus all the clearer. in such a time as that in which jesus lived such a life as his was sure to end on a calvary of some kind, unless he ran away from it, or god supernaturally intervened to save him. neither event happened. if jesus had shrunk from the full consequences of his actions; if he had temporised, concealed himself, tried to gain time, or adopted any other subterfuge or expedient in order to save his life--that life would not have the moral power it possesses or shine with such glorious lustre in the world to-day. supernatural interference would have dimmed the moral beauty of the faith, courage, and perfect self-devotion of jesus. the moral worth of any act of self-sacrifice, no matter on what scale it is performed, is dependent upon the fact that it is done without regard to consequences. if we could see with absolute clearness the sure and certain result of any action, if we could know, as unquestionably as that two and two make four, that it would always pay to do the right thing, the very soul of goodness would have gone out of it. it is just because we do not know, save with the deeper knowledge that contradicts appearances,--the knowledge that is rightly termed faith,--that an unselfish action is in accord with the general rightness of the universe, and therefore must prevail in the end, that there is anything praiseworthy in it. the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of god were that this should be fully demonstrated in the experience of jesus, as it has been in the experience of many a one of his followers since. once more therefore we come to the last word of the cosmos, manifestation by sacrifice; and the experience of jesus is the sum and centre of it all. the reason why the name of jesus has such power in the world to-day is because a perfectly noble and unselfish life was crowned by a perfectly sacrificial death. both were needed; either without the other would have been incomplete. many a british soldier has died as brave a death as jesus, but none have ever lived the life of jesus. the life and death together were a perfect self-offering, the offering of the unit to the whole, the individual to the race, the son to the father, and therefore the greatest manifestation of the innermost of god that has ever been made to the world. it makes the sacrifice unreal to speak of it as though jesus knew the end from the beginning and foresaw every stage in the programme before he came to it. he did not; he shrank from the shameful end just as we should have done, and prayed to god to save him from it. an immense amount of pious nonsense has been spoken and written about our lord's agony in gethsemane. we have been told that in this dreadful hour the sorrow of jesus bore no relation to his physical death, but was caused by his mysterious self-identification with all the sins of mankind, past, present, and to come. to add to the horror god the father turned his face away from him, treating him as though he were indeed the embodiment of all the guilt of mankind, the scapegoat driven into the wilderness. i have never been able to read this kind of thing without an inner protest against the unreality of it; it precludes the possibility of understanding jesus or entering sympathetically into an experience in which to a greater or less degree every noble soul has sooner or later to share with him. the only way to explain gethsemane is to approach it from the purely human point of view, as we have already done with the causes which led up to the crucifixion. let us try to put ourselves in the sufferer's place, a perfectly legitimate and right thing to do. how would any of us have felt in the circumstances of jesus? suppose that you had laboured consistently and whole-heartedly, in season and out of season, to get men to realise their divine sonship and live the life that is life indeed. suppose you had seen your hopes perish one by one, and that materialism, selfishness, and hypocrisy seemed to have become all the stronger for your protest. suppose you saw evil gathering head against you, that you found yourself left utterly alone, and that even god seemed to be silent in this hour of tragic failure. here are your enemies triumphant at the gate, thirsting for your blood. beyond that gate, betrayal, torture, and public shame are waiting for you. in the background of all stands the cruel gibbet to which your own countrymen, the people you have loved with an all-absorbing love, shall presently commit you. tell me what you would pray in like circumstances. your agony would be just as great as that of jesus, though perhaps your prayer would lack his magnificent faith and ungrudging self-surrender. jesus went to his death having nothing to rely upon except his inner conviction that god and the cause of truth were one, and that somehow or other in the end that would be made plain to himself and all the world. it would have been the same no matter what had been the particular death that jesus died. his murderers might have taken his life in any one of a thousand ways and the ultimate result would have been just as we see it now. they might have hanged, drowned, or burnt him, in which case the stake or the hangman's rope would have become the symbol of the world's redemption, but, after the fashion of their time, they crucified him; it was the worst they could do, and they wanted to do the worst. at calvary perfect love joined issue with perfect hate, perfect goodness with perfect wickedness, and became victorious by enduring the worst and remaining pure and unchanged to the last. +the moral outcome.+--but it was not the last after all; the world had still to reckon with god. that life and death have become a moral force, a spiritual dynamic greater than any before or since, just because of the completeness of the self-offering that culminated on calvary's cross. i must not anticipate what i have to say about the resurrection further than to remark that more came out of the tomb of jesus than ever went into it. when all seemed lost this buried life arose in power in other lives that up till then had never fully known its divine greatness and spiritual beauty. this is the truth about the death of jesus, and nothing needs to be added to show how great an event in the dealings of god with men it must have been. it was both simple and sublime. theological word-spinning only serves to obscure its true significance. show to the world the real jesus; tell men how it came about that he had to die, and they cannot help but love him. chapter ix the atonement +ii. semitic ideas of atonement+ +atonement in history.+--what, then, has this death to do with the atonement? a great deal; but the best way to answer the question will be to obtain a clear idea as to what the atonement really means and always has meant to christian experience, notwithstanding the tortuous ways in which the doctrine has been articulated. i am convinced that underneath every genuine attempt to explain the atonement which has ever held the field for any length of time in christian history the same truth is always to be found. it is so even with the statement of it which is supposed to be orthodox to-day, but which is quite modern after all, and is practically discredited by all thoughtful minds. the mental dialect changes from one generation to another, but truth does not. as a matter of fact, statements of truth are but conventional symbols at the best, and possess only the ethical and emotional value associated with them in our minds. this is why venerable propositions which seem obscurantist to us originally possessed vital significance to their framers; the ethical and emotional content were greater than the form of statement, as they always must be. every one of my readers is no doubt aware of the power possessed by some particular landscape or piece of music to awaken certain emotions in the heart or bring back the memory of certain events to the mind. the same scene or song might not do this for anyone else because the associations are different. it is much the same with the forms in which religious truth is stated from age to age. the form is no more the truth than the landscape is the emotion or recollection it excites; it is only a symbol for the truth. to grasp this clearly should not only make us more tolerant of archaic confessions of faith, but should help us to realise that truth is one even under apparently contradictory forms of statement. it is our duty in religion as in everything else to endeavour to express the content of spiritual experience in the forms which best accord with the mental dialect of our own day. i repeat, therefore, that underneath every one of the principal forms of statement in which the doctrine of atonement has been presented in the past the same truth is to be found. it is an interesting historical and psychological study to try to find out what it is. +atonement in the old testament.+--as i have already said above, it is usual for writers on the atonement to begin by taking scripture for granted and presenting an examination of the principal passages in which the atonement is thought to be presumed or declared. but if what i have just said be true, we have to get behind even the language of scripture and ask how the writers of the old and new testaments came to use these particular symbols and what they originally meant. the word "atonement" is not an exact translation of any one old testament term, but connotes a group of related religious ideas. in its christian use other elements enter into it from greek thought which are not to be found in the old testament. but the old testament source of the ideas as well as the term is much older than the greek, and therefore we are right in looking to the old testament for the origin of the doctrine which has taken such an important place in christianity. but here again modern research has opened up an enormous field of investigation. israel was a member of a vast family of nations all of which had sprung from one stock, and of which the babylonians and assyrians were the most powerful representatives. the israelites were, politically speaking, a comparatively insignificant folk surrounded by mighty empires which had attained a high degree of civilisation. the excavations which are now proceeding in oriental lands, especially the territories occupied by ancient assyria, babylonia, and egypt, are bringing much valuable and interesting matter to light. we find that the civilisation of these peoples was much older than up to now scholars have believed. the communities inhabiting the land of canaan, for example, had developed a complex political and commercial organisation long before the israelitish invasion; canaan was in fact the highway along which passed the commerce of egypt with the mighty nations to the north. the painstaking efforts of expert explorers are bringing vast forgotten literatures to light and reconstituting for us the religious ideas and modes of life of these people of the ancient world. one result of these researches has been to prove that hebrew religious ideas were closely allied to those of other semitic peoples, and even the way in which they were expressed owed not a little to older civilisations. in nothing was this more clearly the case than with the ideas included afterward in the doctrine of atonement. the word translated atonement in our version of the old testament scriptures played an important part in the old testament sacrificial system, and this again was closely connected with semitic modes of worship in general. +the day of atonement.+--there was one great day in the jewish religious year called the day of atonement, when a special ritual was gone through and special offerings made to god on account of the sins of the people as a whole. the ceremonial was very elaborate and the occasion was observed with great solemnity by the whole nation. as described in the old testament the prescriptions for this day of atonement, the good friday of the levitical system as it has been called, probably owe a good deal to babylonian influences. it should be remembered that the outstanding event in later jewish history was the carrying away of the flower of the nation by nebuchadnezzar into babylon, where they remained for more than two generations. it is quite likely that, in spite of their exclusiveness and their hatred of their conquerors, the jews may have borrowed some of their religious ritual from the babylonians, but, whether they did or not, the ideas underlying their respective modes of worship were much the same. primitive religious sacrifice among semitic peoples appears to have been mainly of a joyous character; worship and sacrifice went hand in hand. the worshippers were accustomed to offer to their gods sacrifices of everything which the votaries themselves valued,--the fruits of the earth, their material possessions, their flocks and herds, the prisoners they had taken in war, and occasionally even the children of their own body. it was only on great and solemn occasions, such as the necessity for staying a pestilence, or averting defeat in war, that the offering of the more terrible kinds of sacrifice was made. it would be instructive, therefore, for us to inquire what were the underlying ideas assumed in semitic religious sacrifice. +underlying ideas in semitic sacrifice. 1. the solidarity of man with god.+--in the first place there was the idea of community of life between the worshipper and his god. it is doubtful how far this can be pressed, but it is clear that in the semitic mind there was always a conviction that the deity of the clan or tribe was the giver as well as the sustainer of its life. this did not apply to the minor divinities, the demons of wood and stream, but to the tribal deities, the chemosh of moab, the dagon of the philistines, the jehovah of israel. probably the philistines were not semites, but no doubt ancient worship in general took for granted this community of life between any particular people and their deity. in the offering of the best of their possessions to the god the worshippers thought they were rendering to him of his own. as he was at once the giver and the guardian of life, they felt bound to render him the best of the fruits of life. this was a true thought, a principle essential to all true spiritual life, and implied in all spiritual aspiration. the reader will have already seen that it is fundamental to the new theology. however crude and even repellent some of its expressions may have been in ancient modes of worship, it is the same truth all ages through--the truth that god and man are essentially one. +2. the solidarity of the individual with the community.+--a further idea underlying primitive sacrifice was that of the solidarity of the individual with the community as a whole. in the chaldean tribes out of which israel arose personality as we know it had not even emerged. readers of the old testament will not need to be reminded that in the earlier stages of israel's existence as a people the whole nation was repeatedly said to be punished for the behaviour of individuals, and families perished for the transgression of a father, as in the case of achan. no particular attention was ever paid to the individual as such. a man had no life of his own, and no value, apart from the life of the community. he belonged to it, not to himself. hence, when any communal act of worship was performed, when any tribal sacrifice was made to the deity, the organic unity of the individual with the whole was specially emphasised. physically and spiritually the unit was held to belong to the whole, and to exist for the sake of the whole. here again we have a great truth, the foundation truth of all morality, and a truth which reaches its highest in the life of jesus. the deepening of individual self-consciousness, and the increased perception of individual value, have neither weakened nor destroyed it, for it is written in the very constitution of the universe. mankind is fundamentally one; here is morality. we are individually fulfilled in god; here is religion. these are the cognate ideas underlying all modes of sacrificial worship, ancient or modern. these are the ideas which find elaborate ceremonial expression in the israelitish day of atonement as described in the old testament. the main purpose of these observances was the desire to assert as solemnly and emphatically as possible the essential oneness of the community with god, and of every individual with all the rest. everything which tended to separate between israel and her god was ceremonially put away on this great occasion. from the religious point of view it was the beginning of a new year. the babylonian new year began about the same time. it was supposed that a man's good or evil fortune was appointed on new year's day and settled past all possibility of revision on the tenth day after. the intervening nine days were therefore kept as a sort of lenten season; the tenth day was the grand occasion for the making sure of the harmonious relations of the community with the deity. it will be seen, therefore, that psychologically the idea of atonement takes precedence of the idea of sin. most westerners are accustomed to think exactly the reverse, and that is why the various theories of atonement which have appeared and disappeared in the course of christian history have so generally obscured the truth. the root principle of atonement is not that of escaping punishment for transgression, but the assertion of the fundamental oneness of god and man. this may or may not be accompanied by feelings of guilt and contrition, but it is the very marrow of religion. atonement implies the acting-together of god and man, the subordination of the individual will to the universal will, the fulfilment of the unit in the whole. +sense of sin not originally essential to atonement.+--it ought to be recognised that in semitic modes of worship the idea of sin did not originally hold the place it has since come to hold in the christian consciousness. the babylonian and the early israelite were greatly afraid of offending god, but they do not seem to have thought of such a transgression as being morally culpable. the profound sense of sin which characterises so many of the psalms and prophetic writings of the old testament was a comparatively late development. the primitive semites had a markedly anthropomorphic idea of their deities. they thought of any divine being as more or less like an ordinary man and liable to take umbrage at little things. it was even possible to offend him without knowing it, and therefore to be left without protection against the ills of life. it was to make sure of smoothing away all possible misunderstandings that covering sacrifices were offered from time to time; but the offering of these sacrifices did not necessarily mean that the worshipper thought he had done anything to be ashamed of and which required to be put right. he was simply treating his god as he would have treated a powerful earthly patron or potentate, that is, he was apologising for anything he might have done to alienate his favour. this notion of the necessity for placating god is to be found in close association with the worthier spiritual instincts to which i have already referred, and it has not even yet disappeared from our thinking. unbiassed readers of the old testament will find abundant justification for this statement. we are told repeatedly therein that the anger of the lord was kindled against israel or against this or that individual, and that the whole community had in consequence to humble itself before him in order to avert plague, or pestilence, or some other form of general calamity. not only was jehovah thought of as a kind of larger man who was at once protector and tyrant to his people, he was but the god of israel in contradistinction to the gods of other nations, one god out of many. it was only gradually, and after the lapse of ages, that israelites came to think of their god as the god of the whole earth and a being who must be worshipped in righteousness. israel was fortunate in possessing what other nations had not in the same degree, a succession of specially inspired men, teachers of moral and spiritual truth called prophets. the best of these--for no doubt the generality of them spoke only the language of their time--earnestly protested against material ideas of sacrifice and inadequate notions about god. they declared that god and the moral ideal were one and that the best way to serve the former was to be true to the latter. true sacrifice, they maintained, was of a spiritual kind and ought never to be thought about in any other sense. thus in the fifty-first psalm the writer, one of the prophetic school, thus contrasts mere ceremonialism with spiritual worship: thou desirest not sacrifice, else would i give it; thou delightest not in burnt offering. the sacrifices of god are a broken spirit. a broken and a contrite heart, o god, thou wilt not despise. or take the prophet micah, chapter vi., verse 6. here is a reference to human sacrifice, to which the israelites were prone from time to time, following the example of their neighbours: wherewith shall i come before the lord, and bow myself before the most high god? shall i come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? will the lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall i give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? and the answer of the prophet is: he hath showed thee, o man, what is good; and what doth the lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy god? here we have a declaration in unmistakable terms that the moral ideal and the religious ideal are one, and that to worship god properly the worshipper must treat his fellow-men properly. we now get the idea that sin against god is not something into which a man may fall without knowing it, but the living of a selfish life. +atonement never an equivalent for penalty.+--we ought to recognise too that the sacrifices of the day of atonement were never held to secure a complete amnesty for all kinds of sin. if a man committed theft or murder, he had to bear the appropriate penalty of his misdemeanour because he had been guilty of an action directed against the well-being of the community and the community had to take measures to protect itself; the day of atonement availed nothing in such a case. here is where many who see in the old testament sacrificial system a type and anticipation of the one perfect sacrifice of jesus frequently go wide of the facts. the day of atonement was a ceremonial and symbolical assertion of the willingness of the individual and the nation to fulfil their true destiny by being at one with god. if some particular man had been so living as to cut himself off from the communal well-being, he had to suffer. +the significance of the blood.+--many people seem to think that some actual saving efficacy was supposed to attach to the shedding of the blood of the victims offered on the altar of sacrifice, but that never was so. no doubt in the ignorant popular mind material sacrifices came to be looked upon as possessing some virtue in themselves, but the intelligence of the nation never regarded them in this way. in the offering of a victim the worshipper symbolically offered himself. the semites thought that the life of any organism was in the blood. thus in numbers we read, "the life of the flesh is in the blood, and i have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the soul (or life)." when, therefore, a man offered the blood of a victim upon the altar, he was symbolically declaring his recognition of the truth that the individual life belongs to the whole and must give or pour itself out to the common life and to god the source of all. only in this way could individuality realise itself; apart from the whole it was meaningless and valueless. +the truth beneath all sacrifice, however barbarous.+--this helps us to see how, even underneath the most horrible and repellent modes of ancient religious sacrifice, there was something essentially great and noble. when a heathen mother passed her child through the fire to moloch, did the sacrifice cost her nothing? to be sure it did. it must have been much harder to give her baby than to give herself. she did it because she had been taught to believe that to give one's best and dearest possession for the life of the whole was an action acceptable to god and worthy of our relationship to him. we have deepened and purified that ideal, but we have not lost it; we never can. as time went on men came to see that there was a higher way of giving the self to the whole than that of immolating a physical life, and a better way of symbolising that offering than by shedding the blood of bulls and goats; but the essential truth beneath all the intricate sacrificial systems of ancient israel and her neighbours is one that can never perish. to sum up. atonement is the assertion of the fundamental unity of all existence, the unity of the individual with the race and the race with god. the individual can only realise that unity by sacrificing himself to it. to fulfil the self we must give the self to the all. this is the truth presumed in all ancient ideas of atonement. the idea of placating a manlike god for offences committed against his dignity has been a concomitant of this perception, even a hindrance to it, but it has never wholly obscured the truth itself. that truth is constant and essential to all religion and morality, and is the coördinating principle to all between them. chapter x the atonement +iii. the doctrine in christian history and experience+ +antiquity of the essential truth.+--from what has now been said it will, i hope, be clear that the roots of the christian doctrine of atonement lie far back in history, especially semitic history mediated through the old testament, and that its fundamental truth is one with which the world can never dispense; it is both simple and sublime. nothing worth doing in human history has ever been done apart from it or ever will be. it is no paradox to say that even a morally earnest agnostic believes in the atonement; at any rate he believes in the all-essential truth without which there would never have been such a thing as a doctrine of atonement. +no consistent theory in the new testament.+--but now we come to the consideration of this truth as it has passed over into christianity. i do not propose to give an accurate and exhaustive analysis of the principal things that have been said about it, from the writings of st. paul downwards; that would only be wearisome to my readers and lead to no particular result. but if i have succeeded in making clear the psychological necessity for the existence of the idea of atonement, it will serve us as a guiding principle when we come to consider it in relation to the sacrifice of jesus. many exegetes have undertaken to show that the various new testament writers held one and the same theory of the relation of the death of jesus to the forgiveness of sins; never was a task more hopeless. the pauline, petrine, and johannine theories, and that of the writer of the epistle to the hebrews, are not mutually consistent, and paul is not always consistent with himself. the principal thing they have in common is their belief that the death of jesus was of vital efficacy in the doing away of sin. the symbolism in which they set forth this truth is borrowed mainly from the old testament, and we have already seen what underlay that symbolism even in its earliest use. old testament language about sacrifice supplies the mental dialect of the new, and now that we have the key to it we need neither be puzzled nor misled by it. beneath all that the new testament writers have to say about the death of jesus there is the same grand old spiritual truth of atonement which makes religion possible. before we resume our examination of the connection between the death of jesus and the doing away of sin, let us look for a moment at what post-apostolic thought has had to say about it. +the fathers.+--from the beginning of the second century onwards the fathers of the church and their theological successors attempted a variety of explanations of the way in which the death of jesus achieved potentially the redemption of mankind. it is not easy to say just when one period of christian thought closes and another begins; but, broadly speaking, we can for convenience classify them into the period of the fathers, the mediaeval period, the reformation and afterwards up to the eighteenth century, and the period of modern thought. the fathers may be divided into two groups, the ante-nicene and the post-nicene writers, and also into the greek and latin fathers. but as i am not writing for theological students, i will not attempt any further analysis of the various patristic schools. those who wrote previous to 325 a.d. belong to the ante-nicene group; those who wrote after that date, to the post-nicene group. the ante-nicene writers, generally speaking, avoid giving any theory of the atonement at all; but two of their greatest thinkers, origen and irenaeus, held that mankind had fallen under the dominion of satan, and that jesus by his sufferings paid a ransom to satan in order that we might be freed from his power. post-nicene fathers for the most part adopted this view without attempting to justify it. amongst their statements we find the ideas that the atonement was a ransom to satan and also a sacrifice to god, but they offer no explanation of the necessity of either. later on augustine anticipated subsequent christian thought by maintaining that the atoning work of jesus was part of an eternal purpose. +anselm and after.+--the scholasticism of the middle ages finds its first important expression in the illustrious anselm, an acute thinker and a beautiful soul. anselm rejected the idea of a ransom to satan, declaring that satan had no rights over humanity; in place of this notion he put forward the theory that jesus made to god an infinite satisfaction for an infinite debt. according to this theory the majesty of god had suffered indignity because of human sin, and yet man was unable by himself to offer an adequate satisfaction for the offence. hence the eternal son of god became man in order that he might offer the only satisfaction that could be considered adequate. this theory did not go unchallenged. abelard, for example, asked the very reasonable question how the guilt of mankind could be atoned for by the greater guilt of those who put jesus to death. abelard's famous opponent, bernard of clairvaux, also repudiated anselm's main contention and fell back upon the theory of a satisfaction to satan. +reformation theories.+--at the time of the reformation the question of the atonement formed the subject of considerable controversy, and, on the whole, the reformers were less reasonable than the catholics, as is the case to some extent even to-day. the roman catholic doctrine of atonement is much nearer to the truth than conventional protestant statements about the "finished work" and so on. one considerable section of sixteenth-century protestantism held and taught the doctrine of the total depravity of human nature, and insisted on the idea that jesus bore the actual penal sufferings of sinners. calvinists held that these sufferings had value for the elect only. against these views socinianism arose as a protest, but tended to reduce the passion of jesus to a sort of drama enacted by god in the presence of humanity in order to excite men's contrition and win their love. +the modern lack of a theory.+--modern evangelical thought has done very little with all these theories except to make them impossible; it has no consistent and reasonable explanation to put in their place. the popular kind of evangelical phraseology is that which continues to represent jesus as having borne the punishment due to human sin; salvation is spoken of as though it meant deliverance from the post-mortem consequences of misdoing. +more about sin.+--in all these theories it is evident that the death of jesus is closely connected with the forgiveness of sin and that the forgiveness of sin is the vital element in the atonement. in order to understand the truth about this let us return to what has already been said on the subject of sin and pursue it a little farther. i have already pointed out that sin is selfishness pure and simple, and that that definition will cover all its manifestations. there is no sin that is not selfishness, there is no selfishness that is not sin. all possible activities of the soul are between selfishness on the one hand and love on the other. if people would only accept this simple explanation of a great subject, it would get rid of most of the confusion of thought that exists in regard to it. the life of love is the life lived for impersonal ends; the sinful life is the life lived for self alone. the life of love is the life which does the best with the self for the sake of the whole; the sinful life is the life which is lived for the self at the expense of the whole. the desire for gratification at some one else's cost, or at the cost of the common life, is the root principle of sin. sin against god is simply an offence against the common life; it is attempting to draw away from instead of ministering to the common good. the sinful man thinks it will pay him to be selfish; his impulse is to suppose that he can gain more happiness, can drink more deeply of the cup of life, by doing it at the expense of other people. we all do it more or less, and yet the world might have learned by this time that selfishness does _not_ pay; the thoroughly selfish man is an unhappy man, for he has not drawn upon the source of abiding joy. like love, selfishness is a guest for life, but whereas love obtains more abundant life by freely giving itself, sin loses hold on life by trying to grab and keep it. every man is seeking life and seeking it in one or other of these opposite ways; he is either fulfilling the self by serving the whole, or he is trying to feed the self by robbing the whole. but life is god, and there is no life which is not god. god is the life all-abundant, the life infinite and eternal, the life that never grows old, the life that is joy. every man, consciously or subconsciously, wants that life; he is wanting it all the time. why does the man of business spend so many hours in his office in the effort to make money? it is because money represents power, power that can purchase "more life and fuller." probably he does not want it all for himself; he works for love of his family or love of the community, and his desire to serve them makes his work gladder, so that already he has more abundant life than he would otherwise possess. analyse human action, no matter what, and it will be seen to point in one or other of these two directions, self-ward or all-ward. if the former, it will shrivel the soul, it makes for death; if the latter, it will expand the soul, it makes for life. this is a spiritual law which knows no exception; in the long run the loving deed brings larger life and joy, the selfish deed brings pain and darkness. "be not deceived, god is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reap eternal life." it is evident from the foregoing that even the sinful life is a quest for god, although it does not know itself to be such, for in seeking life saint and sinner alike are seeking god, the all-embracing life. and the sinner _must_ learn that to seek life selfishly is to lose it; to seek it unselfishly is both to gain and to give it. the good man and the bad man are seeking the same thing in opposite ways. during the recent new theology controversy the editor of the _british weekly_, in the course of an attack upon my teaching, printed a number of extracts from my sermons in order to convince his readers that that teaching was objectionable and false. in every case the extract was carefully removed from its context and therefore conveyed quite a misleading impression to the mind of the reader. one of these extracts was from a sermon on "more abundant life," preached in the city temple on sunday morning, march 18, 1906. as this extract has been widely circulated, perhaps i may be pardoned for giving it here along with the context. all that the editor chose to print was a part of the paragraph in which sin was described as a quest for god, and yet he must have known perfectly well that to take that paragraph out of its setting was to do an injustice both to the preacher and to the subject. observe the sharp antithesis between the "thief or the robber" on the one hand, and the "good shepherd" on the other. these two stand for two opposing tendencies that have run through all nature and all human life. all nature through, all history through, two conflicting tendencies have been discernible. these are ever at war, and they ever will be until the whole world has been subdued to christ, and is filled with the fulness of the life of god. these two tendencies we may describe as the deathward and the lifeward respectively. the words are not very satisfactory because the deathward tendency masquerades as the lifeward tendency, and the lifeward tendency, before fruition, looks like the deathward one. in nature, as romans viii. tells us, "we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." nature is cruel, "red in tooth and claw." the deathward tendency is what i may call the self-ward tendency in the upward struggle of all organic forms, that is, one organism only exists at the expense of other organisms. yet at a certain stage in evolution this principle of the survival of the fittest at the expense of the rest gives way to a counter principle, that of the fitting of as many as possible to survive. the thief tendency gives way to the shepherd tendency, self-love to mother-love, the struggle to survive to the struggle for the life of others. i do not pause at the moment to account for these two antithetic tendencies, there they are; all through the history of this sad old world of ours these two tendencies have been in sharp conflict. both are cosmic, both probably resolvable in that higher unity which is too mysterious for us to penetrate, but to our minds they are in flagrant opposition to each other. the thief cometh to steal and to kill and to destroy; mother-love, christ-love, that it may give life, and that more abundantly. in human history the antithesis is even more plainly marked. from one point of view, history is little else than the story of the crimes and follies of mankind. if it were entirely that, the study would be too saddening to enter upon; but it is not all of that character, and yet it is sufficiently so to cast a shadow over the optimism of any man who investigates human evolution as told in song and story. the principle that "they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can" has ruled in human concerns from the dawn of history until to-day. it is strong enough in our midst even now. out industrial system is founded upon it, and is essentially unchristian. commercialism is saturated with it; all men suffer from it, but often they know not how to get free from it. ruskin has a grimly amusing paragraph on the parallel between an earlier civilisation and that of to-day, and the identity in principle of the self-ward tendency in both. in mediaeval times, as he would say, the robber baron was wont to possess himself of a mountain fortress, whence he swooped down upon hapless passers-by to rob them of their possessions and their lives. to-day the successful financial magnate does the same by effecting corners in corn and such like. the great writer adds, with characteristic irony, "i prefer the crag baron to the bag baron." yet with all this we see at work in history another tendency which we can recognise as plainly as the former, but which fills us with great hope for the future of humanity,--it is that which is summed up in the one word "christ." that word stands all the world over for the things that make for more abundant life. just as in the text the word "thief" stands for everything that makes for separateness, selfhood, cruelty, so the word "christ" stands for everything that makes for union, mutual helpfulness, brotherly kindness. the thief stands for the tendency to grasp and draw inward, and the christ stands for the tendency to give, and live outward. the former tendency is what i call the deathward--deathward for all else but itself; and the christ is the lifeward, life for all else but itself. yet--curious inversion of earlier experience--the deathward tendency results in death to itself in the spiritual region, and the lifeward tendency results in life to him who gives life. "i have power to lay it down, and i have power to take it again." i want you to realise here, then, that the christ in humanity is the life-giver of the soul. they who are possessed of the christ spirit are they who have and can give the more abundant life. we have briefly examined the two tendencies of which i have spoken; have you realised that in the things of the spirit the deathward tendency is what we call sin? sin is selfishness; it is the attempt to misuse the energies of god; it is the expansion of individuality at the expense of the race. i do not know that you can arrive at a much more thorough explanation of the nature of sin than that. men blunderingly attempt to classify virtues, and think of sin as simply the failure to attain them. it is not that, it is something deeper; sin is the attempt to minister to self at the expense of that which is outside self. it lives by death to others, or seeks to do so. when i was away a few weeks ago i paid a visit to monte carlo to see what it was like, and went into the famous gambling saloon, and stood for a while looking at the faces of the players. i could not see anything very different from what i see now; the people who were engaged in that all-engrossing pursuit might have been in church, they were so quiet, so orderly, and so apparently passionless. yet i felt--it may have been a preacher's prejudice--that the moral atmosphere of that place was one in which i did not want to remain; there was something bad there, and i think i could discern what it was. the gambler is essentially a man who is trying to get something for nothing; he is drawing to himself that which he supposes will give him more satisfying and abundant life. let who will suffer; it is not his concern. what is lifeward for him may be deathward for them; he is willing that it should be so--that is the sin. sin is always a mistake,--a soul's mistake; it is the carrying up into the spiritual region of that stern and terrible law of the physical world, the survival of an organism at the expense of its fellow. that law is reversed in the spiritual world; it is replaced by something else. if a soul is to gain more abundant life, it must rise above the desire to grasp and hold. the gambler is selling that beautiful thing which came fresh from the hand of god, and is at once god's life and his; he is destroying the present possibility of attaining to that higher life which is the destiny of the soul. the christ in him can find no expression. and yet, my friends, realise this, however startling it may seem, sin itself is a quest for god--a blundering quest, but a quest for all that. the man who got dead drunk last night did so because of the impulse within him to break through the barriers of his limitations, to express himself, and to realise more abundant life. his self-indulgence just came to that; he wanted if only for a brief hour to live the larger life, to expand the soul, to enter untrodden regions, and gather to himself new experience. that drunken debauch was a quest for life, a quest for god. men in their sinful follies to-day, and their blank atheism, and their foul blasphemies, their trampling upon things that are beautiful and good, are engaged in this dim, blundering quest for god, whom to know is life eternal. the _roué_ you saw in piccadilly last night, who went out to corrupt innocence and to wallow in filthiness of the flesh, was engaged in his blundering quest for god. he is looking for him along the line of the wrong tendency; he has been gathering to himself what he took to be more abundant life, "but sin, when it hath conceived bringeth forth death"--death to the sinner as well as to his victim, death of what is deepest and truest in the soul. yet--i repeat it--all men are seeking life, life more abundant, even in their selfishness and wrong-doing, seeking life by the deathward road. "whatever crazy sorrow saith, no life that breathes with human breath has ever truly longed for death. 'tis life, whereof our nerves are scant, o life, not death, for which we pant, more life and fuller than i want." on the following sunday i preached a sermon entitled the "nature of sin," in which the same point was reëmphasised with even greater distinctness, as the following extract will show:-i think i startled some of you last sunday morning when i happened to remark that sin was, after all, a quest for god--a mistaken quest, but none the less a quest for god, for all that. i want to explain to you to-night somewhat more in detail what i mean by this, because the more clearly we can see the truth the more clearly we can perceive sin to be a soul's blunder. there are two tendencies discernible throughout nature and in human history. these two tendencies are essentially opposed, are ever in conflict, and ever will be until the whole world is subdued to christ, and god is all in all. i called them last sunday morning from the pulpit the deathward and the lifeward respectively. the terms are not very satisfactory, because the deathward tendency usually masquerades as the lifeward, and the lifeward often looks like the deathward. that is why sin is ever possible. a man thinks to get something by it, and though he finds out his mistake afterward, yet he supposes it to be for him the lifeward road. on the other hand, the utterly unselfish deed often looks as though it were a deed that would bring destruction upon the doer. not so. jesus christ saw right to the heart of things when he said, "he that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake the same shall find it." if you substitute for the words "for my sake," "for truth's sake," or "for life's sake," you will get just the same meaning,--"he that keeps back his life shall lose it, and he that gives forth his life shall find it." here, then, are two tendencies sharply contrasted. now observe their operation in nature and in human experience. you are all aware of, and frequently have been saddened, no doubt, by what you regard as the cruelty of nature. there is a tragedy under every rose leaf, there is unceasing conflict to the death going on in every hedgerow. nature is indeed cruel. i have often watched, during this winter which is now drawing to a close, the little birds feeding outside the window of my breakfast room in the morning. like many of you, we put out a few crumbs for these feathered friends who share the same garden with ourselves, and i have always noticed that there is a battle royal fought round those crumbs. there is enough for everyone, and yet the instinct of these little creatures is to try and grab and keep all, each one for itself. the instinct of the lower creation appears to be that a form can only preserve itself, and only expand and express itself, at the expense of other forms. it is a stern and terrible law, as you well know. forms, by a slow, upward progress in the unfolding of the purpose to which nature exists, have become what they are at the expense of earlier and weaker forms. there is a tendency to grasp and hold, a tendency to kill and to destroy, and this, to some minds, appears to be the strongest tendency in nature or in man. i question it,--in fact, i deny it,--and i want that you and i should arrive at the same conclusion respecting it. for there is another tendency observable working from the very earliest throughout the processes of nature, too. it is that which henry drummond describes as the struggle for the life of others. if you like, we will call it mother-love. i saw it illustrated only yesterday. a mother sheep, standing in her place amongst the flock, was surprised with the rest at the incursion of a mongrel dog. the flock fled instantly, but the ordinarily timid mother stood her ground. the reason was not far to seek. there was a little lamb cowering behind her, and she, overcoming her natural instinct of self-preservation, turned her face to the dog to draw his attention, if possible, to herself and deflect it from her young one. now, that instinct represents the tendency of which i speak, the antithetic tendency to the other already described. it is the stronger of the two. it indicates the goal toward which nature herself is moving. "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now," but mother-love is a prophecy of a higher yet to be. it is the forth-going instinct, the all-ward, lifeward tendency. now turn to humanity. i think you will agree with me that right through human history the same two tendencies are observable. the farther back we go, the stronger seems the self-ward tendency. the natural state of uncivilised man is a state of war. man in primitive communities only exists and flourishes by destroying other communities. a most curious thing it is, too, that apparently our domestic and civic virtues have grown out of this state of war. a man used to carry his wife off by main force. she become his property. he exerted his brute force, he magnified his own personality, as it were, in crushing other personalities. his children were in his hands for life and death. if he afterwards learned to love them, it was in contradistinction to the children that were not his. that which was his, so to speak, gratified his egotism; and, although a more beautiful relationship grew out of it, such was the unpromising beginning. to-day when you hear a man speaking loudly about "_my_ country," or "_my_ family," or "_my_ society," as the case may be, you may be perfectly sure that he is projecting himself into his patriotism, or into his loyalty to family or society; and indeed this was the lowly beginning of what has come to be an excellent virtue. we have had to learn benevolence by concentrating unselfish attention upon the few rather than the many. the farther back you go in history, the sterner does the operation of that law appear, and the less promising the future of mankind. if people tell me the world is not getting better, i suggest that it might be worth their while to read a chapter of mediaeval or primitive history. in the "odyssey," for instance, homer sketches for us the career of a strong and remarkable man. his hero, supposed to be a paragon of virtue, is capable of things you would call scoundrelism to-day. he and his band of storm-tossed companions land upon an island of the grecian archipelago and find a city there. they promptly sack it and kill all the inhabitants--men, women, and children. it seemed to be the proper thing to do, and found its way into verse, and they boasted about such heroic exploits. it was brutal murder, and the men who were capable of it were nothing more or less than pirates. yet that stern, terrible tendency thus illustrated is just one with that inscrutable law under which nature herself has come to be what she is. it is what i call the self-ward tendency, the desire to grasp and keep at the expense of other individualities other societies than our own. but in history, and from those very earliest times down to our own, another tendency has shown itself at work, a counter tendency. the two have been so intertwined frequently--as i have indicated in showing where patriotism comes from--that it has been difficult to dissociate them; but they are quite distinct. take, for instance, the magnificent devotion of arnold von winkelried on the field of sempach. switzerland has not existed as a political unit for many centuries, but during that time her roll of heroes has been large. in the formative hour of swiss independence, when that tiny folk were struggling for their liberty against the overweening power of austria, it must have seemed a hopeless undertaking--this group of mountaineers against the chivalry of an empire. the great battle of sempach was fought. the swiss, armed with nothing but their battle-axes, hurled themselves in vain all day long against the serried ranks of austrian mail-clad warriors, armed with spears, through which the shepherd men could make no way. they fell before them, but could not pass through them, till winkelried called to his countrymen, "provide for my wife and children and i will make a way," and, rushing unarmed upon the spearmen of austria, clasped in his embrace as many of them as he could and bore them to the earth. a dozen spears passed through his body, but through the gap his devotion had made, his countrymen leaped to victory. that one act made possible, humanly speaking, the swiss independence, which is an object-lesson for us to-day. such acts as these form part of the cherished lore of nations. we feel they are the light-centres of the world. something tells us that an act like that, the giving of a life for the sake of an ideal, a cause, a country, was a great thing. it represented the counter tendency to what was going on at that moment. in that very battle austria was trying to grasp and hold, switzerland was trying to get free and live her own life, and here was a man who, for the sake of his country's ideal, gave all that he had--his life. will you tell me where to look for the focus and centre of that ideal? i know what your answer would be. it was at calvary. the one thing which, consciously or subconsciously, men have recognised in jesus that has given him his supreme attraction for the world, is this--he was absolutely disinterested. it is the disinterestedness of jesus, his utter nobleness, his power of projecting himself into the experience of others, and trying to lift humanity as a whole to his experience of god, that gave him his power with mankind. jesus not only proclaimed, but lived, the counter tendency to the law of sin and death. now, when we have brought the two together, you see the essential distinction between working for self and its deathward look, and working for all with its lifeward gaze. these two are antithetic, and must be in opposition until the latter absorbs the former, and god is all in all, and love reigneth world without end. we are now able to see what sin is more plainly than before. sin is the tendency to grasp and draw inward, and everything that feeds that tendency makes for death. sin is the expansion of the individuality at the expense of the race; sin is acting on the belief that the soul can increase at another's cost, can increase by destroying what is another's good. apply that explanation or definition of sin to what you know about life, and you will soon see when a man is facing the deathward road, and how differently he acts when he is choosing the lifeward road. there are men in this congregation who do not realise, as they should, that lifewardness is god-wardness; but so it is. the soul and the source of all things is god, and, consciously or unconsciously, all men are seeking god in that they are seeking self-expression, seeking life. the man, for instance, who is trying to become rich is a man who is seeking to express himself, seeking power, seeking life, seeking to thrust through the barriers that surround the soul. they are all doing it; the veriest materialist among you is seeking by his daily activities more abundant life. the young man here who feels a burning ambition within his heart, a desire to exploit the world and make a name for himself, to occupy a high station, is not conscious of anything essentially unworthy. it all depends on what he does with the impulse. what you are seeking, young man, is more abundant life, and that is equivalent to seeking god. life is god. "every good and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the father of lights." and when the tendency goes round and works havoc and ruin in the world, it still remains a quest for god, although a blundering one. it is a misuse of divine energy. the man who got drunk last night and gratified his lower nature in that delirious hour would be surprised if you were to tell him when you see the result that he was really seeking god, but so it is. he wants life, and thinks he can get it this way. this is the reason why morbid excitement and the craving for amusement have such power in human lives to-day. your _roué_ in piccadilly who went out to destroy innocence was seeking life while spreading death. it seems almost blasphemy to say it, but he was seeking god and thinking--o woful blunder!--that he would find him by destroying something that god has made beautiful and fair. so with all acts of selfish gratification of which men are capable--they are the turning of the current of divine energy the wrong way, and seeking self-gratification at the expense of something else that god has made. it is a failure to see that we only obtain life by giving life. when an engine goes off the line there is a smash, as a rule, and the greater the power that was driving the engine, the worse is the wreck when it leaves the line. the lightning directed rightly becomes the luminant by which we look on each other's faces to-night. that same power might have brought havoc and destruction if it had not been harnessed in the service of man. and so with the power that god has given you; all desire for self-expression, all seeking of which you are conscious for larger and better and richer life, is god-given; but it may mean ruin and destruction unless you see that it is yours, not that you may draw inward, but that you may give outward, yours not to keep and hold, but yours wherewith to bless mankind. sin is the tendency to keep for self that which was meant for the world. "the wages of sin is death," the death of soul. he who is guilty of sin is guilty of soul murder. "all they that hate me love death," and he that spreads pain and ruin over other lives in the gratification of his own lower instincts is using something which is god-given--yea, which is essentially god's own life--in the wrong way. the only hope for him is to realise that no act of sin was ever yet worth while, that it does punish itself, must punish itself, for it shrivels and fetters the soul. no eleventh-hour repentance will ever save you, and no cowardly cry for relief will ever bring god's forgiveness into your soul, until you have realised that sin and selfishness are one, and that what you have failed to give forth of love and service represents the measure of your soul poverty. even at the risk of prolixity and repetition i have thought it right to insert these lengthy extracts from sermons which have been animadverted upon. my readers will be able to judge of the fairness of the criticism which, by abstracting a few lines, strove to make it appear that my teaching denied the reality of sin. here are the actual words seen in their proper setting. if one were on the lookout for a good illustration of the sinfulness of sin, perhaps the controversial methods of the editor of the _british weekly_ might furnish it. this kind of criticism is on a par with that of the gentleman who once startled an audience by declaring, "the bible says there is no god." he was right, of course, if it be legitimate to suppress the former part of the passage, "the fool hath said in his heart there is no god." it is time we had done with unreal talk about sin. sin is the murder spirit in human experience. "whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. if a man say, i love god, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love god whom he hath not seen?" strong language, but i suppose the man who first used it must have known what he was talking about. pomposity is sin, because it is egoism; self-complacency and contemptuousness are sin for the same reason. cupidity is sin whether in a burglar or a doctor of divinity. a bitter, grasping, cruel, unsympathetic spirit is sin, no matter who shows it. the scribe and the pharisee are too much with us, and the religious ideal needs to be rescued from their blighting grasp to-day as much as ever it did. of all forms of sin an arrogant, malignant, self-satisfied assumption of righteousness is the worst and the hardest to eradicate, as jesus found to his cost. the terrible damning lie which is stifling religion to-day is the lie which crucified jesus, the lie that spiritual pride can ever interpret god to a needy world. there is something grimly amusing in the suggestion that prosperous people should pay for sending gospel missions to the poor. if sin is selfishness, the poor had better missionise the rich. imagine how it would be if things were reversed in this way, and a mission band of earnest slum dwellers took their stand in belgravia and began a house-to-house visitation, with all the theological terms carefully eliminated from the mission leaflets they thrust under the doors or handed to the powdered footmen. instead of, "flee from the wrath to come," etc., they might have: "don't be selfish! it is hurting you and your neighbours and making you unhappy. don't pretend! it is poor business in the end. try to do as much as you can for other people and you will know what god is." the attempt would be startling and unwelcome, but it would be far less impudent than the religious exhortations of the prosperous to the poor commonly are. for the truth is that if sin is selfishness,--and it is nothing else,--the degraded habits of people at the lower end of the social scale are no more sinful than the ordinary behaviour of most of their preceptors at the other end. most of the talk about sin is unreal; that is the trouble; so verily the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of heaven before us. in church a man will profess himself to be a miserable sinner, but if we were to address him in the same way out of church he would sue us for libel--if he thought we meant it. for heaven's sake let us have done with the sham of it all and face the truth. what mankind is suffering from is selfishness. get rid of that and there would be little left to trouble about. +atonement and sin.+--it should now be plain why the doctrine of atonement has been so closely associated with the doing away of sin; it is because, as we have seen, the root idea of atonement is the assertion of the fundamental oneness of man with man and all with god. sin is the divisive separating thing in our relations with one another, and with god the source of all, so the assertion of our oneness involves getting rid of sin. if we ask how this is to be done, the answer is simple enough: the only way to get rid of selfishness is by the ministry of love. what is it that is slowly winning the world from its selfishness to-day and lifting it gradually into the higher, purer atmosphere of universal love? there is but one thing that is doing it, and that is the spirit of self-sacrifice. wherever you see that, you see the true atonement at work. there can be no doubt about the final issue, for behind the spirit of love is infinity, whereas the spirit of selfishness is essentially finite. on the field of human history the death of jesus is the focus and concentrated essence of this age-long atoning process, whereby selfishness is being overcome and the whole race lifted up to its home in god. until jesus came no self-offering had been so consistent and so complete. no selfish desire could find lodgment in his pure soul. he showed men the ideal life by living it himself, the life which was perfectly at one with god and man. in a selfish world that life was sure to end on a calvary of some kind, but the very fact that it did so demonstrated the completeness of its victory over all considerations of self-interest. selfishness lost the battle by seeming to gain it. god was behind the life of jesus just because it was the life of perfect love, the life which was a perfect gift to the whole, therefore that life immediately arose in power in other lives and has gone increasing its benevolent sway over human hearts ever since. this is the atonement and it is rightly associated with the cross of jesus in the minds of men, for the cross is the sum and centre of it all. +the increasing atonement.+--but the atonement to be effective has to be repeated on the altar of human hearts, and so it is, to a far greater extent than most people stop to think. the same spirit that was in jesus and governed his whole career was the spirit of the true humanity, "the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." the spirit of jesus was the spirit of christ, the ideal or divine manhood as it exists eternally in god. but that ideal or divine manhood, that christ nature, is also potentially present in every human being. what needs to be done is to get it manifested or brought forth into conscious activity. the immediate effect of the life and death of jesus upon his followers was to make them more or less like him, and to fill them with a similar desire to get men to live the life of love which is the life of god. they felt themselves inspired by the same spirit, the holy spirit of truth and love, and exalted above all fear for their own safety and all desire to live for themselves alone. they loved their lord so much that their lives became one with his in the work of saving the world. they could see no difference between serving their master and serving mankind. this love force of theirs, this intense loyalty to jesus, was, and still is, the redeeming thing in the life of mankind. there is not and never has been any other atonement. the divine power that is breaking down selfishness, and transforming human desires in accordance with the eternal truth of things, is the spirit of self-sacrificing love. it is but a step from sinner to saviour. to cease to be a sinner is perforce to be a saviour. to escape from the dominion of selfishness is forthwith to become a power in the hand of god for the uplifting and ingathering of mankind to himself; this is the atonement. ask yourself whether this is not so. what other force for good is there in the world to-day than the spirit which governed the whole life of jesus and rendered him willing to brave the worst that evil could do in his desire to get men to realise the true life? there is no other. if you want to see the atonement at work, go wherever love is ministering to human necessity and you see the very same spirit which was in jesus, the spirit which heals and saves. dogma is doing nothing to save the world; the gospel of self-sacrifice is doing everything. show me a christlike life and i will show you a part of the atonement of christ. show me a noble deed and i will show you something worthy of jesus. his self-offering, and the love and devotion it awoke in human hearts, are a perpetual sacrifice, a cumulative assertion that in the presence of need love can never do anything other than give itself until the need is supplied and love is all in all. there is even a possibility of substitution here. vicarious suffering willingly accepted becomes irresistible in the long run as a means of lifting a transgressor out of the mire of selfishness. many a noble wife has saved her husband by remaining at his side and patiently accepting the disabilities caused by his wrong-doing. it is even possible in such a case for the saviour to bear more than the sinner, and for the sinner to be relieved of some of the consequences of his sin; he would have to suffer more if there were no loving helper to stand by him. but to speak of one as bearing another's punishment is untrue; such a thing cannot be. all that love can do is to share to the uttermost in the painful consequences of sin and by so doing break their power what other atonement is needed than this? it requires no defence, and a child could understand it. everyone already believes in it, whether he stops to think about it or not. while i am writing these words a fierce storm is raging outside. this is the second day we have had of it, and there seems likely to be some loss of life on the dangerous rocks outside the bar which forms the entrance to the bay below. a visitor has just been telling me of a wilder storm in this same bay some years ago, and of which he says to-day's gale reminds him. on that previous occasion three ships were wrecked together within a few yards of this house. it must have been a dreadful, awe-inspiring scene. no boat could live on the surf, so every survivor had to be dragged ashore with ropes fastened to the cliffs and hauled by willing hands. hundreds of townspeople and fisher folk came pouring over from st. ives and all the hamlets round about in order to take part in the work of rescue. according to my informant the scene was enough to stir any heart, and even grown men were crying with excitement and compassion as some of the poor fellows in the rigging of the doomed vessels were washed away before they could be got ashore. the few who were actually snatched from the jaws of death found no lack of willing helpers as one by one they were passed insensible into the kind keeping of the many who stood waiting for an opportunity to be of service. no one grudged anything; every home and every bed would have been cheerfully placed at the disposal of the shipwrecked mariners if they had been wanted. brave women, the wives and daughters of men who were risking their lives on the sea every day, willingly encouraged their husbands and sons in battling against the tempest in the endeavour to save other husbands and sons whom they had never seen or heard of until that hour of distress and need. and what a fight it was to be sure! never was a braver. again and again these humble cornish heroes dashed into the raging billows to grasp and guide the ropes that bore a flickering human life, and every time they returned with their helpless burden a cheer went up from the watchers that drowned for a moment the violence of the blast. no one thought of enquiring into the theology of saviours or survivors. no doubt there were some among the former who were oftener to be found at the public-house bar than at church, but no one could have distinguished them from the orthodox christians who fought the waves shoulder to shoulder beside them; they were there to save life, and in doing so their deeper manhood shone out with divine splendour. but the most of the rescuers were good sound, earnest methodists who perhaps believed, or thought they believed, in the eternal damnation of the unregenerate. but what became of their doctrine in the face of an urgent human need and the call for self-sacrifice to supply that need? it was utterly forgotten. there is both humour and pathos in the fact that these convinced believers tugged and tore at the ropes, and freely jeopardised their own lives in a magnificent endeavour to save perishing bodies from temporal water. there is the truth for you, the real atonement. the heart creed is usually better than the head creed, and in great moments buries the latter out of sight. here was the spirit of christ, the true and eternal manhood, the spirit that seeks to save at its own cost. here was the instinctive perception of the fundamental oneness of all life and the recognition that the godlike thing is to seek to deliver life from the clutch of death. +all men instinctively believe in the atonement.+--this is the deepest and truest impulse of the human heart, as all men already know if they would only trust their better nature to tell them what god wants from his children. here is an explosion in a coal-mine, and forthwith every mother's son above ground volunteers to go down into the choke-damp to snatch his buried comrades from the sleep of death. a few months ago one such disaster took place in a durham colliery. most of my readers will remember that in the newspaper reports of the incidents that took place at the pit mouth were the following: a father who was brought to the surface was asked whether he lost hope during the long hours of his imprisonment below without food or light. "no," was the reply, "for i knew my boy would be in the rescue party, and that nothing would turn him back until he found his father, dead or alive." the suffragan bishop of the diocese, along with a number of other clergymen and nonconformist ministers, remained all night amid the scene of sorrow at the pit mouth, doing his best to comfort the mourners as their loved ones were brought up dead. as morning broke he mounted a heap of cinders and, without making any attempt to conceal his emotion, spoke a few manly words of brotherly exhortation and christian love to his deeply moved congregation of toilers and sufferers. one poor woman, with unconscious irony, exclaimed to the bystanders: "he doesn't seem like a bishop! he is just like one of ourselves." that servant of god has never preached the atonement more effectually in all his life--by getting together of man and man, and man and god, through the spirit of self-sacrifice. he stands in the true apostolic succession, the succession of men like saul of tarsus, the erstwhile persecutor, who, under the inspiration of the love of jesus, lived to say, "who is weak and i am not weak? who is offended and i burn not?" go into any home where the spirit of self-sacrificing love is trying to do anything to supply a need or save a transgressor, and you see the atonement. follow that salvation lassie to the slums, and listen to her as she tries to persuade a drunken husband and father to give up the soul-destroying habit which is such a curse to wife and child, and you see the atonement. go with j. keir hardie to the house of commons and listen to his pleading for justice to his order and you see the atonement. hear the prayer of mother-love for the erring, wandering son, and you have the atonement. see that grey-haired father patiently pleading with selfish, hot-headed youth, or yielding up his own hard-won possessions to pay the gambler's debts and save the family name, and you have the atonement. nothing can stir the human heart so much. all the great deeds of history derived their inspiration from it; all the little heroisms of our common everyday life are the declaration of it. there is not a single one of all our thoughts and activities but has some relation to it; we are either living for ourselves individually and separately or we are living for the whole. if the former, we are the servants of sin; if the latter, our lives are already part of the atonement. +jesus and the atonement.+--it is easy to see how much the world owes to jesus in this regard. i cannot tell what the world might have been if there had never been a jesus, but certain it is that the sacrificial life and death of jesus have meant the inpouring of a spirit into human affairs such as had never been known in the same degree before. here for the first time men saw a perfect manifestation of the life that is life indeed, the life that pleased not itself, the life that entered into and shared human disabilities as though they were its very own, the life that in the presence of selfishness must inevitably become sacrifice, the life of atonement. in a sinful world that life had to come to a calvary, but in so doing in refusing to shield and save itself it became the greatest moral power and the greatest revelation of god that the world has ever known. what we succeed in doing some of the time, jesus did all the time; when all men are able to do it all the time the atonement will have become complete and love divine shall be all in all. "thou hast conquered, o galilean!" cried julian the apostate; and christian faith can reverently add- "jesus is worthy to receive honour and power divine; and blessings more than we can give be, lord, forever thine." faith in jesus is faith in the atonement and faith in our own christhood. it means the upraising of the true life, the eternal life, within our own souls. until his spirit becomes our spirit, his atonement has done nothing for us, and when it does we, like him, become saviours of the race. it must be so, for the spirit of love is the same both in god and man; in the presence of need, no matter what the need may be, that spirit must continue to give itself without stint until the need is supplied and all that would tend to separate between the individual soul and the eternal perfect whole is done away. but then, someone will say, what has the death of jesus effected in the unseen so as to make it possible for god to forgive us? nothing whatever, and nothing was ever needed. god is not a fiend but a father, the source and sustenance of our being and the goal of all our aspirations. why should we require to be saved from him? +divine satisfaction in atonement.+--but in what sense is the death of jesus a satisfaction to the father? in no sense at all, except that the sacrifice of jesus is the highest expression of the innermost of god that has ever been made. if it affords an artist satisfaction to express himself in a beautiful picture, or a great thinker to express his noble thought in a book, surely the highest satisfaction that god can know must be his self-expression in the self-sacrifice of his children. at its best, the intensest joy that can be known is the joy of giving one's self for the good of the whole. in everything grand and good in human thought and achievement god is doing just this. it is the satisfaction he receives from the atonement and the only one. chapter xi the authority of scripture +atonement and new testament language.+--it will have been observed that in my examination of the subject of the atonement i have said almost nothing about the new testament evidence for the doctrine. this, i admit, is an entire departure from the method usually followed by those who write upon it, and may be thought by some to vitiate my whole argument. but the omission is of set purpose, for i am convinced that new testament language about the atonement, especially the language of st. paul, has been, and still is, the prolific source of most of the mischievous misinterpretations of it which exist in the religious mind. to an extent this is the same with the old testament, but to a far less degree, for the language of the old testament is only liable to misapprehension when interpreted by the new. in a previous chapter i have endeavoured to show the imperishable truths which underlie old testament symbolism in regard to the atonement, and i trust i have shown that these truths are as fresh and indispensable to-day, and play as great a part in human affairs as they ever did. but before i proceed to say anything about the new testament symbolism, which has been largely derived from the old, let us consider the question of the authority of scripture as a whole. +tendency to bow to external authority.+--there is always a tendency in the ordinary mind to rely upon some form of external authority in religious as in other matters. with one man it is the authority of an infallible church; with another the authority of an infallible book; with another the authority of some infallible statement of belief which ought to hold good for all time, but never does. at the best, external authority is only a crutch, and at the worst it may become a rigid fetter upon the expanding soul. the true seat of authority is within, not without, the human soul. we are so constituted as to be able to recognise, little by little, the truth of god as it comes to us. it may come from any one of a thousand different quarters, but to be recognised and felt as truth it must awaken an echo within the individual soul. if it does not awaken such a response, it is of no effect so far as the growth of the soul is concerned. what is true in this book will not be received as true by the readers merely because i say it, but because they feel it to be true and cannot get away from it. why should we be afraid of trusting the human soul to recognise and respond to its own truth? all truth is one, and all earnest truth-seekers are converging upon one goal. it is the divine self within everyone of us which enables us to discern the truth best fitted to our needs, and this divine self is, as has already been pointed out, fundamentally one with the source of all truth, which is god. if men could only come to see this more clearly and to trust their own divine nature to enable them to follow and express the truth as well as to receive it, they would not suffer themselves to be hampered by formal and literal statements of belief whether in the church, the bible, or anywhere else. but this is what they seldom do. your devout anglican or roman catholic will tell you that the church teaches this or the church teaches that: as though that fact ever permanently settled anything. one cannot really begin to appreciate the value of united continuous church testimony until one is able to stand apart from it, so to speak, and ask whether it rings true to the reason and the moral sense. suppose the christian church enjoined or permitted rape and murder, would the devout catholic believe and obey? "but it is inconceivable that the church could ever do that," he might answer. yes, but suppose it did, would he obey? if not, why not? he would not obey because he would know quite well that the higher law within his heart would forbid and render impossible any such obedience. that is all the answer i want. why should we not apply it all the way round? the real test of truth is to be found in the response it awakens within the soul. +the supposed authority of the letter a great hindrance to truth.+--now one of the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of many devout and intelligent minds to-day is that of the supposed binding authority of the letter of scripture. when a good man hears some inspiring or common-sense statement of truth,--for instance, that of universal salvation,--he often replies in some such way as the following: "yes, i know it seems very plausible, and my heart desires to believe it; but then, you know, it says in the scripture, 'these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteousness into life eternal.' i cannot get behind that." he will go on stringing together, passage after passage, often without the slightest suspicion that the original meaning had nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion; as, for example, that well-known sentence in ezekiel, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." whatever ezekiel originally meant by that saying,--and it is well worth examination,--he was not thinking of a modern revival meeting. the plain, average, level-headed business man of religious temperament will sometimes bother himself in this way until he thinks of giving up religion altogether. the letter of scripture often seems to say one thing and the christlike human heart another. take, as one example out of many, that pungent passage in psalm cxxxvii, "happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." that passage does not breathe the spirit of jesus, nor is it true to the best in human nature; no follower of jesus wants to see a little one dashed against a stone. but even to do justice to a passage of this kind we have to get into intellectual and moral sympathy with the man who wrote it. it was written by one of the poor jewish prisoners carried away captive into babylon by nebuchadnezzar six centuries or more before jesus was born. try and picture the scene. across eight hundred miles of desert that melancholy procession winds its way, leaving the highland home behind and going into slavery in the cruel city of the plain. one by one the weakest fall and die; and where a baby is left without a mother, or the mother cannot walk with the weight of the helpless child, the cruel babylonian ruffians riding at the side will snatch it from the anguished bosom and dash its brains out against the rocks. should we be likely to forget that if we had ever formed part of such a procession of prisoners of war? hence when psalm cxxxvii came to be written by some poor suffering father who had lost maybe both wife and child, he gave vent to his feelings in one of the most plaintive patriotic songs ever sung:-by the rivers of babylon, there we sat down--yea, we wept when we remembered zion. we hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof, for there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, sing us one of the songs of zion. how shall we sing the lord's song in a strange land? if i forget thee, o jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.... o daughter of babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones! one can feel deep sympathy with this unknown poet and his suffering people without adopting the absurd view that this passage represents god's word to our souls. it is a cry of suffering mingled with a desire for vengeance, and that is all. but when a preacher declares that he takes his stand and bases his gospel on the infallible book, he is either a fool or--a rhetorician. +belief in the infallible book impossible.+--there are many good people who maintain that they believe the bible from cover to cover, and they seem to think that this is something to be proud of. but they credit themselves with an impossible feat; no one can believe contradictions, in the sense of accepting them, whether intellectual or moral. the very same people who will read with unction the most sanguinary exhortations from scripture are usually people who themselves would not hurt a fly. the bible is not like a parliamentary blue book, an exact and literal statement of facts; it represents for the most part what earnest men belonging to a particular nationality in a bygone age thought about life in relation to god. many good people talk as though the bible were written by the finger of god himself and let down from heaven; on the other hand there are those who think that when they have shown the inconsistencies of scripture, they have destroyed its value. but they are both mistaken. the bible is not one book, but a collection of books, a slow growth extending over centuries. it has come to be reverenced not because of any supernormal attestations of its authority, but because we have found it helps us more than any other book. the fact that the best part of it was written by good and serious men, men who were living for the highest they were able to see, does not necessarily give binding authority to the opinions of these men. i question whether we should ever have heard of the old testament if it had not been for jesus, and the new is only a statement of what some good men thought about jesus and his gospel at the beginning of christian history. jesus knew and loved the old testament scriptures, but whenever he found a statement therein that jarred upon his moral sense, he rejected it in the name of the higher truth declared by the spirit of truth within his own soul: "ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. but i say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause"--and even "without a cause" seems to have been interpolated in later days--"shall be in danger of the judgment." "again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the lord thine oaths. but i say unto you, swear not at all, neither by the heavens, for it is god's throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool. let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." "ye hath heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thine neighbour and hate thine enemy: but i say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." jesus knew what he was doing. in all these instances he was quoting from the old testament, and deliberately superseding in the name of truth certain prescriptions of the very law which he said he had come to fulfil. everyone was taken by surprise at his daring to do this. matthew vii. 28, 29, says, "and it came to pass, when jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at his teaching; for he taught them as one having (in himself) authority, and not as the scribes." no doubt some people would say to-day that this authority came from his godhead. but the people on the hillsides of galilee knew nothing about the godhead of jesus. to them he was a heaven-sent teacher, a great and inspiring master, whose words carried weight. his authority, therefore, must have been self-evident in contradistinction to that of the scribes, who always began their discourses by saying, "it is written." they never seem to have thought of appealing to anything else than the authority of the letter. but we see that jesus, notwithstanding his reverence for the scripture, handled it with perfect freedom. his authority was that of the spirit of god speaking within his own soul, the only authority that has ever mattered in the history of religious thought. he did not deny the authority of scripture, but he claimed to be able to see when it rang true to his own inner experience and when it did not. +the true seat of authority.+--if we could grasp this principle clearly and strongly, it would give us a new and higher sense of freedom and of confidence in the word of god as declared in the bible and revealed in human hearts. god has never stopped speaking to men. he speaks through us collectively and individually. "the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thine heart, that thou mayest do it." if we are only in earnest to listen for the divine voice and to trust it when we hear it, we shall not listen in vain. to realise that god is speaking to us just as he spoke to earnest souls in the days of old will send us to the sacred scriptures with an even greater appreciation and reverence for the men of whose experience they are the expression. but they will no longer bind us; they can only help and encourage us. we shall feel that these men of faith of an earlier day and a different race were our brothers after all, men who lived a life much like our own, and who were trying to understand god as we are trying to understand him. the bible is not infallible for the simple reason that the human nature, even of wise and great men, is not infallible. it helps us because these men were struggling with the same problems as ourselves, and therefore what they have to say about them is valuable. but the best of them had their limitations and shortcomings. they did not know all the truth that was to be known, but they kept their faces to the light. if we allow ourselves to be fettered by their actual words, we shall be in danger of losing sympathy with them in the spirit which animated those words. we are writing a bible with our own lives to-day, a bible which may never be read in its fulness by human eyes, but every letter of which is known and read in heaven. every noble life is a word of god to the world; every brave, unselfish deed is a ray of eternal truth. our characters ought to become living epistles known and read of all men while we strive to express the best that god has given us to see; for the same eternal spirit of truth, the spirit who has been the teacher of all the elijahs, isaiahs, and pauls of history is with us to-day as he was with them. +the unity of truth.+--but, someone will remonstrate, what then are we to believe? for by speaking in this way you erect as many standards of truth as there are individuals. what the ordinary man wants is to be told just what to believe, so that he can settle down and be at rest. it is small comfort to tell him that every scripture statement may be more or less fallible, and that he must trust to his own perception, or perhaps to his own fancies, as to what is true. i know all that kind of argument. it is as old as, or older than, christianity itself. it was used in all sincerity against jesus by some earnest people of his time. it was used again at the reformation. it is still used by sacerdotal controversialists, and looks very plausible on the face of it. a devout and earnest roman catholic will tell you that in protestantism there are a thousand different creeds, all claiming to be authoritative, and that the principle of private judgment can only lead to intellectual and moral chaos. your protestant literalist will tell you that the romanist criticism has a good deal in it, and that you must have a final standard of authority, either the infallible church, the infallible book, or the infallible confession of faith. but notwithstanding the dogmatists the supposed infallible confession of faith is almost universally discredited, and common honesty is compelling protestants to abandon the theory of an infallible book. the supposed infallible church has by no means been invariably self-consistent. besides, the important point is this; no man really believes or can believe a thing until it becomes, so to speak, part of himself. holding propositions is not necessarily believing them, no matter how tenaciously they may be adhered to. but all truth is really one and the same. i may be unable to take exactly my neighbour's point of view about some aspects of it, but if we are both in earnest and faithful to what we have seen, we shall arrive in the end at the same goal. religious thinkers and teachers are never really so far apart as seems to be the case. it is in the expression of the truth that they differ, not in the truth itself. language is never more than approximately convenient expression of the reality it is meant to declare. the man of the future will realise this better than the man of the present or the past. he will replace all external authority by the principle of spiritual autonomy. he will no longer be afraid of trusting the human spirit to recognise and respond to truth from whatsoever source it may come, for he will know that that spirit is one with the universal spirit of all truth, and needs not to look beyond itself for anything stronger or more divine. he will know that the spirit of truth in himself is the spirit of truth in all men, and that therefore in the end all men must know, and be, and do the truth. +the new testament and the atonement.+--now let us apply this principle to the new testament writings about the redeeming work of jesus. the same principle, of course, would apply to anything that the new testament has to say about the gospel of jesus, but perhaps the failure to recognise it has done more mischief in connection with the doctrine of atonement than in anything else. at present paul's opinion on this great subject is by many people supposed to be decisive: paul says this, and paul says that, and when paul has spoken, there is no more to be said. but why should it be so? paul's opinion is simply paul's opinion, and not necessarily a complete and adequate statement of truth. it is entitled to be considered weighty because it is the utterance of a great man, and a great seer of truth, as well as being the earliest writing on the subject which we possess. any man of the moral and intellectual eminence of paul is entitled to reverence when he speaks, whether his views are in the bible or not. it is one of the ironies of history that the words of this paul who strove so hard against literalism and legalism in his day have since come to be regarded as a sort of fixed and final authority for christian thought. he would be the first to denounce it. to him the spirit of christ operating within the individual soul was the true guide in matters of faith. he even made a point of the fact that in thinking out the truth about jesus and his gospel he had "conferred not with flesh and blood." +inconsistency of new testament writers with one another.+--again, it is somehow taken for granted that paul and all the other new testament writers agree together in their theology of the atonement. that is quite a mistake, and the curious thing is that people should have been so slow in finding it out. it may be instructive to some to give a brief survey of the main points in paul's theory of the atonement, and compare them with some of the others. +the fundamental principle of its atonement always the same.+--it would simplify our acquaintance with paul's modes of reasoning if we could recognise that the truth of atonement which he has to declare, and which he associates so closely with the life and death of jesus, is in principle precisely the same as that which the writers of the old testament had in mind. what that was we have already seen. it was the assertion of the fundamental oneness of god and man, and the means to it was the principle of self-sacrifice. this is just what st. paul set himself to proclaim to the world, and to him the whole process centred in jesus, just as it does for christian experience. but to his presentation of the subject paul almost of necessity had to bring the whole apparatus of his rabbinical training. this it was which supplied him with the most of his figures, symbols, and illustrations; but his gospel was no more dependent upon these than--as i trust i have shown in a previous chapter--the ancient spiritual truth of atonement depended upon semitic ritual sacrifices. paul's thought-forms were supplied by the old testament and his pharisaic education, just as the forms in which we ordinarily express our thoughts to-day belong to the mental atmosphere of our time. most of the allusions in a _times_ leading article, for example, would be lost upon an english reader five hundred years hence unless they were carefully explained. to me one of the most remarkable things about jesus is the fact that he was able to escape so completely the mental environment of the time in which, and the people among whom, he lived his earthly life. how he managed to deliver his peerless teaching while making so little allusion to current jewish modes of thought and worship is a mystery, and marks his greatness as perhaps nothing else does. it was utterly different with paul; he spoke the language of his time, and never tried to do anything else. when, therefore, we want to get at what he meant about the death of jesus, we have first of all to get behind the symbolism by which he illustrates it, and even when we have done this we have to make allowance for some limiting pharisaic conceptions about justice and the punishment of sin. every now and then he breaks through these and rises into a rarer, purer region without troubling about consistency. paul never dreamed that he was writing theological treatises which would be numbered off into chapters and verses and lectured upon in class rooms, or perhaps he would have been more careful about being exact. how many of us could afford to have our letters, written at different times and to different readers, analysed and dissected and taken as a full and permanent statement of our thought upon any particular subject or group of subjects? +paul's view of the death of the saviour and the forgiveness of sins.+--the first important thing to be noted in paul's thought about sin and salvation is his view that there was a vital connection between the death of the messiah and god's forgiveness of sins. but we should be mightily mistaken if we were to understand this view to be the same as that of a modern evangelical who talks about the "fountain filled with blood," for it was quite different. the modern evangelical, of so-called orthodox opinions, believes that jesus died to save all men from hell; but this was not what paul was thinking about at all. according to paul, the wages of sin were actually and literally death. but for sin there would have been no death, and to break the power of sin would also be to break the power of death. but in this paul was wrong, in company with a good many of his contemporaries, and there is no reason why we should not frankly say so, for, as we shall presently see, the great apostle did not confine himself to the literal statement of this view, but gave it also a mystical form in which it becomes indisputably true. in his thought the messiah of jewish national expectation was the head and representative of the nation in its relation to god. for ages men had been dying because of sin--"in adam all die"--and so when the sinless one came into human conditions and in the likeness of sinful flesh, he also had to pass through death. but there was a difference between his death and all other deaths in that, being sinless, death could not hold him, and so he rose again from the tomb triumphant over it. his triumph then becomes potentially the triumph of humanity--"in christ shall all be made alive"--if only we unite ourselves to him by faith. god will remit the death penalty to all who are "in christ" and "justified by faith"; that is, we shall all rise from the dead as he rose. apparently paul's belief was that no one would ever have died but for the sin of adam, a taint which has affected all adam's descendants. death in his view was synonymous with annihilation. the next thing to be noticed is the juridical nature of paul's conception of the relationship of man and god. god is a lawgiver and man a transgressor, a rebel against his sovereignty. in accordance with god's law of righteousness sin is punishable by the death of the whole race. "the wrath of god is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." but when the eternal son of god, the head and representative of the race, submits to this penalty and in so doing acknowledges the righteousness of god, justice is satisfied. "if one died for all, therefore all died." those who claim by faith the benefits of messiah's submission to death on behalf of the race are at peace with god. henceforth they are not to live to themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again. anyone who reads paul's words without dogmatic prejudice will see that this is not the present-day doctrine of atonement. it takes for granted certain ideas which were current among the jews of paul's day, but which have since sunk into the background of christian thought or been abandoned altogether. paul's use of them in the framing of his theology is ingenious but not convincing, and was not essential to his gospel; in fact the juridical and the ethical elements in paul's teaching stand in irreconcilable contrast. his theology is saved by his mysticism, for no sooner has he enunciated these unbelievable propositions about the death penalty of sin, the judicial sovereignty of god, justification by faith, the imputed merits of the redeemer, and such like, than he proceeds to use them as symbols to illustrate a subjective change in the sinner and a mystical union between the soul and christ. he does this so beautifully that the reader can hardly discern where paul quits the region of literalism and takes us into that of mysticism. hence he talks about dying with christ, being crucified with christ, dying to sin, and so on, evidently meaning that the whole redeeming process has to take place within the soul of the sinner who seeks god. even the conception of the resurrection ceases to be literal and becomes the uprising of the divine man within the human soul by faith in the risen lord. "if any man be in christ there is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold all things are become new." "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in christ jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit." we see from these expressions that in practice paul transfers the whole drama of redemption from without to within the individual soul. what a pity it is that his interpreters in christian history have so seldom thought of doing the same! +the hebrews theory.+--the epistle to the hebrews belongs to quite a different category from the writings of st. paul. the dominant thought in this epistle is that of salvation by sacrifice, a perfectly true and spiritual idea, as we have already seen. the writer, like paul, employs old testament symbolism, but in quite a different way. probably this is due to the fact that he was an alexandrian jew whose thinking was shaped under the influence of philo, whereas that of paul was governed by the rabbinical schools of palestinian judaism. at this time alexandria was the greatest intellectual centre in the world, a meeting place for greek thought and hebrew religion as represented by philo. the influence of alexandria is plainly to be seen in the epistle to the hebrews, which, possibly, was written by the learned and courtly apollos. like paul, the writer thinks of salvation as getting right with god and living a holy life, but he omits all reference to a judicial penalty, or the necessity for escaping annihilation by faith in the substitutionary work of a sinless redeemer. in his view christ is from first to last the priestly representative of the race, making a sacrifice to god after the old testament fashion, but in a more perfect way. he regards the old testament sacrificial offerings as being but the types and shadows of the one perfect and eternal offering which humanity through christ is making to god. most of my readers will at once admit that this is not fanciful, although the language in which it is expressed is so different from our own; it is quite faithful to the spiritual meaning of old testament sacrifice. when, therefore, this writer refers to the offering of the blood of christ, he is thinking not only of calvary, but of all that calvary symbolises, the perfect spiritual offering of mankind to god, the sacramental realisation of our oneness with him. this view is not worked out with the moral intensity which characterises st. paul's, but it is unassailably true once we get the writer's point of view. as a theory it is quite different from paul's, unless we are content to shed paul's literalism, get rid of all thought of an angry god and a physical death penalty for sin, and betake ourselves instead to the inner spiritual region where self-sacrifice is realised to be the means of saving, not only the individual, but the whole race, by uniting it to the source of all being. +the johannine theory.+--there is a certain similarity between the view of atonement set forth in the epistle to the hebrews and that contained in the johannine writings. it is easy to understand why this is so when we recognise that both are dominated by alexandrian modes of thinking. these johannine writings--the fourth gospel, the three epistles ascribed to st. john, and the book of revelation--are all that have come down to us of what was at one time, no doubt, a considerable literature. how much the apostle john had to do with it cannot be determined with any certainty, but it is clear enough that these writings are not all from one hand, and that they are much later than the work of st. paul. the all-important conception in the johannine writings is that salvation is secured by the union of the individual soul with the eternal christ, or logos, or divine man of pre-christian thought and experience. here again we have a perfectly true and necessary idea, an idea implied in all spiritual experience worthy of the name; but as the root factor in a presentation of the doctrine of atonement, it differs widely from paul's way of putting things. when the johannine writers speak of the blood of christ, they mean the outpoured, forthgiven life of the eternal son of god, the ideal humanity, perfectly and centrally expressed in jesus of nazareth. there is not from beginning to end a hint or a suggestion in these writings that a sinless being was tortured in order to appease the wrath of god against guilty ones, or that the penalty of sin in a world to come will be remitted to a penitent sinner in consideration of his faith in such an arrangement. +underlying unity.+--this is by no means an exhaustive examination of new testament teaching on the subject of atonement, but it should be sufficient to show two things: first, that the theories of the new testament writers concerning the redeeming works of christ are not, taken literally, mutually consistent; secondly, the truth implied in all the theories is precisely that truth of atonement which we have already seen to be implied in all religion. the great thing which impressed the primitive christian consciousness in regard to the life and death of jesus was that this life and death were the most complete and consistent self-offering of the individual to the whole that had ever been made. in this self-offering was the one perfect manifestation of the eternal christ, the humanity which reveals the innermost of god, the humanity which is love. to partake of the benefits of that atonement we have to unite ourselves to it; that is, to employ the mystical language of st. paul, we have to die to self with christ and rise with him into the experience of larger, fuller life, the life eternal. it is just the same truth under every one of these different theories, but if we persist in regarding them literally we shall miss it, for by no kind of ingenuity can we square the theory of st. paul with that of the other writers; the way of putting it is different. but once we see what the essential truth of atonement is, we are no longer bound by the intellectual symbolism of paul or hebrews or any other authority; we can get beneath the symbol to the thing symbolised. the pauline principle of dying with christ, the hebrews idea of the eternal sacrifice manifested in time, the johannine thought about the outpoured life of the eternal christ, are all one and the same. jesus did nothing for us which we are not also called upon to do for ourselves and one another in our degree. faith in his atoning work means death to self that we may live to god; as selfhood perishes on its calvary, the christ, the true man, the divine reality, in whom we are one with all men, rises in power in our hearts and unites us to the source of all goodness and joy. institutional, forensic, external, the atonement never has been and never will be. but vicarious suffering, willingly accepted, is the great redeeming force by which the world is gradually being won to its true life in god, for vicarious suffering is the expression of the law that in a finite world the service of the whole involves pain, although it is also the deepest joy that the human heart can know. the sacrifice of jesus is the central and ideal expression of this principle on the field of time, but it only possesses meaning and value as it is repeated in our lives; the christ has to be offered perpetually on the altar of human hearts. there is no justification except by becoming just, and no imputed righteousness which means availing ourselves of merits that are not ours. we are "justified by faith," indeed, but only in the sense that no man can become good without believing in goodness, and no man can really believe in the christ revealed in jesus without gradually becoming like him. here is atonement, justification, sanctification, and all else that is needed to unite mankind to the life eternal which is to know god and jesus christ whom he has sent. +no old testament prophecy of atonement of jesus.+--it can hardly be necessary to point out that there is therefore no direct reference in the old testament to the atoning work of jesus. all the beautiful passages with which we are so familiar, and which have become the language of devotion in reference to such sacred seasons as christmas day and good friday, can only be associated with jesus in an ideal sense. the noble fifty-third of isaiah, for example, and all similar passages about the prophetic conception of the suffering servant of god, have, literally understood, nothing whatever to do with jesus. but the striking thing about such passages is that the men who wrote them were able to realise and express the very essence of the spiritual atonement, the giving of the individual for the race. the pathetic and inspiring description, "he was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and we hid as it were our faces from him, he was despised and we esteemed him not. surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of god, and afflicted. but he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed," is perhaps the grandest presentation of the atoning life, the christ man, that exists in literature. the ideal fulfilment of it was jesus, as primitive christianity quickly saw; but had the original writer no specific example in mind belonging to his own day when he wrote? to be sure he had; the case of jeremiah would furnish it if no other. this brave and faithful advocate of the moral ideal, after standing alone in his resistance to the materialising tendencies of his time, was scorned and hated by his fellow-countrymen, flung into prison, beaten, tortured, and probably murdered in the end. he shared the captivity of the jews under nebuchadnezzar, a captivity against which he had warned them in vain. "despised and rejected of men," he died, but in later days his name came to be reverenced as perhaps none had ever been before. for centuries afterwards he was referred to by the returned exiles as _the_ prophet, in contradistinction to all other prophets. he had lived the atoning life and died a sacrificial death. it was not wonderful that the author of the fifty-third of isaiah should have such a noble example in mind when he penned his deathless words, but these words were meant to have an impersonal meaning too. they stand as a description of the ideal manhood, the true servant of god, the saviour of the race in any and every generation. this kind of manhood, just because it is the true manhood, the eternal or divine manhood, must inevitably suffer in a selfish world, but these sufferings are never in vain; they are the calvary from which the eternal christ rises in redeeming might over the power of sin and death. let any man ask himself what it is that is saving the world to-day, and gradually but surely lifting it out of the mire of ignorance and wickedness, and he cannot find a better answer than the fifty-third of isaiah. it tells of jesus, but it tells also of all the sons of god who in the spirit of jesus have ever given their lives in the service of love. when we go to the bible in this common-sense way, entering with understanding and sympathy into the thoughts and aspirations of the men who wrote it, it becomes a living book, and a real help in our endeavour to live our lives in union with jesus christ. but to regard it as a sort of official document written by the finger of god, of equal authority in every part, and containing a full and complete statement of the propositions we must accept in order to make sure of salvation, is hampering and belittling to the soul. god inspires men, not books; and he will go on inspiring men to the end of time, whether they write books or not. i do not know anything which is such a serious hindrance and stumbling-block to spiritual religion to-day as this supposed authority of the letter of scripture. if only the average protestant could emancipate himself from this intellectual bondage, the gain to truth would be immeasurable. i do not suppose there is a single man who reads these words who would make light of the religious opinions of a pious mother, but would he allow them to fetter him in the exercise of his own mature judgment? but surely your own mother stands as near to you as men who wrote centuries before she was born. if god spoke to the hearts of men centuries ago, he can and does speak to them now. if he spoke to isaiah, he can and does speak to you. if your mother's way of stating truth is not necessarily yours, no more is paul's. the deeper unity of the spirit forbids this blind obedience to the letter. therefore, knowing quite well what use hostile reviewers will make of this sentence, i close by solemnly adding: never mind what the bible says if you are in search for truth, but trust the voice of god within you. the bible will help you in your quest, just as any good man might be able to help you; but you must judge, test, and weigh the various statements it contains, just as you would judge, test, and weigh the opinions of the best friend you ever had. nothing can make up for this quiet and assured confidence in the spirit of truth within your own soul. if god is not there, you will not find him in the bible or anywhere else. chapter xii salvation, judgment, and the life to come +the inwardness of salvation and judgment.+--we come now to the consideration of a group of subjects which are usually treated in quite separate categories. i mean the punishment of sin, the nature and scope of salvation, resurrection and ascension, death, judgment, heaven and hell. the reason why i feel that these subjects ought not to be treated in separate categories is because they are all descriptions of states of the soul and imply each other; they are inward, not outward, experiences. this statement will, i trust, become clearer as we proceed. so far we have examined pretty thoroughly the nature of sin and its effects in the world, but have said very little as to its penal consequences, and yet the consideration of these consequences has been the determining factor in most of the theories of atonement, ancient or modern, which have occupied the field of human thought. it is true, as i have said, that the idea of atonement is not necessarily associated with that of sin, and actually precedes it both historically and psychologically, but it cannot be gainsaid that in christian thought the desirability of finding some means of escaping or minimising the punishment of sin has tended to overshadow everything else in popular presentations of the atonement. but what is the punishment of sin, and who administers it? what is the judgment and when does it take effect? how does salvation stand related to punishment and judgment? what has death to do with the matter? what are we to understand by heaven and hell, and what is the bearing of either upon salvation and judgment? everyone knows how popular evangelical theology would answer these questions. sin, we are told, will be punished in a future life by the committal of the impenitent soul to everlasting torment. salvation is primarily a means of escaping this, and secondarily being conformed gradually to the moral likeness of the saviour. judgment is a grand assize, which will take place when the material world comes to an end; jesus christ will be the judge, and will apportion everlasting weal or woe, according as the soul has or has not claimed the benefit of his redeeming work in time to profit by it. death is the dividing line beyond which the destiny is fixed eternally whether we die old or young. heaven is the place into which the redeemed enter--whether after death or after judgment has never been clearly settled--there to praise god eternally in perfect happiness; hell is the place of never ending torment to which unbelievers are to be consigned. now it does not require a very profound intelligence to see that popular theology is a mass of contradictions in regard to these things. by eternal the ordinary christian usually means everlasting; why should punishment be everlasting? the worst sin that was ever sinned does not deserve everlasting punishment, and i have never yet met the christian who would really and truly be willing to see a fellow-creature undergo it. there is no understandable sense in which justice could demand such a terrible sentence, even if it involved no more than everlasting unhappiness; how much more unthinkable it becomes if the punishment is to be everlasting, fiendish torment! if salvation is first and foremost deliverance from this punishment, how is it that it does not take effect immediately? justice would suggest that it ought to do so, for some sinners live a merry life until the eleventh hour, and then give god "the last snuff of the candle" as father taylor put it, whereas others repent early but never manage, all through a long life, to escape the suffering caused by their own deeds in youth. in some cases, at any rate, on this side of the grave, salvation does not involve the least remission of penalty, while in others apparently no penalty will ever be endured either on this side of death or on the other. the poor drunkard who repents does not find that repentance gives him back his wrecked constitution, but the selfish, grasping, cruel-hearted wrecker of homes and lives may just be in time with his trust in the "finished work," and go right home to glory while his victims struggle and suffer on amid the conditions he has made for them on earth. curious justice this! +christian thought never quite consistent about death and after.+--there is no need to labour the point; popular evangelical views of the punishment of sin are incredible when looked at in a common-sense way. but they are even more chaotic on the subject of death and whatever follows death. it does not seem to be generally recognised that christian thought has never been really clear concerning the resurrection, especially in relation to future judgment. one view has been that the deceased saint lies sleeping in the grave until the archangel's trump shall sound and bid all mankind awake for the great assize. anyone who reads the new testament without prejudice will see that this was paul's earlier view, although later on he changed it for another. there is a good deal of our current, everyday religious phraseology which presumes it still- "father, in thy gracious keeping leave we now thy servant sleeping." but alongside this view another which is a flagrant contradiction of it has come down to us, namely, that immediately after death the soul goes straight to heaven or hell, as the case may be, without waiting for the archangel's trump and the grand assize. on the whole this is the dominant theory of the situation in protestant circles, and is much less reasonable than the catholic doctrine of purgatory, however much the latter may have been abused. but under this view what is the exact significance of the judgment day and the physical resurrection? one would think they might be accounted superfluous. what is the good of tormenting a soul in hell for ages and then whirling it back to the body in order to rise again and receive a solemn public condemnation? better leave it in the inferno and save trouble, especially as the solemn trial is meaningless, seeing that a part of the sentence has already been undergone, and that there is no hope that any portion of it will ever be remitted. truly the tender mercies with which theologians have credited the almighty are cruel indeed! it is difficult to speak with patience of the solemn, non-committal way in which many present-day theological writers discuss everlasting punishment. many of them have an "open mind" on the subject, whatever that may be, and warn the rest of us not to dogmatise on the great mystery. it does not seem to occur to them that the christian fundamental of the love of god renders the dogma of everlasting punishment impossible, for it implies that god will do the most for the being that needs the most, and surely that must be the most unhappy sinner. others speak of a "larger hope," a second opportunity for accepting divine grace, and so on. but these theories do not meet the case at all. while sin remains in the universe, god is defeated; everlasting punishment involves his everlasting failure. how often we bear preachers speaking about the obdurate human will, which to all eternity may go on resisting good. there are not a few who defend the abstract possibility of everlasting punishment by insisting that it is impossible to coerce the will, and therefore that to endless ages a soul may go on choosing evil and rejecting good. but this is an entirely new argument; it implies that a sinner _might_ choose the good on the other side of death, and that if he does not he continues eternally to pass sentence upon himself, god being helpless in the matter. this is not the way in which advocates of everlasting punishment used to talk. it is a little more hopeful than the conventional dogma, for it makes the sinner to some extent his own judge and executioner, and places stress on the undoubted truth that if a man keeps on doing wrong things he becomes hardened. i have heard this view defended in private by a bishop, who apparently never saw that in adopting it he had given up entirely the orthodox protestant view that there is no chance for a man after death, and that the thing which determines our post-mortem destiny is not our conduct, but our belief. repentance at the eleventh hour, however bad the previous life may have been, is, according to the theology of this particular bishop, enough to secure admission to heaven. if, therefore, a power of eternally choosing evil remains on the further side of the great change, surely there is some hope that that power might not continue to be exercised. but if not, what becomes of the whole fabric of popular protestant theology concerning the plan of salvation, the judgment day, and the atoning merits of the redeemer? no, this kind of incoherent theologising will not do. no one really believes it, and the churches will have to give up professing to believe it. in our ordinary everyday concerns we take quite a different view for granted all the time, the view that "whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." the harvest may be long in coming, but it comes at last. neither do we choose our friends on account of their chances of heaven or hell. we like or dislike a man because he deserves to be liked or disliked, and not because he believes something that will get him into heaven. neither, thank god, do we want to see even the wicked left to the consequences of their wickedness; we want to see them helped to live differently, and it is hardly probable that this impulse of our better humanity will change after death. love cannot be false to itself; in the presence of need it must of necessity keep on giving itself until the need is satisfied and the victory won. but if popular theology concerning the last things is untrue, or at least misleading and inadequate, what is the truth? do we want a different set of terms or not? i think not, but we want a different perspective. these terms ought to be construed as states of the soul, rather than as external conditions. let me try to explain what i mean. +the true salvation.+--in the first place if sin is selfishness, salvation must consist in ceasing to be selfish, that is, it represents the victory of love in the human heart. this may be represented as the uprising of the deeper self, the true man, the christ man in the experience of the penitent. we may even go so far as to say that this can come about, and does come about, without any strongly marked feelings of contrition or sudden change of attitude. wherever you see a man trying to do something for the common good, you see the uprising of the spirit of christ; what he is doing is a part of the atonement. in church or out of church, with or without a formal creed, this is the true way in which the redemption of the world is proceeding. every man who is trying to live so as to make his life a blessing to the world is being saved himself in the process, saved by becoming a saviour. ordinary observation ought to tell us that untold thousands of our fellow-beings, even among those who never dream of going to church, are being saved in this way. this is the true way to look at the matter. the christ, the true christ who was and is jesus, but who is also the deeper self of every human being, is saving individuals by filling them with the unselfish desire to save the race. it is this unselfish desire to minister to the common good which is the true salvation. i do not mind what name is given to it so long as it is recognised for what it really is; there is no stopping-place between sinner and saviour. this is the way in which men like robert blatchford of the _clarion_ are being saved while trying to save. conceive how differently such a man _might_ have lived his life. he might have lived it so as to be of no use to anyone, or indeed in such a way as to be a hindrance rather than a help to poor overburdened humanity. it matters comparatively little that this man should think he is destroying supernaturalism and scoffs at the possibility of a future life. his moral earnestness is a mark of his christhood and his work a part of the atonement. not another christ than jesus, mind! the very same. mr. blatchford may laugh at this and call his moral aspirations by quite a different name. well, let him; but i know the thing when i see it. this is salvation. +conversion.+--but in the history of mankind the change from selfishness to love, from darkness to light, from death to life, has often meant something much more pronounced than this. a man may have been living a bad life, and become suddenly impressed by some appeal to his better nature made in the name of god. he may have felt humiliated and distressed by his new-found consciousness of sin. he may have prayed earnestly for forgiveness, and felt that forgiveness has come and that the peace of god has entered into and possessed his soul. he has deliberately and solemnly consecrated his life to jesus and feels that henceforth he is, as it were, in a new world. this change is rightly termed conversion, a turning round and going right. such a man may be able to say with st. paul, "to me to live is christ," and the words would be literally and grandly true. after this he may go on believing all kinds of things about verbal inspiration, the precious blood, the fate of the impenitent, and i know not what else, but the quality of the new life is always the same; it is dominated by the spirit of love instead of the spirit of selfishness; it is harmony with god. often this change is very complete and beautiful, but in every case it involves a long and slow ascent to the stature of the perfect man in christ jesus. it is no delusion, either, that in the endeavour to live the new life divine help is forthcoming. the holy spirit of truth and love is ever present with a child of god to guide him to higher and ever higher heights of spiritual attainment. without this blessed religious experience, the experience of those who are "called to be saints," this world would be a poor place to live in. i may perhaps be pardoned for adding that in my judgment even the earnest redemptive endeavours of men like the editor of the _clarion_ have indirectly been made possible by it. take out of the world what christian saints have owed to their fellowship with jesus, and there would be very little of hope and inspiration left. still, what i want to emphasise here is the fact that, however crude the various theologies may have been in which this experience has clothed itself, it is always the same; it represents the victory of love in the human heart. +salvation and penalty.+--but does this kind of salvation do away with the penal consequences of past sin? if not, what is its relation to them? to answer these questions we must look a little more closely into the nature of such penal consequences. perhaps it would help to clear up the subject if i were to say frankly before going any farther that there is no such thing as punishment, no far-off judgment day, no great white throne, and no judge external to ourselves. i say there is no punishment of sin in the sense in which the word "punishment" is usually employed. we are accustomed to think of punishment as a sentence imposed by some authority from without and containing within itself some element of vengeance for wrong-doing. but in the divine dealings with men such punishment has never existed and never will. what has already been said in a previous chapter on the subject of pain should help to make this statement plain. we have seen that pain is life pressing upon death and death resisting life. if there were no life, there would be no pain. we may say therefore that pain is life, or some finite expression of the universal life, seeking to burst through something that fetters and hinders it. apply this to the region of morals and let us see how it works out. if a man has been living for self, he has been making a mistake and preparing for himself a harvest of pain, for sooner or later the divine life within him, the truer, deeper self, will assert itself against the decisive efforts of sin. it is just as impossible for a man to go on eternally living apart from the universal life as it is for a sand castle to shut out the ocean; the returning tide would break down the puny barriers and destroy everything that tends to separate between the soul and god. for, after all, what is our life but god's? to try to keep it for ourselves is like trying to catch and imprison a sun ray by drawing the blinds. to save the self we must serve the all. when, therefore, we remember that the spirit of man and the spirit of god are one, we know of a surety that the infinite life behind the human spirit will assert itself irresistibly against the endeavours of sin to enclose that spirit within finite conditions. the essence of sin is the declaration, "mine is not thine, and i shall live for mine alone." this is trying to live for the finite; it is enclosing the soul within barriers; those barriers must be broken if the soul is to be saved, and broken they will be just because the deeper self of every man is already one with god. in the stable-yard of my house there was at one time a tree, which was cut down and the place where it grew covered with flagstones and a wall built round it. but the roots of the tree were not removed, and so that buried life has reasserted itself, the flagstones have been shattered, and now the wall is coming down. here is a figure of our moral experience. a man may go on living for self all through a long career; he may bury his better nature deep underneath the hard shell of materialism and self-indulgence, but it is all in vain; sooner or later, on this side of death or on the other, that buried life shall rise in power and all barriers be swept away. this uprising of the christ in the individual soul, for such it is, must inevitably mean pain to the man whose true life has been entombed in selfishness. the pain may begin here or on the farther side of the change called death, but it is itself not a mark of death, but of life. the fact that a soul can suffer proves its salvability beyond dispute. an everlasting hell is in the nature of things a contradiction, for the finite cannot eternally bar the way of the infinite reality whose uprising is the cause of its pain; if it could, it would itself be infinite, which is absurd. sin is essentially the endeavour to live for the finite, the separative, the divisive, as opposed to the infinite, the whole-ward, the all. which will win in this encounter? +the real judge.+--and who, pray, is the judge? who but yourself? the deeper self is the judge, the self who is eternally one with god. the pain caused by sin arises from the soul, which is potentially infinite and cannot have its true nature denied. if you go and live over a sewer, you will be ill. why? because you were never meant to live over a sewer. the evil therein attacks you, and the life within you fights to overcome it, and in the process you have to suffer. it is just the same with your spiritual nature. you _cannot_ continue to live apart from the whole, for the real you _is_ the whole, and, do what you will, it will overcome everything within you that makes for separateness, and in the process you will have to suffer. this is what the punishment of sin means. it is life battling with death, love striving against selfishness, the deeper soul with the surface soul. it is our own spiritual nature that compels us to suffer when we sin, and there is no escaping the sentence; if we sin we must suffer, for we are so constituted that what sin does, love with toil and pain must undo. no eleventh-hour repentance can evade this issue; in fact, it may be the beginning of it. if we have been treading a wrong road, repentance is turning round and taking the way back. if we have been living a false life, repentance is the beginning of the true, and just in proportion as the false has been accepted, so will the true find it difficult to destroy the lie. _you_ are the judge; you _in_ god. if you have failed to achieve that for which you are here, you will have to achieve it here or elsewhere, and the correction of your failure will inevitably mean pain. "the tissues of the life to be, we weave with colours all our own; and in the field of destiny we reap as we have sown." there is nothing horrific about this law of the spirit. in a true and real sense it is our own law; _we_ make it. being what we are, we cannot let ourselves off. pain is at once the consequence of sin and the token of our divine lineage. but there is nothing individualistic about this sinning and suffering. all the love in the universe comes to the help of the soul that tries to rise. it will even enter the prison house along with it and accept the cross in the endeavour to hasten the emancipation of the sinbound soul. in fact, it must do so, for as long as there is any sin to be done away, love cannot have its perfect work. this it was which brought jesus to earth, and this it is which turns every follower of jesus into a saviour. love must strive and suffer with sin until god is all in all. +the spiritual resurrection.+--it follows from this that the true resurrection is spiritual, not material, and this is the sense in which the word is most frequently employed in the new testament. in the fourth gospel jesus is represented as saying, "i am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die." this is a great saying, and the writer of this particular gospel meant every word of it in the sense i have just indicated. he makes the eternal christ the speaking terms of the earthly jesus and tells us that the uprising of this eternal christ within the soul of the penitent sinner is the real resurrection. +the resurrection of jesus.+--but this subject of the resurrection demands a further examination. we have already seen how inconsistent popular christian doctrine is about the matter, and yet christianity started with the belief in a resurrection of our lord, a belief which has continued down to the present day. what are we to say about this? we may as well admit at the outset that the gospel accounts of the physical resurrection of jesus are mutually inconsistent and that no amount of ingenuity can reconcile them. matthew speaks of a galilean appearance, and says nothing about the ascension. luke says a great deal about the jerusalem appearances, nothing about galilee, and tells us that the ascension took place from bethany. the end of st. mark's gospel has been lost, and the last few verses are a summary of the accounts in the other gospels concerning the post-resurrection appearances of the lord. john's version is, of course, less historical than the synoptists, and puts the last appearance at the sea of tiberias. a minute discussion of the problem thus raised would be unprofitable for our present purpose, but i hope we can take for granted the broad fact that without a belief in a resurrection of some kind christianity could not have made a start at all. it is almost indisputable that in some way or other the disciples must have become convinced that they had seen jesus face to face after the world believed him to be dead and buried. the earliest apostolic utterance on the subject in the new testament is the familiar passage from 1 cor. xv: "for i delivered unto you first of all that which i also received, how that christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen by cephas, then of the twelve: after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. after that he was seen of james; then of all the apostles. and last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." this statement is clear enough and almost unquestionably authentic. it places beyond doubt what the apostolic church thought of the resurrection of jesus. the little group of disciples must somehow have become convinced that their master was not really dead, but alive and reigning in the world unseen, interested as much as ever in the work his followers were doing, and spiritually present with them in the doing of it. this conviction had immediate and important spiritual results. it gave these simple men a new and greater confidence in jesus and in the power of the life he had lived. they saw that this life was, after all, the strongest thing in the universe. they realised that in the end nothing could stand against them; evil could do it no real harm, for god was behind it. even before the crucifixion they had looked upon jesus as the son of god in a higher and more spiritual sense than that title had been used before, but now henceforth they thought of him as such in a higher way still. according to paul he was "declared to be the son of god with power by the resurrection from the dead." if we try to put ourselves in the place of these first christians, we shall realise better the effect of the resurrection upon their feelings and behaviour. let us suppose that we had known jesus in the flesh, that we had learned to understand a little of the moral and spiritual beauty of the ideal revealed in his life, and that afterward we had seen him die in blood and shame; i think it would have taken a good deal to convince us that evil had not gained the day. now suppose after this we had absolute proof--i will not say how--that our master was still alive, and that his spirit was with us and helping us, would it not make a very great difference to our outlook upon life and our confidence in god? we could not but feel the littleness of the power that had tried to destroy jesus, and we should not be afraid of it any more. this is precisely what appears to have happened in the experience of these galileans. defeat and failure were somehow turned into victory and success; they had seen jesus again. +theories of resurrection.+--but how are we to account for this new-found confidence of theirs that they had really once more looked upon the face of jesus? the subject has been discussed so exhaustively that no possible explanation of it has been left altogether untouched. such a unique event as the raising of a physical body from death is one which the average western mind of the present day would reject as incredible if we had never heard it before, consequently there exists a widespread tendency among liberal christians to try to account for primitive christian belief in the resurrection of our lord in some other way. thus we have the hallucination theory, the apparition theory, the swoon theory, and others of a similar character. i should suppose that most thinkers who take the point of view of the new theology would hold one or other of these explanations or some modification of them, but i confess i have never been able to do so. it seems to me that no such explanation of the universally held christian conviction that the physical body of jesus actually rose from the tomb is sufficient to account for it. the passage already quoted from 1 cor. xv is alone enough to illustrate this statement. it is clear that the earliest christians were absolutely certain that the body of jesus after the resurrection was the body of jesus as they had known it before, although apparently it possessed some new and mysterious attributes. in my judgment, also, insistence upon the impossibility of a physical resurrection presumes an essential distinction between matter and spirit which i cannot admit. the philosophy underlying the new theology as i understand it is monistic idealism, and monistic idealism recognises no fundamental distinction between matter and spirit. the fundamental reality is consciousness. the so-called material world is the product of consciousness exercising itself along a certain limited plane; the next stage of consciousness above this is not an absolute break with it, although it is an expansion of experience or readjustment of focus. admitting that individual self-consciousness persists beyond the change called death, it only means that such consciousness is being exercised along another plane; from a three-dimensional it has entered a four-dimensional world. this new world is no less and no more material than the present; it is all a question of the range of consciousness. it is this view, the view that matter exists only in and for mind, that leads me to believe that less than justice has been done by liberal thinkers to the theory of the physical resurrection of jesus. what is the physical but the common denominator between one finite mind and another? it is a mode of language, an expression of thought as well as a condition of thought. imagine a being free of a three-dimensional world trying to converse with a being still limited to a two-dimensional world, and we have a clew to what i think may have happened after the crucifixion of jesus. the three-dimensional body would behave in a manner altogether unaccountable to the two-dimensional watcher. the latter, knowing only length and breadth, and nothing of up or down, would see his three-dimensional friend as a line only. the moment the three-dimensional solid rose above or sank below his line of vision, it would seem to have disappeared like an apparition, although as really present as before. to the two-dimensional mind it would seem as though the solid were a ghost. does this throw any light upon the mysterious appearances and disappearances of the body of jesus? the all-important thing after calvary was to make the disciples aware, beyond all dispute, that jesus was really alive, more alive than ever, and that his murderers had been helpless to destroy him. when we remember that to the ordinary jewish mind the thought of personal immortality was anything but clear, and that to many of them death was synonymous with annihilation, we can see how enormous was the change that had to be wrought in the mental attitude of those who had seen jesus die a violent and bloody death. to see him return triumphant was the one thing required to counteract their feeling that all was lost, and the best means of demonstrating this victory over death was to enable them to behold him in the body with which they were already familiar and which they loved so well. for, after all, that body was but a thought-form, a kind of language, a mode of communication between mind and mind; it was no more and no less a thought-form than an apparition would have been, and, from the point of view of monistic idealism, it is no more difficult to believe in the reanimation of a physical body than in the use of any other thought-form to express a fact of consciousness. here, then, we have a being whose consciousness belongs to the fourth-dimensional plane adjusting himself to the capacity of those on a three-dimensional plane for the sake of proving to them beyond dispute that- "life is ever lord of death, and love can never love its own." this seems to me the most reasonable explanation of the post-resurrection appearances of jesus, and the impression produced by them on the minds of his disciples. most of my new theology friends will probably reject it at first sight, but at least it is consistent with the philosophic position assumed throughout this book, and seems to me to present fewer difficulties than any other in face of the new testament accounts. but no theory of the resurrection of jesus is absolutely indispensable or of first-rate importance; the main thing to be agreed upon is that christianity started with the belief that its founder had risen from the dead in order to demonstrate that death has no power to destroy anything worthy of god. in consonance with this idealistic view of the subject the ascension becomes understandable; it simply means that when jesus had done what he wanted, the body was dissipated. no doubt primitive christian thought naïvely regarded heaven as a place above the sky to which the physical body actually went, and hades, or the under-world, as the place from which the spirit of jesus returned to reanimate it before ascending to the abode of the father. plainly enough this is what paul thought about it, but such a conception is now impossible to anyone; it could only exist under a geocentric view of the universe which has long since passed away. but when paul speaks even about the resurrection of the saints, this is what he means. all the good who have died are waiting in the under-world, the shadowy home of the departed, in a state of existence which is only a sort of dream or sleep compared with that which they have left. from this under-world jesus returned, "the first-fruits of them that slept." all who believe in him will do the same sooner or later, will resume their physical bodies, and, like him, ascend to the world above the sky. but seeing this geocentric cosmogony has been impossible for centuries past, why should we go on trying to squeeze paul's language so as to mean something else than what it meant at first? granted that he was right in believing, in company with all the rest of the primitive church, that jesus showed himself to the disciples after his crucifixion, what more do we need? paul's theory as to the resurrection of every physical body is just nonsense in the light of our larger knowledge of the universe and its laws, and we may as well say so. +paul's mystical view of resurrection.+--but we should do paul an injustice if we were to limit the value of his utterances by his views about the resurrection of the human body. i have already pointed out that paul employs physical symbols in a mystical way, and in nothing was this more so than in his use of the idea of a resurrection. with him, as with the writer of the fourth gospel, the spiritual resurrection was the uprising, going-forward, issuing-forth, of the christ or divine man within the soul. when he speaks in this way he allows the thought of a physical resurrection to drop out of sight. thus he writes: "if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." "that i may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means i might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." "if then ye be risen with christ seek the things which are above, where christ sitteth on the right hand of god.... for ye died, and your life is hid with christ in god." even if this last sentence is not paul's own it has a distinctly pauline ring. in his maturer thought the great apostle seems to have escaped the limitations of his early pharisaism. he ceases to speak of the sleep or the under-world, and begins to think of death as the gateway to the immediate presence of his dearly loved master. "for i long to depart and to be with christ which is far better." here, surely, we are listening to the voice of paul the aged. the moment we succeed in disentangling ourselves from all literal and limiting new testament statements about the connection between sin and physical death, the physical resurrection, the distant judgment day, and such-like, we find ourselves in a position to appreciate the beautiful spiritual experience in which these very terms become symbols of inner realities of the soul. till we can do this, new testament language is sure to be a hindrance to any true apprehension of the moral value of the gospel of christ. the only salvation we need trouble about is the change from selfishness to love, "we know that we have passed from death unto life because we love." this change is equivalent to a resurrection, the uprising of the eternal christ within us. it is also an ascension, the uplifting and uniting of the soul to the eternal father. but such a resurrection and ascension may be preceded by a great deal of pain when the soul is shedding the husk of selfishness. there is no dodging the consequences of sin; that is absolutely impossible. a saviour may suffer with and for the sinner, but the sinner must suffer too. the suffering is not a mark of god's anger, but of his love; so far from salvation being a means of screening us from it, the pain is a means by which the salvation takes effect. it is the true self asserting its dominion over the false. heaven and hell are states of the soul, and the latter implies the former. it is life that suffers, not death. when a guilty soul awakens to the truth, hell begins, but it is because heaven wants to break through. the aim and object of salvation are not the getting of a man into heaven, but the getting of heaven into him. there is nothing horrifying about the law of retribution, although it is inexorable in its operation. it is an evidence of our divine origin, our own true being asserting itself against the fetters of evil. but it is the christ that saves us, not the retribution; the retribution only shows that the christ is there, and that from the calvary caused by sin, and from the tomb in which the true self lies buried, he will rise in glorious majesty in the soul and unite us in the bonds of love to the eternal divine humanity which is god. +physical death of minor importance.+--it follows from what has now been said that all these familiar terms imply each other, and that death, judgment, heaven, and hell cannot properly be regarded as the "last things." they are all here now, here within the soul, just as infinity and eternity are here now. it is not a matter of hither and yonder, but of higher and lower. physical death is not the all-important event which theologians have usually made it out to be; it is only a bend in the road. my own impression is that when we individually pass through this crisis, we shall find the change to be very slight. it will mean the dropping of the scales from the eyes, and that is about all. the things we have been living for on this side will only profit us in so far as they have gone to the building up of a christlike character. if a man has been living for false and unworthy ideals, he will quickly find it out; the only possession he can take to the other side of death is what he is. belief in the atoning merits and the finished work of a saviour will not compensate for wasted opportunities and selfish deeds; these latter will light the fires of retribution as the soul awakes to its true condition, and then, and not till then perhaps, will the indwelling christ obtain his opportunity. nor will the absence of a formal creed shut any good man out of heaven; it is impossible to shut a man out from what he is. what we sow we reap, and we do so just because of what we fundamentally are. every road to evil ends in a _cul-de-sac_. sooner or later every soul will have to learn that it is no use kicking against the pricks; we must learn by the consequences of our mistakes that, being what we are, the children of the highest, we cannot permanently rest in anything less than the love of god. salvation and atonement are just as operative on the other side of death as on this. the blind soul goes on for a while in its blundering selfishness, and the christ spirit, the spirit of universal love, goes on seeking to win it to the truth. in the end the truth must prevail if only because we shall have to learn that the lie is not worth while. +evidence for immortality of the soul.+--no doubt there are some readers of these pages who profess themselves agnostic or indifferent with regard to the question of immortality, and i am not going to argue with them. it seems to me probable that before very long it will be impossible to deny it. the mass of evidence for the persistence of individual self-consciousness after death is increasing rapidly and is being subjected to the strictest scientific investigation. men like sir william crookes and sir oliver lodge, men whose words are entitled to respect from the point of view of modern science, have publicly admitted the importance of such evidence; before long the scientific world in general will have to take it into consideration. but to me such evidence does not greatly matter, and i know very little about it at first hand. i build my belief in immortality on the conviction that the fundamental reality of the universe is consciousness, and that no consciousness can ever be extinguished, for it belongs to the whole and must be fulfilled in the whole. the one unthinkable supposition from this point of view is that any kind of being which has ever become aware of itself, that is, has ever contained a ray of the eternal consciousness, can perish. chapter xiii the church and the kingdom of god +order of the subject.+--from the consideration of the true significance of such terms as salvation, judgment, heaven, and hell, we now turn to one which might be thought to occupy a relatively inferior position and to precede them in order of time. but if we have been right in holding that such terms as we have already examined represent states of the soul beginning here and now, we have considered them in their rightful place, for now we have to see how these states of the soul find expression in human institutions. in a word, i wish to devote some space to the consideration of the great subjects of the church and the kingdom of god in relation to one another. what is the church? where did the idea spring from? what had jesus to do with it originally? what is the kingdom of god, and how do the various christian societies which call themselves churches stand in regard to it to-day? to answer any of these questions we must try to place ourselves to some extent in the intellectual and moral atmosphere of those amongst whom the ideas first arose. let us take the kingdom first. +origin of the idea of the kingdom of god.+--at the time when jesus came every person of jewish nationality was looking for the establishment of what had come to be called the kingdom of god. for many generations the jews had been a subject race. there had been one brief period of national splendour and prosperity, namely, the reigns of david and solomon. after generations were inclined to idealise these two reigns, especially the former, and to look upon them as a kind of golden age. david they looked upon as an ideal monarch; they called him a "man after god's own heart," and the imagination of poet and prophet loved to dwell upon his winsome personality. they thought of him as in a special way the king chosen by god, and the israel of his time as a true kingdom of god, a kingdom of righteousness, peace, and plenty under the favour of the most high. the real israel of david's day was far different from this, but compared with the days that followed it was indeed a time of unexampled greatness. a similar tendency to idealise the past is observable in nearly every nation which has entered upon a period of suffering or misfortune, as we can see from the legends about king olaf and frederick barbarossa. but israel always looked upon herself as in a special way a theocratic kingdom, a chosen of god. at its best this idea was a fine one, one, it led to the thought of a special spiritual vocation for the sake of the other nations of the earth; at its worst it meant the assertion of national privilege and contempt for everything which was not jewish. after the great captivity in babylon the jews were never without a foreign master, and the northern kingdom of israel disappeared from history. but in quite a remarkable way jewish poets and preachers united to keep alive the popular belief that god would yet "restore the kingdom to israel." hence there grew up a firmly held conviction that god would sometime raise up a prince born of david's line who with supernatural help, and with a strong hand, would drive out the invader and establish a kingdom which should outshine even that of david himself. this was the root idea of the kingdom of god, as we meet it in the new testament, and as it is described in some of the most beautiful passages of the old. +the messiah of jewish expectation.+--as time went on this idea was deepened and clarified and became more and more associated in popular expectation with the advent of the messianic deliverer whose work it should be to inaugurate it. at the time when jesus was born this expectation had become very keen. everyone was thinking of it, from pharisees and scribes downward. at the moment the foreign master was the roman, whose rule, though milder than that of the ptolemies, was quite severe enough; the people were impoverished and unhappy. what they were looking for was a messiah, a transcendent but quite human personality of royal descent, who should expel the roman eagles and inaugurate suddenly and completely an era of peace and prosperity the like of which had never been known before, a true kingdom of god. one extension of this idea was that israel should replace the roman empire as the suzerain of all the other nations of the earth. "arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the lord is risen upon thee. for, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the lord shall rise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. and the gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.... and the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath i smote thee, but in my favour have i had mercy on thee. therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee forces of the gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. for the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.... the sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, the city of the lord, the zion of the holy one of israel." this fine passage shows pretty clearly what was the general idea as to the nature of the anticipated kingdom of god. it meant that the jewish messiah was to take the place of caesar and reign with undisputed sway from his capital of jerusalem. but we should do an injustice to the subject if we failed to allow for the fact that according to the prophetic ideal this kingdom was to be a blessing to the world, and to abolish all violence and oppression; the kingdom of god was to be a kingdom of universal peace and joy, a kingdom of righteousness based on social justice. it was because of this widespread expectation that the austere preacher, john the baptist, obtained his hearing in the wilderness of judea. all john had to preach about was the kingdom of god, which he declared to be near at hand. he believed that he had been sent to herald the coming of the messiah, and from his words we can gather what people thought about the messiah: "whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." according to the baptist, the messiah would spare no kind of sham or hypocrisy; he would root out and utterly destroy every kind of social evil, no matter what. john insisted that it would be of no use for jews to imagine that simply because they were descendants of abraham they would escape this general visitation; hence his words to the pharisees were particularly scathing: "o generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" it is clear, therefore, that, in the opinion of the man who has now come to be regarded as the forerunner of jesus, the kingdom of god was to be an earthly kingdom, was to come suddenly, and was to be inaugurated by a sort of general judgment or clean sweep of all the elements that made for oppression, cruelty, foul living, and pretentiousness of every kind. it had not the remotest reference to a world to come or a divine redeemer whose principal duty it should be to suffer and die in order to secure a blessed immortality for those who believed in him. +jesus' idea of the kingdom.+--how far jesus shared these ideas at the commencement of his own ministry it is impossible to say, but it seems clear that he was attracted by the moral earnestness of john and wished to associate himself with those who were looking for a kingdom of god which should mean the establishment and realisation of the moral ideal in all human relations. but at the baptism a purpose long forming in his mind appears to have taken definite shape. he felt himself called to preach the good news of a kingdom which could begin at once in the heart of any man who was willing to become the instrument of divine love and the expression of the ideal of human brotherhood. he went into the wilderness to think this out and then came back to teach it. i do not think he imagined that it could be realised quickly and easily, but it seems fairly obvious that at first he expected that men would be so glad to hear about it that they would hasten to avail themselves of it. all through his ministry he spoke of little else, and it was because of what he had to say about the nature of the kingdom that his followers were attracted to him. hence, too, we have the deathless teaching preserved for us in the synoptical gospels: "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.... blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see god." the meaning of jesus is perfectly clear and perfectly simple. it is that if a kingdom of universal brotherhood is ever to be realised on earth, it can only come by the operation of universal good will. this has been much too simple for most of the theologians, and so they have endeavoured to twist and torture it out of all recognition. as time went on, however, jesus came to see that it would not be realised as quickly as even he had thought. men could not or would not understand; they were looking for a kingdom which should mean plenty to eat and drink, and universal dominion for the sons of abraham. even his most immediate followers were unable to divest themselves of this notion, and it is plain enough that they went on hoping even to the end that jesus would head a revolt and establish a kingdom in which they themselves would hold positions of dignity and importance: "grant that we may sit, the one on thy right hand and the other on thy left in thy kingdom." the striking rebuke which jesus administered to these pretensions, by setting a little child in the midst of the jealous men, will never be forgotten while the world lasts. jesus _did_ believe in an earthly kingdom of righteousness, peace, and joy, but it is evident that he would have nothing to say to violence as a means of realising it. he even believed that the kingdom had already come in the heart of any man who was desirous of being at one with god and man and denied himself in the effort to do it: "and when he was demanded of the pharisees, when the kingdom of god should come, he answered them and said, the kingdom of god cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of god is within you." +early christian idea of the kingdom.+--an important fact, which i do not think is generally recognised, is that the first christians thought almost precisely what the jews did about the kingdom of god. most people are accustomed to think of christianity as having been from the first a religion which had principally to do with getting men ready for the next world. we can hardly think about it apart from ecclesiastical buildings, choirs, baptisms, confirmations, prayers for the sick and dying, and so on. so much have we been accustomed to think of it in this way that the average man reads his new testament with these assumptions in the background of his mind. but this is certainly not new testament christianity. the apostles and their followers believed like the jews in the sudden establishment of an ideal commonwealth upon earth. this was how they understood the lord's prayer, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." they did not even wish to separate from judaism, and it is clear from paul's letters that there was at one time a great danger that the new faith might become a mere jewish sect. the christians differed from the jews, not in their ideal concerning the kingdom, but in their greater moral intensity and enthusiasm, as well as in their profound conviction that the lord jesus was god's chosen instrument for realising this kingdom, and that he would presently return to earth and do it. any unbiassed reader of the new testament can see for himself that the primitive christians lived in hourly expectation that this was what would happen. of course they also believed in their master's continual spiritual presence with them, but the dominant thought in their minds was that of a dramatic second coming and the inauguration of a reign of righteousness and universal peace, the making of a beautiful world, something like the utopia of mr. h. g. wells. nor was this altogether a delusion. if it had been, christianity would soon have died. but, on the contrary, it lived and grew because of the great truth behind this belief, namely, that the spirit of christ working in the hearts of men is gradually producing this ideal kingdom in our midst. if, with this view of the character of early christianity in our minds, we go afresh to the gospels or to the letters of paul, we shall find it abundantly confirmed. there is no getting away from it. all the earnestness and enthusiasm of these first christians were centred upon the belief in the near advent of a divine kingdom upon earth with jesus as its head. this belief even affected the practice of these early christians in regard to the disposal of their property. to understand this, let us put ourselves in their place and ask what we should do if we were possessed by the conviction that the whole existing social order might come to an end to-morrow morning or next week, and that after that no child of god would ever want for anything. i think we should be sure to feel that the holding of personal property would not matter much. if, in addition to this, our hearts were filled with a divine enthusiasm, an overmastering love for jesus and for all our brethren, we should not want to keep anything back that could serve to make anyone happier for the short time that intervened before the glorious coming of the lord. this was just how the primitive christians felt. they had no organised economic system; no one was compelled to give anything, but under the pressure of the new spirit they willingly gave everything. what did it matter? they thought; they were only like pilgrims within sight of home, or watchers waiting for the morning. +origin of the idea of the church.+--where, then, did the idea of the church come from? it is as plain as anything can be that the primary interest of early christianity was the kingdom of god. it took the conception over from judaism with a deeper moral content derived from the preaching and the life of jesus. its first adherents did not even know that they had a new religion; they only thought they had found the true messiah, although the jewish nation as a whole had rejected him. what they wanted above everything was to see the kingdom come upon earth, and we now know that they were mistaken in imagining that it would be established speedily and suddenly by the visible second coming of jesus on the clouds of heaven. but seeing that they were thinking of it in this way, how did the church arise and why? it is doubtful if jesus ever used the word "church," for the two verses in matthew in which he is credited with it are probably of late date and point to a time when the ecclesiastical organisation was fairly well established. still the word itself has an interest and a history of its own apart from its christian use. the _ecclesia_, as most of my readers may be aware, was the assembly of the citizens of any greek city-state. it was the custom for the whole body of the members of a greek self-governing community to be called together from time to time for the transaction of public business. this assembly was the final authority in matters affecting the communal welfare, and even after the various greek states became absorbed in the roman empire this custom was allowed to continue. it was the policy of the romans to permit a large measure of self-government to their subjects of any alien race, and therefore the _ecclesia_ of any particular city-state continued to be summoned as usual to decide upon matters of local importance. there is a reference to this in the nineteenth chapter of the acts, where we read that the preaching of christianity in ephesus caused a riot which the town clerk--a thoroughly typical town clerk!--succeeded in allaying by reminding the demonstrators that if they had any real cause for complaint, the matter ought to come before the regular _ecclesia_. this properly constituted _ecclesia_ to which the level-headed town clerk referred was the general assembly of the citizens for the transaction of public business. it was quite natural that the primitive christians should have come to adopt this word, and to an extent this very idea, as a convenient description of the new christian community. after the departure of their master the christians held together, and wherever their missionaries went, new communities sprang up, animated by a spirit of loyalty to jesus and a desire to realise his ideal for mankind. it was quite natural, too, that the apostles should recognise all these communities as being in reality one community for fellowship of faith and love; it was the _ecclesia_, or assembly, or society of jesus, the beginning of the church of christ, as it soon came to be called. there was no elaborate organisation; nothing could have been simpler. every christian seems to have thought that as it would not be long before the master came again, the wise and right thing to do was for his followers to hold together and witness him to the world, until that great event took place. +church only exists for the sake of the kingdom.+--but how far did jesus foresee and intend this? it is difficult to say, but his choice of twelve apostles whom he carefully trained to continue his work is evidence that he contemplated the formation of some kind of society to give effect to his teaching. the number twelve points to the probability that he thought of this society as a kind of new israel, a spiritual israel, which should do for the world what the older israel had failed to do, that is, bring about the kingdom of god. i have already pointed out that in my judgment jesus did not believe, as his contemporaries did, that that kingdom could be established suddenly from without, but held that it could only be achieved by spiritual forces working from within. his _ecclesia_ has lived and grown. it has survived for nineteen centuries, and is likely to survive for many centuries more. it has played a leading part in the making of modern civilisation. but it is no longer a unity, and many different theories exist as to its meaning and worth. _the sacerdotal theory._--broadly speaking, however, there are two outstanding views as to the scope and function of the _ecclesia_, or church of jesus. one is the sacerdotal, and the other is what, for want of a better name, i may term the evangelical. in outline the former is as follows: before jesus finally withdrew his bodily presence from his disciples he formally constituted a religious society to represent him on earth. this society was to be the ark of salvation, the "sphere of covenanted grace." its principal work was to call men out of a lost and ruined world and secure for them a blessed immortality; those who were members of this church, and only they, were certain of heaven. membership therein was clearly defined; the gateway was baptism. those who were baptized in a proper way, even though they were unconscious infants, were members of the church of christ and all others were outside. within this sacred society souls were to be trained in rightness of living, and, to an extent, made fit for heaven. the holy spirit abiding in this society would sanctify the individual members and guide them into all the truth. it is even held that jesus definitely appointed the way in which this church was to be governed. its affairs were to be managed by a threefold order,--bishops, priests, and deacons. but here a division has taken place amongst the sacerdotalists themselves owing to the necessity of finding some final authority, some living voice, within this visible society to which appeal in the last resort could be made. romanists have found this in the bishop of rome whom they regard as the episcopal successor of the apostle peter. devout anglicans take their stand upon the faith as defined by the first four general councils, while in administrative matters they regard the bishop as independent. the greek church also insists upon its autonomy. this sacerdotal view has exercised enormous influence in christian history, and i have sufficient of the historic imagination to be able to say that at certain times it has undoubtedly worked on the whole for good. but did jesus really found a church of this kind? i am quite sure he never thought of such a thing, and historical criticism of christian origins does not leave the sacerdotalist much to stand on. jesus appointed neither bishop nor priest, and never ordained that any merely mechanical ceremony should be the means of admission to the christian society or be necessary to the eternal welfare of anyone. in the early church the bishop or elder was the president of the little christian society meeting in any particular locality. primitive christian organisation was anything but rigid and formal, and was as far as possible from the sacerdotal model. i do not say that the sacerdotal mode of organisation which gradually grew up was wholly mischievous, nor do i say that the primitive christian organisation would be the best under all circumstances. all i maintain is that in founding his new society jesus did not ordain any particular form of organisation. +the evangelical theory.+--the other view of the meaning of the word "church" to which i have already referred, is that it is the totality of the followers of jesus. under this view organisation is a secondary matter. there are many reasons why christian societies should organise themselves differently from one another. temperament plays a great part in the matter. but theories of church government have ceased to be the burning questions that they once were. most sensible men are now satisfied that forms of government matter much less than the kind of life which flourishes in the society itself. +what the church exists for to-day.+--but what does the church exist for, using the word in its primitive sense? what ought it to exist for to-day? what is the justification for all the vast number of christian organisations which exist throughout the world? this is a subject upon which a clear note needs to be sounded, for a great deal of mental confusion exists in regard to it. two inconsistent views of the work of the church, as well as of the constitution of the church, have come down the ages together and exist side by side in the world to-day. the first is that the chief business of the church is to snatch men as brands from the burning and get them ready for a future heaven. the fall theory has had much to do with this. the assumption behind it is, as we have seen, that the world is a city of destruction, as bunyan calls it. it is a ruined world, a world which has somehow baffled and disappointed god, a failure of a world which, when the cup of its iniquity is full, will be utterly destroyed as a general judgment. when that dreadful day comes it will be bad for all those who are outside the fellowship of christ, for, like those who have died without availing themselves of the means of salvation, they will be relegated to everlasting torment in the world unseen. this view of the fate of the world as being at enmity with god, and of the duty of the church to persuade as many as possible to believe something or other in order to secure salvation in a future and better world, has been held by sacerdotalists and non-sacerdotalists, catholics and protestants alike. it is still implied in most of our preaching and in the hymns we sing. i admit that there is a certain truth in it, the truth that man is constituted for immortality and ought not to live as if this world were all that mattered. but on the whole, it has been thoroughly mischievous, and there is nothing which is acting as a greater hindrance to the spirituality and usefulness of the churches to-day. it is based on an entirely false idea as to the relation of god and the world. +to save the world.+--but alongside of this view a far higher and nobler one has been present to the minds of christians in every century, namely, that the work of the church is to save the world and to believe that it is worth the saving. if what i have already said be true, this is the idea which was in the mind of jesus when he founded his _ecclesia_. to him the purpose of the _ecclesia_ was to help to realise the kingdom of god by preaching and living the fellowship of love. ever since his day those who have been nearest to him in spirit have been going forth into the dark places of the earth trying to win men to the realisation of the great ideal of a universal fellowship of love based on a common relationship to the god and father of us all. this is what augustine aimed at in his city of god. it was what ambrose had in mind when he excommunicated the emperor theodosius for having ordered a cruel massacre of some of his rebellious subjects. it was the ideal of the mighty hildebrand, grim and arrogant though he was, when he compelled princes to bow their haughty necks and do justice to the weak. it was what bernard of clairvaux meant to declare when he defied the cruel and sensual king of france to approach the altar of christ. savonarola realised it for a brief moment in florence, calvin in geneva, the covenanters in scotland, the puritans in england, the pilgrim fathers in america. they all failed because the world can never be saved by the imposition of ideal institutions from without and by force; it can only be by the spirit of christ working from within. but to some extent they all succeeded, too, for the world is a better place to live in because of the gradual and cumulative redemptive effort of the christian _ecclesia_, the church of jesus. on the other side of the ledger we have to set many things that ecclesiasticism has done,--cruel persecutions, infamous tortures, burnings and massacres, devastating wars, and fierce religious hatreds. but these things have never belonged to jesus; they are the very negation of his spirit. the true church of christ in any and every age consists of those and those only who are trying like their master to make the world better and gladder and worthier of god. the word "church" has become so hateful to many because of the admixture of other ideals with this that i sometimes wish something could be done either to get rid of it or to change it for another which shall fully and clearly express what jesus really came to do. i maintain that the church has nothing whatever to do with preparing men for a world to come; the best way to prepare a man for the world beyond is to get him to live well and truly in this one. the church exists to make the world a kingdom of god, and to fill it with his love. no greater mistake could be made than to estimate the church of jesus by ecclesiastical squabbles and divisions, or even by psalm-singing and go-to-meeting talk. look for the spirit of jesus at work, and you have found the church too. +modern industrialism and the church.+--judged by this standard where are the churches to-day? we have seen that the only gospel which jesus had to preach was the gospel of the kingdom of god; everything he ever said can be included under that head. his church, or christian society, or whatever else we like to call it, has no meaning unless it exists for the realisation of the kingdom of god. we cannot state this too strongly. the whole of the other-worldism of the churches, the elaborate paraphernalia of doctrine and observance, is utterly useless and worse than useless unless it ministers to this end. unless it can be shown that i am wrong in this supposition--and i think that will be pretty hard to do--a fairly good case could be made out for burning down most of the theological colleges in the land and sending the bright young fellows in them to do some serious work for the common good. for it must be confessed, as i said at the beginning, that the churches are to a large extent a failure. we cannot but recognise, for one thing, that our modern civilisation, with all its boasted advance on the past, is still un-christian. it puts a premium upon selfishness. modern industrialism is cruel and unjust and directly incites men to self-seeking. the weak and unfortunate have to go to the wall; little mercy is shown to the man who is not strong enough to fight his way and keep his footing in the struggle for existence. we are all the time making war upon one another,--man against man, business against business, class against class, nation against nation. we talk of our freedom, but no man is really free, and the great majority of us are slaves to some corporation, or capitalist, or condition of things, which renders the greater part of life a continuous anxiety lest health or means should fail and we should prove unequal to the demands made upon us. if a man goes under, his acquaintances will pity him for five minutes and then forget all about him. there is no help for it; they cannot do anything else, they have their own living to get. they are like soldiers in the heat of battle; they must not pause to mourn over a fallen comrade or they may soon be stretched beside him. i do not mean, of course, to make the foolish statement that present-day industrialism is unrestrainedly individualistic: thank god it is not that. but the principle of competition still exercises a sway so potent as to stamp modern social organisation as un-christian. we may just as well recognise that fact and state it plainly. the glaringly unequal ownership of material wealth is anti-social; it is good neither for the rich man nor for the poor, for it is to the interest of every man that the body politic should be healthy and happy. that so large a number of our total population should have to exist upon the very margin of subsistence is a moral wrong. we have no business to have any slums, or sweating dens, or able-bodied unemployed, or paupers. poverty, dulness of brain, and coarseness of habit are often found in close association. some amount of material endowment is required even for the development of the intelligence and the training of the moral faculties. wealth possesses no value in itself; it only possesses value as a means to more abundant life. if there is one thing upon which christianity insists more than another, it is the duty of caring for the weak and sinful, but at present this duty is only recognised to a very limited extent. +christianity and collectivism.+--in what i am now saying i am well aware that i have come to a phase of my subject which thousands of my countrymen are stating so clearly and forcibly as to compel attention; but what i want to show is that the present unideal condition of the civilised world is an indictment of the churches and their conventional doctrines. we seem to have forgotten our origin. i have long felt, as i suppose every christian minister must feel, the antagonism between the christian standard of conduct and that required in ordinary business life. there is no blinking the fact that the standard of christ and the standard of the commercial world are not the same. our work is to make them the same, and to that end we must destroy the social system which makes selfishness the rule and compels a man to act upon his lower motives, and we must put a better in its place. we must establish a social order wherein a man can be free to be his best, and to give his best to the community without crushing or destroying anyone else. in a word we want collectivism in the place of competition; we want the kingdom of god. charity is no remedy for our social ills and their moral outcome; the only remedy is a new social organisation on a christian basis. i do not believe that any form of collectivism, as a mere system superposed from without, can ever really make the world happy; it must be the expression of the spirit of brotherhood working from within. neither do i feel much faith in any sudden and cataclysmic reformation of society. the history of christendom proves that no institution can be much in advance of human nature and survive. covenanters and puritans found that out when they tried to make men godly by act of parliament; savonarola found it out when the wild passions of the florentines, restrained for a brief hour, broke their chains and destroyed him; the christians of new testament times found it out when their beautiful experiment of social brotherhood came to an end in the horror and darkness of the break-up of jewish national life. but at least we can recognise the presence of the guiding spirit of god in all our social concerns and work along with it for the realisation of the ideal of universal brotherhood. we can show men what jesus really came to do, and, as his servants, we can help him to do it. we can definitely recognise that the movement toward social regeneration is really and truly a spiritual movement, and that it must never be captured by materialism. i deplore the fact that, for the moment, the main current of the great labour movement which, perhaps more than any other, represents the social application of the christian ideal, should appear to be out of touch with organised religion. this cannot continue, for i observe that the men who lead it are men of moral passion, and often men of simple religious faith. it could hardly be otherwise. it seems to me in the nature of things impossible to sustain a belief in the moral ideal without some kind of belief in god, and assuredly god is with these men in the work they are doing and have yet to do. in fact, the labour party is itself a church, in the sense in which that word was originally used, for it represents the getting-together of those who want to bring about the kingdom of god. +the new theology and collectivism.+--the new theology, as i understand it, is the theology of this movement, whether the movement knows it or not, for it is essentially the gospel of the kingdom of god. no lesser theology can consistently claim to be this; systems of belief which are weighted by dogmatic considerations have not and cannot have the same power of appeal. this higher, wider truth, which sweeps away the mischievous accretions which have made religion distasteful to the masses, is religious articulation of the movement toward an ideal social order. this fact ought to be realised and brought home to the consciousness of the earnest men who are labouring to redeem england and the world from the power of all that tortures and degrades humanity and stifles or destroys its best life. this, then, is the mission of the new theology. it is to brighten and keep burning the flame of the spiritual ideal in the midst of the mighty social movement which is now in progress. it is ours to see god in it and help mankind to see him too. it is ours to show what the gospel really is and has been from the first. we shall not suffer the world any longer to believe that christianity and dogma mean the same thing. our business is to show that the religion of jesus is primarily a gospel for this life and only secondarily for the life to come. we have to demonstrate that material things have spiritual meanings, and that wealth has value only as it ministers to soul power. we have to make clear to the world that the reason why we want to lift any man up and give him a chance of a better and happier life here is because he has an immortal destiny and must make a beginning somewhere if he is to reach the stature of the perfect man at last. we believe that faith is the one indispensable qualification for this work, as for any work that is worth the doing, or ever has been worth the doing, in the history of mankind. it is the victory that overcometh the world. chapter xiv conclusion +a personal word.+--the task which has occupied the greater part of my winter resting time has now been accomplished, as far as opportunity affords. what has been said in these pages is no more than an outline statement of the teaching which has been given from the city temple pulpit ever since i came into it. there is not a single thought in this book with which my own people are not already quite familiar, and chapter and verse for it can be produced from my published sermons which have been appearing week by week for years past in the _christian commonwealth_ and other periodicals. if space had permitted, i should like to have said much more, for necessarily many phases of the subject have had to be left untouched; it has only been possible to deal with those of fundamental importance. for example, i should like to have included some examination of the great question of miracles, the place of prayer in christian experience, and the value and significance of biblical criticism. but as it has not been possible to do this i must add a word or two to indicate my position in regard to these matters. +miracle.+--it seems probable that before long we shall see a rehabilitation of belief in the credibility of certain kinds of miracle, and that this rehabilitation will proceed from the side of psychical science. already there are signs that this rehabilitation is on the way. the power of mind over matter is being recognised for therapeutic purposes, for instance, in a way hitherto undreamed of, and is receiving a large and increasing measure of attention from the medical profession. this appears to me to throw a considerable amount of light upon the healing ministry of jesus, which, as the late professor a. b. bruce has pointed out, rests upon as good historical ground as the best-accredited parts of the teaching. given a time and a mental atmosphere in which men expected miracles of this sort, and given a personality of such wonderful magnetic force as that of jesus, such miracles would be sure to happen. that they did not happen apart from such conditions is evident from such hints as the statement that, "he could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief." there are other kinds of miracle recorded in scripture which are not so easily credible, but i am not always prepared to brush them aside as mere childish fancies. as a rule it will be found that they belong to the poetry of religious experience, and that some valuable truth is contained in this particular form of statement. to this order belong the accounts about the horses and chariots of fire on the hillside round about elisha, the whirlwind in which elijah ascended to heaven, and jesus walking on the sea. these accounts are forms in which the oriental imagination is, even to-day, wont to clothe truths too great for prosaic statement; they are poetry, not history, and the western mind ought to make allowance for the fact. sometimes we can discern in scripture records of an event, which to the stolid western imagination seems utterly incredible, a genuine historical truth. such, for instance, are the passage of the red sea--a stirring and dramatic incident, thoroughly well told--and joshua commanding the sun and moon to stand still. in the latter case we have two lines of poetry from a book which has been lost, and a comparison with similar poetry in almost any literature gives us a clew to its meaning. the poet represents the old warrior as declaring in magnificent style that the sun of israel shall not go down, and that day and night shall be alike to him until her enemies are discomfited. any reader with a shred of sympathetic imagination ought to be able to feel the force of the sentiment which provoked this utterance without either accepting or rejecting it as a literal statement of fact; the best things which have been written in the books of the world are seldom literal and exact statements of fact. it has been well pointed out that myth and legend are truer than history, for they take us to the inside of things, whereas history only shows us the outside. +prayer.+--prayer is a vital necessity to religious experience, and without it no religious experience has ever existed or ever can. it is not primarily petition but communion with god. our intercourse with our friends does not chiefly consist in asking them for things! but when communion does become petition, there is a real place for it as well as for the answer to such prayer. it is not too much to say that no true prayer has ever gone without its answer. this is quite consistent with the assertion that prayer does not change god; it only affords him opportunity. it is impossible to improve on what god already desires for us before we pray, but upon our prayer depends the realisation of that desire. everything that the soul can possibly need is present beforehand in the eternal reality, and the prayer of faith is like going into a treasure-house and bringing forth from what is contained therein all that the soul needs day by day. prayer, therefore, cannot be too definite, but it should be as unselfish as the worshipper can make it in order that the highest can operate in response. the same law holds good in this as in all other activities of the soul; selfishness draws away from the source of life, whereas love is instantly at one with infinity. i question whether many people realise the enormous value of definite and systematic prayer; it is the secret of all spiritual power. everything that we can possibly want is waiting for us in the bounty of god, and what we have to do is to go and take it. "believe that ye have received them and ye shall have them." +the bible and the young.+--one thing that urgently needs to be done for the young people in our sunday-schools and various christian societies all over the world is to issue a series of well-written popular manuals presenting in succinct form the best results of biblical criticism. the way the bible is taught to young people at present is most regrettable, for in after years it leads them to doubt and distrust the very foundations of christianity. if the teachers only had a little more intelligent acquaintance with the sources of the scriptures, this danger would be avoided and the bible would become a far more interesting and helpful book both to young and old. at present it is interpreted by many people in a way which is an insult to the intelligence and harmful to the moral sense. will anyone seriously maintain that the trickeries of jacob and the butcheries following the israelitish invasion of canaan, not to speak of the obscenities which are to be found in so many parts of the old testament, are healthy reading for children or a mark of divine inspiration? is it not time we adopted the more excellent way of facing the truth about the bible records and presenting what is valuable in such a way as to help and not to hinder the growth of a true knowledge of the relations of god and man? in conclusion, let me say emphatically that no one but myself is responsible for a single word in this book. among the many wild and unjust criticisms which have been published concerning my views, none is wider of the mark than that i have borrowed from this man or that in my statement of them. i am not conscious of owing a scintilla of my theology to any living man. in so far as it coincides with anyone else's views i am thankful, for it shows that the same eternal spirit of truth is speaking to others than myself. but i hope i may be permitted to say with due humility that in thinking out my position, "i conferred not with flesh and blood." perhaps some people will maintain that this makes my teaching all the worse, but if so i cannot help it. it can hardly be denied that in its main bearing, to say no more, it is seen to be rising spontaneously in every part of the civilised world. again, no thinker can ever succeed in completely closing the circle of his system of thought, and i cannot claim to be an exception. but i trust it will be seen that what is contained in this book is at least a self-consistent whole: every arc of the circle implies every other. it only remains to reiterate my conviction that the movement represented by the new theology is only incidentally theological at all; it is primarily a moral and spiritual movement. it is one symptom of a great religious awakening which in the end will re-inspire civilisation with a living faith in god and the spiritual meaning of life. if what i am trying to do can contribute in any way toward this grand result, i shall be humbly thankful to the giver of all good. this ebook was produced by charles aldarondo, charles franks and the online distributed proofreading team. the great doctrines of the bible by rev. william evans, ph.d., d.d. dedicated to my wife contents the doctrine of god the doctrine of jesus christ the doctrine of the holy spirit the doctrine of man the doctrines of salvation repentance--faith--regeneration--justification--adoption-sanctification--prayer the doctrine of the church the doctrine of the scriptures the doctrine of angels the doctrine of satan the doctrine of the last things the second coming of christ--the resurrection--the judgment--the destiny of the wicked--the reward of the righteous foreword. the demand for this book has come from the students in the class room who have listened to these lectures on the great doctrines of the bible, and have desired and requested that they be put into permanent form for the purpose of further study and reference. this volume is prepared, therefore, primarily, but not exclusively, for the student, and with his needs in mind. the doctrines herein treated are dealt with from the standpoint of biblical rather than dogmatic theology. this is evident from the plan which is followed in the work, namely, to gather together all the scripture passages dealing with the subject under consideration, and from them choose a required number that may be called representative; then seek to understand the meaning of these references by the study of the text itself as well as its context and parallel passages; and finally, from the selected proof-texts, formulate the doctrinal teaching, and place such results under appropriate headings. the doctrines of god, jesus christ, and the holy spirit are more fully dealt with than the doctrines which follow. this is especially true of the doctrine of god. the reason for this is to set forth the method pursued in these studies, and to give a pattern for the study of the doctrines to follow. it is intended that the doctrines of this book should be studied side by side with the open bible. it is for this reason that many of the scripture references are indicated by chapter and verse only. there must be constant reference to the scriptures themselves. this volume is in such form as to be of great service in the instruction given in bible classes. there is probably no greater need in the christian church today than that its membership should be made acquainted with the fundamental facts and doctrines of the christian faith. the christian layman, therefore, who desires a deeper knowledge of the doctrines of the christian faith may find all the help he needs in this book. it is hoped that while it is prepared for the student, it is nevertheless not too deep for the average layman. the special indebtedness of the writer is hereby expressed to the following works: "what the bible teaches," by r. a. torrey, d. d. to this work the writer owes much with regard to the method and plan of this book. "systematic theology," by a. h. strong, d. d., has provided some rich expositions of the sacred text. "christian doctrine," by dr. f. l. patton, has been found very helpful, especially in connection with the subject of the "proofs for the existence of god." further recognition of indebtedness is also due to the following: "the problem of the old testament," and "the christian view of god and the world," by dr. james orr; "studies in christian doctrine," by george knapp; "jesus and the gospel," and "the death of christ," by prof. james denny; "the person and work of jesus," by nathan e. wood, d. d. there are doubtless others to whom credit is due of whom the author is not at this time conscious, for, after all, we are "part of all that we have seen, and met, and read." to those unknown authors, therefore, our indebtedness is hereby acknowledged. _chicago._ william evans. the doctrine of god i. the existence of god: (vs. atheism). 1. assumed by the scriptures. 2. proofs of the existence of god. a) universal belief in the existence of god. b) cosmological:--argument from cause. c) teleological:--argument from design. d) ontological:--argument from being. e) anthropological:--moral argument. f) argument from congruity. g) argument from scripture. ii. the nature of god: (vs. agnosticism) 1. the spirituality of god: (vs. materialism). 2. the personality of god: (vs. pantheism). 3. the unity of god: (vs. polytheism). 4. the trinity: (vs. unitarianism). iii. the attributes of god. 1. the natural attributes: a) omniscience. b) omnipotence. c) omnipresence. d) eternity. 2. the moral attributes: a) holiness. b) righteousness. c) faithfulness. d) mercy and loving-kindness. e) love. i. his existence. 1. taken for granted by the scripture writers: it does not seem to have occurred to any of the writers of either the old or the new testaments to attempt to prove or to argue for the existence of god. everywhere and at all times it is a fact taken for granted. "a god capable of proof would be no god at all" (jacobi). he is the self-existent one (exod. 3:14) and the source of all life (john 5:26). the sublime opening of the scriptures announces the fact of god and his existence: "in the beginning god" (gen. 1:1). nor is the rise or dawn of the idea of god in the mind of man depicted. psa. 14:1: "the fool hath said in his heart. there is no god," indicates not a disbelief in the existence, but rather in the active interest of god in the affairs of men--he seemed to hide himself from the affairs of men (see job 22:12-14). the scriptures further recognize that men not only know of the existence of god, but have also a certain circle of ideas as to who and what he is (rom. 1:18-19). no one but a "fool" will deny the fact of god. "what! no god? a watch, and no key for it? a watch with a main-spring broken, and no jeweler to fix it? a watch, and no repair shop? a time-card and a train, and nobody to run it? a star lit, and nobody to pour oil in to keep the wick burning? a garden, and no gardener? flowers, and no florist? conditions, and no conditioner?" he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh at such absurd atheism. 2. the arguments for the existence of god. [footnote: a fuller and complete presentation of these arguments for the existence of god may be found in the works of dr. augustus h. strong and dr. francis l. patten, to whom the author is here indebted.] these arguments may not prove conclusively that god is, but they do show that in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, conscience in man, we must assume that god is (strong). it is said of the beautiful, "it may be shown, but not proved." so we say of the existence of god. these arguments are probable, not demonstrative. for this reason they supplement each other, and constitute a series of evidences which is cumulative in its nature. though taken singly, none of them can be considered absolutely decisive, they together furnish a corroboration of our primitive conviction of god's existence, which is of great practical value, and is in itself sufficient to bind the moral actions of men. a bundle of rods may not be broken even though each one separately may; the strength of the bundle is the strength of the whole. if in practical affairs we were to hesitate to act until we have absolute and demonstrable certainty, we should never begin to move at all. instead of doubting everything that can be doubted, let us rather doubt nothing until we are compelled to doubt. dr. orr, of glasgow, says: what we mean by the proof of god's existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by which we rise from the finite to the infinite, from the caused to the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal reason, which is the ground of all, from morality in conscience to a moral lawgiver and judge. in this connection the theoretical proofs constitute an inseparable unity--'constitute together,' as dr. stirling declares, "but the undulations of a single wave, which wave is but a natural rise and ascent to god, on the part of man's own thought, with man's own experience and consciousness as the object before him." religion was not produced by proofs of god's existence, and will not be destroyed by its insufficiency to some minds. religion existed before argument; in fact, it is the preciousness of religion that leads to the seeking for all possible confirmations of the reality of god. a) universality of belief in the existence of god. (1) the fact stated and proven: man everywhere believes in the existence of a supreme being or beings to whom he is morally responsible and to whom propitiation needs to be made. such belief may be crudely, even grotesquely stated and manifested, but the reality of the fact is no more invalidated by such crudeness than the existence of a father is invalidated by the crude attempts of a child to draw a picture of its father. it has been claimed by some that there are or were tribes in inland africa that possessed no idea or conception of god. moffat, livingstone's father-in-law, made such a claim, but livingstone, after a thorough study of the customs and languages of such tribes, conclusively showed that moffat was wrong. nor should the existence of such few tribes, even if granted, violate the fact we are here considering, any more than the existence of some few men who are blind, lame, deaf, and dumb would make untrue the statement and fact that man is a seeing, hearing, speaking, and walking creature. the fact that some nations do not have the multiplication table does no violence to arithmetic. concerning so-called atheists in christian lands: it may be questioned if there are really any such beings. hume, known as a famous sceptic, is reported to have said to ferguson, as together they looked up into the starry sky: "adam, there is a god." voltaire, the atheist, prayed to god in a thunderstorm. ingersoll, when charged with being an atheist, indignantly refuted the charge, saying: "i am not an atheist; i do not say that there is no god; i am an agnostic; i do not know that there is a god." "i thank god that i am an atheist," were the opening words of an argument to disprove the existence of god. a new convert to atheism was once heard to say to a coterie of unbelievers: "i have gotten rid of the idea of a supreme being, and i thank god for it." (2) whence comes this universal belief in the existence of god? aa) _not from outside sources_, such as reason, tradition, or even the scriptures. _not from reason or argument_, for many who believe in god have not given any time to reasoning and arguing the question; some, indeed, intellectually, could not. others who have great powers of intellect, and who have reasoned and argued on the subject are professed disbelievers in god. belief in god is not the result of logical arguments, else the bible would have given us proofs. _nor did this universal belief come from tradition_, for "tradition," says dr. patton, "can perpetuate only what has been originated." _nor can it be said that this belief came from the scriptures even_, for, as has been well said, unless a man had a knowledge of the god from whom the scriptures came, the revelation itself could have no authority for him. the very idea of scripture as a revelation, presupposes belief in a god who can make it.--_newman smith_. revelation must assume the existence of god. bb) _this universal belief comes from within man._ all the evidence points to the conclusive fact that this universal faith in the existence of god is innate in man, and comes from rational intuition. (3) the weight and force of this argument. the fact that all men everywhere believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings to whom they are morally responsible, is a strong argument in favor of its truth. so universal an effect must have a cause as universal, otherwise we have an effect without any assignable cause. certain is it that this argument makes the burden of proof to rest upon those who deny the existence of god. b) the argument from cause: cosmological. when we see a thing we naturally ask for the cause of that thing. we see this world in which we live, and ask how it came to be. is it self-originating, or is the cause of its being outside of itself? is its cause finite or infinite? that it could not come into being of itself seems obvious; no more than nails, brick, mortar, wood, paints, colors, form into a house or building of themselves; no more than the type composing a book came into order of itself. when liebig was asked if he believed that the grass and flowers which he saw around him grew by mere chemical forces, he replied: "no; no more than i could believe that the books on botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces." no theory of an "eternal series" can account for this created universe. no matter how long a chain you may have, you must have a staple somewhere from which it depends. an endless perpendicular chain is an impossibility. "every house is builded by some man," says the bible; so this world in which we live was built by a designing mind of infinite power and wisdom. so is it when we consider man. man exists; but he owes his existence to some cause. is this cause within or without himself, finite or infinite? trace our origin back, if you will, to our first parent, adam; then you must ask, how did he come into being? the doctrine of the eternity of man cannot be supported. fossil remains extend back but 6,000 years. man is an effect; he has not always existed. geology proves this. that the first cause must have been an intelligent being is proven by the fact that we are intelligent beings ourselves. c) the argument from design: teleological. a watch proves not only a maker, an artificer, but also a designer; a watch is made for a purpose. this is evident in its structure. a thoughtful, designing mind was back of the watch. so is it with the world in which we live. these "ends" in nature are not to he attributed to "natural results," or "natural selection," results which are produced without intelligence, nor are they "the survival of the fittest," instances in which "accident and fortuity have done the work of mind." no, they are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will. d) the argument from being: ontological. man has an idea of an infinite and perfect being. from whence this idea? from finite and imperfect beings like ourselves? certainly not. therefore this idea argues for the existence of an infinite and perfect being: such a being must exist, as a person, and not a mere thought. e) the moral argument; anthropological. man has an intellectual and a moral nature, hence his creator must be an intellectual and moral being, a judge, and lawgiver. man has an emotional nature; only a being of goodness, power, love, wisdom and holiness could satisfy such a nature, and these things denote the existence of a personal god. conscience in man says: "thou shalt," and "thou shalt not," "i ought," and "i ought not." these mandates are not self-imposed. they imply the existence of a moral governor to whom we are responsible. conscience,--there it is in the breast of man, an ideal moses thundering from an invisible sinai the law of a holy judge. said cardinal newman: "were it not for the voice speaking so clearly in my conscience and my heart, i should be an atheist, or a pantheist, when i looked into the world." some things are wrong, others right: love is right, hatred is wrong. nor is a thing right because it pleases, or wrong because it displeases. where did we get this standard of right and wrong? morality is obligatory, not optional. who made is obligatory? who has a right to command my life? we must believe that there is a god, or believe that the very root of our nature is a lie. f) the argument from congruity. if we have a key which fits all the wards of the lock, we know that it is the right key. if we have a theory which fits all the facts in the case, we know then that we have the right theory. "belief in a self-existent, personal god is in harmony with all the facts of our mental and moral nature, as well as with all the phenomena of the natural world. if god exists, a universal belief in his existence is natural enough; the irresistible impulse to ask for a first cause is accounted for; or religious nature has an object; the uniformity of natural law finds an adequate explanation, and human history is vindlcated from the charge of being a vast imposture. atheism leaves all these matters without an explanation, and makes, not history alone, but our moral and intellectual nature itself, an imposture and a lie."--_patton_. g) the argument from scripture. a great deal of our knowledge rests upon the testimony of others. now the bible is competent testimony. if the testimony of travelers is enough to satisfy us as to the habits, customs, and manners of the peoples of the countries they visit, and which we have never seen, why is not the bible, if it is authentic history, be enough to satisfy us with its evidence as to the existence of god? some facts need more evidence than others, we know. this is true of the fact of the existence of god. but the bible history is sufficient to satisfy every reasonable demand. the history of the jews, prophecy, is not explainable minus god. if we cannot believe in the existence of god on the testimony of the bible we might as well burn our books of history. a man cannot deny the truth of the testimony of the bible unless he says plainly: "no amount of testimony will convince me of the supernatural." scripture does not attempt to prove the existence of god; it asserts, assumes, and declares that the knowledge of god is universal, rom. 1:19-21, 28, 33; 2:15. it asserts that god has wrought this great truth in the very warp and woof of every man's being, so that nowhere is he without this witness. the preacher may, therefore, safely follow the example of the scripture in assuming that there is a god. indeed he must unhesitatingly and explicitly assert it as the scripture does, believing that "his eternal power and divinity" are things that are clearly seen and perceived through the evidences of his handiwork which abound on every hand. ii. the nature of god: (vs. agnosticism). 1. the spirituality of god: (vs. materialism). "god is spirit." a) statement of the fact, john 4:24: "god is spirit." meaning: the samaritan woman's question, "where is god to be found?" etc. on mt. zion or gerizim? christ's answer: god is not to be confined to any one place (cf. acts 7:48; 17:25, 1 kings 8:27). god must be worshipped _in spirit_ as distinguished from place, form, or other sensual limitations (4:21); and _in truth_ as distinguished from false conceptions resulting from imperfect knowledge (4:22). b) light on "god is spirit," from other scriptures. luke 24:39: "a spirit hath not flesh and bones," i. e., has not body, or parts like human beings; incorporeal; not subject to human limitations. col. 1:15: "the image of the invisible god." 1 tim. 1:17 (r. v.): "now unto the king incorruptible, invisible." these passages teach that god has nothing of a material or bodily nature. sight sees only objects of the material world, but god is not of the nature of the material world, hence he cannot be seen with the material eye--at least not now. c) light derived from cautions against representing god by graven images: deut. 4:15-23; isa. 40:25; exod. 20:4. study these passages carefully and note that the reason why images were forbidden was because no one had ever seen god, and consequently could not picture how he looked, and, further, there was nothing on the earth that could resemble him. d) definition of "god is spirit" in the light of all this: god is invisible, incorporeal, without parts, without body, without passions, and therefore free from all limitations; he is apprehended not by the senses, but by the soul; hence god is above sensuous perceptions. 1 cor. 2:6-16 intimates that without the teaching of god's spirit we cannot know god. he is not a material being. "laplace swept the heavens with his telescope, but could not find anywhere a god. he might just as well have swept a kitchen with his broom." since god is not a material being, he cannot be apprehended by physical means. e) questions and problems with reference to the statement that "god is spirit." (1) 'what is meant by statement that man was made "in the image of god"? col 3:10; eph. 4:24 declare that this "image" consists in "righteousness, knowledge, and holiness of truth." by that is meant that the image of god in man consisted in intellectual and moral likeness rather than physical resemblance. some think that 1 thess. 5:23 indicates that the "trinity of man"--body, soul, and spirit--constitutes that image and likeness. (2) what is meant by the anthropomorphic expressions used of god? for example: god is said to have hands, feet, arms, eyes, ears he sees, feels, hears, walks, etc. such expressions are to be understood only in the sense of being human expressions used in order to bring the infinite within the comprehension of the finite. how otherwise could we understand god saving by means of human expressions, in figures that we all can understand! (3) how are such passages as exod. 24:10 and 33:18-23 in which it is distinctly stated that men saw the god of israel, to be reconciled with such passages as john 1:18; "no man hath seen god at any time," and exod. 33:20: "there shall no man see me and live"? answer: _aa) spirit can be manifested in visible form:_ john 1:32: "i saw tho spirit descending from heaven like a dove (or in the form of a dove)." so throughout the ages the invisible god has manifested himself in visible form. (see judges 6:34: the spirit of the lord clothed himself with gideon.) _bb) on this truth is based the doctrine of "the angel of the lord"_ in the old testament: gen 16:7, 10, 13. note here how the angel of the lord is identified with jehovah himself, cf. vv. 10, 13. also gen. 22:12--"the angel of the lord.... not withheld from _me_." in 18:1-16, one of the three angels clearly and definitely identifies himself with jehovah. compare chapter 19, where it is seen that only two of the angels have come to sodom; the other has remained behind. "who was this one, this remaining angel? gen.18:17, 20 answers the question; v. 22 reads: "and abraham stood yet before the lord. in exod. 13:21 it is _jehovah_, while in 14:19 it is the angel that went before israel. thus was the way prepared for the incarnation, for the angel of the lord in the old testament is undoubtedly the second person of the trinity. this seems evident from judges 13:18 compared with isa. 9:6, in both of which passages, clearly referring to christ, the name "wonderful" occurs. also the omission of the definite article "the" from before the expression "the angel of the lord," and the substitution of "an" points to the same truth. this change is made in the revised version. cc) _what was it then that the elders of israel saw when it is said they saw the "god of israel"?_ certainly it was not god in his real essence, god as he is in himself, for no man can have that vision and live. john 1:18 is clear on that point: "no man hath seen god at any time." the emphasis in this verse is on the word "god," and may read, "god no one has seen at any time." in 5:37 jesus says: "ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." from this it seems clear that the "seeing" here, the which has been the privilege of no man, refers to the essence rather than to the person of god, if such a distinction can really be made. this is apparent also from the omission of the definite article before god, as well as from the position of god in the sentence. none but the son has really seen god as god, as he really is. what, then, did these men see? evidently an _appearance_ of god in some form to their outward senses; perhaps the form of a man, seeing mention is made of his "feet." the vision may have been too bright for human eyes to gaze upon fully, but it was _a_ vision of god. yet it was only a manifestation of god, for, although moses was conversing with god, he yet said: "if i have found grace in thy sight, show me thy face." moses had been granted exceeding great and precious privileges in that he had been admitted into close communion with god, more so than any other member of the human race. but still unsatisfied he longed for more; so in v. 18 he asks to see the unveiled glory of god, that very thing which no man in the flesh can ever see and live; but, no, this cannot be. by referring to exod. 33:18-23 we find god's answer: "thou canst not see my face.... thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall not be seen." (num. 12:8 throws light upon the subject, if compared with exod. 33:11.) "the secret remained unseen; the longing unsatisfied; and the nearest approach to the beatific vision reached by him with whom god spake face to face, as friend with friend, was to be hidden in the cleft of the rock, to be made aware of an awful shadow, and to hear the voice of the unseen." 2. the personality of god: (vs. pantheism). pantheism maintains that this universe in its ever changing conditions is but the manifestation of the one ever changing universal substance which is god; thus all, everything is god, and god is everything; god is all, all is god. thus god is identified with nature and not held to be independent of and separate from it. god is, therefore, a necessary but an unconscious force working in the world. the bearing of the personality of god on the idea of religion. true religion may be defined as the communion between two persons: god and man. religion is a personal relationship between god in heaven, and man on the earth. if god were not a person there could be no communion; if both god and man were one there could be no communion, and, consequently, no religion. an independent personal relationship on both sides is absolutely necessary to communion. man can have no communion with an influence, a force, an impersonal something; nor can an influence have any moving or affection towards man. it is absolutely necessary to the true definition of religion that both god and man be persons. god is person, not force or influence. a) definition of personality. personality exists where there is intelligence, mind, will, reason, individuality, self-consciousness, and self-determination. there must be not mere consciousness--for the beast has that--but _self_-consciousness. nor is personality determination--for the beast has this, too, even though this determination be the result of influences from without--but _self_-determination, the power by which man from an act of his own free will determines his acts from within. neither corporeity nor substance, as we understand these words, are necessarily, if at all, involved in personality. there may be true personality without either or both of these. b) scripture teaching on the personality of god. (in this connection it will be well to refer to the ontological argument for the existence of god, for which see p. 17.) (1) exod 3:14;--"i am that i am." this name is wonderfully significant. its central idea is that of existence and personality. the words signify "i am, i was, i shall be," so suggestively corresponding with the new testament statement concerning god: "who wast, and art, and art to come." all the names given to god in the scripture denote personality. here are some of them: jehovah--jireh: the lord will provide (gen. 22:13, 14). jehovah-rapha: the lord that healeth (exod. 15:26). jehovah-nissi: the lord our banner (exod. 17:8-15). jehovah-shalom: the lord our peace (judges 6:24). jehovah-ra-ah: the lord my shepherd (psa. 23:1). jehovah-tsidkenu: the lord our righteousness (jer. 23:6). jehovah-shammah: the lord is present (ezek. 48:35). moreover, the personal pronouns ascribed to god prove personality: john 17:3, et al. "to know thee"--we cannot know an influence in the sense in which the word know is here used. _statement:_ all through the scriptures names and personal pronouns are ascribed to god which undeniably prove that god is a person. (2) a sharp distinction is drawn in the scriptures between the gods of heathen and the lord god of israel (see jer. 10:10-16). note the context: vv. 3-9: idols are things, not persons; they cannot walk, speak, do good or evil. god is wiser than the men who made these idols; if the idol-makers are persons, much more is god. see the sharp contrast drawn between dead idols and the living, personal, true and only god: acts 14:15; 1 thess. 1:9; psa. 94:9, 10. _statement:_ god is to be clearly distinguished from things which have no life; he is a living person. (3) attributes of personality are ascribed to god in the scriptures. god repents (gen. 6:6}; grieves {gen 6:6}; is angry {1 kings 11:9); is jealous (deut. 6:15); loves (rev. 3:19); hates (prov. 6:16). _statement_: god possesses the attributes of personality, and therefore is a person. (4) the relation which god bears to the universe and to men, as set forth in the scriptures, can be explained only on the basis that god is a person. deism maintains that god, while the creator of the world, yet sustains no further relations to it. he made it just as the clock-maker makes a self-winding clock: makes it and then leaves it to run itself without any interference on his part. such teaching as this finds no sanction in the bible. what are god's relations to the universe and to men? _aa) he is the creator of the universe and man._ gen. 1:1, 26; john. 1:1-3. these verses contain vital truths. the universe did not exist from eternity, nor was it made from existing matter. it did not proceed as an emanation from the infinite, but was summoned into being by the decree of god. science, by disclosing to us the marvellous power and accuracy of natural law, compels us to believe in a superintending intelligence who is infinite. tyndall said: "i have noticed that it is not during the hours of my clearness and vigor that the doctrine of material atheism commends itself to my mind." (in this connection the arguments from cause and design, pp. 16 and 17, may be properly considered.) _statement_: the creation of the universe and man proves the personality of the creator--god. _bb) god sustains certain relations to the universe and man which he has made._ heb 1:3--"uphold all things." col. 1:15-17--"by him all things hold together." psa. 104:27-30--all creatures wait upon him for "their meat in due season." psa. 75:6, 7--"promotion" among men, the putting down of one man and the setting up of another, is from the hand of god. what do we learn from these scriptures regarding the relation of god to this universe, to man, and to all god's creatures? _first_. that all things are held together by him; if not, this old world would go to pieces quickly. the uniformity and accuracy of natural law compels us to believe in a personal god who intelligently guides and governs the universe. disbelief in this fact would mean utter confusion. not blind chance, but a personal god is at the helm. _second._ that the physical supplies for all god's creatures are in his hand: he feeds them all. what god gives we gather. if he withholds provision we die. _third._ that god has his hand in history, guiding and shaping the affairs of nations. victor hugo said: "waterloo was god." _fourth._ consider with what detail god's care is described: the sparrows, the lilies, the hairs of the head, the tears of his children, etc. see how these facts are clearly portrayed in the following scriptures: matt. 6:28-30; 10:29, 30; gen. 39:21, with 50:20; dan. 1:9; job 1:12. _statement:_ the personality of god is shown by his active, interest and participation all things, even the smallest things, in the universe, the experience of man, and in the life of all his creatures. the unity of god: (vs. polytheism). there are three monotheistic religions in the world: judaism, christianity, and mahommedanism. the second is a development of the first; the third is an outgrowth of both. the doctrine of the unity of god is held in contradistinction to _polytheism_, which is belief in a multiplicity of gods; _tri-theism_, which teaches that there are three gods--that is, that the father, the son, and the holy ghost are, specifically, three distinct gods; and to _dualism_, which teaches that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, the one good, and the other evil, as set forth especially in gnostic systems, such as parseeism. a) the scriptures assert the unity of god. deut. 6:4--"hear, o israel; the lord our god is one lord"; or, "the lord our god, the lord is one." isa. 44:6-8--"first.... last.... beside me there is no god." isa. 45:5--"there is none else, there is no god beside me." 1 tim. 2:5 "there is one god." 1 cor. 8:4--"there is none other god but one." that god is one, that there is no other, that he has no equal is the forceful testimony of above fifty passages in the scriptures. the fundamental duty of life, namely, the devotion of the entire being to the lord, is based upon the unity of god: "the lord....is one .... therefore thou shalt love the lord thy god with _all_ thy heart," etc. no other truth of the scripture, particularly of the old testament, receives more prominence than that of the unity of god. this truth is clearly pronounced also in the material universe; it is the introduction and conclusion of all scientific researches. any other representation contradicts both creation and revelation. its denial is a proper object for the ridicule of every thinking man, and of the disbelief of every orthodox christian. let this, then, be our first and necessary conclusion--that deity, whether creating, inspiring, or otherwise manifesting itself, is one god; one, and no more.--_cerdo._ a multiplication of gods is a contradiction; there can be but one god. there can be but one absolutely perfect, supreme, and almighty being. such a being cannot be multiplied, nor pluralized. there can be but one ultimate, but one all-inclusive, but one god. monotheism, then, not tri-theism, is the doctrine set forth in the scriptures. "if the thought that wishes to be orthodox had less tendency to become tri-theistic, the thought that claims to be free would be less unitarian."--_moberly._ b) the nature of the divine unity. the doctrine of the unity of god does not exclude the idea of a plurality of persons in the godhead. not that there are three persons in each person of the godhead, if we use in both cases the term _person_ in one and the same sense. we believe, therefore, that there are three persons in the godhead, but one god. anti-trinitarians represent the evangelical church as believing in three gods, but this is not true; it believes in one god, but three persons in the godhead. (1) the scriptural use of the word "one." gen. 2:24--"and they two (husband and wife) shall be one flesh." gen. 11:6--"the people is one." i cor. 3:6-8--"he that planteth and he that watereth are one." 12:13--"all baptized into one body." john 17:22, 23--"that they may be one, even as we are one ... that they may be made perfect in one." the word "one" in these scriptures is used in a collective sense; the unity here spoken of is a compound one, like unto that used in such expressions as "a cluster of grapes," or "all the people rose as one man." the unity of the godhead is not simple but compound. the hebrew word for "one" (yacheed) in the absolute sense, and which is used in such expressions as "the only one," is _never_ used to express the unity of the godhead. on the contrary, the hebrew word "echad," meaning "one" in the sense of a compound unity, as seen in the above quoted scriptures, is the one used always to describe the divine unity. (2) the divine name "god" is a plural word; plural pronouns are used of god. the hebrew word for god (elohim) is used most frequently in the plural form. god often uses plural pronouns in speaking of himself, e. g., gen. 1:26--"let _us_ make man." isa. 6:8-"who will go for _us_?" gen. 3:22--behold, man is become as "one of _us_." some would say that the "us" in gen. 1:26--"let us make man," refers to god's consultation with the angels with whom he takes counsel before he does anything of importance; but isa. 40:14--"but of whom took he counsel," shows that such is not the case; and gen. 1:27 contradicts this idea, for it repeats the statement "in the image of god," not in the image of angels; also that "god created man in his own image, in the image of god (not angels) created he him." the "us" of gen. 1:26, therefore, is properly understood of plural majesty, as indicating the dignity and majesty of the speaker. the proper translation of this verse should be not "let us make," but "we will make," indicating the language of resolve rather than that of consultation. 4. the doctrine of the trinity: (vs. unitarianism). the doctrine of the trinity is, in its last analysis, a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind. that it is taught in the scripture, however, there can be no reasonable doubt. it is a doctrine to be believed even though it cannot be thoroughly understood. a) the doctrine of the trinity in the old testament. this doctrine is not so much declared as intimated in the old testament. the burden of the old testament message seems to be the unity of god. yet the doctrine of the trinity is clearly intimated in a four-fold way: first: in the plural names of the deity; e. g., elohim. second: personal pronouns used of the deity. gen. 1:26; 11:7; isa.6:8. third: the theophanies, especially the "angel of the lord." gen.16 and 18. fourth: the work of the holy spirit. gen. 1:2; judges 6:34. b) the doctrine of the trinity in the new testament. the doctrine of the trinity is clearly taught in the new testament; it is not merely intimated, as in the old testament, but explicitly declared. this is evident from the following: first: the baptism of christ: matt 3:16, 17. here the father speaks from heaven; the son is being baptized in the jordan; and the spirit descends in the form of a dove. second: in the baptismal formula: matt. 28:19--"baptizing them in the name (sing.) of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost." third: the apostolic benediction: 2 cor. 13:14--"the grace of our lord jesus christ....love of god.....communion of the holy ghost." fourth: christ himself teaches it in john 14:16--"_i_ will pray the _father_... he will give you another _comforter_." fifth: the new testaffignt sets forth: a father who is god, rom. 1:7. a son who is god, heb. 1:8. a holy spirit who is god, acts 5:3, 4. the whole is summed up in the words of boardman: the father is all the fulness of the godhead invisible, john 1:18; the son is all the fulness of godhead manifested, john 1:4-18; the spirit is all the fulness of the godhead acting immediately upon the creature, 1 cor. 2:9, 10. iii. the attributes of god: it is difficult to clearly distinguish between the attributes and the nature of god. it is maintained by some that such a division ought not to be made; that these qualities of god which we call attributes are in reality part of his nature and essence. whether this be exactly so or not, our purpose in speaking of the attributes of god is for convenience in the study of the doctrine of god. it has been customary to divide the attributes of god into two classes: the natural, and the moral. the natural attributes are omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity; the moral attributes: holiness, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy and loving-kindness, and love. 1. the natural attributes: a) the omniscience of god. god is a spirit, and as such has knowledge. he is a perfect spirit, and as such has perfect knowledge. by omniscience is meant that god knows all things and is absolutely perfect in knowledge. (1) scriptures setting forth the fact of god's omniscience. _in general:_ job 11:7, 8--"canst thou by searching find out god? canst thou find out the almighty unto perfection?" job's friends professed to have discovered the reason for his affliction, for, forsooth, had they not found out the secrets of the divine wisdom unto perfection. no, such is beyond their human, finite ken. isa. 40:28--"there is no searching of his understanding." jacob's captive condition might lead him to lose trust and faith in god. but jacob has not seen all god's plans--no man has. job, 37:16--"the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge." could job explain the wonders of the natural phenomena around him? much less the purposes and judgments of god. psa. 147:5--"his understanding is infinite." of his understanding there is no number, no computation. israel is not lost sight of. he who can number and name and call the stars is able also to call each of them by name even out of their captivity. his knowledge is not to be measured by ours. 1 john 3:20--"god knoweth all things." our hearts may pass over certain things, and fail to see some things that should be confessed. god, however, sees all things. rom. 11:33--"how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out." the mysterious purposes and decrees of god touching man and his salvation are beyond all human comprehension. _in detail, and by way of illustration:_ _aa) his knowledge is absolutely comprehensive:_ prov. 15:3--"the eyes of the lord are in every place, keeping watch upon the evil and the good." how could he reward and punish otherwise? not one single thing occurring in any place escapes his knowledge. 5:21--"for the ways of man are before the eyes of the lord, and he pondereth all his goings." we may have habits hidden from our fellow creatures, but not from god. _ bb) god has a perfect knowledge of all that is in nature:_ psa. 147:4--"he telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names." man cannot (gen. 15:5). how, then, can israel say, "my way is hid from the lord?" cf. isa. 40:26, 27. matt. 10:29--"one ... sparrow shall not fall to the ground without your father." much less would one of his children who perchance might be killed for his name's sake, fall without his knowledge. _cc) god has a perfect knowledge of all that transpires in human experience:_ prov. 5:21--"for the ways of man are before the eyes of the lord, and he pondereth all his goings." all a man's doings are weighed by god. how this should affect his conduct! psa. 139:2, 3--"thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways." before our thoughts are fully developed, our unspoken sentences, the rising feeling in our hearts, our activity, our resting, all that we do from day to day is known and sifted by god. v. 4--"there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, o lord, thou knowest it altogether." not only thoughts and purposes, but words spoken, idle, good, or bad. exod. 3:7--"i have seen the affliction....heard the cry: know the sorrows of my people which are in egypt." the tears and grief which they dared not show to their taskmasters, god saw and noted. did god know of their trouble in egypt? it seemed to them as though he did not. but he did. matt. 10:29, 30--"but the very hairs of your head are all numbered." what minute knowledge is this! exod 3:19--"and i am sure that the king of egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand." here is intimate knowledge as to what a single individual will do. isa. 48:18--"o that thou hadst harkened to my commandments! then had thy peace have been as a river," etc. god knows what our lives would have been if only we had acted and decided differently. _dd) god has a perfect knowledge of all that transpires in human history._ with what precision are national changes and destinies foretold and depicted in dan. 2 and 8! acts 15:18--"known unto god are all his works from the beginning of the world (ages)." in the context surrounding this verse are clearly set forth the religious changes that were to characterize the generations to come, the which have been so far literally, though not fully, fulfilled. _ee) god knows--from, all eternity to all eternity what will take place._ the ominiscience of god is abduced as the proof that he alone is god, especially as contrasted with the gods (idols) of the heathen: isa. 48:5-8--"i have even from the beinning declared it unto thee; before it came to pass i showed it thee.....i have showed thee new things from this time, even hidden things," etc. 46:9, 10--"i am god....declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand, and i will do all my pleasure." here god is announcing to his prophets things that are to occur in the future which it is impossible for the human understanding to know or reach. there is no past, present, future with god. everything is one great living present. we are like a man standing by a river in a low place, and who, consequently, can see that part of the river only that passes by him; but he who is aloof in the air may see the whole course of the river, how it rises, and how it runs. thus is it with god. (2) certain problems in connection with the doctrine of the omniscienc of god. how the divine intelligence can comprehend so vast and multitudinous and exhaustless a number of things must forever surpass our comprehension. "o the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of god! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (rom. 11:33). "there is no searching of his understanding; it is beyond human computation." we must expect, therefore, to stand amazed in the presence of such matchless wisdom, and find problems in connection therewith which must for the time, at least, remain unsolved. again, we must not confound the foreknowledge of god with his foreordination. the two things are, in a sense, distinct. the fact that god foreknows a thing makes that thing certain but not necessary. his foreordination is based upon his foreknowledge. pharaoh was responsible for the hardening of his heart even though that hardening process was foreknown and foretold by god. the actions of men are considered certain but not necessary by reason of the divine foreknowledge. b) the omnipotence of god. the omnipotence of god is that attribute by which he can bring to pass everything which he wills. god's power admits of no bounds or limitations. god's declaration of his intention is the pledge of the thing intended being carried out. "hath he said, and shall he not do it?" (1) scriptural declarations of the fact; in general: job 42:2.(r. v.)--"i know that thou canst do everything (all things), and that no purpose of thine can be restrained." the mighty review of all god's works as it passes before job (context) brings forth this confession: "there is no resisting thy might, and there is no purpose thou canst not carry out." gen. 18:14--"is anything too hard for the lord?" what had ceased to be possible by natural means comes to pass by supernatural means. (2) scriptural declaration of the fact; in detail: _aa) in the world of nature:_ gen. 1:1-3--"god created the heaven and the earth. and god said, let there be light, and there was light." thus "he spake and it was done. he commanded and it stood fast." he does not need even to give his hand to the work; his word is sufficient. psa. 107:25-29--"he raiseth the stormy wind ... he maketh the storm calm." "even the winds and the sea obey him." god's slightest word, once uttered, is a standing law to which all nature must absolutely conform. nahum 1:5, 6--"the mountains quake at him ... the hills melt ... the earth is burned at his presence ... the rocks are thrown down by him." if such is his power how shall assyria withstand it? this is god's comforting message to israel. everything in the sky, in sea, on earth is absolutely subject to his control. _bb) in the experience of mankind:_ how wonderfully this is illustrated in the experience of nebuchadnezzar, dan. 4; and in the conversion of saul, acts 9; as well as in the case of pharaoh, exod. 4:11. james 4:12-15--" ... for that ye ought to say, if the lord will, we shall live and do this or that." all human actions, whether present or future, are dependent upon the will and power of god. these things are in god's, not in man's, power. see also the parable of the rich fool, luke 12:16-21. _cc) the heavenly inhabitants are subject to his will and word:_ dan. 4:35 (r. v.)--"he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven." heb. 1:14--"are they (angels) not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" it has been said that angels are beings created by the power of god for some specific act of service, and that after that act of service is rendered they pass out of existence. _dd) even satan is under the control of god_ satan has no power over any of god's children saving as god permits him to have. this fact is clearly established in the case of job (1:12 and 2:6). and peter (luke 22:31,32), in which we are told that satan had petitioned god that he might sift the self-righteous patriarch and the impulsive apostle. finally satan is to be forever bound with a great chain (rev. 20:2). god can set a bar to the malignity of satan just as he can set a bar to the waves of the sea. c) the omnipresence of god. by the omnipresence of god is meant that god is everywhere present. this attribute is closely connected with the omniscience and omnipotence of god, for if god is everywhere present he is everywhere active and possesses full knowledge of all that transpires in every place. this does not mean that god is everywhere present in a bodily sense, nor even in the same sense; for there is a sense in which he may be in heaven, his dwelling place, in which he cannot be said to be elsewhere. we must guard against the pantheistic idea which claims that god _is_ everything, while maintaining the scriptural doctrine that he is everywhere present in all things. pantheism emphasizes the omnipresent activity of god, but denies his personality. those holding the doctrine of pantheism make loud claims to philosophic ability and high intellectual training, but is it not remarkable that it is in connection with this very phase of the doctrine of god that the apostle paul says "they became fools"? (rom. 1.) god is everywhere and in every place; his center is everywhere; his circumference nowhere. but this presence is a spiritual and not a material presence; yet it is a real presence. (1) scriptural statement of the fact. jer. 23:23, 24-"am i a god at hand, saith the lord, and not a god afar off? can any hide himself in secret places that i shall not see him? saith the lord. do not i fill heaven and earth? saith the lord." did the false prophets think that they could hide their secret crimes from god? or that he could not pursue them into foreign countries? or that he knew what was transpiring in heaven only and not upon the earth, and even in its most distant corners? it was false for them to thus delude themselves--their sins would be detected and punished (psa. 10:1-14). psa. 139:7-12--"whither shall i go from thy spirit, or whither shall i flee from thy presence," etc. how wondrously the attributes of god are grouped in this psalm. in vv. 1-6 the psalmist speaks of the omniscience of god: god knows him through and through. in vv. 13-19 it is the omnipotence of god which overwhelms the psalmist. the omnipresence of god is set forth in vv. 7-12. the psalmist realizes that he is never out of the sight of god any more than he is outside of the range of his knowledge and power. god is in heaven; "hell is naked before him"; souls in the intermediate state are fully known to him (cf. job 26:2; jonah 2:2); the darkness is as the light to him. job 22:12-14--"is not god in the height of heaven? . . . . can he judge through the dark cloud? thick clouds are a covering to him that he seeth not," etc. all agreed that god displayed his presence in the heaven, but job had inferred from this that god could not know and did not take notice of such actions of men as were hidden behind the intervening clouds. not that job was atheistic; no, but probably denied to god the attribute of omnipresence and omniscience. acts 17:24-28--"for in him we live, and move, and have our being." without his upholding hand we must perish; god is our nearest environment. from these and many other scriptures we are clearly taught that god is everywhere present and acting; there is no place where god is not. this does not mean that god is everywhere present in the same sense. for we are told that he is in heaven, his dwelling-place (1 kings 8:30); that christ is at his right hand in heaven (eph. 1:20); that god's throne is in heaven (rev. 21:2; isa. 66:1). we may summarize the doctrine of the trinity thus: god the father is specially manifested in heaven; god the son has been specially manifested on the earth; god the spirit is manifested everywhere. just as the soul is present in every part of the body so god is present in every part of the world. (2) some practical inferences from this doctrine. first, _of comfort:_ the nearness of god to the believer. "speak to him then for he listens. and spirit with spirit can meet; closer is he than breathing, and nearer than hands or feet." "god is never so far off, as even to be near; he is within. our spirit is the home he holds most dear. to think of him as by our side is almost as untrue, as to remove his shrine beyond those skies of starry blue."--_faber._ the omnipresence is not only a detective truth--it is protective also. after dwelling on this great and awful attribute in psalm 139, the psalmist, in vv. 17, 18, exclaims: "how precious are thy thoughts to me..... when i awake i am still with thee." by this is meant that god stands by our side to help, and as one who loves and understands us (matt. 28:20). second, _of warning:_ "as in the roman empire the whole world was one great prison to a malefactor, and in his flight to the most distant lands the emperor could track him, so under the government of god no sinner can escape the eye of the judge." thus the omnipresence of god is detective as well as protective. "thou god seest me," should serve as warning to keep us from sin. d) the eternity and immutability of god. the word _eternal_ is used in two senses in the bible: figuratively, as denoting existence which may have a beginning, but will have no end, e. g., angels, the human soul; literally, denoting an existence which has neither beginning nor ending, like that of god. time has past, present, future; eternity has not. eternity is infinite duration without any beginning, end, or limit--an ever abiding present. we can conceive of it only as duration indefinitely extended from the present moment in two directions--as to the past and as to the future. "one of the deaf and dumb pupils in the institution of paris, being desired to express his idea of the eternity of the deity, replied: 'it is duration, without beginning or end; existence, without bounds or dimension; present, without past or future. his eternity is youth, without infancy or old age; life, without birth or death; today, without yesterday or tomorrow.'" by the immutability of god is meant that god's nature is absolute|y unchangeable. it is not possible that he should possess one attribute at one time that he does not possess at another. nor can there be any change in the deity for better or for worse. god remains forever the same. he is without beginning and without end; the self-existent "i am"; he remains forever the same, and unchangeable. (1) scriptural statement of the fact: the eternity of god hab. 1:12--"art thou not from everlasting, o lord my god, mine holy one?" chaldea had threatened to annihilate israel. the prophet cannot believe it possible, for has not god _eternal_ purposes for israel? is he not holy? how, then, can evil triumph? psa. 90:2--"before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art god." short and transitory is the life of man; with god it is otherwise. the perishable nature of man is here compared with the imperishable nature of god. psa. 102:24-27--"i said, o my god, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. of old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. they shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." with the perishable nature of the whole material creation the psalmist contrasts the imperishable nature of god. exod. 3:14--"and god said unto moses, i am that i am." the past, present and future lies in these words for the name of jehovah. rev. 1:8--"i am alpha and omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the almighty." (2) scriptural statement of the immutability of god: mal 3:6--"1 am the lord, i change not." man's hope lies in that fact, as the context here shows man had changed in his life and purpose toward god, and if god, like man, had changed, man would have been destroyed. james 1:17--"the father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." there is no change--in the sense of the degree or intensity of light such as is manifested in the heavenly bodies. such lights are constantly varying and changing; not so with god. there is no inherent, indwelling, possible change in god. 1 sam. 15:29.--"and also the strength of israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent." from these scriptures we assert that god, in his nature and character, is absolutely without change. does god repent? what, then, shall we say with regard to such scriptures as jonah 3:10 and gen. 6:6--"and god repented of the evil, that he said he would do unto them." "and it repented the lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." in reply we may say that god does not change, but threatens that men may change. "the repentent attitude in god does not involve any real change in the character and purposes of god. he ever hates the sin and ever pities and loves the sinner; that is so both before and after the sinner's repentance. divine repentance is therefore the same principle acting differently in altered circumstances. if the prospect of punishment answers the same purpose as that intended by the punishment itself, then there is no inconsistency in its remission, for punishment is not an end, it is only a means to goodness, to the reign of the law of righteousness." when god appears to be displeased with anything, or orders it differently from what we expected, we say, after the manner of men, that he repents. god's attitude towards the ninevites had not changed, but they had changed; and because they had changed from sin unto righteousness, god's attitude towards them and his intended dealings with them as sinners must of necessity change, while, of course, god's character had in no wise changed with respect to these people, although his dealings with them had. so that we may say that god's _character_ never changes, but his _dealings_ with men change as they change from ungodliness to godliness and from disobedience unto obedience. "god's immutability is not that of the stone, that has no internal experience, but rather that of the column of mercury that rises and falls with every change in the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. when a man bicycling against the wind turns about and goes with the wind instead of going against it, the wind seems to change, although it is blowing just as it was before." --_strong_. 2. the moral attributes. a) the holiness of god. if there is any difference in importance in the attributes of god, that of his holiness seems to occupy the first place. it is, to say the least, the one attribute which god would have his people remember him by more than any other. in the visions of himself which god granted men in the scriptures the thing that stood out most prominent was the divine holiness. this is clearly seen by referring to the visions of moses, job, and isaiah. some thirty times does the prophet isaiah speak of jehovah as "the holy one," thus indicating what feature of those beatific visions had most impressed him. the holiness of god is the message of the entire old testament. to the prophets god was the absolutely holy one; the one with eyes too pure to behold evil; the one swift to punish iniquity. in taking a photograph, the part of the body which we desire most to see is not the hands or feet, but the face. so is it with our vision of god. he desires us to see not his hand and finger, denoting his power and skill, nor even his throne as indicating his majesty. it is his holiness by which he desires to be remembered as that is the attribute which most glorifies him. let us bear this fact in mind as we study this attribute of the divine nature. it is just this vision of god that we need today when the tendency to deny the reality or the awfulness of sin is so prevalent. our view of the necessity of the atonement will depend very largely upon our view of the holiness of god. light views of god and his holiness will produce light views of sin and the atonement. (1) scriptural statements setting forth the fact of god's holiness. isa. 57:15--"thus saith the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is holy; i dwell in the high and holy place." psa. 99:9--"exalt the lord our god, and worship at his holy hill: for the lord our god is holy." hab. 1:13--"thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity." 1 pet. 1:15, 16 --"but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation. because it is written, be ye holy: for i am holy." god's personal name is holy. john 17:11--"holy father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me." christ here contemplates the father as the holy one, as the source and agent of that which he desires for his disciples, namely, holiness of heart and life, being kept from the evil of this world. is it not remarkable that this attribute of holiness is ascribed to each of the three persons of the trinity: god the father, is the holy one of israel (isa. 41:14); god the son is the holy one (acts 3:14); god the spirit is called the holy spirit (eph. 4:30). (2) the scriptural meaning of holiness as applied to god. job 34:10--"be it far from god, that he should do wickedness; and from the almighty that he should commit iniquity." an evil god, one that could commit evil would be a contradiction in terms, an impossible, inconceivable idea. job seemed to doubt that the principle on which the universe was conducted was one of absolute equity. he must know that god is free from all evil-doing. however hidden the meaning of his dealings, he is always just. god never did, never will do wrong to any of his creatures; he will never punish wrongly. men may, yea, often do; god never does. lev. 11:43-45--"ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. for i am the lord your god; ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for i am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.... ye shall therefore be holy, for i am holy." this means that god is absolutely clean and pure and free from all defilement. the construction of the tabernacle, with its holy and most holy place into which the high priest alone entered once a year; the ten commandments, with their moral categories; the laws of clean and unclean animals and things--all these speak to us in unmistakable terms as to what is meant by holiness as applied to god. two things, by way of definition, may be inferred from these scriptures: first, negatively, that god is entirely apart from all that is evil and from all that defiles both in himself and in relation to all his creatures; second and positively, by the holiness of god is meant the consummate holiness, perfection, purity, and absolute sanctity of his nature. there is absolutely nothing unholy in him. so the apostle john declares: "god is light, and in him is no darkness at all." (3) the manifestation of god's holiness. prov. 15:9, 26--"the way of the wicked is an abomination unto the lord. the thoughts of the wicked are an abomination unto the lord." god hates sin, and is its uncompromising foe. sin is a vile and detestable thing to god. isa. 59:1, 2--"behold, the lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear. but your iniquities have separated between you and your god, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." israel's sin had raised a partition wall. the infinite distance between the sinner and god is because of sin. the sinner and god are at opposite poles of the moral universe. this in answer to israel's charge of god's inability. from these two scriptures it is clear that god's holiness manifests itself in the hatred of sin and the separation of the sinner from himself. herein lies the need of the atonement, whereby this awful distance is bridged over. this is the lesson taught by the construction of the tabernacle as to the division into the holy place and the most holy place. prov. 15:9--"but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness." john 3:16--"for god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son," etc. here god's holiness is seen in that he loves righteousness in the life of his children to such a degree that he gave his only begotten son to secure it. the cross shows how much god loves holiness. the cross stands for god's holiness before even his love. for christ died not merely for our sins, but in order that he might provide us with that righteousness of life which god loves. "he died that we might be forgiven; he died to make us good." do we love holiness to the extent of sacrificing for it? for other manifestations see under righteousness and justice of god. (4) practical deductions from the doctrine of god's holiness. first, we should approach god with "reverence and godly fear" (heb. 12:28). in the story of moses' approach to the burning bush, the smiting of the men at bethshemesh, the boundary set about mt. sinai, we are taught to feel our own unworthiness. there is too much hilarity in our approach unto god. eccl. 5:1-3 inculcates great care in our address to god. second, we shall have right views of sin when we get right views of god's holiness. isaiah, the holiest man in all israel, was cast down at the sight of his own sin after he had seen the vision of god's holiness. the same thing is true of job (40:3-4; 42:4-5). we confess sin in such easy and familiar terms that it has almost lost its terror for us. third, that approach to a holy god must be through the merits of christ, and on the ground of a righteousness which is christ's and which naturally we do not possess. herein lies the need of the atonement. b) the righteousness and justice of god. in a certain sense these attributes are but the manifestation of god's holiness. it is holiness as manifested in dealing with the sons of men. holiness has to do more particularly with the character of god in itself, while in righteousness and justice that character is expressed in the dealings of god with men. three things may be said in the consideration of the righteousness and justice of god: first, there is the imposing of righteousness laws and demands, which may he called legislative holiness, and may he known as the righteousness of god; second, there is the executing of the penalties attached to those laws, which may be called judicial holiness; third, there is the sense in which the attributes of the righteousness and justice of god may be regarded as the actual carrying out of the holy nature of god in the government of the world. so that in the righteousness of god we have his love of holiness, and in the justice of god, his hatred of sin. again righteousness, as here used, has reference to the very nature of god as he is in himself--that attribute which leads god always to do right. justice, as an attribute of god, is devoid of all passion or caprice; it is vindicative not vindictive. and so the righteousness and justice of the god of israel was made to stand out prominently as contrasted with the caprice of the heathen gods. (1) scriptural statement of the fact. psalm 116:5--"gracious is the lord, and righteous; yea, our god is merciful." the context here shows that it is because of this fact that god listens to men, and because having promised to hear he is bound to keep his promises. ezra 9:15--"0 lord god of israel, thou art righteous." here the righteousness of jehovah is acknowledged in the punishment of israel's sins. thou art just, and thou hast brought us into the state in which we are today. psa. 145:17--"the lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." this is evident in the rewards he gives to the upright, in lifting up the lowly, and in abundantly blessing the good, pure, and true. jer. 12:1--"righteous art thou, o lord, when i plead with thee." that is to say, "if i were to bring a charge against thee i should not be able to convict thee of injustice, even though i be painfully exercised over the mysteries of thy providence." these scriptures clearly set forth not only the fact that god is righteous and just, but also define these attributes. here we are told that god, in his government of the world, does always that which is suitable, straight, and right. (2) how the righteousness and justice of god is revealed. in two ways: first, in punishing the wicked: retributive justice, second, in rewarding the righteous: remunerative justice. _aa) in the punishment of the wicked._ psa. 11:4-7--"the lord is in his holy temple, the lord's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. the lord trieth the righteous; but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest. this shall be the portion of their cup." this is david's reply to his timid advisers. saul may reign upon the earth and do wickedly, but god reigns from heaven and will do right. he sees who does right and who does wrong. and there is that in his nature which recoils from the evil that he sees, and will lead him ultimately to punish it. there is such a thing as the wrath of god. it is here described. whatever awful thing the description in this verse may mean for the wicked, god grant that we may never know. in exod. 9:23-27 we have the account of the plague of hail, following which are these words: "and pharaoh sent...for moses and aaron, and said unto them, i have sinned this time: the lord is righteous, and i and my people are wicked." pharaoh here acknowledges the perfect justice of god in punishing him for his sin and rebellion. he knew that he had deserved it all, even though cavillers today say there was injustice with god in his treatment of pharaoh. pharaoh himself certainly did not think so. dan. 9:12-14 and rev. 16:5, 6 bring out the same thought. how careful sinners ought to be not to fall into the hands of the righteous judge! no sinner at last will be able to say, "i did not deserve this punishment." _bb) in forgiving the sins of the penitent._ 1 john 1:9 (r. v.)--"if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." ordinarily, the forgiveness of sin is associated with the mercy, love, and compassion of god, and not with his righteousness and justice. this verse assures us that if we confess our sins, the righteousness and justice of god is our guarantee for forgiveness--god cannot but forgive and cleanse us from all sin. _cc) in keeping his word and promise to his children._ neh. 9:7, 8--"thou art the lord the god, who didst choose abram...and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the canaanites...to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous." we need to recall the tremendous obstacles which stood in the way of the fulfillment of this promise, and yet we should remember the eleventh chapter of hebrews. when god gives his word, and makes a promise, naught in heaven, on earth, or in hell can make that promise void. his righteousness is the guarantee of its fulfillment. _dd) in showing himself to be the vindicator of his people from all their enemies._ psa. 129:1-4--"many a time have they afflicted me...yet they have not prevailed against me. the lord is righteous: he hath cut asunder the cords of the wicked." sooner or later, god's people will triumph gloriously as david triumphed over saul. even in this life god will give us rest from our enemies; and there shall assuredly come a day when we shall be "where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest." _ee) in the rewarding of the righteous._ heb. 6:10--"for god is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed towards his name, in that ye have ministered unto the saints, and do minister." those who had shown their faith by their works would not now be allowed to lose that faith. the very idea of divine justice implies that the use of this grace, thus evidenced, will be rewarded, not only by continuance in grace, but their final perseverance and reward. 2 tim. 4:8--"henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the lord, the righteous judge, will give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them that love hiss appearing." the righteous judge will not allow the faithful believer to go unrewarded. he is not like the unrighteous judges of rome and the athenian games. here we are not always rewarded, but some time we shall receive full reward for all the good that we have done. the righteousness of god is the guarantee of all this. c) the mercy and loving-kindness of god. by these attributes is meant, in general, the kindness, goodness, and compassion of god, the love of god in its relation to both the obedient and the disobedient sons of men. the dew drops on the thistle as well as on the rose. more specifically: mercy is usually exercised in connection with guilt; it is that attribute of god which leads him to seek the welfare, both temporal and spiritual, of sinners, even though at the cost of great sacrifice on his part. "but god, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us...god commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, christ died for us." (eph. 2:4; rom. 5:8.) loving-kindness is that attribute of god which leads him to bestow upon his obedient children his constant and choice blessing. "he that spared not his own son, but freely delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?" (rom. 8:32.) (i) scriptural statement of the fact. psa. 103:8--"the lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy." for, instead of inflicting pain, poverty, death--which are the wages of sin--god has spared our lives, given us health, increased our blessings and comforts, and given us the life of the ages. deut. 4:31--"(for the lord thy god is a merciful god); he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers." god is ready to accept the penitence of israel, even now, if only it be sincere. israel will return and find god only because he is merciful and does not let go of her. it is his mercy that forbids his permanently forsaking his people. psa. 86:15--"but thou, o lord, art a god full of compassion, and gracious, long-suffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth." it was because god had so declared himself to be of this nature that david felt justified in feeling that god would not utterly forsake him in his time of great stress and need. the most striking illustration of the mercy and loving-kindness of god is set forth in the parable of the prodigal son (luke 15:11-32). here we have not only the welcome awaiting the wanderer, but also the longing for his return on the part of the anxious and loving father. (1) how the mercy and loving-kindness of god are manifested. in general: we must not forget that god is absolutely sovereign in the bestowal of his blessings--"therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy" (rom. 9:18). we should also remember that god wills to have mercy on all his creatures--"for thou, lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy to all them that call upon thee" (psa. 86:5). _aa) mercy--towards sinners in particular._ luke 6:36--"be ye therefore merciful, as your father also is merciful." matt. 5:45--"that ye may be the children, of your father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust." here even the impenitent and hard-hearted are the recipients of god's mercy; all sinners, even the impenitent are included in the sweep of his mercy. isa. 55:7--"let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the lord: and he will have mercy upon him; and to our god, for he will abundantly pardon." god's mercy is a holy mercy; it will by no means protect sin, but anxiously awaits to pardon it. god's mercy is a city of refuge for the penitent, but by no means a sanctuary for the presumptuous. see prov. 28:13, and psa. 51:1. god's mercy is here seen in pardoning the sin of those who do truly repent. we speak about "trusting in the mercy of the lord." let us forsake sin and then trust in the mercy of the lord and we shall find pardon. 2 pet. 3:9--"the lord...is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." neh. 9:31--"nevertheless for thy great mercies' sake thou didst not utterly consume them; for thou art a gracious and merciful god." here is mercy manifested in forbearance with sinners. if god should have dealt with them in justice they would have been cut off long before. think of the evil, the impurity, the sin that god must see. how it must disgust him. then remember that he could crush it all in a moment. yet he does not. he pleads; he sacrifices to show his love for sinners. surely it is because of the lord's mercies that we are not consumed, and because his compassions fail not. yet, beware lest we abuse this goodness, for our god is also a consuming fire. "behold, the goodness and the severity of god." the mercy of god is here shown in his loving forbearance with sinners. _bb) loving-kindness towards the saints, in particular._ psa. 32:10--"but he that trusteth in the lord, mercy shall compass him about." the very act of trust on the part of the believer moves the heart of god to protect him just as in the case of a parent and his child. the moment i throw myself on god i am enveloped in his mercy--mercy is my environment, like a fiery wall it surrounds me, without a break through which an evil can creep. besistance surrounds us with "sorrow"; but trust surrounds us with "mercy." in the center of that circle of mercy sits and rests the trusting soul. phil. 2:27--"for indeed he was sick nigh unto death; but god had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest i should have sorrow upon sorrow." here god's loving-kindness is seen in healing up his sick children. yet remember that "he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy." not every sick child of god is raised. psa. 6:4--"have mercy upon me, o lord, for i am weak: o lord, heal me...deliver my soul for thy mercies' sake (v. 4)." the psalmist asks god to illustrate his mercy in restoring to him his spiritual health. from these scriptures we see that the mercy of god is revealed in healing his children of bodily and spiritual sickness. psa. 21:7--"for the king trusteth in the lord, and through the mercy of the most high he shall not be moved." david feels that, because he trusts in the mercy of the lord, his throne, whatever may dash against it, is perfectly secure. is not this true also of the believer's eternal security? more to the mercy of god than to the perseverance of the saints is to be attributed the eternal security of the believer. "he will hold me fast." d) the love of god. christianity is really the only religion that sets forth the supreme being as love. the gods of the heathen are angry, hateful beings, and are in constant need of appeasing. (1) scriptural statements of the fact. 1 john 4:8-16--"god is love." "god is light"; "god is spirit"; "god is love." spirit and light are expressions of god's essential nature. love is the expression of his personality corresponding to his nature. it is the nature of god to love. he dwells always in the atmosphere of love. just how to define or describe the love of god may be difficult if not impossible. it appears from certain scriptures (1 john 3:16; john 3:16) that the love of god is of such a nature that it betokens a constant interest in the physical and spiritual welfare of his creatures as to lead him to make sacrifices beyond human conception to reveal that love. (2) the objects of god's love. _aa) jesus christ, god's only-begotten son, is the special object of his love._ matt. 3:17--"this is my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased." also matt. 17:5; luke 20:13. jesus christ shares the love of the father in a unique sense, just as he is his son in a unique sense. he is especially "my chosen." "the one in whom my soul delighteth," "my beloved son,"--literally: the son of mine, the beloved. and we can readily understand how that he who did the will of god perfectly should thus become the special object of the father's love. of course, if the love of god is eternal, as is the nature of god, which must be the case, then, that love must have had an eternal object to love. so christ, in addressing the father, says: "thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." _bb) believers in his son, jesus christ, are special objects of god's love._ john 16:27--"for the father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that i came out from god." 14:21-23--"he that loveth me shall be loved of my father. ...if a man love me...my father will love him." 17:23--"and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." do we really believe these words? we are not on the outskirts of god's love, but in its very midst. there stands christ right in the very midst of that circle of the father's love; then he draws us to that spot, and, as it were, disappears, leaving us standing there bathed in the same loving-kindness of the father in which he himself had basked. _cc) god loves the world of sinners and ungodly men._ john 3:16--"for god so loved the world" was a startling truth to nicodemus in his narrow exclusivism. god loved not the jew only, but also the gentile; not a part of the world of men, but every man in it, irrespective of his moral character. for "god commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, christ died for us" (rom. 5:8). this is wonderful when we begin to realize what a world in sin is. the love of god is broader than the measure of man's mind. god desires the salvation of all men (1 tim. 2:4). (3) how the love of god reveals itself. _aa) in making infinite sacrifice for the salvation of men._ 1 john 4:9, 10--"in this was manifested the love of god towards us, because that god sent his only-begotten son into the world, that we might live through him. herein is love, not that we loved god, but that god loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins." love is more than compassion; it hides not itself as compassion may do, but displays itself actively in behalf of its object. the cross of calvary is the highest expression of the love of god for sinful man. he gave not only a son, but his only son, his well-beloved. _bb) in bestowing full and complete pardon on the penitent._ isa. 38:17--"thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back." literally, "thou hast loved my soul back from the pit of destruction." god had taken the bitterness out of his life and given him the gracious forgiveness of his sins, by putting them far away from him. eph. 2:4, 5--"but god, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with christ," etc. verses 1-3 of this chapter show the race rushing headlong to inevitable ruin. "but" reverses the picture; when all help for man fails, then god steps in, and by his mercy, which springs from "his great love," redeems fallen man, and gives him not only pardon, but a position in his heavenly kingdom by the side of jesus christ. all this was "for," or, perhaps better, "in order to satisfy his great love." love led him to do it. _cc) in remembering his children in all the varying circumstances of life._ isa. 63:9--"in all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old." here is retrospection on the part of the prophet. he thinks of all the oppressions of israel, and recalls how god's interests have been bound up with theirs. he was not their adversary; he was their sympathetic, loving friend. he suffered with them. isa. 49:15, 16--"can a woman forget her sucking child? yea, they may forget, yet will i not forget thee. behold, i have graven thee on the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me." it was the custom those days to trace upon the palms of the hands the outlines of any object of affection; hence a man engraved the name of his god. so god could not act without being reminded of israel. god is always mindful of his own. saul of tarsus learned this truth on the way to damascus. the doctrine of jesus christ. a. the person of christ. i. the humanity of jesus christ. 1. he had a human parentage. 2. he grew as other human beings do. 3. he had the appearance of a man. 4. he was possessed of a body, soul, and spirit. 5. he was subject to the sinless infirmities of humanity. 6. human names are given to him. ii. the deity of jesus christ. 1. divine names are given to him. 2. divine worship is ascribed to him. 3. divine qualities and properties are possessed by him. 4. divine offices are ascribed to him. 5. divine attributes are possessed by him. 6. christ's name is coupled with that of the father. 7. the self-consciousness of jesus christas manifested: a) in his visit to the temple. b) in his baptism. c) in his temptation. d) in the calling of the twelve and the seventy. e) in the sermon on the mount. b. the work of christ. 1. his death. 2. his resurrection. 3. his ascension and exaltation. the doctrine of jesus christ. a. the person of christ. the close kinship of christ with christianity is one of the distinctive features of the christian religion. if you take away the name of buddha from buddhism and remove the personal revealer entirely from his system; if you take away the personality of mahomet from mahommedanism, or the personality of zoroaster from the religion of the parsees, the entire doctrine of these religions would still be left intact. their practical value, such as it is, would not be imperilled or lessened. but take away from christianity the name and person of jesus christ and what have you left? nothing! the whole substance and strength of the christian faith centres in jesus christ. without him there is absolutely nothing.--_sinclair patterson._ from beginning to end, in all its various phases and aspects and elements, the christian faith and life is determined by the person and the work of jesus christ. it owes its life and character at every point to him. its convictions are convictions about him. its hopes are hopes which he has inspired and which it is for him to fulfill. its ideals are born of his teaching and his life. its strength is the strength of his spirit.--_james denney._ i. the humanity of jesus christ. 1. the scriptures distinctly teach that he had a human parentage: that he was born of a woman--the virgin mary. matt. 1:18--"mary ... was found with child of the holy ghost." 2-11--"the young child with mary his mother." 12:47 --"behold, thy mother and thy brethren." 13:55--"is not his mother called mary?" john 1:14--"the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." 2:1--"the mother of jesus was there." acts 13:23--"of this man's seed hath god ... raised ... ..jesus." rom.1:3--"of the seed of david according to the flesh." gal. 4:4--"made of a woman." in thus being born of a woman jesus christ submitted to the conditions of a human life and a human body; became humanity's son by a human birth. of the "seed of the woman," of the "seed of abraham," and of line and lineage of david, jesus christ is undeniably human. we must not lose sight of the fact that there was something supernatural surrounding the birth of the christ. matt. 1:18--"on this wise," and luke 1:35--"the holy ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of god." "on this wise" indicates that this birth was different from those recorded before it. luke 1:35 is explicit about the matter. to assail the virgin birth is to assail the virgin's life. he was of "the seed of the woman," not of the man. (see luke 1:34--"how shall this be, seeing i know not a man?") no laws of heredity are sufficient to account for his generation. by a creative act god broke through the chain of human generation and brought into the world a supernatural being. the narrative of the virgin birth need not stagger us. the abundance of historical evidence in its favor should lead to its acceptance. all the manuscripts in all the ancient versions contain the record of it. all the traditions of the early church recognize it. mention of it is made in the earliest of all the creeds: the apostles' creed. if the doctrine of the virgin birth is rejected it must be on purely subjective grounds. if one denies the possibility of the supernatural in the experience of human life, it is, of course, easy for him to deny this doctrine. to one who believes that jesus was human only it would seem comparatively easy to deny the supernatural birth on purely subjective grounds. the preconceptions of thinkers to a great degree determine their views. it would seem that such a wonderful life as that lived by christ, having as it did such a wonderful finish in the resurrection and ascension, might, indeed should, have a wonderful and extraordinary entrance into the world. the fact that the virgin birth is attested by the scriptures, by tradition, by creeds, and that it is in perfect harmony with all the other facts of that wonderful life should be sufficient attestation of its truth. [footnote: _"the virgin birth,"_ by james orr, d.d., deals fully and most ably with this subject.] it has been thought strange that if, as is claimed, the virgin birth is so essential to the right understanding of the christian religion, that mark, john, and paul should say nothing about it. but does such silence really exist? john says "the word became flesh"; while paul speaks of "god manifest in the flesh." says l. f. anderson: "this argument from silence is sufficiently met by the considerations that mark passes over thirty years of our lord's life in silence; that john presupposes the narratives of matthew and luke; that paul does not deal with the story of jesus' life. the facts were known at first only to mary and joseph; their very nature involved reticence until jesus was demonstrated to be the son of god with power by the resurrection from the dead; meantime the natural development of jesus and his refusal to set up an earthly kingdom have made the miraculous events of thirty years ago seem to mary like a wonderful dream; so only gradually the marvelous tale of the mother of the lord found its way into the gospel tradition and the creeds of the church, and into the innermost hearts of the christians of all countries." 2. he grew in wisdom and stature as other human beings do. he was subject to the ordinary laws of human development in body and soul. luke 2:40, 52, 46--"and the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of god was upon him. and jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with god and man. and....they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions." just to what extent his sinless nature influenced his growth we may not be able to say. it seems clear, however, from the scriptures, that we are to attribute jesus' growth and advancement to the training he received in a godly home; to the instruction given at the synagogue and the temple; from his own personal study of the scriptures, and from his fellowship and communion with his father. both the human and divine element entered into his training and development, which were as real in the experience of jesus as in that of any other human being. we are told that "jesus grew, and increased in wisdom and stature." he "increased," i.e., he kept advancing; he "grew," and the reflective form of the verb would seem to indicate that his growth was due to his own efforts. from all this it seems clear that jesus received his training along the lines of ordinary human progress--instruction, study, thought. nor should the fact that christ possessed divine attributes, such as omniscience and omnipotence, militate against a perfectly human development. could he not have possessed them and yet not have used them? self-emptying is not self-extinction. is it incredible to think that, although possessing these divine attributes, he should have held them in subjection in order that the holy spirit might have his part to play in that truly human, and yet divine, life? 3. he had the appearance of a man. john 4:9--"how is it that thou, being a jew." luke 24:13--the two disciples on the way to emmaus took him to be an ordinary man. john 20:15--"she, supposing him to be the gardener." 21:4, 5--"jesus stood on the shore; but the disciples knew not that it was jesus." the woman of samaria evidently recognized jesus as a jaw by his features or speech. to her he was just an ordinary jew, at least to begin with. there is no biblical warrant for surrounding the head of christ with a halo, as the artists do. his pure life no doubt gave him a distinguished look, just as good character similarly distinguishes men today. of course we know nothing definite as to the appearance of jesus, for no picture or photograph of him do we possess. the apostles draw attention only to the tone of his voice (mark 7:34; 15:34). after the resurrection and ascension jesus seems still to have retained the form of a man (acts 7:56; 1 tim. 2:5). 4. he was possessed of a human physical nature: body, soul and spirit. john 1:14--"and the word was made flesh." heb. 2:14--"for asmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." matt. 26:12--"she hath poured this ointment on my body." v. 38--"my soul is exceeding sorrowful." luke 23:46--"father, into thy hands i commend my spirit." 24:39--"behold my hands and my feet, that it is i myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." by his incarnation christ came into possession of a real human nature; he came not only unto his own, but came unto them in the likeness of their own flesh. of course we must distinguish between a human nature and a carnal nature. a carnal nature is really not an integral part of man as god made him in the beginning. christ's human nature was truly human, yet sinless: "yet without sin" (heb. 4:15). 5. he was subject to the sinless infirmities of human nature. matt. 4:2--"he was afterward an hungred." john 19:28--"jesus....saith, i thirst." 4:6--"jesus....being wearied with his journey." matt. 8:24--"but he was asleep." john 19:30--"he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." he mourns over jerusalem (matt. 23:37); weeps over his dead friend lazarus, (john 11:35); craves for human sympathy in the garden (matt. 26:36,40); tempted in all points like as we are (heb. 4:15). there is not a note in the great organ of our humanity which, when touched, does not find a sympathetic vibration in the mighty range and scope of our lord's being, saving, of course, the jarring discord of sin. but sin is not a necessary and integral part of unfallen human nature. we speak of natural depravity, but, in reality, depravity is _un_natural. god made adam upright and perfect; sin is an accident; it is not necessary to a true human being. 6. human names are given to him by himself and others. luke 19:10--"son of man." matt. 1:21--"thou shalt call his name jesus." acts 2:22--"jesus of nazareth." 1 tim. 2:5--"the man christ jesus." no less than eighty times in the gospels does jesus call himself the son of man. even when acquiescing in the title son of god as addressed to himself he sometimes immediately after substitutes the title son of man (john 1:49-51; matt 26:63,64). while we recognize the fact that there is something official in the title son of man, something connected with his relation to the kingdom of god, it is nevertheless true that in using this title he assuredly identifies himself with the sons of men. while he is rightly called _the_ son of man, because, by his sinless nature and life he is unique among the sons of men, he is nevertheless _a_ son of man in that he is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ii. the deity of jesus cheist. 1. divine names are given to him. a) he is called god. john 1:1--"the word was god." heb. 1:8--"but unto the son he saith, thy throne, o god, is for ever." john 1:18--"the only begotten son (or better "only begotten god")." absolute deity is here ascribed to christ. 20:28-"my lord and my god." not an expression of amazement, but a confession of faith. this confession accepted by christ, hence equivalent to the acceptance of deity, and an assertion of it on christ's part. rom. 9:5--"god blessed forever." tit. 2:13--"the great god and our saviour jesus christ." 1 john,5:20--"his son jesus christ. this is the true god." in all these passages christ is called god. it may be argued that while christ is here called god, yet that does not argue for nor prove his deity, for human judges are also called "gods" in john 10:35--"if he called them gods unto whom the word of god came." true, but it is then used in a secondary and relative sense, and not in the absolute sense as when used of the son. b) he is called the son of god. the references containing this title are numerous. among others see matt. 16:16, 17; 8:29; 14:33; mark 1:1; 14:61; luke 1:35; 4:41. while it may be true that in the synoptic gospels jesus may not be said to have claimed this title for himself, yet he unhesitatingly accepted it when used of him and addressed to him by others. further, it seems clear from the charges made against him that he did claim such an honor for himself. matt. 27:40, 43--"for he said, i am the son of god." mark 14:61, 62 --"art thou the christ, the son of the blessed" (luke 22:70--"art thou then the son of god? and jesus said, i am." in john's gospel, however, jesus plainly calls himself "the son of god" (5:25; 10:36 11:4). indeed, john's gospel begins with christ as god: "the word was god," and ends with the same thought: "my lord and my god" (20:28). (chapter 21 is an epilogue.) dr. james orr says, in speaking of the title son of god as ascribed to christ: "this title is one to which there can be no finite comparison or analogy. the oneness with god which it designates is not such reflex influence of the divine thought and character such as man and angels may attain, but identity of essence constituting him not god-like alone, but god. others may be children of god in a moral sense; but by this right of elemental nature, none but he; he is herein, the _only_ son; so little separate, so close to the inner divine life which he expresses, that he is in the bosom of the father. this language denotes two natures homogeneous, entirely one, and both so essential to the godhead that neither can be omitted from any truth you speak of it." if when he called himself "the son of god" he did not mean more than that he was _a_ son of god, why then did the high priest accuse him of blasphemy when he claimed this title (matt. 26: 61-63)? does not mark 12:6--"having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, they will reverence my son," indicate a special sonship? the sonship of christ is human and historical, it is true; but it is more: it is transcendent, unique, solitary. that something unique and solitary lay in this title seems clear from john 5:18--"the jews sought the more to kill him....because he....said....also that god was his father, making himself equal with god." the use of the word "only begotten" also indicates the uniqueness of this sonship. for use of the word see luke 7:12--"the only son of his mother." 9:38--"for he is mine only child." this word is used of christ by john in 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 john 4:9, and distinguishes between christ as the only son, and the "many....children of god" (john 1:12, 13). in one sense christ has no brethren: he stands absolutely alone. this contrast is clearly emphasized in john 1:14, 18--"only begotten son," and 1:12 (r. v.)--"many....children." he is the son from eternity: they "become" sons in time. he is one; they are many. he is son by nature; they are sons by adoption and grace. he is son of the same essence with the father; they are of different substance from the father. c) he is called the lord. acte 4:33; 16:31; luke 2:11; acts 9:17; matt. 22:43-45. it is true that this term is used of men, e.g., acts 16:30--"sirs (lords), what must i do to be saved?" john 12:21--"sir (lord), we would see jesus." it is not used, however, in this unique sense, as the connection will clearly show. in our lord's day, the title "lord" as used of christ was applicable only to the deity, to god. "the ptolemies and the roman emperors would allow the name to be applied to them only when they permitted themselves to be deified. the archaeological discoveries at oxyrhyncus put this fact beyond a doubt. so when the new testament writers speak of jesus as lord, there can be no question as to what they mean." --_wood._ d) other divine names are ascribed to him: "the first and the last" (rev. 1:17). this title used of jehovah in isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. "the alpha and omega" (rev. 22:13, 16); cf. 1:8 where it is used of god. 2. divine worship is ascribed to jesus christ. the scriptures recognize worship as being due to god, to deity alone: matt. 4:10--"worship the lord thy god, and him only." rev. 22:8, 9--"i fell down to worship before the feet of the angel...then saith he unto me, see thou do it not:.... worship god." john was not allowed even to worship god at the feet of the angel. acts 14:14, 15; 10:25, 26--cornelius fell down at the feet of peter, and worshipped him. "but peter took him up, saying, stand up; i myself also am a man." see what an awful fate was meted out to herod because he dared to accept worship that belonged to god only (acts 12:20-25). yet jesus christ unhesitatingly accepted such worsnip, indeed, called for it (john 4:10). see john 20:28; matt. 14:33; luke 24:52; 5:8. the homage given to christ in these scriptures would be nothing short of sacrilegious idolatry if christ were not god. there seemed to be not the slightest reluctance on the part of christ in the acceptance of such worship. therefore either christ was god or he was an imposter. but his whole life refutes the idea of imposture. it was he who said, "worship god only"; and he had no right to take the place of god if he were not god. god himself commands all men to render worship to the son, even as they do to him. john 5:23, 24--"that all men should honor the son, even as they honor the father." even the angels are commanded to render worship to the son. heb. 1:6--"and let all the angels of god worship him." phil. 2:10--"that at the name of jesus every knee should bow." it was the practice of the apostles and the early church to render worship to christ: 2 cor. 12:8-10--"i besought the lord." acts 7:59--"and they stoned stephen, calling upon god, and saying, lord jesus, receive my spirit." 1 cor. 1:2--"them that...call upon the name of jesus christ our lord." the christians of all ages have not been satisfied with admiring christ, they have adored and worshipped him. they have approached his person in the attitude of self-sacrifice and worship as in the presence of and to a god. robert browning quoted, in a letter to a lady in her last illness, the words of charles lamb, when in a gay fancy with some friends as to how he and they would feel if the greatest of the dead were to appear suddenly in flesh and blood once more--on the first suggestion, and "if christ entered this room?" changed his tone at once, and stuttered out as his manner was when moved: "you see --if shakespeare entered, we should all rise; if christ appeared, we must kneel." 3. he possesses the qualities and properties of deity. a) pre-existence. john 1:1--"in the beginning"; cf. gen 1:1 john 8:58--"before abraham was, i am." that is to say: "abraham's existence presupposes mine, not mine his. he was dependent upon me, not i upon him for existence. abraham came into being at a certain point of time, but i am." here is simple being without beginning or end. see also john 17:5; phil. 2:6; col. 1:16, 17. b) self-existence and life-giving power: john 5:21, 26--"for as the father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the son quickeneth whom he will." "for as the father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the son to have life in himself." 1:4--"in him was life." see also 14:6; heb. 7:16; john 17:3-5; 10:17, 18. these scriptures teach that all life--physical, moral, spiritual, eternal--has its source in christ. c) immutability: heb. 13:8--"jesus christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever." see also 1:12. all nature, which like a garment he throws around him is subject to change and decay; jesus christ is the same always, he never changes. human teachers, such as are spoken of in the context, may change, but he, the christ, never. d) all the fulness of the godhead dwelt in him: col. 2:9--not merely the divine perfections and attributes of deity, but _(theotes)_ the very essence and nature of the godhead. he was not merely god-like; he was god. 4. divine offices abe ascribed to him. a) he is the creator: john 1:3--"all things were made by him." in the creation he was the acting power and personal instrument. creation is the revelation of his mind and might. heb. 1:10 shows the dignity of the creator as contrasted with the creature. col. 1:16 contradicts the gnostic theory of emanations, and shows christ to be the creator of all created things and beings. rev. 3:14--"the beginning of the creation of god," means "beginning" in the active sense, _the origin,_ that by which a thing begins to be. col. 1:15--"first-born," not made; compare with col. 1:17, where the "for" of v. 16 shows him to be not included in the "created things," but the origin of and superior to them all. he is the creator of the universe (v. 16), just as he is the head of the church (v. 18). b) he is the upholder of all things: col. 1:17; heb. 1:3. the universe is neither self-sustaining nor is it forsaken by god (deism). christ's power causes all things to hold together. the pulses of universal life are regulated and controlled by the throbbings of the mighty heart of christ. c) he has the right to forgive sins. mark 2:5-10. luke 7:48--"and he said unto her, thy sins are forgiven." certain it is that the pharisees recognized that christ was here assuming a divine prerogative. no mere man had any right to forgive sins. god alone could do that. hence the pharisees' charge of blasphemy. this is no declaration of forgiveness, based upon the knowledge of the man's penitence. christ does not merely _declare_ sins forgiven. he _actually_ forgives them. further, jesus, in the parable of the two debtors (luke 7), declares that sins were committed against himself (cf. psa. 51:4--"against thee, thee only, have i sinned"). d) the raising of the bodies of men is ascribed to him: john 6:39, 40, 54; 11:25. five times it is here declared by jesus that it is his prerogative to raise the dead. it is true that others raised the dead, but under what different conditions? they worked by a delegated power (acts 9:34); but christ, by his own power (john 10:17, 18). note the agony of elisha and others, as compared with the calmness of christ. none of these claimed to raise the dead by his own power, nor to have any such power in the general resurrection of all men. christ did make such claims. e) he is to be the judge of all men; john 5:22--"for the father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son." 2 tim. 4:1; acts 17:31; matt. 25:31-46. the man of the cross is to be the man of the throne. the issues of the judgment are all in his hand. 5. divine attributes are possessed by him. a) omnipotence. matt 28:18--"all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." rev. 1:8; john 17:2; eph. i:20-22. here is power over three realms: first, all power on earth: over disease (luke 4:38-41); death (john 11); nature, water into wine (john 2); tempest (matt. 8). second, all power in hell: over demons (luke 4:35, 36, 41); evil angels (eph. 6). third, all power in heaven: (eph. 1:20-22). finally, power over all things: (heb. 2:8; 1:3; matt. 28:18). b) omniscience. john 16:30--"now are we sure that thou knowest all things." 2:24; matt. 24; 25; col. 2:3. illustrations: john 4:16-19; mark 2:8; john 1:48. "our lord always leaves the impression that he knew all things in detail, both past and future, and that this knowledge comes from his original perception of the events. he does not learn them by acquisition. he simply knows them by immediate perception. such utterances as matt. 24 and luke 21 carry in them a subtle difference from the utterances of the prophets. the latter spoke as men who were quite remote in point of time from their declaration of unfolding events. jesus spoke as one who is present in the midst of the events which he depicts. he does not refer to events in the past as if he were quoting from the historic narrative in the old testament. the only instance which casts doubt upon this view is mark 13:32. the parallel passage in matthew omits, in many ancient versions, the words; "neither the son." the saying in mark is capable of an interpretation which does not contradict this view of his omniscience. this is an omniscience nevertheless, which in its manifestation to men is under something of human limitation."--_wood._ this limitation of knowledge is no argument against the infallibility of those things which jesus did teach: for example, the mosaic authorship of the pentateuch. that argument, says liddon, involves a confusion between limitation of knowledge and liability to error; whereas, plainly enough, a limitation of knowledge is one thing, and fallibility is another. st. paul says, "we know in part," and "we see through a glass darkly." yet paul is so certain of the truth of that which he teaches, as to exclaim, "but though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." paul clearly believed in his own infallibility as a teacher of religious truth, and the church of christ has ever since regarded his epistles as part of an infallible literature. but it is equally clear that paul believed his knowledge of truth to be limited. infallibility does not imply omniscience, any more than limited knowledge implies error. if a human teacher were to decline to speak upon a given subject, by saying that he did not know enough about it, this would not be a reason for disbelieving him when he proceeded to speak confidently upon a totally different subject, thereby at least implying that he did not know enough to warrant his speaking. on the contrary, his silence in the one case would be a reason for trusting his statements in the other. the argument which is under consideration in the text would have been really sound, if our saviour had fixed the date of the day of judgment and the event had shown him to be mistaken. why stumble over the limitation of this attribute and not over the others? did he not hunger and thirst, for example? as god he is omnipresent, yet as man he is present only in one place. as god he is omnipotent; yet, on one occasion at least, he could do no mighty works because of the unbelief of men. c) omnipresence. matt. 18:20--"for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am i in the midst of them." he is with every missionary (matt. 28:20). he is prayed to by christians in every place (1 cor. 1:2). prayer would be a mockery if we were not assured that christ is everywhere present to hear. he fills all things, every place (eph. 1:23). but such an all pervading presence is true only of deity. 6. his name is coupled with that of god the father. the manner in which the name of jesus christ is coupled with that of god the father clearly implies equality of the son with the father. compare the following: a) the apostolic benediction. 2 cor. 13:14. here the son equally with the father is the bestower of grace. b) the baptismal formula. matt. 28:19; acts 2:38. "in the name," not the names (plural). how would it sound to say, "in the name of the father" _and of moses?_ would it not seem sacrilegious? can we imagine the effect of such words on the apostles? c) other passages. john 14:23--"we will come: the father and i." 17:3--"and this is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true god, _and jesus christ."_ the content of saving faith includes belief in jesus christ equally with the father. 10:30--"i and my father are one." "one" is neuter, not masculine, meaning that jesus and the father constitute one power by which the salvation of man is secured. 2 thess. 2:16, 17--"now our lord jesus christ himself, and god, even our father...comfort your hearts." these two names, with a verb in the singular, intimate the oneness of the father with the son. 7. the self-consciousness of jesus regarding his own person and work. it will be interesting to search the gospel records to ascertain what was in the mind of jesus concerning himself--his relation to the father in particular. what bearing has the testimony of jesus upon the question of his deity? is the present christian consciousness borne out by the gospel narratives? is jesus christ a man of a much higher type of faith than ours, yet one with whom we believe in god? or is he, equally with god, the object of our faith? do we believe _with him_, or _on_ him? is there any indication in the words ascribed to jesus, as recorded in the gospels, of a consciousness on his part of his unique relation to god the father? is it jesus himself who is responsible for the christian's consciousness concerning his deity, or is the church reading into the gospel accounts something that is not really there? let us see. a) as set forth in the narrative of his visit to the temple. luke 2:41-52. this is a single flower out of the wonderfully enclosed garden of the first thirty years of our lord's life. the emphatic words, for our purpose, are "thy father," and "my father." these are the first recorded words of jesus. is there not here an indication of the consciousness on the part of jesus of a unique relationship with his heavenly father? mary, not joseph, asked the question, so contrary to jewish custom. she said: "thy father"; jesus replied in substance: "did you say _my_ father has been seeking me?" it is remarkable to note that christ omits the word "father" when referring to his parents, cf. matt. 12:48; mark 3:33, 34. "_my_ father!" no other human lips had ever uttered these words. men said, and he taught them to say, "_our_ father." it is not too much to say that in this incident christ sees, rising before him, the great truth that god, and not joseph, is his father, and that it is in his true father's house that he now stands. b) as revealed at his baptism: matt. 3:13-17; mark 1:9-ll; luke 3:21. here are some things to remember in connection with christ's baptism: first, jesus was well acquainted with the relation of john and his ministry to the old testament prophecy, as well as of john's own announcement that he was the messiah's fore-runner, and that he (john) was not worthy to untie the latchet of christ's shoes. second, to come then to john, and to submit to baptism at his hands, would indicate that jesus conceded the truth of all that john had said. this is emphasized when we remember jesus' eulogy of john (matt. 11). thirdly, there is the descent of the spirit, and the heavenly voice; what meaning did these things have to jesus? if christ's sermon in the synagogue at nazareth is of any help here, we must believe that at his baptism, so much more than at the age of twelve, he was conscious that in thus being anointed he was associating himself in some peculiar way with the prophecy of isaiah, chapters 42 and 61: "behold my servant... i have put my spirit upon him." all, therefore, that must have been wrapped up in the thought of the "servant of the lord" in the old testament would assuredly be quickened in his consciousness that day when the spirit descended upon him. see also luke 4:16-17; acts 10: 38; matt. 12:28. but what did the heavenly voice signify to christ? "this is my beloved son" takes us back to the second psalm where this person is addressed as the ideal king of israel. the last clause--"in whom i am well pleased"--refers to isaiah 42, and portrays the servant who is anointed and empowered by the endowment of god's spirit. we must admit that the mind of jesus was steeped in the prophecies of the old testament, and that he knew to whom these passages referred. the ordinary jew knew that much. is it too much to say that on that baptismal day jesus was keenly conscious that these old testament predictions were fulfilled in him? we think not. c) as set forth in the record of the temptation. matt. 4:1-11; mark 1:12, 13; luke 4:1-13. that jesus entered into the temptation in the wilderness with the consciousness of the revelation he received, and of which he was conscious at the baptism, seems clear from the narratives. certain it is that satan based his temptations upon christ's consciousness of his unique relation to god as his son. throughout the whole of the temptation satan regards christ as being in a unique sense the son of god, the ideal king, through whom the kingdom of god is to be established upon the earth. indeed, so clearly is the kingship of jesus recognized in the temptation narrative that the whole question agitated there is as to how that kingdom may be established in the world. it must be admitted that a careful reading of the narratives forces us to the conclusion that throughout all the temptation christ was conscious of his position with reference to the founding of god's kingdom in the world. d) as set forth in the calling of the twelve and the seventy. the record of this event is found in matt. 10; mark 3:13-19; 6:7-13; luke 9:1-6; 10:1-14. this important event in the life of our lord had an important bearing upon his self-consciousness as to his person and work. let us note some of the details: _first_, as to the number, twelve. is there no suggestion here with reference to the new jerusalem when the messiah shall sit upon the throne surrounded by the twelve apostles seated on their thrones? is not jesus here conscious of himself as being the centre of the scene thus described in the apocalypse? _second_, he gave them power. is not jesus here repeating what had been done for him at his baptism: conveying super-human power? who can give this power that is strong enough to make even demons obey? no one less than god surely. _third_, note that the message which he committed to the twelve concerned matters of life and death. not to receive that message would be equivalent to the rejection of the father. _fourth_, all this is to be done in _his_ name, and for _his_ name's sake. fidelity to jesus is that on which the final destiny of men depends. everything rises or falls in its relation to him. could such words be uttered and there be no consciousness on the part of the speaker of a unique relationship to the father and the things of eternity? know you of anything bolder than this? _fifth_, he calls upon men to sacrifice their tenderest affections for him. he is to be chosen before even father and mother (matt. 10:34-39). e) as revealed in the sermon on the mount. matt. 5-7; luke 6:20-49. two references will be sufficient here. who is this that dares to set himself up as superior to moses and the law of moses, by saying, "but _i_ say unto you"? then, again, listen to christ as he proclaims himself to be the judge of all men at the last day (matt. 7:21). could jesus say all this without having any consciousness of his unique relationship to all these things? assuredly not. b. the work of jesus christ. the death of jesus christ. i. its importance. 1. it has a supreme place in the christian religion. christianity is a religion of atonement distinctively. the elimination of the doctrine of the death of christ from the religion that bears his name would mean the surrender of its uniqueness and claim to be the only true religion, the supreme and final revelation from god to the sons of men. it is its redemption feature that distinguishes christianity from any and all other religions. if you surrender this distinctive christian doctrine from its creed, then this supreme religion is brought down to the level of many other prevailing religious systems. christianity is not merely a system of ethics; it is the history of redemption through jesus christ, the personal redeemer. 2. its vital relation to jesus christ. the atonement is so closely related to jesus christ, so allied to his work, as set forth in the scriptures, that it is absolutely inseparable from it. christ was not primarily a religious teacher, a philanthropist, an ethical example; he was all these, yea, and much more--he was first and foremost the world's saviour and redeemer. other great men have been valued for their lives; he, above all, for his death, around which god and man are reconciled. the cross is the magnet which sends the electric current through the telegraph between earth and heaven, and makes both testaments thrill, through the ages of the past and future, with living, harmonious, and saving truth. other men have said: "if i could only live, i would establish and perpetuate an empire." the christ of galilee said: "my death shall do it." let us understand that the power of christianity lies, not in hazy indefiniteness, not in shadowy forms, not so much even in definite truths and doctrines, but in _the_ truth, and in _the_ doctrine of christ crucified and risen from the dead. unless christianity be more tnan ethical, it is not, nor can it really be ethical at all. it is redemptive, dynamic through that redemption, and ethical withal. 3. its relation to the incarnation. it is not putting the matter too strongly when we say that the incarnation was for the purpose of the atonement. at least this seems to be the testimony of the scriptures. jesus christ partook of flesh and blood in order that he might die (heb. 2:14). "he was manifested to take away our sins" (1 john 3:5). christ came into this world to give his life a ransom for many (matt. 20:28). the very purpose of the entire coming of christ into the word, in all its varying aspects, was that, by assuming a nature like unto our own, he might offer up his life as a sacrifice for the sins of men. the faith of the atonement presupposes the faith of the incarnation. so close have been the relation of these two fundamental doctrines that their relation is one of the great questions which have divided men in their opinions in the matter: which is primary and which secondary; which is to be regarded as the most necessary to man's salvation, as the primary and the highest fact in the history of god's dealings with man. the atonement naturally arises out of the incarnation so that the son of god could not appear in our nature without undertaking such a work as the word atonement denotes. the incarnation is a pledge and anticipation of the work of atonement. the incarnation is most certainly the declaration of a purpose on the part of god to save the world. but how was the world to be saved if not through the atonement? 4. its prominence in the scriptures. it was the claim of jesus, in his conversation with the two disciples on the way to emmaus, that moses, and all the prophets, indeed, all the scriptures, dealt with the subject of his death (luke 24:27, 44). that the death of christ was the one great subject into which the old testament prophets searched deeply is clear from 1 pet. 1:11, 12. the atonement is the scarlet cord running through every page in the entire bible. cut the bible anywhere, and it bleeds; it is red with redemption truth. it is said that one out of every forty-four verses in the new testament deals with this theme, and that the death of christ is mentioned in all one hundred and seventy-five times. when you add to these figures the typical and symbolical teaching of the old testament some idea is gained as to the important place which this doctrine occupies in the sacred scriptures. 5. the fundamental theme of the gospel. paul says: "i delivered unto you first of all (i.e., first in order; the first plank in the gospel platform; the truth of primary importance) . . . that christ died for our sins" (1 cor. 15:1-3). there can be no gospel story, message or preaching without the story of the death of christ as the redeemer of men. 6. the one grand theme in heaven. moses and elias, the heavenly visitors to this earth, conversed about it (luke 9:30, 31), even though peter was ashamed of the same truth (matt. 16:21-25). the theme of the song of the redeemed in heaven is that of christ's death (rev. 5:8-12). ii. the scriptural definition of the death of christ. the scriptures set forth the death of jesus christ in a four-fold way: 1. as a ransom. matt. 20:28; 1 pet. l;18; 1 tim. 2:6; gal. 3:13. the meaning of a ransom is clearly set forth in lev. 25:47-49: to deliver a thing or person by paying a price; to buy back a person or thing by paying the price for which it is held in captivity. so sin is like a slave market in which sinners are "sold under sin" (rom. 7:14); souls are under sentence of death (ezek. 18:4). christ, by his death, buys sinners out of the market, thereby indicating complete deliverance from the service of sin. he looses the bonds, sets the prisoners free, by paying a price--that price being his own precious blood. to whom this ransom is paid is a debatable question: whether to satan for his captives, or to eternal and necessary holiness, to the divine law, to the claims of god who is by his nature the holy lawgiver. the latter, referring to god and his holiness, is probably preferable. christ redeemed us from the curse of a broken law by himself being made a curse for us. his death was the ransom price paid for our deliverance. 2. a propitiation. rom. 3:25; 1 john 2:2; heb. 2:17 (r. v.). christ is the propitiation for our sins; he is set forth by god to be a propitiation through his blood. propitiation means mercy-seat, or covering. the mercy-seat covering the ark of the covenant was called propitiation (exod. 25:22; heb. 9:5.) it is that by which god covers, overlooks, and pardons the penitent and believing sinner because of christ's death. propitiation furnishes a ground on the basis of which god could set forth his righteousness, and yet pardon sinful men, rom. 3:25, 26; heb. 9:15. christ himself is the propitiatory sacrifice, 1 john 2:2. the death of jesus christ is set forth as the ground on which a righteous god can pardon a guilty and sinful race without in any way compromising his righteousness. 3. as a reconciliation. rom. 5:10; 2 cor. 5:18, 19; eph. 2:16; col. 1:20. we are reconciled to god by the death of his son, by his cross, and by the blood of his cross--that is the message of these scriptures. reconciliation has two sides; active and passive. in the _active_ sense we may look upon christ's death as removing the enmity existing between god and man, and which had hitherto been a barrier to fellowship (see the above quoted texts). this state of existing enmity is set forth in such scriptures as rom. 8:7--"because the carnal mind is enmity against god." also eph. 2:15; jas. 4:4. in the _passive_ sense of the word it may indicate the change of attitude on the part of man toward god, this change being wrought in the heart of man by a vision of the cross of christ; a change from enmity to friendship thus taking place, cf. 2 cor. 5:20. it is probably better to state the case thus: god is propitiated, and the sinner is reconciled (2 cor. 5:18-20). 4. as a substitution. isa. 53:6; 1 pet. 2:24, 3:18; 2 cor. 5:21. the story of the passover lamb (exod. 12), with 1 cor. 5:7, illustrates the meaning of substitution as here used: one life given in the stead of another. "the lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." god made christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us. christ himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree--this is substitution. christ died in our place, bore our sins, paid the penalty due our sins; and all this, not by force, but willingly (john 10:17, 18). the idea of substitution is well illustrated by the nature of the preposition used in connection with this phase of christ's death: in matt. 80-28 christ is said to give his life a ransom _for_ all (also 1 tim. 2:6). that this preposition means _instead of_ is clear from its use in matt. 2:22--"archelaus did reign in the room (or in the stead) of his father, herod." also in luke 11:11--"will he _for_ a fish give him a serpent?" (see heb. 12:2, 16.) substitution, then, as used here means this: that something happened to christ, and because it happened to christ, it need not happen to us. christ died for our sins; we need not die for them if we accept his sacrifice. for further illustrations, see gen. 22:13; god providing a ram instead of isaac; also barabbas freed and christ bearing his cross and taking his place. upon a life i did not live; upon a death i did not die; upon another's death, another's life, i risk my soul eternally. iii. unscriptural views of christ's death. there are certain so called _modern_ views of the atonement which it may be well to examine briefly, if only to show how unscriptural they are. that the modern mind fails to see in the doctrine of the atonement what the orthodox faith has held for centuries to be the truth of god regarding this fundamental christian doctrine, there is certainly no doubt. to some minds today the death of jesus christ was but the death of a martyr, counted in the same category as the death of john huss or savonarola. or perchance christ's death was an exhibition to a sinful world of god's wondrous love. or it may be that christ, in his suffering of death, remains forever the sublime example of adherence to principles of righteousness and truth, even to the point of death. or, again, calvary may be an episode in god's government of the world. god, being holy, deemed it necessary to show to the world his hatred of sin, and so his wrath fell on christ. the modern mind does not consider christ's death as in any sense vicarious, or substitutionary. indeed, it fails to see the justice as well as the need or possibility of one man, and he so innocent, suffering for the sins of the whole race--past, present and future. every man must bear the penalty of his own sin, so we are told; from that there is no escape, unless, and it is fervently hoped and confidently expected, that god, whose wondrous love surpasses all human conception, should, as he doubtless will, overlook the eternal consequences of man's sin because of the great love wherewith he loves the race. the love of god is the hope of the race's redemption. what shall the christian church say to these things, and what shall be her reply? to the word of god must the church resort for her weapons in this warfare. if the so called modern mind and its doctrinal views agree with the scriptures, then the christian church may allow herself to be influenced by the spirit of the age. but if the modern mind and the scriptures do not agree in their results, then the church of christ must part company with the modern mind. here are some of the modern theories of the atonement: 1. the accident theory. briefly stated, this is the theory: the cross was something unforeseen in the life of christ. calvary was not in the plan of god for his son. christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as the death of any other martyr was unforeseen and unexpected. to this we reply: jesus was conscious all the time of his forthcoming death. he foretold it again and again. he was always conscious of the plots against his life. this truth is corroborated by the following scriptures: matt. 16-21; mark 9:30-32; matt. 20:17-19; luke 18:31-34; matt, 20:28; 26:2, 6, 24, 39-42; luke 22:19, 20. further, in john 10:17, 18 we have words which distinctly contradict this false theory: "therefore doth my father love me, because i lay down my life, that i might take it again. no man taketh it from me, but i lay it down of myself. i have power to lay it down, and i have power to take it again. this commandment have i received of my father." in addition to this we may make mention of the many, many references and prophecies of the old testament to the fact of christ's death. then there is christ's own testimony to the fact of his death being predicted and foretold by the prophets (luke 24:26, 27, 44). see also isa. 53; psa. 22; 69. 2. the martyr theory. it is as follows: christ's death was similar in kind to that of john huss, or polycarp, or any other noble man who has given up his life as a sacrifice for a principle and for truth. to this we reply: then christ should have so declared himself. paul should have said so. that word was used for other christian deaths, why not for christ's? then there is no mystery about the atonement, and the wonder is that paul should have said anything about the mystery. further, if christ died as a martyr he might, at least, have had the same comforting presence of god afforded other martyrs in the hour of their death. why should he be god-forsaken in that crucial hour? is it right that god should make the holiest man in all the ages the greatest sufferer, if that man were but a martyr? when you recall the shrinking of gethsemane, could you really--and we say it reverently--call jesus as brave a man facing death as many another martyr has been? why should christ's soul be filled with anguish (luke 22:39-46), while paul the apostle was exultant with joy (phil. 1:23)? stephen died a martyr's death, but paul never preached forgiveness through the death of stephen. such a view of christ's death may beget martyrs, but it can never save sinners. 3. the moral example theory. christ's death has an influence upon mankind for moral improvement. the example of his suffering ought to soften human hearts, and help a man to reform, repent, and better his condition. so god grants pardon and forgiveness on simple repentance and reformation. in the same way a drunkard might call a man his saviour by whose influence he was induced to become sober and industrious. but did the sight of his suffering move the jews to repentance? does it move men today? such a view of christ's death does not deal with the question with which it is always connected, viz., the question of sin. 4. the governmental theory. this means that the benevolence of god requires that he should make an example of suffering in christ in order to exhibit to man that sin is displeasing in his sight. god's government of the world necessitates that he show his wrath against sin. true, but we reply: why do we need an incarnation for the manifestation of that purpose? why not make a guilty, and not an absolutely innocent and guileless man such an example of god's displeasure upon sin? were there not men enough in existence? why create a new being for such a purpose? 5. the love of god theoey. he died to show men how much god loved them. men ever after would know the feeling of the heart of god toward them. true, the death of christ did show the great love of god for fallen man. but men did not need such a sacrifice to know that god loved them. they knew that before christ came. the old testament is full of the love of god. read psalm 103. the scriptures which speak of god's love as being manifested in the gift of his son, tell us also of another reason why he gave his son: "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (john 3:16); "herein is love, not that we loved god, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 john 4:10). we believe that christ's cross reveals the love of god, and that throughout all these ages men have been bowed in penitence as they have caught a vision of the one who hung thereon. but if you were to question the multitudes that have believed in god because of the cross, you would find that what moved them to repentance was not merely, if at all, certainly not primarily, that the cross revealed the love of god in a supreme way, but the fact that there at that cross god had dealt with the great and awful fact of sin, that the cross had forever removed it. "i examine all these views, beautiful as some of them are, appealing to the pride of man, but which leave out all thought of vicarious atonement, and say, 'but what shall be done with my sin? who shall put it away? where is its sacrifice? if without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, where is the shed blood?' these views are neat, measurable, occasionally pathetic, and frequently beautiful, but they do not include the agony of the whole occasion and situation. they are aspect theories, partial conceptions. they do not take in the whole temple from its foundation to its roof. no man must set up his judgment against that of another man in a dogmatic way, but he may, yea, he must, allow his heart to speak through his judgment; and in view of this liberty, i venture to say that all these theories of the atonement are as nothing, most certainly shallow and incomplete to me . . . . as i speak now, at this very moment, i feel that the christ on the cross is doing something for me, that his death is my life, his atonement my pardon, his crucifixion the satisfaction for my sin, that from calvary, that place of a skull, my flowers of peace and joy blossom forth, and that in the cross of christ i glory."--_joseph parker._ iv. the necessity of christ's death. the necessity of the atonement lay in a twofold fact: the holiness of god, and the sinfulness of man. the doctrine of the atonement is a related subject, and it cannot be properly understood unless it is viewed as such. it is related to certain conditions existing between god and man--a condition and relation which has been affected by sin. it is necessary, therefore, to know this relation and how it has been affected by sin. this relation between god and man is a personal one. no other construction can legitimately be put upon the passages setting forth this relationship. "_thou_ has searched _me_, and known _me_." "_i_ am continually with _thee_." it is, moreover, an ethical relationship, and that which is ethical is at the same time personal and universal, that is to say, that god's dealings with mankind are expressed in a moral constitution of universal and eternal validity. these relationships are disordered by sin. no matter how sin came to be here we are morally conscious, by the testimony of a bad conscience, that we are guilty, and that our sin is not merely a matter of personal guilt but a violation of a universal moral law. 1. the holiness of god. we should carefully note the emphasis laid upon the doctrine of god's holiness in the old testament (see under attributes of god, p. 37). the levitical law, the laws of clean and unclean, the tabernacle and the temple with its outer court, its holy and most holy place, the priestly order and the high priest, the bounds set around mt. sinai, things and persons that might not be touched without causing defilement, sacred times and seasons, these, and much more, speak in unmistakable terms of the holiness of god. we are thus taught that if sinful man is to approach unto god, it must be through the blood of atonement. the holiness of god demands that before the sinner can approach unto and have communion with him, some means of propitiation must be provided. this means of approach is set forth in the shed blood. 2. the sin of man. light and erroneous views of the atonement come from light and erroneous views of sin. if sin is regarded as merely an offence against man, a weakness of human nature, a mere disease, rather than as rebellion, transgression, and enmity against god, and therefore something condemning and punishable, we shall not, of course, see any necessity for the atonement. we must see sin as the bible depicts it, as something which brings wrath, condemnation, and eternal ruin in its train. we must see it as guilt that needs expiation. we must see sin as god sees it before we can denounce it as god denounces it. we confess sin today in such light and easy terms that it has almost lost its terror. in view of these two thoughts, the holiness of god and the sinfulness of man, the question naturally arises: how is the mercy of god to be manifested so that his holiness will not be compromised by his assuming a merciful attitude towards sinful men in the granting of forgiveness, pardon, justification? the answer is: the only way in which this can be done is by means of the atonement. 3. the fulfillment of the scriptures. we may add this third thought to the two already mentioned. there is a sense in which the atonement was necessary in order to the fulfillment of the predictions of the old testament--predictions inseparable from the person and work of the messiah. if jesus christ were the true messiah, then these predictions regarding his sufferings and death must be fulfilled in him (luke 24:25-27, 44; isa. 53; psa. 22; 69). v. the extent of christ's death. was the death of jesus christ for all mankind--for every human being in the world, or for man actually and ultimately regenerate only--the chosen church? was it for all mankind, irrespective of their relation to jesus christ, or must we limit the actual benefits of the atonement to those who are spiritually united to christ by faith? that the death of christ is intended to benefit all mankind seems clear from the following scriptures: isa. 53:6; 1 tim. 2:6; 1 john 2:2, cf. 2 cor. 5:19; rom. 14:15; 1 cor. 8:11. the scriptures, which to some seem to limit the effects of the atonement, are john 10:15, cf. vv 26, 29; eph. 5:25-27. certain it is that the doctrine of the atonement is presented in the scriptures as competent to procure and secure salvation for all. indeed, not only competent but efficacious to do this very thing. it might seem that there is an apparent contradiction in the above-named scriptures. the atonement, in its actual issue, should realize and actualize the eternal purpose of god, the which is set forth as a desire that all men should be saved and come to a saving knowledge of the truth as it is in jesus christ. this is testified to be the general and universal invitation of the scriptures to partake of the blessings of christ's death. thus the offer of the gospel to all is not a pretence but a reality on the part of god. the divine willingness that all men should share the benefits of the atonement is all-inclusive, and really means what is offered. yet on the other hand, we can not overlook the fact that, from another point of view the effects of the atonement--shall we say the _purpose_ of the atonement?--seems to be limited to the sphere of the the true church, so that only those who are really united to christ by faith actually share in the merits of the atonement. let us put it this way: "the atonement is _sufficient_ for all; it is _efficient_ for those who believe in christ." the atonement itself, so far as it lays the basis for the redemptive dealing of god with all men, is _unlimited_; the _application_ of the atonement is limited to those who actually believe in christ. he is the saviour of all men _potentially_ (1 tim. 1:15); of believers alone _effectually_ (1 tim. 4:10). the atonement is limited only by men's unbelief. 1. for the whole world. the scriptures set forth this fact in the following statements: "and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 john 2:2). christ's death was the ground on which god, who is absolutely holy, could deal with the whole race of men in mercy, and pardon their sins. john 1:29--"behold the lamb of god, which taketh away the sin of the world." not the sin of a few individuals, or of an elect race, like israel, but the sin of the whole world. this was a striking truth to reveal to a jew. 1 tim. 2:6--"who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." it is for this reason, as the context of this passage shows, that we may pray for all men. if all men were not capable of being saved, how then could we pray to that end? 2. for each individual man. this is but a detailed statement of the fact that he died for the whole world. not a single individual man, woman, or child is excluded from the blessings offered in the atonement. heb. 2:9--"but we see jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of god should taste death for every man." leo the great (461) affirmed that "so precious is the shedding of christ's blood for the unjust, that if the whole universe of captives would believe in the redeemer, no chain of the devil could hold them." general booth once said: "friends, jesus shed his precious blood to pay the price of salvation, and bought from god enough salvation to go around." 3. for the sinful, unjust, and ungodly. sinners of all sorts, degrees, and conditions may have a share in the redemptive work of christ. greece invited only the cultured, rome sought only the strong, judea bid for the religious only. jesus christ bids all those that are weary and heavy-hearted and over-burdened to come to him (matt. 11:28). rom. 5:6-10--"christ died for the ungodly...while we were yet sinners, christ died for us...when we were enemies, we were reconciled to god by the death of his son." 1 pet. 3:18--"for christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." christ died for _sinners_--those in open opposition to god; for the _unjust_--those who openly violate god's laws; for the _ungodly_--those who violently and brazenly refuse to pay their dues of prayer, worship, and service to god; for _enemies_ --those who are constantly fighting god and his cause. for all of these christ died. 1 tim. 1:15--"christ jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom i am chief." paul was a _blasphemer_, a _persecutor_, _injurious_ (v. 13), a _murderer_ (acts 22 and 26), yet god saved him; he was included in the atonement. note also that it is in this very connection that the apostle declares that the reason god saved him was in order that his salvation might be a pattern, or an encouragement to other great sinners, that god could and would save them, if they desired him to do so. 4. for the church. there is a peculiar sense in which it may be said that christ's death is for the church, his body, the company of those who believe in him. there is a sense in which it is perfectly true that christ's death avails only for those who believe in him; so in that sense it can be said that he died for the church more particularly. he is "the saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 tim. 4:10). herein lies the truth that is contained in the theory of a limited atonement. eph. 5:25-27--"christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." not for any one particular denomination; not for any one organization within any four walls; but for all those whom he calls to himself and who follow him here. gal. 2:20--"the son of god, who loved me, and gave himself for me." here the individual member of the church, the body of christ, is specifically mentioned as being included in the efficacy of the atonement. when luther first realized this particular phase of the atonement, he was found sobbing beneath a crucifix, and moaning: "mein gott, mein gott, fur mich! fur mich!" 1 cor. 8:11--"and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom christ died?" also rom. 14:15. note the connection in which this truth is taught. if christ was willing to die for the weak brother--whom we, perchance, sneer at for his conscientious scruples--we ought to be willing to deny ourselves of some habit for his sake. how all-inclusive, all-comprehensive, far-reaching is the death of christ in its effects! not a few, but many shall be saved. he gave his life a ransom for _many_. god's purposes in the atonement shall not be frustrated. christ shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. many shall come from the north, the south, the east and the west and sit down in the kingdom. in that great day it will be seen (rev. 7:9-15). vi. the effects of christ's death. 1. in relation to the physical or material universe. just as the material universe was in some mysterious manner affected by the fall of man (rom. 8:19-23, r. v.), so also is it affected by the death of jesus christ, which is intended to neutralize the effect of sin upon the creation. there is a cosmical effect in the atonement. the christ of paid is larger than the second adam--the head of a new humanity; he is also the center of a universe which revolves around him, and is in some mysterious way reconciled by his death. just how this takes place we may not be able definitely to explain. col. 1:20--"and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, i say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." some day there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 pet. 3:13). see also heb. 9:23, 24; isa. 11 and 35. 2. in relation to the world of men. a) the enmity existing between god and man is removed: rom. 5:10; col. 1:20-22. for explanation, see under scriptural definition of the atonement ((ii.3, p. 72). the ground of enmity between god and man--whether in the active or passive sense of _reconciliation_--is removed by christ's death. the world of mankind is, through the atonement, reconciled to god. b) a propitiation for the world's sin has been provided: 1 john 2:2; 4:10. see under propitiation (ii. 2, p. 71). the propitiation reaches as far as does the sin. c) satan's power over the race has been neutralized: john 12:31, 32--"now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. and i, if i be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." also john 16:9, 10; col. 2:10. the lifting up of christ on the cross meant the casting down of satan. satan no longer holds undisputed sway over the sons of men. the power of darkness has been broken. man need no longer be the slave of sin and satan. d) the question of the world's sin is settled: it need no longer stand as a barrier between god and man. strictly speaking, it is not now so much of a _sin_ question as it is a _son_ question; not, what shall be done with my sin? but, what shall i do with jesus, which is called christ? the sins of the old testament saints, which during all the centuries had been held, as it were, in abeyance, were put away at the cross (rom. 3:25, 26). sins present and future were also dealt with at the cross. by the sacrifice of himself, christ forever put away sin (heb. 9:26). e) the claims of a broken law have been met, and the curse resting upon man because of a broken law removed. col. 2:14--"blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." thus every claim of the holy law of god, which sinful man had violated, had been met. gal. 3:13--"christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." (see v. 10 for the description of the curse.) the wages of sin, and the curse of sin, is death. christ by his death on the cross, paid that debt, and removed that curse. f) justification, adoption, sanctification, access to god, an inheritance, and the removal of all fear of death--all this is included in the effect of the death of christ in the behalf of the believer. rom. 5:9; gal. 4:3-5; heb. 10:10; 10:19, 20; 9:15; 2:14, 15. how comforting, how strengthening, how inspiring are these wonderful aspects of the effects of the death of our lord and saviour, jesus christ! 3. the effect of christ's death on satan. see under c) above. the devil must submit to the victory of christ. the dominion of satan, so far as the believer in christ is concerned, is now at an end: his dominion over the disobedient sons of men, too, will soon be at an end. christ's death was the pronouncement of satan's doom; it was the loss of his power over men. the power of the devil, while not yet absolutely destroyed, has been neutralized (heb. 2:14). the evil principalities and powers, and satan himself, did their worst at the cross, but there they received their deathblow (col. 2:14, 15). the resurrection of jesus christ. i. its important place in the christian religion. 1. it holds a unique place in christianity. christianity is the only religion that bases its claim to acceptance upon the resurrection of its founder. for any other religion to base its claim on such a doctrine would be to court failure. test all other religions by this claim and see. 2. it is fundamental to christianity. in that wonderful chapter on the resurrection (1 cor. 15) paul makes christianity answer with its life for the literal truth of the resurrection of jesus christ. that the body of the founder of the christian religion did not lie in the grave after the third day is fundamental to the existence of the religion of christ: "and if christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (v. 14). "if christ be not raised . . . ye are yet in your sins" (v. 17). "then they also which are fallen asleep in christ are perished" (v.18). remove the resurrection from paul's gospel, and his message is gone. the resurrection of jesus christ is not an appendage to paul's gospel; it is a constitutive part of it. the importance of this doctrine is very evident from the prominent part it played in the preaching of the apostles: peter--acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 1 peter 1:21, 23. paul--acts 13:30, 34; 17:31; 1 cor. 15; phil. 3:21. it was belief in such preaching that led to the establishment of the christian church. belief in the resurrection of christ was the faith of the early church (acts 4:33). the testimony to this great fact of christian faith was borne in the midst of the fiercest opposition. nor was it controverted, although the grave was well known and could have been pointed out. it was in this fact that christianity acquired a firm basis for its historical development. there was not only an "easter message," there was also an "easter faith." our lord's honor was, in a sense, staked upon the fact of his resurrection. so important did he regard it that he remained forty days upon the earth after his resurrection, giving many infallible proofs of the great fact. he appealed to it again and again as evidence of the truth of his claims: matt. 12:39, 40; john 2:20-22. both the friends and the enemies of christianity admit that the resurrection of jesus christ is vital to the religion that bears his name. the christian confidently appeals to it as an incontrovertible fact; the sceptic denies it altogether as a historical reality. "if the resurrection really took place," says an assailant of it, "then christianity must be admitted to be what it claims to be--a direct revelation from god." "if christ be not risen," says the apostle paul, "then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." the one tries all he can to do away with the proofs submitted for the accepted fact; the other plainly says that if the resurrection cannot be believed, then christianity is nothing but a sham. if the resurrection of christ can be successfully denied, if it can be proven to be absolutely untrue, then the whole fabric of the gospel falls to pieces, the whole structure of the christian religion is shaken at its foundation, and the very arch of christianity crumbles into dust. then it has wrought only imaginary changes, deluded its most faithful adherents, deceived and disappointed the hopes of its most devoted disciples, and the finest moral achievements that adorn the pages of the history of the christian church have been based upon a falsehood. nor must we ignore the prominent place the resurrection of jesus christ occupies in the scriptures. more than one hundred times is it spoken of in the new testament alone. ii. the nature of the resurrection of jesus christ. 1. jesus christ actually died. some who disbelieve in the resurrection of christ assert that jesus merely swooned, and that pitying hands took him down from the cross, thinking that he had died. the cool air of the tomb in which he was placed revived him, so that he came forth from the tomb as though he had really risen from the dead. the disciples believed that he had really died and risen again. this theory is false for the following reasons: jesus christ appeared to the disciples after the third day, not as a weak, suffering, half-dead man, but as a conquering, triumphant victor over death and the grave. he never could have made the impression upon the disciples that he did, if he had presented the picture of a sick, half-dead man. from john 19:33-37 we learn that when the soldiers pierced the side of christ, _there came forth blood and water_. physiologists and physicists agree that such a condition of the vital organs, including the heart itself, precludes the idea of a mere swoon, and proves conclusively that death had taken place. joseph of arimathaea asked permission to bury the body of jesus because he knew that jesus had been pronounced dead (matt. 27:57, 58). when the news was brought to pilate that christ had died, it is said that "pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. and when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to joseph" (mark 15:44, 45). the women brought spices to anoint a dead body, not a half-dead christ (mark 16:1). the soldiers pronounced him dead: "but when they came to jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs" (john 19:33). jesus christ himself, he who is the truth, testifies to the fact that he had really died: rev. 1:18--"i am he that liveth, and was dead." 2. the fact that christ's body was actually raised from the dead. the resurrection of christ is not a spiritual resurrection, nor were his appearances to the disciples spiritual manifestations. he appeared to his disciples in a bodily form. the body that was laid in joseph's tomb came forth on that first easter morn twenty centuries ago. some maintain that it is not vital to belief in the resurrection of christ that we insist on a literal resurrection of the body of jesus; all that we need to insist on is that christ was ever afterwards known to be the victor over death, and that he had the power of an endless life. so it comes to pass that we have what is called an "easter message," as contrasted with an "easter faith" which believes in the literal resurrection of jesus christ from the dead. "faith has by no means to do with the knowledge of the form in which jesus lives, but only with the conviction that he is the living lord."--_harnack_ in _what is christianity?_ according to this theory, belief in christ's resurrection means nothing more than belief in the survival of the soul of jesus--that somehow or other jesus was alive, and lived with god, while his body yet saw corruption in the grave. we reply: this cannot be, for all the facts in the gospel narratives contradict such a theory. let us examine these narratives. a) we are confronted by the fact of an empty tomb. matt. 28:6; mark 16:6; luke 24:3, 12; john 20:1, 2. the fact that the tomb was empty is testified to by competent witnesses --both friends and enemies: by the women, the disciples, the angels, and the roman guards. how shall we account for the absence of the body of jesus from the tomb? that it had not been stolen by outside parties is evident from the testimony of the soldiers who were bribed to tell that story (matt. 28:11-15). such a guard never would have allowed such a thing to take place. their lives would have been thereby jeopardized. and if they were asleep (v. 13), how could they know what took place? their testimony under such circumstances would be useless. the condition in which the linen cloths were found lying by those who entered the tomb precludes the possibility of the body being stolen. had such been the case the cloths would have been taken with the body, and not left in perfect order, thereby showing that the body had gone out of them. burglars do not leave things in such perfect order. there is no order in haste. then again, we have the testimony of angels to the fact that jesus had really risen as foretold (matt. 28:6; mark 16:6). the testimony of angels is surely trustworthy (heb. 2:2). b) there are other resurrections mentioned in the gospel records which were undoubtedly bodily resurrections. matt. 9:18-26; luke 7:11-18; john 11:1-44. these incidents throw light upon the resurrection of jesus. why did the officers say that they were afraid "that his disciples should come by night and steal him away" if they did not refer to the _body_ of jesus? they surely could not steal his soul. c) those who saw him after the resurrection recognized him as having the same body as he had before, even to the wound prints. john 20:27; luke 24:37-39. it is true that there were occasions on which he was not recognizable by the disciples, but such occasions were the result of the eyes of the disciples being holden in order that they might not know him. there was divine intervention on these occasions. does christ still retain the prints of the nails? is he still the lamb as though it had been slain? (rev. 5 and 6). d) there can be no doubt of the fact that the apostle paul believed in the bodily resurrection of christ. the corinthians, to whom the apostle wrote that wonderful treatise on the resurrection (1 cor. 15), were not spending their time denying a _spiritual_ resurrection; nor was the apostle spending his time trying to produce convincing arguments for a _spiritual_ resurrection. (see also rom. 8:11.) e) it is clear also from christ's own testimony before and after the resurrection. matt. 17:23; luke 24:39; rev. 1:18. no other construction can legitimately be put upon these words than that christ here refers to the resurrection of his body. f) the apostolic testimony corroborates this fact. acts 2:24-32; 1 pet. 1:3, 21; 3:21. peter was at the tomb; he it was who stepped inside and saw the linen cloths lying. his testimony ought to be beyond question as to the fact at issue. g) the record of the appearances of christ prove a literal, physical resurrection. matt. 28:9, 10; john 20:14-18, cf. mark 16:9; luke 24:13-32; john 21, etc. all these appearances bear witness to the fact that it was not an incorporeal spirit or phantom, but a real, bodily christ that they saw. he could be seen, touched, handled; he was recognizable; he ate and drank in their presence. h) lastly, many passages in the scriptures would be unintelligible except on the ground of a bodily resurrection of jesus christ from the grave. rom. 8:11, 23; eph. 1:19, 20; phil. 3:20, 21; 1 thess. 4:13-17. 3. the nature of the resurrection body of christ. a) it was a real body; not a ghost, nor a phantom. that the resurrection body of jesus was not a phantom, but a body composed of "flesh and bones" is evident from luke 24:36-43. it could be "touched" (john 20:20), and bore the marks of his passion (john 20:24-29). the likeness to his earthly body was not wholly parted with. [note: does this throw any light on the matter of recognition in heaven? has jesus christ still this body in the glory? shall we know him by the prints?] b) yet the body of jesus was more than a mere natural body. it bore marks and possessed attributes which proclaimed a relation to the celestial or supra-terrestrial sphere. for example: it could pass through barred doors (john 20:19), thus transcending physical limitations. it was not recognizable at times (luke 24: 13-16; john 20:14, 15; 21:4, 12; mark 16:12). this fact may be accounted for in two ways: first, supernaturally--their eyes were holden; second, that in that risen life the spiritual controls the material rather than as here, the material the spiritual; so that the spirit could change the outward form of the body at will and at any given time. [yet, note how jesus had power to make himself known by little acts, such as the breaking of the bread, and the tone of his voice. do we carry these little characteristics into the other life? shall we know our loved ones by these things?] then again, jesus was able to vanish out of sight of his friends (luke 24:31; john 20:19, 26; luke 24:51; acts 1:9). and so he could be in different places at very short intervals of time. can we explain these facts? no, not fully. yet we must not be so material as to totally disbelieve them. "daily, indeed, are men being forced to recognize that the world holds more mysteries than they formerly imagined it to do. probably physicists are not so sure of the impenetrability of matter, or even of the conservation of energy, as they once were; and newer speculations on the etheric basis of matter, and on the relation of the seen to the unseen universe (or universes) with forces and laws largely unknown, open up vistas of possibility which may hold in them the key to phenomena even as extraordinary as those in question."--_james orr_. c) christ's resurrection body was immortal. not only is it true that christ's body has not seen death since his resurrection, but it cannot die again. rom. 6:9, 10; rev. 1:18, cf. luke 20:36. [the lesson for us from this: christ is the first-fruits (1 cor. 15:20).] iii. the credibility of the resurrection of christ. credibility refers to the acceptance of a fact in a manner that deserves belief; it is belief based upon good authority, reliable facts, and competent witnesses. credulity is belief in a thing without respect to the strength or weakness, reliability or unreliability of the authority, facts, or witnesses; it is a believing too readily, and with no reason for the faith or hope. the resurrection of christ is a fact proven by competent evidence, and deserving of intelligent acceptance and belief. it is a doctrine buttressed by "many infallible proofs." the lines of proof for the credibility of christ's resurrection which may be followed in harmony with our purpose are as follows: 1. the argument from cause and effect. certain things, conditions, institutions exist in our midst today; they are effects of causes, or a cause; what is that cause? among these we may mention-a) the empty tomb. that was an effect; what was its cause? how did that grave become empty? (see under ii. a), p. 87). the fact of an empty tomb must be accounted for. how do we account for it? renan, the french sceptic, wittingly said, and yet how truly: "you christians live on the fragrance of an empty tomb." b) the lord's day. the lord's day is not the original sabbath. who dared change it? for what reason, and on what ground was it changed? ponder the tenacity with which the jews held on to their sabbath given in eden, and buttressed amid the thunders of sinai. recall how jews would sooner die than fight on the sabbath day (cf. titus' invasion of jerusalem on the sabbath). the jews never celebrated the birthdays of great men; they celebrated events, like the passover. yet, in the new testament times we find jews changing their time-honored seventh day to the first day of the week, and, contrary to all precedent, calling that day after a man--the lord's day. here is an effect, a tremendous effect; what was its cause? we cannot have an effect without a cause. the resurrection of our lord was the cause for this great change in the day of worship. c) the christian church. we know what a grand and noble institution the christian church is. what would this world be without it? its hymns, worship, philanthropy, ministrations of mercy are all known to us. where did this institution come from? it is an effect, a glorious effect; what is its cause? when the risen christ appeared unto the discouraged disciples and revived their faith and hope, they went forth, under the all-conquering faith in a risen and ascended lord, and preached the story of his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and coming again. men believed these teachings; gathered themselves together to study the scriptures, to pray, to worship christ, and to extend his kingdom among men. this is how the church came into existence. its cause was the resurrection of christ. d) the new testament. if jesus christ had remained buried in the grave, the story of his life and death would have remained buried with him. the new testament is an effect of christ's resurrection. it was the resurrection that put heart into the disciples to go forth and tell its story. sceptics would have us believe that the resurrection of christ was an afterthought of the disciples to give the story of christ's life a thrilling climax, a decorative incident which satisfies the dramatic feeling in man, a brilliant picture at the end of an heroic life. we reply: there would have been no beautiful story to put a climax to if there had been no resurrection of the christ of the story. the resurrection does not grow out of the beautiful story of his life, but the beautiful story of christ's life grew out of the fact of the resurrection. the new testament is the book of the resurrection. 2. the argument from testimony. a) as to the number of the witnesses. the resurrection of christ as a historical fact is verified by a sufficient number of witnesses: over five hundred (1 cor. 15:3-9). in our courts, one witness is enough to establish murder; two, high treason; three, the execution of a will; seven, an oral will. seven is the greatest number required under our law. christ's resurrection had five hundred and fourteen. is not this a sufficient number? b) as to the character of the witnesses. the value of the testimony of a witness depends much upon his character; if that is impeached, then the testimony is discounted. scrutinize carefully the character of the men who bore witness to the fact of christ's resurrection. impeach them if you can. they are unassailable on ethical grounds. "no honorable opponent of the gospel has ever denied this fact. their moral greatness awakened an augustine, a francis of assisi, and a luther. they have been the unrivalled pattern of all mature and moral manhood for nearly two thousand years." in law much is made of the question of _motive_. what motive could the apostles have had in perpetrating the story of christ's resurrection upon people? every one of them (except one) died a martyr's death for his loyalty to the story of christ's resurrection. what had they to gain by fraud? would they have sacrificed their lives for what they themselves believed to be an imposture? nor are we to slight the testimony to christ's resurrection that comes to us from sources other than that of the inspired writers of the new testament. ignatius, a christian, and a contemporary of christ, a martyr for his faith in christ, in his _letter to the philadelphians_, says: "christ truly suffered, as he also truly raised up himself. i _know_ that after the resurrection he was in the flesh, and i believe him to be so still. and when he came to those who were with peter, he said to them, 'take, handle me, and see that i am not an incorporeal phantom!'" tertullian, in his _apolegeticus_, says: "the fame of our lord's remarkable resurrection and ascension being now spread abroad, pontius pilate, according to an ancient custom of communicating novel occurrences to the emperor, that nothing might escape him, transmitted to tiberius, emperor of rome, an account of the resurrection of our lord from the dead...tiberius referred the whole matter to the senate, who, being unacquainted with the facts, rejected it." the integrity of this passage is unquestioned by even the most sceptical critics. alleged discrepancies. [footnote: the following extract from dr. orr's book, _the resurrection of jesus_, will throw some light on the matter of differences in testimony, while maintaining the credibility of the fact itself. "an instructive example is furnished in a recent issue of the _bibliotheca sacra_. a class in history was studying the french revolution, and the pupils were asked to look the matter up, and report next day by what vote louis xvi was condemned. nearly half the class reported that the vote was unanimous. a considerable number protested that he was condemned by a majority of one. a few gave the majority as 145 in a vote of 721. how utterly irreconcilable these reports seemed! yet for each the authority of reputable historians could be given. in fact, all were true, and the full truth was a combination of all three. on the first vote as to the king's guilt there was no contrary voice. some tell only of this. the vote on the penalty was given individually, with reasons, and a majority of 145 declared for the death penalty, at once or after peace was made with austria, or after confirmation by the people. the votes for immediate death were only 361 as against 360. history abounds with similar illustrations. as an example of another kind, reference may be made to rev. r. j. campbell's volume of _sermons addressed to individuals_, where, on pp. 145-6 and pp. 181-2, the same story of a brighton man is told with affecting dramatic details. the story is no doubt true in substance; but for 'discrepancies'--let the reader compare them, and never speak more (or mr. campbell either) of the gospels!"] the seeming differences in the testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection may be largely, if not altogether reconciled by a correct knowledge of the manner and order of the _appearances_ of christ after his resurrection. the following order of appearances may help in the understanding of the testimony to the resurrection: 1. the women at the grave see the vision of angels. 2. the women separate at the grave to make known the news --mary magdalene going to tell peter and john, who doubtless lived close by (for it seems that they reached the grave in a single run). the other women go to tell the other disciples who, probably, were at bethany. 3. peter and john, hearing the news, run to the grave, leaving mary. they then return home. 4. mary follows; lingers at the grave; gets vision of the master, and command to go tell the disciples. 5. the other women see christ on the way. 6. christ appears to the two on the way to emmaus. 7. to simon peter. 8. to the ten apostles, and other friends. 9. to the apostles at tiberias. 10. to the apostles and multitude on the mount. 11. to the disciples and friends at the ascension. 12. to james (1 cor. 15:7). 13. to paul (1 cor. 15:8). iv. the results of the resurrection of jesus christ. 1. as to jesus christ himself. rom. 1:4--"and declared to be the son of god with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." to "declare" means to mark off, to define, to set apart (acts 10:42; heb. 4:7). note: christ was not _made_ the son of god by the resurrection, but _declared_ such. had christ remained in the grave as other men had done, there would then have been no reasonable ground to impose faith in him. the empty tomb testifies to the deity of christ. matt. 18:38-42; john 2:13-22. in these scriptures jesus christ bases his authority for his teaching and the truth of all his claims on his resurrection from the dead. (cf. under i. 2, in this chapter, p. 84.) see also matt. 28:6--"risen, as he said." 2. as to the believer in jesus christ. a) assures him of his acceptance with god. rom. 4:25--"who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." so long as christ lay in the grave there was no assurance that his redemptive work had been acceptable to god. the fact that god raised jesus from the dead was evidence that the father was satisfied with the sacrifice christ had made for the sins of men. "of righteousness, because i go unto my father" (john 16:10). believing sinners may now rest satisfied that in him they are justified. this thought is illustrated by the picture of the jews waiting outside the temple for the coming out of the high priest (luke 1:21), thereby indicating that their sacrifice had been accepted. b) assures of him an interceding high priest in the heavens. rom. 8:34--"who is he that condemneth? it is christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of god, who also maketh intercession for us." also heb. 7:25. salvation was not completed at the cross; there is still need of daily forgiveness, and so of the continual presenting of the shed blood before the mercy-seat. the accusations of satan still need to be answered (zec. 3:1-5; job 1 and 2; heb. 7:25). we need a moses, not only to deliver us from bondage, but also to plead for us and intercede for us because of our sins committed in the wilderness journey. herein is our assurance of forgiveness of sins committed after conversion--that our great high priest is always heard (john 11:42), and that he prays constantly for us that our faith fail not (luke 22:32). our temporary falls shall not condemn us, for our priest intercedes for us. c) assures him of all needed power for life and service. eph. 1:19-22--"the exceeding greatness of his power . . . which he wrought in christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, . . . and gave him to be the head over all things to the church." also phil. 3:10. there are two standards in the bible by which god's power is gauged: in the old testament, when god would have his people know the extent of his power, it is according to the power by which he brought israel out of egypt (micah 7:15); in the new testament, the unit of measurement of god's power is "according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in christ . . . when he raised him from the dead." the connection of phil. 3:10 gives the believer the promise and assurance not only of present power and victory, but also of future glorification. if we desire to know what god is able to do for and through us we are invited to look at the resurrection of jesus christ. d) the assurance of his own resurrection and immortality. 1 thess. 4:14--"for if we believe that jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in jesus will god bring with him." 2 cor. 4:14--"knowing that he which raised up the lord jesus shall raise up us also by jesus, and shall present us with you." john 14:19--"because i live, ye shall live also." 3. as to the world. a) the certainty of a resurrection. 1 cor. 15:22--"as in adam all die; even so in christ shall all be made alive." paul is here discussing a _bodily,_ and not a _spiritual_, resurrection (see under ii. 2 d), p. 88). as in adam all men die physically, so in christ all men are raised physically. the resurrection of jesus christ guarantees the resurrection of all men (see under resurrection, p. 245). b) the certainty of a judgment day. acts 17:31--"because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." the resurrection of christ is god's unfailing testimony to the fact of a coming day of judgment for the world. the one is as sure as the other. the ascension and exaltation of jesus christ. i. the meaning of these terms. when we speak of the _ascension_ of christ we refer to that event in the life of our risen lord in which he departed visibly from his disciples into heaven. this event is recorded in acts 1:9-11--"this same jesus which is taken up from you into heaven," etc. by the _exaltation_ of jesus christ we mean that act of god by which the risen and ascended christ is given the place of power at the right hand of god. phil. 2:9--"wherefore god also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name." eph. 1:20, 21--"which he (god) wrought in christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power." see also heb. 1:3. ii. the scriptural data for the doctrine. foregleams of this truth were granted to the prophets of the old testament times, psa. 110:1; 68:18. they saw christ in prophetic vision not only as the meek and lowly one, but as the ascended and glorified lord. our lord himself, on many occasions, foretold his ascension and exaltation. these events were constantly before his mind's eye: luke 9:51; john 6:62; 20:17. the new testament writers record the event: mark 16:19; luke 24:51; john 3:13; acts 1:9-11; eph. 4:8-10; heb. 10:12. stephen, in his dying moments, was granted a vision of the exalted christ. he saw the "son of man standing on the right hand of god" (acts 7:55, 36). the apostles taught and preached these great truths: peter, acts 2:33, 34; 5:31; 1 peter 3:22. paul: eph. 4:8-10; heb. 4:14; 1 tim. 3:16. iii. the necessity of the ascension and exaltation of jesus christ. the nature of the resurrection body of our lord necessitated his ascension and exaltation. such a body could not be subject to ordinary laws; it could not permanently abide here. christ's unique personality also required such an exit from the world. should not the exit of christ from this world be as unique as his entrance into it? then, again, consider the sinlessness of his life. if a miraculous exit was granted to men like elijah and enoch, who were sinful men, why should we marvel if such was granted to christ? indeed it seems perfectly natural, and quite in keeping with his whole life that just such an event as the ascension and exaltation should form a fitting finish to such a wonderful career. the ascension and exaltation were necessary to complete the redemptive work of christ. his work was not finished when he arose from the dead. he had not yet presented the blood of the atonement in the presence of the father; nor had he yet been given his place at the right hand of the father as the bestower of all spiritual gifts, and especially the gift of the holy spirit. the apostles were thus able to furnish to an unbelieving and inquisitive world a satisfactory account of the disappearance of the body of christ which had been placed in the tomb, and which they claimed to have seen after the resurrection. "where is your christ?" the scoffing world might ask. "we saw him ascend up into the heaven, and he is now at the father's right hand," the apostles could reply. it was further necessary in order that christ might become an ideal object of worship for the whole human race. we should not forget that christ's earthly ministry was a purely local one: he could be but in one place at a time. those who worshipped at his feet in jerusalem could not, at the same time, worship him in any other place. this was the lesson, doubtless, that the master desired to teach mary when she would fain hold on to him, and when he said, "touch me not." mary must worship now by faith, not by sight. iv. the nature of the ascension and exaltation of jesus christ. 1. it was a bodily and visible ascension. acts 1:9-11; luke 24:51. it was the same christ they had known in life, only glorified, who had tarried with them now for the space of forty days, who had delivered unto them certain commandments, and whose hands were even then outstretched in blessing that they saw slowly vanishing from their view up into the heavens. it was a body of flesh and bones, not flesh and blood. so will be our translation (1 cor. 15:51, 52). 2. he passed up through the heavens. heb. 4:14 (r. v.); eph. 4:10; heb. 7:26. whatever and how many created heavens there may be between the earth and the dwelling place of god, we may not know, but we are here told that christ passed through them all, and up to the highest heaven, indeed was made higher than the heavens. this means that he overcame all those evil principalities and powers that inhabit these heavenlies (eph. 6) and who doubtless tried their best to keep him from passing through the heavens to present his finished work before the father. just as the high priest passed through the vail into the holy place, so christ passed through the heavens into the presence of god. 3. he took his place at the right hand of the father. he was exalted to the right hand of god. eph. 1:20--"set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power." col. 3:1--"christ sitteth on the right hand of god." this place was not taken by christ without conflict with these evil principalities and powers. but "he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (col. 2:15). see also acts 5:31. what is meant by "the right hand of god"? is it a definite place, or is it simply a figure of speech denoting a place of authority and power? why can not both things be included? god has his dwelling place in heaven, and it is not incredible to believe that from the throne there christ exercises his divine prerogatives. stephen saw christ standing at the right hand of god in heaven. the "right hand of god" assuredly indicates the place of the accuser whom christ casts out (zec. 3:1; rev. 12:10); the place of intercession which christ now occupies (rom. 8:34); the place of acceptance where the intercessor now sits (psa. 110:1); the place of highest power and richest blessing (gen. 48:13-19); the place of power (psa. 110:5). all these powers and prerogatives are christ's by reason of his finished work of redemption. v. the purpose of the ascension and exaltation of jesus christ. 1. he has entered heaven as a forerunner. heb. 6:20--"whither the forerunner is for us entered, even jesus." the forerunner is one who enters into a place where the rest are to follow; one who is sent before to make observations; a scout, a spy. the levitical high priest was not a forerunner; no one could follow him. but where christ goes his people may go also. 2. he has gone to prepare a place for his people. heb. 9:21-24; john 14:2. he is there making all necessary preparations for the coming of his bride, the church. in some way it seems that the heavenly sanctuary had been defiled by sin. it was necessary, therefore, that christ purge it with his blood. what a home that will be if he prepares it! 3. he is now appearing before god in our behalf. heb. 9:24--"to appear in the presence of god for us." he is there to act as high priest in our behalf; to present the blood of atonement. "before the throne my surety stands." and yet not so much before the throne as on the throne. he is the kingly priest. with authority he asks, and his petitions are granted. 4. he has taken his place at the father's right hand that he may fill all things, awaiting the day when he shall have universal dominion. eph. 4:10. he fills all things with his presence, with his work, with himself. he is not a local christ any longer (cf. jer. 23:24). heb. 10:12, 13; acts 3:20, 21--"he shall send jesus christ . . . . whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things." having won his victory, christ is now waiting for all the spoils to be gathered. he is expecting, not doubting, but assuredly waiting; already his feet are upon the neck of the enemy. the apocalypse pictures christ entering upon the actual possession of his kingdom. vi. the results of the ascension and exaltation of jesus christ. 1. it assures us of a free and confident access into the presence of god. heb. 4:14-16 (r. v.)--"having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, jesus the son of god, let us hold fast our confession. . . . . let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace." our great high priest is before the throne to present petitions, secure pardons for his people, and to communicate blessings in answer to their faith and prayers. we may have a free and fearless confidence in our approach to god. 2. an assured hope of immortality. 2 cor. 5:1-8 describes the longing of the christian to be clothed with a body after he has been called upon to lay aside this earthly tabernacle. he has no desire for a bodiless existence. the ascension and exaltation of christ assures the believer that as christ, so he also will take his place in heaven with a body like unto christ's own glorious body. 3. it gives the believer confidence in god's providence to believe that all things are working together for his good seeing that christ, the believer's head, is exalted far above all things in heaven and earth, it is possible for the believer to be master of circumstances, and superior to all his environment (eph. 1:22; cf. col. 1:15-18). 4. christ has been made head over all things for the church. that is to say, that everything is subject to christ, and that for the church's sake. eph. 1:22 (r. v.)--"and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church." christ is the fullness of the father for the church (col. 1:19; 2:9, 10). christ bestows the holy spirit upon the church (acts 2:33-36; john 7:37-39). he receives for, and bestows upon the church spiritual gifts (eph. 4:8-12). the doctrine of the holy spirit i. the personality of the holy spirit. 1. personal names given to the spirit. 2. personal pronouns used of the spirit. 3. the spirit associated with the father and the son. 4. the spirit possesses personal characteristics. 5. personal acts are ascribed to the holy spirit. 6. the spirit is subject to personal treatment. ii. the deity of the holy spirit. 1. divine names are given to the spirit. 2. divine attributes. 3. divine works. 4. name of the spirit associated with names of the deity. 5. comparison of old testament passages with some in the new testament. iii. the names of the holy spirit. 1. the holy spirit. 2. the spirit of grace. 3. the spirit of burning. 4. the spirit of truth. 5. the spirit of life. 6. the spirit of wisdom and knowledge. 7. the spirit of promise. 8. the spirit of glory. 9. the spirit of god and of christ. iv. the work of the holy spirit. 1. in relation to the world. a) the universe. b) the world of mankind. 2. in relation to the believer. 3. in relation to the scriptures. 4. in relation to jesus christ. v. offences against the holy spirit. 1. by the sinner. a) resisting. b) insulting. c) blaspheming. 2. by the believer. a) grieving. b) lying to. c) quenching. the doctrine of the holy spirit. we are living in the age of the spirit. the old testament period may be called the age of the father; the period covered by the gospels, the age of the son; from pentecost until the second advent of christ, the age of the spirit. all matters pertaining to the doctrine of the holy spirit should, therefore, be of special interest to us who live in this age of special privilege. yet how ignorant is the average christian concerning matters pertaining to the spirit. the christian church today needs to heed paul's exhortation: "now concerning spiritual gifts (or, perhaps better, "matters pertaining to the spirit"), i would not have you ignorant." may it not be that the reason why the sin against the holy spirit is so grievous is because it is a sin committed in the light and with the knowledge of the clearest and fullest revelation of the godhead. we cannot, therefore, afford to remain in ignorance of this all-important doctrine. i. the personality of the holy spirit. it seems strange that it should be necessary to discuss this phase of the subject at all. indeed, in the light of the last discourse of the master (john 14-16), it seems superfluous, if not really insulting. during all the ages of the christian era, however, it has been necessary to emphasize this phase of the doctrine of the spirit (cf. arianism, socinianism, unitarianism). 1. why is the personality of the holy spirit questioned? a) because, as contrasted with the other persons of the godhead, the spirit seems impersonal. the visible creation makes the personality of god the father somewhat easy to conceive; the incarnation makes it almost, if not altogether, impossible to disbelieve in the personality of jesus christ; but the acts and workings of the holy spirit are so secret and mystical, so much is said of his influence, graces, power and gifts, that we are prone to think of him as an influence, a power, a manifestation or influence of the divine nature, an agent rather than a person. b) because of the names given to the holy spirit. he is called _breath, wind, power._ the symbols used in speaking of the spirit are _oil, fire, water,_ etc. see john 3:5-8; acts 2:1-4; john 20:22; 1 john 2:20. it is not strange that in view of all this some students of the scriptures may have been led to believe, erroneously of course, that the holy spirit is an impersonal influence emanating from god the father. c) because the holy spirit is not usually associated with the father and the son in the greetings and salutation of the new testament. for illustration, see 1 thess. 3:11--"now god himself and our father, and our lord jesus christ, direct our way unto you." yet we must remember, in this connection, that the apostolic benediction in 2 cor. 13:14 does associate the three persons of the trinity, thereby asserting their personality equally. d) because the word or name "spirit" is neuter. it is true that the same greek word is translated _wind_ and _spirit;_ also that the authorized version uses the neuter pronoun "itself," when speaking of the holy spirit (rom. 8:16, 26). as we shall see later, the revised version substitutes "himself" for "itself." the importance of the personality of the spirit, and of our being assured of this fact is forcibly set forth by dr. r. a. torrey: "if the holy spirit is a divine person and we know it not, we are robbing a divine being of the love and adoration which are his due. it is of the highest practical importance whether the holy spirit is a power that we, in our ignorance and weakness, are somehow to get hold of and use, or whether the holy spirit is a personal being . . . . who is to get hold of us and use us. it is of the highest experimental importance. . . . . many can testify to the blessing that came into their lives when they came to know the holy spirit, not merely as a gracious influence . . . . but as an ever-present, loving friend and helper." 2. method of proof. it is difficult to define _personality_ when used of the divine being. god cannot be measured by human standards. god was not made in the image of man, but man in the image of god. god is not a deified man; man is rather a limited god ("a little . . .. less than god." heb. 2:7, r. v.). only god has a perfect personality. when, however, one possesses the attributes, properties and qualities of personality, then personality may be unquestionably predicated of such a being. does the holy spirit possess such properties? let us see. a) names that imply personality are given to the spirit. _the comforter:_ john 14:16; 16:7. "comforter" means one who is called to your side--as a client calls a lawyer. that this name cannot be used of any abstract, impersonal influence is clear from the fact that in 1 john 2:1 the same word is used of christ. (see rom. 8:26). again in john 14:16 the holy spirit, as the paraclete, is to take the place of a person--christ himself, and to personally guide the disciples just as jesus had been doing. no one but a person can take the place of a person; certainly no mere influence could take the place of jesus christ, the greatest personality that ever lived. again, christ, in speaking of the spirit as the comforter, uses the masculine definite article, and thus, by his choice of gender, teaches the personality of the holy spirit. there can be no parity between a person and an influence. b) personal pronouns are used of the holy spirit. john 16:7, 8, 13-15: twelve times in these verses the greek masculine pronoun _ekeinos_ (that one, he) is used of the spirit. this same word is used of christ in 1 john 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16. this is especially remarkable because the greek word for spirit (_pneuma_) is neuter, and so should have a neuter pronoun; yet, contrary to ordinary usage, a masculine pronoun is here used. this is not a pictorial personification, but a plain, definite, clear-cut statement asserting the personality of the holy spirit. note also that where, in the authorized version, the neuter pronoun is used, the same is corrected in the revised version: not "itself," but "himself" (rom. 8:16,26). c) the holy spirit is identified with the father and the son--and, indeed, with christians--in such a way as to indicate personality. the baptismal formula. matt. 28:19. suppose we should read, "baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of _the wind or breath_." would that sound right? if the first two names are personal, is not the third? note also: "in the name" (singular), not names (plural), implying that all three are persons equally, the apostolic benediction. 2 cor. 13:14. the same argument may be used as that in connection with the baptismal formula, just cited. identification with christians. acts 15:28. "for it seemeth good to the holy ghost, and to us." shall we say, "it seemeth good to _the wind_ and to us"? it would be absurd. 10:38--"how god anointed jesus of nazareth with the holy ghost and with power." shall we read, "anointed .. with _power_ and power?" rom. 15:13--"that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the holy ghost." shall we read, "that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the _power_"? see also luke 4:14. would not these passages rebel against such tautological and meaningless usage? most assuredly. d) personal characteristics are ascribed to the holy spirit. the holy spirit is represented as searching the deepest and profoundest truths of god, and possessing knowledge of his counsels sufficiently to understand his purposes (1 cor. 2:10, 11). could a mere influence do this? see also isa. 11:3; i pet. 1:11. spiritual gifts are distributed to believers according to the _will_ of the spirit (1 cor. 12). here is wisdom, prudence and discretion, all of which are distinguishing marks of personality. the spirit not only bestows spiritual gifts, but bestows them discreetly, according as he thinks best. see john 3:8 also. the spirit is said to have a _mind_, and that implies thought, purpose, determination: rom. 8:27, cf. v. 7. mind is an attribute of personality. e) personal acts are ascribed to the holy spirit. the spirit _speaks_: rev. 2:7 (cf. matt. 17:5--"hear ye him.") it is the spirit who speaks through the apostles (10:20). speech is an attribute of personality. the spirit _maketh intercession:_ rom. 8:26 (r. v.), cf. heb. 7:25; i john 2:1, 2, where christ is said to "make intercession." acts 13:2; 16:6, 7; 20:28. in these passages the holy spirit is seen _calling_ missionaries, _overseeing_ the church, and _commanding_ the life and practice of the apostles and the whole church. such acts indicate personality. f) the holy spirit is susceptible to personal treatment. he may be _grieved_ (eph. 4:30); _insulted_ (heb. 10.29); _lied to_ (acts 5:3); blasphemed and sinned against (matt. 12:31, 32). indeed, the sin against the holy spirit is a much more grievous matter than the sin against the son of man. can such be said of an influence? can it be said even of any of the sons of men? ii. the deity of the holy spirit. by the deity of the holy spirit is meant that the holy spirit is god. this fact is clearly set forth in the scriptures, in a five-fold way: 1. divine names are given to the holy spirit. in acts 5:4, the spirit is called _god_. and this in opposition to man, to whom, alone, ananias thought he was talking. can any statement allege deity more clearly? in 2 cor. 3:18--"we .... are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the lord the spirit" (r. v.). here the spirit is called the _lord_. for the meaning of "lord" see under the deity of christ, p. 60. 2. the holy spirit possesses divine attributes. he is _eternal_ in his nature (heb. 9:14, r. v.); _omnipresent_ (psa. 139:7-10); _omnipotent_ (luke 1:35); _omniscient_ (1 cor. 2:10, 11). for the meaning of these attributes, see under the doctrine of god and jesus christ, pp. 28 and 63. 3. divine works are ascribed to the holy spirit. _creation_ (gen. 1:2; psa. 104:30, r. v.); job 33:4--"the spirit of god hath made me, and the breath of the almighty hath given me life." _regeneration_ (john 3:5-8); _resurrection_ (rom. 8:11). 4. the name of the holy spirit is associated with that of the father, and of the son. see under personality of the spirit, p. 107. the same arguments which there prove the personality of the spirit may be used here to prove the deity of the spirit. it would be just as absurd to say, "baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of _moses_"--thus putting moses on an equality with the father and the son--as it would be to say, "baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the _wind_"--thus making the wind as personal as the father and the son. the spirit is on an equality with the father and the son in the distribution of spiritual gifts (1 cor. 12:4-6). 5. passages which in the old testament refer to god are in the new testament made to refer to the holy spirit. compare isa. 6:8-10 with acts 28:25-27; and exod. 16:7 with heb. 3:7-9. iii. the names of the holy spirit. just as the father and the son have certain names ascribed to them, setting forth their nature and work, so also does the holy spirit have names which indicate his character and work. 1. the holy spirit. luke 11:13--"how much more shall your heavenly father give the holy spirit to them that ask him?" rom. 1:4--"the spirit of holiness." in these passages it is the moral character of the spirit that is set forth. note the contrast: "ye, being evil," and "the holy spirit." the spirit is _holy_ in himself and produces holiness in others. 2. the spirit of grace. heb. 10:29--"and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace." as the executive of the godhead, the spirit confers grace. to resist the spirit, therefore, is to shut off all hope of salvation. to resist his appeal is to insult the godhead. that is why the punishment mentioned here is so awful. 3. the spirit of burning. matt. 3:11, 12--"he shall baptize you with the holy ghost, and with fire." isa. 4:4--"when the lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of zion.... by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning." this cleansing is done by the blast of the spirit's burning. here is the searching, illuminating, refining, dross-consuming character of the spirit. he burns up the dross in our lives when he enters and takes possession. 4. the spirit of truth. john 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; i john 5:6. as god is love, so the spirit is truth. he possesses, reveals, confers, leads into, testifies to, and defends the truth. thus he is opposed to the "spirit of error" (1 john 4:6). 5. the spirit of life. rom. 8:2--"for the law of the spirit of life in christ jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." that which had been the actuating principle of life, namely, the flesh, is now deposed, and its controlling place taken by the spirit. the spirit is thus the dynamic of the believer's experience that leads him into a life of liberty and power. 6. the spirit of wisdom and knowledge. that the references in isa. 11:2; 61:1, 2 are to be understood as referring to the spirit that abode upon the messiah, is clear from luke 4:18 where "spirit" is capitalized. christ's wisdom and knowledge resulted, in one aspect of the case, from his being filled with the spirit. "wisdom and understanding" refer to intellectual and moral apprehension; "counsel and might," the power to scheme, originate, and carry out; "knowledge and the fear of the lord," acquaintance with the true will of god, and the determination to carry it out at all costs. these graces are the result of the spirit's operations on the heart. 7. the spirit of promise. eph. 1:13--"ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise." the spirit is the fulfillment of christ's promise to send the comforter, and so he is the promised spirit. the spirit also confirms and seals the believer, and thus assures him that all the promises made to him shall be completely fulfilled. 8. the spirit of glory. 1 pet. 4:14--"the spirit of glory and of god resteth upon you." what is glory? glory as used in the scripture means character. the holy spirit is the one who produces godlike character in the believer (cf. 2 cor. 3:18). 9. the spirit of god, and of christ. 1 cor. 3:16--"the spirit of god dwelleth in you." rom. 8:9--"now if any man have not the spirit of christ, he is none of his." the fact that the spirit is sent from the father and the son, that he represents them, and is their executive, seems to be the thought conveyed here. 10. the comforter (p. 109). iv. the work of the holy spirit. the work of the spirit may be summed up under the following headings: his work in the universe; in humanity as a whole; in the believer; with reference to the scriptures; and, finally, with reference to jesus christ. 1. in relation to the world. a) with regard to the universe. there is a sense in which the creation of the universe may be ascribed to god's spirit. indeed psa. 33:6--"by the word of the lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath (spirit) of his mouth," attributes the work of creation to the trinity, the lord, the word of the lord, and the spirit of the lord. the creation of man is attributed to the spirit. job 33:4--"the spirit of god hath made me, and the breath of the almighty hath given me life." it would be proper, doubtless, to say that the father created all things through the agency of the word and the spirit. in the genesis account of creation (1:3) the spirit is seen actively engaged in the work of creation. not only is it true that the spirit's agency is seen in the act of creation, but his power is seen also in the preservation of nature. isa. 40:7--"the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the spirit of the lord bloweth upon it." a staggering declaration. the doctrine of the holy spirit the spirit comes in the fierce east wind with its keen, biting blast of death. he comes also in the summer zephyr, which brings life and beauty. b) with regard to humanity as a whole. john 16:8-11--"and when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because i go unto my father and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." here are three great facts of which the spirit bears witness to the world: the sin of unbelief in christ; the fact that christ was righteous and absolutely true in all that he claimed to be; the fact that the power of satan has been broken. of sin: the sin in which all other sins are embraced; of righteousness: the righteousness in which all other righteousness is manifested and fulfilled; of judgment: the judgment in which all other judgments are decided and grounded. of sin, belonging to man; of righteousness, belonging to christ; of judgment, belonging to satan. john 15:26--"the spirit of truth ... shall testify of me." acts 5:32--"and we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the holy ghost." it is the work of the holy spirit to constantly bear witness of christ and his finished work to the world of sinful and sinning men. this he does largely, although hardly exclusively, through the testimony of believers to the saving power and work of christ: "ye also shall bear witness" (john 15:27). 2. the work of the spirit in relation to the believer. a) he regenerates the believer. john 3:3-5--"born of ... the spirit." tit. 3:5--"the... renewing of the holy ghost." sonship, and membership in the kingdom of god, come only through the regenerating of the holy spirit. "it is the spirit that quickeneth." just as jesus was begotten of the holy ghost, so must every child of god who is to be an heir to the kingdom. b) the spirit indwells the believer. 1 cor. 6:19--"your body is the temple of the holy ghost which is in you." also 3:16; rom. 8:9. every believer, no matter how weak and imperfect he may be, or how immature his christian experience, still has the indwelling of the spirit. acts 19:2 does not contradict this statement. evidently some miraculous outpouring of the spirit is intended there, the which followed the prayer and laying on of the hands of the apostles. "now if any man have not the spirit of christ, he is none of his." "no man can say that jesus is the lord, but by the holy ghost" (rom. 8:9; 1 cor. 12:3). c) the spirit seals the believer with assurance of salvation. eph. 1:13, 14--"in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise; which is the earnest of our inheritance." also 4:30--"sealed unto the day of redemption." this sealing stands for two things: ownership and likeness (2 tim. 2:19-21). the holy spirit is "the spirit of adoption" which god puts into our hearts, by which we know that we are his children. the spirit bears witness to this great truth (gal. 4:6; rom. 8:14, 16). this sealing has to do with the heart and the conscience--satisfying both as to the settlement of the sin and sonship question. d) the holy spirit infills the believer. acts 2:4--"and they were all filled with the holy ghost." eph. 5:18--"be filled with the spirit." the filling differs somewhat from the indwelling. we may speak of the baptism of the spirit as that initial act of the spirit by which, at the moment of our regeneration, we are baptized by the spirit into the body of christ; the spirit then comes and takes up his dwelling within the believer. the filling with the spirit, however, is not confined to one experience, or to any one point of time exclusively; it may be repeated times without number. there is one baptism, but many infillings with the spirit. the experience of the apostles in the acts bears witness to the fact that they were repeatedly filled with the spirit. whenever a new emergency arose they sought a fresh infilling with the spirit (cf. acts 2:4 with 4:31 showing that the apostles who were filled on the day of pentecost were again filled a few days after). there is a difference between possessing the spirit, and being filled with the spirit. all christians have the first; not all have the second, although all may have. eph. 4:30 speaks of believers as being "sealed," whereas 5:18 commands those same believers to "be filled (to be being filled again and again) with the spirit." both the baptism and the infilling may take place at once. there need be no long wilderness experience in the life of the believer. it is the will of god that we should be filled (or, if you prefer the expression, "be baptized") with the spirit at the moment of conversion, and remain filled all the time. whenever we are called upon for any special service, or for any new emergency, we should seek a fresh infilling of the spirit, either for life or service, as the case may be. the holy spirit seeks--so we learn from the story of the acts--for men who are not merely possessed by but also filled with the spirit, for service (6:3, 5; 9:17; 11:24). possession touches assurance; infilling, service. e) the holy spirit empowers the believer for life and service. rom. 8:2--"for the law of the spirit of life in christ jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (also vv. 9-11). there are two natures in the believer: the flesh and the spirit (gal. 5:17). but while the believer is still in the flesh, he does not live after the flesh (rom. 8:12, 13). the holy spirit enables the believer to get constant and continual victory over sin. a single act of sin a believer may commit; to live in a state of sin is impossible for him, for the spirit which is within him gives him victory, so that sin does not _reign_ over him. if sinless perfection is not a scriptural doctrine, sinful imperfection is certainly less scriptural. the eighth chapter of romans exhibits a victorious life for the believer; a life so different from that depicted in the seventh chapter. and the difference lies in the fact that the holy spirit is hardly, if at all, mentioned in the seventh chapter, while in the eighth he is mentioned over twelve times. the spirit in the heart is the secret of victory over sin. then note how the holy spirit produces the blessed fruit of the christian life (gal. 5:22, 23). what a beautiful cluster of graces! how different from the awful catalogue of the works of the flesh (vv. 19-21). look at this cluster of fruit. there are three groups: the first, in relation to god--love, joy, peace; the second, in relation to our fellowman--longsuffering, gentleness, goodness; the third, for our individual christian life--faith, meekness, self-control. f) the holy spirit is the guide of the believer's life. he guides him as to the details of his daily life, rom. 8:14; gal. 5:16, 25-"walk in the spirit." there is no detail of the believer's life that may not be under the control and direction of the spirit. "the steps (and, as one has well said,'the stops') of a good man are ordered by the lord." the holy spirit guides the believer as to the field in which he should labor. how definitely this truth is taught in the acts 8:27-29; 16:6, 7; 13:2-4. what a prominent part the spirit played in selecting the fields of labor for the apostles! every step in the missionary activity of the early church seemed to be under the direct guidance of the spirit. g) the holy spirit anoints the believer. this anointing stands for three things: first, for _knowledge and teaching_. 1 john 2:27--"but the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth . . . ye shall abide in him." also 2:20. it is not enough to learn the truth from human teachers, we must listen to the teaching of the spirit. 1 cor. 2:9-14 teaches us that there are some great truths that are spiritually discerned; they cannot be understood saving by the spirit-filled man, for they are "spiritually discerned." see also john 14:26; 16:13. second, for _service_. how dependent christ was upon the holy spirit for power in which to perform the duties of life is clear from such passages as luke 4:18--"the spirit of the lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach," etc. also acts 10:38--"how god anointed jesus of nazareth with the holy ghost and with power: who went about doing good." ezekiel teaches a lesson by his vivid picture of the activity of god portrayed in the wheels within wheels. the moving power within those wheels was the spirit of god. so in all our activity for god we must have the spirit of power. third, for _consecration_. three classes of persons in the old testament were anointed: the prophet, the priest, and the king. the result of anointing was consecration--"thy vows are upon me, o god"; knowledge of god and his will--"ye know all things"; influence--fragrance from the ointment. just as the incense at mecca clings to the pilgrim when he passes through the streets, so it is with him who has the anointing of the spirit. all his garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia. he has about him the sweet odor and scent of the rose of sharon and the lily of the valley. 3. the relation of the holy spirit to the scriptures. a) he is the author of the scriptures. holy men of god spake as they were moved by the holy spirit. 2 pet. 1:20, 21. the scriptures came by the inbreathing of god, 2 tim. 3:16. "hear what the spirit saith to the churches," eev. 2 and 3. it was the spirit who was to guide the apostles into all the truth, and show them things to come (john 16:13). b) the spirit is also the interpreter of the scriptures. 1 cor. 2:9-14. he is "the spirit of wisdom and revelation," eph. 1:17. "he shall receive of mine and show it unto you," john 16:14, 15. (see under the inspiration of the bible, p. 194.) 4. the relation of the holy spirit to jesus christ. how dependent jesus christ was, in his state of humiliation, on the holy spirit! if he needed to depend solely upon the spirit can we afford to do less? a) he was conceived by the holy spirit, born of the spirit, luke 1:35. b) he was led by the spirit, matt. 4:1. c) he was anointed by the spirit for service, acts 10:38. d) he was crucified in the power of the spirit, heb. 9:14. e) he was raised by the power of the spirit, rom. 1:4; 8:11. f) he gave commandment to his disciples and church through the spirit, acts 1:2. g) he is the bestower of the holy spirit, acts 2:33. v. offences against the holy spirit. scarcely any phase of the doctrine of the spirit is more solemn than this. it behooves us all, believer and unbeliever alike, to be careful as to how we treat the holy spirit. sinning against the spirit is fraught with terrific consequences. for convenience sake we are classifying the offences against the spirit under two general divisions, namely, those committed by the unbeliever, and those committed by the believer. not that there is absolutely no overlapping in either case. for, doubtless, in the very nature of the case there must be. this thought will be kept in mind in the study of the offences against the spirit. 1. offences committed by the unbeliever. a) resisting the holy ghost. acts 7:51-"ye do always resist the holy ghost." here the picture is that of the holy spirit attacking the citadel of the soul of man, who violently resists the gracious attempts of the spirit to win him. in spite of the plainest arguments, and the most incontestable facts this man wilfully rejects the evidence and refuses to accept the christ so convincingly presented. thus is the holy ghost resisted. (see acts 6:10.) that this is a true picture of resistance to the holy spirit is clearly seen from stephen's recital of the facts in acts 7:51-57. b) insulting, or doing despite unto the holy spirit. heb. 10:29 (cf. luke 18:32). it is the work of the spirit to present the atoning work of christ to the sinner as the ground of his pardon. when the sinner refuses to believe or accept the testimony of the spirit, he thereby insults the spirit by esteeming the whole work of christ as a deception and a lie, or accounts the death of christ as the death of an ordinary or common man, and not as god's provision for the sinner. c) blaspheming the holy spirit. matt. 12:31,32. this seems to be the most grievous sin of all, for the master asserts that there is no forgiveness for this sin. sins against the son of man may be forgiven because it was easily possible, by reason of his humble birth, lowly parentage, etc., to question the claims he put forth to deity. but when, after pentecost, the holy spirit came, and presented to every man's conscience evidence sufficient to prove the truth of these claims, the man who then refused to yield to christ's claims was guilty of resisting, insulting, and that amounts to blaspheming the testimony of the whole godhead, of which the spirit is the executive. 2. offences committed by the believer. a) grieving the spirit. eph. 4:30, 31; isa. 63:10 (r. v.). to grieve means to make sad or sorrowful. it is the word used to describe the experience of christ in gethsemane; and so the sorrow of gethsemane may be endured by the holy spirit. the spirit is the most sensitive person of the godhead. he is called the "mother--heart" of god. the context of this passage (v.31) tells us how the spirit may be grieved: by "foolish talking and jesting." whenever the believer allows any of the things mentioned in this verse (and those stated also in gal. 5:17-19) to find place in his heart and expression in his words and life; when these things abide in his heart and actively manifest themselves, then the spirit is sad and grieved. indeed to refuse any part of our moral nature to the full sway of the spirit is to grieve him. if we continue to grieve the spirit, then the grief turns into vexation (isa. 63:10). b) lying to the holy spirit. acts 5:3, 4. the sin of lying to the spirit is very prominent when consecration is most popular. we stand up and say, "i surrender all" when in our hearts we know that we have not surrendered _all_. yet, like ananias, we like to have others believe that we have consecrated our all. we do not wish to be one whit behind others in our profession. bead carefully in this connection the story of achan (joshua 7), and that of gehazi (2 kings 5:20-27). c) quenching the spirit. 1 thess. 5:19-"quench not the spirit." the thought of quenching the spirit seems to be used in connection with fire: "smoking flax shall he not quench" (matt. 12:20); "quench the fiery darts" (eph. 6:16). it is therefore related more to the thought of service than to that of life. the context of 1 thess. 5:19 shows this. the manifestation of the spirit in prophesying was not to be quenched. the holy spirit is seen as coming down upon this gathered assembly for praise, prayer, and testimony. this manifestation of the spirit must not be quenched. thus we may quench the spirit not only in our hearts, but also in the hearts of others. how? by disloyalty to the voice and call of the spirit; by disobedience to his voice whether it be to testify, praise, to do any bit of service for god, or to refuse to go where he sends us to labor--the foreign field, for example. let us be careful also lest in criticizing the manifestation of the spirit in the testimony of some believer, or the sermon of some preacher, we be found guilty of quenching the spirit. let us see to it that the gift of the holy ghost for service be not lost by any unfaithfulness, or by the cultivation of a critical spirit on our part, so that the fire in our hearts dies out and nothing but ashes remain--ashes, a sign that fire was once there, but has been extinguished. from what has been said the following may be summarily stated: _resisting_ has to do with the regenerating work of the spirit; _grieving_ has to do with the indwelling holy spirit; _quenching_ has to do with the enduement of the spirit for service. the doctrine of man i. the creation and original condition of man. 1. image and likeness of god. 2. physical--mental--moral--spiritual. ii. the fall of man. 1. the scriptural account. 2. various interpretations. 3. the nature of the fall. 4. the results of the fall. a) on adam, and eve. b) on the race. (1) various theories. (2) scriptural declarations. the doctrine of man. i. the creation and original condition of man. 1. man made in the image and likeness of god. gen. 1:26--"and god said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness." 9:6--"for in the image of god made he man." what is meant by the terms _image_ and _likeness_? _image_ means the shadow or outline of a figure, while _likeness_ denotes the resemblance of that shadow to the figure. the two words, however, are practically synonymous. that man was made in the image and likeness of god is fundamental in all god's dealings with man (1 cor. 11:7; eph. 4:21-24; col. 3:10; james 3:9). we may express the language as follows: let us make man in our image to be our likeness. a) the image of god does not denote physical likeness. god is spirit; he does not have parts and passions as a man. (see under doctrine of god; the spirituality of god, pp. 19, 20). consequently mormon and swedenborgian views of god as a great human are wrong. deut. 4:15 contradicts such a physical view of god (see p. 19, b, c). some would infer from psa. 17:15--"i shall be satisfied, when i awake, with thy likeness," that in some remote way, a physical likeness is suggested. the r. v., however, changes somewhat the sense of this verse, and reads: "i shall be satisfied, when i awake, with _beholding_ thy form." see also num. 12:8, r. v. it is fair to believe, however, that erectness of posture, intelligence of countenance, and a quick, glancing eye characterized the first man. we should also remember that the manifestations in the old testament, and the incarnation must throw some light upon this subject (see p. 20). b) nor are the expressions "image" and "likeness" exhausted when we say that they consisted in man's dominion over nature, and the creation of god in general. indeed the supremacy conferred upon man presupposed those spiritual endowments, and was justified by his fitness, through them, to exercise it. c) positively, we learn from certain scriptures in what this image and likeness consisted. eph. 4:23, 24--"and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after god is created in righteousness and true holiness (b. v., holiness of truth)." col. 3:10--"and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." it is clear from these passages that the image of god consists in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; moral, not physical likeness. d) the original man was endowed with intellectual faculties. he had sufficient intelligence to give names to the animals as they were presented before him (gen. 2:19, 20). adam had not only the power of speech, but the power of reasoning and thought in connection with speech. he could attach words to ideas. this is not the picture, as evolution would have us believe, of an infantile savage slowly groping his way towards articulate speech by imitation of the sounds of animals. e) the original man possessed moral and spiritual faculties. consider the moral test in genesis 3. adam had power to resist or to yield to moral evil. sin was a volitional thing. christ, the second adam, endured a similar test (matt. 4). from all this it is evident that man's original state was not one of savagery. indeed there is abundant evidence to show that man has been degraded from a very much higher stage. both the bible and science agree in making man the crowning work of god, and that there will be no higher order of beings here on the earth than man. we must not forget that while man, from one side of his nature, is linked to the animal creation, he is yet supra-natural--a being of a higher order and more splendid nature; he is in the image and likeness of god. man has developed not _from_ the ape, but _away from_ it. he never was anything but potential man. "no single instance has yet been adduced of the transformation of one animal species into another, either by natural or artificial selection; much less has it been demonstrated that the body of the brute has ever been developed into that of the man. the links that should bind man to the monkey have not been found. not a single one can be shown. none have been found that stood nearer the monkey than the man of today."--_agassiz_. ii. the fall of man. the doctrine of the fall of man is not peculiar to christianity; all religions contain an account of it, and recognize the great and awful fact. had there been no such account as that found in genesis 3, there would still have remained the problem of the fall and sin. yet, the doctrine of the fall has a relation to christianity that it does not have to other religions, or religious systems. the moral character of god as seen in the christian religion far surpasses the delineation of the supreme being set forth in any other religion, and thus heightens and intensifies its idea of sin. it is when men consider the very high character of god as set forth in christianity, and then look at the doctrine of sin, that they find it hard to reconcile the fact that god, being the moral being he is, should ever allow sin to come into the world. to some minds these two things seem incompatible. 1. the scriptural account of the fall of man. the third chapter of genesis gives the fullest account of this awful tragedy in the experience of mankind. other scriptures: rom. 5:12-19; i tim. 2:14; gen. 6:5; 8:31; psa. 14; rom. 3:10-23. the purpose of the genesis narrative is not to give an account of the manner in which sin came into the _world,_ but how it found its advent into the _human race_. sin was already in the world, as the existence of satan and the chaotic condition of things in the beginning, strikingly testify. the reasonableness of the narrative of the fall is seen in view of the condition of man after he had sinned with his condition when he left the hand of the creator. compare gen. 1:26 with 6:5, and psa. 14. if the fall of man were not narrated in genesis we should have to postulate some such event to account for the present condition in which we find man. in no part of the scripture, save in the creation account as found in the first two chapters of genesis, does man appear perfect and upright. his attitude is that of rebellion against god, of deepening and awful corruption. 2. various interpretations of the narrative of the fall of man. some look upon the whole narrative as being an _allegory_. adam is the rational part of man; eve, the sensual; the serpent, external excitements to evil. but the simplicity and artlessness of the narrative militates against this view. others, again, designate the narrative as being a _myth_. it is regarded as a truth invested in poetic form; something made up from the folklore of the times. but why should these few verses be snatched out of the chapter in which they are found and be called mythical, while the remaining verses are indisputably literal? then there is the _literal interpretation_, which takes the account as it reads, in its perfectly natural sense, just as in the case of the other parts of the same chapter. there is no intimation in the account itself that it is not to be regarded as literal history. it certainly is part of a historical book. the geographical locations in connection with the story are historic. the curse upon the man, upon the woman, and upon the ground are certainly literal. it is a fact that death is in the world as the wages of sin. unquestionably christ, and the other scripture writers regard the event as historical and literal: of. matt. 19:4; mark 10:6; 2 cor. 11:3; i tim. 2:13-15; i cor. 15:56. 3. the nature of the fall. it must be kept in mind that adam and eve were free moral agents. that while they were sinless beings, it was yet possible for them to sin, just as it was possible for them not to sin. a careful reading of the narrative leads to the following remarks: the sin of our first parents was purely volitional; it was an act of their own determination. their sin was, like all other sin, a voluntary act of the will. it came from an outside source, that is to say, it was instigated from without. there was no sin in the nature of the first human pair. consequently there must have been an ungodly principle already in the world. probably the fall of satan and the evil angels had taken place already. the essence of the first sin lay in the denial of the divine will; an elevation of the will of man over the will of god. it was a deliberate transgressing of a divinely marked boundary; an overstepping of the divine limits. in its last analysis, the first sin was, what each and every sin committed since has been, a positive disbelief in the word of the living god. a belief of satan rather than a belief in god. it is helpful to note that the same lines of temptation that were presented to our first parents, were presented to christ in the wilderness (matt. 4:1-11), and to men ever since then (1 john 2:15-17). satan's program is short and shallow after all. 4. the results of the fall. a) on our first parents--adam and eve. the results of sin in the experience of our first parents were as follows: the ground was cursed, so that henceforth it would not yield good alone (gen. 3:17). sorrow and pain to the woman in child-bearing, and subjection of woman to the man (gen. 3:16). exhausting physical labor in order to subsist (gen. 3:19). physical and spiritual death (gen. 3:19; 3:3; 5:5; rom. 5:12). of course, with all this came also a fear of god, a shame because of sin, a hiding from god's presence, and finally, an expulsion from the garden (gen. 3:8-11, 32-24). b) on the race--various theories. there are three general views held with regard to the effect of adam's sin upon the race. before looking at the strictly scriptural view in detail, let us briefly state these three theories: that adam's sin affected himself only; that every human being born into the world is as free from sin as adam was. the only effect the first sin had upon the race was that of a bad example. according to this theory man is well morally and spiritually. this view of the case is false because the scriptures recognize all men as guilty and as possessing a sinful nature; because man, as soon as he attains the age of responsibility commits sinful acts, and there is no exception to this rule; because righteousness is impossible without the help of god, otherwise redemption would be by works of righteousness which we have done, and this the scripture contradicts. according to this view man is perfectly well. (the pelagian theory.) that while adam's sin, as guilt, is not imputed to man, he is yet destitute of original righteousness, and, without divine help, is utterly unable to attain it. god, however, bestows upon each individual, at the dawn of consciousness, a special gift of his spirit, which is sufficient to enable man to be righteous, if he will allow his will to _co-operate_ with god's spirit. according to this view man is only half sick, or half well. this view also is false because the scriptures clearly state that man is utterly unable to do a single thing to save himself. (the semi-pelagian theory.) that because of the unity of the race in adam, and the organic unity of mankind, adam's sin is therefore imputed to his posterity. the nature which man now possesses is like to the corrupted nature of adam. man is totally unable to do anything to save himself. according to this theory man is not only not well, nor half well, but totally dead. ( the augustinian theory.) scriptural teaching. (1) all men, without respect of condition or class, are sinners before god. rom. 3:9, 10, 22, 23; psa. 14; isa. 53:6. there may be a difference in the degree, but not in the fact of sin. all men, jew and gentile, have missed the mark, and failed to attain to god's standard. there is none righteous, no, not one. (2) this universal sinful condition is vitally connected with the sin of adam. rom. 5:12--"wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." "for the judgment was by one to condemnation" (5:16). "for as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (5:19). all men were in adam when he sinned; fallen he, fallen they. herein lies the truth of the organic unity of the race. "in adam all die." two questions are raised here: how can man be held responsible for a depraved nature?--this touches the matter of _original sin_; and how can god justly impute adam's sin to us?--this deals with the question of the _imputation of sin_. (3) the whole world rests under condemnation, wrath, and curse. rom. 3:19--"that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before god." gal. 3:10; eph. 2:3. the law of god demands a perfect obedience; but no son of man can yield such obedience; hence the curse of a broken law rests upon those breaking it. the wrath of god abides on all not vitally united by faith to jesus christ (john 3:36). (4) unregenerate men are regarded as children of the devil, and not sous of god. 1 john 3:8-10; john 8:44--"ye are of your father the devil." 1 john 5:19--"and we know that we are of god, and the whole world lieth in wickedness (in the wicked one, r. v.)." (5) the whole race of men are in helpless captivity to sin and satan. rom. 7, chapter entire; john 8:31-36; eph. 2:3. (6) the entire nature of man, mentally, morally, spiritually, physically, is sadly affected by sin. the _understanding_ is darkened (eph. 4:18; 1 cor. 2:14); the _heart_ is deceitful and wicked (jer. 17:9, 10); the _mind and conscience_ are defiled (gen. 6:5; titus 1:15); the _flesh and spirit_ are defiled (2 cor. 7:5); the _will_ is enfeebled (rom. 7:18); and we are utterly destitute of any godlike qualities which meet the requirements of god's holiness (rom. 7:18). what does all this mean? a. h. strong, in his _systematic theology_, explains the matter somewhat as follows: it does not mean the entire absence of conscience (john 8:9); nor of all moral qualities (mark 10:21); nor that men are prone to every kind of sin (for some sins exclude others). it does mean, however, that man is totally destitute of love to god which is the all absorbing commandment of the law (john 5:42); that the natural man has an aversion to god (rom. 8:7); that all that is stated under (6) above is true of man; that man is in possession of a nature that is constantly on the downgrade, and from the dominion of which he is totally unable to free himself (rom. 7:18, 23). [illustration with caption: handwritten notations of rev. william evans, ph.d. d.d.] the doctrines of salvation a. repentance. b. faith. c. regeneration. d. justification. e. adoption. f. sanctification. g. prayer. the doctrines of salvation. a. repentance. i. the importance of the doctrine. ii. the nature of repentance. 1. as touching the intellect. 2. affecting the emotions. 3. will. a) confess sin. b) forsake sin. c) turn to god. iii. how repentance is produced. 1. divine side. 2. human side. 3. question of means. iv. results of repentance. 1. godward. 2. manward. a. repentance. i. the importance of the doctrine. the prominence given to the doctrine of repentance in the scriptures can hardly be overestimated. john the baptist began his public ministry, as did jesus also, with the call to repentance upon his lips (matt. 3:1, 2; 4:17). when jesus sent forth the twelve and the seventy messengers to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of heaven, he commanded them to preach repentance (luke 24:47; mark 6:12). foremost in the preaching of the apostles was the doctrine of repentance; peter, (acts 2:38); paul, (acts 20:21). the burden of the heart of god, and his one command to all men everywhere, is that they should repent (2 pet. 3:9; acts 17:30). indeed, failure on the part of man to heed god's call to repentance means that he shall utterly perish (luke 13:3). does the doctrine of repentance find such a prominent place in the preaching and teaching of today? has the need for repentance diminished? has god lessened or changed the terms of admission into his kingdom? ii. the nature of repentance. there is a three-fold idea involved in true repentance: 1. as touching the intellect. matt. 21:29--"he answered and said: i will not; but afterward he repented, and went". the word here used for "repent" means to change one's mind, thought, purpose, views regarding a matter; it is to have another mind about a thing. so we may speak of it as a revolution touching our attitude and views towards sin and righteousness. this change is well illustrated in the action of the prodigal son, and of the publican in the well-known story of the pharisee and the publican (luke 15 and 18). thus, when peter, on the day of pentecost, called upon the jews to repent (acts 2:14-40), he virtually called upon them to change their minds and their views regarding christ. they had considered christ to be a mere man, a blasphemer, an impostor. the events of the few preceding days had proven to them that he was none other than the righteous son of god, their saviour and the saviour of the world. the result of their repentance or change of mind would be that they would receive jesus christ as their long promised messiah. 2. as touching the emotions. 2 cor. 7:9--"now i rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing." the context (vv. 7-11) shows what a large part the feelings played in true gospel repentance. see also luke 10:13; cf. gen. 6:6. the greek word for repentance in this connection means "to be a care to one afterwards," to cause one great concern. the hebrew equivalent is even stronger, and means to pant, to sigh, to moan. so the publican "beat upon his breast," indicating sorrow of heart. just how much emotion is necessary to true repentance no one can definitely say. but that a certain amount of heart movement, even though it be not accompanied with a flood of tears, or even a single tear, accompanies all true repentance is evident from the use of this word. see also psa. 38:18. 3. as touching the will and disposition. one of the hebrew words for repent means "to turn." the prodigal said, "i will arise.... and he arose" (luke 15:18, 20). he not only thought upon his ways, and felt sorry because of them, but he turned his steps in the direction of home. so that in a very real sense repentance is a crisis with a changed experience in view. repentance is not only a heart broken _for_ sin, but _from_ sin also. we must forsake what we would have god remit. in the writings of paul repentance is more of an experience than a single act. the part of the will and disposition in repentance is shown: a) in the confession of sin to god. psa. 38:18--"for i will declare mine iniquity: i will be sorry for my sin." the publican beat upon his breast, and said, "god be merciful to me a sinner" (luke 18:13). the prodigal said, "i have sinned against heaven" (luke 15:21). there must be confession to man also in so far as man has been wronged in and by our sin (matt. 5:23, 24; james 5:16). b) in the forsaking of sin. isa. 55:7--"let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the lord." prov. 28:13; matt. 3:8, 10. c) in turning unto god. it is not enough to turn away from sin; we must turn unto god; 1 thess. 1:9; acts 26:18. iii. how repentance is produced. 1. it is a divine gift. acts 11:18--"then hath god also to the gentiles granted repentance unto life." 2 tim. 2:25--"if god peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." acts 5:30, 31. repentance is not something which one can originate within himself, or can pump up within himself as one would pump water out of a well. it is a divine gift. how then is man responsible for not having it? we are called upon to repent in order that we may feel our own inability to do so, and consequently be thrown upon god and petition him to perform this work of grace in our hearts. 2. yet this divine gift is brought about through the use of means. acts 2:37, 38, 41. the very gospel which calls for repentance produces it. how well this is illustrated in the experience of the people of nineveh (jonah 3:5-10)! when they heard the preaching of the word of god by jonah they believed the message and turned unto god. not any message, but the gospel is the instrument that god uses to bring about this desired end. furthermore, this message must be preached in the power of the holy spirit (1 thess. 1:5-10). rom. 2:4--"or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of god leadeth thee to repentance?" also 2 pet. 3:9. prosperity too often leads away from god, but it is the divine intention that it should lead to god. revivals come mostly in times of panic. rev. 3:19; heb. 12:6, 10, 11. the chastisements of god are sometimes for the purpose of bringing his wandering children back to repentance. 2 tim. 2:24, 25. god oftentimes uses the loving, christian reproof of a brother to be the means of bringing us back to god. iv. the results of repentance. 1. all heaven is made glad. luke 15:7, 10. joy in heaven, and in the presence of the angels of god. makes glad the heart of god, and sets the bells of heaven ringing. who are those "in the presence of the angels of god"? do the departed loved ones know anything about it? 2. it brings pardon and forgiveness of sin. isa. 55:7; acts 3:19. outside of repentance the prophets and apostles know of no way of securing pardon. no sacrifices, nor religious ceremonies can secure it. not that repentance merits forgiveness, but it is a condition of it. repentance qualifies a man for a pardon, but it does not entitle him to it. 3. the holy spirit is poured out upon the penitent. acts 2:38--"repent... and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost." impenitence keeps back the full incoming of the spirit into the heart. b. faith. i. the importance of the doctrine. ii. the definition of faith. 1. in general: a) knowledge. b) assent. c) appropriation. 2. in particular: a) towards god. b) towards christ. c) in prayer. d) in the word of god. 3. relation of faith to works. iii. the source of faith. 1. the divine side. 2. the human side. 3. means used. iv. some results of faith. 1. saved. 2. joy and peace. 3. do great works. b. faith. i. the importance of the doctrine. faith is fundamental in christian creed and conduct. it was the one thing which above all others christ recognized as the paramount virtue. the syrophoenician woman (matt. 15) had perseverance; the centurion (matt. 8), humility; the blind man (mark 10), earnestness. but what christ saw and rewarded in each of these cases was faith. faith is the foundation of peter's spiritual temple (2 pet. 1:5-7); and first in paul's trinity of graces (1 cor. 13:13). in faith all the other graces find their source. ii. the definition of faith. faith is used in the scriptures in a general and in a particular sense. 1. its general meaning: a) knowledge. psa. 9:10--"and they that know thy name will put their trust in thee." rom. 10:17--"so then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of god." faith is not believing a thing without evidence; on the contrary faith rests upon the best of evidence, namely, the word of god. an act of faith denotes a manifestation of the intelligence: "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" faith is no blind act of the soul; it is not a leap in the dark. such a thing as believing with the heart without the head is out of the question. a man may believe with his head without believing with his heart; but he cannot believe with his heart without believing with his head too. the heart, in the scriptures, means the whole man--intellect, sensibilities, and will. "as a man _thinketh_ in his heart." "why _reason_ ye these things in your hearts?" b) assent. mark 12:32--"and the scribe said unto him, well, master, thou hast said the truth." so was it with the faith which christ demanded in his miracles: "believe ye that i am able to do this?" "yea, lord." there must not only be the knowledge that jesus is able to save, and that he is the saviour of the world; there must be also an assent of the heart to all these claims. those who, _receiving_ christ to be all that he claimed to be, _believed_ in him, became thereby sons of god (john 1:12). c) appropriation. john 1:12; 2:24. there must be an appropriation of the things which we know and assent to concerning the christ and his work. intelligent perception is not faith. a man may know christ as divine, and yet aside from that reject him as saviour. knowledge affirms the reality of these things but neither accepts nor rejects them. nor is assent faith. there is an assent of the mind which does not convey a surrender of the heart and affections. faith is the consent of the will to the assent of the understanding. faith always has in it the idea of action--movement towards its object. it is the soul leaping forth to embrace and appropriate the christ in whom it believes. it first says: "my lord and my god," and then falls down and worships. a distinction between believing about christ and on christ is made in john 8:30, 31, r. v.--"many believed _on_ him.... jesus therefore said to those jews that had believed _him_." s. the meaning of faith in particular: a) when used in connection with the name of god. heb. 11:6--"but without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to god must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." also acts 27:22-25; rom. 4:19-21 with gen. 15:4-6. there can be no dealings with the invisible god unless there is absolute faith in his existence. we must believe in his reality, even though he is unseen. but we must believe even more than the fact of his existence; namely, that he is a rewarder, that he will assuredly honor with definite blessing those who approach unto him in prayer. importunity will, of course, be needed (luke 11:5-10). there must be confidence in the word of god also. faith believes all that god says as being absolutely true, even though circumstances seem to be against its fulfillment. b) when used in connection with the person and work of christ. recall the three elements in faith, and apply them here. first, there must be a _knowledge_ of the claims of christ as to his person and mission in the world: as to his person--that he is deity, john 9:35-38; 10:30; phil. 2:6-ll. as to his work--matt. 20:28; 26:26-28; luke 24:27, 44. second, there must be an _assent_ to all these claims, john 16:30; 20:28; matt. 16:16; john 6:68, 69. third, there must be a personal _appropriation_ of christ as being all that he claims to be, john 1:12, 8:21, 24; 5:24. there must be surrender to a person, and not mere faith in a creed. faith in a doctrine must lead to faith in a person, and that person jesus christ, if salvation is to be the result of such belief. so martha was led to substitute faith in a doctrine for faith in a person (john 11:25). it is such faith--consisting of knowledge, assent, and appropriation --that saves. this is believing with the heart (rom. 10:9,10). c) when used in connection with prayer. three passages may be used to set forth this relationship: 1 john 5:14, 15; james 1:5-7, mark 11:24. there must be no hesitation which balances between belief and unbelief, and inclines toward the latter--tossed one moment upon the shore of faith and hope, the next tossed back again into the abyss of unbelief. to "doubt" means to reason whether or no the thing concerning which you are making request can be done (acts 10:20; rom. 4:20). such a man only conjectures; he does not really believe. real faith thanks god for the thing asked for, if that thing is in accord with the will of god, even before it receives it (mark 11:24). note the slight: "that man." we must recognize the fact that knowledge, assent, and appropriation exist here also. we must understand the promises on which we base our prayer; we must believe that they are worth their full face value; and then step out upon them, thereby giving substance to that which, at the moment may be unseen, and, perchance, nonexistent, so far as our knowledge and vision are concerned, but which to faith is a splendid reality. d) when used in connection with the word and promise of god. first, we should know whether the particular promise in question is intended for us in particular. there is a difference in a promise being written _for_ us and _to_ us. there are dispensational aspects to many of the promises in the bible, therefore we must rightly divide, apportion, and appropriate the word of god (cf. i cor. 10:32). second, when once we are persuaded that a promise is _for_ us, we must believe that god means all he says in that promise; we must assent to all its truth; we must not diminish nor discount it. god will not, cannot lie (titus 1:2). third, we must appropriate and act upon the promises. herein lies the difference between belief and faith. belief is mental; faith adds the volitional; we may have belief without the will, but not faith. belief is a realm of thought; faith is a sphere of action. belief lives in the study; faith comes out into the market-places and the streets. faith substantiates belief--gives substance, life, reality, and activity to it (heb. 11:1). faith puts belief into active service, and connects possibilities with actualities. faith is acting upon what you believe; it is appropriation. faith counts every promise valid, and gilt-edged (heb. 11:11); no trial can shake it (11:35); it is so absolute that it survives the loss of its own pledge even (11:17). for illustration, see i kings 18:41-43. 3. the relation of faith to works. there is no merit in faith alone. it is not mere faith that saves, but faith in christ. faith in any other saviour but christ will not save. faith in any other gospel than that of the new testament will not save (gal. 1:8, 9). there is no contradiction between paul and james touching the matter of faith and works (cf. james 2:14-26; rom. 4:1-12). paul is looking at the matter from the godward side, and asserts that we are justified, in the sight of god, _meritoriously_, without absolutely any works on our part. james considers the matter from the manward side, and asserts that we are justified, in the sight of man, _evidentially_, by works, and not by faith alone (2:24). in james it is not the _ground_ of justification, as in paul, but the _demonstration_. see under justification, ii. 4, p. 159. iii. the source of faith. there are two sides to this phase of the subject--a divine and a human side. 1. it is the work of the triune god. _god the father_: rom. 12:3; i cor. 12. this is true of faith both in its beginning (phil. 1:29) and its development (1 cor. 12). faith, then, is a gift of his grace. _god the son_: heb. 12:2--"looking unto jesus the author and finisher of our faith." (illustration, matt. 14:30, 31--peter taking his eyes off christ.) i cor. 12; luke 17:5. _god the spirit_: gal. 5:22; i cor. 12:9. the holy spirit is the executive of the godhead. why then, if faith is the work of the godhead, are we responsible for not having it? god wills to work faith in all his creatures, and will do so if they do not resist his holy spirit. we are responsible, therefore, not so much for the lack of faith, but for resisting the spirit who will create faith in our hearts if we will permit him to do so. 2. there is also a human side to faith. rom. 10:17--"so then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of god." (cf. the context, vv. 9-21.) acts 4:4--"howbeit many of them which heard the word believed." in this instance the _spoken_ word, the gospel, is referred to; in other cases the written word, the scriptures, are referred to as being instrumental in producing faith. see also gal. 3:2-5. it was a looking unto the promises of god that brought such faith into the heart of abraham (rom. 4:19). prayer also is an instrument in the development of faith. luke is called the _human_ gospel because it makes so much of prayer, especially in connection with faith: 22:32--"but i have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." 17:5--"and the apostles said unto the lord, increase our faith." see also mark 9:24; matt. 17:19-21. our faith grows by the use of the faith we already have. luke 17:5, 6; matt. 25:39. iv. some results of faith. 1. we are saved by faith. we, of course, recall that the saving power of faith resides not in itself, but in the almighty saviour on whom it rests; so that, properly speaking, it is not so much faith, as it is faith in christ that saves. the whole of our salvation--past, present, and future, is dependent upon faith. our acceptance of christ (john 1:12); our justification (rom. 5:1); our adoption (gal. 3:26); our sanctification (acts 26:18); our keeping (1 pet. 1:5), indeed our whole salvation from start to finish is dependent upon faith. 2. rest, peace, assurance, joy. isa. 26:3; phil. 4:6; rom. 5:1; heb. 4:1-3; john 14:1; 1 pet. 1:8. fact, faith, feeling--this is god's order. satan would reverse this order and put feeling before faith, and thus confuse the child of god. we should march in accord with god's order: fact leads, faith with its eye on fact, following, and feeling with the eye on faith bringing up the rear. all goes well as long as this order is observed. but the moment faith turns his back on fact, and looks at feeling, the procession wabbles. steam is of main importance, not for sounding the whistle, but for moving the wheels; and if there is a lack of steam we shall not remedy it by attempting by our own effort to move the piston or blow the whistle, but by more water in the boiler, and more fire under it. feed faith with facts, not with feeling.--_a. t. pierson_. 3. do exploits through faith. heb. 11:32-34; matt. 21:21; john 14:12. note the wonderful things done by the men of faith as recorded in the eleventh chapter of hebrews. read vv. 32-40. jesus attributes a kind of omnipotence to faith. the disciple, by faith, will be able to do greater things than his master. here is a mighty niagara of power for the believer. the great question for the christian to answer is not "what can i do?" but "how much can i believe?" for "all things are possible to him that believeth." c. regeneration, or the new birth. i. its nature. 1. not baptism. 2. not reformation. 3. a spiritual quickening. 4. an impartation of a divine nature. 5. a new and divine impulse. ii. its necessity. 1. universal. 2. the sinful condition of man demands it. 3. the holiness of god demands it. iii. the means. 1. the divine side. 2. the human side. 3. the means used. c. regeneration, or the new birth. it is of the utmost importance that we have a clear understanding of this vital doctrine. by regeneration we are admitted into the kingdom of god. there is no other way of becoming a christian but by being born from above. this doctrine, then, is the door of entrance into christian discipleship. he who does not enter here, does not enter at all. i. the nature of regeneration. too often do we find other things substituted by man for god's appointed means of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. it will be well for us then to look, first of all, at some of these substitutes. 1. regeneration is not baptism. it is claimed that john 3:5--"except a man be born of water and of the spirit," and titus 3:5--"the washing of regeneration," teach that regeneration may occur in connection with baptism. these passages, however, are to be understood in a figurative sense, as meaning the cleansing power of the word of god. see also eph. 5:26--"with the washing of water by (or in) the word"; john 15:3--"clean through the word." that the word of god is an agent in regeneration is clear from james 1:18, and 1 pet. 1:23. if baptism and regeneration were identical, why should the apostle paul seem to make so little of that rite (1 cor. 4:15, and compare with it 1 cor. 1:14)? in the first passage paul asserts that he had _begotten_ them through the gospel; and in 1:14 he declares that he _baptized none of them_ save crispus and gaius. could he thus speak of baptism if it had been the means through which they had been begotten again? simon magus was baptized (acts 8), but was he saved? cornelius (acts 11) was saved even before he was baptized. 2. reformation is not regeneration. regeneration is not a natural forward step in man's development; it is a supernatural act of god; it is a spiritual crisis. it is not evolution, but involution--the communication of a new life. it is a revolution--a change of direction resulting from that life. herein lies the danger in psychology, and in the statistics regarding the number of conversions during the period of adolescence. the danger lies in the tendency to make regeneration a natural phenomenon, an advanced step in the development of a human life, instead of regarding it as a crisis. such a psychological view of regeneration denies man's sin, his need of christ, the necessity of an atonement, and the regenerating work of the holy spirit. 3. regeneration is a spiritual quickening, a new birth. regeneration is the impartation of a new and divine life; a new creation; the production of a new thing. it is gen. 1:26 over again. it is not the old nature altered, reformed, or re-invigorated, but a new birth from above. this is the teaching of such passages as john 3:3-7; 5:21; eph. 2:1, 10; 2 cor. 5:17. by nature man is dead in sin (eph. 2:1); the new birth imparts to him new life--the life of god, so that henceforth he is as those that are alive from the dead; he has passed out of death into life (john 5:24). 4. it is the impartation of a new nature--god's nature. in regeneration we are made partakers of the divine nature (2 pet. 1:4). we have put on the new man, which after god is created in holiness and righteousness (eph. 4:11; col. 3:10). christ now lives in the believer (gal. 2:20). god's seed now abides in him (1 john 3:9). so that henceforth the believer is possessed of two natures (gal. 5:17). 5. a new and divine impulse is given to the believer. thus regeneration is a crisis with a view to a process. a new governing power comes into the regenerate man's life by which he is enabled to become holy in experience: "old things are passed away; behold all things are become new" (2 cor. 5:17). see also acts 16:14, and ezek. 36:25-27, 1 john 3:6-9. ii. the imperative necessity of the new birth. 1. the necessity is universal. the need is as far reaching as sin and the human race: "except a man (lit. anybody) be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of god" (john 3:3, cf. v. 5). no age, sex, position, condition exempts anyone from this necessity. not to be born again is to be lost. there is no substitute for the new birth: "neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (gal. 6:15). the absolute necessity is clearly stated by our lord: whatever is born of the flesh, must be born again of the spirit (john 3:3-7). 2. the sinful condition of man demands it. john 3:6--"that which is born of the flesh is flesh"--and it can never, by any human process, become anything else. "can the ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil" (jer. 13:23). "they that are in the flesh cannot please god" (rom. 8:8); in our "flesh dwelleth no good thing" (rom. 7:18). the mind is darkened so that we cannot apprehend spiritual truth; we need a renewing of the mind (rom. 12:2). the heart is deceitful, and does not welcome god; we need to be pure in heart to see god. there is no thought of god before the eyes of the natural man; we need a change in nature that we may be counted among those "who thought upon his name." no education or culture can bring about such a needed change. god alone can do it. 3. the holiness of god demands it. if without holiness no man shall see the lord (heb. 12:14); and if holiness is not to be attained by any natural development or self-effort, then the regeneration of our nature is absolutely necessary. this change, which enables us to be holy, takes place when we are born again. man is conscious that he does not have this holiness by nature; he is conscious, too, that he must have it in order to appear before god (ezra 9:15). the scriptures corroborate this consciousness in man, and, still further, state the necessity of such a righteousness with which to appear before god. in the new birth alone is the beginning of such a life to be found. to live the life of god we must have the nature of god. iii. the means of regeneration. 1. regeneration is a divine work. we are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, _but of god"_ (john 1:13). it was of his own will he begat us (jas. 1:18): our regeneration is a creative act on the part of god, not a reforming process on the part of man. it is not brought about by natural descent, for all we get from that is "flesh." it is not by natural choice, for the human will is impotent. nor is it by self-effort, or any human generative principle. nor is it by the blood of any ceremonial sacrifices. it is not by pedigree or natural generation. it is altogether and absolutely the work of god. practically speaking, we have no more to do with our second birth, than we had to do with our first birth. the holy spirit is the divine agent in our regeneration. for this reason it is called the "renewing of the holy ghost" (tit. 3:5). we are "born of the spirit" (john 3:5). 2. and yet there is a human side to the work. john 1:12 and 13 bring together these two thoughts--the divine and the human in regeneration: those who _received_ him (i. e., christ)....were born _of god._ the two great problems connected with regeneration are the efficiency of god and the activity of man. a) man is regenerated by means of the acceptance of the message of the gospel. god begat us by "the word of truth" (james 1:18). we are "born again," says peter (1 ep. 1:23), "of incorruptible seed, by the word of god." we are "begotten through the gospel" (1 cor. 4:15). these scriptures teach us that regeneration takes place in the heart of man when he reads or hears the word of god, or the gospel message, or both, and, because of the spirit working in the word as well as in the heart of man, the man opens his heart and receives that message as the word of life to his soul. the truth is illuminated, as is also the mind, by the spirit; the man yields to the truth, and is born again. of course, even here, we must remember that it is the lord who must open our hearts just as he opened the heart of lydia (acts 16:14). but the word must be believed and received by man. 1 pet. 1:25. b) man is regenerated by the personal acceptance of jesus christ. this is the clear teaching of john 1:12, 13 and gal. 3:26. we become "children of god by faith in jesus christ." when a man, believing in the claims of jesus christ receives him to be all that he claimed to be--that man is born again. man therefore is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. he is passive only as to the change of his ruling disposition. with regard to the exercise of this disposition he is active. a dead man cannot assist in his own resurrection, it is true; but he may, and can, like lazarus, obey christ's command, and "come forth!" psa. 90:16, 17 illustrates both the divine and human part: "let _thy_ work appear unto thy servants," and then "the work of _our_ hands establish thou it." god's work appears first, then man's. so phil. 2:12,13. d. justification. i. its meaning. 1. relatively. 2. scripturally. 3. pardon--righteousness. ii. its method. 1. not by law. 2. by god's free grace. 3. the blood of christ. 4. faith. d. justification. i. the meaning of justification. 1. relatively. it is a change in a man's relation or standing before god. it has to do with relations that have been disturbed by sin, and these relations are personal. it is a change from guilt and condemnation to acquittal and acceptance. regeneration has to do with the change of the believer's nature; justification, with the change of his standing before god. regeneration is subjective; justification is objective. the former has to do with man's state; the latter, with his standing. 2. according to the language and usage of the scriptures. according to deut. 25:1 it means to declare, or to cause to appear innocent or righteous; rom. 4:2-8: to reckon righteous; psa. 32:2: not to impute iniquity. one thing at least is clear from these verses, and that is, that to justify does not mean to _make_ one righteous. neither the hebrew nor greek words will bear such meaning. to justify means to set forth as righteous; to declare righteous in a legal sense; to put a person in a right relation. it does not deal, at least not directly, with character or conduct; it is a question of relationship. of course both character and conduct will be conditioned and controlled by this relationship. no real righteousness on the part of the person justified is to be asserted, but that person is declared to be righteous and is treated as such. strictly speaking then, justification is the judicial act of god whereby those who put faith in christ are declared righteous in his eyes, and free from guilt and punishment. 3. justification consists of two elements. a) the forgiveness of sin, and the removal of its guilt and punishment. it is difficult for us to understand god's feeling towards sin. to us forgiveness seems easy, largely because we are indifferent towards sin. but to a holy god it is different. even men sometimes find it hard to forgive when wronged. nevertheless god gladly forgives. micah 7:18,19--"who is a god like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy . . . . he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea." see also psa. 130:4. what a wondrous forgiveness! forgiveness may be considered as the cessation of the moral anger and resentment of god against sin; or as a release from the guilt of sin which oppresses the conscience; or, again, as a remission of the punishment of sin, which is eternal death. in justification, then, all our sins are forgiven, and the guilt and punishment thereof removed (acts 13:38, 39; rom. 8:1). god sees the believer as without sin and guilt in christ (num. 23:21; rom. 8:33, 34). b) the imputation of christ's righteousness, and restoration to god's favor. the forgiven sinner is not like the discharged prisoner who has served out his term and is discharged from further punishment, but with no rights of citizenship. no, justification means much more than acquittal. the repentant sinner receives back in his pardon, the full rights of citizenship. the society of friends called themselves friends, not because they were friends one to another but because, being justified, they counted themselves friends of god as was abraham (2 chron. 20:7, james 2:23). there is also the imputation of the righteousness of jesus christ to the sinner. his righteousness is "unto all and upon all them that believe" (rom. 3:22). see rom. 5:17-21; 1 cor. 1:30. for illustration, see philemon 18. ii. the method of justification. 1. negatively: not by works of the law. rom. 3:20--"therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin." "therefore" implies that a judicial trial has taken place and a judgment pronounced. at the bar of god no man can be counted righteous in his sight because of his obedience to law. the burden of the epistle to the romans is to set forth this great truth. as a means of establishing right relations with god the law is totally insufficient. there is no salvation _by_ character. what men need is salvation _from_ character. the reason why the law cannot justify is here stated: "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." the law can open the sinner's eyes to his sin, but it cannot remove it. indeed, it was never intended to remove it, but to intensify it. the law simply defines sin, and makes it sinful, yea, exceedingly sinful, but it does not emancipate from it. gal. 3:10 gives us a further reason why justification cannot take place by obedience to the law. the law demands perfect and continual obedience: "cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." no man can render a perfect and perpetual obedience, therefore justification by obedience to the law is impossible. the only thing the law can do is to stop the mouth of every man, and declare him guilty before god (rom. 3:19, 20). gal. 2:16, and 3:10, rom. 3:28, are very explicit in their denial of justification by law. it is a question of moses or christ, works or faith, law or promise, doing or believing, wages or a free gift. 2. positively: by god's peee grace--the origin or source of justification. rom. 3:24--"being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in christ jesus." "freely" denotes that it is granted without anything done on our part to merit or deserve it. from the contents of the epistle up to this point it must be clearly evident that if men, sinful and sinning, are to be justified at all, it must be "by his free grace." 3. by the blood of jesus christ--the ground of justification. rom. 3:24--"being justified . . . . through the redemption that is in christ jesus." 5:9--"much more then, being now justified by his blood." 2 cor. 5:21 (r. v.)--"him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of god in him." the bloodshedding of christ is here connected with justification. it is impossible to get rid of this double idea from this passage. the sacrifices of the old testament were more than a meaningless butchery--"without shedding of blood is no remission" of sin (heb. 9:22). the great sacrifice of the new testament, the death of jesus christ, was something more than the death of a martyr--men are "justified by his blood" (rom. 5:9). 4. by believing in jesus christ--the condition of justification. gal. 2:16--"knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of jesus christ," or as the revised version margin has it: "but only through faith in jesus christ." rom. 3:26--"to declare, i say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in jesus." "him that believeth in jesus" is contrasted with "as many as are of the works of the law" (gal. 3:10). when paul in romans 4:5 says: "now to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly," he gives the death-blow to jewish righteousness. "his faith is counted for righteousness;" that pictures the man who, despairing of all dependence upon his works, casts himself unreservedly upon the mercy of god, as set forth in jesus christ, for his justification. thus it come to pass that "all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of moses" (acts 13:39). the best of men need to be saved by faith in jesus christ, and the worst need only that. as there is no difference in the need, neither is there in the method of its application. on this common ground all saved sinners meet, and will stand forever. the first step, then, in justification is to despair of works; the second, to believe on him that justifieth the ungodly. we are not to slight good works, for they have their place, but they follow, not precede justification. the workingman is not the justified man, but the justified man is the workingman. works are not meritorious, but they meet with their reward in the life of the justified. the tree _shows_ its life by its fruits, but it was alive before the fruit or even the leaves appeared. (see under faith, ii. 3, p. 148, for further suggestions regarding the relation between faith and works.) summing up we may say that men are justified _judicially_ by god. (rom. 8:33); _meritoriously_ by christ, (isa. 53:11); _mediately_ by _faith_, (rom. 5:1); _evidentially_ by works, (james 2:14, 18-24). the doctrines of salvation e. adoption. i. the meaning of adoption. 1. etymologically. 2. scripturally. ii. the time of adoption. 1. eternal. 2. when one believes. 3. complete at resurrection. iii. the blessings of adoption. 1. filial. 2. experimental. iv. some evidences of sonship. 1. guidance. 2. confidence. 3. access. 4. love for the brethren. 5. obedience. e. adoption. regeneration begins the new life in the soul; justification deals with the new attitude of god towards that soul, or perhaps better, of that soul towards god; adoption admits man into the family of god with filial joy. regeneration has to do with our change in nature; justification, with our change in standing; sanctification, with our change in character; adoption, with our change in position. in regeneration the believer becomes a child of god (john 1:12,13); in adoption, the believer, already a child, receives a place as an adult son; thus the child becomes a son, the minor becomes an adult (gal. 4:1-7). i. the meaning of adoption. adoption means _ the placing of a son_. it is a legal metaphor as regeneration is a physical one. it is a roman word, for adoption was hardly, if at all, known among the jews. it means the taking by one man of the son of another to be his son, so that that son has the same position and all the advantages of a son by birth. the word is pauline, not johannine. the word is never once used of christ. it is used of the believer when the question of rights, privileges, and heirship are involved. it is peculiarly a pauline word (gal. 4:5; rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; eph. 1:5). john uses the word "children," not "sons," because he is always speaking of sonship from the standpoint of nature, growth, and likeness (cf. 1 john 3:1, r. v.). exodus 2:10 and heb. 11:24, furnish two splendid illustrations of the scriptural sense and use of adoption. ii. the time when adoption takes place. 1. in a certain sense it is eternal in its nature. eph. 1:4, 5--before the foundation of the world we were predestinated unto the adoption of children. we need to distinguish between the foreordaining to adoption, and the actual act of adoption which took place when we believed in christ. just as the incarnation was foreordained, and yet took place in time; and just as the lamb was slain from before the foundation of the word, and yet actually only on calvary. why then mention this eternal aspect of adoption? to exclude works and to show that our salvation had its origin solely in the grace of god (rom. 9:11; 11:5, 6). just as if we should adopt a child it would be a wholly gracious act on our part. 2. it takes place the moment one believes in jesus christ. 1 john 3:2--"beloved, now are we the sons of god." gal. 3:26--"for ye are all the children of god by faith in christ jesus." see also john 1:12. sonship is now the present possession of the believer. strange as it may be, inconceivable as it may seem, it is nevertheless true. the world may not think so (v. 1), but god says so, and the christian believing it, exclaims, "i'm the child of a king." formerly we were slaves; now we are sons. 3. our sonship will be completed at the resurrection and coming again of our lord jesus christ. rom. 8:23--"waiting for the adoption, to-wit, the redemption, of the body." here in this world we are _incognito_; we are not recognized as sons of god. but some day we shall throw off this disguise (2 cor. 5:10). it doth not appear, it hath not yet appeared what we shall be; the revelation of the sons of god is reserved for a future day. see also i john 3:1-3. iii. the blessings of adoption. the blessings of adoption are too numerous to mention save in the briefest way. some of them are as follows: objects of god's peculiar love (john 17:23), and his fatherly care (luke 12:27-33). we have the family name (1 john 3:1; eph. 3:14, 15), the family likeness (rom. 8:29); family love (john 13:35; 1 john 3:14); a filial spirit (rom. 8:15; gal. 4:6); a family service (john 14:23, 24; 15:8). we receive fatherly chastisement (heb. 12:5-11); fatherly comfort (isa. 66:13; 2 cor. 1:4), and an inheritance (1 pet. 1:3-5; rom. 8:17). iv. some evidences of sonship. those who are adopted into god's family are: led by the spirit (rom. 8:4; gal. 5:18). have a childlike confidence in god (gal. 4:5, 6). have liberty of access (eph. 3:12). have love for the brethren (1 john 2:9-11; 5:1). are obedient (1 john 5:1-3). f. sanctification. i. its meaning. 1. negatively--separation from evil. 2. positively--dedication unto god. 3. used of the divine nature. ii. when it takes place. 1. instant. 2. progressive. 3. complete. iii. the means. 1. divine. 2. human. 3. means used. f. sanctification. if regeneration has to do with our nature, justification with our standing, and adoption with our position, then sanctification has to do with our character and conduct. in justification we are declared righteous in order that, in sanctification, we may become righteous. justification is what god does for us, while sanctification is what god does in us. justification puts us into a right relationship with god, while sanctification exhibits the fruit of that relationship--a life separated from a sinful world and dedicated unto god. i. the meaning of sanctification. two thoughts are prominent in this definition: separation from evil, and dedication unto god and his service. 1. separation from evil. 2 chron. 29:5, 15-18--"sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the lord god . . . . and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy places. . . . and the priests went into the inner part of the house of the lord, to cleanse it, and brought out all the uncleanness. . . .then they went in to hezekiah the king, and said, we have cleansed all the house of the lord." 1 thess. 4:3--"for this is the will of god, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." see also heb. 9:3; exod. 19:20-22; lev. 11:44. it is evident from these scriptures that sanctification has to do with the turning away from all that is sinful and that is defiling to both soul and body. 2. separation or dedication unto god. in this sense whatever is set apart from a profane to a sacred use, whatever is devoted exclusively to the service of god, is sanctified. so it follows that a man may "sanctify his house to be holy unto the lord," or he may "sanctify unto the lord some part of a field of his possession" (lev. 27:14, 16). so also the first-born of all the children were sanctified unto the lord (num. 8:17). even the son of god himself, in so far as he was set apart by the father and sent into the world to do god's will, was sanctified (john 10:36). whenever a thing or person is separated from the common relations of life in order to be devoted to the sacred, such is said to be sanctified. 3. it is used of god. whenever the sacred writers desire to show that the lord is absolutely removed from all that is sinful and unholy, and that he is absolutely holy in himself they speak of him as being sanctified: "when i shall be sanctified in you before their eyes" (ezek. 36:23). ii. the time of sanctification. sanctification may be viewed as past, present, and future; or instantaneous, progressive, and complete. 1. instantaneous sanctification. 1 cor. 6:11--"and such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the lord jesus, and by the spirit of our god." heb. 10:10, 14--"by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of jesus christ once for all. . . . for by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." by the death of jesus christ the sanctification of the believer takes place at once. the very moment a man believes in christ he is sanctified, that is, in this first sense: he is separated from sin and separated unto god. for this reason all through the new testament believers are called saints (1 cor. 1:2, r. v.; rom. 1:7, r. v.). if a man is not a saint he is not a christian; if he is a christian he is a saint. in some quarters people are canonized after they are dead; the new testament canonizes believers while they are alive. note how that in 1 cor. 6:11 "sanctified" is put before "justified." the believer grows _in_ sanctification rather than _into_ sanctification out of something else. by a simple act of faith in christ the believer is at once put into a state of sanctification. every christian is a sanctified man. the same act that ushers him into the state of justification admits him at once into the state of sanctification, in which he is to grow until he reaches the fulness of the measure of the stature of christ. 2. progressive sanctification. justification differs from sanctification thus: the former is an instantaneous act with no progression; while the latter is a crisis with a view to a process--an act, which is instantaneous and which at the same time carries with it the idea of growth unto completion. 2 pet. 3:18--"but grow in (the) grace, and in the knowledge of our lord and saviour jesus christ." 2 cor. 3:18--we "are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the lord the spirit." the tense is interesting here: we are being transformed from one degree of character, or glory, to another. it is because sanctification is progressive, a growth, that we are exhorted to "increase and abound" (1 thess. 3:12), and to "abound more and more" (4:1, 10) in the graces of the christian life. the fact that there is always danger of contracting defilement by contact with a sinful world, and that there is, in the life of the true christian, an ever increasing sense of duty and an ever-deepening consciousness of sin, necessitates a continual growth and development in the graces and virtues of the believer's life. there is such a thing as "perfecting holiness" (2 cor. 7:1). god's gift to the church of pastors and teachers is for the purpose of the perfecting of the saints in the likeness of christ _until_, at last, they attain unto the fulness of the divine standard, even jesus christ (eph. 4:11-15). holiness is not a mushroom growth; it is not the thing of an hour; it grows as the coral reef grows: little by little, degree by degree. see also phil. 3:10-15. 3. complete and final sanctification. 1 thess. 5:23, r. v.--"and the god of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our lord jesus christ." "wholly" means complete in every part, perfect in every respect, whether it refers to the church as a whole, or to the individual believer. some day the believer is to be complete in all departments of christian character--no christian grace missing. complete in the "spirit" which links him with heaven; in the "body" which links him with earth; in the "soul" as being that on which heaven and earth play. maturity in each separate element of christian character: body, soul, and spirit. this blessing of entire and complete sanctification is to take place when christ comes: 1 thess. 3:13--"to the end that he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before god, even our father, at the coming of our lord jesus christ with all his saints." it is when we shall see him that we shall be like him (1 john 3:2). how explicitly paul puts the matter in phil. 3:12-14, r. v. --"not that i have already obtained, or am already made perfect: but i press on, if so be that i may lay hold of that for which also i was laid hold on by christ jesus. brethren, i count not myself yet to have laid hold: but one thing i do, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, i press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of god in christ jesus." iii. the means of sanctification. how are men sanctified? what means are used, and what agencies employed to make men holy and conform them into the likeness of christ? the agencies and means are both divine and human: both god and man contributing and co-operating towards this desired end. 1. from the divine side: it is the work of the triune god. a) god the father. 1 thess. 5:23, 24, r. v.--"and the god of peace himself sanctify you wholly. . . . faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it." god's work is here contrasted with human efforts to achieve the preceding injunctions. just as in hebrews 12:2, and philippians 1:6, the beginner of faith is also the finisher; so is it here; consequently the end and aim of every exhortation is but to strengthen faith in god who is able to accomplish these things for us. of course there is a sense in which the believer is responsible for his progress in the christian life (phil. 3:12, 13), yet it is nevertheless true that, after all, it is the divine grace which works all in him (phil. 2:12, 13). we cannot purify ourselves, but we can yield to god and then the purity will come. the "god of peace," he who reconciles us--is the one who sanctifies us. it is as if the apostle said: "god, by his mighty power will do for you what i, by my admonitions, and you by your own efforts, cannot do." see also john 17:17--"sanctify them through thy truth." christ addresses god as the one who is to sanctify the disciples. b) jesus christ the son. heb. 10:10, r. v.--"by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of jesus christ once for all." the death of jesus christ separates the believer from sin and the world, and sets him apart as redeemed and dedicated to the service of god. this same truth, namely, the sanctification of the church as based on the sacrificial death of christ, is set forth in eph. 5:25, 27--"christ loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it." christ is "made unto us . . . sanctification" (1 cor. 1:30). see also heb. 13:12, r. v. c) the holy spirit sanctifies. 1 pet. 1:2--"elect according to the foreknowledge of god the father, through sanctification of the spirit." 2 thess. 2:13--". . . . because god hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth." the holy spirit seals, attests, and confirms the work of grace in the soul by producing the fruits of righteousness therein. it is the spirit of life in christ jesus who gives us freedom from the law of sin and death (rom. 8:2). he is called the _holy_ spirit, not only because he is absolutely holy himself, but also because he produces that quality of soul-character in the believer. the spirit is the executive of the god-head for this very purpose. it is the spirit's work to war against the lusts of the flesh and enable us to bring forth fruit unto holiness (gal. 5:17-22). how wonderfully this truth is set forth in the contrast between the seventh and eighth chapters of romans. note the unsuccessful struggle of the former, and the victory of the latter. note also that there is no mention of the holy spirit in the seventh, while he is mentioned about sixteen times in the eighth chapter. herein lies the secret of failure and victory, sin and holiness. 2. from the human side. a) faith in the redemptive work of jesus christ. 1 cor. 1:30, r. v.--"but of him are ye in christ jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from god, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." christ is indeed all these things to us, but, in reality, he becomes such only as we appropriate him for ourselves. only as the believer, daily, yea, even momentarily, takes by faith the holiness of jesus, his faith, his patience, his love, his grace, to be his own for the need of that very moment, can christ, who by his death was made unto him sanctification in the instantaneous sense, become unto him sanctification in the progressive sense--producing in the believer his own life moment by moment. herein lies the secret of a holy life--the momentarily appropriation of jesus christ in all the riches of his grace for every need as it arises. the degree of our sanctification is the proportion of our appropriation of christ. see also acts 26:18. b) the study of the scriptures and obedience thereto. john 17:17--"sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." eph. 5:26--"that he might sanctify and cleanse it (i.e., the church) with the washing of water by the word." john 15:3--"now ye are clean through the word which i have spoken unto you." our sanctification is limited by our limitation in the knowledge of and our lack of obedience to the word of god. how does the word of god sanctify? by revealing sin; by awakening conscience; by revealing the character of christ; by showing the example of christ; by offering the influences and powers of the holy spirit, and by setting forth spiritual motives and ideals. there is no power like that of the word of god for detaching a man from the world, the flesh and the devil. c) various other agencies. heb. 12:14, r. v.--"follow after . . . the sanctification without which no man shall see the lord." to "follow after" means to pursue, to persecute, as saul of tarsus pursued and followed the early christians. one cannot become a saint in his sleep. holiness must be the object of his pursuit. the lazy man will not be the holy man. heb. 12:10, 11: god chastens us "for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness." chastisement ofttimes is intended to "produce the peaceable fruit of righteousness." rom. 6:19-32; 2 cor. 6:17, 7:1. sanctification is brought about in the life of the believer by his separating himself deliberately from all that is unclean and unholy, and by presenting, continually and constantly, the members of his body as holy instruments unto god for the accomplishment of his holy purposes. thus by these single acts of surrender unto holiness, sanctification soon becomes the habit of the life. g. prayer. i. its importance. ii. its nature. 1. as seen in its historic development. 2. scriptural terms. iii. its possibility. 1. the revelation of god. 2. the work of the son. 3. the assistance of the spirit. 4. the promises. 5. christian testimony. iv. its objects. 1. god the father. 2. christ the son. 3. the holy spirit. v. its method. 1. posture. 2. time and place. vi. hindeances and helps. 1. hindrances. 2. helps--essentials. g. prayer. i. the importance of prayer. even a cursory perusal of the scriptures will reveal the large and important place which the doctrine of prayer finds therein. the christian life cannot be sustained without it; it is the christian's vital breath. its importance is seen when we recall: that the neglect of prayer is grievous to the lord (isa. 43:21, 22; 64:6, 7, r. v.). that many evils in life are to be attributed to the lack of prayer (zeph. 1:4-6; dan. 9:13, 14, cf. hosea 7:13, 14; 8:13, 14). that it is a sin to neglect prayer (1 sam. 12:23). that to continue in prayer is a positive command (col. 4:2, r. v.; 1 thess. 5:17; we are commanded to take leisure or a vacation for prayer: 1 cor. 7:5). that it is god's appointed method of obtaining what he has to bestow (dan. 9:3; matt. 7:7-11; 9:24-29; luke 11:13). that the lack of the necessary blessings in life comes from failure to pray (james 4:2). that the apostles regarded prayer as the most important employment that could engage their time or attention (acts 6:4; rom. 1:9; col. 1:9). ii. the nature of prayer. it is interesting to trace the development of prayer in the scriptures. in the life of the patriarch abraham prayer seems to have taken the form of a dialogue--god and man drawing near and talking to each other (gen. 18; 19); developing into intercession (gen. 17:18; 18:23, 32), and then into personal prayer (gen. 15:2; 24:12); jacob, (gen. 28:20; 32:9-12, 24; hosea 12:4). the patriarchal blessings are called prayers (gen 49:1; deut. 33:11). during the period of the law. not very much prominence is given to formal prayer during this period. deut. 26:1-15 seems to be the only one definitely recorded. prayer had not yet found a stated place in the ritual of the law. it seems to have been more of a personal than a formal matter, and so while the law may not afford much material, yet the life of the lawgiver, moses, abounds with prayer (exod. 5:22; 32:11; num. 11:11-15). under joshua (7:6-9; 10:14), and the judges (c. 6) we are told that the children of israel "cried unto the lord." under samuel prayer seems to have assumed the nature of intercession (1 sam. 7:5, 12; 8:16-18); personal (1 sam. 15:11, 35; 16:1). in jeremiah (15:1) moses and samuel are represented as offering intercessory prayer for israel. david seems to regard himself as a prophet and priest, and prays without an intercessor (2 sam. 7:18-29). the prophets seem to have been intercessors, e.g., elijah (1 kings 18). yet personal prayers are found among the prophets (jer. 20--both personal and intercessory; 33:3; 42:4; amos 7). in the psalms prayer takes the form of a pouring out of the heart (42:4; 62:8; 100:2, title). the psalmist does not seem to go before god with fixed and orderly petitions so much as simply to pour out his feelings and desires, whether sweet or bitter, troubled or peaceful. consequently the prayers of the psalmist consist of varying moods: complaint, supplication, confession, despondency, praise. true prayer consists of such elements as adoration, praise, petition, pleading, thanksgiving, intercession, communion, waiting. the closet into which the believer enters to pray is not only an oratory --a place of prayer, it is an observatory--a place of vision. prayer is not "a venture and a voice of mine; but a vision and a voice divine." isa. 63:7; 64:12, illustrates all essential forms of address in prayer. iii. the possibility of prayer. this possibility consists in five things: 1. the revelation of god which christ has brought to us. john 1:18--"no man hath seen god at any time; the only-begotten son, which is in the bosom of the father, he hath declared him." matt. 11:27--". . . . neither knoweth any man the father, save the son, and he to whomsoever the son will reveal him." christ reveals god as a _personal_ god, as a being who sees, feels, knows, understands, and acts. belief in the personality of god is absolutely necessary to true prayer (heb. 11:6). christ reveals god as a _sovereign_ god (matt. 19:26)--"with god all things are possible." god is sovereign over all laws; he can make them subservient to his will, and use them in answering the prayers of his children. he is not bound by any so-called unchangeable laws. christ revealed god as a _father_ (luke 11:13). in every instance in the life of christ whenever he addresses god in prayer it is always as father. the fact of the fatherhood of god makes prayer possible. it would be unnatural for a father not to commune with his child. 2. the sacrificial work of jesus christ. heb. 10:19-22, r. v.--"having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great priest over the house of god; let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith." it is because of the death of christ, which removed the barrier that stood between god and us so that he could not consistently hear and answer our prayers, that he can now hear and answer the petitions of his children. 3. the inspiration of the holy ghost. rom. 8:26--"likewise the spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." see also jude 20. the thought is this: even though we are assured that there is a personal god to hear us, and although we have the confidence that the barrier of sin which stood between us and god has been removed, so that we now desire to pray, we often are hindered because we either do not know what to say or what to ask for. we may ask too ardently for wrong things, or too languidly for the things we most need. and so we are afraid to pray. the assurance that this verse gives us is that the holy spirit will pray within us, and will indict the petition, helping us in our prayer life. 4. the many promises of the bible. we are told that there are over 33,000 of them. each promise is "yea and amen in jesus christ"; he is the guarantee and the guarantor of them all. they are not given to mock but to encourage us: "hath he said and shall he not do it? hath he spoken and shall he not make it good?" see john 14:13; 15:7; 1 john 5:14, 15; luke 11:9, etc. 5. the universal christian testimony. christians, by the millions, the world over, can and do testify to the fact that god both hears and answers prayer. the credibility, character, and intelligence of the vast number of witnesses make their testimony indisputable and incontrovertible. iv. the objects of prayer--to whom to pray. 1. to god. neh 4:9; acts 12:5--"prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto god for him": god is holy--hence there must be no impurity in the life of the one praying; righteous, hence no crookedness; truthful, hence no lying or hypocrisy; powerful, hence we may have confidence; transcendent, hence reverence in our approach. 2. to christ. acts 7:59--"lord jesus, receive my spirit." 2 cor. 12:8, 9; 2 tim. 2:22. 3. the holy spirit. rom. 8:15, 16 sets forth the relation of the holy spirit and prayer, as do also zech. 12:10; eph. 6:18; jude 20. the holy spirit is god (acts 5:3, 4; matt. 28:19; 2 cor. 13:14), hence is to be worshipped (matt. 4:10; rev. 22:9). the normal mode of prayer is prayer in the spirit, on the ground of the merits of the son, to the father: in the spirit, through the son, to the father. v. the method or manner of prayer. 1. with regard to the posture of the body. the soul may be in prayer no matter what is the attitude of the body. the scriptures sanction no special bodily posture. christ stood and prayed (john 17:1), knelt (luke 22:41), he also fell on his face on the ground (matt. 26:39); solomon knelt (1 kings 8:54); elijah prayed with his elbows on his knees and his face buried in his hands; david prayed lying on his bed (psa. 63:6); peter prayed on the water (matt. 14:30); the dying thief, on the cross (luke 23:42). 2. time and place. time: _stated times_ (dan. 6:10; psa. 55:16, 17; acts 3:1; 2:46; 10:9, 30). _special occasions:_ choosing the twelve (luke 6:12, 13). before the cross (luke 22:39-46). after great successes (john 6:15, cf. mark 6:46-48). _early in the morning_ (mark 1:35). _all night_ (luke 6:12). _times of special trouble_ (psa. 81:7, cf. exod. 2:23; 3:7; 14:10, 24). _at meals_ (matt. 14:19; acts 27:35; 1 tim. 4:4, 5). place of prayer: inner chamber (matt. 6:6); amid nature (matt. 14:23; mark 1:35). in the church (john 17:1; psa. 95:6). before the unsaved (acts 16:25; 27:35). in all places (1 tim. 2:8, r. v.). vi. hindrances and helps to prayer. 1. hindrances. indulged known sin (psa. 66:18; isa. 59:1, 2). wilful disobedience to known commandments (prov. 28:9). selfishness (james 4:3). unforgiving spirit (matt. 5:22, 23; 6:12). lack of faith (heb. 11:6; james 1:6). idols in the heart (ezek. 8:5-18; 14:1-3). 2. helps--essentials to prevailing prayer. sincerity (psa. 145:18; matt. 6:5). simplicity (matt. 6:7, cf. 26:44). earnestness (james 5:17; acts 12:5; luke 22:44). persistence (luke 18:1-8; col. 4:2; rom. 12:12, r. v.). faith (matt. 21:22; james 1:6). unison with others (matt. 18:19, 20). definiteness (psa. 27:4; matt. 18:19). effort (exod. 14:15). in the name of jesus (john 16:23; 14:13, 14). with fasting (acts 13:2, 3; 14:23). the doctrine of the church i. definition; distinctions. 1. old testament. 2. new testament. 3. the church; christendom; kingdom. ii. the founding of the church. 1. in prophecy and promise. 2. historically founded. iii. membership in the church. conditions of entrance; characteristics. 1. repentance and baptism. 2. faith in the deity of jesus christ. 3. regeneration. 4. public confession of christ--baptism. 5. adherence to the apostles' doctrine. 6. characteristics. iv. figures under which the church is presented. 1. the body of christ. 2. the temple of god. 3. the bride of christ. v. the ordinances of the church. 1. baptism. 2. the lord's supper. vi. the vocation of the church. 1. to worship god. 2. to evangelize the world. 3. perfect each member. 4. to witness. 5. future glory. the doctrine of the church. there is great danger of losing sight of the church in the endeavor to emphasize the idea of the kingdom of heaven or christendom. we are prone to think it a small thing to speak of the church; the kingdom and christendom seem so large in comparison. we are tempted to distinguish and contrast churchism, as it is sometimes called, and christianity, to the disparagement of the former. it is well to remember that jesus christ positively identifies himself with the church (acts 9) and not with christendom; he gave up his life that he might found the church (eph. 5:25). the apostle paul sacrificed himself in his endeavors to build up the church, not christendom. he speaks of his greatest sin as consisting in persecuting the church of god (1 cor. 15:9). the supreme business of god in this age is the gathering of the church. some day it will be complete (eph. 4:12), and then the age will have served its purpose. i. definitions; distinctions. 1. old testament use of the word. lev. 4:13--"and if the whole congregation of israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly . . . ." the hebrew word for _assembly_ means to _call_ or _assemble,_ and is used not only for the act of calling itself, but also for the assembly of the called ones. in this sense israel is called a "church," an assembly, because called out from among the other nations to be a holy people (acts 7:38, "the church in the wilderness"). there is always a religious aspect associated with this particular call. 2. the new testament use of the word. it is from the new testament primarily, if not really exclusively, that the real meaning and idea of the church is derived. the christian church is a new testament institution, beginning with pentecost, and ending, probably, with the rapture. two words are of special importance in this connection: a) ecclesia, from two greek words meaning "to call out from." this word is used in all about 111 times in the new testament. it is used in a secular sense in acts 19:39--"it shall be determined in a lawful assembly"; of israel in the wilderness (acts 7:38), and of the assembly of believers in christ (matt. 16:18; 18:17; 1 cor. 1:2; eph. 5:25-27). in keeping with this idea the saints are said to be the "called-out" ones (rom. 8:30; 1 cor. 1:2; cf. 2 cor. 6:17). b) "kuriakon"--that which belongs to the lord. so we have "the supper of the lord" (1 cor. 11:20); the "day of the lord" (rev. 1:10). see also luke 22:25 and rom. 14:8, 9, as illustrating that over which the lord has dominion and authority. to sum up then: the church is composed of the body of believers who have been called out from the world, and who are under the dominion and authority of jesus christ. c) the growth of the church idea in the new testament. at first there was but one church at jerusalem. the meetings may have been held in different houses, yet there was but one church with one roster: so we read of the total membership consisting at one time of 120 (acts 1:15), again of 3,000 (2:41), and still again of 5,000 (4:4), to which there were daily additions (2:47). the apostles were at the head of the church (2:41-47). see acts, cc. 1 and 2, for a fuller account of the first church. the second stage in the growth of the church was its spread throughout judea and samaria, as recorded in acts 8. antioch, in syria, then became the head of the gentile church (acts 13:1), as jerusalem was the head of the jewish church (acts 15); paul representing the church at antioch, and peter and james at jerusalem. the assembly at antioch was called "the church" just as truly as was the assembly at jerusalem (11:22; 13:1). because of the missionary activities of the apostles, especially paul, churches sprang up in different cities, especially in asia minor, e.g., corinth, galatia, ephesus, and philippi. in view of all this the term "church" came to be used of the church _universal,_ that is, the complete body of christ as existing in every place (1 cor. 15:9; gal. 1:2, 13; matt. 16:18); of _local_ churches in any one place (col. 4:16; phil. 4:15; 1 cor. 1:2, etc.); of _single meetings,_ even where two or three met together (matt. 18:19; col. 4:15; phil. 1:2; rom. 16:5). it is evident, then, from what has here been said, that by the term "church" is included all that is meant from the church universal to the meeting of the church in the house. wherever god's people meet in the name of christ to worship, there you have the church. 3. distinctions: a) the church and the kingdom. the church (which is the mystery) and the kingdom in mystery are now contemporary. the kingdom will be fully manifested at the coming of christ. the church is within the kingdom; probably the regenerate are "the children of the kingdom." the kingdom is comprised of both good and bad (matt. 13); the church, of real saints only. the jews rejected the kingdom under christ and the apostles. that kingdom, now rejected, will be set up again when the messiah comes. this conception will help us to understand the parables of matthew 13, as well as the sermon on the mount. the tares are sown not in the church, but in the field, which is the world. the church may be looked upon as part of the kingdom of god, just as illinois is part of the united states. the kingdom is present, in a sense, just as the king is present in the hearts of his own people. there is a difference between the church and christendom, just as there is a difference between possessing and professing christians. baptized christendom is one thing, and the church of christ is another. b) the church visible and invisible: actual and ideal. the church _visible_ is composed of all those whose names are enrolled upon its roster; _invisible,_ of those whose names are written in the lamb's book of life; _actual,_ people imperfect, yet aiming after perfection, alive here on the earth; _ideal,_ departed saints who are now triumphant in heaven (heb. 12:23). there is a church in heaven just as there is one upon the earth; indeed, it is but a part of the one church; called the church _militant_ while upon the earth, and the church _triumphant_ in heaven. c) the church local and universal. by the first is meant the church in any particular place, such as "the church at corinth"; by the latter, the church as found in every place (1 cor. 1:2). ii. the founding of the church. 1. foretold by christ. matt. 16:16-18--". . . . on this rock i will build my church." here is the church in prophecy and promise; the first mention of the church in the new testament. note the distinction here recognized between the "kingdom" and the "church." the church is to be founded on peter's confession of jesus christ as the son of the living god. no supremacy is here given to peter, as a comparison of these verses with john 20:19-23, and matt. 18:18--in which the same privilege of the binding and loosing is given to the whole church and to all the apostles--will show. in matthew 18:15-20 our lord recognizes the fact of the church, and also that it has the divine seal and sanction in the exercising of the power of the keys. 2. historically founded by the apostles. acts 1-2:47. the promise and prophecy of matt. 16:16-18 is here fulfilled. here is the account of the first christian church in its glorious beginning, and as it actually existed in jerusalem. when a man became regenerate by believing in jesus christ he was thereby constituted a member of the church. there was no question as to whether he ought to join himself to the church or not; that was a fact taken for granted. so we read that the lord was adding to the church daily such as were being saved. the church was already a concrete institution to which every believer in christ united himself. "the apostles' doctrine" formed the standard of faith--a fulfillment of christ's prophecy and promise in matthew 16:16-18: "on this rock i will build my church," etc. the church had _stated places of meeting:_ the upper room (acts 1:13), the temple (5:12), the homes of members (2:46, 12:12), and the synagogue; _stated times of_ meeting: daily (2:46), each lord's day (20:7), the _regular hours_ of prayer (3:1; 10:9); _a regular church roll:_ 120 (1:15), 3,000 (2:41), 5,000 (4:4); _daily additions_ (2:47). that there were definitely, regularly organized churches is clear from the fact that the apostle paul addressed many of his epistles to churches in different localities. the letters to the corinthians (e.g., 1 ep. 12-14) show that the churches had already recognized certain forms of service and liturgy; those to timothy and titus presume a regularly organized congregation of believers. that there is a church in the world is clear from 1 cor. 5:9-13. the christian church is as much an entity as the gentile, or the jew (1 cor. 10:32). the existence of church officers proves the existence of the church in an organized form: bishops and deacons (phil. 1:1), elders (acts 20:17), the presbytery (1 tim. 4:14). church letters were granted to members (acts 18:27). iii. membership in the church--its conditions and characteristics. 1. repentance and baptism required of all its members. acts 2:38-41--"then peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of jesus christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." 2. faith in the lord jesus christ as the divine redeemer. matt. 16:16-18; acts 2:38, 39. peter's entire sermon in acts 2 illustrates this fact. 3. saved-regenerated. acts 2:47--". . . . and the lord added to the church such as should be saved." cf. john 3:3, 5. it was essential that the members of the early church should be "added unto the lord" before they were added to the church (5:14; 11:24). 4. baptism in the name of the triune god as an open confession of christ. matt. 28:19--"go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost." acts 2:38-41; 10:47, 48; 22:16: cf. rom. 10:9, 10. 5. adherence to the apostolic doctrine. acts 2:42--"and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship." cf. "on this rock i will build my church" (matt. 16:16-18); also eph. 2:20. 6. characteristics of membership in the early church. the members were known as believers (acts 4:32); brethren (11:29; 12:17; rom. 1:13--the absolute equality of all believers, cf. matt. 23:8-10); christians (acts 11:26; 26:28); saints (9:13; 1 cor. 1:2; rev. 13:7); elect (mark 13:27; rom. 8:33; eph. 1:4). iv. figures under which the church is set forth in the scriptures. 1. the body, of which christ is the head. two ideas are contained in this symbol: a) the relation of the church to christ, who is its head. eph. 1:22, 23; col. 1:18; 2:19. the church is an organism, not an organization. there is a vital relation between christ and the church, both partaking of the same life, just as there is between the physical head and the body. we cannot join the church as we would a lodge or any mere human organization. we must be partakers by faith of christ's life before we can become members of christ's church, in the true sense. as the head of the church christ is its guardian and director (eph. 5:23, 24); the source of its life, filling it with his fulness (eph. 1:23); the centre of its unity and the cause of its growth (eph. 4:15; col. 2:19). b) the relation of the members one to another. 1 cor. 12:12-27; rom. 12:4, 5; eph. 4:1-4, 15,16. 2. a temple, a building, a habitation, a dwelling-place for god's spirit. eph. 2:20, 21; 1 cor. 3:9-17; 1 tim. 3:15; 1 pet. 2:4-8; rev. 21:3; 1 cor. 6:19. of this building christ is the cornerstone, and the prophets and apostles the foundation. in 1 cor. 3 christ is the chief cornerstone and the apostles the builders; the whole building is held in place by christ. 3. the bride of christ. 2 cor. 11:2; eph. 5:25-27; rev. 19:7; 22:17. christ is the bridegroom (john 3:29). this is a great mystery (eph. 5:32). the bride becomes the wife of the lamb (rev. 21:2). v. the ordinances of the church. 1. baptism. matt. 28:19, 20; mark 16:16; acts 2:38, 41; 8:36-40; 10:47, 48. 2. the lord's supper. acts 2:42, 46; 20:7--"and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." 1 cor. 11:20-34. vi. the vocation of the church. 1. to worship god and to glorify him on the earth: eph. 1:4-6--"according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by jesus christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. to the praise of the glory of his grace wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." 2. to evangelize the world with the gospel: matt. 28:19, 20--"go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost." acts 2; 5:42; 6:5-8; eph. 3:8; acts 15:7. 3. to develop each individual christian until he attains unto the fulness of the stature of christ: eph. 4:11-15. hence the gift of pastors, teachers, etc. herein lies the value of church attendance--it promotes growth; failure to attend leads to apostasy (heb. 10:25-28), cf. 1 thess. 5:11; 1 cor. 12. 4. a constant witness for christ and his word: acts 1:8--"but ye shall receive power, after that the holy ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in jerusalem, and in all judea, and in samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." 8:1, 4. 5. the future glory of the church: eph. 3:10, 21; eev. 7:9-17. the doctrine of the scriptures. i. names and titles. 1. the bible. 2. the testaments. 3. the scriptures. 4. the word of god. ii. inspiration. 1. definition. 2. distinctions. a) revelation. b) illumination. c) reporting. 3. views: a) natural inspiration. b) christian illumination. c) dynamic theory. d) concept theory. e) verbal inspiration. f) partial inspiration. g) plenary inspiration. 4. the claims of the scriptures themselves: a) the old testament. b) the new testament. 5. the character (or degrees) of inspiration. a) actual words of god himself. b) actual words communicated by god to men. e) individual freedom in choice of words--to what extent? the doctrine of the scriptures. i. the bible--its names and titles. 1. "the bible." our english word _bible_ comes from the greek words _biblos_ (matt. 1:1) and _biblion_ (diminutive form) (luke 4:17), which mean _"book."_ ancient books were written upon the biblus or papyrus reed, and from this custom came the greek name _biblos,_ which finally came to be applied to the sacred books. see mark 12:26; luke 3:4; 20:42; acts 1:20; 7:42. the bible is not merely _a_ book, however. it is the book--the book that from the importance of its subjects, the wideness of its range, the majesty of its author, stands as high above all other books as the heaven is high above the earth. 2. "the old and new testaments." see luke 22:20; 1 cor. 11:25; 2 cor. 3:6, 14; heb. 9:15; 12:24. the word _testament_ means _covenant,_ and is the term by which god was pleased to designate the relation that existed between himself and his people. the term _covenant_ was first of all applied to the relation itself, and afterward to the books which contained the record of that relation. by the end of the second century we find the "old covenant" and the "new covenant" as the established names of the jewish and christian scriptures; and origen, in the beginning of the third century, mentioned "the divine scriptures, the so-called old and new covenants." the old testament deals with the record of the calling and history of the jewish nation, and as such it is the old covenant. the new testament deals with the history and application of the redemption wrought by the lord jesus christ, and as such it is the new covenant. 3. "the scripture," and "the scriptures." the bible is also called "the scripture" (mark 12:10; 15:28; luke 4:21; john 2:22; 7:38; 10:35; rom. 4:3; gal. 4:30; 2 pet. 1:20), and "the scriptures" (matt. 22:29; mark 12:24; luke 24:27; john 5:39; acts 17:11; rom. 1:2; 2 tim. 3:15; 2 pet. 3:16). these terms mean that the scriptures are "holy writings." by the early christians the most common designation for the whole bible was "the scriptures." 4. "the word of god." of all the names given to the bible, "the word of god" (mark 7:13; rom. 10:17; 2 cor. 2:17; heb. 4:12; 1 thess. 2:13) is doubtless the most significant, impressive, and complete. it is sufficient to justify the faith of the weakest christian. it gathers up all that the most earnest search can unfold. it teaches us to regard the bible as the utterance of divine wisdom and love--as god speaking to man. ii. the inspiration of the bible. 1. what is meant by the term "inspiration." this question is best answered by scripture itself. it defines its own terms. let us turn, then, "to the law and to the testimony." in 2 tim. 3:16--"all scripture is given by inspiration of god." the word "inspired" means literally "god-breathed." it is composed of two greek words--_theos=god;_ and _pnein=to breathe._ the term "given by inspiration" signifies, then, that the writings of the old testament, of which paul is here speaking, are the result of a certain influence exerted by god upon their authors. the meaning of the word "breathed," as here used, is brought out very forcibly by the comparison of two other words translated in the same way. the one is the greek word _psuchein=to breathe gently,_ while in 2 tim. 3:16 the term denotes a forcible respiration. the other is the hebrew word _ah-ayrh=to breathe unconsciously,_ while 2 tim. 3:16 denotes a conscious breathing. inspiration, then, as defined by paul in this passage, is the _strong, conscious inbreathing of god into men, qualifying them to give utterance to truth. it is god speaking through men, and the old testament is therefore just as much the word of god as though god spake every single word of it with his own lips._ the scriptures are the result of divine inbreathing, just as human speech is uttered by the breathing through a man's mouth. 2 pet. 1:21--"for not by the will of man was prophecy brought at any time, but being borne by the holy spirit, the holy men of god spoke." (this is a literal rendering, and brings out the sense more clearly.) the participle "moved" may be translated "when moved," so this passage teaches that holy men of god wrote the scripture _when_ moved to do so by the holy spirit. further, the participle is passive, and denotes "to be moved upon." this distinctly teaches that the scripture was not written by mere men, or at their suggestion, but by men _moved upon_, prompted, yea indeed, driven by the promptings of the holy spirit. this declaration of peter may be said to intimate that the holy ghost was especially and miraculously present with and in the writers of the scriptures, revealing to them truths which they did not know before, and guiding them alike in their record of these truths, and of the transactions of which they were eye and ear witnesses, so that they were enabled to present them with substantial accuracy to the minds of others. the statements of the scriptures regarding inspiration may be summed up as follows: holy men of god, qualified by the infusion of the breath of god, wrote in obedience to the divine command, and were kept from all error, whether they revealed truths previously unknown or recorded truths already familiar. in this sense, "all scripture is given by inspiration of god," the bible is indeed and in truth the very word of god, and the books of the bible are of divine origin and authority. 2. the distinction between inspiration, revelation, illumination, and verbatim reporting. a) the distinction between inspiration and revelation. it is of the greatest importance, in considering the theme of inspiration, to distinguish it clearly from revelation. the most cursory perusal of the scriptures reveals the fact that they consist of two different kinds of records: first, records of truth directly revealed and imparted to the mind of the writer by god, and which he could have learned in no other manner (such, for example, as the story of creation); and second, records of events that occurred within the writer's own observation, and of sayings that fell upon his own ears (such as moses' account of the exodus, paul's account of his interview with peter at antioch). in the one case, the writer records things that had not been revealed to man before; in the other case, he records facts which were as well known to others as to himself. now, revelation is that act of god by which he directly communicates truth not known before to the human mind. revelation discovers new truth, while inspiration superintends the communicating of that truth. all that is in the bible has not been "directly revealed" to man. it contains history, and the language of men, even of wicked men. but there is absolutely no part of the bible record that is not inspired. the history recorded in the bible is true. the sacred writers were so directed and influenced by the spirit that they were preserved, in writing, from every error of fact and doctrine. the history remains history. things not sanctioned by god, recorded in the bible, are to be shunned (2 tim. 3:16). nevertheless, all these things were written under the guidance of the holy spirit. this is inspiration. this distinction should be definitely and clearly understood, for many of the most plausible arguments against the full inspiration of the scriptures have arisen from the fact that this has been either unrecognized or ignored. though all scripture is inspired, it does not stamp with divine authority every sentiment which it reports as uttered by the men of whom it speaks, nor does it mark with divine approval every action which it relates as performed by those with whose biographies it deals. in the book of job, for example, inspiration gives with equal accuracy the language of jehovah, the words of satan, and the speeches of job and his three friends; but it does not therefore place them all on the same level of authority. each speaker is responsible for his own utterances. neither satan, job, nor his three friends spoke by inspiration of god. they gave utterance to their own opinions; and all that inspiration vouches for is that no one of them is misrepresented, but that each one spoke the sentiments that are attributed to him in scripture. so, again, the fact that david's cruelty to the ammonites is recorded in the book of kings does not imply that god approved it any more than he approved the king's double crime of murder and adultery, which "displeased him." the inspiration of the book vouches only for the accuracy of the record. b) the distinction between inspiration and illumination. spiritual illumination refers to the influence of the holy ghost, common to all christians. no statement of a truth about god or spiritual things can be understood by a man unless the holy spirit takes it and reveals it to him. it is only the spiritual man who can understand spiritual things. "the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit" (1 cor. 2:14). no learning of the schools can lead him to know god. flesh and blood cannot reveal god to men (matt. 16:17). there is a vast difference between "a divine revelation of the mind of god" and "a divine action on the mind of man." the former is revelation; the latter is spiritual illumination. those who hold to the illumination theory to account for the origin of the bible revelation claim that there is in every man an intuitive faculty that grasps the supernatural, that lays hold of god and spiritual things; and that whatever insight into the nature and being of god is given man, is produced by the divine spirit playing upon this spiritual faculty in man, illuminating and irradiating it, so that it sees the perfection of god and is enabled to penetrate into his will. according to this view, the bible is the result of the meditations of godly men whose minds were acted upon by god. any revelation of divinity of which man is the recipient, comes in this manner. subjective illumination god has carried on since the world began, and is still carrying on by a great variety of methods. the scriptures are not in any way the oracles of god, nor do they come to us as direct, logical utterances of the divine mind. the patriarchs, prophets and apostles of old so deeply meditated on god and the things of god that their spiritual faculties were enlarged and illuminated to such a degree that they conceived of these visions of god, his nature, his will, etc., as recorded in the scriptures. now, it is true, doubtless, that a man may be granted a very deep insight into the nature and being of god by spiritual meditation. that a fire does burn in the bible, we do not deny. throughout all ages of the jewish and christian churches men have lit their spiritual torches at this fire, and in their light they have seen him who is invisible. this fire still burns, and to-day the devout student may catch its flame if, with uncovered head, with shoeless feet, and with humble spirit, he stands before the bush that ever burns and yet is never consumed. but this working of the truth of god on the mind of man is not god's revelation of his mind to man which the bible professes to be. the bible must of necessity be not merely a repository or receptacle of spiritual influences fitted to act upon the mind; it must be--it is--god making himself known to men. it is god speaking to man through men. in contradistinction to the illumination theory we have instances in the bible in which god made revelations of himself, his truth, and his will to men who were by no means at the time meditating upon god. see e.g.: john 11:49-52--"and one of them, named caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. and this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of god that were scattered abroad." see also num. 22:34, 35. c) the distinction between inspiration and verbatim reporting. inspiration is not necessarily verbatim reporting. it is not absolutely necessary to make such a claim to prove the inspiration of the scriptures. verbatim reporting is, in a sense, a mere mechanical operation. it would have robbed the writers of their individuality, and made them mere machines. but no; the holy spirit used the memories, the intuitions, the judgments, and indeed the idiosyncrasies of the writers, so that while each recorded that part of the event or discourse which (as we may express it) adhered to himself, he was enabled to give it with substantial accuracy. 3. various theories of inspiration. it will be in order here to note briefly various theories of inspiration; for it must be known that all students do not agree as to the degree of inspiration that characterized the writers of the scripture. when a man says, "i believe in the inspiration of the bible," it will be quite in place in these days to ask him what he means by inspiration. following are some of the views of inspiration held at the present day. a) natural inspiration. this theory identifies inspiration with genius of a high order. it denies that there is anything supernatural, mysterious, or peculiar in the mode of the spirit's operation in and upon the scripture writers. it claims that they were no more inspired than were milton, shakespeare, mahomet, or confucius. such a theory we absolutely reject. for if such be the character of the inspiration possessed by the scripture writers, there is nothing to assure us that they were not liable to make the same errors, to teach the same false views of life, to give expression to the same uncertainties concerning the past, the present, and the future as did these shining lights of mere human genius. when david said, "the spirit of the lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue," he meant something more than the prayer which forms the gem of _paradise lost._ when isaiah and his brethren said, "thus saith the lord," they claimed something higher than that they were speaking under the stirrings of poetic rapture. when paul said to the corinthians, "which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the holy ghost teacheth (1 cor. 2:13)," he used the language to which you will find no parallel in the literature of mere human genius. and no man of candor or intelligence can pass from the writings even of the unapproachable shakespeare into the perusal of the bible without feeling that the difference between the two is not one simply of degree, but of kind; he has not merely ascended to a loftier outlook in the same human dwelling, but he has gone into a new region altogether. there is a certain "unknown quality" in this book which clearly distinguishes it from all others; and if we may take its own explanation of the matter, that unknown quality is its divine inspiration. b) universal christian inspiration, or illumination. according to this theory, the inspiration of the bible writers was the same as has characterized christians of every age; the ordinary christian of to-day is inspired as much as was the apostle paul. if this be the true view, there seems to be no plausible reason why a new bible should not be possible to-day. and yet no individual, however extreme his claims to inspiration may be, has even ventured such a task. c) mechanical, or dynamic inspiration. (see verbatim eeporting, page 198.) this theory ignores the human instrumentality in the writing of the scriptures altogether, and claims that the writers were passive instruments mere machines, just as insensible to what they were accomplishing as is the string of the harp or lyre to the play of the musician. how, then, do we account for the differences in style of the various writers, the preservation of their individualities, their idiosyncrasies? it seems evident that scripture cannot be made to harmonize with the application of this theory. d) concept, or thought inspiration. this theory claims that only the concepts, or thoughts, of men were given by inspiration. it will be examined more fully later. concept inspiration is opposed by e) verbal inspiration. here it is claimed that the very words of scripture were given by the holy spirit; that the writers were not left absolutely to themselves in the choice of words they should use. (see page 204.) f) partial inspiration. the favorite way of expressing this theory is, "the bible _contains_ the word of god." this statement implies that it contains much that is not the word of god, that is, that is not inspired. a serious question at once arises: who is to decide what is and what is not inspired? who is to be the judge of so vital a question? what part is inspired, and what part is not? who can tell? such a theory leaves man in awful and fatal uncertainty. g) plenary, or full, inspiration. this is the opposite of partial inspiration. it holds all scripture to be equally inspired, as stated on page 200. it bases its claim on 2 tim. 3:16. the revised version translation of 2 tim. 3:16 is erroneous. the reader might infer from it that there is some scripture that is not inspired. if paul had said, "all scripture that is divinely inspired is also profitable, etc.," he would virtually have said, "there is _some_ scripture, _some_ part of the bible, that is _not profitable, etc.,_ and therefore is not inspired." this is what the spirit of rationalism wants, namely, to make human reason the test and judge and measure of what is inspired and what is not. one man says such and such a verse is not profitable to him, another says such and such a verse is not profitable to him; a third says such and such is not profitable to him. the result is that no bible is left. is it possible that anyone need be told the flat and sapless tautology that all divinely-inspired scripture is _also_ profitable? paul dealt in no such meaningless phrases. the word translated _also_ does not mean _also_ here. it means _and._ its position in the sentence shows this. again, the revised rendering is shown to be openly false because the revisers refused to render the same greek construction elsewhere in the same way, which convicts them of error. in hebrew 4:13 we read: "all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do." the form and construction of this verse is identical with that of 2 tim. 3:16. were we, however, to translate this passage as the revisers translated the passage in timothy, it would read: "all naked things are also open to the eyes of him with whom we have to do." all naked things are also open things! all uncovered things are also exposed things! there is no _also_ in the case. again, 1 tim. 4:4: "every creature of god is good and nothing is to be rejected." according to the principles the revisers adopted in rendering 2 tim. 3:16, this passage would read: "every good creature of god is also nothing to be rejected." the greek language has no such meaningless syntax. the place of the verb _is,_--which must be supplied,--is directly before the word "inspired," and not after it. the great rationalistic scholar, dewette, confessed candidly that the rendering the revisers here adopted cannot be defended. in his german version of the text, he gave the sense thus: "every sacred writing, i.e., of the canonical scriptures, is inspired of god and is useful for doctrine, etc." bishops moberly and wordsworth, archbishop trench, and others of the revision committee, disclaimed any responsibility for the rendering. dean burgon pronounced it "the most astonishing as well as calamitous literary blunder of the age." it was condemned by dr. tregelles, the only man ever pensioned by the british government for scholarship. in accordance with this weight of testimony, therefore, we hold to the rendering of the authorized version, and claim that all scripture is equally and fully inspired of god. 4. the claims of the scriptures to inspiration. that the writers of the scriptures claimed to write under the direct influence of the spirit of god there can be no doubt. the _quality_ or _degree_ of their insspiration may be called into question, but surely not the _fact_ of it. let us examine the testimony of the writers themselves. a) the claims of old testament writers to inspiration. (we use the word inspiration here as including revelation.) compare and examine the following passages: exod. 4:10-15--"and moses said unto the lord, o my lord, i am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant; but i am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. and the lord said unto him, who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not i the lord? now therefore go, and i will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. and he said, o my lord, send, i pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. and the anger of the lord was kindled against moses, and he said, is not aaron the levite thy brother? i know that he can speak well. and also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. and thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth, and i will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." deut. 4:2--"ye shall not add unto the word which i command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the lord your god which i command you." jer. 1:7-9--"but the lord said unto me, say not, i am a child: for thou shalt go to all that i shall send thee, and whatsoever i command thee thou shalt speak. be not afraid of their faces; for i am with thee to deliver thee, saith the lord. then the lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. and the lord said unto me, behold, i have put my words in thy mouth." also ezek. 3:4; micah 3:8. these are but a few of the many passages in which the inspiration of the writers is affirmed and claimed. note further that the words "god said" occur ten times in the first chapter of genesis. it is claimed that such expressions as "the lord said," "the lord spake," "the word of the lord came," are found 3,808 times in the old testament. these writers, claiming to be the revealers of the will of god, almost always commenced their messages with the words, "thus saith the lord." that they were not deceived in their claims is evident from the minuteness and detail as to names, times and places which characterized their messages, and from the literal fulfillment of these oracles of god. b) the claims of the new testament writers to inspiration. it is worthy of note here to observe that inspiration is claimed by new testament writers for old testament writers as well as for themselves. read and compare the following passages: 2 pet. 1:20, 21--"knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of god spake as they were moved by the holy ghost." 1 pet. 1:10, 11--"of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the spirit of christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of christ, and the glory that should follow." acts 1:16--"men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the holy ghost by the mouth of david spake before concerning judas, which was guide to them that took jesus." acts 28:25--"and when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that paul had spoken one word, well spake the holy ghost by esaias the prophet unto our fathers." 1 cor. 2:13--"which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the holy ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 cor. 14:37--"if any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that i write unto you are the commandments of the lord." 1 thess. 2:13--"for this cause also thank we god without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of god which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of god, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." 2 peter 3:1, 2--"this second epistle, beloved, i now write unto you; in both which i stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the lord and saviour." matt. 10:20--"for it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your father which speaketh in you." mark 13:11--"but when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye that speak, but the holy ghost." see also luke 12:12; 21:14, 15; acts 2:4. it is evident from these and many other passages of scripture that the writers of both the old and new testaments were conscious of having received revelations from god, and considered themselves inspired of god to write the scriptures. they felt while writing that they were giving expression to the infallible truth of god, and were conscious that the holy spirit was moving them to the work. 5. what is the natuee of the inspiration that characterized the writers of the scriptures, and in what degree were they under its influence? much has been said and written in answer to this question. were the _thoughts_ or _concepts_ alone inspired, or were the _words_ also inspired? were the words dictated by the holy spirit, or were the writers left to choose their own words? these are the knotty questions current today regarding the inspiration of the bible. we may say with certainty that a) at least some of the words of scripture are the identical words written or spoken by god himself. note exodus 38:16--"the writing was the writing of god"; exodus 31:18--"written with the finger of god." compare also deuteronomy 10:2, 4; 9:10; exodus 24:12. see also 1 chronicles 28:19 (r. v.)--"all this, said david, have i been made to understand in writing from the hand of jehovah"; daniel 5:5--there "came forth the finger of a man's hand and wrote." in the new testament god is heard speaking both at the baptism and the transfiguration of jesus, saying, "this is my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased; hear ye him." it is clearly evident from these passages that some part of the inspired record claims to be a record of the exact words of god. b) it is also very definitely stated in scripture that god put into the mouths of certain men the very words they should speak, and told them what they should write. exod. 4:10-15--"and moses said unto the lord, o my lord, i am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but i am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. and the lord said unto him, who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not i the lord? now therefore go, and i will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. and he said, o my lord, send, i pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. and the anger of the lord was kindled against moses, and he said, is not aaron the levite thy brother? i know that he can speak well. and also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. and thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and i will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." exod. 34:27--"and the lord said unto moses, write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words i have made a covenant with thee and with israel." num. 17:2, 3--"speak unto the children of israel, and take of every one of them a rod according to the house of their fathers, of all their princes according to the house of their fathers, twelve rods: write thou every man's name upon his rod. and thou shalt write aaron's name upon the rod of levi: for one rod shall be for the head of the house of their fathers." isa. 8:1, 11, 12--"moreover the lord said unto me, take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning maher-shalal-hash-baz. for the lord spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that i should not walk in the way of this people, saying, say ye not, a confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, a confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid." jer. 1:7--"but the lord said unto me, say not, i am a child: for thou shalt go to all that i shall send thee, and whatsoever i command thee thou shalt speak." jer. 7:27--"therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee; thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee." jer. 13:12--"therefore thou shall speak unto them this word: this saith the lord god of israel, every bottle shall be filled with wine: and they shall say unto thee, do we not certainly know that every bottle shall be filled with wine?" jer. 30:1, 3--"the word that came to jeremiah from the lord, saying. thus speaketh the lord god of israel, saying, write thee all the words that i have spoken unto thee in a book." jer. 36: 1, 2, 4, 11, 27-32--"and it came to pass in the fourth year of jehoiakim the son of josiah king of judah, that this word came unto jeremiah from the lord, saying, take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that i have spoken unto thee against israel, and against judah, and against all the nations, from the day i spake unto thee, from the days of josiah, even unto this day. then jeremiah called baruch the son of neriah; and baruch wrote from the mouth of jeremiah all the words of the lord, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book. when michaiah the son of gemariah, the son of shaphan, had heard out of the book all the words of the lord. . . . then the word of the lord came to jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which baruch wrote at the mouth of jeremiah, saying, take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which jehoiakim the king of judah hath burned. and thou shalt say to jehoiakim king of judah, thou saith the lord; thou hast burned this roll, saying, why hast thou written therein, saying, the king of babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast? therefore thus saith the lord of jehoiakim king of judah; he shall have none to sit upon the throne of david: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. and i will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and i will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of jerusalem, and upon the men of judah, all the evil that i have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not. then took jeremiah another roll, and give it to baruch the scribe, the son of neriah, who wrote therein from the mouth of jeremiah all the words of the book which jehoiakim king of judah had burned in the fire; and there were added besides unto them many like words." also ezek. 2:7; 3:10, 11; 24:2; 37:16; hab. 2:2; zech. 7:8-12. 1 cor. 14:37--"if any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that i write unto you are the commandments of the lord." rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18--"unto the angel of the church of ephesus write; these things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candle-sticks . . . . and unto the angel of the church in smyrna write; these things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive . . . . and to the angel of the church in pergamos write; these things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges . . . . and unto the angel of the church in thyatira write; these things saith the son of god, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass." also 3:1; 7:14. rev. 10:4--"and when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, i was about to write: and i heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not." to sum up these two arguments, then, let us say, regarding the nature of the inspiration of the sacred writings, that part of them claim to be the very words and writings of god himself, spoken by his own mouth, or written by his own hand: that another part claim to be the record of words spoken to certain men who wrote them down just as they were spoken. and yet if this is all that is involved in inspiration, shall we not be robbed of a very beautiful and helpful fact, namely, that the holy spirit saw fit to preserve the characteristics of the writers? do not the works of james, the faith of paul, and the love of john appeal to us in their own peculiar way? this leads to the statement that c) in a certain sense, and in respect to some parts of the scripture, the authors were (humanly speaking) left to choose their own words in relating divine truth. this was by no means true of all the sacred writings. there are instances recorded of men who spoke without knowing what they were saying; and of men and animals speaking without knowledge of the substance of their message: john 11:49-52--"and one of them, named caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. and this spake he not of himself; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of god that were scattered abroad." num. 22:28-30--"and the lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto balaam, what have i done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? and balaam said unto the ass, because thou has mocked me: i would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would i kill thee. and the ass said unto balaam, am not i thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since i was thine unto this day? was i ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, nay." dan. 12:8, 9--"and i heard, but i understood not: then said i, 0 my lord, what shall be the end of these things? and he said, go thy way, daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." and yet the gift of inspiration admitted of personal, diligent, and faithful research into the facts recorded--luke 1:1-4. this fact allowed the expression of the same thought in different words, such differences (by no means discrepancies) between the accounts of inspired men as would be likely to arise from the different standpoint of each. examples: matt. 26:26, 27--"and as they were eating, jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, take, eat; this is my body. and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it." luke 22:19, 20--"and he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." 1 cor. 11:24, 25--"and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." matt. 3:17--"and lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased." mark 1:11--"and there came a voice from heaven, saying, thou art my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased." luke 3:22--"and the holy ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, thou art my beloved son; in thee i am well pleased." the spirit employed the attention, the investigation, the memory, the fancy, the logic, in a word, all the faculties of the writer, and wrought through them. he guided the writer to choose what narrative and materials, speeches of others, imperial decrees, genealogies, official letters, state papers or historical matters he might find necessary for the recording of the divine message of salvation. he wrought in, with, and through their spirits, so as to preserve their individuality to others. he used the men themselves, and spoke through their individualities. "the gold was his; the mould was theirs." did inspiration affect the words used? if the question be asked whether or not inspiration affected the words, it must be answered in the affirmative. it is hardly possible that inspiration could insure the correct transmission of thought without in some way affecting the words. yet it affected the words not directly and immediately by dictating them in the ears of the writers, but mediately, through working on their minds and producing there such vivid and clear ideas of thoughts and facts that the writers could find words fitted to their purpose. we must conclude, therefore, that while from the divine side the holy spirit gave through men clearly and faithfully that which he wished to communicate, from the human side that communication came forth in language such as men themselves would naturally have chosen. this may seem to some to be an impossibility, and they would allege that if the words were affected by inspiration at all, there must have been dictation. but the must is a _non sequitur._ it is admitted that god works his purposes in the world through the ordinary actions of men, while yet no violence is done to their freedom. it is admitted, also, that god, through the gracious operations of his holy spirit, works in the hearts of his people so as to develop in each of them the new man, while yet the individuality of each is preserved; and the type of piety is just as distinct in each christian as the style is in each of the sacred writers. these cases are so nearly parallel as to suggest that all denials of the possibility of inspiration without the destruction of the individual characteristics are as unphilosophical as they are unwarranted. we may therefore safely say that in a very real sense the words as well as the thoughts have been given, whether mediately or immediately, under the influence of the divine spirit. we claim that the bible is in deed and in truth the very word of god; that it is the word of god in the language of men; truly divine, and at the same time truly human; that it is the revelation of god to his creatures; that infallible guidance was given to those who wrote it, so as to preserve them from error in the statement of facts; that what the writers of the scriptures say or write under this guidance is as truly said and written by god as if their instrumentality were not used at all; that the ideas expressed therein are the very ideas the holy ghost intended to convey; that god is in the fullest sense responsible for every word. this is what the bible claims for itself. the doctrine of angels. i. their existence. 1. the teaching of jesus. 2. the teaching of the apostles. ii. their nature. 1. created beings. 2. spiritual beings. 3. great power and might. 4. various grades. 5. the number of angels. iii. the fall of angels. 1. time and cause. 2. the work of fallen angels. 3. the judgment of fallen angels. iv. the work of angels. 1. their heavenly ministry. 2. their earthly ministry. a) in relation to the believer. b) in relation to christ's second coming. the doctrine of angels. we are not to think that man is the highest form of created being. as the distance between man and the lower forms of life is filled with beings of various grades, so it is possible that between man and god there exist creatures of higher than human intelligence and power. indeed, the existence of lesser deities in all heathen mythologies presumes the existence of a higher order of beings between god and man, superior to man and inferior to god. this possibility is turned into certainty by the express and explicit teaching of the scriptures. it would be sad indeed if we should allow ourselves to be such victims of sense perception and so materialistic that we should refuse to believe in an order of spiritual beings simply because they were beyond our sight and touch. we should not thus shut ourselves out of a larger life. a so-called liberal faith may express unbelief in such beings. does not such a faith (?) label itself narrow rather than liberal by such a refusal of faith? does not a liberal faith mean a faith that believes _much,_ not little--as much, not as little, as possible? i. their existence. 1. the teaching of jesus. matt. 18:10--"for i say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my father which is in heaven." mark 13:32--"but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven." 8:38; matt. 13:41; 26:53. these are a sufficient number of passages, though they are by no means all, to prove that jesus believed in the existence of angels. jesus is not here speaking in any accommodative sense. nor is he simply expressing a superstitious belief existing among the jews at that time. this was not the habit of jesus. he did not fail to correct popular opinion and tradition when it was wrong, e.g., his rebuke of the false ceremonialism of the pharisees, and the unbelief of the sadducees in the resurrection. see also the sermon on the mount (matt. 5:20-37). 2. the teaching of paul, and other apostles. 2 thess. 1:7--"and to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the lord jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels," col. 2:18--"let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels." is not one of the principal reasons for the writing of the epistle to the colossians to correct the gnostic theory of the worshipping of angels? see also eph. 1:21, col. 1:16. john believed in an angelic order of beings: john 1:51; rev. 12:7; 22:9. peter: 1 pet. 3:22; 2 pet. 2:11. see also jude 9; luke 22:43; mark 8:38; heb. 12:22. these and numerous other references in the scriptures compel the candid student of the word to believe in the existence of angels. ii. the natuee of angels. 1. they abe created beings. col. 1:16--"for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him." angels are not the spirits of the departed, nor are they glorified human beings (heb. 12:22, 23). neh. 9:6--"thou, even thou, art lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host." 2. they are spiritual beings. heb. 1:14--"are they not all ministering spirits?" psa. 104:4--"who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire." it is thought by some that god creates angels for a certain purpose, and when that purpose is accomplished they pass out of existence. but that there are many, many angels in existence all the time is clear from the teaching of the scriptures. although the angels are "spirits," they nevertheless oft-times have appeared to men in visible, and even human form (gen. 19; judges 2:1; 6:11-22; matt. 1:20; luke 1:26; john 20:12). there seems to be no sex among the angels, although wherever the word "angel" is used in the scriptures it is always in the masculine form. 3. they are beings of great might and power. 2 pet, 2:11--"whereas angels, which are greater in power and might (than man)." psa. 103:20--"angels that excel in strength." one angel was able to destroy sodom and gomorrah, and other guilty cities; one angel smote the first-born, and rolled away the great stone from the mouth of the tomb. one angel had power to lay hold of that old dragon, the devil (rev. 20:2, 10); one angel smote a hundred and fourscore and five thousand assyrians (isa. 37:36). their power is delegated; they are the angels of _his_ might (2 thess. 1:7), the ministers through whom god's might is manifested. they are mighty, but not almighty. 4. there are various ranks and orders of angels. we read of michael, the archangel (jude 9; 1 thess. 4:16); angels, authorities, and powers--which are supposedly ranks and orders of angels (1 pet. 3:22; col. 1:16). in the apocryphal books we find a hierarchy with seven archangels, including michael, gabriel, raphael, uriel. the fact that but one archangel is mentioned in the scriptures proves that its doctrine of angels was not derived, as some supposed, from babylonian and persian sources, for there we find seven archangels instead of one. 5. the number of angels. heb. 12:22, r. v.--"innumerable hosts of angels." cf. 2 kings 6:17; matt. 26:53; job 25:3. iii. the fall of angels. originally all angels were created good. the scriptures speak of a fall of angels--"the angels that sinned." 2 pet. 2:4--"for if god spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." jude 6--"and the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." 1. the time of the fall of angels. some maintain that it took place before the creation recorded in genesis 1:2--between verses one and two; that it was this fall which made the original creation (gen. 1:1) "waste and void." this view can neither be proven nor refuted, nevertheless the great and awful fact of a fall of angels remains. (see under doctrine of satan, p. 225, for fall of angels in connection with the fall of satan.) 2. the cause of the fall of angels. peter does not specify the sin. jude says they "kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation." this, taken in connection with deut. 32:8, which seems to indicate that certain territories or boundaries were appointed unto the angels, and gen. 6:1-4, which speaks of the "sons of god" (which some suppose to refer to angels, which, however, is questionable), might seem to imply that the sin of the angels consisted in leaving their own abode and coming down to cohabit with the "daughters of men." thus their sin would be that of lust. to some expositors the context in jude would seem to warrant such a conclusion, inasmuch as reference is made to the sins of sodom and gomorrah. but this can hardly be true, for a close study of the text in genesis 6 shows that by "the sons of god" are meant the sethites. this would seem to be the true interpretation; if so, then the sin recorded in genesis 6 would be (1) natural and not monstrous; (2) scriptural, and not mythical (cf. num. 25; judges 3:6; rev. 2:14, 20-22 contains sins of a similar description); (3) accords with the designations subsequently given to the followers of god (luke 3:38; rom. 8:14; gal. 3:26); (4) has a historical basis in the fact that seth was regarded by his mother as a (the) son of from god, (5) in the circumstance that already the sethites had begun to call themselves by the name of jehovah (gen. 4:26); (6), finally, it is sufficient as a hypothesis, and is therefore entitled to the preference (after lange). there are still others who say that the sin of the angels was pride and disobedience. it seems quite certain that these were the sins that caused satan's downfall (ezek. 28). if this be the true view then we are to understand the words, "estate" or "principality" as indicating that instead of being satisfied with the dignity once for all assigned to them under the son of god, they aspired higher. 3. the work of fallen angels. they oppose god's purposes (dan. 10:10-14); afflict god's people (luke 13:16; matt. 17:15, 16); execute satan's purposes (matt. 25:41; 12:26, 27); hinder the spiritual life of god's people (eph. 6:12); try to deceive god's people (1 sam. 28:7-20). 4. the judgment of the fallen angels. jude 6; 2 pet. 2:4; matt. 25:41, show that there is no hope of their redemption. their final doom will be in the eternal fire. according to 1 cor. 6:3 it would seem as though the saints were to have some part in the judgment of fallen angels. iv. the work of angels. 1. their heavenly ministry. isa. 6; rev. 5:11, 12; 8:3, 4--priestly service and worship. 2. their earthly ministry. to the angels has been committed the administration of the affairs material to sense, e.g., showing hagar a fountain; appearing before joshua with a drawn sword; releasing the chains from peter, and opening the prison doors; feeding, strengthening, and defending the children of god. to the holy spirit more particularly has been committed the task of imparting the truth concerning spiritual matters. in general: angels have a relation to the earth somewhat as follows: they are related to winds, fires, storms, pestilence (psa. 103:20; 104:4; 1 chron. 21:15, 16, 27). the nation of israel has a special relationship to angels in the sense of angelic guardianship (dan. 12:1; ezek. 9:1; dan. 11:1). in particular: angels have a special ministry with reference to the church of jesus christ--the body of believers. they are the saints' "ministering servants" (heb. 1:14)--they do service for god's people. illustrations: to abraham (gen. 19); to gideon (judg. 6); to mary (luke 1); to the shepherds (luke 2); to peter (acts 12); to paul (acts 27). a) they guide the believer. they guide the worker to the sinner (acts 8:26), and the sinner to the worker (acts 10:3). note: the angel guides, but the spirit instructs (8:29). are angels interested in conversions? (luke 15:10). how they watch our dealing with the unsaved! b) they cheer and strengthen god's people. 1 kings 19:5-8; matt. 4:11; luke 22:43; cf. acts 27:4-35; 5:19. c) they defend, protect, and deliver god's servants. dan. 6:22; acts 5:19; 2 kings 6:18; gen. 19:11; acts 12:8-ll; 27:23, 24. d) they are eyewitnesses of the church and the believer. 1 tim. 5:21--in matters of preaching, the service of the church, and soul-saving, the angels look on--a solemn and appalling thought. 1 cor. 4:9--the good angels are spectators while the church engages in fierce battle with the hosts of sin. this is an incentive to endurance. 1 cor. 11:10--"because of the angels." is there intimated here a lack of modesty on the part of the women so shocking to the angels, who veil their faces in the presence of god when they worship. e) they guard the elect dead. luke 16:22; matt. 24:31. just as they guarded christ's tomb, and as michael guarded moses' tomb (jude 9). f) they accompany christ at his second coming. separating the righteous from the wicked (matt. 25:31, 32; 2 thess. 1:7, 8). executing god's wrath upon the wicked (matt. 13:39-42, r. v. how this is done, no human pen can describe. the most fearful imagery of the bible is connected with the judgment work of angels (cf. revelation; fire, hail, blood, plague of locusts, poison of scorpions, etc.)--whether actual or symbolic, it is awful. the doctrine of satan. i. his existence and personality. 1. existence. 2. personality. ii. his place and power. 1. a mighty angel. 2. prince of power of the air. 3. god of this world. 4. head of kingdom of darkness. 5. sovereign over death. iii. his character. 1. adversary. 2. diabolos. 3. wicked one. 4. tempter. iv. our attitude towards satan. 1. limited power of satan. 2. resist him. v. his destiny. 1. a conquered enemy. 2. under eternal curse. vi. demons. the doctrine of satan. throughout the scriptures satan is set forth as the greatest enemy of god and man. too long has satan been a subject of ridicule instead of fear. seeing the scriptures teach the existence of a personality of evil, man should seek to know all he can about such a being. much of the ridicule attached to the doctrine of satan comes from the fact that men have read their fancies and theories into the scriptures; they have read milton's _paradise lost_ but have neglected the book of job; they have considered the experiences of luther instead of the epistles of peter and jude. to avoid skepticism on the one hand, and ridicule on the other we must resort to the scriptures to formulate our views of this doctrine. i. the existence and personality of satan. 1. his existence. to science the existence of satan is an open question; it neither can deny nor affirm it. satan's existence and personality can be denied therefore only on purely _a priori_ grounds. the bible, however, is very clear and positive in its teaching regarding the existence of a personality of evil called the devil. it is popular in some circles today to spell devil with the "d" left off, thus denying his real existence. matt. 13:19, 39--"then cometh the wicked one . . . . the enemy that sowed them is the devil." john 13:2--"the devil having now put it into the heart of judas iscariot, simon's son, to betray him." see also acts 5:3; 2 cor. 11:3, 14; 2 pet. 2:4; jude 6. how satan came to be is not quite as clear a fact as that he exists. in all probability he was once a good angel. it is claimed by scholarly and reliable interpreters that his fall is portrayed in ezekiel 28:12-19; cf. isa 14:12-14. that he was once in the truth but fell from it is evident from john 8:44. his fall (luke 10:18) was probably in connection with the fall of angels as set forth in such passages as 2 pet. 2:4; jude 6. pride (?) was one of the causes (1 tim. 3:6; ezek. 28:15, 17). this fact may account for the expression "satan and his angels" (matt. 25:41). paul doubtless refers to the fact that satan was once an angel of light (2 cor. 11:14). whenever satan is represented under the form of a serpent, we are to understand such expressions as describing him after his fall. there is certainly no ground for presenting the evil one as having horns, tail, and hoofs. this is only to bring into ridicule what is an exceedingly serious fact. a careful consideration of all the scriptures here given will assure the student that satan is not a figment of the imagination, but a real being. 2. his personality. john 8:44--"ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it." 1 john 3:8--"he that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning." satan is here set forth as a murderer, a liar, a sinner--all elements of personality. he had the "power over death" (heb. 2:14), and is the "prince of this world" (john 14:30). the narrative of satan in job. (cc. 1, 2) strongly emphasizes his personality. he is as much a person as the "sons of god," job, and even god himself. zech. 3:1, 2; 1 chron. 21:1; psa. 109:6 also emphasize the fact of satan's personality. throughout all these scriptures the masculine personal pronoun is used of satan, and attributes and qualities of personality are ascribed to him. unless we veto the testimony of the scriptures we must admit that satan is a real person. how can any one read the story of the temptation of christ (matt. 4:1-11) and fail to realize both parties in the wilderness conflict were persons--christ, a person; satan, a person? such offices as those ascribed to satan in the scriptures require an officer; such a work manifests a worker; such power implies an agent; such thought proves a thinker; such designs are from a personality. our temptations may be said to come from three sources: the world, the flesh, and the devil. but there are temptations which we feel sure come from neither the world nor the flesh, e.g., those which come to us in our moments of deepest devotion and quiet; we can account for them only by attributing them to the devil himself. "that old serpent, the devil, has spoken with fatal eloquence to every one of us no doubt; and i do not need a dissertation from the naturalist on the construction of a serpent's mouth to prove it. object to the figure if you will, but the grim, damning fact remains." --_joseph parker._ there can scarcely be any doubt as to the fact that christ taught the existence of a personality of evil. there can be but three explanations as to the meaning of his teaching; first, that he accommodated his language to a gross superstition, knowing it to be such--if this be true then what becomes of his sincerity; second, that he shared the superstition not knowing it to be such--then what becomes of his omniscience, of his reliability as a teacher from god? third, that the doctrine is not a superstition, but actual truth--this position completely vindicates christ as to his sincerity, omniscience and infallibility as the teacher sent from god. ii. the place and power of satan. 1. a mighty angel. he was such, and probably is yet. jude 8, 9--they "speak evil of dignities. yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee." daniel 10 shows that satan has power to oppose one of the chief angels (vv. 12, 13 in particular). in luke 11:21 christ calls satan "a strong man armed." he is "the prince of this world" (john 14:30). 2. prince of the power of the air. eph. 2:2--"the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." cf. 6:11, 12. he is also prince of the demons or fallen angels, matt. 12:24; 9:34; luke 11:14-18. there is doubtless an allusion here to the fact that the world of evil spirits is organized, and that satan is at its head. 3. the god of this world. 2 cor. 4:4--"in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not." he is "the prince of this world" (john 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cf. eph. 2:1, 2; 1 john 5:19). satan is not only the object of the world's worship, but also the moving spirit of its godless activities. 4. he heads a kingdom which is hostile to the kingdom of god and of christ. acts 26:18--"to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto god." col. 1:13--"who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear son." the kingdom of light is headed by a person--jesus christ; the kingdom of darkness, by a person--satan. the one is a person equally with the other. 5. has sovereignty over the realm of death. heb. 2:14--"that . . . . he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." it would seem as if the souls of the unregenerate dead are (or were) to some extent under satan's dominion. iii. the character of satan. "we may judge of the nature and character of the evil one by the names and titles ascribed to him." 1. the adversary, or satan. zech. 3:1--"and he showed me joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the lord, and satan standing at his right hand to resist him." (see vv. 1-5.) 1 pet. 5:8--"your adversary the devil." luke 10:18. see for use of the word: num. 22:22. by adversary is meant one who takes a stand against another. satan is the adversary of both god and man. 2. the devil, diabolos. matt. 13:39--"the enemy . . . . is the devil." john 8:44--"ye are of your father the devil." this name is ascribed to satan 33 times at least in the new testament, and indicates an accuser or slanderer (rev. 12:9). he slanders god to man (gen. 3:1-7), and man to god (job 1:9; 2-4). 3. the wicked one. matt. 13:19--"then cometh the wicked one." matt. 6:13 (r. v.); 1 john 5:19 (r. v.). this title suggests that satan is not only wicked himself, but is also the source of all wickedness in the world. 4. the tempter. matt. 4:3--"and when the tempter came to him." see gen. 3:1-6. none escape his temptations. he is continually soliciting men to sin. in this connection we may speak of the cunning and malignity of satan (gen. 3:1). satan transforms himself into an angel of light (2 cor. 11:14). this phase of his work is well illustrated in the temptation of christ (matt. 4:1-11), and the temptation of eve (gen. 3). he fain would help christ's faith, stimulate his confidence in the divine power, and furnish an incentive to worship. the scriptures speak of the "wiles" or subtle methods of the devil (eph. 6:11, 12). the "old serpent" is more dangerous than the "roaring lion." satan's subtlety is seen in tempting men in their weak moments (matt. 4:1-11; luke 22:40-46); after great successes (john 6:15, cf. vv. 1-14); by suggesting the use of right things in a wrong way (matt. 4:1-11); in deluding his followers by signs and wonders (2 thess. 2:9, 10). iv. our attitude towards satan. 1. so far as the believer is concerned his power is limited. job 1:9-12; 2:4-6. satan had to ask leave of god to try job. john 12:31; 16:11. satan hath been already judged, i.e., his power and dominion over believers was broken at the cross, by reason of christ's victory there. he had to ask permission to enter even swine (matt. 8:30-32). satan is mighty, but not almighty. 2. he is to be resisted. 1 pet. 5:8, 9--"be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour; whom resist steadfast in the faith." james 4:7--"resist the devil, and he will flee from you." this resistance is best accomplished by submitting to god (rom. 6:17-33; james 4:7), and by putting on the whole armor of god (eph. 6:10-20). v. the destiny of satan. 1. he is a conquered enemy. that is, so far as the believer is concerned; john 12:31; 16:9,10; 1 john 3:8; col. 2:15. 2. he is under a perpetual curse. gen. 3:14, cf. isa. 65:25. there is no removal of the curse from satan. 3. he is finally to be cast alive into the lake of fire, there to be tormented for ever and ever. matt. 25:41; rev. 20:10--"and the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." vi. demons. (see under "fallen angels," p. 217.) the doctrine of the last things. a. the second coming of christ. b. the resurrection. c. the judgment. d. the destiny of the wicked. e. the reward of the righteous. the doctrine of the last things. under this caption are treated such doctrines as the second coming of christ, the resurrection of both the righteous and wicked, the judgments, final awards, and eternal destiny. a. the second coming of cheist. i. its importance. 1. prominence in the scriptures. 2. the christian hope. 3. the christian incentive. 4. the christian comfort. ii. its nature. 1. personal and visible coming to the earth. 2. different views. 3. distinctions. iii. its purpose. with reference to- 1. the church. 2. the unregenerate. 3. the jews. 4. the enemies of god. 5. the millennium. iv. its date. 1. day and hour unknown. 2. recognizing the "signs." 3. imminent. a. the second coming of christ. i. its importance. 1. its prominence in the scriptures. it is claimed that one out of every thirty verses in the bible mentions this doctrine; to every one mention of the first coming the second coming is mentioned eight times; 318 references to it are made in 216 chapters; whole books (1 and 2 thess., e.g.) and chapters (matt. 24; mark 13; luke 31, e.g.) are devoted to it. it is the theme of the old testament prophets. of course, they sometimes merge the two comings so that it is not at first sight apparent, yet the doctrine is there. (1 pet. 1:11). jesus christ bore constant testimony to his coming again (john 14:3; matt. 24 and 25; mark 13; luke 21; john 21:22). the angels, who bore such faithful testimony to christ's first advent, bear testimony to his second coming (acts 1:11; cf. heb. 2:2, for the faithfulness of their testimony). the apostles faithfully proclaimed this truth (acts 3:19, 20; 1 thess. 4:16, 17; heb. 9:28; 1 john 2:28; jude 14, 15). 2. the church of christ is bidden to look forward to christ's second coming as its great hope. titus 2:13--"looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great god and our saviour jesus christ." 2 pet. 3:12. the one great event, that which supersedes all others, towards which the church is to look, and for which she is to ardently long, is the second coming of christ. g3. it is set forth as the doctrine which will prove to be the greatest incentive to consistent living. matt. 24:44-46; luke 21:34-36--"and take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. . . . watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the son of man." 1 john 2:28; 3:3. the test which the church should apply to all questions of practice: would i like to have christ find me doing this when he comes? 4. it is a doctrine of the greatest comfort to the believer. 1 thess. 4:14-18. after stating that our loved ones who had fallen asleep in christ should again meet with us at the coming of our lord, the apostle says, "wherefore comfort one another with these words." why then should such a comforting and helpful doctrine as this be spoken against? many reasons may be suggested: the unreadiness of the church; preconceived views (2 pet. 3:4); extravagant predictions as to time; lack of knowledge of the scriptures. may not the guilt on our part for rejecting the second coming of christ be as great if not greater than that of the jews for rejecting his first coming? ii. what is meant by the second coming of christ. 1. a personal and visible coming. acts 1:11--"ye men of galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." 1 thess. 4:16, 17--"for the lord himself shall descend from heaven." rev. 1:7. from these scriptures we learn that by the second coming of christ is meant the bodily, personal, and visible coming of our lord jesus christ to this earth with his saints to reign. 2. erroneous views concerning the second coming of christ. a) that the second coming means christ's coming at death. this cannot be the meaning, because-death is not attended by the events narrated in 1 thessalonians 4:16, 17. indeed the second coming is here set forth as the opposite of death for "the dead in christ shall rise" from the dead when christ comes again. according to john 14:3, christ comes for us, and not we go to him: "i will come again, and receive you unto myself." john 21:21-23--"peter seeing him (john) saith to jesus, lord, and what shall this man do? jesus saith unto him, if i will that he tarry till i come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet jesus said not unto him, he shall not die; but, if i will that he tarry till i come, what is that to thee?" 1 corinthians 15:50-57 declares that at the second coming of christ we overcome, not succumb to, death. see john 8:51; matt. 16:28. the foolishness of such interpretation is seen if we substitute the word "death" for the second coming of christ in such places where this coming is mentioned, e.g., phil. 3:20; matt. 16:28--"verily i say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom." b) that the second coming means the coming of the holy spirit. there is no doubt but that the coming of the holy spirit is a coming (john 14:21-23), but it is by no means _the_ second coming, and for the following reasons: many of the testimonies and promises of the second coming were given _after_ pentecost, e.g., phil. 3:21; 2 tim. 4:8; 1 thess. 4:16, 17; 1 cor. 15:51, 52. christ does not receive us unto himself, but comes to us, at pentecost. in the second coming he takes us, not comes to us. the events of 1 thessalonians 4:16, 17 did not occur on the day of pentecost, nor do they occur when the believer receives the holy spirit. c) that the second coming refers to the destruction of jerusalem. reply: the events of 1 thessalonians 4:16, 17 did not take place then. john 21:21-23, and rev. 22:20 were written _after_ the destruction of jerusalem. from all that has been said then, it seems clear that the second coming of christ is an event still in the future. 3. the need of recognizing the distinction between christ's coming for his saints and with his saints. there is a distinction between the _presence_ and the _appearing_ of christ: the former referring to his coming _for,_ and the latter _with_ his saints. we should remember, further, that the second coming covers a period of time, and is not the event of a single moment. even the first coming covered over thirty years, and included the events of christ's birth, circumcision, baptism, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, etc. the second coming will also include a number of events such as the rapture, the great tribulation, the millenium, the resurrection, the judgments, etc. iii. the purpose of the second coming. 1. so far as it concerns the church. 1 thess. 4:13-17; 1 cor. 15:50-52; phil. 3:20, 21, r. v.; 1 john 3:2. when christ comes again he will first raise the righteous dead, and change the righteous living; simultaneously they shall be caught up to meet the lord in the air to be with him for ever. eph. 5:23, 32; 2 cor. 11:2; rev. 19:6-9; matt. 25:1-10. the church, the bride of christ, will then be married to her lord. matt. 25:19; 2 tim. 4:8; 1 pet. 5:4; 1 cor. 3:12-15; 2 cor. 5:10. believers will be rewarded for their faithfulness in service at his coming. (see under the final beward of the righteous, page 266.) 2. so far as it concerns the unconverted nations and individuals. matt. 24:30; rev. 1:7; matt. 25:31, 32; rev. 20:11, 12; isa. 26:21; 2 thess. 1:7-9. a distinction must be recognized between the judgment of the living nations, and that of the great white throne. these are not the same, for no resurrection accompanies the judgment of the living nations, as in the case of the throne judgment. further, one thousand years elapse between these two judgments (rev. 20:7-11). again, one is at the beginning of the millennium, and the other at its close. 3. with reference to the jews. the jews will be restored to their own land (isa. 11:11; 60) in an unconverted state; will rebuild the temple, and restore worship (ezek. 40-48); will make a covenant with antichrist for one week (seven years), in the midst of which they will break the covenant (dan. 9:27; 2 thess. 2); they will then pass through the great tribulation (matt. 24:21, 22, 29; rev. 3:10; 7:14); are converted (as a nation) at the coming of christ (zech. 12:10; rev. 1:7); become great missionaries (zech. 8:13-23); never more to be removed from the land (amos 9:15; ezek. 34:28). 4. with regard to antichrist, and the enemies of god's people. 2 thess. 1:7-9; rev. 19:20; 20:10. these shall be destroyed by the brightness of his coming; will be cast finally into the bottomless pit. 5. to set up the millennial reign on the earth. the millennium means the thousand years reign of christ upon the earth (rev. 20:1-4). some think that it is the continuation of the _kingdom age_ broken off by the unbelief of the jews at the time of the apostles. the millennium begins with the coming of christ with his saints; with the revelation of christ after the great tribulation (matt. 24:29, 30); at the close of the seventieth week of daniel. for illustration, see rev. 19:11-14; dan. 7:21, 22; zech. 14:3-9. then comes the destruction of antichrist, the binding of satan, and the destruction of the enemies of god's people (rev. 19:20; 20:1-3, 10). the judgment of the living nations (matt. 25). the conversion and missionary activity of the jews (zech. 8:13-23; cf. acts 15:14-17). then, we may have a converted world, but not now, nor in this age; israel, not the church, then concerned. the nature of the millennium: it is a theocracy: jesus christ himself is the king (jer. 23:5; luke 1:30-33). the apostles will, doubtless, reign with christ over the jews (isa. 66; matt. 19:28); the church, over the gentile nations (luke 19:11-19; heb. 2:6, 7). the capitol city will be jerusalem (isa. 2:1-4). pilgrimages will be made to the holy city (zech. 14:16). the reign of christ will be one of righteousness and equity (isa. 11:4; psa. 98:9). a renovated earth (rom. 8:19-31; isa. 65:17; c. 35). the events closing the millennium are apostasy and rebellion (rev. 20:7-9); the destruction of satan (rev. 20:10); the great white throne judgment (rev. 20:11-15); a new heaven and a new earth (rev. 21 and 22). iv. the time of christ's second coming. we need to carefully distinguish between christ's coming _for_ his saints--sometime called the "rapture" or "parousia"; and his coming _with_ his saints--the "revelation" or "epiphany." in considering the matter of the "signs" of christ's coming we need to pay particular attention to and distinguish between those signs which have been characteristic of and peculiar to many generations, and have, consequently, been repeated; and those which are to characterize specifically the near approach of the coming of christ. christians are not altogether in the dark concerning these facts: luke 21:29-33--"so likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of god is nigh at hand" (v. 36). also 1 thess. 5:1-8--"but ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief" (v. 4). 1. no one knows the day nor the hour. matt. 24:36-42--"but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my father only" (v. 36). mark 13:32, cf. acts 1:7. the scriptures tell us enough regarding the time of christ's coming to satisfy our faith, but not our curiosity. these statements of the master should be sufficient to silence that fanaticism which is so anxious to tell us the exact year, month, and even the day when christ will come. this day is hidden in the counsels of god. jesus himself, by a voluntary unwillingness to know, while in his state of humiliation, showed no curiosity to peer into the chronology of this event. we should not nor ought we to want to know more than christ did on this point. can it be that "that day" was not yet fixed in the counsels of the father, and that its date depended, somewhat at least, upon the faithfulness of the church in the evangelization of the world? we know not certainly. the revelation which jesus gave to john would seem to teach that "that day," which was at one time hidden from christ, is now, in his state of exaltation, known to him. 2. yet, we must not foeget that while we may not know the exact day or hour of christ's coming, we may know when it is near at hand. (matt. 24:36-42; 1 thess. 5:1-5.) there are certain "signs" which indicate its nearness: general apostasy and departure from the faith (1 tim. 4:1; 2 tim. 3:1-5; luke 18:8). a time of great heaping up of wealth (james 5:1-9). a time of great missionary activity (matt. 24:14). consider the missionary activity of the last century. is it not marvellous? is it a "sign" of his coming? the modern history of the jews throws much light on the question of the nearness of christ's coming. the following facts are interesting in this connection: the large number of jews returning to palestine; the waning of the power of the turkish government, which has held palestine with an iron hand and has excluded the jew; the plans already before the nations to give the holy land to the jews by consent of the powers; the early and latter rain in palestine; railroads, electric lights, etc., now in the land long desolate--the fig-tree is budding, and the hour of the coming is at hand. it should not be forgotten in this connection that many of the signs mentioned refer primarily to the coming of christ _with_ his saints. but if that stage of the coming be near then surely the first stage of it must be. other signs have reference to the first stage in the one great event of his coming, which is known as the "rapture" or christ's coming _for_ his saints. 3. it seems clear from the teaching of the scriptures that there is nothing to prevent the coming of christ for his saints at any moment. by this is meant that there is nothing, so far as we can sea from the teaching of the scriptures and the signs of the times, to hinder the introduction of the day of the lord, or the second coming of christ looked upon as a great whole--a series of events, by christ's coming to take his own people unto himself. in other words, there is nothing to hinder the "rapture" or "parousia"--the "epiphany," "manifestation," or "revelation" is something for a later day. some objections are offered to this view, the which it will be well to examine and answer even though briefly. first, that the gospel has not been preached into all the world (matt. 24:14), therefore the coming of christ is not imminent. reply: we must understand the emphatic words of the text: by "end" is meant the end of the age; but the rapture, or christ's coming _for_ his saints, of which we are here speaking as being imminent, is not the end of the age. by "world" is meant the inhabited earth; by "gospel," good news; by "witness," not conversion but testimony. even if these events are to precede the "rapture," have they not all been fulfilled? see acts 2:5; 8:4; rom. 10:18; col. 1:6, 23, for the answer, which is certainly in the affirmative. we must give the same meaning to the word "world" in romans and colossians that we do to matt. 24:14. further, is the church the _only_ witness? see rev. 14:6. if the rapture is not the end of the age, and if an angel can proclaim the gospel, why cannot part of the work of witnessing be carried on after the rapture? second, peter, james, and john were told that they should not taste of death until they had seen the coming of christ's kingdom (matt. 16:28; mark 9:1; luke 9:27). reply: true, but was not this fulfilled when they saw christ on the transfiguration mount? peter, who was there, in his second epistle (1:16-18) distinctly says it was thus fulfilled. third, the disciples were told that they shall not have gone over all the cities of israel until the son of man be come (matt. 10:23). reply: mark 6:30, luke 9:10 shows that they did not finish all the cities, nor is there evidence anywhere that they ever did, for israel rejected the message of the kingdom. may it not be that under the restoration of the jews and the preaching of the "two witnesses" (rev. 11) this shall be accomplished? fourth, christ said "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." see matt. 24:34; luke 21:32; mark 13:30. reply: what is meant by a "generation"? some would say "forty years," consequently the master referred to the destruction of jerusalem, which event was the second coming of christ. but this is not necessarily the case. the word "generation" may refer to the jewish _race;_ cf. the use of the same greek word in matt. 11:16; 16:4; mark 8:38; luke 7:31; 16:8; 17:25; phil. 2:15; psa. 22:30; 24:6. and in this connection consider carefully the wonderful preservation of the jewish race. other nations have passed away, having lost their identity; the jew remains--that generation (race) has not yet passed away, nor will it "till all these things be fulfilled." [footnote: _jesus is coming,_ by w.e.b., is heartily recommended as an exceedingly helpful book on this subject. the author is indebted thereto.] b. the resurrection of the dead. under this caption is included the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, although, as will be seen later, they do not occur at the same time. i. this doctrine clearly taught in the scriptures. 1. in the old testament. 2. in the new testament. ii. the nature of the resurrection. 1. literal resurrection of the bodies of all men. 2. resurrection of the body necessary to complete salvation. 3. the nature of the resurrection body. a) in general. b) the body of the believer. c) the body of the unbeliever. iii. the time of the resurrection. 1. of the righteous. 2. of the wicked. i. the doctrine of a resurrection clearly taught in the scriptures. 1. in the old testament. it is set forth in various ways: _in word:_ job 19:25-27--"for i know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall i see god: whom i shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." also psa. 16:9; 17:15; dan. 12:1-3. _in figure:_ gen. 22:5 with heb. 11:19--"accounting that god was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure." _in prophecy:_ isa. 26:19--"thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust." the words "men" and "together with" may be omitted--"thy dead (ones) shall live." these words are jehovah's answer to israel's wail as recorded in vv. 17, 18. even if they refer to resurrection of israel as a nation, they yet teach a bodily resurrection. see also hosea 13:14. _in reality:_ 1 kings 17 (elijah); 2 kings 4:32-35 (elisha and the shunamite's son); 13:21 (resurrection through contact with the dead bones of elisha). the old testament therefore distinctly teaches the resurrection of the body. mark 9:10, which might seem to indicate that the apostles did not know of a bodily resurrection, is accounted for by their unwillingness to believe in a crucified christ. 2. in the new testament. _in word:_ note the teaching of jesus in john 5:28, 29; c. 6 entire, note especially vv. 39, 40, 44, 54; luke 14:13, 14; 20:35, 36. the teaching of the apostles: paul, acts, 24:15; 1 cor. 15; 1 thess. 4:14-16; phil. 3:11; john, rev. 20:4-6; 13. _in reality:_ the resurrection of saints (matt. 27:52, 53); of lazarus (john 11); of jesus christ (matt. 28). our lord's resurrection assured them of what till then had been a hope imperfectly supported by scriptural warrant, and contested by the sadducees. it enlarged that hope (1 pet. 1:3), and brought the doctrine of the resurrection to the front (1 cor. 15). ii. the nature of the resurrection. 1. a literal resurrection of the bodies of all men--a universal resurrection. john 5:28--"marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth." 1 cor. 15:22--"for as in adam all die, even so in christ shall all be made alive." the apostle is speaking of physical death in adam, and physical resurrection in christ. revelation 20:12, and 2 corinthians 5:10 both show the necessity of the raising of the body in order that judgment may take place according to things done in the body. see also job's hope (19:25-27); david's hope (psa. 16:9). an objection is sometimes made to the effect that we literalize these scriptures which are intended to be metaphorical and spiritual. to this we reply: while the exact phrase, "resurrection of the body," does not occur in the bible, yet these scriptures clearly teach a physical rather than a spiritual resurrection. indeed john 5:25-29 draws a sharp contrast between a spiritual (v. 25) and a literal (v. 28) resurrection. see also phil. 3:21; 1 thess. 4:13-17. 2 tim. 2:18--"who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is passed already," indicates that the early church believed in a literal resurrection. surely there is no reference here to a spiritual resurrection such as we read of in ephesians 5:14. acts 24:15 speaks of a resurrection of the just and the unjust--this cannot refer to a spiritual resurrection surely. if the resurrection were spiritual then in the future state every man would have two spirits--the spirit he has here, and the spirit he would receive at the resurrection. the term "spiritual body" describes, not so much the body itself, as its nature. the "spiritual body" is body, not spirit, hence should not be considered as defining body. by the term "spiritual body" is meant the body spiritualized. so there is a natural body--a body adapted and designed for the use of the soul; and there is a spiritual body--a body adapted for the use of the spirit in the resurrection day. 2. the redemption of the body is included in our complete redemption. rom. 8:11-23--"and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (v. 23). see also 1 cor. 6:13-20. in john 6:39 and job 19:25-27 we are taught that the dust into which our bodies have decayed will be quickened, which indicates a physical resurrection. this conception of the value of the body is doubtless what leads to the christian's care for his dead loved ones and their graves. the believer's present body, which is called "the body of his humiliation" (phil. 3:21) is not yet fitted for entrance into the kingdom (1 cor. 15:50). paul's hope is not for a deliverence from the body, but the redemption of it (2 cor. 5:4). 3. the nature of the resurrection body. a) in general. because the scripture teaches a literal resurrection of the body it is not necessary to insist on the literal resurrection of the identical body--hair, tooth, and nail--that was laid under the ground. the idea that at the resurrection we are to see hands flying across the sea to join the body, etc., finds no corroboration in the scriptures. such an idea is not necessary in order to be true to the bible teaching. mere human analogy ought to teach us this (1 cor. 15:36, 37)--"thou sowest not that body which shall be." the identity is preserved--that is all that we need to insist upon. what that identity tie is we may not yet know. after all it is not so much a question of material identity as of glorified individuality. the growth of the seed shows that there may be personal identity under a complete change of physical conditions. four things may be said about the resurrection body: first, it is not necessarily identical with that which descended into the grave; second, it will have some organic connection with that which descended into the grave; third, it will be a body which god, in his sovereignty, will bestow; fourth, it will be a body which will be a vast improvement over the old one. b) the body of the believer. phil. 3:21 (r. v.)--"who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself." see also 1 john 3:2; 1 cor. 15:49. what was the nature and likeness of christ's resurrection body which our resurrection body is to resemble? it was a real body (luke 24:39); recognizable (luke 24:31; john 20:16); powerful (john 20:19). summing up these passages, we may say that the resurrection body of the believer will be like the glorified body of christ. characteristics of the believer's resurrection body as set forth in 1 cor. 15: it is not flesh and blood (vv. 50, 51; cf. heb. 2:14; 2 cor. 5:1-6; luke 24:39)--"flesh and bones," so not pure spirit; a real body. it is incorruptible (v. 43)--no decay, sickness, pain. it is glorious (v. 43), cf. the transfiguration (matt. 17); rev. 1:13-17. it has been said that adam and eve, in their unfallen state, possessed a glorious body. the face of stephen was glorious in his death (acts 6:15). 2 cor. 3:18. it is powerful (v. 43)--not tired, or weak; no lassitude; cf. now "spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak"; not so then. it is a spiritual body (v. 44). here the soul is the life of the body; there the spirit will be the life of the body. it is heavenly (v. 47-49). c) the resurrection body of the unbeliever. the scriptures are strangely silent on this subject. it is worthy of note that in the genealogies of genesis 5 no age is attached to the names of those who were not in the chosen line. is there a purpose here to ignore the wicked? in the story of the rich man and lazarus no name is given to the godless rich man; why? iii. the time of the resurrection. 1. the resurrection of the righteous. john 6:39, 40, 44--"the last day." this does not mean a day of twenty-four hours, but a period of time. it will be safe, usually, to limit the word "day" to a period of twenty-four hours only where numeral, ordinal, or cardinal occurs in connection therewith, like "fourth day," etc. when the "day of grace," "day of judgment," "this thy day," etc., are mentioned, they refer to periods of time either long or short, as the case may be. 1 cor. 15:23--"but every man in his own order: christ the firstfruits; afterwards they that are christ's at his coming." 1 thess. 4:14-17. in both these passages the resurrection of the believer is connected with the coming of christ. this event ushers in the last day; it is treated as a separate and distinct thing. 2. the resurrection of the wicked. as there is a difference in the issue (john 5:28, 29; dan. 12:2, cf. literal hebrew rendering below) so there is as to time between the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked. phil. 3:11--"if by any means i might attain unto the resurrection of (lit. out of) the dead." it was no incentive to paul simply to be assured that he would be raised from the dead; for he knew that all men would be thus raised. what paul was striving for was to be counted worthy of that first resurrection--of the righteous from among the wicked. the resurrection "out from among" the dead is the resurrection unto life and glory; the resurrection "of" the dead is to shame and contempt everlasting. 1 cor. 15:21-24. note the expressions used, and their meaning: "then," meaning the next in order, the greek denoting sequence, not simultaneousness--each in his own cohort, battalion, brigade (cf. mark 4:28--"first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear"). nineteen hundred years have already elapsed between "christ the firstfruits" and "they that are christ's." how many years will elapse between the resurrection of "they that are christ's" and that of the wicked ("the end") we may not be able to definitely state, but certainly long enough for christ to have "put all enemies under his feet" (v. 25). three groups or ranks are here mentioned: "christ," "they that are christ's," "the end" (the resurrection of the wicked). (cf. vv. 5, 6, 7--"seen of cephas, then of the twelve: after that . . . after that . . . then . . . and last of all he was seen of me also.") first christ, afterwards (later than) "they that are christ's" then (positively meaning afterwards, a new era which takes place after an interval) "cometh the end." dan. 12:2--"and many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some (lit. those who awake at this time) to everlasting life, and some (lit. those who do not awake at this time) to shame and everlasting contempt." some of the most eminent hebrew scholars translate this passage as follows: "and (at that time) many (of thy people) shall awake (or be separated) out from among the sleepers in the earth dust. these (who awake) shall be unto life eternal, but those (who do not awake at that time) shall be unto contempt and shame everlasting." it seems clear from this passage that all do not awake at one (this) time, but only as many as are written in the book (12:1). eevelation 20:4-6 shows that at least a thousand years--whatever period of time may be thereby designated--elapses between the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. john 5:28, 29; dan. 12:2; rev. 20:12 all show that the resurrection of the wicked is always connected with the judgment, and that takes place at the close and not at the beginning of the day of the lord. whatever difficulties may present themselves in connection with the resurrection, whatever obstacles of a miraculous or supernatural nature may present themselves in connection therewith are to be met by remembering the truth enunciated by christ in connection with this very subject: matt. 22:29--"ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of god." (cf. v. 23.--"the same day came to him the sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection," etc., and the following verses for the setting of v. 39.) c. the judgment. i. the fact of the judgment. 1. as taught in the old testament. 2. as taught in the new testament. 3. the testimony of conscience. 4. the testimony of christ's resurrection. ii. the judge--christ. iii. the nature of the judgment. 1. judgment at the cross. 2. the daily judgment. 3. future judgment. a) of the saints. b) of the living nations. c) of the great white throne. d) of the fallen angels. e) of israel. c. the judgment. i. the fact of the judgment. 1. distinctly taught in the old testament. psa. 96:13--"for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth." while this passage refers more particularly to the rewarding of the righteous, yet the idea of judgment is here. both reward and punishment are involved in the idea of judgment. 2. the new testament. acts 17:31--"because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." heb. 9:27. just as it is "appointed unto men once to die" so it is appointed unto men to appear before the judgment. there is no more escape from the one than from the other. it is part of the burden of both the old and new testament message that a day of judgment is appointed for the world. god's kingdom shall extend universally; but a judgment in which the wicked are judged and the righteous rewarded is necessary and in order that the kingdom of everlasting righteousness may be established upon the earth. 3. the conscience of all mankind corroborates the teaching of the scriptures with regard to the certainty of a coming judgment. this is true of both the individual and universal conscience. the discoveries of tablets as well as the history of all peoples establish this fact. this is enforced by eccl. 11:9; 12:14--a book which is in a very real sense a book of worldly philosophy, narrating, as it does, the experiences and observations of a man who judged all things from the view-point of "under the sun," i.e., without special reference to any revelation from above. 4. the resurrection of jesus christ is a sure and certain proof which god has given to men of a coming judgment. acts 17:31 (quoted above). here is "assurance" in the sense of proof or ground of evidence. the context is suggestive: god had long borne with the sins of men, and in a sense, overlooked them. therefore men have thought that god would continue to do so. but no, this shall not be; there is a day of judgment coming, the evidence of which lies in the fact of the resurrection of jesus christ. ii. the judge--christ. john 5:22, 23, 27; 2 tim. 4:1; 2 cor. 5:10; acts 10:42; 17:31. the man of the cross is the man of the throne. note the expression "because he is the son of man." that indicates his fitness to judge: he can sympathize. but he is equal with the father. this too indicates his competency to judge, for it implies omniscience. the texts which speak of god as judging the world are to be understood as referring to god the son. no appeal can be made from the son to the father. iii. the nature of the judgment. the erroneous idea that there is to be one great general judgment which is to take place at the end of the world, when all mankind shall stand before the great white throne, is to be guarded against. the judgments of the bible differ as to time, place, subjects, and results. 1. there is a judgment that is already past--the judgment at the cross. john 5:24; 12:31; 2 cor. 5:21; gal. 3:13; 1 pet. 3:24. at this judgment bar satan was judged and his power over the believer broken. here also the sins of the believer were judged and put away. 2. there is a present judgment which is taking place daily in the life of the believer. 1 cor. 11:31, 32; 5:5; 1 tim. 1:20; cf., for illustration, 2 sam. 7:14, 15; 12:13,14. this continual judgment must be going on in the life of the believer or there will be judgment from god because of the consequent failure to grow in grace. there must be constant and continual judging of sin as it comes up in the believer's life (1 john 1:5-7). 3. there is a future judgment. a) of the saints. 1 cor. 3:8-16; 2 cor. 5:10; 1 cor. 4:5. this is to be a judgment with reference to the works, not the salvation, of the believer. it is called "the judgment seat of christ." that the saints are here referred to is clear from 2 cor. 5:1, 5, 7, 9; also 1 cor. 4:5 which says that those who are judged "shall have praise of god." this is not true of the wicked. this is a judgment, not for destiny, but for adjustment, for reward or loss according to our works, for position in the kingdom; every man according as his work shall be. b) of the living nations. matt. 25:31-46. this judgment will take place at the coming of christ with his saints. note three things in this chaper: first, the marriage supper of the lamb (w. 1-13); second, the judgment of the saints (vv. 14-30); third, the judgment of the living nations (vv. 31-46). this is not a general judgment of good and bad, for there are three classes here. "my brethren" can hardly refer to the saints, for then it would be "inasmuch as ye have done it unto yourselves, ye have done it unto me." nor is the church in this judgment, for she is already translated and rewarded as we have seen. the church no more belongs to the nations than does israel. the nations are those who deal with israel through the great tribulation. the "brethren" are probably the jewish remnant who have turned to christ during the great tribulation and whom the antichrist has severely persecuted as also have many of the wicked nations, like russia today. this is a judgment of nations that are living; there is no mention of the dead. c) of the great white throne. rev. 20:11-15. it is called the final judgment and takes place at the close of the millennium, after the judgment of the living nations (matt. 25). it is a judgment of "the dead"; no mention is made of the living in connection therewith. note the difference between the judgments of the living nation and of the great white throne: the former at the beginning, the latter at the close of the millennium; one deals with the living, the other with the dead; one deals with conduct towards "the brethren," the other with general sins recorded in the books. d) of israel. ezek. 20:33-44; psa. 50:16-22. takes place probably at the end of the great tribulation. e) of the fallen angels. jude 6; 2 pet. 2:4. believers are associated with christ in this judgment (1 cor. 6:3). d. the final destiny of the wicked. i. preliminary considerations. 1. difference between future of the righteous and wicked. 2. difficulty of figurative language. 3. disparity in number of the saved and lost. 4. prophecy vs. history. ii. the wicked die in their sins. iii. the wicked are not annihilated. iv. the wicked are raised from the dead for judgment. v. the punishment described. 1. death. 2. eternal. 3. punishment. 4. fire. 5. darkness. d. the final destiny of the wicked. "every view of the world has its eschatology. it cannot help raising the question of the whither, as well as of the what and the whence? '0, my lord,' said daniel to the angel, 'what shall be the end of these things?' (12:8). what is the end, the final destiny of the individual? does he perish at death, or does he enter into another state of being; and under what conditions of happiness or woe does he exist there? what is the end, the final aim of the great whole, that far-off divine event towards which the whole creation moves? it is vain to tell man not to ask these questions. he will ask them, and must ask them. he will pore over every scrap of fact, or trace of law, which seems to give an indication of an answer. he will try from the experience of the past, and the knowledge of the present, to deduce what the future shall be. he will peer as far as he can into the unseen; and, where knowledge fails, will weave from his hopes and trusts pictures and conjectures. "the christian view of the world also has its eschatology. the christian view, however, is positive, where that of science is negative; ethical, where it is material; human, where it is cosmogonic; ending in personal immortality, where this ends in extinction and death. the eschatology of christianity springs from its character as a teleological religion--it seeks to grasp the unity of the world through the conception of an end or aim."--_james orr._ this is probably the hardest of all the doctrines of christianity to be received. if we ask the reason why, we receive various answers. some would tell us that this doctrine is unwelcome to many because they feel themselves guilty, and their conscience tells them that unless they repent and turn to god this awful doom awaits them. others believe that it is because the thought of future punishment strikes terror to people's hearts, and therefore this doctrine is repulsive to them. to others again, the thought of future anguish seems utterly incompatable with the fatherly love of god. yet it is acknowledged to be a remarkable fact that both jesus and john, who more than any one else in the new testament represent the element of love in their lives and teaching, speak most of the future anguish of the wicked. that future punishment of the wicked holds a prominent place in the teachings of the scriptures there can be no reasonable doubt. what is between the covers of the bible is the preacher's message. yet great care must be exercised in the teaching or proclamation of this doctrine. after all it is not the saying of hard things that pierces the conscience of people; it is the voice of divine love heard amid the thunder. yet there must be no consciousness of cowardice in proclaiming the doctrine of future retribution, however awful its delineation may be. fear is a legitimate motive to which we may appeal, and while it may be classed among the lower motives, it is nevertheless true that it is the only motive that will effectively move some people to action. some recognized facts. there are certain preliminary facts which should be recognized in the discussion of this subject: 1. that it shall be well with the righteous, and woe to the wicked (isa. 3:10, 11). that there is to be retribution for sin and a reward for the righteous must be held to be beyond question, and must be recognized as an unchangeable law. one cannot very well meddle with that truth without serious danger. so long as a man persistently, willingly and knowingly continues in his sin he must suffer for it. that suffering the bible calls eternal death. 2. we must recognize that much of the language of the scripture dealing with this condition is couched in figurative terms. but the condition is none the less real because of that, for, generally speaking, the reality is more severe than the figure in which it is set forth. yet we need caution here, and must distinguish between the things that are stated in clear unmistakable language and those that are set forth in words symbolic and figurative. 3. the disparity in the number of saved and lost. there is a danger lest we should be unmindful of the problems connected with this doctrine, such as that seeming fewness of the saved; the condition of the heathen who have not had a chance to hear the gospel; and the difference in privilege and opportunity among those who live in so-called christian lands. 4. prophecy vs. history. we must recognize that it is more difficult to deal with facts which lie in the future than with those lying in the past. prophecy is always more difficult to deal with than history. the past we may sketch in details, the future but in broad outlines. "our treatment of themes that deal with the future must, in the very nature of the case be very different than it would be were we dealing with the things of the past. history and prophecy must be handled differently. in dealing with the history of god's past revelations--with the ages before the advent, with the earthly life and revelation of jesus christ, with the subsequent course of god's providence in the church--we are dealing with that which has already been. it stands in concrete reality before us, and we can reason from it as a thing known in its totality and its details. but when the subject of revelation is that which is yet to be, especially that which is yet to be under forms and conditions of which we have no direct experience, the case is widely altered. here it is at most outlines that we can look for; and even these outlines will be largely clothed in figure and symbol; the spiritual kernel will seek material investiture to body itself forth; the conditions of the future will require to be presented largely in forms borrowed from known relations. the outstanding thoughts will be sufficiently apparent, but the thoughts in which these thoughts are cast will partake of metaphor and image."--_james orr._ ii. the wicked are said to "die in their sins." john 8:21, 24--"then said jesus again unto them, i go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither i go, ye cannot come. i said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that i am he, ye shall die in your sins." rom. 6:23--"for the wages of sin is death." see rev. 20:14, 15; 21:8. the "death" spoken of here does not mean cessation of existence any more than eternal life means the beginning of existence. eternal life does not mean merely to live for ever, but to live in a state of blessedness for ever. eternal life deals not so much with quantity as with quality of existence. just so with eternal death. it is a quality of existence, not cessation of being. even in this life death can co-exist with life: "but she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 tim. 5:6); eph. 2:1. what men call life god calls death. there are two things which the believer gets: at his regeneration, eternal life; at his resurrection, immortality; but in both instances he already has life and existence. so it is in the case of the wicked: the second death does not mean cessation of existence, for he is dead already, now in this life (1 tim. 5:6; eph. 2:1; john 5:24, 25). rev. 21:8 describes what "death," as here used, means: "but the fearful, and the unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." iii. the wicked are not annihilated. the texts most strongly urged as teaching the annihilation theory, if rightly interpreted, will be seen to refer to removal from off the earth, and not to future retribution. here are the principal passages: psa. 37:20--"but the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." this psalm is written for the encouragement of israel and against her enemies and their power on the earth. this earthly power shall be utterly broken, and be of no more account than the smoke of a burnt sacrifice. the great truth taught here is that the earth is the inheritance of the saints, and that the wicked shall have no part in it. obadiah 16--" . . . and they shall be as though they had not been." these words are taken from the vision regarding edom, and refer to the destruction of the edomites and their land, and not to the future of the wicked in the next life. in speaking of the "everlasting punishment" with which the wicked will be visited, as recorded in 2 thess. 1:9, the annihilationist would say that reference is made to the "results or consequences" of that punishment and not to the punishment itself. but the scriptures state that it is the "punishment" itself, and not the consequences, that is everlasting. no such interpretation as that put upon these passages by those holding the annihilation theory can be maintained by sound exegesis. what need is there of a resurrection if the wicked are to be annihilated at death, or why should they be raised from the dead if only to be at once extinguished for ever? again, there is no such thing as "unconscious" punishment. you cannot punish anything that is unconscious. can you punish a stone or a house? punishment can take place only where there is consciousness on the part of the one suffering. iv. the wicked are to be punished. rom. 2:8, 9--"but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the jew first, and also of the gentile." "wrath" indicates the settled mind of god towards the persistently wicked (john 3:36); "indignation," the outbreak of that wrath at the day of judgment; "tribulation," severe affliction (matt. 13:21; 24:9; rev. 7:14); "anguish," torturing confinement in a strait place without relief, as in a dungeon, or in stocks. god grant that we may never know what these terms fully mean. matt. 25:41, 46--"then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. and these shall go away into everlasting punishment." 2 thess. 1:7-9--"when the lord jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not god, and that obey not the gospel of our lord jesus christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the lord, and from the glory of his power." see also mark 9:43-50 which speaks of the wicked being cast into "hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." there are certain important words in these scriptures which demand our attention, and which we need to understand in order to get right views of the doctrine we are now considering. they are as follows: 1. "eternal." we read of "eternal" or "everlasting" punishment, "everlasting" fire. it is objected that the word "eternal" or "everlasting" does not mean "forever." this may be true. but we are all willing to admit that when this word qualifies the condition of the righteous it means for ever, without end, e.g., the righteous shall go "into life eternal." the same word, however, qualifies the punishment of the wicked, e.g., "these shall go away into everlasting punishment." fairness demands that we make the joy of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked--both qualified as they are by the same greek word--of the same duration. if there is an end to the reward of the righteous, there is also to the penalty of the wicked. the one lasts as long as the other. if "destruction" means annihilation, then there is no need of the word "eternal" to qualify it. further the scriptures present the punishment of the wicked not only as "eternal" (or age-long) but as enduring "for ever and ever," or "unto the ages of the ages" (rev. 19:3; 20:10; 14:11, r. v.). here is a picture of ages tumbling upon ages in eternal succession. 2. "punishment." the meaning of this word will be found under the previous division (iii) dealing with the subject of annihilation. 3. "fire." this is one of the most constant images under which the torment and misery of the wicked is represented. fire is a symbol of the divine judgment of wrath (matt. 5:22). in matthew 3:10 the godless are represented as a tree hewn down and cast into the fire; in 3:12 the chaff (godless) is burned with unquenchable fire; in 13:42 the wicked are said to be cast into a furnace of fire. is the "fire" spoken of here _literal_ fire? it is an accepted law of language that a figure of speech is less intense than the reality. if "fire" is merely a figurative expression, it must stand for some great reality, and if the reality is more intense than the figure, what an awful thing the punishment symbolized by fire must be. it is contended that fire must necessarily consume; that nothing could continue to exist in fire. is it not remarkable that the baptist uses the word "unquenchable"' (greek, "asbestos") when speaking of this fire? is any light thrown on the question by the incident of the three hebrew children in the fiery furnace? did they consume, or did they withstand the fire? (dan. 3:27). in the parable of the tares (matt. 13:36-43) our lord speaks of the tares being burned up. when christ retired to the house after delivering the parable, his disciples asked him to explain to them what he meant by the figures of speech he used in the parable. this request he granted. he explained the figurative language of the parable; every figurative word in it except that of "fire." he said: "the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. as therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be at the end of this world. . . . and they shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." why did not the master explain what he meant by the figurative word "fire"? he explained all the other figurative words, why not this one? did he forget? or did he intend that his disciples should have the impression that he was speaking of literal fire? here was his opportunity to explain his use of words, for the disciples were asking for just that very thing. was there any significance in the fact that jesus did not explain the word "fire"? whether we believe in literal fire or not, we certainly ought to ask for a reason for the master's failure to literalize the figurative word "fire." 4. "darkness." this word is used to describe the condition of the lost: "cast into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." seven times these terms are found together: matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; luke 13:28. the picture is that of a banquet which was usually held at night. the wicked are thrust out from the light, joy, and festivity into the darkness and gloom without, as into the remote gloom and anguish of a dungeon in which are found agony, wrath, and despair. is this a description of hell --absence of spiritual light; separation from the company of the saved; lamentation; impotent rage? e. the final reward of the righteous. i. the believer never dies. ii. the believer goes to be with christ. iii. the body of the believer is raised from the dead. iv. the believer is rewarded. v. the nature of the believer's reward. 1. the "crowns" of scripture. 2. the seven "overcomes" (rev. 2 and 3). vi. the new condition and abode of life for the saints. 1. new sphere of life. 2. a new home. 3. new conditions. e. the final reward of the righteous. if, says the apostle paul, in this present life we have a hope resting on christ, and nothing more, we are more to be pitied than all the rest of the world (1 cor. 15:19). the idea is that if this hope in christ which the believer has is a delusive hope, with no prospect of fulfillment in the future, the christian is indeed in a sad state. he has chosen a life of self-denial; he will not indulge in the pleasures of the world, and if there are no pleasures in the darkness into which he is about to enter, then he has miscalculated, he has chosen a life that shall end in self-obliteration. if he has no home to go to, no god to welcome him, no king to say, "well done, exchange mortality for life," then he is indeed in a pitiable plight. but such is not the case. the hope of the christian enters beyond the vail, into the very presence of god himself, and endures throughout all the eternities. i. the christian never dies. 1 john 8:51--"verily, verily, i say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." 11:25, 26--"jesus said unto her, i am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. believest thou this?" what jesus means here is not that the believer shall not pass through the experience that we call death, but that in reality it is not death, at least, not in the sense in which it is death to the unbeliever. jesus has taken the sting out of death. how sharply the contrast between death and the experience through which the believer passes is presented in 1 thess. 4:13, 14--"but i would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. for if we believe that jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in jesus will god bring with him." jesus "died"--he tasted the awfulness of death; the believer in him "falls asleep." cf. john 11:11--"our friend lazarus sleepeth." we have no ground in these words for the modern doctrine of soul-sleeping. christ did not mean to say that the soul is unconscious between the time of death and the resurrection. for, when the disciples did not understand his _figurative_ language, he told them _plainly,_ "lazarus is dead" (11:11-15). what jesus meant was that death is something like that which takes place when we go to sleep. what takes place when we go to sleep? surely the current of life does not cease, but flows on, and when we awake we feel better and stronger than before. there is a shutting out of all the scenes of the world and time. just so it is in the case of the believer's death. three ideas are contained in the word "sleep": continued existence,--for the mind is active even though the body is still; repose--we lose our hold on and forget the things of the world; wakening--we always think of sleep as followed by awakening. the word "see" in john 8:51 means that the believer shall not gaze at death protractedly, steadily, exhaustively. death is not the objective of his gaze. the believer's outlook is that of life not death. the death of the body is to be reckoned no more as death than the life of the body is life (1 tim. 5:6). the believer's back is turned upon death; he faces and gazes upon life. the temporary separation of the soul and body does not even interrupt, much less impair, the eternal life given by jesus. ii. the believer goes to be with christ. 2 cor. 5:6, r. v.--"being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the lord." phil. 1:23, r. v.--"but i am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with christ; for it is very far better." the experience (death-sleep) through which the believer passes ushers him at once into the presence of christ. it takes him instantly to be "at home" with the lord. surely there can be no hint of unconsciousness or the sleeping of the soul in these words. it would seem from paul's words in 2 corinthians 5:1-5 that some kind of spiritual body is given to the believer during the period of his waiting for the resurrection body. what paul longs for is not to be in a bodiless state, but to put on another body which shall not be subject to death. "at home with the lord"--that is what "death" (?) means to the believer. iii. the body of the believer is raised from the dead. see under the doctrine of the resurrection for the full discussion of the believer's resurrection body, its characteristics, etc. iv. the believer shall receive his final reward in the future. 1 matt. 25:20-23--"and so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, i have gained beside them five talents more. his lord said unto him, well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, i will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. he also that had received two talents came and said, lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, i have gained two other talents beside them. his lord said unto him, well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, i will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." luke 19:12-19.--"he said therefore, a certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. and he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, occupy till i come. but his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, we will not have this man to reign over us. and it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. then came the first, saying, lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. and he said unto him, well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. and the second came saying, lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. and he said likewise to him, be thou also over five cities." matthew 24 exhorts us to watch and wait for christ's coming; chapter 25 shows us how we may obey this exhortation. chapter 25 illustrates to us, in the parable of the virgins (vv. 1-13) the necessity of caring for the inward spiritual life; while the parable of the talents (vv. 14-30), emphasizes the necessity of activity for christ while awaiting his return. while both parables deal with the matter of the rewarding of the saints, they nevertheless present the subject from different viewpoints. the parable of the pounds was delivered before the entry into jerusalem; that of the talents, three days after; the pounds, to the multitudes; the talents, to the disciples. the pounds was given because the people thought that the kingdom would immediately appear, hence the idea of a long journey. in the pounds there is opposition to christ; in the talents, none. in the talents unequal sums are multiplied in the same proportion; in the pounds, equal sums in differed proportions. the parable of the pounds was uttered to repress impatience; that of the talents, to stimulate activity until christ should return. the talents are distributed not capriciously but according to each man's ability to handle them. he who had five talents was able to use five, and was therefore held responsible for the use of this number; so with the two, and the one. the question is not so much "how many talents have i received," but "to what use am i putting them?" the rewards for faithfulness are the same in each case--"be thou ruler over many cities." in the parable of the pounds it is different. all start out with the same number of pounds. as men differ in their use of them, in their fidelity, zeal and labor, so they differ in spiritual gains and rewards (ten cities, five cities). the reward of the believer will be in proportion to the faithfulness of his service for god with the use of the talents with which god has endowed him. the rewards therefore will differ according to the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of our service and life. faith in jesus christ saves the believer, but his position in the future life together with the measure of his reward will depend upon his faithfulness in the use of the gifts with which he has been endowed by god. thus it comes to pass that a man may be saved "yet so as by fire," i.e., saved because of his faith in christ, but minus his reward. see 1 cor. 3:10-15--"in discharge of the task which god graciously entrusted to me, i--like a competent master-builder--have laid a foundation, and others are building upon it. but let every one be careful how and what he builds. for no one can lay any other foundation in addition to that which is already laid, namely, jesus christ. and whether the building which anyone is erecting on that foundation be of gold or silver or costly stones, of timber or hay or straw--the true character of each individual's work will become manifest. for the day of christ will disclose it, because that day is soon to come upon us clothed in fire, and as for the quality of every one's work--the fire is the thing which will test it. if any one's work--the building which he has erected--stands the test, he will be rewarded. if any one's work is burned up, he will suffer the loss of it; yet he will himself be rescued, but only, as it were, by passing through the fire." (translation from _weymouth's new testament._) while this passage has its primary reference, probably, to christian teachers and preachers, and touches the matter of doctrines that are taught, it nevertheless has a fitting and true application to the life and work of every believer. v. the nature of the believer's reward. 1. he shall receive a crown. the scriptures speak of a number of crowns: the crown of _life_ (james 1:12; rev. 2:10, compare context which speaks of death); of _glory_ (1 pet. 5:4; cf. john 17:22; heb. 2:9); of _righteousness_ (2 tim. 4:8), the full realization of the imputed and inwrought righteousness of christ; of _rejoicing_ (1 thess. 2:19), at the sight of converts that have been won by one's ministry for christ; of _gold_ (rev. 4:4); _incorruptible_ (1 cor. 9:25), as compared with the perishable crowns of the greek games; _thy_ crown (rev. 3:11), that which is laid up for you, and which should not be lost by unfaithfulness; the summing up of all the previous expressions--all are characteristic of "thy" crown. 2. the seven "overcomes" in revelation (cc. 2, 3.). a) 2:7--"eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of god." the tree of life, which has been practically unmentioned since genesis 3, where it was lost through sin, is here restored in accordance with the restitution of all things in christ. this figure expresses participation in life eternal--the believer shall die no more. b) 2:11--"shall not be hurt of the second death." he who is born but once--"of the flesh"--dies twice: physically, and eternally. he (the believer) who is born twice--"of the flesh" and "of the spirit"--dies but once; that is, he passes through only that physical dissolution of soul and body which is called death. the "second death" means, to say the least, utter exclusion from the presence of god. to say that the believer shall not be hurt of the second death is equivalent to saying that he shall eternally behold the face of the father which is in heaven. c) 2:17--he shall receive a "stone with a new name written" thereon; to the believer also will be given to eat of the "hidden manna." this figure may mean that to the believer is given the white stone of acquittal. in courts of justice in those days a black stone was given to the condemned. reference may here be made to the white stone (diamond?) which was not among the stones in the high priest's ephod, and thought by some to be the urim and thummim. the partaking of the hidden manna may refer to the fact that they who had resisted the eating of meat offered in sacrifice to idols would, as a reward, be allowed to feast on the bread of god, the divine food. the new name mentioned may stand for a new nature and character which the believer will possess in that new country. d) 2:26, 27--authority over the nations. there is doubtless a reference here to the reign of the saints with the lord jesus christ on the millenial earth. those that have suffered with him shall also reign with him. e) 3:4, 5--he shall be "arrayed in white garments," and his name shall in no wise be blotted out of the book of life. "white garments" undoubtedly refers to the righteousness of the saints. in the old testament days to be blotted out of the book of life meant to forfeit the privileges of the theocracy--to be shut out forever from god's favor. here the certainty of the believer's eternal security is assured. christ will rejoice over him and gladly confess that he knows him as one who belonged to him and served and confessed him on the earth. f) 3:12--the believer will be a pillar in the temple of god; he shall go out no more; god will write upon him his own new name. philadelphia, the place in which was situated the church to whom these words were written, was subject to earthquakes, and quite frequently the massive pillars of the temple were shattered. it shall not be so with the believer--he shall never be moved. he will go in and out no more--no possibility of falling then. he will have the name of god written upon him--no danger of anyone else making claim to him. then the believer's period of probation will have passed away; he shall have a permanent and eternal place in the kingdom of the father. g) 3:21, r. v.--"i will give to him to sit down with me in my throne." not "on" or "upon" but "in" my throne. christ will exalt us with himself. james and john wanted to sit by christ's side in the coming kingdom. here is something infinitely better--to sit with him in his throne. vi. the believer will enter into a new condition and abode of life. 1. a new sphere of life for the saints. new heavens and a new earth: paradise regained; new spiritual environment; new physical conditions. not surrounded by the temptations and defects of this mortal life. "no more sea"--to the jew a symbol of unmixed peril, trouble, and restlessness. 2. a new home for the saints. rev. 21-22:5--a picture of the holy city, the new jerusalem, which is to be the final and eternal abode of the people of god. within the new heavens and on the new earth is the holy city. note some characteristics of the holy city: its _name:_ new jerusalem--what music to the ear of the jew, who for so long had been without a city of his own! its _walls_ (21:17): high, secure, safe against all assaults. its _gates_ (21:15, 21): guarded by angels; names on gates; only saints enter. its _foundations_ (v.14): the apostles of the lamb; lustrous (18). its _citizens:_ of the nations that are saved (citizens' characteristics 21:6, 7; 22:14, r. v.; contrast with 21:8, 27). its _magnitude:_ 4800 stadia (the earthly jerusalem being but 33 stadia). its _glory_ (11-23): what costliness! 3. new conditions of life for the redeemed. god's home is there (21:3); thus the believer has uninterrupted communion with god. some things that used to be have all passed away: death, mourning, curse, tears, sorrow, night--all have gone. new created things appear: the river of life, the tree of life, new service, new relationships, new light (22:4). "and after these things i heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, alleluia; salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the lord our god: "and the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped god that sat on the throne, saying, amen; alleluia. "and a voice came out of the throne, saying, praise our god, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. "and i heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, alleluia: for the lord god omnipotent reigneth. "let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. "and to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." objection 1: it would seem that the human body was not produced by god immediately. for augustine says (de trin. iii, 4), that "corporeal things are disposed by god through the angels." but the human body was made of corporeal matter, as stated above (a. 1). therefore it was produced by the instrumentality of the angels, and not immediately by god. obj. 2: further, whatever can be made by a created power, is not necessarily produced immediately by god. but the human body can be produced by the created power of a heavenly body; for even certain animals are produced from putrefaction by the active power of a heavenly body; and albumazar says that man is not generated where heat and cold are extreme, but only in temperate regions. therefore the human body was not necessarily produced immediately by god. obj. 3: further, nothing is made of corporeal matter except by some material change. but all corporeal change is caused by a movement of a heavenly body, which is the first movement. therefore, since the human body was produced from corporeal matter, it seems that a heavenly body had part in its production. obj. 4: further, augustine says (gen. ad lit. vii, 24) that man's body was made during the work of the six days, according to the causal virtues which god inserted in corporeal creatures; and that afterwards it was actually produced. but what pre-exists in the corporeal creature by reason of causal virtues can be produced by some corporeal body. therefore the human body was produced by some created power, and not immediately by god. _on the contrary,_ it is written (ecclus. 17:1): "god created man out of the earth." _i answer that,_ the first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from god. some, indeed, supposed that the forms which are in corporeal matter are derived from some immaterial forms; but the philosopher refutes this opinion (metaph. vii), for the reason that forms cannot be made in themselves, but only in the composite, as we have explained (q. 65, a. 4); and because the agent must be like its effect, it is not fitting that a pure form, not existing in matter, should produce a form which is in matter, and which form is only made by the fact that the composite is made. so a form which is in matter can only be the cause of another form that is in matter, according as composite is made by composite. now god, though he is absolutely immaterial, can alone by his own power produce matter by creation: wherefore he alone can produce a form in matter, without the aid of any preceding material form. for this reason the angels cannot transform a body except by making use of something in the nature of a seed, as augustine says (de trin. iii, 19). therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by god. reply obj. 1: although the angels are the ministers of god, as regards what he does in bodies, yet god does something in bodies beyond the angels' power, as, for instance, raising the dead, or giving sight to the blind: and by this power he formed the body of the first man from the slime of the earth. nevertheless the angels could act as ministers in the formation of the body of the first man, in the same way as they will do at the last resurrection by collecting the dust. reply obj. 2: perfect animals, produced from seed, cannot be made by the sole power of a heavenly body, as avicenna imagined; although the power of a heavenly body may assist by co-operation in the work of natural generation, as the philosopher says (phys. ii, 26), "man and the sun beget man from matter." for this reason, a place of moderate temperature is required for the production of man and other animals. but the power of heavenly bodies suffices for the production of some imperfect animals from properly disposed matter: for it is clear that more conditions are required to produce a perfect than an imperfect thing. reply obj. 3: the movement of the heavens causes natural changes; but not changes that surpass the order of nature, and are caused by the divine power alone, as for the dead to be raised to life, or the blind to see: like to which also is the making of man from the slime of the earth. reply obj. 4: an effect may be said to pre-exist in the causal virtues of creatures, in two ways. first, both in active and in passive potentiality, so that not only can it be produced out of pre-existing matter, but also that some pre-existing creature can produce it. secondly, in passive potentiality only; that is, that out of pre-existing matter it can be produced by god. in this sense, according to augustine, the human body pre-existed in the previous work in their causal virtues. _______________________ third article [i, q. 91, art. 3] whether the body of man was given an apt disposition? objection 1: it would seem that the body of man was not given an apt disposition. for since man is the noblest of animals, his body ought to be the best disposed in what is proper to an animal, that is, in sense and movement. but some animals have sharper senses and quicker movement than man; thus dogs have a keener smell, and birds a swifter flight. therefore man's body was not aptly disposed. obj. 2: further, perfect is what lacks nothing. but the human body lacks more than the body of other animals, for these are provided with covering and natural arms of defense, in which man is lacking. therefore the human body is very imperfectly disposed. obj. 3: further, man is more distant from plants than he is from the brutes. but plants are erect in stature, while brutes are prone in stature. therefore man should not be of erect stature. _on the contrary,_ it is written (eccles. 7:30): "god made man right." _i answer that,_ all natural things were produced by the divine art, and so may be called god's works of art. now every artist intends to give to his work the best disposition; not absolutely the best, but the best as regards the proposed end; and even if this entails some defect, the artist cares not: thus, for instance, when man makes himself a saw for the purpose of cutting, he makes it of iron, which is suitable for the object in view; and he does not prefer to make it of glass, though this be a more beautiful material, because this very beauty would be an obstacle to the end he has in view. therefore god gave to each natural being the best disposition; not absolutely so, but in the view of its proper end. this is what the philosopher says (phys. ii, 7): "and because it is better so, not absolutely, but for each one's substance." now the proximate end of the human body is the rational soul and its operations; since matter is for the sake of the form, and instruments are for the action of the agent. i say, therefore, that god fashioned the human body in that disposition which was best, as most suited to such a form and to such operations. if defect exists in the disposition of the human body, it is well to observe that such defect arises as a necessary result of the matter, from the conditions required in the body, in order to make it suitably proportioned to the soul and its operations. reply obj. 1: the sense of touch, which is the foundation of the other senses, is more perfect in man than in any other animal; and for this reason man must have the most equable temperament of all animals. moreover man excels all other animals in the interior sensitive powers, as is clear from what we have said above (q. 78, a. 4). but by a kind of necessity, man falls short of the other animals in some of the exterior senses; thus of all animals he has the least sense of smell. for man needs the largest brain as compared to the body; both for his greater freedom of action in the interior powers required for the intellectual operations, as we have seen above (q. 84, a. 7); and in order that the low temperature of the brain may modify the heat of the heart, which has to be considerable in man for him to be able to stand erect. so that size of the brain, by reason of its humidity, is an impediment to the smell, which requires dryness. in the same way, we may suggest a reason why some animals have a keener sight, and a more acute hearing than man; namely, on account of a hindrance to his senses arising necessarily from the perfect equability of his temperament. the same reason suffices to explain why some animals are more rapid in movement than man, since this excellence of speed is inconsistent with the equability of the human temperament. reply obj. 2: horns and claws, which are the weapons of some animals, and toughness of hide and quantity of hair or feathers, which are the clothing of animals, are signs of an abundance of the earthly element; which does not agree with the equability and softness of the human temperament. therefore such things do not suit the nature of man. instead of these, he has reason and hands whereby he can make himself arms and clothes, and other necessaries of life, of infinite variety. wherefore the hand is called by aristotle (de anima iii, 8), "the organ of organs." moreover this was more becoming to the rational nature, which is capable of conceiving an infinite number of things, so as to make for itself an infinite number of instruments. reply obj. 3: an upright stature was becoming to man for four reasons. first, because the senses are given to man, not only for the purpose of procuring the necessaries of life, which they are bestowed on other animals, but also for the purpose of knowledge. hence, whereas the other animals take delight in the objects of the senses only as ordered to food and sex, man alone takes pleasure in the beauty of sensible objects for its own sake. therefore, as the senses are situated chiefly in the face, other animals have the face turned to the ground, as it were for the purpose of seeking food and procuring a livelihood; whereas man has his face erect, in order that by the senses, and chiefly by sight, which is more subtle and penetrates further into the differences of things, he may freely survey the sensible objects around him, both heavenly and earthly, so as to gather intelligible truth from all things. secondly, for the greater freedom of the acts of the interior powers; the brain, wherein these actions are, in a way, performed, not being low down, but lifted up above other parts of the body. thirdly, because if man's stature were prone to the ground he would need to use his hands as fore-feet; and thus their utility for other purposes would cease. fourthly, because if man's stature were prone to the ground, and he used his hands as fore-feet, he would be obliged to take hold of his food with his mouth. thus he would have a protruding mouth, with thick and hard lips, and also a hard tongue, so as to keep it from being hurt by exterior things; as we see in other animals. moreover, such an attitude would quite hinder speech, which is reason's proper operation. nevertheless, though of erect stature, man is far above plants. for man's superior part, his head, is turned towards the superior part of the world, and his inferior part is turned towards the inferior world; and therefore he is perfectly disposed as to the general situation of his body. plants have the superior part turned towards the lower world, since their roots correspond to the mouth; and their inferior part towards the upper world. but brute animals have a middle disposition, for the superior part of the animal is that by which it takes food, and the inferior part that by which it rids itself of the surplus. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 91, art. 4] whether the production of the human body is fittingly described in scripture? objection 1: it would seem that the production of the human body is not fittingly described in scripture. for, as the human body was made by god, so also were the other works of the six days. but in the other works it is written, "god said; let it be made, and it was made." therefore the same should have been said of man. obj. 2: further, the human body was made by god immediately, as explained above (a. 2). therefore it was not fittingly said, "let us make man." obj. 3: further, the form of the human body is the soul itself which is the breath of life. therefore, having said, "god made man of the slime of the earth," he should not have added: "and he breathed into him the breath of life." obj. 4: further, the soul, which is the breath of life, is in the whole body, and chiefly in the heart. therefore it was not fittingly said: "he breathed into his face the breath of life." obj. 5: further, the male and female sex belong to the body, while the image of god belongs to the soul. but the soul, according to augustine (gen. ad lit. vii, 24), was made before the body. therefore having said: "to his image he made them," he should not have added, "male and female he created them." _on the contrary,_ is the authority of scripture. reply obj. 1: as augustine observes (gen. ad lit. vi, 12), man surpasses other things, not in the fact that god himself made man, as though he did not make other things; since it is written (ps. 101:26), "the work of thy hands is the heaven," and elsewhere (ps. 94:5), "his hands laid down the dry land"; but in this, that man is made to god's image. yet in describing man's production, scripture uses a special way of speaking, to show that other things were made for man's sake. for we are accustomed to do with more deliberation and care what we have chiefly in mind. reply obj. 2: we must not imagine that when god said "let us make man," he spoke to the angels, as some were perverse enough to think. but by these words is signified the plurality of the divine person, whose image is more clearly expressed in man. reply obj. 3: some have thought that man's body was formed first in priority of time, and that afterwards the soul was infused into the formed body. but it is inconsistent with the perfection of the production of things, that god should have made either the body without the soul, or the soul without the body, since each is a part of human nature. this is especially unfitting as regards the body, for the body depends on the soul, and not the soul on the body. to remove the difficulty some have said that the words, "god made man," must be understood of the production of the body with the soul; and that the subsequent words, "and he breathed into his face the breath of life," should be understood of the holy ghost; as the lord breathed on his apostles, saying, "receive ye the holy ghost" (john 20:22). but this explanation, as augustine says (de civ. dei xiii, 24), is excluded by the very words of scripture. for we read farther on, "and man was made a living soul"; which words the apostle (1 cor. 15:45) refers not to spiritual life, but to animal life. therefore, by breath of life we must understand the soul, so that the words, "he breathed into his face the breath of life," are a sort of exposition of what goes before; for the soul is the form of the body. reply obj. 4: since vital operations are more clearly seen in man's face, on account of the senses which are there expressed; therefore scripture says that the breath of life was breathed into man's face. reply obj. 5: according to augustine (gen. ad lit. iv, 34), the works of the six days were done all at one time; wherefore according to him man's soul, which he holds to have been made with the angels, was not made before the sixth day; but on the sixth day both the soul of the first man was made actually, and his body in its causal elements. but other doctors hold that on the sixth day both body and soul of man were actually made. _______________________ question 92 the production of the woman (in four articles) we must next consider the production of the woman. under this head there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether the woman should have been made in that first production of things? (2) whether the woman should have been made from man? (3) whether of man's rib? (4) whether the woman was made immediately by god? _______________________ first article [i, q. 92, art. 1] whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things? objection 1: it would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. for the philosopher says (de gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." but nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. therefore woman should not have been made at that first production. obj. 2: further, subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (gen. 3:16): "thou shalt be under the man's power"; and gregory says that, "where there is no sin, there is no inequality." but woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man; "for the agent is always more honorable than the patient," as augustine says (gen. ad lit. xii, 16). therefore woman should not have been made in the first production of things before sin. obj. 3: further, occasions of sin should be cut off. but god foresaw that the woman would be an occasion of sin to man. therefore he should not have made woman. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 2:18): "it is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like to himself." _i answer that,_ it was necessary for woman to be made, as the scripture says, as a _helper_ to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. this can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from seed: others possess the active and passive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the noblest vital function in plants is generation. wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. and as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other. but man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: "and they shall be two in one flesh" (gen. 2:24). reply obj. 1: as regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the philosopher observes (de gener. animal. iv, 2). on the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. now the general intention of nature depends on god, who is the universal author of nature. therefore, in producing nature, god formed not only the male but also the female. reply obj. 2: subjection is twofold. one is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. there is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. for good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. so by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (q. 96, a. 3). reply obj. 3: if god had deprived the world of all those things which proved an occasion of sin, the universe would have been imperfect. nor was it fitting for the common good to be destroyed in order that individual evil might be avoided; especially as god is so powerful that he can direct any evil to a good end. _______________________ second article [i, q. 92, art. 2] whether woman should have been made from man? objection 1: it would seem that woman should not have been made from man. for sex belongs both to man and animals. but in the other animals the female was not made from the male. therefore neither should it have been so with man. obj. 2: further, things of the same species are of the same matter. but male and female are of the same species. therefore, as man was made of the slime of the earth, so woman should have been made of the same, and not from man. obj. 3: further, woman was made to be a helpmate to man in the work of generation. but close relationship makes a person unfit for that office; hence near relations are debarred from intermarriage, as is written (lev. 18:6). therefore woman should not have been made from man. _on the contrary,_ it is written (ecclus. 17:5): "he created of him," that is, out of man, "a helpmate like to himself," that is, woman. _i answer that,_ when all things were first formed, it was more suitable for the woman to be made from man than (for the female to be from the male) in other animals. first, in order thus to give the first man a certain dignity consisting in this, that as god is the principle of the whole universe, so the first man, in likeness to god, was the principle of the whole human race. wherefore paul says that "god made the whole human race from one" (acts 17:26). secondly, that man might love woman all the more, and cleave to her more closely, knowing her to be fashioned from himself. hence it is written (gen. 2:23, 24): "she was taken out of man, wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife." this was most necessary as regards the human race, in which the male and female live together for life; which is not the case with other animals. thirdly, because, as the philosopher says (ethic. viii, 12), the human male and female are united, not only for generation, as with other animals, but also for the purpose of domestic life, in which each has his or her particular duty, and in which the man is the head of the woman. wherefore it was suitable for the woman to be made out of man, as out of her principle. fourthly, there is a sacramental reason for this. for by this is signified that the church takes her origin from christ. wherefore the apostle says (eph. 5:32): "this is a great sacrament; but i speak in christ and in the church." reply obj. 1 is clear from the foregoing. reply obj. 2: matter is that from which something is made. now created nature has a determinate principle; and since it is determined to one thing, it has also a determinate mode of proceeding. wherefore from determinate matter it produces something in a determinate species. on the other hand, the divine power, being infinite, can produce things of the same species out of any matter, such as a man from the slime of the earth, and a woman from out of man. reply obj. 3: a certain affinity arises from natural generation, and this is an impediment to matrimony. woman, however, was not produced from man by natural generation, but by the divine power alone. wherefore eve is not called the daughter of adam; and so this argument does not prove. _______________________ third article [i, q. 92, art. 3] whether the woman was fittingly made from the rib of man? objection 1: it would seem that the woman should not have been formed from the rib of man. for the rib was much smaller than the woman's body. now from a smaller thing a larger thing can be made only--either by addition (and then the woman ought to have been described as made out of that which was added, rather than out of the rib itself)--or by rarefaction, because, as augustine says (gen. ad lit. x): "a body cannot increase in bulk except by rarefaction." but the woman's body is not more rarefied than man's--at least, not in the proportion of a rib to eve's body. therefore eve was not formed from a rib of adam. obj. 2: further, in those things which were first created there was nothing superfluous. therefore a rib of adam belonged to the integrity of his body. so, if a rib was removed, his body remained imperfect; which is unreasonable to suppose. obj. 3: further, a rib cannot be removed from man without pain. but there was no pain before sin. therefore it was not right for a rib to be taken from the man, that eve might be made from it. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 2:22): "god built the rib, which he took from adam, into a woman." _i answer that,_ it was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man. first, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither "use authority over man," and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man's contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet. secondly, for the sacramental signification; for from the side of christ sleeping on the cross the sacraments flowed--namely, blood and water--on which the church was established. reply obj. 1: some say that the woman's body was formed by a material increase, without anything being added; in the same way as our lord multiplied the five loaves. but this is quite impossible. for such an increase of matter would either be by a change of the very substance of the matter itself, or by a change of its dimensions. not by change of the substance of the matter, both because matter, considered in itself, is quite unchangeable, since it has a potential existence, and has nothing but the nature of a subject, and because quantity and size are extraneous to the essence of matter itself. wherefore multiplication of matter is quite unintelligible, as long as the matter itself remains the same without anything added to it; unless it receives greater dimensions. this implies rarefaction, which is for the same matter to receive greater dimensions, as the philosopher says (phys. iv). to say, therefore, that the same matter is enlarged, without being rarefied, is to combine contradictories--viz. the definition with the absence of the thing defined. wherefore, as no rarefaction is apparent in such multiplication of matter, we must admit an addition of matter: either by creation, or which is more probable, by conversion. hence augustine says (tract. xxiv in joan.) that "christ filled five thousand men with five loaves, in the same way as from a few seeds he produces the harvest of corn"--that is, by transformation of the nourishment. nevertheless, we say that the crowds were fed with five loaves, or that woman was made from the rib, because an addition was made to the already existing matter of the loaves and of the rib. reply obj. 2: the rib belonged to the integral perfection of adam, not as an individual, but as the principle of the human race; just as the semen belongs to the perfection of the begetter, and is released by a natural and pleasurable operation. much more, therefore, was it possible that by the divine power the body of the woman should be produced from the man's rib. from this it is clear how to answer the third objection. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 92, art. 4] whether the woman was formed immediately by god? objection 1: it would seem that the woman was not formed immediately by god. for no individual is produced immediately by god from another individual alike in species. but the woman was made from a man who is of the same species. therefore she was not made immediately by god. obj. 2: further, augustine (de trin. iii, 4) says that corporeal things are governed by god through the angels. but the woman's body was formed from corporeal matter. therefore it was made through the ministry of the angels, and not immediately by god. obj. 3: further, those things which pre-exist in creatures as to their causal virtues are produced by the power of some creature, and not immediately by god. but the woman's body was produced in its causal virtues among the first created works, as augustine says (gen. ad lit. ix, 15). therefore it was not produced immediately by god. _on the contrary,_ augustine says, in the same work: "god alone, to whom all nature owes its existence, could form or build up the woman from the man's rib." _i answer that,_ as was said above (a. 2, ad 2), the natural generation of every species is from some determinate matter. now the matter whence man is naturally begotten is the human semen of man or woman. wherefore from any other matter an individual of the human species cannot naturally be generated. now god alone, the author of nature, can produce an effect into existence outside the ordinary course of nature. therefore god alone could produce either a man from the slime of the earth, or a woman from the rib of man. reply obj. 1: this argument is verified when an individual is begotten, by natural generation, from that which is like it in the same species. reply obj. 2: as augustine says (gen. ad lit. ix, 15), we do not know whether the angels were employed by god in the formation of the woman; but it is certain that, as the body of man was not formed by the angels from the slime of the earth, so neither was the body of the woman formed by them from the man's rib. reply obj. 3: as augustine says (gen. ad lit. ix, 18): "the first creation of things did not demand that woman should be made thus; it made it possible for her to be thus made." therefore the body of the woman did indeed pre-exist in these causal virtues, in the things first created; not as regards active potentiality, but as regards a potentiality passive in relation to the active potentiality of the creator. _______________________ question 93 the end or term of the production of man (in nine articles) we now treat of the end or term of man's production, inasmuch as he is said to be made "to the image and likeness of god." there are under this head nine points of inquiry: (1) whether the image of god is in man? (2) whether the image of god is in irrational creatures? (3) whether the image of god is in the angels more than in man? (4) whether the image of god is in every man? (5) whether the image of god is in man by comparison with the essence, or with all the divine persons, or with one of them? (6) whether the image of god is in man, as to his mind only? (7) whether the image of god is in man's power or in his habits and acts? (8) whether the image of god is in man by comparison with every object? (9) of the difference between "image" and "likeness." _______________________ first article [i, q. 93, art. 1] whether the image of god is in man? objection 1: it would seem that the image of god is not in man. for it is written (isa. 40:18): "to whom have you likened god? or what image will you make for him?" obj. 2: further, to be the image of god is the property of the first-begotten, of whom the apostle says (col. 1:15): "who is the image of the invisible god, the first-born of every creature." therefore the image of god is not to be found in man. obj. 3: further, hilary says (de synod [*super i can]. synod. ancyr.) that "an image is of the same species as that which it represents"; and he also says that "an image is the undivided and united likeness of one thing adequately representing another." but there is no species common to both god and man; nor can there be a comparison of equality between god and man. therefore there can be no image of god in man. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 1:26): "let us make man to our own image and likeness." _i answer that,_ as augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 74): "where an image exists, there forthwith is likeness; but where there is likeness, there is not necessarily an image." hence it is clear that likeness is essential to an image; and that an image adds something to likeness--namely, that it is copied from something else. for an "image" is so called because it is produced as an imitation of something else; wherefore, for instance, an egg, however much like and equal to another egg, is not called an image of the other egg, because it is not copied from it. but equality does not belong to the essence of an image; for as augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 74): "where there is an image there is not necessarily equality," as we see in a person's image reflected in a glass. yet this is of the essence of a perfect image; for in a perfect image nothing is wanting that is to be found in that of which it is a copy. now it is manifest that in man there is some likeness to god, copied from god as from an exemplar; yet this likeness is not one of equality, for such an exemplar infinitely excels its copy. therefore there is in man a likeness to god; not, indeed, a perfect likeness, but imperfect. and scripture implies the same when it says that man was made "to" god's likeness; for the preposition "to" signifies a certain approach, as of something at a distance. reply obj. 1: the prophet speaks of bodily images made by man. therefore he says pointedly: "what image will you make for him?" but god made a spiritual image to himself in man. reply obj. 2: the first-born of creatures is the perfect image of god, reflecting perfectly that of which he is the image, and so he is said to be the "image," and never "to the image." but man is said to be both "image" by reason of the likeness; and "to the image" by reason of the imperfect likeness. and since the perfect likeness to god cannot be except in an identical nature, the image of god exists in his first-born son; as the image of the king is in his son, who is of the same nature as himself: whereas it exists in man as in an alien nature, as the image of the king is in a silver coin, as augustine says explains in _de decem chordis_ (serm. ix, al, xcvi, de tempore). reply obj. 3: as unity means absence of division, a species is said to be the same as far as it is one. now a thing is said to be one not only numerically, specifically, or generically, but also according to a certain analogy or proportion. in this sense a creature is one with god, or like to him; but when hilary says "of a thing which adequately represents another," this is to be understood of a perfect image. _______________________ second article [i, q. 93, art. 2] whether the image of god is to be found in irrational creatures? objection 1: it would seem that the image of god is to be found in irrational creatures. for dionysius says (div. nom. ii): "effects are contingent images of their causes." but god is the cause not only of rational, but also of irrational creatures. therefore the image of god is to be found in irrational creatures. obj. 2: further, the more distinct a likeness is, the nearer it approaches to the nature of an image. but dionysius says (div. nom. iv) that "the solar ray has a very great similitude to the divine goodness." therefore it is made to the image of god. obj. 3: further, the more perfect anything is in goodness, the more it is like god. but the whole universe is more perfect in goodness than man; for though each individual thing is good, all things together are called "very good" (gen. 1:31). therefore the whole universe is to the image of god, and not only man. obj. 4: further, boethius (de consol. iii) says of god: "holding the world in his mind, and forming it into his image." therefore the whole world is to the image of god, and not only the rational creature. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (gen. ad lit. vi, 12): "man's excellence consists in the fact that god made him to his own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the beasts of the field." therefore things without intellect are not made to god's image. _i answer that,_ not every likeness, not even what is copied from something else, is sufficient to make an image; for if the likeness be only generic, or existing by virtue of some common accident, this does not suffice for one thing to be the image of another. for instance, a worm, though from man it may originate, cannot be called man's image, merely because of the generic likeness. nor, if anything is made white like something else, can we say that it is the image of that thing; for whiteness is an accident belonging to many species. but the nature of an image requires likeness in species; thus the image of the king exists in his son: or, at least, in some specific accident, and chiefly in the shape; thus, we speak of a man's image in copper. whence hilary says pointedly that "an image is of the same species." now it is manifest that specific likeness follows the ultimate difference. but some things are like to god first and most commonly because they exist; secondly, because they live; and thirdly because they know or understand; and these last, as augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 51) "approach so near to god in likeness, that among all creatures nothing comes nearer to him." it is clear, therefore, that intellectual creatures alone, properly speaking, are made to god's image. reply obj. 1: everything imperfect is a participation of what is perfect. therefore even what falls short of the nature of an image, so far as it possesses any sort of likeness to god, participates in some degree the nature of an image. so dionysius says that effects are "contingent images of their causes"; that is, as much as they happen (_contingit_) to be so, but not absolutely. reply obj. 2: dionysius compares the solar ray to divine goodness, as regards its causality; not as regards its natural dignity which is involved in the idea of an image. reply obj. 3: the universe is more perfect in goodness than the intellectual creature as regards extension and diffusion; but intensively and collectively the likeness to the divine goodness is found rather in the intellectual creature, which has a capacity for the highest good. or else we may say that a part is not rightly divided against the whole, but only against another part. wherefore, when we say that the intellectual nature alone is to the image of god, we do not mean that the universe in any part is not to god's image, but that the other parts are excluded. reply obj. 4: boethius here uses the word "image" to express the likeness which the product of an art bears to the artistic species in the mind of the artist. thus every creature is an image of the exemplar type thereof in the divine mind. we are not, however, using the word "image" in this sense; but as it implies a likeness in nature, that is, inasmuch as all things, as being, are like to the first being; as living, like to the first life; and as intelligent, like to the supreme wisdom. _______________________ third article [i, q. 93, art. 3] whether the angels are more to the image of god than man is? objection 1: it would seem that the angels are not more to the image of god than man is. for augustine says in a sermon _de imagine_ xliii (de verbis apost. xxvii) that god granted to no other creature besides man to be to his image. therefore it is not true to say that the angels are more than man to the image of god. obj. 2: further, according to augustine (qq. 83, qu. 51), "man is so much to god's image that god did not make any creature to be between him and man: and therefore nothing is more akin to him." but a creature is called god's image so far as it is akin to god. therefore the angels are not more to the image of god than man. obj. 3: further, a creature is said to be to god's image so far as it is of an intellectual nature. but the intellectual nature does not admit of intensity or remissness; for it is not an accidental thing, since it is a substance. therefore the angels are not more to the image of god than man. _on the contrary,_ gregory says (hom. in evang. xxxiv): "the angel is called a "seal of resemblance" (ezech. 28:12) because in him the resemblance of the divine image is wrought with greater expression. _i answer that,_ we may speak of god's image in two ways. first, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. thus the image of god is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (q. 58, a. 3; q. 79, a. 8). secondly, we may consider the image of god in man as regards its accidental qualities, so far as to observe in man a certain imitation of god, consisting in the fact that man proceeds from man, as god from god; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, and again, in every part, as god is in regard to the whole world. in these and the like things the image of god is more perfect in man than it is in the angels. but these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to god's image. therefore, as in their intellectual nature, the angels are more to the image of god than man is, we must grant that, absolutely speaking, the angels are more to the image of god than man is, but that in some respects man is more like to god. reply obj. 1: augustine excludes the inferior creatures bereft of reason from the image of god; but not the angels. reply obj. 2: as fire is said to be specifically the most subtle of bodies, while, nevertheless, one kind of fire is more subtle than another; so we say that nothing is more like to god than the human soul in its generic and intellectual nature, because as augustine had said previously, "things which have knowledge, are so near to him in likeness that of all creatures none are nearer." wherefore this does not mean that the angels are not more to god's image. reply obj. 3: when we say that substance does not admit of more or less, we do not mean that one species of substance is not more perfect than another; but that one and the same individual does not participate in its specific nature at one time more than at another; nor do we mean that a species of substance is shared among different individuals in a greater or lesser degree. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 93, art. 4] whether the image of god is found in every man? objection 1: it would seem that the image of god is not found in every man. for the apostle says that "man is the image of god, but woman is the image [vulg. glory] of man" (1 cor. 11:7). therefore, as woman is an individual of the human species, it is clear that every individual is not an image of god. obj. 2: further, the apostle says (rom. 8:29): "whom god foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of his son." but all men are not predestined. therefore all men have not the conformity of image. obj. 3: further, likeness belongs to the nature of the image, as above explained (a. 1). but by sin man becomes unlike god. therefore he loses the image of god. _on the contrary,_ it is written (ps. 38:7): "surely man passeth as an image." _i answer that,_ since man is said to be the image of god by reason of his intellectual nature, he is the most perfectly like god according to that in which he can best imitate god in his intellectual nature. now the intellectual nature imitates god chiefly in this, that god understands and loves himself. wherefore we see that the image of god is in man in three ways. first, inasmuch as man possesses a natural aptitude for understanding and loving god; and this aptitude consists in the very nature of the mind, which is common to all men. secondly, inasmuch as man actually and habitually knows and loves god, though imperfectly; and this image consists in the conformity of grace. thirdly, inasmuch as man knows and loves god perfectly; and this image consists in the likeness of glory. wherefore on the words, "the light of thy countenance, o lord, is signed upon us" (ps. 4:7), the gloss distinguishes a threefold image of "creation," of "re-creation," and of "likeness." the first is found in all men, the second only in the just, the third only in the blessed. reply obj. 1: the image of god, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. hence after the words, "to the image of god he created him," it is added, "male and female he created them" (gen. 1:27). moreover it is said "them" in the plural, as augustine (gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. but in a secondary sense the image of god is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as god is the beginning and end of every creature. so when the apostle had said that "man is the image and glory of god, but woman is the glory of man," he adds his reason for saying this: "for man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." reply obj. 2 and 3: these reasons refer to the image consisting in the conformity of grace and glory. _______________________ fifth article [i, q. 93, art. 5] whether the image of god is in man according to the trinity of persons? objection 1: it would seem that the image of god does not exist in man as to the trinity of persons. for augustine says (fulgentius de fide ad petrum i): "one in essence is the godhead of the holy trinity; and one is the image to which man was made." and hilary (de trin. v) says: "man is made to the image of that which is common in the trinity." therefore the image of god in man is of the divine essence, and not of the trinity of persons. obj. 2: further, it is said (de eccl. dogmat.) that the image of god in man is to be referred to eternity. damascene also says (de fide orth. ii, 12) that the image of god in man belongs to him as "an intelligent being endowed with free-will and self-movement." gregory of nyssa (de homin. opificio xvi) also asserts that, when scripture says that "man was made to the image of god, it means that human nature was made a participator of all good: for the godhead is the fulness of goodness." now all these things belong more to the unity of the essence than to the distinction of the persons. therefore the image of god in man regards, not the trinity of persons, but the unity of the essence. obj. 3: further, an image leads to the knowledge of that of which it is the image. therefore, if there is in man the image of god as to the trinity of persons; since man can know himself by his natural reason, it follows that by his natural knowledge man could know the trinity of the divine persons; which is untrue, as was shown above (q. 32, a. 1). obj. 4: further, the name of image is not applicable to any of the three persons, but only to the son; for augustine says (de trin. vi, 2) that "the son alone is the image of the father." therefore, if in man there were an image of god as regards the person, this would not be an image of the trinity, but only of the son. _on the contrary,_ hilary says (de trin. iv): "the plurality of the divine persons is proved from the fact that man is said to have been made to the image of god." _i answer that,_ as we have seen (q. 40, a. 2), the distinction of the divine persons is only according to origin, or, rather, relations of origin. now the mode of origin is not the same in all things, but in each thing is adapted to the nature thereof; animated things being produced in one way, and inanimate in another; animals in one way, and plants in another. wherefore it is manifest that the distinction of the divine persons is suitable to the divine nature; and therefore to be to the image of god by imitation of the divine nature does not exclude being to the same image by the representation of the divine persons: but rather one follows from the other. we must, therefore, say that in man there exists the image of god, both as regards the divine nature and as regards the trinity of persons; for also in god himself there is one nature in three persons. thus it is clear how to solve the first two objections. reply obj. 3: this argument would avail if the image of god in man represented god in a perfect manner. but, as augustine says (de trin. xv, 6), there is a great difference between the trinity within ourselves and the divine trinity. therefore, as he there says: "we see, rather than believe, the trinity which is in ourselves; whereas we believe rather than see that god is trinity." reply obj. 4: some have said that in man there is an image of the son only. augustine rejects this opinion (de trin. xii, 5,6). first, because as the son is like to the father by a likeness of essence, it would follow of necessity if man were made in likeness to the son, that he is made to the likeness of the father. secondly, because if man were made only to the image of the son, the father would not have said, "let us make man to our own image and likeness"; but "to thy image." when, therefore, it is written, "he made him to the image of god," the sense is not that the father made man to the image of the son only, who is god, as some explained it, but that the divine trinity made man to its image, that is, of the whole trinity. when it is said that god "made man to his image," this can be understood in two ways: first, so that this preposition "to" points to the term of the making, and then the sense is, "let us make man in such a way that our image may be in him." secondly, this preposition 'to' may point to the exemplar cause, as when we say, "this book is made (like) to that one." thus the image of god is the very essence of god, which is incorrectly called an image forasmuch as image is put for the exemplar. or, as some say, the divine essence is called an image because thereby one person imitates another. _______________________ sixth article [i, q. 93, art. 6] whether the image of god is in man as regards the mind only? objection 1: it would seem that the image of god is not only in man's mind. for the apostle says (1 cor. 11:7) that "the man is the image . . . of god." but man is not only mind. therefore the image of god is to be observed not only in his mind. obj. 2: further, it is written (gen. 1:27): "god created man to his own image; to the image of god he created him; male and female he created them." but the distinction of male and female is in the body. therefore the image of god is also in the body, and not only in the mind. obj. 3: further, an image seems to apply principally to the shape of a thing. but shape belongs to the body. therefore the image of god is to be seen in man's body also, and not in his mind. obj. 4: further, according to augustine (gen. ad lit. xii, 7,24) there is a threefold vision in us, "corporeal," "spiritual," or imaginary, and "intellectual." therefore, if in the intellectual vision that belongs to the mind there exists in us a trinity by reason of which we are made to the image of god, for the like reason there must be another trinity in the others. _on the contrary,_ the apostle says (eph. 4:23,24): "be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man." whence we are given to understand that our renewal which consists in putting on the new man, belongs to the mind. now, he says (col. 3:10): "putting on the new" man; "him who is renewed unto knowledge" of god, "according to the image of him that created him," where the renewal which consists in putting on the new man is ascribed to the image of god. therefore to be to the image of god belongs to the mind only. _i answer that,_ while in all creatures there is some kind of likeness to god, in the rational creature alone we find a likeness of "image" as we have explained above (aa. 1,2); whereas in other creatures we find a likeness by way of a "trace." now the intellect or mind is that whereby the rational creature excels other creatures; wherefore this image of god is not found even in the rational creature except in the mind; while in the other parts, which the rational creature may happen to possess, we find the likeness of a "trace," as in other creatures to which, in reference to such parts, the rational creature can be likened. we may easily understand the reason of this if we consider the way in which a "trace," and the way in which an "image," represents anything. an "image" represents something by likeness in species, as we have said; while a "trace" represents something by way of an effect, which represents the cause in such a way as not to attain to the likeness of species. for imprints which are left by the movements of animals are called "traces": so also ashes are a trace of fire, and desolation of the land a trace of a hostile army. therefore we may observe this difference between rational creatures and others, both as to the representation of the likeness of the divine nature in creatures, and as to the representation in them of the uncreated trinity. for as to the likeness of the divine nature, rational creatures seem to attain, after a fashion, to the representation of the species, inasmuch as they imitate god, not only in being and life, but also in intelligence, as above explained (a. 2); whereas other creatures do not understand, although we observe in them a certain trace of the intellect that created them, if we consider their disposition. likewise as the uncreated trinity is distinguished by the procession of the word from the speaker, and of love from both of these, as we have seen (q. 28, a. 3); so we may say that in rational creatures wherein we find a procession of the word in the intellect, and a procession of the love in the will, there exists an image of the uncreated trinity, by a certain representation of the species. in other creatures, however, we do not find the principle of the word, and the word and love; but we do see in them a certain trace of the existence of these in the cause that produced them. for in the fact that a creature has a modified and finite nature, proves that it proceeds from a principle; while its species points to the (mental) word of the maker, just as the shape of a house points to the idea of the architect; and order points to the maker's love by reason of which he directs the effect to a good end; as also the use of the house points to the will of the architect. so we find in man a likeness to god by way of an "image" in his mind; but in the other parts of his being by way of a "trace." reply obj. 1: man is called to the image of god; not that he is essentially an image; but that the image of god is impressed on his mind; as a coin is an image of the king, as having the image of the king. wherefore there is no need to consider the image of god as existing in every part of man. reply obj. 2: as augustine says (de trin. xii, 5), some have thought that the image of god was not in man individually, but severally. they held that "the man represents the person of the father; those born of man denote the person of the son; and that the woman is a third person in likeness to the holy ghost, since she so proceeded from man as not to be his son or daughter." all of this is manifestly absurd; first, because it would follow that the holy ghost is the principle of the son, as the woman is the principle of the man's offspring; secondly, because one man would be only the image of one person; thirdly, because in that case scripture should not have mentioned the image of god in man until after the birth of the offspring. therefore we must understand that when scripture had said, "to the image of god he created him," it added, "male and female he created them," not to imply that the image of god came through the distinction of sex, but that the image of god belongs to both sexes, since it is in the mind, wherein there is no sexual distinction. wherefore the apostle (col. 3:10), after saying, "according to the image of him that created him," added, "where there is neither male nor female" [*these words are in reality from gal. 3:28] (vulg. "neither gentile nor jew"). reply obj. 3: although the image of god in man is not to be found in his bodily shape, yet because "the body of man alone among terrestrial animals is not inclined prone to the ground, but is adapted to look upward to heaven, for this reason we may rightly say that it is made to god's image and likeness, rather than the bodies of other animals," as augustine remarks (qq. 83, qu. 51). but this is not to be understood as though the image of god were in man's body; but in the sense that the very shape of the human body represents the image of god in the soul by way of a trace. reply obj. 4: both in the corporeal and in the imaginary vision we may find a trinity, as augustine says (de trin. xi, 2). for in corporeal vision there is first the species of the exterior body; secondly, the act of vision, which occurs by the impression on the sight of a certain likeness of the said species; thirdly, the intention of the will applying the sight to see, and to rest on what is seen. likewise, in the imaginary vision we find first the species kept in the memory; secondly, the vision itself, which is caused by the penetrative power of the soul, that is, the faculty of imagination, informed by the species; and thirdly, we find the intention of the will joining both together. but each of these trinities falls short of the divine image. for the species of the external body is extrinsic to the essence of the soul; while the species in the memory, though not extrinsic to the soul, is adventitious to it; and thus in both cases the species falls short of representing the connaturality and co-eternity of the divine persons. the corporeal vision, too, does not proceed only from the species of the external body, but from this, and at the same time from the sense of the seer; in like manner imaginary vision is not from the species only which is preserved in the memory, but also from the imagination. for these reasons the procession of the son from the father alone is not suitably represented. lastly the intention of the will joining the two together, does not proceed from them either in corporeal or spiritual vision. wherefore the procession of the holy ghost from the father and the son is not thus properly represented. _______________________ seventh article [i, q. 93, art. 7] whether the image of god is to be found in the acts of the soul? objection 1: it would seem that the image of god is not found in the acts of the soul. for augustine says (de civ. dei xi, 26), that "man was made to god's image, inasmuch as we exist and know that we exist, and love this existence and knowledge." but to exist does not signify an act. therefore the image of god is not to be found in the soul's acts. obj. 2: further, augustine (de trin. ix, 4) assigns god's image in the soul to these three things--mind, knowledge, and love. but mind does not signify an act, but rather the power or the essence of the intellectual soul. therefore the image of god does not extend to the acts of the soul. obj. 3: further, augustine (de trin. x, 11) assigns the image of the trinity in the soul to "memory, understanding, and will." but these three are "natural powers of the soul," as the master of the sentences says (1 sent. d iii). therefore the image of god is in the powers, and does not extend to the acts of the soul. obj. 4: further, the image of the trinity always remains in the soul. but an act does not always remain. therefore the image of god does not extend to the acts. _on the contrary,_ augustine (de trin. xi, 2 seqq.) assigns the trinity in the lower part of the soul, in relation to the actual vision, whether sensible or imaginative. therefore, also, the trinity in the mind, by reason of which man is like to god's image, must be referred to actual vision. _i answer that,_ as above explained (a. 2), a certain representation of the species belongs to the nature of an image. hence, if the image of the divine trinity is to be found in the soul, we must look for it where the soul approaches the nearest to a representation of the species of the divine persons. now the divine persons are distinct from each other by reason of the procession of the word from the speaker, and the procession of love connecting both. but in our soul word "cannot exist without actual thought," as augustine says (de trin. xiv, 7). therefore, first and chiefly, the image of the trinity is to be found in the acts of the soul, that is, inasmuch as from the knowledge which we possess, by actual thought we form an internal word; and thence break forth into love. but, since the principles of acts are the habits and powers, and everything exists virtually in its principle, therefore, secondarily and consequently, the image of the trinity may be considered as existing in the powers, and still more in the habits, forasmuch as the acts virtually exist therein. reply obj. 1: our being bears the image of god so far as it is proper to us, and excels that of the other animals, that is to say, in so far as we are endowed with a mind. therefore, this trinity is the same as that which augustine mentions (de trin. ix, 4), and which consists in mind, knowledge, and love. reply obj. 2: augustine observed this trinity, first, as existing in the mind. but because the mind, though it knows itself entirely in a certain degree, yet also in a way does not know itself--namely, as being distinct from others (and thus also it searches itself, as augustine subsequently proves--de trin. x, 3,4); therefore, as though knowledge were not in equal proportion to mind, he takes three things in the soul which are proper to the mind, namely, memory, understanding, and will; which everyone is conscious of possessing; and assigns the image of the trinity pre-eminently to these three, as though the first assignation were in part deficient. reply obj. 3: as augustine proves (de trin. xiv, 7), we may be said to understand, will, and to love certain things, both when we actually consider them, and when we do not think of them. when they are not under our actual consideration, they are objects of our memory only, which, in his opinion, is nothing else than habitual retention of knowledge and love [*cf. q. 79, a. 7, ad 1]. "but since," as he says, "a word cannot be there without actual thought (for we think everything that we say, even if we speak with that interior word belonging to no nation's tongue), this image chiefly consists in these three things, memory, understanding, and will. and by understanding i mean here that whereby we understand with actual thought; and by will, love, or dilection i mean that which unites this child with its parent." from which it is clear that he places the image of the divine trinity more in actual understanding and will, than in these as existing in the habitual retention of the memory; although even thus the image of the trinity exists in the soul in a certain degree, as he says in the same place. thus it is clear that memory, understanding, and will are not three powers as stated in the sentences. reply obj. 4: someone might answer by referring to augustine's statement (de trin. xiv, 6), that "the mind ever remembers itself, ever understands itself, ever loves itself"; which some take to mean that the soul ever actually understands, and loves itself. but he excludes this interpretation by adding that "it does not always think of itself as actually distinct from other things." thus it is clear that the soul always understands and loves itself, not actually but habitually; though we might say that by perceiving its own act, it understands itself whenever it understands anything. but since it is not always actually understanding, as in the case of sleep, we must say that these acts, although not always actually existing, yet ever exist in their principles, the habits and powers. wherefore, augustine says (de trin. xiv, 4): "if the rational soul is made to the image of god in the sense that it can make use of reason and intellect to understand and consider god, then the image of god was in the soul from the beginning of its existence." _______________________ eighth article [i, q. 93, art. 8] whether the image of the divine trinity is in the soul only by comparison with god as its object? objection 1: it would seem that the image of the divine trinity is in the soul not only by comparison with god as its object. for the image of the divine trinity is to be found in the soul, as shown above (a. 7), according as the word in us proceeds from the speaker; and love from both. but this is to be found in us as regards any object. therefore the image of the divine trinity is in our mind as regards any object. obj. 2: further, augustine says (de trin. xii, 4) that "when we seek trinity in the soul, we seek it in the whole of the soul, without separating the process of reasoning in temporal matters from the consideration of things eternal." therefore the image of the trinity is to be found in the soul, even as regards temporal objects. obj. 3: further, it is by grace that we can know and love god. if, therefore, the image of the trinity is found in the soul by reason of the memory, understanding, and will or love of god, this image is not in man by nature but by grace, and thus is not common to all. obj. 4: further, the saints in heaven are most perfectly conformed to the image of god by the beatific vision; wherefore it is written (2 cor. 3:18): "we . . . are transformed into the same image from glory to glory." but temporal things are known by the beatific vision. therefore the image of god exists in us even according to temporal things. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de trin. xiv, 12): "the image of god exists in the mind, not because it has a remembrance of itself, loves itself, and understands itself; but because it can also remember, understand, and love god by whom it was made." much less, therefore, is the image of god in the soul, in respect of other objects. _i answer that,_ as above explained (aa. 2, 7), image means a likeness which in some degree, however small, attains to a representation of the species. wherefore we need to seek in the image of the divine trinity in the soul some kind of representation of species of the divine persons, so far as this is possible to a creature. now the divine persons, as above stated (aa. 6, 7), are distinguished from each other according to the procession of the word from the speaker, and the procession of love from both. moreover the word of god is born of god by the knowledge of himself; and love proceeds from god according as he loves himself. but it is clear that diversity of objects diversifies the species of word and love; for in the human mind the species of a stone is specifically different from that of a horse, which also the love regarding each of them is specifically different. hence we refer the divine image in man to the verbal concept born of the knowledge of god, and to the love derived therefrom. thus the image of god is found in the soul according as the soul turns to god, or possesses a nature that enables it to turn to god. now the mind may turn towards an object in two ways: directly and immediately, or indirectly and mediately; as, for instance, when anyone sees a man reflected in a looking-glass he may be said to be turned towards that man. so augustine says (de trin. xiv, 8), that "the mind remembers itself, understands itself, and loves itself. if we perceive this, we perceive a trinity, not, indeed, god, but, nevertheless, rightly called the image of god." but this is due to the fact, not that the mind reflects on itself absolutely, but that thereby it can furthermore turn to god, as appears from the authority quoted above (arg. on the contrary). reply obj. 1: for the notion of an image it is not enough that something proceed from another, but it is also necessary to observe what proceeds and whence it proceeds; namely, that what is word of god proceeds from knowledge of god. reply obj. 2: in all the soul we may see a kind of trinity, not, however, as though besides the action of temporal things and the contemplation of eternal things, "any third thing should be required to make up the trinity," as he adds in the same passage. but in that part of the reason which is concerned with temporal things, "although a trinity may be found; yet the image of god is not to be seen there," as he says farther on; forasmuch as this knowledge of temporal things is adventitious to the soul. moreover even the habits whereby temporal things are known are not always present; but sometimes they are actually present, and sometimes present only in memory even after they begin to exist in the soul. such is clearly the case with faith, which comes to us temporally for this present life; while in the future life faith will no longer exist, but only the remembrance of faith. reply obj. 3: the meritorious knowledge and love of god can be in us only by grace. yet there is a certain natural knowledge and love as seen above (q. 12, a. 12; q. 56, a. 3; q. 60, a. 5). this, too, is natural that the mind, in order to understand god, can make use of reason, in which sense we have already said that the image of god abides ever in the soul; "whether this image of god be so obsolete," as it were clouded, "as almost to amount to nothing," as in those who have not the use of reason; "or obscured and disfigured," as in sinners; or "clear and beautiful," as in the just; as augustine says (de trin. xiv, 6). reply obj. 4: by the vision of glory temporal things will be seen in god himself; and such a vision of things temporal will belong to the image of god. this is what augustine means (de trin. xiv, 6), when he says that "in that nature to which the mind will blissfully adhere, whatever it sees it will see as unchangeable"; for in the uncreated word are the types of all creatures. _______________________ ninth article [i, q. 93, art. 9] whether "likeness" is properly distinguished from "image"? objection 1: it would seem that "likeness" is not properly distinguished from "image." for genus is not properly distinguished from species. now, "likeness" is to "image" as genus to species: because, "where there is image, forthwith there is likeness, but not conversely" as augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 74). therefore "likeness" is not properly to be distinguished from "image." obj. 2: further, the nature of the image consists not only in the representation of the divine persons, but also in the representation of the divine essence, to which representation belong immortality and indivisibility. so it is not true to say that the "likeness is in the essence because it is immortal and indivisible; whereas the image is in other things" (sent. ii, d, xvi). obj. 3: further, the image of god in man is threefold--the image of nature, of grace, and of glory, as above explained (a. 4). but innocence and righteousness belong to grace. therefore it is incorrectly said (sent. ii, d, xvi) "that the image is taken from the memory, the understanding and the will, while the likeness is from innocence and righteousness." obj. 4: further, knowledge of truth belongs to the intellect, and love of virtue to the will; which two things are parts of the image. therefore it is incorrect to say (sent. ii, d, xvi) that "the image consists in the knowledge of truth, and the likeness in the love of virtue." _on the contrary,_ augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 51): "some consider that these two were mentioned not without reason, namely "image" and "likeness," since, if they meant the same, one would have sufficed." _i answer that,_ likeness is a kind of unity, for oneness in quality causes likeness, as the philosopher says (metaph. v, did. iv, 15). now, since "one" is a transcendental, it is both common to all, and adapted to each single thing, just as the good and the true. wherefore, as the good can be compared to each individual thing both as its preamble, and as subsequent to it, as signifying some perfection in it, so also in the same way there exists a kind of comparison between "likeness" and "image." for the good is a preamble to man, inasmuch as man is an individual good; and, again, the good is subsequent to man, inasmuch as we may say of a certain man that he is good, by reason of his perfect virtue. in like manner, likeness may be considered in the light of a preamble to image, inasmuch as it is something more general than image, as we have said above (a. 1): and, again, it may be considered as subsequent to image, inasmuch as it signifies a certain perfection of image. for we say that an image is like or unlike what it represents, according as the representation is perfect or imperfect. thus likeness may be distinguished from image in two ways: first as its preamble and existing in more things, and in this sense likeness regards things which are more common than the intellectual properties, wherein the image is properly to be seen. in this sense it is stated (qq. 83, qu. 51) that "the spirit" (namely, the mind) without doubt was made to the image of god. "but the other parts of man," belonging to the soul's inferior faculties, or even to the body, "are in the opinion of some made to god's likeness." in this sense he says (de quant. animae ii) that the likeness of god is found in the soul's incorruptibility; for corruptible and incorruptible are differences of universal beings. but likeness may be considered in another way, as signifying the expression and perfection of the image. in this sense damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 12) that the image implies "an intelligent being, endowed with free-will and self-movement, whereas likeness implies a likeness of power, as far as this may be possible in man." in the same sense "likeness" is said to belong to "the love of virtue": for there is no virtue without love of virtue. reply obj. 1: "likeness" is not distinct from "image" in the general notion of "likeness" (for thus it is included in "image"); but so far as any "likeness" falls short of "image," or again, as it perfects the idea of "image." reply obj. 2: the soul's essence belongs to the "image," as representing the divine essence in those things which belong to the intellectual nature; but not in those conditions subsequent to general notions of being, such as simplicity and indissolubility. reply obj. 3: even certain virtues are natural to the soul, at least, in their seeds, by reason of which we may say that a natural "likeness" exists in the soul. nor it is unfitting to us the term "image" from one point of view and from another the term "likeness." reply obj. 4: love of the word, which is knowledge loved, belongs to the nature of "image"; but love of virtue belongs to "likeness," as virtue itself belongs to likeness. _______________________ question 94 of the state and condition of the first man as regards his intellect (in four articles) we next consider the state or condition of the first man; first, as regards his soul; secondly, as regards his body. concerning the first there are two things to be considered: (1) the condition of man as to his intellect; (2) the condition of man as to his will. under the first head there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether the first man saw the essence of god? (2) whether he could see the separate substances, that is, the angels? (3) whether he possessed all knowledge? (4) whether he could err or be deceived? _______________________ first article [i, q. 94, art. 1] whether the first man saw god through his essence? objection 1: it would seem that the first man saw god through his essence. for man's happiness consists in the vision of the divine essence. but the first man, "while established in paradise, led a life of happiness in the enjoyment of all things," as damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 11). and augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 10): "if man was gifted with the same tastes as now, how happy must he have been in paradise, that place of ineffable happiness!" therefore the first man in paradise saw god through his essence. obj. 2: further, augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, loc. cit.) that "the first man lacked nothing which his good-will might obtain." but our good-will can obtain nothing better than the vision of the divine essence. therefore man saw god through his essence. obj. 3: further, the vision of god in his essence is whereby god is seen without a medium or enigma. but man in the state of innocence "saw god immediately," as the master of the sentences asserts (sent. iv, d, i). he also saw without an enigma, for an enigma implies obscurity, as augustine says (de trin. xv, 9). now, obscurity resulted from sin. therefore man in the primitive state saw god through his essence. _on the contrary,_ the apostle says (1 cor. 15:46): "that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural." but to see god through his essence is most spiritual. therefore the first man in the primitive state of his natural life did not see god through his essence. _i answer that,_ the first man did not see god through his essence if we consider the ordinary state of that life; unless, perhaps, it be said that he saw god in a vision, when "god cast a deep sleep upon adam" (gen. 2:21). the reason is because, since in the divine essence is beatitude itself, the intellect of a man who sees the divine essence has the same relation to god as a man has to beatitude. now it is clear that man cannot willingly be turned away from beatitude, since naturally and necessarily he desires it, and shuns unhappiness. wherefore no one who sees the essence of god can willingly turn away from god, which means to sin. hence all who see god through his essence are so firmly established in the love of god, that for eternity they can never sin. therefore, as adam did sin, it is clear that he did not see god through his essence. nevertheless he knew god with a more perfect knowledge than we do now. thus in a sense his knowledge was midway between our knowledge in the present state, and the knowledge we shall have in heaven, when we see god through his essence. to make this clear, we must consider that the vision of god through his essence is contradistinguished from the vision of god through his creatures. now the higher the creature is, and the more like it is to god, the more clearly is god seen in it; for instance, a man is seen more clearly through a mirror in which his image is the more clearly expressed. thus god is seen in a much more perfect manner through his intelligible effects than through those which are only sensible or corporeal. but in his present state man is impeded as regards the full and clear consideration of intelligible creatures, because he is distracted by and occupied with sensible things. now, it is written (eccles. 7:30): "god made man right." and man was made right by god in this sense, that in him the lower powers were subjected to the higher, and the higher nature was made so as not to be impeded by the lower. wherefore the first man was not impeded by exterior things from a clear and steady contemplation of the intelligible effects which he perceived by the radiation of the first truth, whether by a natural or by a gratuitous knowledge. hence augustine says (gen. ad lit. xi, 33) that, "perhaps god used to speak to the first man as he speaks to the angels; by shedding on his mind a ray of the unchangeable truth, yet without bestowing on him the experience of which the angels are capable in the participation of the divine essence." therefore, through these intelligible effects of god, man knew god then more clearly than we know him now. reply obj. 1: man was happy in paradise, but not with that perfect happiness to which he was destined, which consists in the vision of the divine essence. he was, however, endowed with "a life of happiness in a certain measure," as augustine says (gen. ad lit. xi, 18), so far as he was gifted with natural integrity and perfection. reply obj. 2: a good will is a well-ordered will; but the will of the first man would have been ill-ordered had he wished to have, while in the state of merit, what had been promised to him as a reward. reply obj. 3: a medium (of knowledge) is twofold; one through which, and, at the same time, in which, something is seen, as, for example, a man is seen through a mirror, and is seen with the mirror: another kind of medium is that whereby we attain to the knowledge of something unknown; such as the medium in a demonstration. god was seen without this second kind of medium, but not without the first kind. for there was no need for the first man to attain to the knowledge of god by demonstration drawn from an effect, such as we need; since he knew god simultaneously in his effects, especially in the intelligible effects, according to his capacity. again, we must remark that the obscurity which is implied in the word enigma may be of two kinds: first, so far as every creature is something obscure when compared with the immensity of the divine light; and thus adam saw god in an enigma, because he saw him in a created effect: secondly, we may take obscurity as an effect of sin, so far as man is impeded in the consideration of intelligible things by being preoccupied with sensible things; in which sense adam did not see god in an enigma. _______________________ second article [i, q. 94, art. 2] whether adam in the state of innocence saw the angels through their essence? objection 1: it would seem that adam, in the state of innocence, saw the angels through their essence. for gregory says (dialog. iv, 1): "in paradise man was accustomed to enjoy the words of god; and by purity of heart and loftiness of vision to have the company of the good angels." obj. 2: further, the soul in the present state is impeded from the knowledge of separate substances by union with a corruptible body which "is a load upon the soul," as is written wis. 9:15. wherefore the separate soul can see separate substances, as above explained (q. 89, a. 2). but the body of the first man was not a load upon his soul; for the latter was not corruptible. therefore he was able to see separate substances. obj. 3: further, one separate substance knows another separate substance, by knowing itself (de causis xiii). but the soul of the first man knew itself. therefore it knew separate substances. _on the contrary,_ the soul of adam was of the same nature as ours. but our souls cannot now understand separate substances. therefore neither could adam's soul. _i answer that,_ the state of the human soul may be distinguished in two ways. first, from a diversity of mode in its natural existence; and in this point the state of the separate soul is distinguished from the state of the soul joined to the body. secondly, the state of the soul is distinguished in relation to integrity and corruption, the state of natural existence remaining the same: and thus the state of innocence is distinct from the state of man after sin. for man's soul, in the state of innocence, was adapted to perfect and govern the body; wherefore the first man is said to have been made into a "living soul"; that is, a soul giving life to the body--namely animal life. but he was endowed with integrity as to this life, in that the body was entirely subject to the soul, hindering it in no way, as we have said above (a. 1). now it is clear from what has been already said (q. 84, a. 7; q. 85, a. 1; q. 89, a. 1) that since the soul is adapted to perfect and govern the body, as regards animal life, it is fitting that it should have that mode of understanding which is by turning to phantasms. wherefore this mode of understanding was becoming to the soul of the first man also. now, in virtue of this mode of understanding, there are three degrees of movement in the soul, as dionysius says (div. nom. iv). the first is by the soul "passing from exterior things to concentrate its powers on itself"; the second is by the soul ascending "so as to be associated with the united superior powers," namely the angels; the third is when the soul is "led on" yet further "to the supreme good," that is, to god. in virtue of the first movement of the soul from exterior things to itself, the soul's knowledge is perfected. this is because the intellectual operation of the soul has a natural order to external things, as we have said above (q. 87, a. 3): and so by the knowledge thereof, our intellectual operation can be known perfectly, as an act through its object. and through the intellectual operation itself, the human intellect can be known perfectly, as a power through its proper act. but in the second movement we do not find perfect knowledge. because, since the angel does not understand by turning to phantasms, but by a far more excellent process, as we have said above (q. 55, a. 2); the above-mentioned mode of knowledge, by which the soul knows itself, is not sufficient to lead it to the knowledge of an angel. much less does the third movement lead to perfect knowledge: for even the angels themselves, by the fact that they know themselves, are not able to arrive at the knowledge of the divine substance, by reason of its surpassing excellence. therefore the soul of the first man could not see the angels in their essence. nevertheless he had a more excellent mode of knowledge regarding the angels than we possess, because his knowledge of intelligible things within him was more certain and fixed than our knowledge. and it was on account of this excellence of knowledge that gregory says that "he enjoyed the company of the angelic spirits." this makes clear the reply to the first objection. reply obj. 2: that the soul of the first man fell short of the knowledge regarding separate substances, was not owing to the fact that the body was a load upon it; but to the fact that its connatural object fell short of the excellence of separate substances. we, in our present state, fall short on account of both these reasons. reply obj. 3: the soul of the first man was not able to arrive at knowledge of separate substances by means of its self-knowledge, as we have shown above; for even each separate substance knows others in its own measure. _______________________ third article [i, q. 94, art. 3] whether the first man knew all things? objection 1: it would seem that the first man did not know all things. for if he had such knowledge it would be either by acquired species, or by connatural species, or by infused species. not, however, by acquired species; for this kind of knowledge is acquired by experience, as stated in _metaph._ i, 1; and the first man had not then gained experience of all things. nor through connatural species, because he was of the same nature as we are; and our soul, as aristotle says (de anima iii, 4), is "like a clean tablet on which nothing is written." and if his knowledge came by infused species, it would have been of a different kind from ours, which we acquire from things themselves. obj. 2: further, individuals of the same species have the same way of arriving at perfection. now other men have not, from the beginning, knowledge of all things, but they acquire it in the course of time according to their capacity. therefore neither did adam know all things when he was first created. obj. 3: further, the present state of life is given to man in order that his soul may advance in knowledge and merit; indeed, the soul seems to be united to the body for that purpose. now man would have advanced in merit in that state of life; therefore also in knowledge. therefore he was not endowed with knowledge of all things. _on the contrary,_ man named the animals (gen. 2:20). but names should be adapted to the nature of things. therefore adam knew the animals' natures; and in like manner he was possessed of the knowledge of all other things. _i answer that,_ in the natural order, perfection comes before imperfection, as act precedes potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality is made actual only by something actual. and since god created things not only for their own existence, but also that they might be the principles of other things; so creatures were produced in their perfect state to be the principles as regards others. now man can be the principle of another man, not only by generation of the body, but also by instruction and government. hence, as the first man was produced in his perfect state, as regards his body, for the work of generation, so also was his soul established in a perfect state to instruct and govern others. now no one can instruct others unless he has knowledge, and so the first man was established by god in such a manner as to have knowledge of all those things for which man has a natural aptitude. and such are whatever are virtually contained in the first self-evident principles, that is, whatever truths man is naturally able to know. moreover, in order to direct his own life and that of others, man needs to know not only those things which can be naturally known, but also things surpassing natural knowledge; because the life of man is directed to a supernatural end: just as it is necessary for us to know the truths of faith in order to direct our own lives. wherefore the first man was endowed with such a knowledge of these supernatural truths as was necessary for the direction of human life in that state. but those things which cannot be known by merely human effort, and which are not necessary for the direction of human life, were not known by the first man; such as the thoughts of men, future contingent events, and some individual facts, as for instance the number of pebbles in a stream; and the like. reply obj. 1: the first man had knowledge of all things by divinely infused species. yet his knowledge was not different from ours; as the eyes which christ gave to the man born blind were not different from those given by nature. reply obj. 2: to adam, as being the first man, was due a degree of perfection which was not due to other men, as is clear from what is above explained. reply obj. 3: adam would have advanced in natural knowledge, not in the number of things known, but in the manner of knowing; because what he knew speculatively he would subsequently have known by experience. but as regards supernatural knowledge, he would also have advanced as regards the number of things known, by further revelation; as the angels advance by further enlightenment. moreover there is no comparison between advance in knowledge and advance in merit; since one man cannot be a principle of merit to another, although he can be to another a principle of knowledge. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 94, art. 4] whether man in his first state could be deceived? objection 1: it would seem that man in his primitive state could have been deceived. for the apostle says (1 tim. 2:14) that "the woman being seduced was in the transgression." obj. 2: further, the master says (sent. ii, d, xxi) that, "the woman was not frightened at the serpent speaking, because she thought that he had received the faculty of speech from god." but this was untrue. therefore before sin the woman was deceived. obj. 3: further, it is natural that the farther off anything is from us, the smaller it seems to be. now, the nature of the eyes is not changed by sin. therefore this would have been the case in the state of innocence. wherefore man would have been deceived in the size of what he saw, just as he is deceived now. obj. 4: further, augustine says (gen. ad lit. xii, 2) that, in sleep the soul adheres to the images of things as if they were the things themselves. but in the state of innocence man would have eaten and consequently have slept and dreamed. therefore he would have been deceived, adhering to images as to realities. obj. 5: further, the first man would have been ignorant of other men's thoughts, and of future contingent events, as stated above (a. 3). so if anyone had told him what was false about these things, he would have been deceived. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de lib. arb. iii, 18): "to regard what is true as false, is not natural to man as created; but is a punishment of man condemned." _i answer that,_ in the opinion of some, deception may mean two things; namely, any slight surmise, in which one adheres to what is false, as though it were true, but without the assent of belief--or it may mean a firm belief. thus before sin adam could not be deceived in either of these ways as regards those things to which his knowledge extended; but as regards things to which his knowledge did not extend, he might have been deceived, if we take deception in the wide sense of the term for any surmise without assent of belief. this opinion was held with the idea that it is not derogatory to man to entertain a false opinion in such matters, and that provided he does not assent rashly, he is not to be blamed. such an opinion, however, is not fitting as regards the integrity of the primitive state of life; because, as augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 10), in that state of life "sin was avoided without struggle, and while it remained so, no evil could exist." now it is clear that as truth is the good of the intellect, so falsehood is its evil, as the philosopher says (ethic. vi, 2). so that, as long as the state of innocence continued, it was impossible for the human intellect to assent to falsehood as if it were truth. for as some perfections, such as clarity, were lacking in the bodily members of the first man, though no evil could be therein; so there could be in his intellect the absence of some knowledge, but no false opinion. this is clear also from the very rectitude of the primitive state, by virtue of which, while the soul remained subject to god, the lower faculties in man were subject to the higher, and were no impediment to their action. and from what has preceded (q. 85, a. 6), it is clear that as regards its proper object the intellect is ever true; and hence it is never deceived of itself; but whatever deception occurs must be ascribed to some lower faculty, such as the imagination or the like. hence we see that when the natural power of judgment is free we are not deceived by such images, but only when it is not free, as is the case in sleep. therefore it is clear that the rectitude of the primitive state was incompatible with deception of the intellect. reply obj. 1: though the woman was deceived before she sinned in deed, still it was not till she had already sinned by interior pride. for augustine says (gen. ad lit. xi, 30) that "the woman could not have believed the words of the serpent, had she not already acquiesced in the love of her own power, and in a presumption of self-conceit." reply obj. 2: the woman thought that the serpent had received this faculty, not as acting in accordance with nature, but by virtue of some supernatural operation. we need not, however, follow the master of the sentences in this point. reply obj. 3: were anything presented to the imagination or sense of the first man, not in accordance with the nature of things, he would not have been deceived, for his reason would have enabled him to judge the truth. reply obj. 4: a man is not accountable for what occurs during sleep; as he has not then the use of his reason, wherein consists man's proper action. reply obj. 5: if anyone had said something untrue as regards future contingencies, or as regards secret thoughts, man in the primitive state would not have believed it was so: but he might have believed that such a thing was possible; which would not have been to entertain a false opinion. it might also be said that he would have been divinely guided from above, so as not to be deceived in a matter to which his knowledge did not extend. if any object, as some do, that he was not guided, when tempted, though he was then most in need of guidance, we reply that man had already sinned in his heart, and that he failed to have recourse to the divine aid. _______________________ question 95 of things pertaining to the first man's will--namely, grace and righteousness (in four articles) we next consider what belongs to the will of the first man; concerning which there are two points of treatment: (1) the grace and righteousness of the first man; (2) the use of righteousness as regards his dominion over other things. under the first head there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether the first man was created in grace? (2) whether in the state of innocence he had passions of the soul? (3) whether he had all virtues? (4) whether what he did would have been as meritorious as now? _______________________ first article [i, q. 95, art. 1] whether the first man was created in grace? objection 1: it would seem that the first man was not created in grace. for the apostle, distinguishing between adam and christ, says (1 cor. 15:45): "the first adam was made into a living soul; the last adam into a quickening spirit." but the spirit is quickened by grace. therefore christ alone was made in grace. obj. 2: further, augustine says (qq. vet. et nov. test., qu. 123) [*work of an anonymous author, among the supposititious works of st. augustine] that "adam did not possess the holy ghost." but whoever possesses grace has the holy ghost. therefore adam was not created in grace. obj. 3: further, augustine says (de correp. et grat. x) that "god so ordered the life of the angels and men, as to show first what they could do by free-will, then what they could do by his grace, and by the discernment of righteousness." god thus first created men and angels in the state of natural free-will only; and afterwards bestowed grace on them. obj. 4: further, the master says (sent. ii, d, xxiv): "when man was created he was given sufficient help to stand, but not sufficient to advance." but whoever has grace can advance by merit. therefore the first man was not created in grace. obj. 5: further, the reception of grace requires the consent of the recipient, since thereby a kind of spiritual marriage takes place between god and the soul. but consent presupposes existence. therefore man did not receive grace in the first moment of his creation. obj. 6: further, nature is more distant from grace than grace is from glory, which is but grace consummated. but in man grace precedes glory. therefore much more did nature precede grace. _on the contrary,_ man and angel are both ordained to grace. but the angels were created in grace, for augustine says (de civ. dei xii, 9): "god at the same time fashioned their nature and endowed them with grace." therefore man also was created in grace. _i answer that,_ some say that man was not created in grace; but that it was bestowed on him subsequently before sin: and many authorities of the saints declare that man possessed grace in the state of innocence. but the very rectitude of the primitive state, wherewith man was endowed by god, seems to require that, as others say, he was created in grace, according to eccles. 7:30, "god made man right." for this rectitude consisted in his reason being subject to god, the lower powers to reason, and the body to the soul: and the first subjection was the cause of both the second and the third; since while reason was subject to god, the lower powers remained subject to reason, as augustine says [*cf. de civ. dei xiii, 13; de pecc. merit. et remiss. i, 16]. now it is clear that such a subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason, was not from nature; otherwise it would have remained after sin; since even in the demons the natural gifts remained after sin, as dionysius declared (div. nom. iv). hence it is clear that also the primitive subjection by virtue of which reason was subject to god, was not a merely natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of grace; for it is not possible that the effect should be of greater efficiency than the cause. hence augustine says (de civ. dei xiii, 13) that, "as soon as they disobeyed the divine command, and forfeited divine grace, they were ashamed of their nakedness, for they felt the impulse of disobedience in the flesh, as though it were a punishment corresponding to their own disobedience." hence if the loss of grace dissolved the obedience of the flesh to the soul, we may gather that the inferior powers were subjected to the soul through grace existing therein. reply obj. 1: the apostle in these words means to show that there is a spiritual body, if there is an animal body, inasmuch as the spiritual life of the body began in christ, who is "the firstborn of the dead," as the body's animal life began in adam. from the apostle's words, therefore, we cannot gather that adam had no spiritual life in his soul; but that he had not spiritual life as regards the body. reply obj. 2: as augustine says in the same passage, it is not disputed that adam, like other just souls, was in some degree gifted with the holy ghost; but "he did not possess the holy ghost, as the faithful possess him now," who are admitted to eternal happiness directly after death. reply obj. 3: this passage from augustine does not assert that angels or men were created with natural free-will before they possessed grace; but that god shows first what their free-will could do before being confirmed in grace, and what they acquired afterwards by being so confirmed. reply obj. 4: the master here speaks according to the opinion of those who held that man was not created in grace, but only in a state of nature. we may also say that, though man was created in grace, yet it was not by virtue of the nature wherein he was created that he could advance by merit, but by virtue of the grace which was added. reply obj. 5: as the motion of the will is not continuous there is nothing against the first man having consented to grace even in the first moment of his existence. reply obj. 6: we merit glory by an act of grace; but we do not merit grace by an act of nature; hence the comparison fails. _______________________ second article [i, q. 95, art. 2] whether passions existed in the soul of the first man? objection 1: it would seem that the first man's soul had no passions. for by the passions of the soul "the flesh lusteth against the spirit" (gal. 5:7). but this did not happen in the state of innocence. therefore in the state of innocence there were no passions of the soul. obj. 2: further, adam's soul was nobler than his body. but his body was impassible. therefore no passions were in his soul. obj. 3: further, the passions of the soul are restrained by the moral virtues. but in adam the moral virtues were perfect. therefore the passions were entirely excluded from him. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 10) that "in our first parents there was undisturbed love of god," and other passions of the soul. _i answer that,_ the passions of the soul are in the sensual appetite, the object of which is good and evil. wherefore some passions of the soul are directed to what is good, as love and joy; others to what is evil, as fear and sorrow. and since in the primitive state, evil was neither present nor imminent, nor was any good wanting which a good-will could desire to have then, as augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 10), therefore adam had no passion with evil as its object; such as fear, sorrow, and the like; neither had he passions in respect of good not possessed, but to be possessed then, as burning concupiscence. but those passions which regard present good, as joy and love; or which regard future good to be had at the proper time, as desire and hope that casteth not down, existed in the state of innocence; otherwise, however, than as they exist in ourselves. for our sensual appetite, wherein the passions reside, is not entirely subject to reason; hence at times our passions forestall and hinder reason's judgment; at other times they follow reason's judgment, accordingly as the sensual appetite obeys reason to some extent. but in the state of innocence the inferior appetite was wholly subject to reason: so that in that state the passions of the soul existed only as consequent upon the judgment of reason. reply obj. 1: the flesh lusts against the spirit by the rebellion of the passions against reason; which could not occur in the state of innocence. reply obj. 2: the human body was impassible in the state of innocence as regards the passions which alter the disposition of nature, as will be explained later on (q. 97, a. 2); likewise the soul was impassible as regards the passions which impede the free use of reason. reply obj. 3: perfection of moral virtue does not wholly take away the passions, but regulates them; for the temperate man desires as he ought to desire, and what he ought to desire, as stated in _ethic._ iii, 11. _______________________ third article [i, q. 95, art. 3] whether adam had all the virtues? objection 1: it would seem that adam had not all the virtues. for some virtues are directed to curb passions: thus immoderate concupiscence is restrained by temperance, and immoderate fear by fortitude. but in the state of innocence no immoderation existed in the passions. therefore neither did these virtues then exist. obj. 2: further, some virtues are concerned with the passions which have evil as their object; as meekness with anger; fortitude with fear. but these passions did not exist in the state of innocence, as stated above (a. 2). therefore neither did those virtues exist then. obj. 3: further, penance is a virtue that regards sin committed. mercy, too, is a virtue concerned with unhappiness. but in the state of innocence neither sin nor unhappiness existed. therefore neither did those virtues exist. obj. 4: further, perseverance is a virtue. but adam possessed it not; as proved by his subsequent sin. therefore he possessed not every virtue. obj. 5: further, faith is a virtue. but it did not exist in the state of innocence; for it implies an obscurity of knowledge which seems to be incompatible with the perfection of the primitive state. _on the contrary,_ augustine says, in a homily (serm. contra judaeos): "the prince of sin overcame adam who was made from the slime of the earth to the image of god, adorned with modesty, restrained by temperance, refulgent with brightness." _i answer that,_ in the state of innocence man in a certain sense possessed all the virtues; and this can be proved from what precedes. for it was shown above (a. 1) that such was the rectitude of the primitive state, that reason was subject to god, and the lower powers to reason. now the virtues are nothing but those perfections whereby reason is directed to god, and the inferior powers regulated according to the dictate of reason, as will be explained in the treatise on the virtues (i-ii, q. 63, a. 2). wherefore the rectitude of the primitive state required that man should in a sense possess every virtue. it must, however, be noted that some virtues of their very nature do not involve imperfection, such as charity and justice; and these virtues did exist in the primitive state absolutely, both in habit and in act. but other virtues are of such a nature as to imply imperfection either in their act, or on the part of the matter. if such imperfection be consistent with the perfection of the primitive state, such virtues necessarily existed in that state; as faith, which is of things not seen, and hope which is of things not yet possessed. for the perfection of that state did not extend to the vision of the divine essence, and the possession of god with the enjoyment of final beatitude. hence faith and hope could exist in the primitive state, both as to habit and as to act. but any virtue which implies imperfection incompatible with the perfection of the primitive state, could exist in that state as a habit, but not as to the act; for instance, penance, which is sorrow for sin committed; and mercy, which is sorrow for others' unhappiness; because sorrow, guilt, and unhappiness are incompatible with the perfection of the primitive state. wherefore such virtues existed as habits in the first man, but not as to their acts; for he was so disposed that he would repent, if there had been a sin to repent for; and had he seen unhappiness in his neighbor, he would have done his best to remedy it. this is in accordance with what the philosopher says, "shame, which regards what is ill done, may be found in a virtuous man, but only conditionally; as being so disposed that he would be ashamed if he did wrong" (ethic. iv, 9). reply obj. 1: it is accidental to temperance and fortitude to subdue superabundant passion, in so far as they are in a subject which happens to have superabundant passions, and yet those virtues are _per se_ competent to moderate the passions. reply obj. 2: passions which have evil for their object were incompatible with the perfection of the primitive state, if that evil be in the one affected by the passion; such as fear and sorrow. but passions which relate to evil in another are not incompatible with the perfection of the primitive state; for in that state man could hate the demons' malice, as he could love god's goodness. thus the virtues which relate to such passions could exist in the primitive state, in habit and in act. virtues, however, relating to passions which regard evil in the same subject, if relating to such passions only, could not exist in the primitive state in act, but only in habit, as we have said above of penance and of mercy. but other virtues there are which have relation not to such passions only, but to others; such as temperance, which relates not only to sorrow, but also to joy; and fortitude, which relates not only to fear, but also to daring and hope. thus the act of temperance could exist in the primitive state, so far as it moderates pleasure; and in like manner, fortitude, as moderating daring and hope, but not as moderating sorrow and fear. reply obj. 3: appears from what has been said above. reply obj. 4: perseverance may be taken in two ways: in one sense as a particular virtue, signifying a habit whereby a man makes a choice of persevering in good; in that sense adam possessed perseverance. in another sense it is taken as a circumstance of virtue; signifying a certain uninterrupted continuation of virtue; in which sense adam did not possess perseverance. reply obj. 5: appears from what has been said above. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 95, art. 4] whether the actions of the first man were less meritorious than ours are? objection 1: it would seem that the actions of the first man were less meritorious than ours are. for grace is given to us through the mercy of god, who succors most those who are most in need. now we are more in need of grace than was man in the state of innocence. therefore grace is more copiously poured out upon us; and since grace is the source of merit, our actions are more meritorious. obj. 2: further, struggle and difficulty are required for merit; for it is written (2 tim. 2:5): "he . . . is not crowned except he strive lawfully" and the philosopher says (ethic. ii, 3): "the object of virtue is the difficult and the good." but there is more strife and difficulty now. therefore there is greater efficacy for merit. obj. 3: further, the master says (sent. ii., d, xxiv) that "man would not have merited in resisting temptation; whereas he does merit now, when he resists." therefore our actions are more meritorious than in the primitive state. _on the contrary,_ if such were the case, man would be better off after sinning. _i answer that,_ merit as regards degree may be gauged in two ways. first, in its root, which is grace and charity. merit thus measured corresponds in degree to the essential reward, which consists in the enjoyment of god; for the greater the charity whence our actions proceed, the more perfectly shall we enjoy god. secondly, the degree of merit is measured by the degree of the action itself. this degree is of two kinds, absolute and proportional. the widow who put two mites into the treasury performed a deed of absolutely less degree than the others who put great sums therein. but in proportionate degree the widow gave more, as our lord said; because she gave more in proportion to her means. in each of these cases the degree of merit corresponds to the accidental reward, which consists in rejoicing for created good. we conclude therefore that in the state of innocence man's works were more meritorious than after sin was committed, if we consider the degree of merit on the part of grace, which would have been more copious as meeting with no obstacle in human nature: and in like manner, if we consider the absolute degree of the work done; because, as man would have had greater virtue, he would have performed greater works. but if we consider the proportionate degree, a greater reason for merit exists after sin, on account of man's weakness; because a small deed is more beyond the capacity of one who works with difficulty than a great deed is beyond one who performs it easily. reply obj. 1: after sin man requires grace for more things than before sin; but he does not need grace more; forasmuch as man even before sin required grace to obtain eternal life, which is the chief reason for the need of grace. but after sin man required grace also for the remission of sin, and for the support of his weakness. reply obj. 2: difficulty and struggle belong to the degree of merit according to the proportionate degree of the work done, as above explained. it is also a sign of the will's promptitude striving after what is difficult to itself: and the promptitude of the will is caused by the intensity of charity. yet it may happen that a person performs an easy deed with as prompt a will as another performs an arduous deed; because he is ready to do even what may be difficult to him. but the actual difficulty, by its penal character, enables the deed to satisfy for sin. reply obj. 3: the first man would not have gained merit in resisting temptation, according to the opinion of those who say that he did not possess grace; even as now there is no merit to those who have not grace. but in this point there is a difference, inasmuch as in the primitive state there was no interior impulse to evil, as in our present state. hence man was more able then than now to resist temptation even without grace. _______________________ question 96 of the mastership belonging to man in the state of innocence (in four articles) we next consider the mastership which belonged to man in the state of innocence. under this head there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether man in the state of innocence was master over the animals? (2) whether he was master over all creatures? (3) whether in the state of innocence all men were equal? (4) whether in that state man would have been master over men? _______________________ first article [i, q. 96, art. 1] whether adam in the state of innocence had mastership over the animals? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence adam had no mastership over the animals. for augustine says (gen. ad lit. ix, 14), that the animals were brought to adam, under the direction of the angels, to receive their names from him. but the angels need not have intervened thus, if man himself were master over the animals. therefore in the state of innocence man had no mastership of the animals. obj. 2: further, it is unfitting that elements hostile to one another should be brought under the mastership of one. but many animals are hostile to one another, as the sheep and the wolf. therefore all animals were not brought under the mastership of man. obj. 3: further, jerome says [*the words quoted are not in st. jerome's works. st. thomas may have had in mind bede, hexaem., as quoted in the glossa ordinaria on gen. 1:26]: "god gave man mastership over the animals, although before sin he had no need of them: for god foresaw that after sin animals would become useful to man." therefore, at least before sin, it was unfitting for man to make use of his mastership. obj. 4: further, it is proper to a master to command. but a command is not given rightly save to a rational being. therefore man had no mastership over the irrational animals. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 1:26): "let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the birds of the air, and the beasts of the earth" [vulg."and the whole earth"]. _i answer that,_ as above stated (q. 95, a. 1) for his disobedience to god, man was punished by the disobedience of those creatures which should be subject to him. therefore in the state of innocence, before man had disobeyed, nothing disobeyed him that was naturally subject to him. now all animals are naturally subject to man. this can be proved in three ways. first, from the order observed by nature; for just as in the generation of things we perceive a certain order of procession of the perfect from the imperfect (thus matter is for the sake of form; and the imperfect form, for the sake of the perfect), so also is there order in the use of natural things; thus the imperfect are for the use of the perfect; as the plants make use of the earth for their nourishment, and animals make use of plants, and man makes use of both plants and animals. therefore it is in keeping with the order of nature, that man should be master over animals. hence the philosopher says (polit. i, 5) that the hunting of wild animals is just and natural, because man thereby exercises a natural right. secondly, this is proved by the order of divine providence which always governs inferior things by the superior. wherefore, as man, being made to the image of god, is above other animals, these are rightly subject to his government. thirdly, this is proved from a property of man and of other animals. for we see in the latter a certain participated prudence of natural instinct, in regard to certain particular acts; whereas man possesses a universal prudence as regards all practical matters. now whatever is participated is subject to what is essential and universal. therefore the subjection of other animals to man is proved to be natural. reply obj. 1: a higher power can do many things that an inferior power cannot do to those which are subject to them. now an angel is naturally higher than man. therefore certain things in regard to animals could be done by angels, which could not be done by man; for instance, the rapid gathering together of all the animals. reply obj. 2: in the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. but this is quite unreasonable. for the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. nor does bede's gloss on gen. 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. they would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of god, whose providence has ordained all this. of this providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon. reply obj. 3: in the state of innocence man would not have had any bodily need of animals--neither for clothing, since then they were naked and not ashamed, there being no inordinate motions of concupiscence--nor for food, since they fed on the trees of paradise--nor to carry him about, his body being strong enough for that purpose. but man needed animals in order to have experimental knowledge of their natures. this is signified by the fact that god led the animals to man, that he might give them names expressive of their respective natures. reply obj. 4: all animals by their natural instinct have a certain participation of prudence and reason: which accounts for the fact that cranes follow their leader, and bees obey their queen. so all animals would have obeyed man of their own accord, as in the present state some domestic animals obey him. _______________________ second article [i, q. 96, art. 2] whether man had mastership over all other creatures? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence man would not have had mastership over all other creatures. for an angel naturally has a greater power than man. but, as augustine says (de trin. iii, 8), "corporeal matter would not have obeyed even the holy angels." much less therefore would it have obeyed man in the state of innocence. obj. 2: further, the only powers of the soul existing in plants are nutritive, augmentative, and generative. now these do not naturally obey reason; as we can see in the case of any one man. therefore, since it is by his reason that man is competent to have mastership, it seems that in the state of innocence man had no dominion over plants. obj. 3: further, whosoever is master of a thing, can change it. but man could not have changed the course of the heavenly bodies; for this belongs to god alone, as dionysius says (ep. ad polycarp. vii). therefore man had no dominion over them. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 1:26): "that he may have dominion over . . . every creature." _i answer that,_ man in a certain sense contains all things; and so according as he is master of what is within himself, in the same way he can have mastership over other things. now we may consider four things in man: his _reason,_ which makes him like to the angels; his _sensitive powers,_ whereby he is like the animals; his _natural forces,_ which liken him to the plants; and _the body itself,_ wherein he is like to inanimate things. now in man reason has the position of a master and not of a subject. wherefore man had no mastership over the angels in the primitive state; so when we read "all creatures," we must understand the creatures which are not made to god's image. over the sensitive powers, as the irascible and concupiscible, which obey reason in some degree, the soul has mastership by commanding. so in the state of innocence man had mastership over the animals by commanding them. but of the natural powers and the body itself man is master not by commanding, but by using them. thus also in the state of innocence man's mastership over plants and inanimate things consisted not in commanding or in changing them, but in making use of them without hindrance. the answers to the objections appear from the above. _______________________ third article [i, q. 96, art. 3] whether men were equal in the state of innocence? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence all would have been equal. for gregory says (moral. xxi): "where there is no sin, there is no inequality." but in the state of innocence there was no sin. therefore all were equal. obj. 2: further, likeness and equality are the basis of mutual love, according to ecclus. 13:19, "every beast loveth its like; so also every man him that is nearest to himself." now in that state there was among men an abundance of love, which is the bond of peace. therefore all were equal in the state of innocence. obj. 3: further, the cause ceasing, the effect also ceases. but the cause of present inequality among men seems to arise, on the part of god, from the fact that he rewards some and punishes others; and on the part of nature, from the fact that some, through a defect of nature, are born weak and deficient, others strong and perfect, which would not have been the case in the primitive state. therefore, etc. _on the contrary,_ it is written (rom. 13:1): "the things which are of god, are well ordered" [vulg."those that are, are ordained of god"]. but order chiefly consists in inequality; for augustine says (de civ. dei xix, 13): "order disposes things equal and unequal in their proper place." therefore in the primitive state, which was most proper and orderly, inequality would have existed. _i answer that,_ we must needs admit that in the primitive state there would have been some inequality, at least as regards sex, because generation depends upon diversity of sex: and likewise as regards age; for some would have been born of others; nor would sexual union have been sterile. moreover, as regards the soul, there would have been inequality as to righteousness and knowledge. for man worked not of necessity, but of his own free-will, by virtue of which man can apply himself, more or less, to action, desire, or knowledge; hence some would have made a greater advance in virtue and knowledge than others. there might also have been bodily disparity. for the human body was not entirely exempt from the laws of nature, so as not to receive from exterior sources more or less advantage and help: since indeed it was dependent on food wherewith to sustain life. so we may say that, according to the climate, or the movement of the stars, some would have been born more robust in body than others, and also greater, and more beautiful, and all ways better disposed; so that, however, in those who were thus surpassed, there would have been no defect or fault either in soul or body. reply obj. 1: by those words gregory means to exclude such inequality as exists between virtue and vice; the result of which is that some are placed in subjection to others as a penalty. reply obj. 2: equality is the cause of equality in mutual love. yet between those who are unequal there can be a greater love than between equals; although there be not an equal response: for a father naturally loves his son more than a brother loves his brother; although the son does not love his father as much as he is loved by him. reply obj. 3: the cause of inequality could be on the part of god; not indeed that he would punish some and reward others, but that he would exalt some above others; so that the beauty of order would the more shine forth among men. inequality might also arise on the part of nature as above described, without any defect of nature. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 96, art. 4] whether in the state of innocence man would have been master over man? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence man would not have been master over man. for augustine says (de civ. dei xix, 15): "god willed that man, who was endowed with reason and made to his image, should rule over none but irrational creatures; not over men, but over cattle." obj. 2: further, what came into the world as a penalty for sin would not have existed in the state of innocence. but man was made subject to man as a penalty; for after sin it was said to the woman (gen. 3:16): "thou shalt be under thy husband's power." therefore in the state of innocence man would not have been subject to man. obj. 3: further, subjection is opposed to liberty. but liberty is one of the chief blessings, and would not have been lacking in the state of innocence, "where nothing was wanting that man's good-will could desire," as augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 10). therefore man would not have been master over man in the state of innocence. _on the contrary,_ the condition of man in the state of innocence was not more exalted than the condition of the angels. but among the angels some rule over others; and so one order is called that of "dominations." therefore it was not beneath the dignity of the state of innocence that one man should be subject to another. _i answer that,_ mastership has a twofold meaning. first, as opposed to slavery, in which sense a master means one to whom another is subject as a slave. in another sense mastership is referred in a general sense to any kind of subject; and in this sense even he who has the office of governing and directing free men, can be called a master. in the state of innocence man could have been a master of men, not in the former but in the latter sense. this distinction is founded on the reason that a slave differs from a free man in that the latter has the disposal of himself, as is stated in the beginning of the _metaphysics,_ whereas a slave is ordered to another. so that one man is master of another as his slave when he refers the one whose master he is, to his own--namely the master's use. and since every man's proper good is desirable to himself, and consequently it is a grievous matter to anyone to yield to another what ought to be one's own, therefore such dominion implies of necessity a pain inflicted on the subject; and consequently in the state of innocence such a mastership could not have existed between man and man. but a man is the master of a free subject, by directing him either towards his proper welfare, or to the common good. such a kind of mastership would have existed in the state of innocence between man and man, for two reasons. first, because man is naturally a social being, and so in the state of innocence he would have led a social life. now a social life cannot exist among a number of people unless under the presidency of one to look after the common good; for many, as such, seek many things, whereas one attends only to one. wherefore the philosopher says, in the beginning of the _politics,_ that wherever many things are directed to one, we shall always find one at the head directing them. secondly, if one man surpassed another in knowledge and virtue, this would not have been fitting unless these gifts conduced to the benefit of others, according to 1 pet. 4:10, "as every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another." wherefore augustine says (de civ. dei xix, 14): "just men command not by the love of domineering, but by the service of counsel": and (de civ. dei xix, 15): "the natural order of things requires this; and thus did god make man." from this appear the replies to the objections which are founded on the first-mentioned mode of mastership. _______________________ question 97 of the preservation of the individual in the primitive state (in four articles) we next consider what belongs to the bodily state of the first man: first, as regards the preservation of the individual; secondly, as regards the preservation of the species. under the first head there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether man in the state of innocence was immortal? (2) whether he was impassible? (3) whether he stood in need of food? (4) whether he would have obtained immortality by the tree of life? _______________________ first article [i, q. 97, art. 1] whether in the state of innocence man would have been immortal? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence man was not immortal. for the term "mortal" belongs to the definition of man. but if you take away the definition, you take away the thing defined. therefore as long as man was man he could not be immortal. obj. 2: further, corruptible and incorruptible are generically distinct, as the philosopher says (metaph. x, did. ix, 10). but there can be no passing from one genus to another. therefore if the first man was incorruptible, man could not be corruptible in the present state. obj. 3: further, if man were immortal in the state of innocence, this would have been due either to nature or to grace. not to nature, for since nature does not change within the same species, he would also have been immortal now. likewise neither would this be owing to grace; for the first man recovered grace by repentance, according to wis. 10:2: "he brought him out of his sins." hence he would have regained his immortality; which is clearly not the case. therefore man was not immortal in the state of innocence. obj. 4: further, immortality is promised to man as a reward, according to apoc. 21:4: "death shall be no more." but man was not created in the state of reward, but that he might deserve the reward. therefore man was not immortal in the state of innocence. _on the contrary,_ it is written (rom. 5:12): "by sin death came into the world." therefore man was immortal before sin. _i answer that,_ a thing may be incorruptible in three ways. first, on the part of matter--that is to say, either because it possesses no matter, like an angel; or because it possesses matter that is in potentiality to one form only, like the heavenly bodies. such things as these are incorruptible by their very nature. secondly, a thing is incorruptible in its form, inasmuch as being by nature corruptible, yet it has an inherent disposition which preserves it wholly from corruption; and this is called incorruptibility of glory; because as augustine says (ep. ad dioscor.): "god made man's soul of such a powerful nature, that from its fulness of beatitude, there redounds to the body a fulness of health, with the vigor of incorruption." thirdly, a thing may be incorruptible on the part of its efficient cause; in this sense man was incorruptible and immortal in the state of innocence. for, as augustine says (qq. vet. et nov. test. qu. 19 [*work of an anonymous author], among the supposititious works of st. augustine): "god made man immortal as long as he did not sin; so that he might achieve for himself life or death." for man's body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by god to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to god. this entirely agrees with reason; for since the rational soul surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, as above explained (q. 76, a. 1), it was most properly endowed at the beginning with the power of preserving the body in a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter. reply obj. 1 and 2: these objections are founded on natural incorruptibility and immortality. reply obj. 3: this power of preserving the body was not natural to the soul, but was the gift of grace. and though man recovered grace as regards remission of guilt and the merit of glory; yet he did not recover immortality, the loss of which was an effect of sin; for this was reserved for christ to accomplish, by whom the defect of nature was to be restored into something better, as we shall explain further on (iii, q. 14, a. 4, ad 1). reply obj. 4: the promised reward of the immortality of glory differs from the immortality which was bestowed on man in the state of innocence. _______________________ second article [i, q. 97, art. 2] whether in the state of innocence man would have been passible? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence man was passible. for "sensation is a kind of passion." but in the state of innocence man would have been sensitive. therefore he would have been passible. obj. 2: further, sleep is a kind of passion. now, man slept in the state of innocence, according to gen. 2:21, "god cast a deep sleep upon adam." therefore he would have been passible. obj. 3: further, the same passage goes on to say that "he took a rib out of adam." therefore he was passible even to the degree of the cutting out of part of his body. obj. 4: further, man's body was soft. but a soft body is naturally passible as regards a hard body; therefore if a hard body had come in contact with the soft body of the first man, the latter would have suffered from the impact. therefore the first man was passible. _on the contrary,_ had man been passible, he would have been also corruptible, because, as the philosopher says (top. vi, 3): "excessive suffering wastes the very substance." _i answer that,_ "passion" may be taken in two senses. first, in its proper sense, and thus a thing is said to suffer when changed from its natural disposition. for passion is the effect of action; and in nature contraries are mutually active or passive, according as one thing changes another from its natural disposition. secondly, "passion" can be taken in a general sense for any kind of change, even if belonging to the perfecting process of nature. thus understanding and sensation are said to be passions. in this second sense, man was passible in the state of innocence, and was passive both in soul and body. in the first sense, man was impassible, both in soul and body, as he was likewise immortal; for he could curb his passion, as he could avoid death, so long as he refrained from sin. thus it is clear how to reply to the first two objections; since sensation and sleep do not remove from man his natural disposition, but are ordered to his natural welfare. reply obj. 3: as already explained (q. 92, a. 3, ad 2), the rib was in adam as the principle of the human race, as the semen in man, who is a principle through generation. hence as man does not suffer any natural deterioration by seminal issue; so neither did he through the separation of the rib. reply obj. 4: man's body in the state of innocence could be preserved from suffering injury from a hard body; partly by the use of his reason, whereby he could avoid what was harmful; and partly also by divine providence, so preserving him, that nothing of a harmful nature could come upon him unawares. _______________________ third article [i, q. 97, art. 3] whether in the state of innocence man had need of food? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence man did not require food. for food is necessary for man to restore what he has lost. but adam's body suffered no loss, as being incorruptible. therefore he had no need of food. obj. 2: further, food is needed for nourishment. but nourishment involves passibility. since, then, man's body was impassible; it does not appear how food could be needful to him. obj. 3: further, we need food for the preservation of life. but adam could preserve his life otherwise; for had he not sinned, he would not have died. therefore he did not require food. obj. 4: further, the consumption of food involves voiding of the surplus, which seems unsuitable to the state of innocence. therefore it seems that man did not take food in the primitive state. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 2:16): "of every tree in paradise ye shall [vulg. 'thou shalt'] eat." _i answer that,_ in the state of innocence man had an animal life requiring food; but after the resurrection he will have a spiritual life needing no food. in order to make this clear, we must observe that the rational soul is both soul and spirit. it is called a soul by reason of what it possesses in common with other souls--that is, as giving life to the body; whence it is written (gen. 2:7): "man was made into a living soul"; that is, a soul giving life to the body. but the soul is called a spirit according to what properly belongs to itself, and not to other souls, as possessing an intellectual immaterial power. thus in the primitive state, the rational soul communicated to the body what belonged to itself as a soul; and so the body was called "animal" [*from 'anima', a soul; cf. 1 cor. 15:44 seqq.], through having its life from the soul. now the first principle of life in these inferior creatures as the philosopher says (de anima ii, 4) is the vegetative soul: the operations of which are the use of food, generation, and growth. wherefore such operations befitted man in the state of innocence. but in the final state, after the resurrection, the soul will, to a certain extent, communicate to the body what properly belongs to itself as a spirit; immortality to everyone, impassibility, glory, and power to the good, whose bodies will be called "spiritual." so, after the resurrection, man will not require food; whereas he required it in the state of innocence. reply obj. 1: as augustine says (qq. vet. et nov. test. qu. 19 [*works of an anonymous author], among the supposititious works of st. augustine): "how could man have an immortal body, which was sustained by food? since an immortal being needs neither food nor drink." for we have explained (a. 1) that the immortality of the primitive state was based on a supernatural force in the soul, and not on any intrinsic disposition of the body: so that by the action of heat, the body might lose part of its humid qualities; and to prevent the entire consumption of the humor, man was obliged to take food. reply obj. 2: a certain passion and alteration attends nutriment, on the part of the food changed into the substance of the thing nourished. so we cannot thence conclude that man's body was passible, but that the food taken was passible; although this kind of passion conduced to the perfection of the nature. reply obj. 3: if man had not taken food he would have sinned; as he also sinned by taking the forbidden fruit. for he was told at the same time, to abstain from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and to eat of every other tree of paradise. reply obj. 4: some say that in the state of innocence man would not have taken more than necessary food, so that there would have been nothing superfluous; which, however, is unreasonable to suppose, as implying that there would have been no faecal matter. wherefore there was need for voiding the surplus, yet so disposed by god as to be decorous and suitable to the state. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 97, art. 4] whether in the state of innocence man would have acquired immortality by the tree of life? objection 1: it would seem that the tree of life could not be the cause of immortality. for nothing can act beyond its own species; as an effect does not exceed its cause. but the tree of life was corruptible, otherwise it could not be taken as food; since food is changed into the substance of the thing nourished. therefore the tree of life could not give incorruptibility or immortality. obj. 2: further, effects caused by the forces of plants and other natural agencies are natural. if therefore the tree of life caused immortality, this would have been natural immortality. obj. 3: further, this would seem to be reduced to the ancient fable, that the gods, by eating a certain food, became immortal; which the philosopher ridicules (metaph. iii, did. ii, 4). _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 3:22): "lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." further, augustine says (qq. vet. et nov. test. qu. 19 [*work of an anonymous author], among the supposititious works of st. augustine): "a taste of the tree of life warded off corruption of the body; and even after sin man would have remained immortal, had he been allowed to eat of the tree of life." _i answer that,_ the tree of life in a certain degree was the cause of immortality, but not absolutely. to understand this, we must observe that in the primitive state man possessed, for the preservation of life, two remedies, against two defects. one of these defects was the lost of humidity by the action of natural heat, which acts as the soul's instrument: as a remedy against such loss man was provided with food, taken from the other trees of paradise, as now we are provided with the food, which we take for the same purpose. the second defect, as the philosopher says (de gener. i, 5), arises from the fact that the humor which is caused from extraneous sources, being added to the humor already existing, lessens the specific active power: as water added to wine takes at first the taste of wine, then, as more water is added, the strength of the wine is diminished, till the wine becomes watery. in like manner, we may observe that at first the active force of the species is so strong that it is able to transform so much of the food as is required to replace the lost tissue, as well as what suffices for growth; later on, however, the assimilated food does not suffice for growth, but only replaces what is lost. last of all, in old age, it does not suffice even for this purpose; whereupon the body declines, and finally dies from natural causes. against this defect man was provided with a remedy in the tree of life; for its effect was to strengthen the force of the species against the weakness resulting from the admixture of extraneous nutriment. wherefore augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 26): "man had food to appease his hunger, drink to slake his thirst; and the tree of life to banish the breaking up of old age"; and (qq. vet. et nov. test. qu. 19 [*work of an anonymous author], among the supposititious works of st. augustine) "the tree of life, like a drug, warded off all bodily corruption." yet it did not absolutely cause immortality; for neither was the soul's intrinsic power of preserving the body due to the tree of life, nor was it of such efficiency as to give the body a disposition to immortality, whereby it might become indissoluble; which is clear from the fact that every bodily power is finite; so the power of the tree of life could not go so far as to give the body the prerogative of living for an infinite time, but only for a definite time. for it is manifest that the greater a force is, the more durable is its effect; therefore, since the power of the tree of life was finite, man's life was to be preserved for a definite time by partaking of it once; and when that time had elapsed, man was to be either transferred to a spiritual life, or had need to eat once more of the tree of life. from this the replies to the objections clearly appear. for the first proves that the tree of life did not absolutely cause immortality; while the others show that it caused incorruption by warding off corruption, according to the explanation above given. _______________________ question 98 of the preservation of the species (in two articles) we next consider what belongs to the preservation of the species; and, first, of generation; secondly, of the state of the offspring. under the first head there are two points of inquiry: (1) whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation? (2) whether generation would have been through coition? _______________________ first article [q. 98, art. 1] whether in the state of innocence generation existed? objection 1: it would seem there would have been no generation in the state of innocence. for, as stated in _phys._ v, 5, "corruption is contrary to generation." but contraries affect the same subject: also there would have been no corruption in the state of innocence. therefore neither would there have been generation. obj. 2: further, the object of generation is the preservation in the species of that which is corruptible in the individual. wherefore there is no generation in those individual things which last for ever. but in the state of innocence man would have lived for ever. therefore in the state of innocence there would have been no generation. obj. 3: further, by generation man is multiplied. but the multiplication of masters requires the division of property, to avoid confusion of mastership. therefore, since man was made master of the animals, it would have been necessary to make a division of rights when the human race increased by generation. this is against the natural law, according to which all things are in common, as isidore says (etym. v, 4). therefore there would have been no generation in the state of innocence. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 1:28): "increase and multiply, and fill the earth." but this increase could not come about save by generation, since the original number of mankind was two only. therefore there would have been generation in the state of innocence. _i answer that,_ in the state of innocence there would have been generation of offspring for the multiplication of the human race; otherwise man's sin would have been very necessary, for such a great blessing to be its result. we must, therefore, observe that man, by his nature, is established, as it were, midway between corruptible and incorruptible creatures, his soul being naturally incorruptible, while his body is naturally corruptible. we must also observe that nature's purpose appears to be different as regards corruptible and incorruptible things. for that seems to be the direct purpose of nature, which is invariable and perpetual; while what is only for a time is seemingly not the chief purpose of nature, but as it were, subordinate to something else; otherwise, when it ceased to exist, nature's purpose would become void. therefore, since in things corruptible none is everlasting and permanent except the species, it follows that the chief purpose of nature is the good of the species; for the preservation of which natural generation is ordained. on the other hand, incorruptible substances survive, not only in the species, but also in the individual; wherefore even the individuals are included in the chief purpose of nature. hence it belongs to man to beget offspring, on the part of the naturally corruptible body. but on the part of the soul, which is incorruptible, it is fitting that the multitude of individuals should be the direct purpose of nature, or rather of the author of nature, who alone is the creator of the human soul. wherefore, to provide for the multiplication of the human race, he established the begetting of offspring even in the state of innocence. reply obj. 1: in the state of innocence the human body was in itself corruptible, but it could be preserved from corruption by the soul. therefore, since generation belongs to things corruptible, man was not to be deprived thereof. reply obj. 2: although generation in the state of innocence might not have been required for the preservation of the species, yet it would have been required for the multiplication of the individual. reply obj. 3: in our present state a division of possessions is necessary on account of the multiplicity of masters, inasmuch as community of possession is a source of strife, as the philosopher says (politic. ii, 5). in the state of innocence, however, the will of men would have been so ordered that without any danger of strife they would have used in common, according to each one's need, those things of which they were masters--a state of things to be observed even now among many good men. _______________________ second article [i, q. 98, art. 2] whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition? objection 1: it would seem that generation by coition would not have existed in the state of innocence. for, as damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 11; iv, 25), the first man in the terrestrial paradise was "like an angel." but in the future state of the resurrection, when men will be like the angels, "they shall neither marry nor be married," as is written matt. 22:30. therefore neither in paradise would there have been generation by coition. obj. 2: further, our first parents were created at the age of perfect development. therefore, if generation by coition had existed before sin, they would have had intercourse while still in paradise: which was not the case according to scripture (gen. 4:1). obj. 3: further, in carnal intercourse, more than at any other time, man becomes like the beasts, on account of the vehement delight which he takes therein; whence contingency is praiseworthy, whereby man refrains from such pleasures. but man is compared to beasts by reason of sin, according to ps. 48:13: "man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them." therefore, before sin, there would have been no such intercourse of man and woman. obj. 4: further, in the state of innocence there would have been no corruption. but virginal integrity is corrupted by intercourse. therefore there would have been no such thing in the state of innocence. _on the contrary,_ god made man and woman before sin (gen. 1, 2). but nothing is void in god's works. therefore, even if man had not sinned, there would have been such intercourse, to which the distinction of sex is ordained. moreover, we are told that woman was made to be a help to man (gen. 2:18, 20). but she is not fitted to help man except in generation, because another man would have proved a more effective help in anything else. therefore there would have been such generation also in the state of innocence. _i answer that,_ some of the earlier doctors, considering the nature of concupiscence as regards generation in our present state, concluded that in the state of innocence generation would not have been effected in the same way. thus gregory of nyssa says (de hom. opif. xvii) that in paradise the human race would have been multiplied by some other means, as the angels were multiplied without coition by the operation of the divine power. he adds that god made man male and female before sin, because he foreknew the mode of generation which would take place after sin, which he foresaw. but this is unreasonable. for what is natural to man was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin. now it is clear that generation by coition is natural to man by reason of his animal life, which he possessed even before sin, as above explained (q. 97, a. 3), just as it is natural to other perfect animals, as the corporeal members make it clear. so we cannot allow that these members would not have had a natural use, as other members had, before sin. thus, as regards generation by coition, there are, in the present state of life, two things to be considered. one, which comes from nature, is the union of man and woman; for in every act of generation there is an active and a passive principle. wherefore, since wherever there is distinction of sex, the active principle is male and the passive is female; the order of nature demands that for the purpose of generation there should be concurrence of male and female. the second thing to be observed is a certain deformity of excessive concupiscence, which in the state of innocence would not have existed, when the lower powers were entirely subject to reason. wherefore augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 26): "we must be far from supposing that offspring could not be begotten without concupiscence. all the bodily members would have been equally moved by the will, without ardent or wanton incentive, with calmness of soul and body." reply obj. 1: in paradise man would have been like an angel in his spirituality of mind, yet with an animal life in his body. after the resurrection man will be like an angel, spiritualized in soul and body. wherefore there is no parallel. reply obj. 2: as augustine says (gen. ad lit. ix, 4), our first parents did not come together in paradise, because on account of sin they were ejected from paradise shortly after the creation of the woman; or because, having received the general divine command relative to generation, they awaited the special command relative to time. reply obj. 3: beasts are without reason. in this way man becomes, as it were, like them in coition, because he cannot moderate concupiscence. in the state of innocence nothing of this kind would have happened that was not regulated by reason, not because delight of sense was less, as some say (rather indeed would sensible delight have been the greater in proportion to the greater purity of nature and the greater sensibility of the body), but because the force of concupiscence would not have so inordinately thrown itself into such pleasure, being curbed by reason, whose place it is not to lessen sensual pleasure, but to prevent the force of concupiscence from cleaving to it immoderately. by "immoderately" i mean going beyond the bounds of reason, as a sober person does not take less pleasure in food taken in moderation than the glutton, but his concupiscence lingers less in such pleasures. this is what augustine means by the words quoted, which do not exclude intensity of pleasure from the state of innocence, but ardor of desire and restlessness of the mind. therefore continence would not have been praiseworthy in the state of innocence, whereas it is praiseworthy in our present state, not because it removes fecundity, but because it excludes inordinate desire. in that state fecundity would have been without lust. reply obj. 4: as augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 26): in that state "intercourse would have been without prejudice to virginal integrity; this would have remained intact, as it does in the menses. and just as in giving birth the mother was then relieved, not by groans of pain, but by the instigations of maturity; so in conceiving, the union was one, not of lustful desire, but of deliberate action." _______________________ question 99 of the condition of the offspring as to the body (in two articles) we must now consider the condition of the offspring--first, as regards the body; secondly, as regards virtue; thirdly, in knowledge. under the first head there are two points of inquiry: (1) whether in the state of innocence children would have had full powers of the body immediately after birth? (2) whether all infants would have been of the male sex? _______________________ first article [i, q. 99, art. 1] whether in the state of innocence children would have had perfect strength of body as to the use of its members immediately after birth? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence children would have had perfect strength of the body, as to the use of its members, immediately after birth. for augustine says (de pecc. merit. et remiss. i, 38): "this weakness of the body befits their weakness of mind." but in the state of innocence there would have been no weakness of mind. therefore neither would there have been weakness of body in infants. obj. 2: further, some animals at birth have sufficient strength to use their members. but man is nobler than other animals. therefore much more is it natural to man to have strength to use his members at birth; and thus it appears to be a punishment of sin that he has not that strength. obj. 3: further, inability to secure a proffered pleasure causes affliction. but if children had not full strength in the use of their limbs, they would often have been unable to procure something pleasurable offered to them; and so they would have been afflicted, which was not possible before sin. therefore, in the state of innocence, children would not have been deprived of the use of their limbs. obj. 4: further, the weakness of old age seems to correspond to that of infancy. but in the state of innocence there would have been no weakness of old age. therefore neither would there have been such weakness in infancy. _on the contrary,_ everything generated is first imperfect. but in the state of innocence children would have been begotten by generation. therefore from the first they would have been imperfect in bodily size and power. _i answer that,_ by faith alone do we hold truths which are above nature, and what we believe rests on authority. wherefore, in making any assertion, we must be guided by the nature of things, except in those things which are above nature, and are made known to us by divine authority. now it is clear that it is as natural as it is befitting to the principles of human nature that children should not have sufficient strength for the use of their limbs immediately after birth. because in proportion to other animals man has naturally a larger brain. wherefore it is natural, on account of the considerable humidity of the brain in children, that the nerves which are instruments of movement, should not be apt for moving the limbs. on the other hand, no catholic doubts it possible for a child to have, by divine power, the use of its limbs immediately after birth. now we have it on the authority of scripture that "god made man right" (eccles. 7:30), which rightness, as augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 11), consists in the perfect subjection of the body to the soul. as, therefore, in the primitive state it was impossible to find in the human limbs anything repugnant to man's well-ordered will, so was it impossible for those limbs to fail in executing the will's commands. now the human will is well ordered when it tends to acts which are befitting to man. but the same acts are not befitting to man at every season of life. we must, therefore, conclude that children would not have had sufficient strength for the use of their limbs for the purpose of performing every kind of act; but only for the acts befitting the state of infancy, such as suckling, and the like. reply obj. 1: augustine is speaking of the weakness which we observe in children even as regards those acts which befit the state of infancy; as is clear from his preceding remark that "even when close to the breast, and longing for it, they are more apt to cry than to suckle." reply obj. 2: the fact that some animals have the use of their limbs immediately after birth, is due, not to their superiority, since more perfect animals are not so endowed; but to the dryness of the brain, and to the operations proper to such animals being imperfect, so that a small amount of strength suffices them. reply obj. 3 is clear from what we have said above. we may add that they would have desired nothing except with an ordinate will; and only what was befitting to their state of life. reply obj. 4: in the state of innocence man would have been born, yet not subject to corruption. therefore in that state there could have been certain infantile defects which result from birth; but not senile defects leading to corruption. _______________________ second article [i, q. 99, art. 2] whether, in the primitive state, women would have been born? objection 1: it would seem that in the primitive state woman would not have been born. for the philosopher says (de gener. animal. ii, 3) that woman is a "misbegotten male," as though she were a product outside the purpose of nature. but in that state nothing would have been unnatural in human generation. therefore in that state women would not have been born. obj. 2: further, every agent produces its like, unless prevented by insufficient power or ineptness of matter: thus a small fire cannot burn green wood. but in generation the active force is in the male. since, therefore, in the state of innocence man's active force was not subject to defect, nor was there inept matter on the part of the woman, it seems that males would always have been born. obj. 3: further, in the state of innocence generation is ordered to the multiplication of the human race. but the race would have been sufficiently multiplied by the first man and woman, from the fact that they would have lived for ever. therefore, in the state of innocence, there was no need for women to be born. _on the contrary,_ nature's process in generation would have been in harmony with the manner in which it was established by god. but god established male and female in human nature, as it is written (gen. 1, 2). therefore also in the state of innocence male and female would have been born. _i answer that,_ nothing belonging to the completeness of human nature would have been lacking in the state of innocence. and as different grades belong to the perfection of the universe, so also diversity of sex belongs to the perfection of human nature. therefore in the state of innocence, both sexes would have been begotten. reply obj. 1: woman is said to be a "misbegotten male," as being a product outside the purpose of nature considered in the individual case: but not against the purpose of universal nature, as above explained (q. 92, a. 1, ad 2). reply obj. 2: the generation of woman is not occasioned either by a defect of the active force or by inept matter, as the objection proposes; but sometimes by an extrinsic accidental cause; thus the philosopher says (de animal. histor. vi, 19): "the northern wind favors the generation of males, and the southern wind that of females": sometimes also by some impression in the soul (of the parents), which may easily have some effect on the body (of the child). especially was this the case in the state of innocence, when the body was more subject to the soul; so that by the mere will of the parent the sex of the offspring might be diversified. reply obj. 3: the offspring would have been begotten to an animal life, as to the use of food and generation. hence it was fitting that all should generate, and not only the first parents. from this it seems to follow that males and females would have been in equal number. _______________________ question 100 of the condition of the offspring as regards righteousness (in two articles) we now have to consider the condition of the offspring as to righteousness. under this head there are two points of inquiry: (1) whether men would have been born in a state of righteousness? (2) whether they would have been born confirmed in righteousness? _______________________ first article [i, q. 100, art. 1] whether men would have been born in a state of righteousness? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence men would not have been born in a state of righteousness. for hugh of st. victor says (de sacram. i): "before sin the first man would have begotten children sinless; but not heirs to their father's righteousness." obj. 2: further, righteousness is effected by grace, as the apostle says (rom. 5:16, 21). now grace is not transfused from one to another, for thus it would be natural; but is infused by god alone. therefore children would not have been born righteous. obj. 3: further, righteousness is in the soul. but the soul is not transmitted from the parent. therefore neither would righteousness have been transmitted from parents, to the children. _on the contrary,_ anselm says (de concep. virg. x): "as long as man did not sin, he would have begotten children endowed with righteousness together with the rational soul." _i answer that,_ man naturally begets a specific likeness to himself. hence whatever accidental qualities result from the nature of the species, must be alike in parent and child, unless nature fails in its operation, which would not have occurred in the state of innocence. but individual accidents do not necessarily exist alike in parent and child. now original righteousness, in which the first man was created, was an accident pertaining to the nature of the species, not as caused by the principles of the species, but as a gift conferred by god on the entire human nature. this is clear from the fact that opposites are of the same genus; and original sin, which is opposed to original righteousness, is called the sin of nature, wherefore it is transmitted from the parent to the offspring; and for this reason also, the children would have been assimilated to their parents as regards original righteousness. reply obj. 1: these words of hugh are to be understood as referring, not to the habit of righteousness, but to the execution of the act thereof. reply obj. 2: some say that children would have been born, not with the righteousness of grace, which is the principle of merit, but with original righteousness. but since the root of original righteousness, which conferred righteousness on the first man when he was made, consists in the supernatural subjection of the reason to god, which subjection results from sanctifying grace, as above explained (q. 95, a. 1), we must conclude that if children were born in original righteousness, they would also have been born in grace; thus we have said above that the first man was created in grace (q. 95, a. 1). this grace, however, would not have been natural, for it would not have been transfused by virtue of the semen; but would have been conferred on man immediately on his receiving a rational soul. in the same way the rational soul, which is not transmitted by the parent, is infused by god as soon as the human body is apt to receive it. from this the reply to the third objection is clear. _______________________ second article [i, q. 100, art. 2] whether in the state of innocence children would have been born confirmed in righteousness? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence children would have been born confirmed in righteousness. for gregory says (moral. iv) on the words of job 3:13: "for now i should have been asleep, etc.": "if no sinful corruption had infected our first parent, he would not have begotten 'children of hell'; no children would have been born of him but such as were destined to be saved by the redeemer." therefore all would have been born confirmed in righteousness. obj. 2: further, anselm says (cur deus homo i, 18): "if our first parents had lived so as not to yield to temptation, they would have been confirmed in grace, so that with their offspring they would have been unable to sin any more." therefore the children would have been born confirmed in righteousness. obj. 3: further, good is stronger than evil. but by the sin of the first man there resulted, in those born of him, the necessity of sin. therefore, if the first man had persevered in righteousness, his descendants would have derived from him the necessity of preserving righteousness. obj. 4: further, the angels who remained faithful to god, while the others sinned, were at once confirmed in grace, so as to be unable henceforth to sin. in like manner, therefore, man would have been confirmed in grace if he had persevered. but he would have begotten children like himself. therefore they also would have been born confirmed in righteousness. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de civ. dei xiv, 10): "happy would have been the whole human race if neither they--that is our first parents--had committed any evil to be transmitted to their descendants, nor any of their race had committed any sin for which they would have been condemned." from which words we gather that even if our first parents had not sinned, any of their descendants might have done evil; and therefore they would not have been born confirmed in righteousness. _i answer that,_ it does not seem possible that in the state of innocence children would have been born confirmed in righteousness. for it is clear that at their birth they would not have had greater perfection than their parents at the time of begetting. now the parents, as long as they begot children, would not have been confirmed in righteousness. for the rational creature is confirmed in righteousness through the beatitude given by the clear vision of god; and when once it has seen god, it cannot but cleave to him who is the essence of goodness, wherefrom no one can turn away, since nothing is desired or loved but under the aspect of good. i say this according to the general law; for it may be otherwise in the case of special privilege, such as we believe was granted to the virgin mother of god. and as soon as adam had attained to that happy state of seeing god in his essence, he would have become spiritual in soul and body; and his animal life would have ceased, wherein alone there is generation. hence it is clear that children would not have been born confirmed in righteousness. reply obj. 1: if adam had not sinned, he would not have begotten "children of hell" in the sense that they would contract from him sin which is the cause of hell: yet by sinning of their own free-will they could have become "children of hell." if, however, they did not become "children of hell" by falling into sin, this would not have been owing to their being confirmed in righteousness, but to divine providence preserving them free from sin. reply obj. 2: anselm does not say this by way of assertion, but only as an opinion, which is clear from his mode of expression as follows: "it seems that if they had lived, etc." reply obj. 3: this argument is not conclusive, though anselm seems to have been influenced by it, as appears from his words above quoted. for the necessity of sin incurred by the descendants would not have been such that they could not return to righteousness, which is the case only with the damned. wherefore neither would the parents have transmitted to their descendants the necessity of not sinning, which is only in the blessed. reply obj. 4: there is no comparison between man and the angels; for man's free-will is changeable, both before and after choice; whereas the angel's is not changeable, as we have said above in treating of the angels (q. 64, a. 2). _______________________ question 101 of the condition of the offspring as regards knowledge (in two articles) we next consider the condition of the offspring as to knowledge. under this head there are two points of inquiry: (1) whether in the state of innocence children would have been born with perfect knowledge? (2) whether they would have had perfect use of reason at the moment of birth? _______________________ first article [i, q. 101, art. 1] whether in the state of innocence children would have been born with perfect knowledge? objection 1: it would seem that in the state of innocence children would have been born with perfect knowledge. for adam would have begotten children like himself. but adam was gifted with perfect knowledge (q. 94, a. 3). therefore children would have been born of him with perfect knowledge. obj. 2: further, ignorance is a result of sin, as bede says (cf. i-ii, q. 85, a. 3). but ignorance is privation of knowledge. therefore before sin children would have had perfect knowledge as soon as they were born. obj. 3: further, children would have been gifted with righteousness from birth. but knowledge is required for righteousness, since it directs our actions. therefore they would also have been gifted with knowledge. _on the contrary,_ the human soul is naturally "like a blank tablet on which nothing is written," as the philosopher says (de anima iii, 4). but the nature of the soul is the same now as it would have been in the state of innocence. therefore the souls of children would have been without knowledge at birth. _i answer that,_ as above stated (q. 99, a. 1), as regards belief in matters which are above nature, we rely on authority alone; and so, when authority is wanting, we must be guided by the ordinary course of nature. now it is natural for man to acquire knowledge through the senses, as above explained (q. 55, a. 2; q. 84, a. 6); and for this reason is the soul united to the body, that it needs it for its proper operation; and this would not be so if the soul were endowed at birth with knowledge not acquired through the sensitive powers. we must conclude then, that, in the state of innocence, children would not have been born with perfect knowledge; but in course of time they would have acquired knowledge without difficulty by discovery or learning. reply obj. 1: the perfection of knowledge was an individual accident of our first parent, so far as he was established as the father and instructor of the whole human race. therefore he begot children like himself, not in that respect, but only in those accidents which were natural or conferred gratuitously on the whole nature. reply obj. 2: ignorance is privation of knowledge due at some particular time; and this would not have been in children from their birth, for they would have possessed the knowledge due to them at that time. hence, no ignorance would have been in them, but only nescience in regard to certain matters. such nescience was even in the holy angels, according to dionysius (coel. hier. vii). reply obj. 3: children would have had sufficient knowledge to direct them to deeds of righteousness, in which men are guided by universal principles of right; and this knowledge of theirs would have been much more complete than what we have now by nature, as likewise their knowledge of other universal principles. _______________________ second article [i, q. 101, art. 2] whether children would have had perfect use of reason at birth? objection 1: it would seem that children would have had perfect use of reason at birth. for that children have not perfect use of reason in our present state, is due to the soul being weighed down by the body; which was not the case in paradise, because, as it is written, "the corruptible body is a load upon the soul" (wis. 9:15). therefore, before sin and the corruption which resulted therefrom, children would have had the perfect use of reason at birth. obj. 2: further, some animals at birth have the use of their natural powers, as the lamb at once flees from the wolf. much more, therefore, would men in the state of innocence have had perfect use of reason at birth. _on the contrary,_ in all things produced by generation nature proceeds from the imperfect to the perfect. therefore children would not have had the perfect use of reason from the very outset. _i answer that,_ as above stated (q. 84, a. 7), the use of reason depends in a certain manner on the use of the sensitive powers; wherefore, while the senses are tired and the interior sensitive powers hampered, man has not the perfect use of reason, as we see in those who are asleep or delirious. now the sensitive powers are situate in corporeal organs; and therefore, so long as the latter are hindered, the action of the former is of necessity hindered also; and likewise, consequently, the use of reason. now children are hindered in the use of these powers on account of the humidity of the brain; wherefore they have perfect use neither of these powers nor of reason. therefore, in the state of innocence, children would not have had the perfect use of reason, which they would have enjoyed later on in life. yet they would have had a more perfect use than they have now, as to matters regarding that particular state, as explained above regarding the use of their limbs (q. 99, a. 1). reply obj. 1: the corruptible body is a load upon the soul, because it hinders the use of reason even in those matters which belong to man at all ages. reply obj. 2: even other animals have not at birth such a perfect use of their natural powers as they have later on. this is clear from the fact that birds teach their young to fly; and the like may be observed in other animals. moreover a special impediment exists in man from the humidity of the brain, as we have said above (q. 99, a. 1). _______________________ question 102 of man's abode, which is paradise (in four articles) we next consider man's abode, which is paradise. under this head there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether paradise is a corporeal place? (2) whether it is a place apt for human habitation? (3) for what purpose was man placed in paradise? (4) whether he should have been created in paradise? _______________________ first article [i, q. 102, art. 1] whether paradise is a corporeal place? objection 1: it would seem that paradise is not a corporeal place. for bede [*strabus, gloss on gen. 2:8] says that "paradise reaches to the lunar circle." but no earthly place answers that description, both because it is contrary to the nature of the earth to be raised up so high, and because beneath the moon is the region of fire, which would consume the earth. therefore paradise is not a corporeal place. obj. 2: further, scripture mentions four rivers as rising in paradise (gen. 2:10). but the rivers there mentioned have visible sources elsewhere, as is clear from the philosopher (meteor. i). therefore paradise is not a corporeal place. obj. 3: further, although men have explored the entire habitable world, yet none have made mention of the place of paradise. therefore apparently it is not a corporeal place. obj. 4: further, the tree of life is described as growing in paradise. but the tree of life is a spiritual thing, for it is written of wisdom that "she is a tree of life to them that lay hold on her" (prov. 3:18). therefore paradise also is not a corporeal, but a spiritual place. obj. 5: further, if paradise be a corporeal place, the trees also of paradise must be corporeal. but it seems they were not; for corporeal trees were produced on the third day, while the planting of the trees of paradise is recorded after the work of the six days. therefore paradise was not a corporeal place. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (gen. ad lit. viii, 1): "three general opinions prevail about paradise. some understand a place merely corporeal; others a place entirely spiritual; while others, whose opinion, i confess, pleases me, hold that paradise was both corporeal and spiritual." _i answer that,_ as augustine says (de civ. dei xiii, 21): "nothing prevents us from holding, within proper limits, a spiritual paradise; so long as we believe in the truth of the events narrated as having there occurred." for whatever scripture tells us about paradise is set down as matter of history; and wherever scripture makes use of this method, we must hold to the historical truth of the narrative as a foundation of whatever spiritual explanation we may offer. and so paradise, as isidore says (etym. xiv, 3), "is a place situated in the east, its name being the greek for garden." it was fitting that it should be in the east; for it is to be believed that it was situated in the most excellent part of the earth. now the east is the right hand on the heavens, as the philosopher explains (de coel. ii, 2); and the right hand is nobler than the left: hence it was fitting that god should place the earthly paradise in the east. reply obj. 1: bede's assertion is untrue, if taken in its obvious sense. it may, however, be explained to mean that paradise reaches to the moon, not literally, but figuratively; because, as isidore says (etym. xiv, 3), the atmosphere there is "a continually even temperature"; and in this respect it is like the heavenly bodies, which are devoid of opposing elements. mention, however, is made of the moon rather than of other bodies, because, of all the heavenly bodies, the moon is nearest to us, and is, moreover, the most akin to the earth; hence it is observed to be overshadowed by clouds so as to be almost obscured. others say that paradise reached to the moon--that is, to the middle space of the air, where rain, and wind, and the like arise; because the moon is said to have influence on such changes. but in this sense it would not be a fit place for human dwelling, through being uneven in temperature, and not attuned to the human temperament, as is the lower atmosphere in the neighborhood of the earth. reply obj. 2: augustine says (gen. ad lit. viii, 7): "it is probable that man has no idea where paradise was, and that the rivers, whose sources are said to be known, flowed for some distance underground, and then sprang up elsewhere. for who is not aware that such is the case with some other streams?" reply obj. 3: the situation of paradise is shut off from the habitable world by mountains, or seas, or some torrid region, which cannot be crossed; and so people who have written about topography make no mention of it. reply obj. 4: the tree of life is a material tree, and so called because its fruit was endowed with a life-preserving power as above stated (q. 97, a. 4). yet it had a spiritual signification; as the rock in the desert was of a material nature, and yet signified christ. in like manner the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a material tree, so called in view of future events; because, after eating of it, man was to learn, by experience of the consequent punishment, the difference between the good of obedience and the evil of rebellion. it may also be said to signify spiritually the free-will as some say. reply obj. 5: according to augustine (gen. ad lit. v, 5, viii, 3), the plants were not actually produced on the third day, but in their seminal virtues; whereas, after the work of the six days, the plants, both of paradise and others, were actually produced. according to other holy writers, we ought to say that all the plants were actually produced on the third day, including the trees of paradise; and what is said of the trees of paradise being planted after the work of the six days is to be understood, they say, by way of recapitulation. whence our text reads: "the lord god had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning" (gen. 2:8). _______________________ second article [i, q. 102, art. 2] whether paradise was a place adapted to be the abode of man? objection 1: it would seem that paradise was not a place adapted to be the abode of man. for man and angels are similarly ordered to beatitude. but the angels from the very beginning of their existence were made to dwell in the abode of the blessed--that is, the empyrean heaven. therefore the place of man's habitation should have been there also. obj. 2: further, if some definite place were required for man's abode, this would be required on the part either of the soul or of the body. if on the part of the soul, the place would be in heaven, which is adapted to the nature of the soul; since the desire of heaven is implanted in all. on the part of the body, there was no need for any other place than the one provided for other animals. therefore paradise was not at all adapted to be the abode of man. obj. 3: further, a place which contains nothing is useless. but after sin, paradise was not occupied by man. therefore if it were adapted as a dwelling-place for man, it seems that god made paradise to no purpose. obj. 4: further, since man is of an even temperament, a fitting place for him should be of even temperature. but paradise was not of an even temperature; for it is said to have been on the equator--a situation of extreme heat, since twice in the year the sun passes vertically over the heads of its inhabitants. therefore paradise was not a fit dwelling-place for man. _on the contrary,_ damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 11): "paradise was a divinely ordered region, and worthy of him who was made to god's image." _i answer that,_ as above stated (q. 97, a. 1), man was incorruptible and immortal, not because his body had a disposition to incorruptibility, but because in his soul there was a power preserving the body from corruption. now the human body may be corrupted from within or from without. from within, the body is corrupted by the consumption of the humors, and by old age, as above explained (q. 97, a. 4), and man was able to ward off such corruption by food. among those things which corrupt the body from without, the chief seems to be an atmosphere of unequal temperature; and to such corruption a remedy is found in an atmosphere of equable nature. in paradise both conditions were found; because, as damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 11): "paradise was permeated with the all pervading brightness of a temperate, pure, and exquisite atmosphere, and decked with ever-flowering plants." whence it is clear that paradise was most fit to be a dwelling-place for man, and in keeping with his original state of immortality. reply obj. 1: the empyrean heaven is the highest of corporeal places, and is outside the region of change. by the first of these two conditions, it is a fitting abode for the angelic nature: for, as augustine says (de trin. ii), "god rules corporeal creatures through spiritual creatures." hence it is fitting that the spiritual nature should be established above the entire corporeal nature, as presiding over it. by the second condition, it is a fitting abode for the state of beatitude, which is endowed with the highest degree of stability. thus the abode of beatitude was suited to the very nature of the angel; therefore he was created there. but it is not suited to man's nature, since man is not set as a ruler over the entire corporeal creation: it is a fitting abode for man in regard only to his beatitude. wherefore he was not placed from the beginning in the empyrean heaven, but was destined to be transferred thither in the state of his final beatitude. reply obj. 2: it is ridiculous to assert that any particular place is natural to the soul or to any spiritual substances, though some particular place may have a certain fitness in regard to spiritual substances. for the earthly paradise was a place adapted to man, as regards both his body and his soul--that is, inasmuch as in his soul was the force which preserved the human body from corruption. this could not be said of the other animals. therefore, as damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 11): "no irrational animal inhabited paradise"; although, by a certain dispensation, the animals were brought thither by god to adam; and the serpent was able to trespass therein by the complicity of the devil. reply obj. 3: paradise did not become useless through being unoccupied by man after sin, just as immortality was not conferred on man in vain, though he was to lose it. for thereby we learn god's kindness to man, and what man lost by sin. moreover, some say that enoch and elias still dwell in that paradise. reply obj. 4: those who say that paradise was on the equinoctial line are of opinion that such a situation is most temperate, on account of the unvarying equality of day and night; that it is never too cold there, because the sun is never too far off; and never too hot, because, although the sun passes over the heads of the inhabitants, it does not remain long in that position. however, aristotle distinctly says (meteor. ii, 5) that such a region is uninhabitable on account of the heat. this seems to be more probable; because, even those regions where the sun does not pass vertically overhead, are extremely hot on account of the mere proximity of the sun. but whatever be the truth of the matter, we must hold that paradise was situated in a most temperate situation, whether on the equator or elsewhere. _______________________ third article [i, q. 102, art. 3] whether man was placed in paradise to dress it and keep it? objection 1: it would seem that man was not placed in paradise to dress and keep it. for what was brought on him as a punishment of sin would not have existed in paradise in the state of innocence. but the cultivation of the soil was a punishment of sin (gen. 3:17). therefore man was not placed in paradise to dress and keep it. obj. 2: further, there is no need of a keeper when there is no fear of trespass with violence. but in paradise there was no fear of trespass with violence. therefore there was no need for man to keep paradise. obj. 3: further, if man was placed in paradise to dress and keep it, man would apparently have been made for the sake of paradise, and not contrariwise; which seems to be false. therefore man was not place in paradise to dress and keep it. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 2: 15): "the lord god took man and placed in the paradise of pleasure, to dress and keep it." _i answer that,_ as augustine says (gen. ad lit. viii, 10), these words in genesis may be understood in two ways. first, in the sense that god placed man in paradise that he might himself work in man and keep him, by sanctifying him (for if this work cease, man at once relapses into darkness, as the air grows dark when the light ceases to shine); and by keeping man from all corruption and evil. secondly, that man might dress and keep paradise, which dressing would not have involved labor, as it did after sin; but would have been pleasant on account of man's practical knowledge of the powers of nature. nor would man have kept paradise against a trespasser; but he would have striven to keep paradise for himself lest he should lose it by sin. all of which was for man's good; wherefore paradise was ordered to man's benefit, and not conversely. whence the replies to the objections are made clear. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 102, art. 4] whether man was created in paradise? objection 1: it would seem that man was created in paradise. for the angel was created in his dwelling-place--namely, the empyrean heaven. but before sin paradise was a fitting abode for man. therefore it seems that man was created in paradise. obj. 2: further, other animals remain in the place where they are produced, as the fish in the water, and walking animals on the earth from which they were made. now man would have remained in paradise after he was created (q. 97, a. 4). therefore he was created in paradise. obj. 3: further, woman was made in paradise. but man is greater than woman. therefore much more should man have been made in paradise. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 2:15): "god took man and placed him in paradise." _i answer that,_ paradise was a fitting abode for man as regards the incorruptibility of the primitive state. now this incorruptibility was man's, not by nature, but by a supernatural gift of god. therefore that this might be attributed to god, and not to human nature, god made man outside of paradise, and afterwards placed him there to live there during the whole of his animal life; and, having attained to the spiritual life, to be transferred thence to heaven. reply obj. 1: the empyrean heaven was a fitting abode for the angels as regards their nature, and therefore they were created there. in the same way i reply to the second objection, for those places befit those animals in their nature. reply obj. 3: woman was made in paradise, not by reason of her own dignity, but on account of the dignity of the principle from which her body was formed. for the same reason the children would have been born in paradise, where their parents were already. _______________________ treatise on the conservation and government of creatures (qq. 103-119) _______________________ question 103 of the government of things in general (in eight articles) having considered the creation of things and their distinction, we now consider in the third place the government thereof, and (1) the government of things in general; (2) in particular, the effects of this government. under the first head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) whether the world is governed by someone? (2) what is the end of this government? (3) whether the world is governed by one? (4) of the effects of this government? (5) whether all things are subject to divine government? (6) whether all things are immediately governed by god? (7) whether the divine government is frustrated in anything? (8) whether anything is contrary to the divine providence? _______________________ first article [i, q. 103, art. 1] whether the world is governed by anyone? objection 1: it would seem that the world is not governed by anyone. for it belongs to those things to be governed, which move or work for an end. but natural things which make up the greater part of the world do not move, or work for an end; for they have no knowledge of their end. therefore the world is not governed. obj. 2: further, those things are governed which are moved towards an object. but the world does not appear to be so directed, but has stability in itself. therefore it is not governed. obj. 3: further, what is necessarily determined by its own nature to one particular thing, does not require any external principle of government. but the principal parts of the world are by a certain necessity determined to something particular in their actions and movements. therefore the world does not require to be governed. _on the contrary,_ it is written (wis. 14:3): "but thou, o father, governest all things by thy providence." and boethius says (de consol. iii): "thou who governest this universe by mandate eternal." _i answer that,_ certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance. but such an opinion can be refuted as impossible in two ways. first, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as tullius says (de nat. deorum ii), quoting aristotle [*cleanthes]. secondly, this is clear from a consideration of divine goodness, which, as we have said above (q. 44, a. 4; q. 65, a. 2), was the cause of the production of things in existence. for as "it belongs to the best to produce the best," it is not fitting that the supreme goodness of god should produce things without giving them their perfection. now a thing's ultimate perfection consists in the attainment of its end. therefore it belongs to the divine goodness, as it brought things into existence, so to lead them to their end: and this is to govern. reply obj. 1: a thing moves or operates for an end in two ways. first, in moving itself to the end, as man and other rational creatures; and such things have knowledge of their end, and of the means to the end. secondly, a thing is said to move or operate for an end, as though moved or directed by another thereto, as an arrow directed to the target by the archer, who knows the end unknown to the arrow. wherefore, as the movement of the arrow towards a definite end shows clearly that it is directed by someone with knowledge, so the unvarying course of natural things which are without knowledge, shows clearly that the world is governed by some reason. reply obj. 2: in all created things there is a stable element, at least primary matter; and something belonging to movement, if under movement we include operation. and things need governing as to both: because even that which is stable, since it is created from nothing, would return to nothingness were it not sustained by a governing hand, as will be explained later (q. 104, a. 1). reply obj. 3: the natural necessity inherent in those beings which are determined to a particular thing, is a kind of impression from god, directing them to their end; as the necessity whereby an arrow is moved so as to fly towards a certain point is an impression from the archer, and not from the arrow. but there is a difference, inasmuch as that which creatures receive from god is their nature, while that which natural things receive from man in addition to their nature is somewhat violent. wherefore, as the violent necessity in the movement of the arrow shows the action of the archer, so the natural necessity of things shows the government of divine providence. _______________________ second article [i, q. 103, art. 2] whether the end of the government of the world is something outside the world? objection 1: it would seem that the end of the government of the world is not something existing outside the world. for the end of the government of a thing is that whereto the thing governed is brought. but that whereto a thing is brought is some good in the thing itself; thus a sick man is brought back to health, which is something good in him. therefore the end of government of things is some good not outside, but within the things themselves. obj. 2: further, the philosopher says (ethic. i, 1): "some ends are an operation; some are a work"--i.e. produced by an operation. but nothing can be produced by the whole universe outside itself; and operation exists in the agent. therefore nothing extrinsic can be the end of the government of things. obj. 3: further, the good of the multitude seems to consist in order, and peace which is the "tranquillity of order," as augustine says (de civ. dei xix, 13). but the world is composed of a multitude of things. therefore the end of the government of the world is the peaceful order in things themselves. therefore the end of the government of the world is not an extrinsic good. _on the contrary,_ it is written (prov. 16:4): "the lord hath made all things for himself." but god is outside the entire order of the universe. therefore the end of all things is something extrinsic to them. _i answer that,_ as the end of a thing corresponds to its beginning, it is not possible to be ignorant of the end of things if we know their beginning. therefore, since the beginning of all things is something outside the universe, namely, god, it is clear from what has been expounded above (q. 44, aa. 1, 2), that we must conclude that the end of all things is some extrinsic good. this can be proved by reason. for it is clear that good has the nature of an end; wherefore, a particular end of anything consists in some particular good; while the universal end of all things is the universal good; which is good of itself by virtue of its essence, which is the very essence of goodness; whereas a particular good is good by participation. now it is manifest that in the whole created universe there is not a good which is not such by participation. wherefore that good which is the end of the whole universe must be a good outside the universe. reply obj. 1: we may acquire some good in many ways: first, as a form existing in us, such as health or knowledge; secondly, as something done by us, as a builder attains his end by building a house; thirdly, as something good possessed or acquired by us, as the buyer of a field attains his end when he enters into possession. wherefore nothing prevents something outside the universe being the good to which it is directed. reply obj. 2: the philosopher is speaking of the ends of various arts; for the end of some arts consists in the operation itself, as the end of a harpist is to play the harp; whereas the end of other arts consists in something produced, as the end of a builder is not the act of building, but the house he builds. now it may happen that something extrinsic is the end not only as made, but also as possessed or acquired or even as represented, as if we were to say that hercules is the end of the statue made to represent him. therefore we may say that some good outside the whole universe is the end of the government of the universe, as something possessed and represented; for each thing tends to a participation thereof, and to an assimilation thereto, as far as is possible. reply obj. 3: a good existing in the universe, namely, the order of the universe, is an end thereof; this, however, is not its ultimate end, but is ordered to the extrinsic good as to the end: thus the order in an army is ordered to the general, as stated in _metaph._ xii, did. xi, 10. _______________________ third article [i, q. 103, art. 3] whether the world is governed by one? objection 1: it would seem that the world is not governed by one. for we judge the cause by the effect. now, we see in the government of the universe that things are not moved and do not operate uniformly, but some contingently and some of necessity in variously different ways. therefore the world is not governed by one. obj. 2: further, things which are governed by one do not act against each other, except by the incapacity or unskillfulness of the ruler; which cannot apply to god. but created things agree not together, and act against each other; as is evident in the case of contraries. therefore the world is not governed by one. obj. 3: further, in nature we always find what is the better. but it "is better that two should be together than one" (eccles. 4:9). therefore the world is not governed by one, but by many. _on the contrary,_ we confess our belief in one god and one lord, according to the words of the apostle (1 cor. 8:6): "to us there is but one god, the father . . . and one lord": and both of these pertain to government. for to the lord belongs dominion over subjects; and the name of god is taken from providence as stated above (q. 13, a. 8). therefore the world is governed by one. _i answer that,_ we must of necessity say that the world is governed by one. for since the end of the government of the world is that which is essentially good, which is the greatest good; the government of the world must be the best kind of government. now the best government is the government by one. the reason of this is that government is nothing but the directing of the things governed to the end; which consists in some good. but unity belongs to the idea of goodness, as boethius proves (de consol. iii, 11) from this, that, as all things desire good, so do they desire unity; without which they would cease to exist. for a thing so far exists as it is one. whence we observe that things resist division, as far as they can; and the dissolution of a thing arises from defect therein. therefore the intention of a ruler over a multitude is unity, or peace. now the proper cause of unity is one. for it is clear that several cannot be the cause of unity or concord, except so far as they are united. furthermore, what is one in itself is a more apt and a better cause of unity than several things united. therefore a multitude is better governed by one than by several. from this it follows that the government of the world, being the best form of government, must be by one. this is expressed by the philosopher (metaph. xii, did. xi, 10): "things refuse to be ill governed; and multiplicity of authorities is a bad thing, therefore there should be one ruler." reply obj. 1: movement is "the act of a thing moved, caused by the mover." wherefore dissimilarity of movements is caused by diversity of things moved, which diversity is essential to the perfection of the universe (q. 47, aa. 1,2; q. 48, a. 2), and not by a diversity of governors. reply obj. 2: although contraries do not agree with each other in their proximate ends, nevertheless they agree in the ultimate end, so far as they are included in the one order of the universe. reply obj. 3: if we consider individual goods, then two are better than one. but if we consider the essential good, then no addition is possible. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 103, art. 4] whether the effect of government is one or many? objection 1: it would seem that there is but one effect of the government of the world and not many. for the effect of government is that which is caused in the things governed. this is one, namely, the good which consists in order; as may be seen in the example of an army. therefore the government of the world has but one effect. obj. 2: further, from one there naturally proceeds but one. but the world is governed by one as we have proved (a. 3). therefore also the effect of this government is but one. obj. 3: further, if the effect of government is not one by reason of the unity of the governor, it must be many by reason of the many things governed. but these are too numerous to be counted. therefore we cannot assign any definite number to the effects of government. _on the contrary,_ dionysius says (div. nom. xii): "god contains all and fills all by his providence and perfect goodness." but government belongs to providence. therefore there are certain definite effects of the divine government. _i answer that,_ the effect of any action may be judged from its end; because it is by action that the attainment of the end is effected. now the end of the government of the world is the essential good, to the participation and similarity of which all things tend. consequently the effect of the government of the world may be taken in three ways. first, on the part of the end itself; and in this way there is but one effect, that is, assimilation to the supreme good. secondly, the effect of the government of the world may be considered on the part of those things by means of which the creature is made like to god. thus there are, in general, two effects of the government. for the creature is assimilated to god in two things; first, with regard to this, that god is good; and so the creature becomes like him by being good; and secondly, with regard to this, that god is the cause of goodness in others; and so the creature becomes like god by moving others to be good. wherefore there are two effects of government, the preservation of things in their goodness, and the moving of things to good. thirdly, we may consider in the individual the effects of the government of the world; and in this way they are without number. reply obj. 1: the order of the universe includes both the preservation of things created by god and their movement. as regards these two things we find order among them, inasmuch as one is better than another; and one is moved by another. from what has been said above, we can gather the replies to the other two objections. _______________________ fifth article [i, q. 103, art. 5] whether all things are subject to the divine government? objection 1: it would seem that not all things are subject to the divine government. for it is written (eccles. 9:11): "i saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favor to the skillful, but time and chance in all." but things subject to the divine government are not ruled by chance. therefore those things which are under the sun are not subject to the divine government. obj. 2: further, the apostle says (1 cor. 9:9): "god hath no care for oxen." but he that governs has care for the things he governs. therefore all things are not subject to the divine government. obj. 3: further, what can govern itself needs not to be governed by another. but the rational creature can govern itself; since it is master of its own act, and acts of itself; and is not made to act by another, which seems proper to things which are governed. therefore all things are not subject to the divine government. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de civ. dei v, 11): "not only heaven and earth, not only man and angel, even the bowels of the lowest animal, even the wing of the bird, the flower of the plant, the leaf of the tree, hath god endowed with every fitting detail of their nature." therefore all things are subject to his government. _i answer that,_ for the same reason is god the ruler of things as he is their cause, because the same gives existence as gives perfection; and this belongs to government. now god is the cause not indeed only of some particular kind of being, but of the whole universal being, as proved above (q. 44, aa. 1, 2). wherefore, as there can be nothing which is not created by god, so there can be nothing which is not subject to his government. this can also be proved from the nature of the end of government. for a man's government extends over all those things which come under the end of his government. now the end of the divine government is the divine goodness; as we have shown (a. 2). wherefore, as there can be nothing that is not ordered to the divine goodness as its end, as is clear from what we have said above (q. 44, a. 4; q. 65, a. 2), so it is impossible for anything to escape from the divine government. foolish therefore was the opinion of those who said that the corruptible lower world, or individual things, or that even human affairs, were not subject to the divine government. these are represented as saying, "god hath abandoned the earth" (ezech. 9:9). reply obj. 1: these things are said to be under the sun which are generated and corrupted according to the sun's movement. in all such things we find chance: not that everything is casual which occurs in such things; but that in each one there is an element of chance. and the very fact that an element of chance is found in those things proves that they are subject to government of some kind. for unless corruptible things were governed by a higher being, they would tend to nothing definite, especially those which possess no kind of knowledge. so nothing would happen unintentionally; which constitutes the nature of chance. wherefore to show how things happen by chance and yet according to the ordering of a higher cause, he does not say absolutely that he observes chance in all things, but "time and chance," that is to say, that defects may be found in these things according to some order of time. reply obj. 2: government implies a certain change effected by the governor in the things governed. now every movement is the act of a movable thing, caused by the moving principle, as is laid down _phys._ iii, 3. and every act is proportionate to that of which it is an act. consequently, various movable things must be moved variously, even as regards movement by one and the same mover. thus by the one art of the divine governor, various things are variously governed according to their variety. some, according to their nature, act of themselves, having dominion over their actions; and these are governed by god, not only in this, that they are moved by god himself, who works in them interiorly; but also in this, that they are induced by him to do good and to fly from evil, by precepts and prohibitions, rewards and punishments. but irrational creatures which do not act but are acted upon, are not thus governed by god. hence, when the apostle says that "god hath no care for oxen," he does not wholly withdraw them from the divine government, but only as regards the way in which rational creatures are governed. reply obj. 3: the rational creature governs itself by its intellect and will, both of which require to be governed and perfected by the divine intellect and will. therefore above the government whereby the rational creature governs itself as master of its own act, it requires to be governed by god. _______________________ sixth article [i, q. 103, art. 6] whether all things are immediately governed by god? objection 1: it would seem that all things are governed by god immediately. for gregory of nyssa (nemesius, de nat. hom.) reproves the opinion of plato who divides providence into three parts. the first he ascribes to the supreme god, who watches over heavenly things and all universals; the second providence he attributes to the secondary deities, who go the round of the heavens to watch over generation and corruption; while he ascribes a third providence to certain spirits who are guardians on earth of human actions. therefore it seems that all things are immediately governed by god. obj. 2: further, it is better that a thing be done by one, if possible, than by many, as the philosopher says (phys. viii, 6). but god can by himself govern all things without any intermediary cause. therefore it seems that he governs all things immediately. obj. 3: further, in god nothing is defective or imperfect. but it seems to be imperfect in a ruler to govern by means of others; thus an earthly king, by reason of his not being able to do everything himself, and because he cannot be everywhere at the same time, requires to govern by means of ministers. therefore god governs all things immediately. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de trin. iii, 4): "as the lower and grosser bodies are ruled in a certain orderly way by bodies of greater subtlety and power; so all bodies are ruled by the rational spirit of life; and the sinful and unfaithful spirit is ruled by the good and just spirit of life; and this spirit by god himself." _i answer that,_ in government there are two things to be considered; the design of government, which is providence itself; and the execution of the design. as to the design of government, god governs all things immediately; whereas in its execution, he governs some things by means of others. the reason of this is that as god is the very essence of goodness, so everything must be attributed to god in its highest degree of goodness. now the highest degree of goodness in any practical order, design or knowledge (and such is the design of government) consists in knowing the individuals acted upon; as the best physician is not the one who can only give his attention to general principles, but who can consider the least details; and so on in other things. therefore we must say that god has the design of the government of all things, even of the very least. but since things which are governed should be brought to perfection by government, this government will be so much the better in the degree the things governed are brought to perfection. now it is a greater perfection for a thing to be good in itself and also the cause of goodness in others, than only to be good in itself. therefore god so governs things that he makes some of them to be causes of others in government; as a master, who not only imparts knowledge to his pupils, but gives also the faculty of teaching others. reply obj. 1: plato's opinion is to be rejected, because he held that god did not govern all things immediately, even in the design of government; this is clear from the fact that he divided providence, which is the design of government, into three parts. reply obj. 2: if god governed alone, things would be deprived of the perfection of causality. wherefore all that is effected by many would not be accomplished by one. reply obj. 3: that an earthly king should have ministers to execute his laws is a sign not only of his being imperfect, but also of his dignity; because by the ordering of ministers the kingly power is brought into greater evidence. _______________________ seventh article [i, q. 103, art. 7] whether anything can happen outside the order of the divine government? objection 1: it would seem possible that something may occur outside the order of the divine government. for boethius says (de consol. iii) that "god disposes all for good." therefore, if nothing happens outside the order of the divine government, it would follow that no evil exists. obj. 2: further, nothing that is in accordance with the pre-ordination of a ruler occurs by chance. therefore, if nothing occurs outside the order of the divine government, it follows that there is nothing fortuitous and casual. obj. 3: further, the order of divine providence is certain and unchangeable; because it is in accordance with the eternal design. therefore, if nothing happens outside the order of the divine government, it follows that all things happen by necessity, and nothing is contingent; which is false. therefore it is possible for something to occur outside the order of the divine government. _on the contrary,_ it is written (esther 13:9): "o lord, lord, almighty king, all things are in thy power, and there is none that can resist thy will." _i answer that,_ it is possible for an effect to result outside the order of some particular cause; but not outside the order of the universal cause. the reason of this is that no effect results outside the order of a particular cause, except through some other impeding cause; which other cause must itself be reduced to the first universal cause; as indigestion may occur outside the order of the nutritive power by some such impediment as the coarseness of the food, which again is to be ascribed to some other cause, and so on till we come to the first universal cause. therefore as god is the first universal cause, not of one genus only, but of all being in general, it is impossible for anything to occur outside the order of the divine government; but from the very fact that from one point of view something seems to evade the order of divine providence considered in regard to one particular cause, it must necessarily come back to that order as regards some other cause. reply obj. 1: there is nothing wholly evil in the world, for evil is ever founded on good, as shown above (q. 48, a. 3). therefore something is said to be evil through its escaping from the order of some particular good. if it wholly escaped from the order of the divine government, it would wholly cease to exist. reply obj. 2: things are said to be fortuitous as regards some particular cause from the order of which they escape. but as to the order of divine providence, "nothing in the world happens by chance," as augustine declares (qq. 83, qu. 24). reply obj. 3: certain effects are said to be contingent as compared to their proximate causes, which may fail in their effects; and not as though anything could happen entirely outside the order of divine government. the very fact that something occurs outside the order of some proximate cause, is owing to some other cause, itself subject to the divine government. _______________________ eighth article [i, q. 103, art. 8] whether anything can resist the order of the divine government? objection 1: it would seem possible that some resistance can be made to the order of the divine government. for it is written (isa. 3:8): "their tongue and their devices are against the lord." obj. 2: further, a king does not justly punish those who do not rebel against his commands. therefore if no one rebelled against god's commands, no one would be justly punished by god. obj. 3: further, everything is subject to the order of the divine government. but some things oppose others. therefore some things rebel against the order of the divine government. _on the contrary,_ boethius says (de consol. iii): "there is nothing that can desire or is able to resist this sovereign good. it is this sovereign good therefore that ruleth all mightily and ordereth all sweetly," as is said (wis. 8) of divine wisdom. _i answer that,_ we may consider the order of divine providence in two ways: in general, inasmuch as it proceeds from the governing cause of all; and in particular, inasmuch as it proceeds from some particular cause which executes the order of the divine government. considered in the first way, nothing can resist the order of the divine government. this can be proved in two ways: firstly from the fact that the order of the divine government is wholly directed to good, and everything by its own operation and effort tends to good only, "for no one acts intending evil," as dionysius says (div. nom. iv): secondly from the fact that, as we have said above (a. 1, ad 3; a. 5, ad 2), every inclination of anything, whether natural or voluntary, is nothing but a kind of impression from the first mover; as the inclination of the arrow towards a fixed point is nothing but an impulse received from the archer. wherefore every agent, whether natural or free, attains to its divinely appointed end, as though of its own accord. for this reason god is said "to order all things sweetly." reply obj. 1: some are said to think or speak, or act against god: not that they entirely resist the order of the divine government; for even the sinner intends the attainment of a certain good: but because they resist some particular good, which belongs to their nature or state. therefore they are justly punished by god. reply obj. 2 is clear from the above. reply obj. 3: from the fact that one thing opposes another, it follows that some one thing can resist the order of a particular cause; but not that order which depends on the universal cause of all things. _______________________ question 104 the special effects of the divine government (in four articles) we next consider the effects of the divine government in particular; concerning which four points of inquiry arise: (1) whether creatures need to be kept in existence by god? (2) whether they are immediately preserved by god? (3) whether god can reduce anything to nothingness? (4) whether anything is reduced to nothingness? _______________________ first article [i, q. 104, art. 1] whether creatures need to be kept in being by god? objection 1: it would seem that creatures do not need to be kept in being by god. for what cannot not-be, does not need to be kept in being; just as that which cannot depart, does not need to be kept from departing. but some creatures by their very nature cannot not-be. therefore not all creatures need to be kept in being by god. the middle proposition is proved thus. that which is included in the nature of a thing is necessarily in that thing, and its contrary cannot be in it; thus a multiple of two must necessarily be even, and cannot possibly be an odd number. now form brings being with itself, because everything is actually in being, so far as it has form. but some creatures are subsistent forms, as we have said of the angels (q. 50, aa. 2, 5): and thus to be is in them of themselves. the same reasoning applies to those creatures whose matter is in potentiality to one form only, as above explained of heavenly bodies (q. 66, a. 2). therefore such creatures as these have in their nature to be necessarily, and cannot not-be; for there can be no potentiality to not-being, either in the form which has being of itself, or in matter existing under a form which it cannot lose, since it is not in potentiality to any other form. obj. 2: further, god is more powerful than any created agent. but a created agent, even after ceasing to act, can cause its effect to be preserved in being; thus the house continues to stand after the builder has ceased to build; and water remains hot for some time after the fire has ceased to heat. much more, therefore, can god cause his creature to be kept in being, after he has ceased to create it. obj. 3: further, nothing violent can occur, except there be some active cause thereof. but tendency to not-being is unnatural and violent to any creature, since all creatures naturally desire to be. therefore no creature can tend to not-being, except through some active cause of corruption. now there are creatures of such a nature that nothing can cause them to corrupt; such are spiritual substances and heavenly bodies. therefore such creatures cannot tend to not-being, even if god were to withdraw his action. obj. 4: further, if god keeps creatures in being, this is done by some action. now every action of an agent, if that action be efficacious, produces something in the effect. therefore the preserving power of god must produce something in the creature. but this is not so; because this action does not give being to the creature, since being is not given to that which already is: nor does it add anything new to the creature; because either god would not keep the creature in being continually, or he would be continually adding something new to the creature; either of which is unreasonable. therefore creatures are not kept in being by god. _on the contrary,_ it is written (heb. 1:3): "upholding all things by the word of his power." _i answer that,_ both reason and faith bind us to say that creatures are kept in being by god. to make this clear, we must consider that a thing is preserved by another in two ways. first, indirectly, and accidentally; thus a person is said to preserve anything by removing the cause of its corruption, as a man may be said to preserve a child, whom he guards from falling into the fire. in this way god preserves some things, but not all, for there are some things of such a nature that nothing can corrupt them, so that it is not necessary to keep them from corruption. secondly, a thing is said to preserve another _per se_ and directly, namely, when what is preserved depends on the preserver in such a way that it cannot exist without it. in this manner all creatures need to be preserved by god. for the being of every creature depends on god, so that not for a moment could it subsist, but would fall into nothingness were it not kept in being by the operation of the divine power, as gregory says (moral. xvi). this is made clear as follows: every effect depends on its cause, so far as it is its cause. but we must observe that an agent may be the cause of the _becoming_ of its effect, but not directly of its _being._ this may be seen both in artificial and in natural beings: for the builder causes the house in its _becoming,_ but he is not the direct cause of its _being._ for it is clear that the _being_ of the house is a result of its form, which consists in the putting together and arrangement of the materials, and results from the natural qualities of certain things. thus a cook dresses the food by applying the natural activity of fire; thus a builder constructs a house, by making use of cement, stones, and wood which are able to be put together in a certain order and to preserve it. therefore the _being_ of a house depends on the nature of these materials, just as its _becoming_ depends on the action of the builder. the same principle applies to natural things. for if an agent is not the cause of a form as such, neither will it be directly the cause of _being_ which results from that form; but it will be the cause of the effect, in its _becoming_ only. now it is clear that of two things in the same species one cannot directly cause the other's form as such, since it would then be the cause of its own form, which is essentially the same as the form of the other; but it can be the cause of this form for as much as it is in matter--in other words, it may be the cause that "this matter" receives _this form._ and this is to be the cause of _becoming,_ as when man begets man, and fire causes fire. thus whenever a natural effect is such that it has an aptitude to receive from its active cause an impression specifically the same as in that active cause, then the _becoming_ of the effect, but not its _being,_ depends on the agent. sometimes, however, the effect has not this aptitude to receive the impression of its cause, in the same way as it exists in the agent: as may be seen clearly in all agents which do not produce an effect of the same species as themselves: thus the heavenly bodies cause the generation of inferior bodies which differ from them in species. such an agent can be the cause of a form as such, and not merely as existing in this matter, consequently it is not merely the cause of _becoming_ but also the cause of _being._ therefore as the becoming of a thing cannot continue when that action of the agent ceases which causes the _becoming_ of the effect: so neither can the _being_ of a thing continue after that action of the agent has ceased, which is the cause of the effect not only in _becoming_ but also in _being._ this is why hot water retains heat after the cessation of the fire's action; while, on the contrary, the air does not continue to be lit up, even for a moment, when the sun ceases to act upon it, because water is a matter susceptive of the fire's heat in the same way as it exists in the fire. wherefore if it were to be reduced to the perfect form of fire, it would retain that form always; whereas if it has the form of fire imperfectly and inchoately, the heat will remain for a time only, by reason of the imperfect participation of the principle of heat. on the other hand, air is not of such a nature as to receive light in the same way as it exists in the sun, which is the principle of light. therefore, since it has not root in the air, the light ceases with the action of the sun. now every creature may be compared to god, as the air is to the sun which enlightens it. for as the sun possesses light by its nature, and as the air is enlightened by sharing the sun's nature; so god alone is being in virtue of his own essence, since his essence is his existence; whereas every creature has being by participation, so that its essence is not its existence. therefore, as augustine says (gen. ad lit. iv, 12): "if the ruling power of god were withdrawn from his creatures, their nature would at once cease, and all nature would collapse." in the same work (gen. ad lit. viii, 12) he says: "as the air becomes light by the presence of the sun, so is man enlightened by the presence of god, and in his absence returns at once to darkness." reply obj. 1: _being_ naturally results from the form of a creature, given the influence of the divine action; just as light results from the diaphanous nature of the air, given the action of the sun. wherefore the potentiality to not-being in spiritual creatures and heavenly bodies is rather something in god, who can withdraw his influence, than in the form or matter of those creatures. reply obj. 2: god cannot grant to a creature to be preserved in being after the cessation of the divine influence: as neither can he make it not to have received its being from himself. for the creature needs to be preserved by god in so far as the being of an effect depends on the cause of its being. so that there is no comparison with an agent that is not the cause of _being_ but only of _becoming._ reply obj. 3: this argument holds in regard to that preservation which consists in the removal of corruption: but all creatures do not need to be preserved thus, as stated above. reply obj. 4: the preservation of things by god is a continuation of that action whereby he gives existence, which action is without either motion or time; so also the preservation of light in the air is by the continual influence of the sun. _______________________ second article [i, q. 104, art. 2] whether god preserves every creature immediately? objection 1: it would seem that god preserves every creature immediately. for god creates and preserves things by the same action, as above stated (a. 1, ad 4). but god created all things immediately. therefore he preserves all things immediately. obj. 2: further, a thing is nearer to itself than to another. but it cannot be given to a creature to preserve itself; much less therefore can it be given to a creature to preserve another. therefore god preserves all things without any intermediate cause preserving them. obj. 3: further, an effect is kept in being by the cause, not only of its _becoming,_ but also of its being. but all created causes do not seem to cause their effects except in their _becoming,_ for they cause only by moving, as above stated (q. 45, a. 3). therefore they do not cause so as to keep their effects in being. _on the contrary,_ a thing is kept in being by that which gives it being. but god gives being by means of certain intermediate causes. therefore he also keeps things in being by means of certain causes. _i answer that,_ as stated above (a. 1), a thing keeps another in being in two ways; first, indirectly and accidentally, by removing or hindering the action of a corrupting cause; secondly, directly and _per se,_ by the fact that that on it depends the other's being, as the being of the effect depends on the cause. and in both ways a created thing keeps another in being. for it is clear that even in corporeal things there are many causes which hinder the action of corrupting agents, and for that reason are called preservatives; just as salt preserves meat from putrefaction; and in like manner with many other things. it happens also that an effect depends on a creature as to its being. for when we have a series of causes depending on one another, it necessarily follows that, while the effect depends first and principally on the first cause, it also depends in a secondary way on all the middle causes. therefore the first cause is the principal cause of the preservation of the effect which is to be referred to the middle causes in a secondary way; and all the more so, as the middle cause is higher and nearer to the first cause. for this reason, even in things corporeal, the preservation and continuation of things is ascribed to the higher causes: thus the philosopher says (metaph. xii, did. xi, 6), that the first, namely the diurnal movement is the cause of the continuation of things generated; whereas the second movement, which is from the zodiac, is the cause of diversity owing to generation and corruption. in like manner astrologers ascribe to saturn, the highest of the planets, those things which are permanent and fixed. so we conclude that god keeps certain things in being, by means of certain causes. reply obj. 1: god created all things immediately, but in the creation itself he established an order among things, so that some depend on others, by which they are preserved in being, though he remains the principal cause of their preservation. reply obj. 2: since an effect is preserved by its proper cause on which it depends; just as no effect can be its own cause, but can only produce another effect, so no effect can be endowed with the power of self-preservation, but only with the power of preserving another. reply obj. 3: no created nature can be the cause of another, as regards the latter acquiring a new form, or disposition, except by virtue of some change; for the created nature acts always on something presupposed. but after causing the form or disposition in the effect, without any fresh change in the effect, the cause preserves that form or disposition; as in the air, when it is lit up anew, we must allow some change to have taken place, while the preservation of the light is without any further change in the air due to the presence of the source of light. _______________________ third article [i, q. 104, art. 3] whether god can annihilate anything? objection 1: it would seem that god cannot annihilate anything. for augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 21) that "god is not the cause of anything tending to non-existence." but he would be such a cause if he were to annihilate anything. therefore he cannot annihilate anything. obj. 2: further, by his goodness god is the cause why things exist, since, as augustine says (de doctr. christ. i, 32): "because god is good, we exist." but god cannot cease to be good. therefore he cannot cause things to cease to exist; which would be the case were he to annihilate anything. obj. 3: further, if god were to annihilate anything it would be by his action. but this cannot be; because the term of every action is existence. hence even the action of a corrupting cause has its term in something generated; for when one thing is generated another undergoes corruption. therefore god cannot annihilate anything. _on the contrary,_ it is written (jer. 10:24): "correct me, o lord, but yet with judgment; and not in thy fury, lest thou bring me to nothing." _i answer that,_ some have held that god, in giving existence to creatures, acted from natural necessity. were this true, god could not annihilate anything, since his nature cannot change. but, as we have said above (q. 19, a. 4), such an opinion is entirely false, and absolutely contrary to the catholic faith, which confesses that god created things of his own free-will, according to ps. 134:6: "whatsoever the lord pleased, he hath done." therefore that god gives existence to a creature depends on his will; nor does he preserve things in existence otherwise than by continually pouring out existence into them, as we have said. therefore, just as before things existed, god was free not to give them existence, and not to make them; so after they are made, he is free not to continue their existence; and thus they would cease to exist; and this would be to annihilate them. reply obj. 1: non-existence has no direct cause; for nothing is a cause except inasmuch as it has existence, and a being essentially as such is a cause of something existing. therefore god cannot cause a thing to tend to non-existence, whereas a creature has this tendency of itself, since it is produced from nothing. but indirectly god can be the cause of things being reduced to non-existence, by withdrawing his action therefrom. reply obj. 2: god's goodness is the cause of things, not as though by natural necessity, because the divine goodness does not depend on creatures; but by his free-will. wherefore, as without prejudice to his goodness, he might not have produced things into existence, so, without prejudice to his goodness, he might not preserve things in existence. reply obj. 3: if god were to annihilate anything, this would not imply an action on god's part; but a mere cessation of his action. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 104, art. 4] whether anything is annihilated? objection 1: it would seem that something is annihilated. for the end corresponds to the beginning. but in the beginning there was nothing but god. therefore all things must tend to this end, that there shall be nothing but god. therefore creatures will be reduced to nothing. obj. 2: further, every creature has a finite power. but no finite power extends to the infinite. wherefore the philosopher proves (phys. viii, 10) that, "a finite power cannot move in infinite time." therefore a creature cannot last for an infinite duration; and so at some time it will be reduced to nothing. obj. 3: further, forms and accidents have no matter as part of themselves. but at some time they cease to exist. therefore they are reduced to nothing. _on the contrary,_ it is written (eccles. 3:14): "i have learned that all the works that god hath made continue for ever." _i answer that,_ some of those things which god does in creatures occur in accordance with the natural course of things; others happen miraculously, and not in accordance with the natural order, as will be explained (q. 105, a. 6). now whatever god wills to do according to the natural order of things may be observed from their nature; but those things which occur miraculously, are ordered for the manifestation of grace, according to the apostle, "to each one is given the manifestation of the spirit, unto profit" (1 cor. 12:7); and subsequently he mentions, among others, the working of miracles. now the nature of creatures shows that none of them is annihilated. for, either they are immaterial, and therefore have no potentiality to non-existence; or they are material, and then they continue to exist, at least in matter, which is incorruptible, since it is the subject of generation and corruption. moreover, the annihilation of things does not pertain to the manifestation of grace; since rather the power and goodness of god are manifested by the preservation of things in existence. wherefore we must conclude by denying absolutely that anything at all will be annihilated. reply obj. 1: that things are brought into existence from a state of non-existence, clearly shows the power of him who made them; but that they should be reduced to nothing would hinder that manifestation, since the power of god is conspicuously shown in his preserving all things in existence, according to the apostle: "upholding all things by the word of his power" (heb. 1:3). reply obj. 2: a creature's potentiality to existence is merely receptive; the active power belongs to god himself, from whom existence is derived. wherefore the infinite duration of things is a consequence of the infinity of the divine power. to some things, however, is given a determinate power of duration for a certain time, so far as they may be hindered by some contrary agent from receiving the influx of existence which comes from him whom finite power cannot resist, for an infinite, but only for a fixed time. so things which have no contrary, although they have a finite power, continue to exist for ever. reply obj. 3: forms and accidents are not complete beings, since they do not subsist: but each one of them is something "of a being"; for it is called a being, because something is by it. yet so far as their mode of existence is concerned, they are not entirely reduced to nothingness; not that any part of them survives, but that they remain in the potentiality of the matter, or of the subject. _______________________ question 105 of the change of creatures by god (in eight articles) we now consider the second effect of the divine government, i.e. the change of creatures; and first, the change of creatures by god; secondly, the change of one creature by another. under the first head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) whether god can move immediately the matter to the form? (2) whether he can immediately move a body? (3) whether he can move the intellect? (4) whether he can move the will? (5) whether god works in every worker? (6) whether he can do anything outside the order imposed on things? (7) whether all that god does is miraculous? (8) of the diversity of miracles. _______________________ first article [i, q. 105, art. 1] whether god can move the matter immediately to the form? objection 1: it would seem that god cannot move the matter immediately to receive the form. for as the philosopher proves (metaph. vii, did. vi, 8), nothing can bring a form into any particular matter, except that form which is in matter; because, like begets like. but god is not a form in matter. therefore he cannot cause a form in matter. obj. 2: further, any agent inclined to several effects will produce none of them, unless it is determined to a particular one by some other cause; for, as the philosopher says (de anima iii, 11), a general assertion does not move the mind, except by means of some particular apprehension. but the divine power is the universal cause of all things. therefore it cannot produce any particular form, except by means of a particular agent. obj. 3: as universal being depends on the first universal cause, so determinate being depends on determinate particular causes; as we have seen above (q. 104, a. 2). but the determinate being of a particular thing is from its own form. therefore the forms of things are produced by god, only by means of particular causes. _on the contrary,_ it is written (gen. 2:7): "god formed man of the slime of the earth." _i answer that,_ god can move matter immediately to form; because whatever is in passive potentiality can be reduced to act by the active power which extends over that potentiality. therefore, since the divine power extends over matter, as produced by god, it can be reduced to act by the divine power: and this is what is meant by matter being moved to a form; for a form is nothing else but the act of matter. reply obj. 1: an effect is assimilated to the active cause in two ways. first, according to the same species; as man is generated by man, and fire by fire. secondly, by being virtually contained in the cause; as the form of the effect is virtually contained in its cause: thus animals produced by putrefaction, and plants, and minerals are like the sun and stars, by whose power they are produced. in this way the effect is like its active cause as regards all that over which the power of that cause extends. now the power of god extends to both matter and form; as we have said above (q. 14, a. 2; q. 44, a. 2); wherefore if a composite thing be produced, it is likened to god by way of a virtual inclusion; or it is likened to the composite generator by a likeness of species. therefore just as the composite generator can move matter to a form by generating a composite thing like itself; so also can god. but no other form not existing in matter can do this; because the power of no other separate substance extends over matter. hence angels and demons operate on visible matter; not by imprinting forms in matter, but by making use of corporeal seeds. reply obj. 2: this argument would hold if god were to act of natural necessity. but since he acts by his will and intellect, which knows the particular and not only the universal natures of all forms, it follows that he can determinately imprint this or that form on matter. reply obj. 3: the fact that secondary causes are ordered to determinate effects is due to god; wherefore since god ordains other causes to certain effects he can also produce certain effects by himself without any other cause. _______________________ second article [i, q. 105, art. 2] whether god can move a body immediately? objection 1: it would seem that god cannot move a body immediately. for as the mover and the moved must exist simultaneously, as the philosopher says (phys. vii, 2), it follows that there must be some contact between the mover and moved. but there can be no contact between god and a body; for dionysius says (div. nom. 1): "there is no contact with god." therefore god cannot move a body immediately. obj. 2: further, god is the mover unmoved. but such also is the desirable object when apprehended. therefore god moves as the object of desire and apprehension. but he cannot be apprehended except by the intellect, which is neither a body nor a corporeal power. therefore god cannot move a body immediately. obj. 3: further, the philosopher proves (phys. viii, 10) that an infinite power moves instantaneously. but it is impossible for a body to be moved in one instant; for since every movement is between opposites, it follows that two opposites would exist at once in the same subject, which is impossible. therefore a body cannot be moved immediately by an infinite power. but god's power is infinite, as we have explained (q. 25, a. 2). therefore god cannot move a body immediately. _on the contrary,_ god produced the works of the six days immediately among which is included the movements of bodies, as is clear from gen. 1:9 "let the waters be gathered together into one place." therefore god alone can move a body immediately. _i answer that,_ it is erroneous to say that god cannot himself produce all the determinate effects which are produced by any created cause. wherefore, since bodies are moved immediately by created causes, we cannot possibly doubt that god can move immediately any bodies whatever. this indeed follows from what is above stated (a. 1). for every movement of any body whatever, either results from a form, as the movements of things heavy and light result from the form which they have from their generating cause, for which reason the generator is called the mover; or else tends to a form, as heating tends to the form of heat. now it belongs to the same cause, to imprint a form, to dispose to that form, and to give the movement which results from that form; for fire not only generates fire, but it also heats and moves things upwards. therefore, as god can imprint form immediately in matter, it follows that he can move any body whatever in respect of any movement whatever. reply obj. 1: there are two kinds of contact; corporeal contact, when two bodies touch each other; and virtual contact, as the cause of sadness is said to touch the one made sad. according to the first kind of contact, god, as being incorporeal, neither touches, nor is touched; but according to virtual contact he touches creatures by moving them; but he is not touched, because the natural power of no creature can reach up to him. thus did dionysius understand the words, "there is no contact with god"; that is, so that god himself be touched. reply obj. 2: god moves as the object of desire and apprehension; but it does not follow that he always moves as being desired and apprehended by that which is moved; but as being desired and known by himself; for he does all things for his own goodness. reply obj. 3: the philosopher (phys. viii, 10) intends to prove that the power of the first mover is not a power of the first mover _of bulk,_ by the following argument. the power of the first mover is infinite (which he proves from the fact that the first mover can move in infinite time). now an infinite power, if it were a power _of bulk,_ would move without time, which is impossible; therefore the infinite power of the first mover must be in something which is not measured by its bulk. whence it is clear that for a body to be moved without time can only be the result of an infinite power. the reason is that every power of bulk moves in its entirety; since it moves by the necessity of its nature. but an infinite power surpasses out of all proportion any finite power. now the greater the power of the mover, the greater is the velocity of the movement. therefore, since a finite power moves in a determinate time, it follows that an infinite power does not move in any time; for between one time and any other time there is some proportion. on the other hand, a power which is not in bulk is the power of an intelligent being, which operates in its effects according to what is fitting to them; and therefore, since it cannot be fitting for a body to be moved without time, it does not follow that it moves without time. _______________________ third article [i, q. 105, art. 3] whether god moves the created intellect immediately? objection 1: it would seem that god does not immediately move the created intellect. for the action of the intellect is governed by its own subject; since it does not pass into external matter; as stated in _metaph._ ix, did. viii, 8. but the action of what is moved by another does not proceed from that wherein it is; but from the mover. therefore the intellect is not moved by another; and so apparently god cannot move the created intellect. obj. 2: further, anything which in itself is a sufficient principle of movement, is not moved by another. but the movement of the intellect is its act of understanding; in the sense in which we say that to understand or to feel is a kind of movement, as the philosopher says (de anima iii, 7). but the intellectual light which is natural to the soul, is a sufficient principle of understanding. therefore it is not moved by another. obj. 3: further, as the senses are moved by the sensible, so the intellect is moved by the intelligible. but god is not intelligible to us, and exceeds the capacity of our intellect. therefore god cannot move our intellect. _on the contrary,_ the teacher moves the intellect of the one taught. but it is written (ps. 93:10) that god "teaches man knowledge." therefore god moves the human intellect. _i answer that,_ as in corporeal movement that is called the mover which gives the form that is the principle of movement, so that is said to move the intellect, which is the cause of the form that is the principle of the intellectual operation, called the movement of the intellect. now there is a twofold principle of intellectual operation in the intelligent being; one which is the intellectual power itself, which principle exists in the one who understands in potentiality; while the other is the principle of actual understanding, namely, the likeness of the thing understood in the one who understands. so a thing is said to move the intellect, whether it gives to him who understands the power of understanding; or impresses on him the likeness of the thing understood. now god moves the created intellect in both ways. for he is the first immaterial being; and as intellectuality is a result of immateriality, it follows that he is the first intelligent being. therefore since in each order the first is the cause of all that follows, we must conclude that from him proceeds all intellectual power. in like manner, since he is the first being, and all other beings pre-exist in him as in their first cause, it follows that they exist intelligibly in him, after the mode of his own nature. for as the intelligible types of everything exist first of all in god, and are derived from him by other intellects in order that these may actually understand; so also are they derived by creatures that they may subsist. therefore god so moves the created intellect, inasmuch as he gives it the intellectual power, whether natural, or superadded; and impresses on the created intellect the intelligible species, and maintains and preserves both power and species in existence. reply obj. 1: the intellectual operation is performed by the intellect in which it exists, as by a secondary cause; but it proceeds from god as from its first cause. for by him the power to understand is given to the one who understands. reply obj. 2: the intellectual light together with the likeness of the thing understood is a sufficient principle of understanding; but it is a secondary principle, and depends upon the first principle. reply obj. 3: the intelligible object moves our human intellect, so far as, in a way, it impresses on it its own likeness, by means of which the intellect is able to understand it. but the likenesses which god impresses on the created intellect are not sufficient to enable the created intellect to understand him through his essence, as we have seen above (q. 12, a. 2; q. 56, a. 3). hence he moves the created intellect, and yet he cannot be intelligible to it, as we have explained (q. 12, a. 4). _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 105, art. 4] whether god can move the created will? objection 1: it would seem that god cannot move the created will. for whatever is moved from without, is forced. but the will cannot be forced. therefore it is not moved from without; and therefore cannot be moved by god. obj. 2: further, god cannot make two contradictories to be true at the same time. but this would follow if he moved the will; for to be voluntarily moved means to be moved from within, and not by another. therefore god cannot move the will. obj. 3: further, movement is attributed to the mover rather than to the one moved; wherefore homicide is not ascribed to the stone, but to the thrower. therefore, if god moves the will, it follows that voluntary actions are not imputed to man for reward or blame. but this is false. therefore god does not move the will. _on the contrary,_ it is written (phil. 2:13): "it is god who worketh in us [vulgate--'you'] both to will and to accomplish." _i answer that,_ as the intellect is moved by the object and by the giver of the power of intelligence, as stated above (a. 3), so is the will moved by its object, which is good, and by him who creates the power of willing. now the will can be moved by good as its object, but by god alone sufficiently and efficaciously. for nothing can move a movable thing sufficiently unless the active power of the mover surpasses or at least equals the potentiality of the thing movable. now the potentiality of the will extends to the universal good; for its object is the universal good; just as the object of the intellect is the universal being. but every created good is some particular good; god alone is the universal good. whereas he alone fills the capacity of the will, and moves it sufficiently as its object. in like manner the power of willing is caused by god alone. for to will is nothing but to be inclined towards the object of the will, which is universal good. but to incline towards the universal good belongs to the first mover, to whom the ultimate end is proportionate; just as in human affairs to him that presides over the community belongs the directing of his subjects to the common weal. wherefore in both ways it belongs to god to move the will; but especially in the second way by an interior inclination of the will. reply obj. 1: a thing moved by another is forced if moved against its natural inclination; but if it is moved by another giving to it the proper natural inclination, it is not forced; as when a heavy body is made to move downwards by that which produced it, then it is not forced. in like manner god, while moving the will, does not force it, because he gives the will its own natural inclination. reply obj. 2: to be moved voluntarily, is to be moved from within, that is, by an interior principle: yet this interior principle may be caused by an exterior principle; and so to be moved from within is not repugnant to being moved by another. reply obj. 3: if the will were so moved by another as in no way to be moved from within itself, the act of the will would not be imputed for reward or blame. but since its being moved by another does not prevent its being moved from within itself, as we have stated (ad 2), it does not thereby forfeit the motive for merit or demerit. _______________________ fifth article [i, q. 105, art. 5] whether god works in every agent? objection 1: it would seem that god does not work in every agent. for we must not attribute any insufficiency to god. if therefore god works in every agent, he works sufficiently in each one. hence it would be superfluous for the created agent to work at all. obj. 2: further, the same work cannot proceed at the same time from two sources; as neither can one and the same movement belong to two movable things. therefore if the creature's operation is from god operating in the creature, it cannot at the same time proceed from the creature; and so no creature works at all. obj. 3: further, the maker is the cause of the operation of the thing made, as giving it the form whereby it operates. therefore, if god is the cause of the operation of things made by him, this would be inasmuch as he gives them the power of operating. but this is in the beginning, when he makes them. thus it seems that god does not operate any further in the operating creature. _on the contrary,_ it is written (isa. 26:12): "lord, thou hast wrought all our works in [vulg.: 'for'] us." _i answer that,_ some have understood god to work in every agent in such a way that no created power has any effect in things, but that god alone is the ultimate cause of everything wrought; for instance, that it is not fire that gives heat, but god in the fire, and so forth. but this is impossible. first, because the order of cause and effect would be taken away from created things: and this would imply lack of power in the creator: for it is due to the power of the cause, that it bestows active power on its effect. secondly, because the active powers which are seen to exist in things, would be bestowed on things to no purpose, if these wrought nothing through them. indeed, all things created would seem, in a way, to be purposeless, if they lacked an operation proper to them; since the purpose of everything is its operation. for the less perfect is always for the sake of the more perfect: and consequently as the matter is for the sake of the form, so the form which is the first act, is for the sake of its operation, which is the second act; and thus operation is the end of the creature. we must therefore understand that god works in things in such a manner that things have their proper operation. in order to make this clear, we must observe that as there are few kinds of causes; matter is not a principle of action, but is the subject that receives the effect of action. on the other hand, the end, the agent, and the form are principles of action, but in a certain order. for the first principle of action is the end which moves the agent; the second is the agent; the third is the form of that which the agent applies to action (although the agent also acts through its own form); as may be clearly seen in things made by art. for the craftsman is moved to action by the end, which is the thing wrought, for instance a chest or a bed; and applies to action the axe which cuts through its being sharp. thus then does god work in every worker, according to these three things. first as an end. for since every operation is for the sake of some good, real or apparent; and nothing is good either really or apparently, except in as far as it participates in a likeness to the supreme good, which is god; it follows that god himself is the cause of every operation as its end. again it is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first; for the first agent moves the second to act. and thus all agents act in virtue of god himself: and therefore he is the cause of action in every agent. thirdly, we must observe that god not only moves things to operate, as it were applying their forms and powers to operation, just as the workman applies the axe to cut, who nevertheless at times does not give the axe its form; but he also gives created agents their forms and preserves them in being. therefore he is the cause of action not only by giving the form which is the principle of action, as the generator is said to be the cause of movement in things heavy and light; but also as preserving the forms and powers of things; just as the sun is said to be the cause of the manifestation of colors, inasmuch as it gives and preserves the light by which colors are made manifest. and since the form of a thing is within the thing, and all the more, as it approaches nearer to the first and universal cause; and because in all things god himself is properly the cause of universal being which is innermost in all things; it follows that in all things god works intimately. for this reason in holy scripture the operations of nature are attributed to god as operating in nature, according to job 10:11: "thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh: thou hast put me together with bones and sinews." reply obj. 1: god works sufficiently in things as first agent, but it does not follow from this that the operation of secondary agents is superfluous. reply obj. 2: one action does not proceed from two agents of the same order. but nothing hinders the same action from proceeding from a primary and a secondary agent. reply obj. 3: god not only gives things their form, but he also preserves them in existence, and applies them to act, and is moreover the end of every action, as above explained. _______________________ sixth article [i, q. 105, art. 6] whether god can do anything outside the established order of nature? objection 1: it would seem that god cannot do anything outside the established order of nature. for augustine (contra faust. xxvi, 3) says: "god the maker and creator of each nature, does nothing against nature." but that which is outside the natural order seems to be against nature. therefore god can do nothing outside the natural order. obj. 2: further, as the order of justice is from god, so is the order of nature. but god cannot do anything outside the order of justice; for then he would do something unjust. therefore he cannot do anything outside the order of nature. obj. 3: further, god established the order of nature. therefore it god does anything outside the order of nature, it would seem that he is changeable; which cannot be said. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (contra faust. xxvi, 3): "god sometimes does things which are contrary to the ordinary course of nature." _i answer that,_ from each cause there results a certain order to its effects, since every cause is a principle; and so, according to the multiplicity of causes, there results a multiplicity of orders, subjected one to the other, as cause is subjected to cause. wherefore a higher cause is not subjected to a cause of a lower order; but conversely. an example of this may be seen in human affairs. on the father of a family depends the order of the household; which order is contained in the order of the city; which order again depends on the ruler of the city; while this last order depends on that of the king, by whom the whole kingdom is ordered. if therefore we consider the order of things depending on the first cause, god cannot do anything against this order; for, if he did so, he would act against his foreknowledge, or his will, or his goodness. but if we consider the order of things depending on any secondary cause, thus god can do something outside such order; for he is not subject to the order of secondary causes; but, on the contrary, this order is subject to him, as proceeding from him, not by a natural necessity, but by the choice of his own will; for he could have created another order of things. wherefore god can do something outside this order created by him, when he chooses, for instance by producing the effects of secondary causes without them, or by producing certain effects to which secondary causes do not extend. so augustine says (contra faust. xxvi, 3): "god acts against the wonted course of nature, but by no means does he act against the supreme law; because he does not act against himself." reply obj. 1: in natural things something may happen outside this natural order, in two ways. it may happen by the action of an agent which did not give them their natural inclination; as, for example, when a man moves a heavy body upwards, which does not owe to him its natural inclination to move downwards; and that would be against nature. it may also happen by the action of the agent on whom the natural inclination depends; and this is not against nature, as is clear in the ebb and flow of the tide, which is not against nature; although it is against the natural movement of water in a downward direction; for it is owing to the influence of a heavenly body, on which the natural inclination of lower bodies depends. therefore since the order of nature is given to things by god; if he does anything outside this order, it is not against nature. wherefore augustine says (contra faust. xxvi, 3): "that is natural to each thing which is caused by him from whom is all mode, number, and order in nature." reply obj. 2: the order of justice arises by relation to the first cause, who is the rule of all justice; and therefore god can do nothing against such order. reply obj. 3: god fixed a certain order in things in such a way that at the same time he reserved to himself whatever he intended to do otherwise than by a particular cause. so when he acts outside this order, he does not change. _______________________ seventh article [i, q. 105, art. 7] whether whatever god does outside the natural order is miraculous? objection 1: it would seem that not everything which god does outside the natural order of things, is miraculous. for the creation of the world, and of souls, and the justification of the unrighteous, are done by god outside the natural order; as not being accomplished by the action of any natural cause. yet these things are not called miracles. therefore not everything that god does outside the natural order is a miracle. obj. 2: further, a miracle is "something difficult, which seldom occurs, surpassing the faculty of nature, and going so far beyond our hopes as to compel our astonishment" [*st. augustine, de utilitate credendi xvi.]. but some things outside the order of nature are not arduous; for they occur in small things, such as the recovery and healing of the sick. nor are they of rare occurrence, since they happen frequently; as when the sick were placed in the streets, to be healed by the shadow of peter (acts 5:15). nor do they surpass the faculty of nature; as when people are cured of a fever. nor are they beyond our hopes, since we all hope for the resurrection of the dead, which nevertheless will be outside the course of nature. therefore not all things are outside the course of nature are miraculous. obj. 3: further, the word miracle is derived from admiration. now admiration concerns things manifest to the senses. but sometimes things happen outside the order of nature, which are not manifest to the senses; as when the apostles were endowed with knowledge without studying or being taught. therefore not everything that occurs outside the order of nature is miraculous. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (contra faust. xxvi, 3): "where god does anything against that order of nature which we know and are accustomed to observe, we call it a miracle." _i answer that,_ the word miracle is derived from admiration, which arises when an effect is manifest, whereas its cause is hidden; as when a man sees an eclipse without knowing its cause, as the philosopher says in the beginning of his _metaphysics._ now the cause of a manifest effect may be known to one, but unknown to others. wherefore a thing is wonderful to one man, and not at all to others: as an eclipse is to a rustic, but not to an astronomer. now a miracle is so called as being full of wonder; as having a cause absolutely hidden from all: and this cause is god. wherefore those things which god does outside those causes which we know, are called miracles. reply obj. 1: creation, and the justification of the unrighteous, though done by god alone, are not, properly speaking, miracles, because they are not of a nature to proceed from any other cause; so they do not occur outside the order of nature, since they do not belong to that order. reply obj. 2: an arduous thing is called a miracle, not on account of the excellence of the thing wherein it is done, but because it surpasses the faculty of nature: likewise a thing is called unusual, not because it does not often happen, but because it is outside the usual natural course of things. furthermore, a thing is said to be above the faculty of nature, not only by reason of the substance of the thing done, but also on account of the manner and order in which it is done. again, a miracle is said to go beyond the hope "of nature," not above the hope "of grace," which hope comes from faith, whereby we believe in the future resurrection. reply obj. 3: the knowledge of the apostles, although not manifest in itself, yet was made manifest in its effect, from which it was shown to be wonderful. _______________________ eighth article [i, q. 105, art. 8] whether one miracle is greater than another? objection 1: it would seem that one miracle is not greater than another. for augustine says (epist. ad volusian. cxxxvii): "in miraculous deeds, the whole measure of the deed is the power of the doer." but by the same power of god all miracles are done. therefore one miracle is not greater than another. obj. 2: further, the power of god is infinite. but the infinite exceeds the finite beyond all proportion; and therefore no more reason exists to wonder at one effect thereof than at another. therefore one miracle is not greater than another. _on the contrary,_ the lord says, speaking of miraculous works (john 14:12): "the works that i do, he also shall do, and greater than these shall he do." _i answer that,_ nothing is called a miracle by comparison with the divine power; because no action is of any account compared with the power of god, according to isa. 40:15: "behold the gentiles are as a drop from a bucket, and are counted as the smallest grain of a balance." but a thing is called a miracle by comparison with the power of nature which it surpasses. so the more the power of nature is surpassed, the greater the miracle. now the power of nature is surpassed in three ways: firstly, in the substance of the deed, for instance, if two bodies occupy the same place, or if the sun goes backwards; or if a human body is glorified: such things nature is absolutely unable to do; and these hold the highest rank among miracles. secondly, a thing surpasses the power of nature, not in the deed, but in that wherein it is done; as the raising of the dead, and giving sight to the blind, and the like; for nature can give life, but not to the dead; and such hold the second rank in miracles. thirdly, a thing surpasses nature's power in the measure and order in which it is done; as when a man is cured of a fever suddenly, without treatment or the usual process of nature; or as when the air is suddenly condensed into rain, by divine power without a natural cause, as occurred at the prayers of samuel and elias; and these hold the lowest place in miracles. moreover, each of these kinds has various degrees, according to the different ways in which the power of nature is surpassed. from this is clear how to reply to the objections, arguing as they do from the divine power. _______________________ question 106 how one creature moves another (in four articles) we next consider how one creature moves another. this consideration will be threefold: (1) how the angels move, who are purely spiritual creatures; (2) how bodies move; (3) how man moves, who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal nature. concerning the first point, there are three things to be considered: (1) how an angel acts on an angel; (2) how an angel acts on a corporeal nature; (3) how an angel acts on man. the first of these raises the question of the enlightenment and speech of the angels; and of their mutual coordination, both of the good and of the bad angels. concerning their enlightenment there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether one angel moves the intellect of another by enlightenment? (2) whether one angel moves the will of another? (3) whether an inferior angel can enlighten a superior angel? (4) whether a superior angel enlightens an inferior angel in all that he knows himself? _______________________ first article [i, q. 106, art. 1] whether one angel enlightens another? objection 1: it would seem that one angel does not enlighten another. for the angels possess now the same beatitude which we hope to obtain. but one man will not then enlighten another, according to jer. 31:34: "they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother." therefore neither does an angel enlighten another now. obj. 2: further, light in the angels is threefold; of nature, of grace, and of glory. but an angel is enlightened in the light of nature by the creator; in the light of grace by the justifier; in the light of glory by the beatifier; all of which comes from god. therefore one angel does not enlighten another. obj. 3: further, light is a form in the mind. but the rational mind is "informed by god alone, without created intervention," as augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 51). therefore one angel does not enlighten the mind of another. _on the contrary,_ dionysius says (coel. hier. viii) that "the angels of the second hierarchy are cleansed, enlightened and perfected by the angels of the first hierarchy." _i answer that,_ one angel enlightens another. to make this clear, we must observe that intellectual light is nothing else than a manifestation of truth, according to eph. 5:13: "all that is made manifest is light." hence to enlighten means nothing else but to communicate to others the manifestation of the known truth; according to the apostle (eph. 3:8): "to me the least of all the saints is given this grace . . . to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in god." therefore one angel is said to enlighten another by manifesting the truth which he knows himself. hence dionysius says (coel. hier. vii): "theologians plainly show that the orders of the heavenly beings are taught divine science by the higher minds." now since two things concur in the intellectual operation, as we have said (q. 105, a. 3), namely, the intellectual power, and the likeness of the thing understood; in both of these one angel can notify the known truth to another. first, by strengthening his intellectual power; for just as the power of an imperfect body is strengthened by the neighborhood of a more perfect body--for instance, the less hot is made hotter by the presence of what is hotter; so the intellectual power of an inferior angel is strengthened by the superior angel turning to him: since in spiritual things, for one thing to turn to another, corresponds to neighborhood in corporeal things. secondly, one angel manifests the truth to another as regards the likeness of the thing understood. for the superior angel receives the knowledge of truth by a kind of universal conception, to receive which the inferior angel's intellect is not sufficiently powerful, for it is natural to him to receive truth in a more particular manner. therefore the superior angel distinguishes, in a way, the truth which he conceives universally, so that it can be grasped by the inferior angel; and thus he proposes it to his knowledge. thus it is with us that the teacher, in order to adapt himself to others, divides into many points the knowledge which he possesses in the universal. this is thus expressed by dionysius (coel. hier. xv): "every intellectual substance with provident power divides and multiplies the uniform knowledge bestowed on it by one nearer to god, so as to lead its inferiors upwards by analogy." reply obj. 1: all the angels, both inferior and superior, see the essence of god immediately, and in this respect one does not teach another. it is of this truth that the prophet speaks; wherefore he adds: "they shall teach no more every man his brother, saying: 'know the lord': for all shall know me, from the least of them even to the greatest." but all the types of the divine works, which are known in god as in their cause, god knows in himself, because he comprehends himself; but of others who see god, each one knows the more types, the more perfectly he sees god. hence a superior angel knows more about the types of the divine works than an inferior angel, and concerning these the former enlightens the latter; and as to this dionysius says (div. nom. iv) that the angels "are enlightened by the types of existing things." reply obj. 2: an angel does not enlighten another by giving him the light of nature, grace, or glory; but by strengthening his natural light, and by manifesting to him the truth concerning the state of nature, of grace, and of glory, as explained above. reply obj. 3: the rational mind is formed immediately by god, either as the image from the exemplar, forasmuch as it is made to the image of god alone; or as the subject by the ultimate perfecting form: for the created mind is always considered to be unformed, except it adhere to the first truth; while the other kinds of enlightenment that proceed from man or angel, are, as it were, dispositions to this ultimate form. _______________________ second article [i, q. 106, art. 2] whether one angel moves another angel's will? objection 1: it would seem that one angel can move another angel's will. because, according to dionysius quoted above (a. 1), as one angel enlightens another, so does he cleanse and perfect another. but cleansing and perfecting seem to belong to the will: for the former seems to point to the stain of sin which appertains to will; while to be perfected is to obtain an end, which is the object of the will. therefore an angel can move another angel's will. obj. 2: further, as dionysius says (coel. hier. vii): "the names of the angels designate their properties." now the seraphim are so called because they "kindle" or "give heat": and this is by love which belongs to the will. therefore one angel moves another angel's will. obj. 3: further, the philosopher says (de anima iii, 11) that the higher appetite moves the lower. but as the intellect of the superior angel is higher, so also is his will. it seems, therefore, that the superior angel can change the will of another angel. _on the contrary,_ to him it belongs to change the will, to whom it belongs to bestow righteousness: for righteousness is the rightness of the will. but god alone bestows righteousness. therefore one angel cannot change another angel's will. _i answer that,_ as was said above (q. 105, a. 4), the will is changed in two ways; on the part of the object, and on the part of the power. on the part of the object, both the good itself which is the object of the will, moves the will, as the appetible moves the appetite; and he who points out the object, as, for instance, one who proves something to be good. but as we have said above (q. 105, a. 4), other goods in a measure incline the will, yet nothing sufficiently moves the will save the universal good, and that is god. and this good he alone shows, that it may be seen by the blessed, who, when moses asked: "show me thy glory," answered: "i will show thee all good" (ex. 33:18, 19). therefore an angel does not move the will sufficiently, either as the object or as showing the object. but he inclines the will as something lovable, and as manifesting some created good ordered to god's goodness. and thus he can incline the will to the love of the creature or of god, by way of persuasion. but on the part of the power the will cannot be moved at all save by god. for the operation of the will is a certain inclination of the willer to the thing willed. and he alone can change this inclination, who bestowed on the creature the power to will: just as that agent alone can change the natural inclination, which can give the power to which follows that natural inclination. now god alone gave to the creature the power to will, because he alone is the author of the intellectual nature. therefore an angel cannot move another angel's will. reply obj. 1: cleansing and perfecting are to be understood according to the mode of enlightenment. and since god enlightens by changing the intellect and will, he cleanses by removing defects of intellect and will, and perfects unto the end of the intellect and will. but the enlightenment caused by an angel concerns the intellect, as explained above (a. 1); therefore an angel is to be understood as cleansing from the defect of nescience in the intellect; and as perfecting unto the consummate end of the intellect, and this is the knowledge of truth. thus dionysius says (eccl. hier. vi): that "in the heavenly hierarchy the chastening of the inferior essence is an enlightening of things unknown, that leads them to more perfect knowledge." for instance, we might say that corporeal sight is cleansed by the removal of darkness; enlightened by the diffusion of light; and perfected by being brought to the perception of the colored object. reply obj. 2: one angel can induce another to love god by persuasion as explained above. reply obj. 3: the philosopher speaks of the lower sensitive appetite which can be moved by the superior intellectual appetite, because it belongs to the same nature of the soul, and because the inferior appetite is a power in a corporeal organ. but this does not apply to the angels. _______________________ third article [i, q. 106, art. 3] whether an inferior angel can enlighten a superior angel? objection 1: it would seem that an inferior angel can enlighten a superior angel. for the ecclesiastical hierarchy is derived from, and represents the heavenly hierarchy; and hence the heavenly jerusalem is called "our mother" (gal. 4:26). but in the church even superiors are enlightened and taught by their inferiors, as the apostle says (1 cor. 14:31): "you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be exhorted." therefore, likewise in the heavenly hierarchy, the superiors can be enlightened by inferiors. obj. 2: further, as the order of corporeal substances depends on the will of god, so also does the order of spiritual substances. but, as was said above (q. 105, a. 6), god sometimes acts outside the order of corporeal substances. therefore he also sometimes acts outside the order of spiritual substances, by enlightening inferior otherwise than through their superiors. therefore in that way the inferiors enlightened by god can enlighten superiors. obj. 3: further, one angel enlightens the other to whom he turns, as was above explained (a. 1). but since this turning to another is voluntary, the highest angel can turn to the lowest passing over the others. therefore he can enlighten him immediately; and thus the latter can enlighten his superiors. _on the contrary,_ dionysius says that "this is the divine unalterable law, that inferior things are led to god by the superior" (coel. hier. iv; eccl. hier. v). _i answer that,_ the inferior angels never enlighten the superior, but are always enlightened by them. the reason is, because, as above explained (q. 105, a. 6), one order is under another, as cause is under cause; and hence as cause is ordered to cause, so is order to order. therefore there is no incongruity if sometimes anything is done outside the order of the inferior cause, to be ordered to the superior cause, as in human affairs the command of the president is passed over from obedience to the prince. so it happens that god works miraculously outside the order of corporeal nature, that men may be ordered to the knowledge of him. but the passing over of the order that belongs to spiritual substances in no way belongs to the ordering of men to god; since the angelic operations are not made known to us; as are the operations of sensible bodies. thus the order which belongs to spiritual substances is never passed over by god; so that the inferiors are always moved by the superior, and not conversely. reply obj. 1: the ecclesiastical hierarchy imitates the heavenly in some degree, but not by a perfect likeness. for in the heavenly hierarchy the perfection of the order is in proportion to its nearness to god; so that those who are the nearer to god are the more sublime in grade, and more clear in knowledge; and on that account the superiors are never enlightened by the inferiors, whereas in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, sometimes those who are the nearer to god in sanctity, are in the lowest grade, and are not conspicuous for science; and some also are eminent in one kind of science, and fail in another; and on that account superiors may be taught by inferiors. reply obj. 2: as above explained, there is no similarity between what god does outside the order of corporeal nature, and that of spiritual nature. hence the argument does not hold. reply obj. 3: an angel turns voluntarily to enlighten another angel, but the angel's will is ever regulated by the divine law which made the order in the angels. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 106, art. 4] whether the superior angel enlightens the inferior as regards all he himself knows? objection 1: it would seem that the superior angel does not enlighten the inferior concerning all he himself knows. for dionysius says (coel. hier. xii) that the superior angels have a more universal knowledge; and the inferior a more particular and individual knowledge. but more is contained under a universal knowledge than under a particular knowledge. therefore not all that the superior angels know, is known by the inferior, through these being enlightened by the former. obj. 2: further, the master of the sentences (ii, d, 11) says that the superior angels had long known the mystery of the incarnation, whereas the inferior angels did not know it until it was accomplished. thus we find that on some of the angels inquiring, as it were, in ignorance: "who is this king of glory?" other angels, who knew, answered: "the lord of hosts, he is the king of glory," as dionysius expounds (coel. hier. vii). but this would not apply if the superior angels enlightened the inferior concerning all they know themselves. therefore they do not do so. obj. 3: further, if the superior angels enlighten the inferior about all they know, nothing that the superior angels know would be unknown to the inferior angels. therefore the superior angels could communicate nothing more to the inferior; which appears open to objection. therefore the superior angels enlighten the inferior in all things. _on the contrary,_ gregory [*peter lombard, sent. ii, d, ix; cf. gregory, hom. xxxiv, in ev.] says: "in that heavenly country, though there are some excellent gifts, yet nothing is held individually." and dionysius says: "each heavenly essence communicates to the inferior the gift derived from the superior" (coel. hier. xv), as quoted above (a. 1). _i answer that,_ every creature participates in the divine goodness, so as to diffuse the good it possesses to others; for it is of the nature of good to communicate itself to others. hence also corporeal agents give their likeness to others so far as they can. so the more an agent is established in the share of the divine goodness, so much the more does it strive to transmit its perfections to others as far as possible. hence the blessed peter admonishes those who by grace share in the divine goodness; saying: "as every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another; as good stewards of the manifold grace of god" (1 pet. 4:10). much more therefore do the holy angels, who enjoy the plenitude of participation of the divine goodness, impart the same to those below them. nevertheless this gift is not received so excellently by the inferior as by the superior angels; and therefore the superior ever remain in a higher order, and have a more perfect knowledge; as the master understands the same thing better than the pupil who learns from him. reply obj. 1: the knowledge of the superior angels is said to be more universal as regards the more eminent mode of knowledge. reply obj. 2: the master's words are not to be understood as if the inferior angels were entirely ignorant of the mystery of the incarnation but that they did not know it as fully as the superior angels; and that they progressed in the knowledge of it afterwards when the mystery was accomplished. reply obj. 3: till the judgment day some new things are always being revealed by god to the highest angels, concerning the course of the world, and especially the salvation of the elect. hence there is always something for the superior angels to make known to the inferior. _______________________ question 107 the speech of the angels (in five articles) we next consider the speech of the angels. here there are five points of inquiry: (1) whether one angel speaks to another? (2) whether the inferior speaks to the superior? (3) whether an angel speaks to god? (4) whether the angelic speech is subject to local distance? (5) whether all the speech of one angel to another is known to all? _______________________ first article [i, q. 107, art. 1] whether one angel speaks to another? objection 1: it would seem that one angel does not speak to another. for gregory says (moral. xviii) that, in the state of the resurrection "each one's body will not hide his mind from his fellows." much less, therefore, is one angel's mind hidden from another. but speech manifests to another what lies hidden in the mind. therefore it is not necessary that one angel should speak to another. obj. 2: further, speech is twofold; interior, whereby one speaks to oneself; and exterior, whereby one speaks to another. but exterior speech takes place by some sensible sign, as by voice, or gesture, or some bodily member, as the tongue, or the fingers, and this cannot apply to the angels. therefore one angel does not speak to another. obj. 3: further, the speaker incites the hearer to listen to what he says. but it does not appear that one angel incites another to listen; for this happens among us by some sensible sign. therefore one angel does not speak to another. _on the contrary,_ the apostle says (1 cor. 13:1): "if i speak with the tongues of men and of angels." _i answer that,_ the angels speak in a certain way. but, as gregory says (moral. ii): "it is fitting that our mind, rising above the properties of bodily speech, should be lifted to the sublime and unknown methods of interior speech." to understand how one angel speaks to another, we must consider that, as we explained above (q. 82, a. 4), when treating of the actions and powers of the soul, the will moves the intellect to its operation. now an intelligible object is present to the intellect in three ways; first, habitually, or in the memory, as augustine says (de trin. xiv, 6, 7); secondly, as actually considered or conceived; thirdly, as related to something else. and it is clear that the intelligible object passes from the first to the second stage by the command of the will, and hence in the definition of habit these words occur, "which anyone uses when he wills." so likewise the intelligible object passes from the second to the third stage by the will; for by the will the concept of the mind is ordered to something else, as, for instance, either to the performing of an action, or to being made known to another. now when the mind turns itself to the actual consideration of any habitual knowledge, then a person speaks to himself; for the concept of the mind is called "the interior word." and by the fact that the concept of the angelic mind is ordered to be made known to another by the will of the angel himself, the concept of one angel is made known to another; and in this way one angel speaks to another; for to speak to another only means to make known the mental concept to another. reply obj. 1: our mental concept is hidden by a twofold obstacle. the first is in the will, which can retain the mental concept within, or can direct it externally. in this way god alone can see the mind of another, according to 1 cor. 2:11: "what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him?" the other obstacle whereby the mental concept is excluded from another one's knowledge, comes from the body; and so it happens that even when the will directs the concept of the mind to make itself known, it is not at once make known to another; but some sensible sign must be used. gregory alludes to this fact when he says (moral. ii): "to other eyes we seem to stand aloof as it were behind the wall of the body; and when we wish to make ourselves known, we go out as it were by the door of the tongue to show what we really are." but an angel is under no such obstacle, and so he can make his concept known to another at once. reply obj. 2: external speech, made by the voice, is a necessity for us on account of the obstacle of the body. hence it does not befit an angel; but only interior speech belongs to him, and this includes not only the interior speech by mental concept, but also its being ordered to another's knowledge by the will. so the tongue of an angel is called metaphorically the angel's power, whereby he manifests his mental concept. reply obj. 3: there is no need to draw the attention of the good angels, inasmuch as they always see each other in the word; for as one ever sees the other, so he ever sees what is ordered to himself. but because by their very nature they can speak to each other, and even now the bad angels speak to each other, we must say that the intellect is moved by the intelligible object just as sense is affected by the sensible object. therefore, as sense is aroused by the sensible object, so the mind of an angel can be aroused to attention by some intelligible power. _______________________ second article [i, q. 107, art. 2] whether the inferior angel speaks to the superior? objection 1: it would seem that the inferior angel does not speak to the superior. for on the text (1 cor. 13:1), "if i speak with the tongues of men and of angels," a gloss remarks that the speech of the angels is an enlightenment whereby the superior enlightens the inferior. but the inferior never enlightens the superior, as was above explained (q. 106, a. 3). therefore neither do the inferior speak to the superior. obj. 2: further, as was said above (q. 106, a. 1), to enlighten means merely to acquaint one man of what is known to another; and this is to speak. therefore to speak and to enlighten are the same; so the same conclusion follows. obj. 3: further, gregory says (moral. ii): "god speaks to the angels by the very fact that he shows to their hearts his hidden and invisible things." but this is to enlighten them. therefore, whenever god speaks, he enlightens. in the same way every angelic speech is an enlightening. therefore an inferior angel can in no way speak to a superior angel. _on the contrary,_ according to the exposition of dionysius (coel. hier. vii), the inferior angels said to the superior: "who is this king of glory?" _i answer that,_ the inferior angels can speak to the superior. to make this clear, we must consider that every angelic enlightening is an angelic speech; but on the other hand, not every speech is an enlightening; because, as we have said (a. 1), for one angel to speak to another angel means nothing else, but that by his own will he directs his mental concept in such a way, that it becomes known to the other. now what the mind conceives may be reduced to a twofold principle; to god himself, who is the primal truth; and to the will of the one who understands, whereby we actually consider anything. but because truth is the light of the intellect, and god himself is the rule of all truth; the manifestation of what is conceived by the mind, as depending on the primary truth, is both speech and enlightenment; for example, when one man says to another: "heaven was created by god"; or, "man is an animal." the manifestation, however, of what depends on the will of the one who understands, cannot be called an enlightenment, but is only a speech; for instance, when one says to another: "i wish to learn this; i wish to do this or that." the reason is that the created will is not a light, nor a rule of truth; but participates of light. hence to communicate what comes from the created will is not, as such, an enlightening. for to know what you may will, or what you may understand does not belong to the perfection of my intellect; but only to know the truth in reality. now it is clear that the angels are called superior or inferior by comparison with this principle, god; and therefore enlightenment, which depends on the principle which is god, is conveyed only by the superior angels to the inferior. but as regards the will as the principle, he who wills is first and supreme; and therefore the manifestation of what belongs to the will, is conveyed to others by the one who wills. in that manner both the superior angels speak to the inferior, and the inferior speak to the superior. from this clearly appear the replies to the first and second objections. reply obj. 3: every speech of god to the angels is an enlightening; because since the will of god is the rule of truth, it belongs to the perfection and enlightenment of the created mind to know even what god wills. but the same does not apply to the will of the angels, as was explained above. _______________________ third article [i, q. 107, art. 3] whether an angel speaks to god? objection 1: it would seem that an angel does not speak to god. for speech makes known something to another. but an angel cannot make known anything to god, who knows all things. therefore an angel does not speak to god. obj. 2: further, to speak is to order the mental concept in reference to another, as was shown above (a. 1). but an angel ever orders his mental concept to god. so if an angel speaks to god, he ever speaks to god; which in some ways appears to be unreasonable, since an angel sometimes speaks to another angel. therefore it seems that an angel never speaks to god. _on the contrary,_ it is written (zech. 1:12): "the angel of the lord answered and said: o lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on jerusalem." therefore an angel speaks to god. _i answer that,_ as was said above (aa. 1, 2), the angel speaks by ordering his mental concept to something else. now one thing is ordered to another in a twofold manner. in one way for the purpose of giving one thing to another, as in natural things the agent is ordered to the patient, and in human speech the teacher is ordered to the learner; and in this sense an angel in no way speaks to god either of what concerns the truth, or of whatever depends on the created will; because god is the principle and source of all truth and of all will. in another way one thing is ordered to another to receive something, as in natural things the passive is ordered to the agent, and in human speech the disciple to the master; and in this way an angel speaks to god, either by consulting the divine will of what ought to be done, or by admiring the divine excellence which he can never comprehend; thus gregory says (moral. ii) that "the angels speak to god, when by contemplating what is above themselves they rise to emotions of admiration." reply obj. 1: speech is not always for the purpose of making something known to another; but is sometimes finally ordered to the purpose of manifesting something to the speaker himself; as when the disciples ask instruction from the master. reply obj. 2: the angels are ever speaking to god in the sense of praising and admiring him and his works; but they speak to him by consulting him about what ought to be done whenever they have to perform any new work, concerning which they desire enlightenment. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 107, art. 4] whether local distance influences the angelic speech? objection 1: it would seem that local distance affects the angelic speech. for as damascene says (de fide orth. i, 13): "an angel works where he is." but speech is an angelic operation. therefore, as an angel is in a determinate place, it seems that an angel's speech is limited by the bounds of that place. obj. 2: further, a speaker cries out on account of the distance of the hearer. but it is said of the seraphim that "they cried one to another" (isa. 6:3). therefore in the angelic speech local distance has some effect. _on the contrary,_ it is said that the rich man in hell spoke to abraham, notwithstanding the local distance (luke 16:24). much less therefore does local distance impede the speech of one angel to another. _i answer that,_ the angelic speech consists in an intellectual operation, as explained above (aa. 1, 2, 3). and the intellectual operation of an angel abstracts from the "here and now." for even our own intellectual operation takes place by abstraction from the "here and now," except accidentally on the part of the phantasms, which do not exist at all in an angel. but as regards whatever is abstracted from "here and now," neither difference of time nor local distance has any influence whatever. hence in the angelic speech local distance is no impediment. reply obj. 1: the angelic speech, as above explained (a. 1, ad 2), is interior; perceived, nevertheless, by another; and therefore it exists in the angel who speaks, and consequently where the angel is who speaks. but as local distance does not prevent one angel seeing another, so neither does it prevent an angel perceiving what is ordered to him on the part of another; and this is to perceive his speech. reply obj. 2: the cry mentioned is not a bodily voice raised by reason of the local distance; but is taken to signify the magnitude of what is said, or the intensity of the affection, according to what gregory says (moral. ii): "the less one desires, the less one cries out." _______________________ fifth article [i, q. 107, art. 5] whether all the angels know what one speaks to another? objection 1: it would seem that all the angels know what one speaks to another. for unequal local distance is the reason why all men do not know what one man says to another. but in the angelic speech local distance has no effect, as above explained (a. 4). therefore all the angels know what one speaks to another. obj. 2: further, all the angels have the intellectual power in common. so if the mental concept of one ordered to another is known by one, it is for the same reason known by all. obj. 3: further, enlightenment is a kind of speech. but the enlightenment of one angel by another extends to all the angels, because, as dionysius says (coel. hier. xv): "each one of the heavenly beings communicates what he learns to the others." therefore the speech of one angel to another extends to all. _on the contrary,_ one man can speak to another alone; much more can this be the case among the angels. _i answer that,_ as above explained (aa. 1, 2), the mental concept of one angel can be perceived by another when the angel who possesses the concept refers it by his will to another. now a thing can be ordered through some cause to one thing and not to another; consequently the concept of one (angel) may be known by one and not by another; and therefore an angel can perceive the speech of one angel to another; whereas others do not, not through the obstacle of local distance, but on account of the will so ordering, as explained above. from this appear the replies to the first and second objections. reply obj. 3: enlightenment is of those truths that emanate from the first rule of truth, which is the principle common to all the angels; and in that way all enlightenments are common to all. but speech may be of something ordered to the principle of the created will, which is proper to each angel; and in this way it is not necessary that these speeches should be common to all. _______________________ question 108 of the angelic degrees of hierarchies and orders (in eight articles) we next consider the degrees of the angels in their hierarchies and orders; for it was said above (q. 106, a. 3), that the superior angels enlighten the inferior angels; and not conversely. under this head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) whether all the angels belong to one hierarchy? (2) whether in one hierarchy there is only one order? (3) whether in one order there are many angels? (4) whether the distinction of hierarchies and orders is natural? (5) of the names and properties of each order. (6) of the comparison of the orders to one another. (7) whether the orders will outlast the day of judgment? (8) whether men are taken up into the angelic orders? _______________________ first article [i, q. 108, art. 1] whether all the angels are of one hierarchy? objection 1: it would seem that all the angels belong to one hierarchy. for since the angels are supreme among creatures, it is evident that they are ordered for the best. but the best ordering of a multitude is for it to be governed by one authority, as the philosopher shows (metaph. xii, did. xi, 10; polit. iii, 4). therefore as a hierarchy is nothing but a sacred principality, it seems that all the angels belong to one hierarchy. obj. 2: further, dionysius says (coel. hier. iii) that "hierarchy is order, knowledge, and action." but all the angels agree in one order towards god, whom they know, and by whom in their actions they are ruled. therefore all the angels belong to one hierarchy. obj. 3: further, the sacred principality called hierarchy is to be found among men and angels. but all men are of one hierarchy. therefore likewise all the angels are of one hierarchy. _on the contrary,_ dionysius (coel. hier. vi) distinguishes three hierarchies of angels. _i answer that,_ hierarchy means a "sacred" principality, as above explained. now principality includes two things: the prince himself and the multitude ordered under the prince. therefore because there is one god, the prince not only of all the angels but also of men and all creatures; so there is one hierarchy, not only of all the angels, but also of all rational creatures, who can be participators of sacred things; according to augustine (de civ. dei xii, 1): "there are two cities, that is, two societies, one of the good angels and men, the other of the wicked." but if we consider the principality on the part of the multitude ordered under the prince, then principality is said to be "one" accordingly as the multitude can be subject in _one_ way to the government of the prince. and those that cannot be governed in the same way by a prince belong to different principalities: thus, under one king there are different cities, which are governed by different laws and administrators. now it is evident that men do not receive the divine enlightenments in the same way as do the angels; for the angels receive them in their intelligible purity, whereas men receive them under sensible signs, as dionysius says (coel. hier. i). therefore there must needs be a distinction between the human and the angelic hierarchy. in the same manner we distinguish three angelic hierarchies. for it was shown above (q. 55, a. 3), in treating of the angelic knowledge, that the superior angels have a more universal knowledge of the truth than the inferior angels. this universal knowledge has three grades among the angels. for the types of things, concerning which the angels are enlightened, can be considered in a threefold manner. first as preceding from god as the first universal principle, which mode of knowledge belongs to the first hierarchy, connected immediately with god, and, "as it were, placed in the vestibule of god," as dionysius says (coel. hier. vii). secondly, forasmuch as these types depend on the universal created causes which in some way are already multiplied; which mode belongs to the second hierarchy. thirdly, forasmuch as these types are applied to particular things as depending on their causes; which mode belongs to the lowest hierarchy. all this will appear more clearly when we treat of each of the orders (a. 6). in this way are the hierarchies distinguished on the part of the multitude of subjects. hence it is clear that those err and speak against the opinion of dionysius who place a hierarchy in the divine persons, and call it the "supercelestial" hierarchy. for in the divine persons there exists, indeed, a natural order, but there is no hierarchical order, for as dionysius says (coel. hier. iii): "the hierarchical order is so directed that some be cleansed, enlightened, and perfected; and that others cleanse, enlighten, and perfect"; which far be it from us to apply to the divine persons. reply obj. 1: this objection considers principality on the part of the ruler, inasmuch as a multitude is best ruled by one ruler, as the philosopher asserts in those passages. reply obj. 2: as regards knowing god himself, whom all see in one way--that is, in his essence--there is no hierarchical distinction among the angels; but there is such a distinction as regards the types of created things, as above explained. reply obj. 3: all men are of one species, and have one connatural mode of understanding; which is not the case in the angels: and hence the same argument does not apply to both. _______________________ second article [i, q. 108, art. 2] whether there are several orders in one hierarchy? objection 1: it would seem that in the one hierarchy there are not several orders. for when a definition is multiplied, the thing defined is also multiplied. but hierarchy is order, as dionysius says (coel. hier. iii). therefore, if there are many orders, there is not one hierarchy only, but many. obj. 2: further, different orders are different grades, and grades among spirits are constituted by different spiritual gifts. but among the angels all the spiritual gifts are common to all, for "nothing is possessed individually" (sent. ii, d, ix). therefore there are not different orders of angels. obj. 3: further, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the orders are distinguished according to the actions of "cleansing," "enlightening," and "perfecting." for the order of deacons is "cleansing," the order of priests, is "enlightening," and of bishops "perfecting," as dionysius says (eccl. hier. v). but each of the angels cleanses, enlightens, and perfects. therefore there is no distinction of orders among the angels. _on the contrary,_ the apostle says (eph. 1:20,21) that "god has set the man christ above all principality and power, and virtue, and dominion": which are the various orders of the angels, and some of them belong to one hierarchy, as will be explained (a. 6). _i answer that,_ as explained above, one hierarchy is one principality--that is, one multitude ordered in one way under the rule of a prince. now such a multitude would not be ordered, but confused, if there were not in it different orders. so the nature of a hierarchy requires diversity of orders. this diversity of order arises from the diversity of offices and actions, as appears in one city where there are different orders according to the different actions; for there is one order of those who judge, and another of those who fight, and another of those who labor in the fields, and so forth. but although one city thus comprises several orders, all may be reduced to three, when we consider that every multitude has a beginning, a middle, and an end. so in every city, a threefold order of men is to be seen, some of whom are supreme, as the nobles; others are the last, as the common people, while others hold a place between these, as the middle-class [populus honorabilis]. in the same way we find in each angelic hierarchy the orders distinguished according to their actions and offices, and all this diversity is reduced to three--namely, to the summit, the middle, and the base; and so in every hierarchy dionysius places three orders (coel. hier. vi). reply obj. 1: order is twofold. in one way it is taken as the order comprehending in itself different grades; and in that way a hierarchy is called an order. in another way one grade is called an order; and in that sense the several orders of one hierarchy are so called. reply obj. 2: all things are possessed in common by the angelic society, some things, however, being held more excellently by some than by others. each gift is more perfectly possessed by the one who can communicate it, than by the one who cannot communicate it; as the hot thing which can communicate heat is more perfect that what is unable to give heat. and the more perfectly anyone can communicate a gift, the higher grade he occupies, as he is in the more perfect grade of mastership who can teach a higher science. by this similitude we can reckon the diversity of grades or orders among the angels, according to their different offices and actions. reply obj. 3: the inferior angel is superior to the highest man of our hierarchy, according to the words, "he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he"--namely, john the baptist, than whom "there hath not risen a greater among them that are born of women" (matt. 11:11). hence the lesser angel of the heavenly hierarchy can not only cleanse, but also enlighten and perfect, and in a higher way than can the orders of our hierarchy. thus the heavenly orders are not distinguished by reason of these, but by reason of other different acts. _______________________ third article [i, q. 108, art. 3] whether there are many angels in one order? objection 1: it seems that there are not many angels in one order. for it was shown above (q. 50, a. 4), that all the angels are unequal. but equals belong to one order. therefore there are not many angels in one order. obj. 2: further, it is superfluous for a thing to be done by many, which can be done sufficiently by one. but that which belongs to one angelic office can be done sufficiently by one angel; so much more sufficiently than the one sun does what belongs to the office of the sun, as the angel is more perfect than a heavenly body. if, therefore, the orders are distinguished by their offices, as stated above (a. 2), several angels in one order would be superfluous. obj. 3: further, it was said above (obj. 1) that all the angels are unequal. therefore, if several angels (for instance, three or four), are of one order, the lowest one of the superior order will be more akin to the highest of the inferior order than with the highest of his own order; and thus he does not seem to be more of one order with the latter than with the former. therefore there are not many angels of one order. _on the contrary,_ it is written: "the seraphim cried to one another" (isa. 6:3). therefore there are many angels in the one order of the seraphim. _i answer that,_ whoever knows anything perfectly, is able to distinguish its acts, powers, and nature, down to the minutest details, whereas he who knows a thing in an imperfect manner can only distinguish it in a general way, and only as regards a few points. thus, one who knows natural things imperfectly, can distinguish their orders in a general way, placing the heavenly bodies in one order, inanimate inferior bodies in another, plants in another, and animals in another; whilst he who knows natural things perfectly, is able to distinguish different orders in the heavenly bodies themselves, and in each of the other orders. now our knowledge of the angels is imperfect, as dionysius says (coel. hier. vi). hence we can only distinguish the angelic offices and orders in a general way, so as to place many angels in one order. but if we knew the offices and distinctions of the angels perfectly, we should know perfectly that each angel has his own office and his own order among things, and much more so than any star, though this be hidden from us. reply obj. 1: all the angels of one order are in some way equal in a common similitude, whereby they are placed in that order; but absolutely speaking they are not equal. hence dionysius says (coel. hier. x) that in one and the same order of angels there are those who are first, middle, and last. reply obj. 2: that special distinction of orders and offices wherein each angel has his own office and order, is hidden from us. reply obj. 3: as in a surface which is partly white and partly black, the two parts on the borders of white and black are more akin as regards their position than any other two white parts, but are less akin in quality; so two angels who are on the boundary of two orders are more akin in propinquity of nature than one of them is akin to the others of its own order, but less akin in their fitness for similar offices, which fitness, indeed, extends to a definite limit. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 108, art. 4] whether the distinction of hierarchies and orders comes from the angelic nature? objection 1: it would seem that the distinction of hierarchies and of orders is not from the nature of the angels. for hierarchy is "a sacred principality," and dionysius places in its definition that it "approaches a resemblance to god, as far as may be" (coel. hier. iii). but sanctity and resemblance to god is in the angels by grace, and not by nature. therefore the distinction of hierarchies and orders in the angels is by grace, and not by nature. obj. 2: further, the seraphim are called "burning" or "kindling," as dionysius says (coel. hier. vii). this belongs to charity which comes not from nature but from grace; for "it is poured forth in our hearts by the holy ghost who is given to us" (rom. 5:5): "which is said not only of holy men, but also of the holy angels," as augustine says (de civ. dei xii). therefore the angelic orders are not from nature, but from grace. obj. 3: further, the ecclesiastical hierarchy is copied from the heavenly. but the orders among men are not from nature, but by the gift of grace; for it is not a natural gift for one to be a bishop, and another a priest, and another a deacon. therefore neither in the angels are the orders from nature, but from grace only. _on the contrary,_ the master says (ii, d. 9) that "an angelic order is a multitude of heavenly spirits, who are likened to each other by some gift of grace, just as they agree also in the participation of natural gifts." therefore the distinction of orders among the angels is not only by gifts of grace, but also by gifts of nature. _i answer that,_ the order of government, which is the order of a multitude under authority, is derived from its end. now the end of the angels may be considered in two ways. first, according to the faculty of nature, so that they may know and love god by natural knowledge and love; and according to their relation to this end the orders of the angels are distinguished by natural gifts. secondly, the end of the angelic multitude can be taken from what is above their natural powers, which consists in the vision of the divine essence, and in the unchangeable fruition of his goodness; to which end they can reach only by grace; and hence as regards this end, the orders in the angels are adequately distinguished by the gifts of grace, but dispositively by natural gifts, forasmuch as to the angels are given gratuitous gifts according to the capacity of their natural gifts; which is not the case with men, as above explained (q. 62, a. 6). hence among men the orders are distinguished according to the gratuitous gifts only, and not according to natural gifts. from the above the replies to the objections are evident. _______________________ fifth article [i, q. 108, art. 5] whether the orders of the angels are properly named? objection 1: it would seem that the orders of the angels are not properly named. for all the heavenly spirits are called angels and heavenly virtues. but common names should not be appropriated to individuals. therefore the orders of the angels and virtues are ineptly named. obj. 2: further, it belongs to god alone to be lord, according to the words, "know ye that the lord he is god" (ps. 99:3). therefore one order of the heavenly spirits is not properly called "dominations." obj. 3: further, the name "domination" seems to imply government and likewise the names "principalities" and "powers." therefore these three names do not seem to be properly applied to three orders. obj. 4: further, archangels are as it were angel princes. therefore this name ought not to be given to any other order than to the "principalities." obj. 5: further, the name "seraphim" is derived from ardor, which pertains to charity; and the name "cherubim" from knowledge. but charity and knowledge are gifts common to all the angels. therefore they ought not to be names of any particular orders. obj. 6: further, thrones are seats. but from the fact that god knows and loves the rational creature he is said to sit within it. therefore there ought not to be any order of "thrones" besides the "cherubim" and "seraphim." therefore it appears that the orders of angels are not properly styled. on the contrary is the authority of holy scripture wherein they are so named. for the name "seraphim" is found in isa. 6:2; the name "cherubim" in ezech. 1 (cf. 10:15,20); "thrones" in col. 1:16; "dominations," "virtues," "powers," and "principalities" are mentioned in eph. 1:21; the name "archangels" in the canonical epistle of st. jude (9), and the name "angels" is found in many places of scripture. _i answer that,_ as dionysius says (coel. hier. vii), in the names of the angelic orders it is necessary to observe that the proper name of each order expresses its property. now to see what is the property of each order, we must consider that in coordinated things, something may be found in a threefold manner: by way of property, by way of excess, and by way of participation. a thing is said to be in another by way of property, if it is adequate and proportionate to its nature: by excess when an attribute is less than that to which it is attributed, but is possessed thereby in an eminent manner, as we have stated (q. 13, a. 2) concerning all the names which are attributed to god: by participation, when an attribute is possessed by something not fully but partially; thus holy men are called gods by participation. therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly to name a man, we should call him a "rational substance," but not an "intellectual substance," which latter is the proper name of an angel; because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property, and to man by participation; nor do we call him a "sensible substance," which is the proper name of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent way than to other animals. so we must consider that in the angelic orders all spiritual perfections are common to all the angels, and that they are all more excellently in the superior than in the inferior angels. further, as in these perfections there are grades, the superior perfection belongs to the superior order as its property, whereas it belongs to the inferior by participation; and conversely the inferior perfection belongs to the inferior order as its property, and to the superior by way of excess; and thus the superior order is denominated from the superior perfection. so in this way dionysius (coel. hier. vii) explains the names of the orders accordingly as they befit the spiritual perfections they signify. gregory, on the other hand, in expounding these names (hom. xxxiv in evang.) seems to regard more the exterior ministrations; for he says that "angels are so called as announcing the least things; and the archangels in the greatest; by the virtues miracles are wrought; by the powers hostile powers are repulsed; and the principalities preside over the good spirits themselves." reply obj. 1: angel means "messenger." so all the heavenly spirits, so far as they make known divine things, are called "angels." but the superior angels enjoy a certain excellence, as regards this manifestation, from which the superior orders are denominated. the lowest order of angels possess no excellence above the common manifestation; and therefore it is denominated from manifestation only; and thus the common name remains as it were proper to the lowest order, as dionysius says (coel. hier. v). or we may say that the lowest order can be specially called the order of "angels," forasmuch as they announce things to us immediately. "virtue" can be taken in two ways. first, commonly, considered as the medium between the essence and the operation, and in that sense all the heavenly spirits are called heavenly virtues, as also "heavenly essences." secondly, as meaning a certain excellence of strength; and thus it is the proper name of an angelic order. hence dionysius says (coel. hier. viii) that the "name 'virtues' signifies a certain virile and immovable strength"; first, in regard of those divine operations which befit them; secondly, in regard to receiving divine gifts. thus it signifies that they undertake fearlessly the divine behests appointed to them; and this seems to imply strength of mind. reply obj. 2: as dionysius says (div. nom. xii): "dominion is attributed to god in a special manner, by way of excess: but the divine word gives the more illustrious heavenly princes the name of lord by participation, through whom the inferior angels receive the divine gifts." hence dionysius also states (coel. hier. viii) that the name "domination" means first "a certain liberty, free from servile condition and common subjection, such as that of plebeians, and from tyrannical oppression," endured sometimes even by the great. secondly, it signifies "a certain rigid and inflexible supremacy which does not bend to any servile act, or to the act of those who are subject to or oppressed by tyrants." thirdly, it signifies "the desire and participation of the true dominion which belongs to god." likewise the name of each order signifies the participation of what belongs to god; as the name "virtues" signifies the participation of the divine virtue; and the same principle applies to the rest. reply obj. 3: the names "domination," "power," and "principality" belong to government in different ways. the place of a lord is only to prescribe what is to be done. so gregory says (hom. xxiv in evang.), that "some companies of the angels, because others are subject to obedience to them, are called dominations." the name "power" points out a kind of order, according to what the apostle says, "he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordination of god" (rom. 13:2). and so dionysius says (coel. hier. viii) that the name "power" signifies a kind of ordination both as regards the reception of divine things, and as regards the divine actions performed by superiors towards inferiors by leading them to things above. therefore, to the order of "powers" it belongs to regulate what is to be done by those who are subject to them. to preside [principari] as gregory says (hom. xxiv in ev.) is "to be first among others," as being first in carrying out what is ordered to be done. and so dionysius says (coel. hier. ix) that the name of "principalities" signifies "one who leads in a sacred order." for those who lead others, being first among them, are properly called "princes," according to the words, "princes went before joined with singers" (ps. 67:26). reply obj. 4: the "archangels," according to dionysius (coel. hier. ix), are between the "principalities" and the "angels." a medium compared to one extreme seems like the other, as participating in the nature of both extremes; thus tepid seems cold compared to hot, and hot compared to cold. so the "archangels" are called the "angel princes"; forasmuch as they are princes as regards the "angels," and angels as regards the principalities. but according to gregory (hom. xxiv in ev.) they are called "archangels," because they preside over the one order of the "angels"; as it were, announcing greater things: and the "principalities" are so called as presiding over all the heavenly "virtues" who fulfil the divine commands. reply obj. 5: the name "seraphim" does not come from charity only, but from the excess of charity, expressed by the word ardor or fire. hence dionysius (coel. hier. vii) expounds the name "seraphim" according to the properties of fire, containing an excess of heat. now in fire we may consider three things. first, the movement which is upwards and continuous. this signifies that they are borne inflexibly towards god. secondly, the active force which is "heat," which is not found in fire simply, but exists with a certain sharpness, as being of most penetrating action, and reaching even to the smallest things, and as it were, with superabundant fervor; whereby is signified the action of these angels, exercised powerfully upon those who are subject to them, rousing them to a like fervor, and cleansing them wholly by their heat. thirdly we consider in fire the quality of clarity, or brightness; which signifies that these angels have in themselves an inextinguishable light, and that they also perfectly enlighten others. in the same way the name "cherubim" comes from a certain excess of knowledge; hence it is interpreted "fulness of knowledge," which dionysius (coel. hier. vii) expounds in regard to four things: the perfect vision of god; the full reception of the divine light; their contemplation in god of the beauty of the divine order; and in regard to the fact that possessing this knowledge fully, they pour it forth copiously upon others. reply obj. 6: the order of the "thrones" excels the inferior orders as having an immediate knowledge of the types of the divine works; whereas the "cherubim" have the excellence of knowledge and the "seraphim" the excellence of ardor. and although these two excellent attributes include the third, yet the gift belonging to the "thrones" does not include the other two; and so the order of the "thrones" is distinguished from the orders of the "cherubim" and the "seraphim." for it is a common rule in all things that the excellence of the inferior is contained in the superior, but not conversely. but dionysius (coel. hier. vii) explains the name "thrones" by its relation to material seats, in which we may consider four things. first, the site; because seats are raised above the earth, and to the angels who are called "thrones" are raised up to the immediate knowledge of the types of things in god. secondly, because in material seats is displayed strength, forasmuch as a person sits firmly on them. but here the reverse is the case; for the angels themselves are made firm by god. thirdly, because the seat receives him who sits thereon, and he can be carried thereupon; and so the angels receive god in themselves, and in a certain way bear him to the inferior creatures. fourthly, because in its shape, a seat is open on one side to receive the sitter; and thus are the angels promptly open to receive god and to serve him. _______________________ sixth article [i, q. 108, art. 6] whether the grades of the orders are properly assigned? objection 1: it would seem that the grades of the orders are not properly assigned. for the order of prelates is the highest. but the names of "dominations," "principalities," and "powers" of themselves imply prelacy. therefore these orders ought not to be supreme. obj. 2: further, the nearer an order is to god, the higher it is. but the order of "thrones" is the nearest to god; for nothing is nearer to the sitter than the seat. therefore the order of the "thrones" is the highest. obj. 3: further, knowledge comes before love, and intellect is higher than will. therefore the order of "cherubim" seems to be higher than the "seraphim." obj. 4: further, gregory (hom. xxiv in evang.) places the "principalities" above the "powers." these therefore are not placed immediately above the archangels, as dionysius says (coel. hier. ix). _on the contrary,_ dionysius (coel. hier. vii), places in the highest hierarchy the "seraphim" as the first, the "cherubim" as the middle, the "thrones" as the last; in the middle hierarchy he places the "dominations," as the first, the "virtues" in the middle, the "powers" last; in the lowest hierarchy the "principalities" first, then the "archangels," and lastly the "angels." _i answer that,_ the grades of the angelic orders are assigned by gregory (hom. xxiv in ev.) and dionysius (coel. hier. vii), who agree as regards all except the "principalities" and "virtues." for dionysius places the "virtues" beneath the "dominations," and above the "powers"; the "principalities" beneath the "powers" and above the "archangels." gregory, however, places the "principalities" between the "dominations" and the "powers"; and the "virtues" between the "powers" and the "archangels." each of these placings may claim authority from the words of the apostle, who (eph. 1:20,21) enumerates the middle orders, beginning from the lowest saying that "god set him," i.e. christ, "on his right hand in the heavenly places above all principality and power, and virtue, and dominion." here he places "virtues" between "powers" and "dominations," according to the placing of dionysius. writing however to the colossians (1:16), numbering the same orders from the highest, he says: "whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him and in him." here he places the "principalities" between "dominations" and "powers," as does also gregory. let us then first examine the reason for the ordering of dionysius, in which we see, that, as said above (a. 1), the highest hierarchy contemplates the ideas of things in god himself; the second in the universal causes; and third in their application to particular effects. and because god is the end not only of the angelic ministrations, but also of the whole creation, it belongs to the first hierarchy to consider the end; to the middle one belongs the universal disposition of what is to be done; and to the last belongs the application of this disposition to the effect, which is the carrying out of the work; for it is clear that these three things exist in every kind of operation. so dionysius, considering the properties of the orders as derived from their names, places in the first hierarchy those orders the names of which are taken from their relation to god, the "seraphim," "cherubim," and "thrones"; and he places in the middle hierarchy those orders whose names denote a certain kind of common government or disposition--the "dominations," "virtues," and "powers"; and he places in the third hierarchy the orders whose names denote the execution of the work, the "principalities," "angels," and "archangels." as regards the end, three things may be considered. for firstly we consider the end; then we acquire perfect knowledge of the end; thirdly, we fix our intention on the end; of which the second is an addition to the first, and the third an addition to both. and because god is the end of creatures, as the leader is the end of an army, as the philosopher says (metaph. xii, did. xi, 10); so a somewhat similar order may be seen in human affairs. for there are some who enjoy the dignity of being able with familiarity to approach the king or leader; others in addition are privileged to know his secrets; and others above these ever abide with him, in a close union. according to this similitude, we can understand the disposition in the orders of the first hierarchy; for the "thrones" are raised up so as to be the familiar recipients of god in themselves, in the sense of knowing immediately the types of things in himself; and this is proper to the whole of the first hierarchy. the "cherubim" know the divine secrets supereminently; and the "seraphim" excel in what is the supreme excellence of all, in being united to god himself; and all this in such a manner that the whole of this hierarchy can be called the "thrones"; as, from what is common to all the heavenly spirits together, they are all called "angels." as regards government, three things are comprised therein, the first of which is to appoint those things which are to be done, and this belongs to the "dominations"; the second is to give the power of carrying out what is to be done, which belongs to the "virtues"; the third is to order how what has been commanded or decided to be done can be carried out by others, which belongs to the "powers." the execution of the angelic ministrations consists in announcing divine things. now in the execution of any action there are beginners and leaders; as in singing, the precentors; and in war, generals and officers; this belongs to the "principalities." there are others who simply execute what is to be done; and these are the "angels." others hold a middle place; and these are the "archangels," as above explained. this explanation of the orders is quite a reasonable one. for the highest in an inferior order always has affinity to the lowest in the higher order; as the lowest animals are near to the plants. now the first order is that of the divine persons, which terminates in the holy ghost, who is love proceeding, with whom the highest order of the first hierarchy has affinity, denominated as it is from the fire of love. the lowest order of the first hierarchy is that of the "thrones," who in their own order are akin to the "dominations"; for the "thrones," according to gregory (hom. xxiv in ev.), are so called "because through them god accomplishes his judgments," since they are enlightened by him in a manner adapted to the immediate enlightening of the second hierarchy, to which belongs the disposition of the divine ministrations. the order of the "powers" is akin to the order of the "principalities"; for as it belongs to the "powers" to impose order on those subject to them, this ordering is plainly shown at once in the name of "principalities," who, as presiding over the government of peoples and kingdoms (which occupies the first and principal place in the divine ministrations), are the first in the execution thereof; "for the good of a nation is more divine than the good of one man" (ethic. i, 2); and hence it is written, "the prince of the kingdom of the persians resisted me" (dan. 10:13). the disposition of the orders which is mentioned by gregory is also reasonable. for since the "dominations" appoint and order what belongs to the divine ministrations, the orders subject to them are arranged according to the disposition of those things in which the divine ministrations are effected. still, as augustine says (de trin. iii), "bodies are ruled in a certain order; the inferior by the superior; and all of them by the spiritual creature, and the bad spirit by the good spirit." so the first order after the "dominations" is called that of "principalities," who rule even over good spirits; then the "powers," who coerce the evil spirits; even as evil-doers are coerced by earthly powers, as it is written (rom. 13:3,4). after these come the "virtues," which have power over corporeal nature in the working of miracles; after these are the "angels" and the "archangels," who announce to men either great things above reason, or small things within the purview of reason. reply obj. 1: the angels' subjection to god is greater than their presiding over inferior things; and the latter is derived from the former. thus the orders which derive their name from presiding are not the first and highest; but rather the orders deriving their name from their nearness and relation to god. reply obj. 2: the nearness to god designated by the name of the "thrones," belongs also to the "cherubim" and "seraphim," and in a more excellent way, as above explained. reply obj. 3: as above explained (q. 27, a. 3), knowledge takes place accordingly as the thing known is in the knower; but love as the lover is united to the object loved. now higher things are in a nobler way in themselves than in lower things; whereas lower things are in higher things in a nobler way than they are in themselves. therefore to know lower things is better than to love them; and to love the higher things, god above all, is better than to know them. reply obj. 4: a careful comparison will show that little or no difference exists in reality between the dispositions of the orders according to dionysius and gregory. for gregory expounds the name "principalities" from their "presiding over good spirits," which also agrees with the "virtues" accordingly as this name expressed a certain strength, giving efficacy to the inferior spirits in the execution of the divine ministrations. again, according to gregory, the "virtues" seem to be the same as "principalities" of dionysius. for to work miracles holds the first place in the divine ministrations; since thereby the way is prepared for the announcements of the "archangels" and the "angels." _______________________ seventh article [i, q. 108, art. 7] whether the orders will outlast the day of judgment? objection 1: it would seem that the orders of angels will not outlast the day of judgment. for the apostle says (1 cor. 15:24), that christ will "bring to naught all principality and power, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to god and the father," and this will be in the final consummation. therefore for the same reason all others will be abolished in that state. obj. 2: further, to the office of the angelic orders it belongs to cleanse, enlighten, and perfect. but after the day of judgment one angel will not cleanse, enlighten, or perfect another, because they will not advance any more in knowledge. therefore the angelic orders would remain for no purpose. obj. 3: further, the apostle says of the angels (heb. 1:14), that "they are all ministering spirits, sent to minister to them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation"; whence it appears that the angelic offices are ordered for the purpose of leading men to salvation. but all the elect are in pursuit of salvation until the day of judgment. therefore the angelic offices and orders will not outlast the day of judgment. _on the contrary,_ it is written (judges 5:20): "stars remaining in their order and courses," which is applied to the angels. therefore the angels will ever remain in their orders. _i answer that,_ in the angelic orders we may consider two things; the distinction of grades, and the execution of their offices. the distinction of grades among the angels takes place according to the difference of grace and nature, as above explained (a. 4); and these differences will ever remain in the angels; for these differences of natures cannot be taken from them unless they themselves be corrupted. the difference of glory will also ever remain in them according to the difference of preceding merit. as to the execution of the angelic offices, it will to a certain degree remain after the day of judgment, and to a certain degree will cease. it will cease accordingly as their offices are directed towards leading others to their end; but it will remain, accordingly as it agrees with the attainment of the end. thus also the various ranks of soldiers have different duties to perform in battle and in triumph. reply obj. 1: the principalities and powers will come to an end in that final consummation as regards their office of leading others to their end; because when the end is attained, it is no longer necessary to tend towards the end. this is clear from the words of the apostle, "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom of god and the father," i.e. when he shall have led the faithful to the enjoyment of god himself. reply obj. 2: the actions of angels over the other angels are to be considered according to a likeness to our own intellectual actions. in ourselves we find many intellectual actions which are ordered according to the order of cause and effect; as when we gradually arrive at one conclusion by many middle terms. now it is manifest that the knowledge of a conclusion depends on all the preceding middle terms not only in the new acquisition of knowledge, but also as regards the keeping of the knowledge acquired. a proof of this is that when anyone forgets any of the preceding middle terms he can have opinion or belief about the conclusion, but not knowledge; as he is ignorant of the order of the causes. so, since the inferior angels know the types of the divine works by the light of the superior angels, their knowledge depends on the light of the superior angels not only as regards the acquisition of knowledge, but also as regards the preserving of the knowledge possessed. so, although after the judgment the inferior angels will not progress in the knowledge of some things, still this will not prevent their being enlightened by the superior angels. reply obj. 3: although after the day of judgment men will not be led any more to salvation by the ministry of the angels, still those who are already saved will be enlightened through the angelic ministry. _______________________ eighth article [i, q. 108, art. 8] whether men are taken up into the angelic orders? objection 1: it would seem that men are not taken up into the orders of the angels. for the human hierarchy is stationed beneath the lowest heavenly hierarchy, as the lowest under the middle hierarchy and the middle beneath the first. but the angels of the lowest hierarchy are never transferred into the middle, or the first. therefore neither are men transferred to the angelic orders. obj. 2: further, certain offices belong to the orders of the angels, as to guard, to work miracles, to coerce the demons, and the like; which do not appear to belong to the souls of the saints. therefore they are not transferred to the angelic orders. obj. 3: further, as the good angels lead on to good, so do the demons to what is evil. but it is erroneous to say that the souls of bad men are changed into demons; for chrysostom rejects this (hom. xxviii in matt.). therefore it does not seem that the souls of the saints will be transferred to the orders of angels. _on the contrary,_ the lord says of the saints that, "they will be as the angels of god" (matt. 22:30). _i answer that,_ as above explained (aa. 4,7), the orders of the angels are distinguished according to the conditions of nature and according to the gifts of grace. considered only as regards the grade of nature, men can in no way be assumed into the angelic orders; for the natural distinction will always remain. in view of this distinction, some asserted that men can in no way be transferred to an equality with the angels; but this is erroneous, contradicting as it does the promise of christ saying that the children of the resurrection will be equal to the angels in heaven (luke 20:36). for whatever belongs to nature is the material part of an order; whilst that which perfects is from grace which depends on the liberality of god, and not on the order of nature. therefore by the gift of grace men can merit glory in such a degree as to be equal to the angels, in each of the angelic grades; and this implies that men are taken up into the orders of the angels. some, however, say that not all who are saved are assumed into the angelic orders, but only virgins or the perfect; and that the other will constitute their own order, as it were, corresponding to the whole society of the angels. but this is against what augustine says (de civ. dei xii, 9), that "there will not be two societies of men and angels, but only one; because the beatitude of all is to cleave to god alone." reply obj. 1: grace is given to the angels in proportion to their natural gifts. this, however, does not apply to men, as above explained (a. 4; q. 62, a. 6). so, as the inferior angels cannot be transferred to the natural grade of the superior, neither can they be transferred to the superior grade of grace; whereas men can ascend to the grade of grace, but not of nature. reply obj. 2: the angels according to the order of nature are between us and god; and therefore according to the common law not only human affairs are administered by them, but also all corporeal matters. but holy men even after this life are of the same nature with ourselves; and hence according to the common law they do not administer human affairs, "nor do they interfere in the things of the living," as augustine says (de cura pro mortuis xiii, xvi). still, by a certain special dispensation it is sometimes granted to some of the saints to exercise these offices; by working miracles, by coercing the demons, or by doing something of that kind, as augustine says (de cura pro mortuis xvi). reply obj. 3: it is not erroneous to say that men are transferred to the penalty of demons; but some erroneously stated that the demons are nothing but souls of the dead; and it is this that chrysostom rejects. _______________________ question 109 the ordering of the bad angels (in four articles) we now consider the ordering of the bad angels; concerning which there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether there are orders among the demons? (2) whether among them there is precedence? (3) whether one enlightens another? (4) whether they are subject to the precedence of the good angels? _______________________ first article [i, q. 109, art. 1] whether there are orders among the demons? objection 1: it would seem that there are no orders among the demons. for order belongs to good, as also mode, and species, as augustine says (de nat. boni iii); and on the contrary, disorder belongs to evil. but there is nothing disorderly in the good angels. therefore in the bad angels there are no orders. obj. 2: further, the angelic orders are contained under a hierarchy. but the demons are not in a hierarchy, which is defined as a holy principality; for they are void of all holiness. therefore among the demons there are no orders. obj. 3: further, the demons fell from every one of the angelic orders; as is commonly supposed. therefore, if some demons are said to belong to an order, as falling from that order, it would seem necessary to give them the names of each of those orders. but we never find that they are called "seraphim," or "thrones," or "dominations." therefore on the same ground they are not to be placed in any other order. _on the contrary,_ the apostle says (eph. 6:12): "our wrestling . . . is against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness." _i answer that,_ as explained above (q. 108, aa. 4, 7, 8), order in the angels is considered both according to the grade of nature; and according to that of grace. now grace has a twofold state, the imperfect, which is that of merit; and the perfect, which is that of consummate glory. if therefore we consider the angelic orders in the light of the perfection of glory, then the demons are not in the angelic orders, and never were. but if we consider them in relation to imperfect grace, in that view the demons were at the time in the orders of angels, but fell away from them, according to what was said above (q. 62, a. 3), that all the angels were created in grace. but if we consider them in the light of nature, in that view they are still in those orders; because they have not lost their natural gifts; as dionysius says (div. nom. iv). reply obj. 1: good can exist without evil; whereas evil cannot exist without good (q. 49, a. 3); so there is order in the demons, as possessing a good nature. reply obj. 2: if we consider the ordering of the demons on the part of god who orders them, it is sacred; for he uses the demons for himself; but on the part of the demons' will it is not a sacred thing, because they abuse their nature for evil. reply obj. 3: the name "seraphim" is given from the ardor of charity; and the name "thrones" from the divine indwelling; and the name "dominations" imports a certain liberty; all of which are opposed to sin; and therefore these names are not given to the angels who sinned. _______________________ second article [i, q. 109, art. 2] whether among the demons there is precedence? objection 1: it would seem that there is no precedence among the demons. for every precedence is according to some order of justice. but the demons are wholly fallen from justice. therefore there is no precedence among them. obj. 2: further, there is no precedence where obedience and subjection do not exist. but these cannot be without concord; which is not to be found among the demons, according to the text, "among the proud there are always contentions" (prov. 13:10). therefore there is no precedence among the demons. obj. 3: if there be precedence among them it is either according to nature, or according to their sin or punishment. but it is not according to their nature, for subjection and service do not come from nature but from subsequent sin; neither is it according to sin or punishment, because in that case the superior demons who have sinned the most grievously, would be subject to the inferior. therefore there is no precedence among the demons. _on the contrary,_ on 1 cor. 15:24 the gloss says: "while the world lasts, angels will preside over angels, men over men, and demons over demons." _i answer that,_ since action follows the nature of a thing, where natures are subordinate, actions also must be subordinate to each other. thus it is in corporeal things, for as the inferior bodies by natural order are below the heavenly bodies, their actions and movements are subject to the actions and movements of the heavenly bodies. now it is plain from what we have said (a. 1), that the demons are by natural order subject to others; and hence their actions are subject to the action of those above them, and this is what we mean by precedence--that the action of the subject should be under the action of the prelate. so the very natural disposition of the demons requires that there should be authority among them. this agrees too with divine wisdom, which leaves nothing inordinate, which "reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (wis. 8:1). reply obj. 1: the authority of the demons is not founded on their justice, but on the justice of god ordering all things. reply obj. 2: the concord of the demons, whereby some obey others, does not arise from mutual friendships, but from their common wickedness whereby they hate men, and fight against god's justice. for it belongs to wicked men to be joined to and subject to those whom they see to be stronger, in order to carry out their own wickedness. reply obj. 3: the demons are not equal in nature; and so among them there exists a natural precedence; which is not the case with men, who are naturally equal. that the inferior are subject to the superior, is not for the benefit of the superior, but rather to their detriment; because since to do evil belongs in a pre-eminent degree to unhappiness, it follows that to preside in evil is to be more unhappy. _______________________ third article [i, q. 109, art. 3] whether there is enlightenment in the demons? objection 1: it would seem that enlightenment is in the demons. for enlightenment means the manifestation of the truth. but one demon can manifest truth to another, because the superior excel in natural knowledge. therefore the superior demons can enlighten the inferior. obj. 2: further, a body abounding in light can enlighten a body deficient in light, as the sun enlightens the moon. but the superior demons abound in the participation of natural light. therefore it seems that the superior demons can enlighten the inferior. _on the contrary,_ enlightenment is not without cleansing and perfecting, as stated above (q. 106, a. 1). but to cleanse does not befit the demons, according to the words: "what can be made clean by the unclean?" (ecclus. 34:4). therefore neither can they enlighten. _i answer that,_ there can be no enlightenment properly speaking among the demons. for, as above explained (q. 107, a. 2), enlightenment properly speaking is the manifestation of the truth in reference to god, who enlightens every intellect. another kind of manifestation of the truth is speech, as when one angel manifests his concept to another. now the demon's perversity does not lead one to order another to god, but rather to lead away from the divine order; and so one demon does not enlighten another; but one can make known his mental concept to another by way of speech. reply obj. 1: not every kind of manifestation of the truth is enlightenment, but only that which is above described. reply obj. 2: according to what belongs to natural knowledge, there is no necessary manifestation of the truth either in the angels, or in the demons, because, as above explained (q. 55, a. 2; q. 58, a. 2; q. 79, a. 2), they know from the first all that belongs to their natural knowledge. so the greater fulness of natural light in the superior demons does not prove that they can enlighten others. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 109, art. 4] whether the good angels have precedence over the bad angels? objection 1: it would seem that the good angels have no precedence over the bad angels. for the angels' precedence is especially connected with enlightenment. but the bad angels, being darkness, are not enlightened by the good angels. therefore the good angels do not rule over the bad. obj. 2: further, superiors are responsible as regards negligence for the evil deeds of their subjects. but the demons do much evil. therefore if they are subject to the good angels, it seems that negligence is to be charged to the good angels; which cannot be admitted. obj. 3: further, the angels' precedence follows upon the order of nature, as above explained (a. 2). but if the demons fell from every order, as is commonly said, many of the demons are superior to many good angels in the natural order. therefore the good angels have no precedence over all the bad angels. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de trin. iii), that "the treacherous and sinful spirit of life is ruled by the rational, pious, and just spirit of life"; and gregory says (hom. xxxiv) that "the powers are the angels to whose charge are subjected the hostile powers." _i answer that,_ the whole order of precedence is first and originally in god; and it is shared by creatures accordingly as they are the nearer to god. for those creatures, which are more perfect and nearer to god, have the power to act on others. now the greatest perfection and that which brings them nearest to god belongs to the creatures who enjoy god, as the holy angels; of which perfection the demons are deprived; and therefore the good angels have precedence over the bad, and these are ruled by them. reply obj. 1: many things concerning divine mysteries are made known by the holy angels to the bad angels, whenever the divine justice requires the demons to do anything for the punishment of the evil; or for the trial of the good; as in human affairs the judge's assessors make known his sentence to the executioners. this revelation, if compared to the angelic revealers, can be called an enlightenment, forasmuch as they direct it to god; but it is not an enlightenment on the part of the demons, for these do not direct it to god; but to the fulfilment of their own wickedness. reply obj. 2: the holy angels are the ministers of the divine wisdom. hence as the divine wisdom permits some evil to be done by bad angels or men, for the sake of the good that follows; so also the good angels do not entirely restrain the bad from inflicting harm. reply obj. 3: an angel who is inferior in the natural order presides over demons, although these may be naturally superior; because the power of divine justice to which the good angels cleave, is stronger than the natural power of the angels. hence likewise among men, "the spiritual man judgeth all things" (1 cor. 2:15), and the philosopher says (ethic. iii, 4; x, 5) that "the virtuous man is the rule and measure of all human acts." _______________________ question 110 how angels act on bodies (in four articles) we now consider how the angels preside over the corporeal creatures. under this head there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether the corporeal creature is governed by the angels? (2) whether the corporeal creature obeys the mere will of the angels? (3) whether the angels by their own power can immediately move bodies locally? (4) whether the good or bad angels can work miracles? _______________________ first article [i, q. 110, art. 1] whether the corporeal creature is governed by the angels? objection 1: it would seem that the corporeal creature is not governed by angels. for whatever possesses a determinate mode of action, needs not to be governed by any superior power; for we require to be governed lest we do what we ought not. but corporeal things have their actions determined by the nature divinely bestowed upon them. therefore they do not need the government of angels. obj. 2: further, the lowest things are ruled by the superior. but some corporeal things are inferior, and others are superior. therefore they need not be governed by the angels. obj. 3: further, the different orders of the angels are distinguished by different offices. but if corporeal creatures were ruled by the angels, there would be as many angelic offices as there are species of things. so also there would be as many orders of angels as there are species of things; which is against what is laid down above (q. 108, a. 2). therefore the corporeal creature is not governed by angels. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de trin. iii, 4) that "all bodies are ruled by the rational spirit of life"; and gregory says (dial. iv, 6), that "in this visible world nothing takes place without the agency of the invisible creature." _i answer that,_ it is generally found both in human affairs and in natural things that every particular power is governed and ruled by the universal power; as, for example, the bailiff's power is governed by the power of the king. among the angels also, as explained above (q. 55, a. 3; q. 108, a. 1), the superior angels who preside over the inferior possess a more universal knowledge. now it is manifest that the power of any individual body is more particular than the power of any spiritual substance; for every corporeal form is a form individualized by matter, and determined to the "here and now"; whereas immaterial forms are absolute and intelligible. therefore, as the inferior angels who have the less universal forms, are ruled by the superior; so are all corporeal things ruled by the angels. this is not only laid down by the holy doctors, but also by all philosophers who admit the existence of incorporeal substances. reply obj. 1: corporeal things have determinate actions; but they exercise such actions only according as they are moved; because it belongs to a body not to act unless moved. hence a corporeal creature must be moved by a spiritual creature. reply obj. 2: the reason alleged is according to the opinion of aristotle who laid down (metaph. xi, 8) that the heavenly bodies are moved by spiritual substances; the number of which he endeavored to assign according to the number of motions apparent in the heavenly bodies. but he did not say that there were any spiritual substances with immediate rule over the inferior bodies, except perhaps human souls; and this was because he did not consider that any operations were exercised in the inferior bodies except the natural ones for which the movement of the heavenly bodies sufficed. but because we assert that many things are done in the inferior bodies besides the natural corporeal actions, for which the movements of the heavenly bodies are not sufficient; therefore in our opinion we must assert that the angels possess an immediate presidency not only over the heavenly bodies, but also over the inferior bodies. reply obj. 3: philosophers have held different opinions about immaterial substances. for plato laid down that immaterial substances were types and species of sensible bodies; and that some were more universal than others; and so he held that immaterial substances preside immediately over all sensible bodies, and different ones over different bodies. but aristotle held that immaterial substances are not the species of sensible bodies, but something higher and more universal; and so he did not attribute to them any immediate presiding over single bodies, but only over the universal agents, the heavenly bodies. avicenna followed a middle course. for he agreed with plato in supposing some spiritual substance to preside immediately in the sphere of active and passive elements; because, as plato also said, he held that the forms of these sensible things are derived from immaterial substances. but he differed from plato because he supposed only one immaterial substance to preside over all inferior bodies, which he called the "active intelligence." the holy doctors held with the platonists that different spiritual substances were placed over corporeal things. for augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 79): "every visible thing in this world has an angelic power placed over it"; and damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 4): "the devil was one of the angelic powers who presided over the terrestrial order"; and origen says on the text, "when the ass saw the angel" (num. 22:23), that "the world has need of angels who preside over beasts, and over the birth of animals, and trees, and plants, and over the increase of all other things" (hom. xiv in num.). the reason of this, however, is not that an angel is more fitted by his nature to preside over animals than over plants; because each angel, even the least, has a higher and more universal power than any kind of corporeal things: the reason is to be sought in the order of divine wisdom, who places different rulers over different things. nor does it follow that there are more than nine orders of angels, because, as above expounded (q. 108, a. 2), the orders are distinguished by their general offices. hence as according to gregory all the angels whose proper office it is to preside over the demons are of the order of the "powers"; so to the order of the "virtues" do those angels seem to belong who preside over purely corporeal creatures; for by their ministration miracles are sometimes performed. _______________________ second article [i, q. 110, art. 2] whether corporeal matter obeys the mere will of an angel? objection 1: it would seem that corporeal matter obeys the mere will of an angel. for the power of an angel excels the power of the soul. but corporeal matter obeys a conception of the soul; for the body of man is changed by a conception of the soul as regards heat and cold, and sometimes even as regards health and sickness. therefore much more is corporeal matter changed by a conception of an angel. obj. 2: further, whatever can be done by an inferior power, can be done by a superior power. now the power of an angel is superior to corporeal power. but a body by its power is able to transform corporeal matter; as appears when fire begets fire. therefore much more efficaciously can an angel by his power transform corporeal matter. obj. 3: further, all corporeal nature is under angelic administration, as appears above (a. 1), and thus it appears that bodies are as instruments to the angels, for an instrument is essentially a mover moved. now in effects there is something that is due to the power of their principal agents, and which cannot be due to the power of the instrument; and this it is that takes the principal place in the effect. for example, digestion is due to the force of natural heat, which is the instrument of the nutritive soul: but that living flesh is thus generated is due to the power of the soul. again the cutting of the wood is from the saw; but that it assumes the length the form of a bed is from the design of the [joiner's] art. therefore the substantial form which takes the principal place in the corporeal effects, is due to the angelic power. therefore matter obeys the angels in receiving its form. _on the contrary,_ augustine says "it is not to be thought, that this visible matter obeys these rebel angels; for it obeys god alone." _i answer that,_ the platonists [*phaedo. xlix: tim. (did.) vol. ii, p. 218] asserted that the forms which are in matter are caused by immaterial forms, because they said that the material forms are participations of immaterial forms. avicenna followed them in this opinion to some extent, for he said that all forms which are in matter proceed from the concept of the _intellect;_ and that corporeal agents only dispose [matter] for the forms. they seem to have been deceived on this point, through supposing a form to be something made _per se,_ so that it would be the effect of a formal principle. but, as the philosopher proves (metaph. vii, did. vi, 8), what is made, properly speaking, is the _composite:_ for this properly speaking, is, as it were, what subsists. whereas the form is called a being, not as that which is, but as that by which something is; and consequently neither is a form, properly speaking, made; for that is made which is; since to be is nothing but the way to existence. now it is manifest that what is made is like to the maker, forasmuch as every agent makes its like. so whatever makes natural things, has a likeness to the composite; either because it is composite itself, as when fire begets fire, or because the whole "composite" as to both matter and form is within its power; and this belongs to god alone. therefore every informing of matter is either immediately from god, or form some corporeal agent; but not immediately from an angel. reply obj. 1: our soul is united to the body as the form; and so it is not surprising for the body to be formally changed by the soul's concept; especially as the movement of the sensitive appetite, which is accompanied with a certain bodily change, is subject to the command of reason. an angel, however, has not the same connection with natural bodies; and hence the argument does not hold. reply obj. 2: whatever an inferior power can do, that a superior power can do, not in the same way, but in a more excellent way; for example, the intellect knows sensible things in a more excellent way than sense knows them. so an angel can change corporeal matter in a more excellent way than can corporeal agents, that is by moving the corporeal agents themselves, as being the superior cause. reply obj. 3: there is nothing to prevent some natural effect taking place by angelic power, for which the power of corporeal agents would not suffice. this, however, is not to obey an angel's will (as neither does matter obey the mere will of a cook, when by regulating the fire according to the prescription of his art he produces a dish that the fire could not have produced by itself); since to reduce matter to the act of the substantial form does not exceed the power of a corporeal agent; for it is natural for like to make like. _______________________ third article [i, q. 110, art. 3] whether bodies obey the angels as regards local motion? objection 1: it would seem that bodies do not obey the angels in local motion. for the local motion of natural bodies follows on their forms. but the angels do not cause the forms of natural bodies, as stated above (a. 2). therefore neither can they cause in them local motion. obj. 2: further, the philosopher (phys. viii, 7) proves that local motion is the first of all movements. but the angels cannot cause other movements by a formal change of the matter. therefore neither can they cause local motion. obj. 3: further, the corporeal members obey the concept of the soul as regards local movement, as having in themselves some principle of life. in natural bodies, however, there is no vital principle. therefore they do not obey the angels in local motion. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de trin. iii, 8,9) that the angels use corporeal seed to produce certain effects. but they cannot do this without causing local movement. therefore bodies obey them in local motion. _i answer that,_ as dionysius says (div. nom. vii): "divine wisdom has joined the ends of the first to the principles of the second." hence it is clear that the inferior nature at its highest point is in conjunction with superior nature. now corporeal nature is below the spiritual nature. but among all corporeal movements the most perfect is local motion, as the philosopher proves (phys. viii, 7). the reason of this is that what is moved locally is not as such in potentiality to anything intrinsic, but only to something extrinsic--that is, to place. therefore the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved immediately by the spiritual nature as regards place. hence also the philosophers asserted that the supreme bodies are moved locally by the spiritual substances; whence we see that the soul moves the body first and chiefly by a local motion. reply obj. 1: there are in bodies other local movements besides those which result from the forms; for instance, the ebb and flow of the sea does not follow from the substantial form of the water, but from the influence of the moon; and much more can local movements result from the power of spiritual substances. reply obj. 2: the angels, by causing local motion, as the first motion, can thereby cause other movements; that is, by employing corporeal agents to produce these effects, as a workman employs fire to soften iron. reply obj. 3: the power of an angel is not so limited as is the power of the soul. hence the motive power of the soul is limited to the body united to it, which is vivified by it, and by which it can move other things. but an angel's power is not limited to any body; hence it can move locally bodies not joined to it. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 110, art. 4] whether angels can work miracles? objection 1: it would seem that the angels can work miracles. for gregory says (hom. xxxiv in evang.): "those spirits are called virtues by whom signs and miracles are usually done." obj. 2: further, augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 79) that "magicians work miracles by private contracts; good christians by public justice, bad christians by the signs of public justice." but magicians work miracles because they are "heard by the demons," as he says elsewhere in the same work [*cf. liber xxi, sentent., sent. 4: among the supposititious works of st. augustine]. therefore the demons can work miracles. therefore much more can the good angels. obj. 3: further, augustine says in the same work [*cf. liber xxi, sentent., sent. 4: among the supposititious works of st. augustine] that "it is not absurd to believe that all the things we see happen may be brought about by the lower powers that dwell in our atmosphere." but when an effect of natural causes is produced outside the order of the natural cause, we call it a miracle, as, for instance, when anyone is cured of a fever without the operation of nature. therefore the angels and demons can work miracles. obj. 4: further, superior power is not subject to the order of an inferior cause. but corporeal nature is inferior to an angel. therefore an angel can work outside the order of corporeal agents; which is to work miracles. _on the contrary,_ it is written of god (ps. 135:4): "who alone doth great wonders." _i answer that,_ a miracle properly so called is when something is done outside the order of nature. but it is not enough for a miracle if something is done outside the order of any particular nature; for otherwise anyone would perform a miracle by throwing a stone upwards, as such a thing is outside the order of the stone's nature. so for a miracle is required that it be against the order of the whole created nature. but god alone can do this, because, whatever an angel or any other creature does by its own power, is according to the order of created nature; and thus it is not a miracle. hence god alone can work miracles. reply obj. 1: some angels are said to work miracles; either because god works miracles at their request, in the same way as holy men are said to work miracles; or because they exercise a kind of ministry in the miracles which take place; as in collecting the dust in the general resurrection, or by doing something of that kind. reply obj. 2: properly speaking, as said above, miracles are those things which are done outside the order of the whole created nature. but as we do not know all the power of created nature, it follows that when anything is done outside the order of created nature by a power unknown to us, it is called a miracle as regards ourselves. so when the demons do anything of their own natural power, these things are called "miracles" not in an absolute sense, but in reference to ourselves. in this way the magicians work miracles through the demons; and these are said to be done by "private contracts," forasmuch as every power of the creature, in the universe, may be compared to the power of a private person in a city. hence when a magician does anything by compact with the devil, this is done as it were by private contract. on the other hand, the divine justice is in the whole universe as the public law is in the city. therefore good christians, so far as they work miracles by divine justice, are said to work miracles by "public justice": but bad christians by the "signs of public justice," as by invoking the name of christ, or by making use of other sacred signs. reply obj. 3: spiritual powers are able to effect whatever happens in this visible world, by employing corporeal seeds by local movement. reply obj. 4: although the angels can do something which is outside the order of corporeal nature, yet they cannot do anything outside the whole created order, which is essential to a miracle, as above explained. _______________________ question 111 the action of the angels on man (in four articles) we now consider the action of the angels on man, and inquire: (1) how far they can change them by their own natural power; (2) how they are sent by god to the ministry of men; (3) how they guard and protect men. under the first head there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether an angel can enlighten the human intellect? (2) whether he can change man's will? (3) whether he can change man's imagination? (4) whether he can change man's senses? _______________________ first article [i, q. 111, art. 1] whether an angel can enlighten man? objection 1: it would seem that an angel cannot enlighten man. for man is enlightened by faith; hence dionysius (eccl. hier. iii) attributes enlightenment to baptism, as "the sacrament of faith." but faith is immediately from god, according to eph. 2:8: "by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of god." therefore man is not enlightened by an angel; but immediately by god. obj. 2: further, on the words, "god hath manifested it to them" (rom. 1:19), the gloss observes that "not only natural reason availed for the manifestation of divine truths to men, but god also revealed them by his work," that is, by his creature. but both are immediately from god--that is, natural reason and the creature. therefore god enlightens man immediately. obj. 3: further, whoever is enlightened is conscious of being enlightened. but man is not conscious of being enlightened by angels. therefore he is not enlightened by them. _on the contrary,_ dionysius says (coel. hier. iv) that the revelation of divine things reaches men through the ministry of the angels. but such revelation is an enlightenment as we have stated (q. 106, a. 1; q. 107, a. 2). therefore men are enlightened by the angels. _i answer that,_ since the order of divine providence disposes that lower things be subject to the actions of higher, as explained above (q. 109, a. 2); as the inferior angels are enlightened by the superior, so men, who are inferior to the angels, are enlightened by them. the modes of each of these kinds of enlightenment are in one way alike and in another way unlike. for, as was shown above (q. 106, a. 1), the enlightenment which consists in making known divine truth has two functions; namely, according as the inferior intellect is strengthened by the action of the superior intellect, and according as the intelligible species which are in the superior intellect are proposed to the inferior so as to be grasped thereby. this takes place in the angels when the superior angel divides his universal concept of the truth according to the capacity of the inferior angel, as explained above (q. 106, a. 1). the human intellect, however, cannot grasp the universal truth itself unveiled; because its nature requires it to understand by turning to the phantasms, as above explained (q. 84, a. 7). so the angels propose the intelligible truth to men under the similitudes of sensible things, according to what dionysius says (coel. hier. i), that, "it is impossible for the divine ray to shine on us, otherwise than shrouded by the variety of the sacred veils." on the other hand, the human intellect as the inferior, is strengthened by the action of the angelic intellect. and in these two ways man is enlightened by an angel. reply obj. 1: two dispositions concur in the virtue of faith; first, the habit of the intellect whereby it is disposed to obey the will tending to divine truth. for the intellect assents to the truth of faith, not as convinced by the reason, but as commanded by the will; hence augustine says, "no one believes except willingly." in this respect faith comes from god alone. secondly, faith requires that what is to be believed be proposed to the believer; which is accomplished by man, according to rom. 10:17, "faith cometh by hearing"; principally, however, by the angels, by whom divine things are revealed to men. hence the angels have some part in the enlightenment of faith. moreover, men are enlightened by the angels not only concerning what is to be believed; but also as regards what is to be done. reply obj. 2: natural reason, which is immediately from god, can be strengthened by an angel, as we have said above. again, the more the human intellect is strengthened, so much higher an intelligible truth can be elicited from the species derived from creatures. thus man is assisted by an angel so that he may obtain from creatures a more perfect knowledge of god. reply obj. 3: intellectual operation and enlightenment can be understood in two ways. first, on the part of the object understood; thus whoever understands or is enlightened, knows that he understands or is enlightened, because he knows that the object is made known to him. secondly, on the part of the principle; and thus it does not follow that whoever understands a truth, knows what the intellect is, which is the principle of the intellectual operation. in like manner not everyone who is enlightened by an angel, knows that he is enlightened by him. _______________________ second article [i, q. 111, art. 3] whether the angels can change the will of man? objection 1: it would seem that the angels can change the will of man. for, upon the text, "who maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire" (heb. 1:7), the gloss notes that "they are fire, as being spiritually fervent, and as burning away our vices." this could not be, however, unless they changed the will. therefore the angels can change the will. obj. 2: further, bede says (super matth. xv, 11), that, "the devil does not send wicked thoughts, but kindles them." damascene, however, says that he also sends them; for he remarks that "every malicious act and unclean passion is contrived by the demons and put into men" (de fide orth. ii, 4); in like manner also the good angels introduce and kindle good thoughts. but this could only be if they changed the will. therefore the will is changed by them. obj. 3: further, the angel, as above explained, enlightens the human intellect by means of the phantasms. but as the imagination which serves the intellect can be changed by an angel, so can the sensitive appetite which serves the will, because it also is a faculty using a corporeal organ. therefore as the angel enlightens the mind, so can he change the will. _on the contrary,_ to change the will belongs to god alone, according to prov. 21:1: "the heart of the king is in the hand of the lord, whithersoever he will he shall turn it." _i answer that,_ the will can be changed in two ways. first, from within; in which way, since the movement of the will is nothing but the inclination of the will to the thing willed, god alone can thus change the will, because he gives the power of such an inclination to the intellectual nature. for as the natural inclination is from god alone who gives the nature, so the inclination of the will is from god alone, who causes the will. secondly, the will is moved from without. as regards an angel, this can be only in one way--by the good apprehended by the intellect. hence in as far as anyone may be the cause why anything be apprehended as an appetible good, so far does he move the will. in this way also god alone can move the will efficaciously; but an angel and man move the will by way of persuasion, as above explained (q. 106, a. 2). in addition to this mode the human will can be moved from without in another way; namely, by the passion residing in the sensitive appetite: thus by concupiscence or anger the will is inclined to will something. in this manner the angels, as being able to rouse these passions, can move the will, not however by necessity, for the will ever remains free to consent to, or to resist, the passion. reply obj. 1: those who act as god's ministers, either men or angels, are said to burn away vices, and to incite to virtue by way of persuasion. reply obj. 2: the demon cannot put thoughts in our minds by causing them from within, since the act of the cogitative faculty is subject to the will; nevertheless the devil is called the kindler of thoughts, inasmuch as he incites to thought, by the desire of the things thought of, by way of persuasion, or by rousing the passions. damascene calls this kindling "a putting in" because such a work is accomplished within. but good thoughts are attributed to a higher principle, namely, god, though they may be procured by the ministry of the angels. reply obj. 3: the human intellect in its present state can understand only by turning to the phantasms; but the human will can will something following the judgment of reason rather than the passion of the sensitive appetite. hence the comparison does not hold. _______________________ third article [i, q. 111, art. 3] whether an angel can change man's imagination? objection 1: it would seem that an angel cannot change man's imagination. for the phantasy, as is said _de anima_ iii, is "a motion caused by the sense in act." but if this motion were caused by an angel, it would not be caused by the sense in act. therefore it is contrary to the nature of the phantasy, which is the act of the imaginative faculty, to be changed by an angel. obj. 2: further, since the forms in the imagination are spiritual, they are nobler than the forms existing in sensible matter. but an angel cannot impress forms upon sensible matter (q. 110, a. 2). therefore he cannot impress forms on the imagination, and so he cannot change it. obj. 3: further, augustine says (gen. ad lit. xii, 12): "one spirit by intermingling with another can communicate his knowledge to the other spirit by these images, so that the latter either understands it himself, or accepts it as understood by the other." but it does not seem that an angel can be mingled with the human imagination, nor that the imagination can receive the knowledge of an angel. therefore it seems that an angel cannot change the imagination. obj. 4: further, in the imaginative vision man cleaves to the similitudes of the things as to the things themselves. but in this there is deception. so as a good angel cannot be the cause of deception, it seems that he cannot cause the imaginative vision, by changing the imagination. _on the contrary,_ those things which are seen in dreams are seen by imaginative vision. but the angels reveal things in dreams, as appears from matt. 1:20; 2:13, 19 in regard to the angel who appeared to joseph in dreams. therefore an angel can move the imagination. _i answer that,_ both a good and a bad angel by their own natural power can move the human imagination. this may be explained as follows. for it was said above (q. 110, a. 3), that corporeal nature obeys the angel as regards local movement, so that whatever can be caused by the local movement of bodies is subject to the natural power of the angels. now it is manifest that imaginative apparitions are sometimes caused in us by the local movement of animal spirits and humors. hence aristotle says (de somn. et vigil.) [*de insomniis iii], when assigning the cause of visions in dreams, that "when an animal sleeps, the blood descends in abundance to the sensitive principle, and movements descend with it," that is, the impressions left from the movements are preserved in the animal spirits, "and move the sensitive principle"; so that a certain appearance ensues, as if the sensitive principle were being then changed by the external objects themselves. indeed, the commotion of the spirits and humors may be so great that such appearances may even occur to those who are awake, as is seen in mad people, and the like. so, as this happens by a natural disturbance of the humors, and sometimes also by the will of man who voluntarily imagines what he previously experienced, so also the same may be done by the power of a good or a bad angel, sometimes with alienation from the bodily senses, sometimes without such alienation. reply obj. 1: the first principle of the imagination is from the sense in act. for we cannot imagine what we have never perceived by the senses, either wholly or partly; as a man born blind cannot imagine color. sometimes, however, the imagination is informed in such a way that the act of the imaginative movement arises from the impressions preserved within. reply obj. 2: an angel changes the imagination, not indeed by the impression of an imaginative form in no way previously received from the senses (for he cannot make a man born blind imagine color), but by local movement of the spirits and humors, as above explained. reply obj. 3: the commingling of the angelic spirit with the human imagination is not a mingling of essences, but by reason of an effect which he produces in the imagination in the way above stated; so that he shows man what he [the angel] knows, but not in the way he knows. reply obj. 4: an angel causing an imaginative vision, sometimes enlightens the intellect at the same time, so that it knows what these images signify; and then there is no deception. but sometimes by the angelic operation the similitudes of things only appear in the imagination; but neither then is deception caused by the angel, but by the defect in the intellect to whom such things appear. thus neither was christ a cause of deception when he spoke many things to the people in parables, which he did not explain to them. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 111, art. 4] whether an angel can change the human senses? objection 1: it seems that an angel cannot change the human senses. for the sensitive operation is a vital operation. but such an operation does not come from an extrinsic principle. therefore the sensitive operation cannot be caused by an angel. obj. 2: further, the sensitive operation is nobler than the nutritive. but the angel cannot change the nutritive power, nor other natural forms. therefore neither can he change the sensitive power. obj. 3: further, the senses are naturally moved by the sensible objects. but an angel cannot change the order of nature (q. 110, a. 4). therefore an angel cannot change the senses; but these are changed always by the sensible object. _on the contrary,_ the angels who overturned sodom, "struck the people of sodom with blindness or _aorasia_, so that they could not find the door" (gen. 19:11). [*it is worth noting that these are the only two passages in the greek version where the word _aorasia_ appears. it expresses, in fact, the effect produced on the people of sodom--namely, dazzling (french version, "eblouissement"), which the latin "caecitas" (blindness) does not necessarily imply.] the same is recorded of the syrians whom eliseus led into samaria (4 kings 6:18). _i answer that,_ the senses may be changed in a twofold manner; from without, as when affected by the sensible object: and from within, for we see that the senses are changed when the spirits and humors are disturbed; as for example, a sick man's tongue, charged with choleric humor, tastes everything as bitter, and the like with the other senses. now an angel, by his natural power, can work a change in the senses both ways. for an angel can offer the senses a sensible object from without, formed by nature or by the angel himself, as when he assumes a body, as we have said above (q. 51, a. 2). likewise he can move the spirits and humors from within, as above remarked, whereby the senses are changed in various ways. reply obj. 1: the principle of the sensitive operation cannot be without the interior principle which is the sensitive power; but this interior principle can be moved in many ways by the exterior principle, as above explained. reply obj. 2: by the interior movement of the spirits and humors an angel can do something towards changing the act of the nutritive power, and also of the appetitive and sensitive power, and of any other power using a corporeal organ. reply obj. 3: an angel can do nothing outside the entire order of creatures; but he can outside some particular order of nature, since he is not subject to that order; thus in some special way an angel can work a change in the senses outside the common mode of nature. _______________________ question 112 the mission of the angels (in four articles) we next consider the mission of the angels. under this head arise four points of inquiry: (1) whether any angels are sent on works of ministry? (2) whether all are sent? (3) whether those who are sent, assist? (4) from what orders they are sent. _______________________ first article [i, q. 112, art. 1] whether the angels are sent on works of ministry? objection 1: it would seem that the angels are not sent on works of ministry. for every mission is to some determinate place. but intellectual actions do not determine a place, for intellect abstracts from the "here" and "now." since therefore the angelic actions are intellectual, it appears that the angels are not sent to perform their own actions. obj. 2: further, the empyrean heaven is the place that beseems the angelic dignity. therefore if they are sent to us in ministry, it seems that something of their dignity would be lost; which is unseemly. obj. 3: further, external occupation hinders the contemplation of wisdom; hence it is said: "he that is less in action, shall receive wisdom" (ecclus. 38:25). so if some angels are sent on external ministrations, they would seemingly be hindered from contemplation. but the whole of their beatitude consists in the contemplation of god. so if they were sent, their beatitude would be lessened; which is unfitting. obj. 4: further, to minister is the part of an inferior; hence it is written (luke 22:27): "which is the greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at table?" but the angels are naturally greater than we are. therefore they are not sent to administer to us. _on the contrary,_ it is written (ex. 23:20): "behold i will send my angels who shall go before thee." _i answer that,_ from what has been said above (q. 108, a. 6), it may be shown that some angels are sent in ministry by god. for, as we have already stated (q. 43, a. 1), in treating of the mission of the divine persons, he is said to be sent who in any way proceeds from another so as to begin to be where he was not, or to be in another way, where he already was. thus the son, or the holy ghost is said to be sent as proceeding from the father by origin; and begins to be in a new way, by grace or by the nature assumed, where he was before by the presence of his godhead; for it belongs to god to be present everywhere, because, since he is the universal agent, his power reaches to all being, and hence he exists in all things (q. 8, a. 1). an angel's power, however, as a particular agent, does not reach to the whole universe, but reaches to one thing in such a way as not to reach another; and so he is "here" in such a manner as not to be "there." but it is clear from what was above stated (q. 110, a. 1), that the corporeal creature is governed by the angels. hence, whenever an angel has to perform any work concerning a corporeal creature, the angel applies himself anew to that body by his power; and in that way begins to be there afresh. now all this takes place by divine command. hence it follows that an angel is sent by god. yet the action performed by the angel who is sent, proceeds from god as from its first principle, at whose nod and by whose authority the angels work; and is reduced to god as to its last end. now this is what is meant by a minister: for a minister is an intelligent instrument; while an instrument is moved by another, and its action is ordered to another. hence angels' actions are called "ministries"; and for this reason they are said to be sent in ministry. reply obj. 1: an operation can be intellectual in two ways. in one way, as dwelling in the intellect itself, as contemplation; such an operation does not demand to occupy a place; indeed, as augustine says (de trin. iv, 20): "even we ourselves as mentally tasting something eternal, are not in this world." in another sense an action is said to be intellectual because it is regulated and commanded by some intellect; in that sense the intellectual operations evidently have sometimes a determinate place. reply obj. 2: the empyrean heaven belongs to the angelic dignity by way of congruity; forasmuch as it is congruous that the higher body should be attributed to that nature which occupies a rank above bodies. yet an angel does not derive his dignity from the empyrean heaven; so when he is not actually in the empyrean heaven, nothing of his dignity is lost, as neither does a king lessen his dignity when not actually sitting on his regal throne, which suits his dignity. reply obj. 3: in ourselves the purity of contemplation is obscured by exterior occupation; because we give ourselves to action through the sensitive faculties, the action of which when intense impedes the action of the intellectual powers. an angel, on the contrary, regulates his exterior actions by intellectual operation alone. hence it follows that his external occupations in no respect impede his contemplation; because given two actions, one of which is the rule and the reason of the other, one does not hinder but helps the other. wherefore gregory says (moral. ii) that "the angels do not go abroad in such a manner as to lose the delights of inward contemplation." reply obj. 4: in their external actions the angels chiefly minister to god, and secondarily to us; not because we are superior to them, absolutely speaking, but because, since every man or angel by cleaving to god is made one spirit with god, he is thereby superior to every creature. hence the apostle says (phil. 2:3): "esteeming others better than themselves." _______________________ second article [i, q. 112, art. 2] whether all the angels are sent in ministry? objection 1: it would seem that all the angels are sent in ministry. for the apostle says (heb. 1:14): "all are ministering spirits, sent to minister" [vulg. 'are they not all . . . ?']. obj. 2: further, among the orders, the highest is that of the seraphim, as stated above (q. 108, a. 6). but a seraph was sent to purify the lips of the prophet (isa. 6:6, 7). therefore much more are the inferior orders sent. obj. 3: further, the divine persons infinitely excel all the angelic orders. but the divine persons are sent. therefore much more are even the highest angels sent. obj. 4: further, if the superior angels are not sent to the external ministries, this can only be because the superior angels execute the divine ministries by means of the inferior angels. but as all the angels are unequal, as stated above (q. 50, a. 4), each angel has an angel inferior to himself except the last one. therefore only the last angel would be sent in ministry; which contradicts the words, "thousands of thousands ministered to him" (dan. 7:10). _on the contrary,_ gregory says (hom. xxxiv in evang.), quoting the statement of dionysius (coel. hier. xiii), that "the higher ranks fulfil no exterior service." _i answer that,_ as appears from what has been said above (q. 106, a. 3; q. 110, a. 1), the order of divine providence has so disposed not only among the angels, but also in the whole universe, that inferior things are administered by the superior. but the divine dispensation, however, this order is sometimes departed from as regards corporeal things, for the sake of a higher order, that is, according as it is suitable for the manifestation of grace. that the man born blind was enlightened, that lazarus was raised from the dead, was accomplished immediately by god without the action of the heavenly bodies. moreover both good and bad angels can work some effect in these bodies independently of the heavenly bodies, by the condensation of the clouds to rain, and by producing some such effects. nor can anyone doubt that god can immediately reveal things to men without the help of the angels, and the superior angels without the inferior. from this standpoint some have said that according to the general law the superior angels are not sent, but only the inferior; yet that sometimes, by divine dispensation, the superior angels also are sent. it may also be said that the apostle wishes to prove that christ is greater than the angels who were chosen as the messengers of the law; in order that he might show the excellence of the new over the old law. hence there is no need to apply this to any other angels besides those who were sent to give the law. reply obj. 2: according to dionysius (coel. hier. xiii), the angel who was sent to purify the prophet's lips was one of the inferior order; but was called a "seraph," that is, "kindling " in an equivocal sense, because he came to "kindle" the lips of the prophet. it may also be said that the superior angels communicate their own proper gifts whereby they are denominated, through the ministry of the inferior angels. thus one of the seraphim is described as purifying by fire the prophet's lips, not as if he did so immediately, but because an inferior angel did so by his power; as the pope is said to absolve a man when he gives absolution by means of someone else. reply obj. 3: the divine persons are not sent in ministry, but are said to be sent in an equivocal sense, as appears from what has been said (q. 43, a. 1). reply obj. 4: a manifold grade exists in the divine ministries. hence there is nothing to prevent angels though unequal from being sent immediately in ministry, in such a manner however that the superior are sent to the higher ministries, and the lower to the inferior ministries. _______________________ third article [i, q. 112, art. 3] whether all the angels who are sent, assist? objection 1: it would seem that the angels who are sent also assist. for gregory says (hom. xxxiv in evang.): "so the angels are sent, and assist; for, though the angelic spirit is limited, yet the supreme spirit, god, is not limited." obj. 2: further, the angel was sent to administer to tobias. yet he said, "i am the angel raphael, one of the seven who stand before the lord" (tob. 12:15). therefore the angels who are sent, assist. obj. 3: further, every holy angel is nearer to god than satan is. yet satan assisted god, according to job 1:6: "when the sons of god came to stand before the lord, satan also was present among them." therefore much more do the angels, who are sent to minister, assist. obj. 4: further, if the inferior angels do not assist, the reason is because they receive the divine enlightenment, not immediately, but through the superior angels. but every angel receives the divine enlightenment from a superior, except the one who is highest of all. therefore only the highest angel would assist; which is contrary to the text of dan. 7:10: "ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him." therefore the angels who are sent also assist. _on the contrary,_ gregory says, on job 25:3: "is there any numbering of his soldiers?" (moral. xvii): "those powers assist, who do not go forth as messengers to men." therefore those who are sent in ministry do not assist. _i answer that,_ the angels are spoken of as "assisting" and "administering," after the likeness of those who attend upon a king; some of whom ever wait upon him, and hear his commands immediately; while others there are to whom the royal commands are conveyed by those who are in attendance--for instance, those who are placed at the head of the administration of various cities; these are said to administer, not to assist. we must therefore observe that all the angels gaze upon the divine essence immediately; in regard to which all, even those who minister, are said to assist. hence gregory says (moral. ii) that "those who are sent on the external ministry of our salvation can always assist and see the face of the father." yet not all the angels can perceive the secrets of the divine mysteries in the clearness itself of the divine essence; but only the superior angels who announce them to the inferior: and in that respect only the superior angels belonging to the highest hierarchy are said to assist, whose special prerogative it is to be enlightened immediately by god. from this may be deduced the reply to the first and second objections, which are based on the first mode of assisting. reply obj. 3: satan is not described as having assisted, but as present among the assistants; for, as gregory says (moral. ii), "though he has lost beatitude, still he has retained a nature like to the angels." reply obj. 4: all the assistants see some things immediately in the glory of the divine essence; and so it may be said that it is the prerogative of the whole of the highest hierarchy to be immediately enlightened by god; while the higher ones among them see more than is seen by the inferior; some of whom enlighten others: as also among those who assist the king, one knows more of the king's secrets than another. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 112, art. 4] whether all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent? objection 1: it would seem that all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent. for all the angels either assist, or minister, according to dan. 7:10. but the angels of the second hierarchy do not assist; for they are enlightened by the angels of the first hierarchy, as dionysius says (coel. hier. viii). therefore all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent in ministry. obj. 2: further, gregory says (moral. xvii) that "there are more who minister than who assist." this would not be the case if the angels of the second hierarchy were not sent in ministry. therefore all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent to minister. _on the contrary,_ dionysius says (coel. hier. viii) that the "dominations are above all subjection." but to be sent implies subjection. therefore the dominations are not sent to minister. _i answer that,_ as above stated (a. 1), to be sent to external ministry properly belongs to an angel according as he acts by divine command in respect of any corporeal creature; which is part of the execution of the divine ministry. now the angelic properties are manifested by their names, as dionysius says (coel. hier. vii); and therefore the angels of those orders are sent to external ministry whose names signify some kind of administration. but the name "dominations" does not signify any such administration, but only disposition and command in administering. on the other hand, the names of the inferior orders imply administration, for the "angels" and "archangels" are so called from "announcing"; the "virtues" and "powers" are so called in respect of some act; and it is right that the "prince," according to what gregory says (hom. xxxiv in evang.), "be first among the workers." hence it belongs to these five orders to be sent to external ministry; not to the four superior orders. reply obj. 1: the dominations are reckoned among the ministering angels, not as exercising but as disposing and commanding what is to be done by others; thus an architect does not put his hands to the production of his art, but only disposes and orders what others are to do. reply obj. 2: a twofold reason may be given in assigning the number of the assisting and ministering angels. for gregory says that those who minister are more numerous than those who assist; because he takes the words (dan. 7:10) "thousands of thousands ministered to him," not in a multiple but in a partitive sense, to mean "thousands out of thousands"; thus the number of those who minister is indefinite, and signifies excess; while the number of assistants is finite as in the words added, "and ten thousand times a hundred thousand assisted him." this explanation rests on the opinion of the platonists, who said that the nearer things are to the one first principle, the smaller they are in number; as the nearer a number is to unity, the lesser it is than multitude. this opinion is verified as regards the number of orders, as six administer and three assist. dionysius, however, (coel. hier. xiv) declares that the multitude of angels surpasses all the multitude of material things; so that, as the superior bodies exceed the inferior in magnitude to an immeasurable degree, so the superior incorporeal natures surpass all corporeal natures in multitude; because whatever is better is more intended and more multiplied by god. hence, as the assistants are superior to the ministers there will be more assistants than ministers. in this way, the words "thousands of thousands" are taken by way of multiplication, to signify "a thousand times a thousand." and because ten times a hundred is a thousand, if it were said "ten times a hundred thousand" it would mean that there are as many assistants as ministers: but since it is written "ten thousand times a hundred thousand," we are given to understand that the assistants are much more numerous than the ministers. nor is this said to signify that this is the precise number of angels, but rather that it is much greater, in that it exceeds all material multitude. this is signified by the multiplication together of all the greatest numbers, namely ten, a hundred, and a thousand, as dionysius remarks in the same passage. _______________________ question 113 of the guardianship of the good angels (in eight articles) we next consider the guardianship exercised by the good angels; and their warfare against the bad angels. under the first head eight points of inquiry arise: (1) whether men are guarded by the angels? (2) whether to each man is assigned a single guardian angel? (3) whether the guardianship belongs only to the lowest order of angels? (4) whether it is fitting for each man to have an angel guardian? (5) when does an angel's guardianship of a man begin? (6) whether the angel guardians always watch over men? (7) whether the angel grieves over the loss of the one guarded? (8) whether rivalry exists among the angels as regards their guardianship? _______________________ first article [i, q. 113, art. 1] whether men are guarded by the angels? objection 1: it would seem that men are not guarded by the angels. for guardians are deputed to some because they either know not how, or are not able, to guard themselves, as children and the sick. but man is able to guard himself by his free-will; and knows how by his natural knowledge of natural law. therefore man is not guarded by an angel. obj. 2: further, a strong guard makes a weaker one superfluous. but men are guarded by god, according to ps. 120:4: "he shall neither slumber nor sleep, that keepeth israel." therefore man does not need to be guarded by an angel. obj. 3: further, the loss of the guarded redounds to the negligence of the guardian; hence it was said to a certain one: "keep this man; and if he shall slip away, thy life shall be for his life" (3 kings 20:39). now many perish daily through falling into sin; whom the angels could help by visible appearance, or by miracles, or in some such-like way. the angels would therefore be negligent if men are given to their guardianship. but that is clearly false. therefore the angels are not the guardians of men. _on the contrary,_ it is written (ps. 90:11): "he hath given his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." _i answer that,_ according to the plan of divine providence, we find that in all things the movable and variable are moved and regulated by the immovable and invariable; as all corporeal things by immovable spiritual substances, and the inferior bodies by the superior which are invariable in substance. we ourselves also are regulated as regards conclusions, about which we may have various opinions, by the principles which we hold in an invariable manner. it is moreover manifest that as regards things to be done human knowledge and affection can vary and fail from good in many ways; and so it was necessary that angels should be deputed for the guardianship of men, in order to regulate them and move them to good. reply obj. 1: by free-will man can avoid evil to a certain degree, but not in any sufficient degree; forasmuch as he is weak in affection towards good on account of the manifold passions of the soul. likewise universal natural knowledge of the law, which by nature belongs to man, to a certain degree directs man to good, but not in a sufficient degree; because in the application of the universal principles of law to particular actions man happens to be deficient in many ways. hence it is written (wis. 9:14): "the thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain." thus man needs to be guarded by the angels. reply obj. 2: two things are required for a good action; first, that the affection be inclined to good, which is effected in us by the habit of mortal virtue. secondly, that reason should discover the proper methods to make perfect the good of virtue; this the philosopher (ethic. vi) attributes to prudence. as regards the first, god guards man immediately by infusing into him grace and virtues; as regards the second, god guards man as his universal instructor, whose precepts reach man by the medium of the angels, as above stated (q. 111, a. 1). reply obj. 3: as men depart from the natural instinct of good by reason of a sinful passion, so also do they depart from the instigation of the good angels, which takes place invisibly when they enlighten man that he may do what is right. hence that men perish is not to be imputed to the negligence of the angels but to the malice of men. that they sometimes appear to men visibly outside the ordinary course of nature comes from a special grace of god, as likewise that miracles occur outside the order of nature. _______________________ second article [i, q. 113, art. 2] whether each man is guarded by an angel? objection 1: it would seem that each man is not guarded by an angel. for an angel is stronger than a man. but one man suffices to guard many men. therefore much more can one angel guard many men. obj. 2: further, the lower things are brought to god through the medium of the higher, as dionysius says (coel. hier. iv, xiii). but as all the angels are unequal (q. 50, a. 4), there is only one angel between whom and men there is no medium. therefore there is only one angel who immediately keeps men. obj. 3: further, the greater angels are deputed to the greater offices. but it is not a greater office to keep one man more than another; since all men are naturally equal. since therefore of all the angels one is greater than another, as dionysius says (coel. hier. x), it seems that different men are not guarded by different angels. _on the contrary,_ on the text, "their angels in heaven," etc. (matt. 8:10), jerome says: "great is the dignity of souls, for each one to have an angel deputed to guard it from its birth." _i answer that,_ each man has an angel guardian appointed to him. this rests upon the fact that the guardianship of angels belongs to the execution of divine providence concerning men. but god's providence acts differently as regards men and as regards other corruptible creatures, for they are related differently to incorruptibility. for men are not only incorruptible in the common species, but also in the proper forms of each individual, which are the rational souls, which cannot be said of other incorruptible things. now it is manifest that the providence of god is chiefly exercised towards what remains for ever; whereas as regards things which pass away, the providence of god acts so as to order their existence to the things which are perpetual. thus the providence of god is related to each man as it is to every genus or species of things corruptible. but, according to gregory (hom. xxxiv in evang.), the different orders are deputed to the different genera of things, for instance, the "powers" to coerce the demons, the "virtues" to work miracles in things corporeal; while it is probable that the different species are presided over by different angels of the same order. hence it is also reasonable to suppose that different angels are appointed to the guardianship of different men. reply obj. 1: a guardian may be assigned to a man for two reasons: first, inasmuch as a man is an individual, and thus to one man one guardian is due; and sometimes several are appointed to guard one. secondly, inasmuch as a man is part of a community, and thus one man is appointed as guardian of a whole community; to whom it belongs to provide what concerns one man in his relation to the whole community, such as external works, which are sources of strength or weakness to others. but angel guardians are given to men also as regards invisible and occult things, concerning the salvation of each one in his own regard. hence individual angels are appointed to guard individual men. reply obj. 2: as above stated (q. 112, a. 3, ad 4), all the angels of the first hierarchy are, as to some things, enlightened by god directly; but as to other things, only the superior are directly enlightened by god, and these reveal them to the inferior. and the same also applies to the inferior orders: for a lower angel is enlightened in some respects by one of the highest, and in other respects by the one immediately above him. thus it is possible that some one angel enlightens a man immediately, and yet has other angels beneath him whom he enlightens. reply obj. 3: although men are equal in nature, still inequality exists among them, according as divine providence orders some to the greater, and others to the lesser things, according to ecclus. 33:11, 12: "with much knowledge the lord hath divided them, and diversified their ways: some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he cursed and brought low." thus it is a greater office to guard one man than another. _______________________ third article [i, q. 113, art. 3] whether to guard men belongs only to the lowest order of angels? objection 1: it would seem that the guardianship of men does not belong only to the lowest order of the angels. for chrysostom says that the text (matt. 18:10), "their angels in heaven," etc. is to be understood not of any angels but of the highest. therefore the superior angels guard men. obj. 2: further, the apostle says that angels "are sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation" (heb. 1:14); and thus it seems that the mission of the angels is directed to the guardianship of men. but five orders are sent in external ministry (q. 112, a. 4). therefore all the angels of the five orders are deputed to the guardianship of men. obj. 3: further, for the guardianship of men it seems especially necessary to coerce the demons, which belongs most of all to the powers, according to gregory (hom. xxxiv in evang.); and to work miracles, which belongs to the virtues. therefore these orders are also deputed to the work of guardianship, and not only the lowest order. _on the contrary,_ in the psalm (90) the guardianship of men is attributed to the angels; who belong to the lowest order, according to dionysius (coel. hier. v, ix). _i answer that,_ as above stated (a. 2), man is guarded in two ways; in one way by particular guardianship, according as to each man an angel is appointed to guard him; and such guardianship belongs to the lowest order of the angels, whose place it is, according to gregory, to announce the "lesser things"; for it seems to be the least of the angelic offices to procure what concerns the salvation of only one man. the other kind of guardianship is universal, multiplied according to the different orders. for the more universal an agent is, the higher it is. thus the guardianship of the human race belongs to the order of "principalities," or perhaps to the "archangels," whom we call the angel princes. hence, michael, whom we call an archangel, is also styled "one of the princes" (dan. 10:13). moreover all corporeal creatures are guarded by the "virtues"; and likewise the demons by the "powers," and the good spirits by the "principalities," according to gregory's opinion (hom. xxxiv in ev.). reply obj. 1: chrysostom can be taken to mean the highest in the lowest order of angels; for, as dionysius says (coel. hier. x) in each order there are first, middle, and last. it is, however, probable that the greater angels are deputed to keep those chosen by god for the higher degree of glory. reply obj. 2: not all the angels who are sent have guardianship of individual men; but some orders have a universal guardianship, greater or less, as above explained. reply obj. 3: even inferior angels exercise the office of the superior, as they share in their gifts, and they are executors of the superiors' power; and in this way all the angels of the lowest order can coerce the demons, and work miracles. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 113, art. 4] whether angels are appointed to the guardianship of all men? objection 1: it would seem that angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men. for it is written of christ (phil. 2:7) that "he was made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." if therefore angels are appointed to the guardianship of all men, christ also would have had an angel guardian. but this is unseemly, for christ is greater than all the angels. therefore angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men. obj. 2: further, adam was the first of all men. but it was not fitting that he should have an angel guardian, at least in the state of innocence: for then he was not beset by any dangers. therefore angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men. obj. 3: further, angels are appointed to the guardianship of men, that they may take them by the hand and guide them to eternal life, encourage them to good works, and protect them against the assaults of the demons. but men who are foreknown to damnation, never attain to eternal life. infidels, also, though at times they perform good works, do not perform them well, for they have not a right intention: for "faith directs the intention" as augustine says (enarr. ii in ps. 31). moreover, the coming of antichrist will be "according to the working of satan," as it is written (2 thess. 2:9). therefore angels are not deputed to the guardianship of all men. _on the contrary,_ is the authority of jerome quoted above (a. 2), for he says that "each soul has an angel appointed to guard it." _i answer that,_ man while in this state of life, is, as it were, on a road by which he should journey towards heaven. on this road man is threatened by many dangers both from within and from without, according to ps. 159:4: "in this way wherein i walked, they have hidden a snare for me." and therefore as guardians are appointed for men who have to pass by an unsafe road, so an angel guardian is assigned to each man as long as he is a wayfarer. when, however, he arrives at the end of life he no longer has a guardian angel; but in the kingdom he will have an angel to reign with him, in hell a demon to punish him. reply obj. 1: christ as man was guided immediately by the word of god: wherefore he needed not be guarded by an angel. again as regards his soul, he was a comprehensor, although in regard to his passible body, he was a wayfarer. in this latter respect it was right that he should have not a guardian angel as superior to him, but a ministering angel as inferior to him. whence it is written (matt. 4:11) that "angels came and ministered to him." reply obj. 2: in the state of innocence man was not threatened by any peril from within: because within him all was well ordered, as we have said above (q. 95, aa. 1, 3). but peril threatened from without on account of the snares of the demons; as was proved by the event. for this reason he needed a guardian angel. reply obj. 3: just as the foreknown, the infidels, and even antichrist, are not deprived of the interior help of natural reason; so neither are they deprived of that exterior help granted by god to the whole human race--namely the guardianship of the angels. and although the help which they receive therefrom does not result in their deserving eternal life by good works, it does nevertheless conduce to their being protected from certain evils which would hurt both themselves and others. for even the demons are held off by the good angels, lest they hurt as much as they would. in like manner antichrist will not do as much harm as he would wish. _______________________ fifth article [i, q. 113, art. 5] whether an angel is appointed to guard a man from his birth? objection 1: it would seem that an angel is not appointed to guard a man from his birth. for angels are "sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation," as the apostle says (heb. 1:14). but men begin to receive the inheritance of salvation, when they are baptized. therefore an angel is appointed to guard a man from the time of his baptism, not of his birth. obj. 2: further, men are guarded by angels in as far as angels enlighten and instruct them. but children are not capable of instruction as soon as they are born, for they have not the use of reason. therefore angels are not appointed to guard children as soon as they are born. obj. 3: further, a child has a rational soul for some time before birth, just as well as after. but it does not appear that an angel is appointed to guard a child before its birth, for they are not then admitted to the sacraments of the church. therefore angels are not appointed to guard men from the moment of their birth. _on the contrary,_ jerome says (_vide_ a. 4) that "each soul has an angel appointed to guard it from its birth." _i answer that,_ as origen observes (tract. v, super matt.) there are two opinions on this matter. for some have held that the angel guardian is appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the time of birth. the latter opinion jerome approves (loc. cit.), and with reason. for those benefits which are conferred by god on man as a christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the eucharist, and the like. but those which are conferred by god on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature. among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of angels, as we have said above (aa. 1, 4). wherefore from the very moment of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him. reply obj. 1: angels are sent to minister, and that efficaciously indeed, for those who shall receive the inheritance of salvation, if we consider the ultimate effect of their guardianship, which is the realizing of that inheritance. but for all that, the angelic ministrations are not withdrawn for others although they are not so efficacious as to bring them to salvation: efficacious, nevertheless, they are, inasmuch as they ward off many evils. reply obj. 2: guardianship is ordained to enlightenment by instruction, as to its ultimate and principal effect. nevertheless it has many other effects consistent with childhood; for instance to ward off the demons, and to prevent both bodily and spiritual harm. reply obj. 3: as long as the child is in the mother's womb it is not entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree. and therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. but at its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is appointed to it; as jerome, above quoted, says. _______________________ sixth article [i, q. 113, art. 6] whether the angel guardian ever forsakes a man? objection 1: it would seem that the angel guardian sometimes forsakes the man whom he is appointed to guard. for it is said (jer. 51:9) in the person of the angels: "we would have cured babylon, but she is not healed: let us forsake her." and (isa. 5:5) it is written: "i will take away the hedge"--that is, "the guardianship of the angels" [gloss]--"and it shall be wasted." obj. 2: further, god's guardianship excels that of the angels. but god forsakes man at times, according to ps. 21:2: "o god, my god, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me?" much rather therefore does an angel guardian forsake man. obj. 3: further, according to damascene (de fide orth. ii, 3), "when the angels are here with us, they are not in heaven." but sometimes they are in heaven. therefore sometimes they forsake us. _on the contrary,_ the demons are ever assailing us, according to 1 pet. 5:8: "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about, seeking whom he may devour." much more therefore do the good angels ever guard us. _i answer that,_ as appears above (a. 2), the guardianship of the angels is an effect of divine providence in regard to man. now it is evident that neither man, nor anything at all, is entirely withdrawn from the providence of god: for in as far as a thing participates being, so far is it subject to the providence that extends over all being. god indeed is said to forsake man, according to the ordering of his providence, but only in so far as he allows man to suffer some defect of punishment or of fault. in like manner it must be said that the angel guardian never forsakes a man entirely, but sometimes he leaves him in some particular, for instance by not preventing him from being subject to some trouble, or even from falling into sin, according to the ordering of divine judgments. in this sense babylon and the house of israel are said to have been forsaken by the angels, because their angel guardians did not prevent them from being subject to tribulation. from this the answers are clear to the first and second objections. reply obj. 3: although an angel may forsake a man sometimes locally, he does not for that reason forsake him as to the effect of his guardianship: for even when he is in heaven he knows what is happening to man; nor does he need time for his local motion, for he can be with man in an instant. _______________________ seventh article [i, q. 113, art. 7] whether angels grieve for the ills of those whom they guard? objection 1: it would seem that angels grieve for the ills of those whom they guard. for it is written (isa. 33:7): "the angels of peace shall weep bitterly." but weeping is a sign of grief and sorrow. therefore angels grieve for the ills of those whom they guard. obj. 2: further, according to augustine (de civ. dei xiv, 15), "sorrow is for those things that happen against our will." but the loss of the man whom he has guarded is against the guardian angel's will. therefore angels grieve for the loss of men. obj. 3: further, as sorrow is contrary to joy, so penance is contrary to sin. but angels rejoice about one sinner doing penance, as we are told, luke 15:7. therefore they grieve for the just man who falls into sin. obj. 4: further, on numbers 18:12: "whatsoever first-fruits they offer," etc. the gloss of origen says: "the angels are brought to judgment as to whether men have fallen through their negligence or through their own fault." but it is reasonable for anyone to grieve for the ills which have brought him to judgment. therefore angels grieve for men's sins. _on the contrary,_ where there is grief and sorrow, there is not perfect happiness: wherefore it is written (apoc. 21:4): "death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow." but the angels are perfectly happy. therefore they have no cause for grief. _i answer that,_ angels do not grieve, either for sins or for the pains inflicted on men. for grief and sorrow, according to augustine (de civ. dei xiv, 15) are for those things which occur against our will. but nothing happens in the world contrary to the will of the angels and the other blessed, because their will cleaves entirely to the ordering of divine justice; while nothing happens in the world save what is effected or permitted by divine justice. therefore simply speaking, nothing occurs in the world against the will of the blessed. for as the philosopher says (ethic. iii, 1) that is called simply voluntary, which a man wills in a particular case, and at a particular time, having considered all the circumstances; although universally speaking, such a thing would not be voluntary: thus the sailor does not will the casting of his cargo into the sea, considered universally and absolutely, but on account of the threatened danger of his life, he wills it. wherefore this is voluntary rather than involuntary, as stated in the same passage. therefore universally and absolutely speaking the angels do not will sin and the pains inflicted on its account: but they do will the fulfilment of the ordering of divine justice in this matter, in respect of which some are subjected to pains and are allowed to fall into sin. reply obj. 1: these words of isaias may be understood of the angels, i.e. the messengers, of ezechias, who wept on account of the words of rabsaces, as related isa. 37:2 seqq.: this would be the literal sense. according to the allegorical sense the "angels of peace" are the apostles and preachers who weep for men's sins. if according to the anagogical sense this passage be expounded of the blessed angels, then the expression is metaphorical, and signifies that universally speaking the angels will the salvation of mankind: for in this sense we attribute passions to god and the angels. the reply to the second objection appears from what has been said. reply obj. 3: both in man's repentance and in man's sin there is one reason for the angel's joy, namely the fulfilment of the ordering of the divine providence. reply obj. 4: the angels are brought into judgment for the sins of men, not as guilty, but as witnesses to convict man of weakness. _______________________ eighth article [i, q. 113, art. 8] whether there can be strife or discord among the angels? objection 1: it would seem that there can be [no] strife or discord among the angels. for it is written (job 25:2): "who maketh peace in his high places." but strife is opposed to peace. therefore among the high angels there is no strife. obj. 2: further, where there is perfect charity and just authority there can be no strife. but all this exists among the angels. therefore there is no strife among the angels. obj. 3: further, if we say that angels strive for those whom they guard, one angel must needs take one side, and another angel the opposite side. but if one side is in the right the other side is in the wrong. it will follow therefore, that a good angel is a compounder of wrong; which is unseemly. therefore there is no strife among good angels. _on the contrary,_ it is written (dan. 10:13): "the prince of the kingdom of the persians resisted me one and twenty days." but this prince of the persians was the angel deputed to the guardianship of the kingdom of the persians. therefore one good angel resists the others; and thus there is strife among them. _i answer that,_ the raising of this question is occasioned by this passage of daniel. jerome explains it by saying that the prince of the kingdom of the persians is the angel who opposed the setting free of the people of israel, for whom daniel was praying, his prayers being offered to god by gabriel. and this resistance of his may have been caused by some prince of the demons having led the jewish captives in persia into sin; which sin was an impediment to the efficacy of the prayer which daniel put up for that same people. but according to gregory (moral. xvii), the prince of the kingdom of persia was a good angel appointed to the guardianship of that kingdom. to see therefore how one angel can be said to resist another, we must note that the divine judgments in regard to various kingdoms and various men are executed by the angels. now in their actions, the angels are ruled by the divine decree. but it happens at times in various kingdoms or various men there are contrary merits or demerits, so that one of them is subject to or placed over another. as to what is the ordering of divine wisdom on such matters, the angels cannot know it unless god reveal it to them: and so they need to consult divine wisdom thereupon. wherefore forasmuch as they consult the divine will concerning various contrary and opposing merits, they are said to resist one another: not that their wills are in opposition, since they are all of one mind as to the fulfilment of the divine decree; but that the things about which they seek knowledge are in opposition. from this the answers to the objections are clear. _______________________ question 114 of the assaults of the demons (in five articles) we now consider the assaults of the demons. under this head there are five points of inquiry: (1) whether men are assailed by the demons? (2) whether to tempt is proper to the devil? (3) whether all the sins of men are to be set down to the assaults or temptations of the demons? (4) whether they can work real miracles for the purpose of leading men astray? (5) whether the demons who are overcome by men, are hindered from making further assaults? _______________________ first article [i, q. 114, art. 1] whether men are assailed by the demons? objection 1: it would seem that men are not assailed by the demons. for angels are sent by god to guard man. but demons are not sent by god: for the demons' intention is the loss of souls; whereas god's is the salvation of souls. therefore demons are not deputed to assail man. obj. 2: further, it is not a fair fight, for the weak to be set against the strong, and the ignorant against the astute. but men are weak and ignorant, whereas the demons are strong and astute. it is not therefore to be permitted by god, the author of all justice, that men should be assailed by demons. obj. 3: further, the assaults of the flesh and the world are enough for man's exercise. but god permits his elect to be assailed that they may be exercised. therefore there is no need for them to be assailed by the demons. _on the contrary,_ the apostle says (eph. 6:12): "our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." _i answer that,_ two things may be considered in the assault of the demons--the assault itself, and the ordering thereof. the assault itself is due to the malice of the demons, who through envy endeavor to hinder man's progress; and through pride usurp a semblance of divine power, by deputing certain ministers to assail man, as the angels of god in their various offices minister to man's salvation. but the ordering of the assault is from god, who knows how to make orderly use of evil by ordering it to good. on the other hand, in regard to the angels, both their guardianship and the ordering thereof are to be referred to god as their first author. reply obj. 1: the wicked angels assail men in two ways. firstly by instigating them to sin; and thus they are not sent by god to assail us, but are sometimes permitted to do so according to god's just judgments. but sometimes their assault is a punishment to man: and thus they are sent by god; as the lying spirit was sent to punish achab, king of israel, as is related in 3 kings 22:20. for punishment is referred to god as its first author. nevertheless the demons who are sent to punish, do so with an intention other than that for which they are sent; for they punish from hatred or envy; whereas they are sent by god on account of his justice. reply obj. 2: in order that the conditions of the fight be not unequal, there is as regards man the promised recompense, to be gained principally through the grace of god, secondarily through the guardianship of the angels. wherefore (4 kings 6:16), eliseus said to his servant: "fear not, for there are more with us than with them." reply obj. 3: the assault of the flesh and the world would suffice for the exercise of human weakness: but it does not suffice for the demon's malice, which makes use of both the above in assailing men. but by the divine ordinance this tends to the glory of the elect. _______________________ second article [i, q. 114, art. 2] whether to tempt is proper to the devil? objection 1: it would seem that to tempt is not proper to the devil. for god is said to tempt, according to gen. 22:1, "god tempted abraham." moreover man is tempted by the flesh and the world. again, man is said to tempt god, and to tempt man. therefore it is not proper to the devil to tempt. obj. 2: further, to tempt is a sign of ignorance. but the demons know what happens among men. therefore the demons do not tempt. obj. 3: further, temptation is the road to sin. now sin dwells in the will. since therefore the demons cannot change man's will, as appears from what has been said above (q. 111, a. 2), it seems that it is not in their province to tempt. _on the contrary,_ it is written (1 thess. 3:5): "lest perhaps he that tempteth should have tempted you": to which the gloss adds, "that is, the devil, whose office it is to tempt." _i answer that,_ to tempt is, properly speaking, to make trial of something. now we make trial of something in order to know something about it: hence the immediate end of every tempter is knowledge. but sometimes another end, either good or bad, is sought to be acquired through that knowledge; a good end, when, for instance, one desires to know of someone, what sort of a man he is as to knowledge, or virtue, with a view to his promotion; a bad end, when that knowledge is sought with the purpose of deceiving or ruining him. from this we can gather how various beings are said to tempt in various ways. for man is said to tempt, sometimes indeed merely for the sake of knowing something; and for this reason it is a sin to tempt god; for man, being uncertain as it were, presumes to make an experiment of god's power. sometimes too he tempts in order to help, sometimes in order to hurt. the devil, however, always tempts in order to hurt by urging man into sin. in this sense it is said to be his proper office to tempt: for thought at times man tempts thus, he does this as minister of the devil. god is said to tempt that he may know, in the same sense as that is said to know which makes others to know. hence it is written (deut. 13:3): "the lord your god trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him." the flesh and the world are said to tempt as the instruments or matter of temptations; inasmuch as one can know what sort of man someone is, according as he follows or resists the desires of the flesh, and according as he despises worldly advantages and adversity: of which things the devil also makes use in tempting. thus the reply to the first objection is clear. reply obj. 2: the demons know what happens outwardly among men; but the inward disposition of man god alone knows, who is the "weigher of spirits" (prov. 16:2). it is this disposition that makes man more prone to one vice than to another: hence the devil tempts, in order to explore this inward disposition of man, so that he may tempt him to that vice to which he is most prone. reply obj. 3: although a demon cannot change the will, yet, as stated above (q. 111, a. 3), he can change the inferior powers of man, in a certain degree: by which powers, though the will cannot be forced, it can nevertheless be inclined. _______________________ third article [i, q. 114, art. 3] whether all sins are due to the temptation of the devil? objection 1: it would seem that all sins are due to the temptation of the devil. for dionysius says (div. nom. iv) that "the multitude of demons is the cause of all evils, both to themselves and to others." and damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 4) that "all malice and all uncleanness have been devised by the devil." obj. 2: further, of every sinner can be said what the lord said of the jews (john 8:44): "you are of your father the devil." but this was in as far as they sinned through the devil's instigation. therefore every sin is due to the devil's instigation. obj. 3: further, as angels are deputed to guard men, so demons are deputed to assail men. but every good thing we do is due to the suggestion of the good angels: because the divine gifts are borne to us by the angels. therefore all the evil we do, is due to the instigation of the devil. _on the contrary,_ it is written (de eccl. dogmat. xlix): "not all our evil thoughts are stirred up by the devil, but sometimes they arise from the movement of our free-will." _i answer that,_ one thing can be the cause of another in two ways; directly and indirectly. indirectly as when an agent is the cause of a disposition to a certain effect, it is said to be the occasional and indirect cause of that effect: for instance, we might say that he who dries the wood is the cause of the wood burning. in this way we must admit that the devil is the cause of all our sins; because he it was who instigated the first man to sin, from whose sin there resulted a proneness to sin in the whole human race: and in this sense we must take the words of damascene and dionysius. but a thing is said to be the direct cause of something, when its action tends directly thereunto. and in this way the devil is not the cause of every sin: for all sins are not committed at the devil's instigation, but some are due to the free-will and the corruption of the flesh. for, as origen says (peri archon iii), even if there were no devil, men would have the desire for food and love and such like pleasures; with regard to which many disorders may arise unless those desires are curbed by reason, especially if we presuppose the corruption of our natures. now it is in the power of the free-will to curb this appetite and keep it in order. consequently there is no need for all sins to be due to the instigation of the devil. but those sins which are due thereto man perpetrates "through being deceived by the same blandishments as were our first parents," as isidore says (de summo bono ii). thus the answer to the first objection is clear. reply obj. 2: when man commits sin without being thereto instigated by the devil, he nevertheless becomes a child of the devil thereby, in so far as he imitates him who was the first to sin. reply obj. 3: man can of his own accord fall into sin: but he cannot advance in merit without the divine assistance, which is borne to man by the ministry of the angels. for this reason the angels take part in all our good works: whereas all our sins are not due to the demons' instigation. nevertheless there is no kind of sin which is not sometimes due to the demons' suggestion. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 114, art. 4] whether demons can lead men astray by means of real miracles? objection 1: it would seem that the demons cannot lead men astray by means of real miracles. for the activity of the demons will show itself especially in the works of antichrist. but as the apostle says (2 thess. 2:9), his "coming is according to the working of satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders." much more therefore at other times do the demons perform lying wonders. obj. 2: further, true miracles are wrought by some corporeal change. but demons are unable to change the nature of a body; for augustine says (de civ. dei xviii, 18): "i cannot believe that the human body can receive the limbs of a beast by means of a demon's art or power." therefore the demons cannot work real miracles. obj. 3: further, an argument is useless which may prove both ways. if therefore real miracles can be wrought by demons, to persuade one of what is false, they will be useless to confirm the teaching of the faith. this is unfitting; for it is written (mk. 16:20): "the lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed." _on the contrary,_ augustine says (q. 83) [*lib. xxi, sent. sent 4, among the supposititious works of st. augustine]: "often by means of the magic art miracles are wrought like those which are wrought by the servants of god." _i answer that,_ as is clear from what has been said above (q. 110, a. 4), if we take a miracle in the strict sense, the demons cannot work miracles, nor can any creature, but god alone: since in the strict sense a miracle is something done outside the order of the entire created nature, under which order every power of a creature is contained. but sometimes miracle may be taken in a wide sense, for whatever exceeds the human power and experience. and thus demons can work miracles, that is, things which rouse man's astonishment, by reason of their being beyond his power and outside his sphere of knowledge. for even a man by doing what is beyond the power and knowledge of another, leads him to marvel at what he has done, so that in a way he seems to that man to have worked a miracle. it is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. thus the magicians of pharaoh by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs. and "when fire came down from heaven and at one blow consumed job's servants and sheep; when the storm struck down his house and with it his children--these were the work of satan, not phantoms"; as augustine says (de civ. dei xx, 19). reply obj. 1: as augustine says in the same place, the works of antichrist may be called lying wonders, "either because he will deceive men's senses by means of phantoms, so that he will not really do what he will seem to do; or because, if he work real prodigies, they will lead those into falsehood who believe in him." reply obj. 2: as we have said above (q. 110, a. 2), corporeal matter does not obey either good or bad angels at their will, so that demons be able by their power to transmute matter from one form to another; but they can employ certain seeds that exist in the elements of the world, in order to produce these effects, as augustine says (de trin. iii, 8, 9). therefore it must be admitted that all the transformation of corporeal things which can be produced by certain natural powers, to which we must assign the seeds above mentioned, can alike be produced by the operation of the demons, by the employment of these seeds; such as the transformation of certain things into serpents or frogs, which can be produced by putrefaction. on the contrary, those transformations which cannot be produced by the power of nature, cannot in reality be effected by the operation of the demons; for instance, that the human body be changed into the body of a beast, or that the body of a dead man return to life. and if at times something of this sort seems to be effected by the operation of demons, it is not real but a mere semblance of reality. now this may happen in two ways. firstly, from within; in this way a demon can work on man's imagination and even on his corporeal senses, so that something seems otherwise that it is, as explained above (q. 111, aa. 3,4). it is said indeed that this can be done sometimes by the power of certain bodies. secondly, from without: for just as he can from the air form a body of any form and shape, and assume it so as to appear in it visibly: so, in the same way he can clothe any corporeal thing with any corporeal form, so as to appear therein. this is what augustine says (de civ. dei xviii, 18): "man's imagination, which whether thinking or dreaming, takes the forms of an innumerable number of things, appears to other men's senses, as it were embodied in the semblance of some animal." this not to be understood as though the imagination itself or the images formed therein were identified with that which appears embodied to the senses of another man: but that the demon, who forms an image in a man's imagination, can offer the same picture to another man's senses. reply obj. 3: as augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 79): "when magicians do what holy men do, they do it for a different end and by a different right. the former do it for their own glory; the latter, for the glory of god: the former, by certain private compacts; the latter by the evident assistance and command of god, to whom every creature is subject." _______________________ fifth article [i, q. 114, art. 5] whether a demon who is overcome by man, is for this reason hindered from making further assaults? objection 1: it would seem that a demon who is overcome by a man, is not for that reason hindered from any further assault. for christ overcame the tempter most effectively. yet afterwards the demon assailed him by instigating the jews to kill him. therefore it is not true that the devil when conquered ceases his assaults. obj. 2: further, to inflict punishment on one who has been worsted in a fight, is to incite him to a sharper attack. but this is not befitting god's mercy. therefore the conquered demons are not prevented from further assaults. _on the contrary,_ it is written (matt. 4:11): "then the devil left him," i.e. christ who overcame. _i answer that,_ some say that when once a demon has been overcome he can no more tempt any man at all, neither to the same nor to any other sin. and others say that he can tempt others, but not the same man. this seems more probable as long as we understand it to be so for a certain definite time: wherefore (luke 4:13) it is written: "all temptation being ended, the devil departed from him for a time." there are two reasons for this. one is on the part of god's clemency; for as chrysostom says (super matt. hom. v) [*in the opus imperfectum, among his supposititious works], "the devil does not tempt man for just as long as he likes, but for as long as god allows; for although he allows him to tempt for a short time, he orders him off on account of our weakness." the other reason is taken from the astuteness of the devil. as to this, ambrose says on luke 4:13: "the devil is afraid of persisting, because he shrinks from frequent defeat." that the devil does nevertheless sometimes return to the assault, is apparent from matt. 12:44: "i will return into my house from whence i came out." from what has been said, the objections can easily be solved. _______________________ question 115 of the action of the corporeal creature (in six articles) we have now to consider the action of the corporeal creature; and fate, which is ascribed to certain bodies. concerning corporeal actions there are six points of inquiry: (1) whether a body can be active? (2) whether there exist in bodies certain seminal virtues? (3) whether the heavenly bodies are the causes of what is done here by the inferior bodies? (4) whether they are the cause of human acts? (5) whether demons are subject to their influence? (6) whether the heavenly bodies impose necessity on those things which are subject to their influence? _______________________ first article [i, q. 115, art. 1] whether a body can be active? objection 1: it would seem that no bodies are active. for augustine says (de civ. dei v, 9): "there are things that are acted upon, but do not act; such are bodies: there is one who acts but is not acted upon; this is god: there are things that both act and are acted upon; these are the spiritual substances." obj. 2: further, every agent except the first agent requires in its work a subject susceptible of its action. but there is not substance below the corporeal substance which can be susceptible of the latter's action; since it belongs to the lowest degree of beings. therefore corporeal substance is not active. obj. 3: further, every corporeal substance is limited by quantity. but quantity hinders substance from movement and action, because it surrounds it and penetrates it: just as a cloud hinders the air from receiving light. a proof of this is that the more a body increases in quantity, the heavier it is and the more difficult to move. therefore no corporeal substance is active. obj. 4: further, the power of action in every agent is according to its propinquity to the first active cause. but bodies, being most composite, are most remote from the first active cause, which is most simple. therefore no bodies are active. obj. 5: further, if a body is an agent, the term of its action is either a substantial, or an accidental form. but it is not a substantial form; for it is not possible to find in a body any principle of action, save an active quality, which is an accident; and an accident cannot be the cause of a substantial form, since the cause is always more excellent than the effect. likewise, neither is it an accidental form, for "an accident does not extend beyond its subject," as augustine says (de trin. ix, 4). therefore no bodies are active. _on the contrary,_ dionysius says (coel. hier. xv) that among other qualities of corporeal fire, "it shows its greatness in its action and power on that of which it lays hold." _i answer that,_ it is apparent to the senses that some bodies are active. but concerning the action of bodies there have been three errors. for some denied all action to bodies. this is the opinion of avicebron in his book on _the fount of life,_ where, by the arguments mentioned above, he endeavors to prove that no bodies act, but that all the actions which seem to be the actions of bodies, are the actions of some spiritual power that penetrates all bodies: so that, according to him, it is not fire that heats, but a spiritual power which penetrates, by means of the fire. and this opinion seems to be derived from that of plato. for plato held that all forms existing in corporeal matter are participated thereby, and determined and limited thereto; and that separate forms are absolute and as it were universal; wherefore he said that these separate forms are the causes of forms that exist in matter. therefore inasmuch as the form which is in corporeal matter is determined to this matter individualized by quantity, avicebron held that the corporeal form is held back and imprisoned by quantity, as the principle of individuality, so as to be unable by action to extend to any other matter: and that the spiritual and immaterial form alone, which is not hedged in by quantity, can issue forth by acting on something else. but this does not prove that the corporeal form is not an agent, but that it is not a universal agent. for in proportion as a thing is participated, so, of necessity, must that be participated which is proper thereto; thus in proportion to the participation of light is the participation of visibility. but to act, which is nothing else than to make something to be in act, is essentially proper to an act as such; wherefore every agent produces its like. so therefore to the fact of its being a form not determined by matter subject to quantity, a thing owes its being an agent indeterminate and universal: but to the fact that it is determined to this matter, it owes its being an agent limited and particular. wherefore if the form of fire were separate, as the platonists supposed, it would be, in a fashion, the cause of every ignition. but this form of fire which is in this corporeal matter, is the cause of this ignition which passes from this body to that. hence such an action is effected by the contact of two bodies. but this opinion of avicebron goes further than that of plato. for plato held only substantial forms to be separate; while he referred accidents to the material principles which are "the great" and "the small," which he considered to be the first contraries, by others considered to the "the rare" and "the dense." consequently both plato and avicenna, who follows him to a certain extent, held that corporeal agents act through their accidental forms, by disposing matter for the substantial form; but that the ultimate perfection attained by the introduction of the substantial form is due to an immaterial principle. and this is the second opinion concerning the action of bodies; of which we have spoken above when treating of the creation (q. 45, a. 8). the third opinion is that of democritus, who held that action takes place through the issue of atoms from the corporeal agent, while passion consists in the reception of the atoms in the pores of the passive body. this opinion is disproved by aristotle (de gener. i, 8, 9). for it would follow that a body would not be passive as a whole, and the quantity of the active body would be diminished through its action; which things are manifestly untrue. we must therefore say that a body acts forasmuch as it is in act, on a body forasmuch as it is in potentiality. reply obj. 1: this passage of augustine is to be understood of the whole corporeal nature considered as a whole, which thus has no nature inferior to it, on which it can act; as the spiritual nature acts on the corporeal, and the uncreated nature on the created. nevertheless one body is inferior to another, forasmuch as it is in potentiality to that which the other has in act. from this follows the solution of the second objection. but it must be observed, when avicebron argues thus, "there is a mover who is not moved, to wit, the first maker of all; therefore, on the other hand, there exists something moved which is purely passive," that this is to be conceded. but this latter is primary matter, which is a pure potentiality, just as god is pure act. now a body is composed of potentiality and act; and therefore it is both active and passive. reply obj. 3: quantity does not entirely hinder the corporeal form from action, as stated above; but from being a universal agent, forasmuch as a form is individualized through being in matter subject to quantity. the proof taken from the weight of bodies is not to the purpose. first, because addition of quantity does not cause weight; as is proved (de coelo et mundo iv, 2). secondly, it is false that weight retards movement; on the contrary, the heavier a thing, the greater its movement, if we consider the movement proper thereto. thirdly, because action is not effected by local movement, as democritus held: but by something being reduced from potentiality to act. reply obj. 4: a body is not that which is most distant from god; for it participates something of a likeness to the divine being, forasmuch as it has a form. that which is most distant from god is primary matter; which is in no way active, since it is a pure potentiality. reply obj. 5: the term of a body's action is both an accidental form and a substantial form. for the active quality, such as heat, although itself an accident, acts nevertheless by virtue of the substantial form, as its instrument: wherefore its action can terminate in a substantial form; thus natural heat, as the instrument of the soul, has an action terminating in the generation of flesh. but by its own virtue it produces an accident. nor is it against the nature of an accident to surpass its subject in acting, but it is to surpass it in being; unless indeed one were to imagine that an accident transfers its identical self from the agent to the patient; thus democritus explained action by an issue of atoms. _______________________ second article [i, q. 115, art. 2] whether there are any seminal virtues in corporeal matter? objection 1: it would seem that there are no seminal virtues in corporeal matter. for virtue (_ratio_) implies something of a spiritual order. but in corporeal matter nothing exists spiritually, but only materially, that is, according to the mode of that in which it is. therefore there are no seminal virtues in corporeal matter. obj. 2: further, augustine (de trin. iii, 8, 9) says that demons produce certain results by employing with a hidden movement certain seeds, which they know to exist in matter. but bodies, not virtues, can be employed with local movement. therefore it is unreasonable to say that there are seminal virtues in corporeal matter. obj. 3: further, seeds are active principles. but there are no active principles in corporeal matter; since, as we have said above, matter is not competent to act (a. 1, ad 2, 4). therefore there are no seminal virtues in corporeal matter. obj. 4: further, there are said to be certain "causal virtues" (augustine, de gen. ad lit. v, 4) which seem to suffice for the production of things. but seminal virtues are not causal virtues: for miracles are outside the scope of seminal virtues, but not of causal virtues. therefore it is unreasonable to say that there are seminal virtues in corporeal matter. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de trin. iii, 8): "of all the things which are generated in a corporeal and visible fashion, certain seeds lie hidden in the corporeal things of this world." _i answer that,_ it is customary to name things after what is more perfect, as the philosopher says (de anima ii, 4). now in the whole corporeal nature, living bodies are the most perfect: wherefore the word "nature" has been transferred from living things to all natural things. for the word itself, "nature," as the philosopher says (metaph. v, did. iv, 4), was first applied to signify the generation of living things, which is called "nativity": and because living things are generated from a principle united to them, as fruit from a tree, and the offspring from the mother, to whom it is united, consequently the word "nature" has been applied to every principle of movement existing in that which is moved. now it is manifest that the active and passive principles of the generation of living things are the seeds from which living things are generated. therefore augustine fittingly gave the name of "seminal virtues" [seminales rationes] to all those active and passive virtues which are the principles of natural generation and movement. these active and passive virtues may be considered in several orders. for in the first place, as augustine says (gen. ad lit. vi, 10), they are principally and originally in the word of god, as _typal ideas._ secondly, they are in the elements of the world, where they were produced altogether at the beginning, as in _universal causes._ thirdly, they are in those things which, in the succession of time, are produced by universal causes, for instance in this plant, and in that animal, as in _particular causes._ fourthly, they are in the _seeds_ produced from animals and plants. and these again are compared to further particular effects, as the primordial universal causes to the first effects produced. reply obj. 1: these active and passive virtues of natural things, though not called "virtues" (rationes) by reason of their being in corporeal matter, can nevertheless be so called in respect of their origin, forasmuch as they are the effect of the typal ideas [rationes ideales]. reply obj. 2: these active and passive virtues are in certain parts of corporeal things: and when they are employed with local movement for the production of certain results, we speak of the demons as employing seeds. reply obj. 3: the seed of the male is the active principle in the generation of an animal. but that can be called seed also which the female contributes as the passive principle. and thus the word "seed" covers both active and passive principles. reply obj. 4: from the words of augustine when speaking of these seminal virtues, it is easy to gather that they are also causal virtues, just as seed is a kind of cause: for he says (de trin. iii, 9) that, "as a mother is pregnant with the unborn offspring, so is the world itself pregnant with the causes of unborn things." nevertheless, the "typal ideas" can be called "causal virtues," but not, strictly speaking, "seminal virtues," because seed is not a separate principle; and because miracles are not wrought outside the scope of causal virtues. likewise neither are miracles wrought outside the scope of the passive virtues so implanted in the creature, that the latter can be used to any purpose that god commands. but miracles are said to be wrought outside the scope of the natural active virtues, and the passive potentialities which are ordered to such active virtues, and this is what is meant when we say that they are wrought outside the scope of seminal virtues. _______________________ third article [i, q. 115, art. 3] whether the heavenly bodies are the cause of what is produced in bodies here below? objection 1: it would seem that the heavenly bodies are not the cause of what is produced in bodies here below. for damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 7): "we say that they"--namely, the heavenly bodies--"are not the cause of generation or corruption: they are rather signs of storms and atmospheric changes." obj. 2: further, for the production of anything, an agent and matter suffice. but in things here below there is passive matter; and there are contrary agents--heat and cold, and the like. therefore for the production of things here below, there is no need to ascribe causality to the heavenly bodies. obj. 3: further, the agent produces its like. now it is to be observed that everything which is produced here below is produced through the action of heat and cold, moisture and dryness, and other such qualities, which do not exist in heavenly bodies. therefore the heavenly bodies are not the cause of what is produced here below. obj. 4: further, augustine says (de civ. dei v, 6): "nothing is more corporeal than sex." but sex is not caused by the heavenly bodies: a sign of this is that of twins born under the same constellation, one may be male, the other female. therefore the heavenly bodies are not the cause of things produced in bodies here below. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de trin. iii, 4): "bodies of a grosser and inferior nature are ruled in a certain order by those of a more subtle and powerful nature." and dionysius (div. nom. iv) says that "the light of the sun conduces to the generation of sensible bodies, moves them to life, gives them nourishment, growth, and perfection." _i answer that,_ since every multitude proceeds from unity; and since what is immovable is always in the same way of being, whereas what is moved has many ways of being: it must be observed that throughout the whole of nature, all movement proceeds from the immovable. therefore the more immovable certain things are, the more are they the cause of those things which are most movable. now the heavenly bodies are of all bodies the most immovable, for they are not moved save locally. therefore the movements of bodies here below, which are various and multiform, must be referred to the movement of the heavenly bodies, as to their cause. reply obj. 1: these words of damascene are to be understood as denying that the heavenly bodies are the first cause of generation and corruption here below; for this was affirmed by those who held that the heavenly bodies are gods. reply obj. 2: the active principles of bodies here below are only the active qualities of the elements, such as hot and cold and the like. if therefore the substantial forms of inferior bodies were not diversified save according to accidents of that kind, the principles of which the early natural philosophers held to be the "rare" and the "dense"; there would be no need to suppose some principle above these inferior bodies, for they would be of themselves sufficient to act. but to anyone who considers the matter aright, it is clear that those accidents are merely material dispositions in regard to the substantial forms of natural bodies. now matter is not of itself sufficient to act. and therefore it is necessary to suppose some active principle above these material dispositions. this is why the platonists maintained the existence of separate species, by participation of which the inferior bodies receive their substantial forms. but this does not seem enough. for the separate species, since they are supposed to be immovable, would always have the same mode of being: and consequently there would be no variety in the generation and corruption of inferior bodies: which is clearly false. therefore it is necessary, as the philosopher says (de gener. ii, 10), to suppose a movable principle, which by reason of its presence or absence causes variety in the generation and corruption of inferior bodies. such are the heavenly bodies. consequently whatever generates here below, moves to the production of the species, as the instrument of a heavenly body: thus the philosopher says (phys. ii, 2) that "man and the sun generate man." reply obj. 3: the heavenly bodies have not a specific likeness to the bodies here below. their likeness consists in this, that by reason of their universal power, whatever is generated in inferior bodies, is contained in them. in this way also we say that all things are like god. reply obj. 4: the actions of heavenly bodies are variously received in inferior bodies, according to the various dispositions of matter. now it happens at times that the matter in the human conception is not wholly disposed to the male sex; wherefore it is formed sometimes into a male, sometimes into a female. augustine quotes this as an argument against divination by stars: because the effects of the stars are varied even in corporeal things, according to the various dispositions of matter. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 115, art. 4] whether the heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions? objection 1: it would seem that the heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions. for since the heavenly bodies are moved by spiritual substances, as stated above (q. 110, a. 3), they act by virtue thereof as their instruments. but those spiritual substances are superior to our souls. therefore it seems that they can cause impressions on our souls, and thereby cause human actions. obj. 2: further, every multiform is reducible to a uniform principle. but human actions are various and multiform. therefore it seems that they are reducible to the uniform movements of heavenly bodies, as to their principles. obj. 3: further, astrologers often foretell the truth concerning the outcome of wars, and other human actions, of which the intellect and will are the principles. but they could not do this by means of the heavenly bodies, unless these were the cause of human actions. therefore the heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions. _on the contrary,_ damascene says (de fide orth. ii, 7) that "the heavenly bodies are by no means the cause of human actions." _i answer that,_ the heavenly bodies can directly and of themselves act on bodies, as stated above (a. 3). they can act directly indeed on those powers of the soul which are the acts of corporeal organs, but accidentally: because the acts of such powers must needs be hindered by obstacles in the organs; thus an eye when disturbed cannot see well. wherefore if the intellect and will were powers affixed to corporeal organs, as some maintained, holding that intellect does not differ from sense; it would follow of necessity that the heavenly bodies are the cause of human choice and action. it would also follow that man is led by natural instinct to his actions, just as other animals, in which there are powers other than those which are affixed to corporeal organs: for whatever is done here below in virtue of the action of heavenly bodies, is done naturally. it would therefore follow that man has no free-will, and that he would have determinate actions, like other natural things. all of which is manifestly false, and contrary to human habit. it must be observed, however, that indirectly and accidentally, the impressions of heavenly bodies can reach the intellect and will, forasmuch, namely, as both intellect and will receive something from the inferior powers which are affixed to corporeal organs. but in this the intellect and will are differently situated. for the intellect, of necessity, receives from the inferior apprehensive powers: wherefore if the imaginative, cogitative, or memorative powers be disturbed, the action of the intellect is, of necessity, disturbed also. the will, on the contrary, does not, of necessity, follow the inclination of the inferior appetite; for although the passions in the irascible and concupiscible have a certain force in inclining the will; nevertheless the will retains the power of following the passions or repressing them. therefore the impressions of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of which the inferior powers can be changed, has less influence on the will, which is the proximate cause of human actions, than on the intellect. to maintain therefore that heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions is proper to those who hold that intellect does not differ from sense. wherefore some of these said that "such is the will of men, as is the day which the father of men and of gods brings on" (odyssey xviii 135). since, therefore, it is manifest that intellect and will are not acts of corporeal organs, it is impossible that heavenly bodies be the cause of human actions. reply obj. 1: the spiritual substances, that move the heavenly bodies, do indeed act on corporeal things by means of the heavenly bodies; but they act immediately on the human intellect by enlightening it. on the other hand, they cannot compel the will, as stated above (q. 111, a. 2). reply obj. 2: just as the multiformity of corporeal movements is reducible to the uniformity of the heavenly movement as to its cause: so the multiformity of actions proceeding from the intellect and the will is reduced to a uniform principle which is the divine intellect and will. reply obj. 3: the majority of men follow their passions, which are movements of the sensitive appetite, in which movements of the heavenly bodies can cooperate: but few are wise enough to resist these passions. consequently astrologers are able to foretell the truth in the majority of cases, especially in a general way. but not in particular cases; for nothing prevents man resisting his passions by his free-will. wherefore the astrologers themselves are wont to say that "the wise man is stronger than the stars" [*ptolemy, centiloquium, prop. 5], forasmuch as, to wit, he conquers his passions. _______________________ fifth article [i, q. 115, art. 5] whether heavenly bodies can act on the demons? objection 1: it would seem that heavenly bodies can act on the demons. for the demons, according to certain phases of the moon, can harass men, who on that account are called lunatics, as appears from matt. 4:24 and 17:14. but this would not be if they were not subject to the heavenly bodies. therefore the demons are subject to them. obj. 2: further, necromancers observe certain constellations in order to invoke the demons. but these would not be invoked through the heavenly bodies unless they were subject to them. therefore they are subject to them. obj. 3: further, heavenly bodies are more powerful than inferior bodies. but the demons are confined to certain inferior bodies, namely, "herbs, stones, animals, and to certain sounds and words, forms and figures," as porphyry says, quoted by augustine (de civ. dei x, 11). much more therefore are the demons subject to the action of heavenly bodies. _on the contrary,_ the demons are superior in the order of nature, to the heavenly bodies. but the "agent is superior to the patient," as augustine says (gen. ad lit. xii, 16). therefore the demons are not subject to the action of heavenly bodies. _i answer that,_ there have been three opinions about the demons. in the first place the peripatetics denied the existence of demons; and held that what is ascribed to the demons, according to the necromantic art, is effected by the power of the heavenly bodies. this is what augustine (de civ. dei x, 11) relates as having been held by porphyry, namely, that "on earth men fabricate certain powers useful in producing certain effects of the stars." but this opinion is manifestly false. for we know by experience that many things are done by demons, for which the power of heavenly bodies would in no way suffice: for instance, that a man in a state of delirium should speak an unknown tongue, recite poetry and authors of whom he has no previous knowledge; that necromancers make statues to speak and move, and other like things. for this reason the platonists were led to hold that demons are "animals with an aerial body and a passive soul," as apuleius says, quoted by augustine (de civ. dei viii, 16). and this is the second of the opinions mentioned above: according to which it could be said that demons are subject to heavenly bodies in the same way as we have said man is subject thereto (a. 4). but this opinion is proved to be false from what we have said above (q. 51, a. 1): for we hold that demons are spiritual substances not united to bodies. hence it is clear that they are subject to the action of heavenly bodies neither essentially nor accidentally, neither directly nor indirectly. reply obj. 1: that demons harass men, according to certain phases of the moon, happens in two ways. firstly, they do so in order to "defame god's creature," namely, the moon; as jerome (in matt. iv, 24) and chrysostom (hom. lvii in matt.) say. secondly, because as they are unable to effect anything save by means of the natural forces, as stated above (q. 114, a. 4, ad 2) they take into account the aptitude of bodies for the intended result. now it is manifest that "the brain is the most moist of all the parts of the body," as aristotle says [*de part. animal. ii, 7: de sens. et sensato ii: de somn. et vigil. iii]: wherefore it is the most subject to the action of the moon, the property of which is to move what is moist. and it is precisely in the brain that animal forces culminate: wherefore the demons, according to certain phases of the moon, disturb man's imagination, when they observe that the brain is thereto disposed. reply obj. 2: demons when summoned through certain constellations, come for two reasons. firstly, in order to lead man into the error of believing that there is some divine power in the stars. secondly, because they consider that under certain constellations corporeal matter is better disposed for the result for which they are summoned. reply obj. 3: as augustine says (de civ. dei xxi, 6), the "demons are enticed through various kinds of stones, herbs, trees, animals, songs, rites, not as an animal is enticed by food, but as a spirit by signs"; that is to say, forasmuch as these things are offered to them in token of the honor due to god, of which they are covetous. _______________________ sixth article [i, q. 115, art. 6] whether heavenly bodies impose necessity on things subject to their action? objection 1: it would seem that heavenly bodies impose necessity on things subject to their action. for given a sufficient cause, the effect follows of necessity. but heavenly bodies are a sufficient cause of their effects. since, therefore, heavenly bodies, with their movements and dispositions, are necessary beings; it seems that their effects follow of necessity. obj. 2: further, an agent's effect results of necessity in matter, when the power of the agent is such that it can subject the matter to itself entirely. but the entire matter of inferior bodies is subject to the power of heavenly bodies, since this is a higher power than theirs. therefore the effect of the heavenly bodies is of necessity received in corporeal matter. obj. 3: further, if the effect of the heavenly body does not follow of necessity, this is due to some hindering cause. but any corporeal cause, that might possibly hinder the effect of a heavenly body, must of necessity be reducible to some heavenly principle: since the heavenly bodies are the causes of all that takes place here below. therefore, since also that heavenly principle is necessary, it follows that the effect of the heavenly body is necessarily hindered. consequently it would follow that all that takes place here below happens of necessity. _on the contrary,_ the philosopher says (de somn. et vigil. [*de divin. per somn. ii]): "it is not incongruous that many of the signs observed in bodies, of occurrences in the heavens, such as rain and wind, should not be fulfilled." therefore not all the effects of heavenly bodies take place of necessity. _i answer that,_ this question is partly solved by what was said above (a. 4); and in part presents some difficulty. for it was shown that although the action of heavenly bodies produces certain inclinations in corporeal nature, the will nevertheless does not of necessity follow these inclinations. therefore there is nothing to prevent the effect of heavenly bodies being hindered by the action of the will, not only in man himself, but also in other things to which human action extends. but in natural things there is no such principle, endowed with freedom to follow or not to follow the impressions produced by heavenly agents. wherefore it seems that in such things at least, everything happens of necessity; according to the reasoning of some of the ancients who supposing that everything that is, has a cause; and that, given the cause, the effect follows of necessity; concluded that all things happen of necessity. this opinion is refuted by aristotle (metaph. vi, did. v, 3) as to this double supposition. for in the first place it is not true that, given any cause whatever, the effect must follow of necessity. for some causes are so ordered to their effects, as to produce them, not of necessity, but in the majority of cases, and in the minority to fail in producing them. but that such causes do fail in the minority of cases is due to some hindering cause; consequently the above-mentioned difficulty seems not to be avoided, since the cause in question is hindered of necessity. therefore we must say, in the second place, that everything that is a being _per se,_ has a cause; but what is accidentally, has not a cause, because it is not truly a being, since it is not truly one. for (that a thing is) "white" has a cause, likewise (that a man is) "musical" has not a cause, but (that a being is) "white-musical" has not a cause, because it is not truly a being, nor truly one. now it is manifest that a cause which hinders the action of a cause so ordered to its effect as to produce it in the majority of cases, clashes sometimes with this cause by accident: and the clashing of these two causes, inasmuch as it is accidental, has no cause. consequently what results from this clashing of causes is not to be reduced to a further pre-existing cause, from which it follows of necessity. for instance, that some terrestrial body take fire in the higher regions of the air and fall to the earth, is caused by some heavenly power: again, that there be on the surface of the earth some combustible matter, is reducible to some heavenly principle. but that the burning body should alight on this matter and set fire to it, is not caused by a heavenly body, but is accidental. consequently not all the effects of heavenly bodies result of necessity. reply obj. 1: the heavenly bodies are causes of effects that take place here below, through the means of particular inferior causes, which can fail in their effects in the minority of cases. reply obj. 2: the power of a heavenly body is not infinite. wherefore it requires a determinate disposition in matter, both as to local distance and as to other conditions, in order to produce its effect. therefore as local distance hinders the effect of a heavenly body (for the sun has not the same effect in heat in dacia as in ethiopia); so the grossness of matter, its low or high temperature or other such disposition, can hinder the effect of a heavenly body. reply obj. 3: although the cause that hinders the effect of another cause can be reduced to a heavenly body as its cause; nevertheless the clashing of two causes, being accidental, is not reduced to the causality of a heavenly body, as stated above. _______________________ on fate (in four articles) we come now to the consideration of fate. under this head there are four points of inquiry: (1) is there such a thing as fate? (2) where is it? (3) is it unchangeable? (4) are all things subject to fate? _______________________ first article [i, q. 116, art. 1] whether there be such a thing as fate? objection 1: it would seem that fate is nothing. for gregory says in a homily for the epiphany (hom. x in evang.): "far be it from the hearts of the faithful to think that fate is anything real." obj. 2: further, what happens by fate is not unforeseen, for as augustine says (de civ. dei v, 4), "fate is understood to be derived from the verb 'fari' which means to speak"; as though things were said to happen by fate, which are "fore-spoken" by one who decrees them to happen. now what is foreseen is neither lucky nor chance-like. if therefore things happen by fate, there will be neither luck nor chance in the world. _on the contrary,_ what does not exist cannot be defined. but boethius (de consol. iv) defines fate thus: "fate is a disposition inherent to changeable things, by which providence connects each one with its proper order." _i answer that,_ in this world some things seem to happen by luck or chance. now it happens sometimes that something is lucky or chance-like as compared to inferior causes, which, if compared to some higher cause, is directly intended. for instance, if two servants are sent by their master to the same place; the meeting of the two servants in regard to themselves is by chance; but as compared to the master, who had ordered it, it is directly intended. so there were some who refused to refer to a higher cause such events which by luck or chance take place here below. these denied the existence of fate and providence, as augustine relates of tully (de civ. dei v, 9). and this is contrary to what we have said above about providence (q. 22, a. 2). on the other hand, some have considered that everything that takes place here below by luck or by chance, whether in natural things or in human affairs, is to be reduced to a superior cause, namely, the heavenly bodies. according to these fate is nothing else than "a disposition of the stars under which each one is begotten or born" [*cf. st. augustine , loc. cit., v, 1, 8, 9]. but this will not hold. first, as to human affairs: because we have proved above (q. 115, a. 4) that human actions are not subject to the action of heavenly bodies, save accidentally and indirectly. now the cause of fate, since it has the ordering of things that happen by fate, must of necessity be directly and of itself the cause of what takes place. secondly, as to all things that happen accidentally: for it has been said (q. 115, a. 6) that what is accidental, is properly speaking neither a being, nor a unity. but every action of nature terminates in some one thing. wherefore it is impossible for that which is accidental to be the proper effect of an active natural principle. no natural cause can therefore have for its proper effect that a man intending to dig a grave finds a treasure. now it is manifest that a acts after the manner of a natural principle: wherefore its effects in this world are natural. it is therefore impossible that any active power of a heavenly body be the cause of what happens by accident here below, whether by luck or by chance. we must therefore say that what happens here by accident, both in natural things and in human affairs, is reduced to a preordaining cause, which is divine providence. for nothing hinders that which happens by accident being considered as one by an intellect: otherwise the intellect could not form this proposition: "the digger of a grave found a treasure." and just as an intellect can apprehend this so can it effect it; for instance, someone who knows a place where a treasure is hidden, might instigate a rustic, ignorant of this, to dig a grave there. consequently, nothing hinders what happens here by accident, by luck or by chance, being reduced to some ordering cause which acts by the intellect, especially the divine intellect. for god alone can change the will, as shown above (q. 105, a. 4). consequently the ordering of human actions, the principle of which is the will, must be ascribed to god alone. so therefore inasmuch as all that happens here below is subject to divine providence, as being pre-ordained, and as it were "fore-spoken," we can admit the existence of fate: although the holy doctors avoided the use of this word, on account of those who twisted its application to a certain force in the position of the stars. hence augustine says (de civ. dei v, 1): "if anyone ascribes human affairs to fate, meaning thereby the will or power of god, let him keep to his opinion, but hold his tongue." for this reason gregory denies the existence of fate: wherefore the first objection's solution is manifest. reply obj. 2: nothing hinders certain things happening by luck or by chance, if compared to their proximate causes: but not if compared to divine providence, whereby "nothing happens at random in the world," as augustine says (qq. 83, qu. 24). _______________________ second article [i, q. 116, art. 2] whether fate is in created things? objection 1: it would seem that fate is not in created things. for augustine says (de civ. dei v, 1) that the "divine will or power is called fate." but the divine will or power is not in creatures, but in god. therefore fate is not in creatures but in god. obj. 2: further, fate is compared to things that happen by fate, as their cause; as the very use of the word proves. but the universal cause that of itself effects what takes place by accident here below, is god alone, as stated above (a. 1). therefore fate is in god, and not in creatures. obj. 3: further, if fate is in creatures, it is either a substance or an accident: and whichever it is it must be multiplied according to the number of creatures. since, therefore, fate seems to be one thing only, it seems that fate is not in creatures, but in god. _on the contrary,_ boethius says (de consol. iv): "fate is a disposition inherent to changeable things." _i answer that,_ as is clear from what has been stated above (q. 22, a. 3; q. 103, a. 6), divine providence produces effects through mediate causes. we can therefore consider the ordering of the effects in two ways. firstly, as being in god himself: and thus the ordering of the effects is called providence. but if we consider this ordering as being in the mediate causes ordered by god to the production of certain effects, thus it has the nature of fate. this is what boethius says (de consol. iv): "fate is worked out when divine providence is served by certain spirits; whether by the soul, or by all nature itself which obeys him, whether by the heavenly movements of the stars, whether by the angelic power, or by the ingenuity of the demons, whether by some of these, or by all, the chain of fate is forged." of each of these things we have spoken above (a. 1; q. 104, a. 2; q. 110, a. 1; q. 113; q. 114). it is therefore manifest that fate is in the created causes themselves, as ordered by god to the production of their effects. reply obj. 1: the ordering itself of second causes, which augustine (de civ. dei v, 8) calls the "series of causes," has not the nature of fate, except as dependent on god. wherefore the divine power or will can be called fate, as being the cause of fate. but essentially fate is the very disposition or "series," i.e. order, of second causes. reply obj. 2: fate has the nature of a cause, just as much as the second causes themselves, the ordering of which is called fate. reply obj. 3: fate is called a disposition, not that disposition which is a species of quality, but in the sense in which it signifies order, which is not a substance, but a relation. and if this order be considered in relation to its principle, it is one; and thus fate is one. but if it be considered in relation to its effects, or to the mediate causes, this fate is multiple. in this sense the poet wrote: "thy fate draws thee." _______________________ third article [i, q. 116, art. 3] whether fate is unchangeable? objection 1: it seems that fate is not unchangeable. for boethius says (de consol. iv): "as reasoning is to the intellect, as the begotten is to that which is, as time to eternity, as the circle to its centre; so is the fickle chain of fate to the unwavering simplicity of providence." obj. 2: further, the philosopher says (topic. ii, 7): "if we be moved, what is in us is moved." but fate is a "disposition inherent to changeable things," as boethius says (de consol. iv). therefore fate is changeable. obj. 3: further, if fate is unchangeable, what is subject to fate happens unchangeably and of necessity. but things ascribed to fate seem principally to be contingencies. therefore there would be no contingencies in the world, but all things would happen of necessity. _on the contrary,_ boethius says (de consol. iv) that fate is an unchangeable disposition. _i answer that,_ the disposition of second causes which we call fate, can be considered in two ways: firstly, in regard to the second causes, which are thus disposed or ordered; secondly, in regard to the first principle, namely, god, by whom they are ordered. some, therefore, have held that the series itself o[f] dispositions of causes is in itself necessary, so that all things would happen of necessity; for this reason that each effect has a cause, and given a cause the effect must follow of necessity. but this is false, as proved above (q. 115, a. 6). others, on the other hand, held that fate is changeable, even as dependent on divine providence. wherefore the egyptians said that fate could be changed by certain sacrifices, as gregory of nyssa says (nemesius, de homine). this too has been disproved above for the reason that it is repugnant to divine providence. we must therefore say that fate, considered in regard to second causes, is changeable; but as subject to divine providence, it derives a certain unchangeableness, not of absolute but of conditional necessity. in this sense we say that this conditional is true and necessary: "if god foreknew that this would happen, it will happen." wherefore boethius, having said that the chain of fate is fickle, shortly afterwards adds--"which, since it is derived from an unchangeable providence must also itself be unchangeable." from this the answers to the objections are clear. _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 116, art. 4] whether all things are subject to fate? objection 1: it seems that all things are subject to fate. for boethius says (de consol. iv): "the chain of fate moves the heaven and the stars, tempers the elements to one another, and models them by a reciprocal transformation. by fate all things that are born into the world and perish are renewed in a uniform progression of offspring and seed." nothing therefore seems to be excluded from the domain of fate. obj. 2: further, augustine says (de civ. dei v, 1) that fate is something real, as referred to the divine will and power. but the divine will is cause of all things that happen, as augustine says (de trin. iii, 1 seqq.). therefore all things are subject to fate. obj. 3: further, boethius says (de consol. iv) that fate "is a disposition inherent to changeable things." but all creatures are changeable, and god alone is truly unchangeable, as stated above (q. 9, a. 2). therefore fate is in all things. _on the contrary,_ boethius says (de consol. iv) that "some things subject to providence are above the ordering of fate." _i answer that,_ as stated above (a. 2), fate is the ordering of second causes to effects foreseen by god. whatever, therefore, is subject to second causes, is subject also to fate. but whatever is done immediately by god, since it is not subject to second causes, neither is it subject to fate; such are creation, the glorification of spiritual substances, and the like. and this is what boethius says (de consol. iv): viz. that "those things which are nigh to god have a state of immobility, and exceed the changeable order of fate." hence it is clear that "the further a thing is from the first mind, the more it is involved in the chain of fate"; since so much the more it is bound up with second causes. reply obj. 1: all the things mentioned in this passage are done by god by means of second causes; for this reason they are contained in the order of fate. but it is not the same with everything else, as stated above. reply obj. 2: fate is to be referred to the divine will and power, as to its first principle. consequently it does not follow that whatever is subject to the divine will or power, is subject also to fate, as already stated. reply obj. 3: although all creatures are in some way changeable, yet some of them do not proceed from changeable created causes. and these, therefore, are not subject to fate, as stated above. _______________________ question 117 of things pertaining to the action of man (in four articles) we have next to consider those things which pertain to the action of man, who is composed of a created corporeal and spiritual nature. in the first place we shall consider that action (in general) and secondly in regard to the propagation of man from man. as to the first, there are four points of inquiry: (1) whether one man can teach another, as being the cause of his knowledge? (2) whether man can teach an angel? (3) whether by the power of his soul man can change corporeal matter? (4) whether the separate soul of man can move bodies by local movement? _______________________ first article [i, q. 117, art. 1] whether one man can teach another? objection 1: it would seem that one man cannot teach another. for the lord says (matt. 22:8): "be not you called rabbi": on which the gloss of jerome says, "lest you give to men the honor due to god." therefore to be a master is properly an honor due to god. but it belongs to a master to teach. therefore man cannot teach, and this is proper to god. obj. 2: further, if one man teaches another this is only inasmuch as he acts through his own knowledge, so as to cause knowledge in the other. but a quality through which anyone acts so as to produce his like, is an active quality. therefore it follows that knowledge is an active quality just as heat is. obj. 3: further, for knowledge we require intellectual light, and the species of the thing understood. but a man cannot cause either of these in another man. therefore a man cannot by teaching cause knowledge in another man. obj. 4: further, the teacher does nothing in regard to a disciple save to propose to him certain signs, so as to signify something by words or gestures. but it is not possible to teach anyone so as to cause knowledge in him, by putting signs before him. for these are signs either of things that he knows, or of things he does not know. if of things that he knows, he to whom these signs are proposed is already in the possession of knowledge, and does not acquire it from the master. if they are signs of things that he does not know, he can learn nothing therefrom: for instance, if one were to speak greek to a man who only knows latin, he would learn nothing thereby. therefore in no way can a man cause knowledge in another by teaching him. _on the contrary,_ the apostle says (1 tim. 2:7): "whereunto i am appointed a preacher and an apostle . . . a doctor of the gentiles in faith and truth." _i answer that,_ on this question there have been various opinions. for averroes, commenting on _de anima_ iii, maintains that all men have one passive intellect in common, as stated above (q. 76, a. 2). from this it follows that the same intelligible species belong to all men. consequently he held that one man does not cause another to have a knowledge distinct from that which he has himself; but that he communicates the identical knowledge which he has himself, by moving him to order rightly the phantasms in his soul, so that they be rightly disposed for intelligible apprehension. this opinion is true so far as knowledge is the same in disciple and master, if we consider the identity of the thing known: for the same objective truth is known by both of them. but so far as he maintains that all men have but one passive intellect, and the same intelligible species, differing only as to various phantasms, his opinion is false, as stated above (q. 76, a. 2). besides this, there is the opinion of the platonists, who held that our souls are possessed of knowledge from the very beginning, through the participation of separate forms, as stated above (q. 84, aa. 3, 4); but that the soul is hindered, through its union with the body, from the free consideration of those things which it knows. according to this, the disciple does not acquire fresh knowledge from his master, but is roused by him to consider what he knows; so that to learn would be nothing else than to remember. in the same way they held that natural agents only dispose (matter) to receive forms, which matter acquires by a participation of separate substances. but against this we have proved above (q. 79, a. 2; q. 84, a. 3) that the passive intellect of the human soul is in pure potentiality to intelligible (species), as aristotle says (de anima iii, 4). we must therefore decide the question differently, by saying that the teacher causes knowledge in the learner, by reducing him from potentiality to act, as the philosopher says (phys. viii, 4). in order to make this clear, we must observe that of effects proceeding from an exterior principle, some proceed from the exterior principle alone; as the form of a house is caused to be in matter by art alone: whereas other effects proceed sometimes from an exterior principle, sometimes from an interior principle: thus health is caused in a sick man, sometimes by an exterior principle, namely by the medical art, sometimes by an interior principle as when a man is healed by the force of nature. in these latter effects two things must be noticed. first, that art in its work imitates nature for just as nature heals a man by alteration, digestion, rejection of the matter that caused the sickness, so does art. secondly, we must remark that the exterior principle, art, acts, not as principal agent, but as helping the principal agent, but as helping the principal agent, which is the interior principle, by strengthening it, and by furnishing it with instruments and assistance, of which the interior principle makes use in producing the effect. thus the physician strengthens nature, and employs food and medicine, of which nature makes use for the intended end. now knowledge is acquired in man, both from an interior principle, as is clear in one who procures knowledge by his own research; and from an exterior principle, as is clear in one who learns (by instruction). for in every man there is a certain principle of knowledge, namely the light of the active intellect, through which certain universal principles of all the sciences are naturally understood as soon as proposed to the intellect. now when anyone applies these universal principles to certain particular things, the memory or experience of which he acquires through the senses; then by his own research advancing from the known to the unknown, he obtains knowledge of what he knew not before. wherefore anyone who teaches, leads the disciple from things known by the latter, to the knowledge of things previously unknown to him; according to what the philosopher says (poster. i, 1): "all teaching and all learning proceed from previous knowledge." now the master leads the disciple from things known to knowledge of the unknown, in a twofold manner. firstly, by proposing to him certain helps or means of instruction, which his intellect can use for the acquisition of science: for instance, he may put before him certain less universal propositions, of which nevertheless the disciple is able to judge from previous knowledge: or he may propose to him some sensible examples, either by way of likeness or of opposition, or something of the sort, from which the intellect of the learner is led to the knowledge of truth previously unknown. secondly, by strengthening the intellect of the learner; not, indeed, by some active power as of a higher nature, as explained above (q. 106, a. 1; q. 111, a. 1) of the angelic enlightenment, because all human intellects are of one grade in the natural order; but inasmuch as he proposes to the disciple the order of principles to conclusions, by reason of his not having sufficient collating power to be able to draw the conclusions from the principles. hence the philosopher says (poster. i, 2) that "a demonstration is a syllogism that causes knowledge." in this way a demonstrator causes his hearer to know. reply obj. 1: as stated above, the teacher only brings exterior help as the physician who heals: but just as the interior nature is the principal cause of the healing, so the interior light of the intellect is the principal cause of knowledge. but both of these are from god. therefore as of god is it written: "who healeth all thy diseases" (ps. 102:3); so of him is it written: "he that teacheth man knowledge" (ps. 93:10), inasmuch as "the light of his countenance is signed upon us" (ps. 4:7), through which light all things are shown to us. reply obj. 2: as averroes argues, the teacher does not cause knowledge in the disciple after the manner of a natural active cause. wherefore knowledge need not be an active quality: but is the principle by which one is directed in teaching, just as art is the principle by which one is directed in working. reply obj. 3: the master does not cause the intellectual light in the disciple, nor does he cause the intelligible species directly: but he moves the disciple by teaching, so that the latter, by the power of his intellect, forms intelligible concepts, the signs of which are proposed to him from without. reply obj. 4: the signs proposed by the master to the disciple are of things known in a general and confused manner; but not known in detail and distinctly. therefore when anyone acquires knowledge by himself, he cannot be called self-taught, or be said to have his own master because perfect knowledge did not precede in him, such as is required in a master. _______________________ second article [i, q. 117, art. 2] whether man can teach the angels? objection 1: it would seem that men teach angels. for the apostle says (eph. 3:10): "that the manifold wisdom of god may be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places through the church." but the church is the union of all the faithful. therefore some things are made known to angels through men. obj. 2: further, the superior angels, who are enlightened immediately concerning divine things by god, can instruct the inferior angels, as stated above (q. 116, a. 1; q. 112, a. 3). but some men are instructed immediately concerning divine things by the word of god; as appears principally of the apostles from heb. 1:1, 2: "last of all, in these days (god) hath spoken to us by his son." therefore some men have been able to teach the angels. obj. 3: further, the inferior angels are instructed by the superior. but some men are higher than some angels; since some men are taken up to the highest angelic orders, as gregory says in a homily (hom. xxxiv in evang.). therefore some of the inferior angels can be instructed by men concerning divine things. _on the contrary,_ dionysius says (div. nom. iv) that every divine enlightenment is borne to men by the ministry of the angels. therefore angels are not instructed by men concerning divine things. _i answer that,_ as stated above (q. 107, a. 2), the inferior angels can indeed speak to the superior angels, by making their thoughts known to them; but concerning divine things superior angels are never enlightened by inferior angels. now it is manifest that in the same way as inferior angels are subject to the superior, the highest men are subject even to the lowest angels. this is clear from our lord's words (matt. 11:11): "there hath not risen among them that are born of woman a greater than john the baptist; yet he that is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." therefore angels are never enlightened by men concerning divine things. but men can by means of speech make known to angels the thoughts of their hearts: because it belongs to god alone to know the heart's secrets. reply obj. 1: augustine (gen. ad lit. v, 19) thus explains this passage of the apostle, who in the preceding verses says: "to me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace . . . to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in god. hidden, yet so that the multiform wisdom of god was made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places--that is, through the church." as though he were to say: this mystery was hidden from men, but not from the church in heaven, which is contained in the principalities and powers who knew it "from all ages, but not before all ages: because the church was at first there, where after the resurrection this church composed of men will be gathered together." it can also be explained otherwise that "what is hidden, is known by the angels, not only in god, but also here where when it takes place and is made public," as augustine says further on (gen. ad lit. v, 19). thus when the mysteries of christ and the church were fulfilled by the apostles, some things concerning these mysteries became apparent to the angels, which were hidden from them before. in this way we can understand what jerome says (comment. in ep. ad eph.)--that from the preaching of the apostles the angels learned certain mysteries; that is to say, through the preaching of the apostles, the mysteries were realized in the things themselves: thus by the preaching of paul the gentiles were converted, of which mystery the apostle is speaking in the passage quoted. reply obj. 2: the apostles were instructed immediately by the word of god, not according to his divinity, but according as he spoke in his human nature. hence the argument does not prove. reply obj. 3: certain men in this state of life are greater than certain angels, not actually, but virtually; forasmuch as they have such great charity that they can merit a higher degree of beatitude than that possessed by certain angels. in the same way we might say that the seed of a great tree is virtually greater than a small tree, though actually it is much smaller. _______________________ third article [i, q. 117, art. 3] whether man by the power of his soul can change corporeal matter? objection 1: it would seem that man by the power of his soul can change corporeal matter. for gregory says (dialog. ii, 30): "saints work miracles sometimes by prayer, sometimes by their power: thus peter, by prayer, raised the dead tabitha to life, and by his reproof delivered to death the lying ananias and saphira." but in the working of miracles a change is wrought in corporeal matter. therefore men, by the power of the soul, can change corporeal matter. obj. 2: further, on these words (gal. 3:1): "who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth?" the gloss says that "some have blazing eyes, who by a single look bewitch others, especially children." but this would not be unless the power of the soul could change corporeal matter. therefore man can change corporeal matter by the power of his soul. obj. 3: further, the human body is nobler than other inferior bodies. but by the apprehension of the human soul the human body is changed to heat and cold, as appears when a man is angry or afraid: indeed this change sometimes goes so far as to bring on sickness and death. much more, then, can the human soul by its power change corporeal matter. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de trin. iii, 8): "corporeal matter obeys god alone at will." _i answer that,_ as stated above (q. 110, a. 2), corporeal matter is not changed to (the reception of) a form save either by some agent composed of matter and form, or by god himself, in whom both matter and form pre-exist virtually, as in the primordial cause of both. wherefore of the angels also we have stated (q. 110, a. 2) that they cannot change corporeal matter by their natural power, except by employing corporeal agents for the production of certain effects. much less therefore can the soul, by its natural power, change corporeal matter, except by means of bodies. reply obj. 1: the saints are said to work miracles by the power of grace, not of nature. this is clear from what gregory says in the same place: "those who are sons of god, in power, as john says--what wonder is there that they should work miracles by that power?" reply obj. 2: avicenna assigns the cause of bewitchment to the fact that corporeal matter has a natural tendency to obey spiritual substance rather than natural contrary agents. therefore when the soul is of strong imagination, it can change corporeal matter. this he says is the cause of the "evil eye." but it has been shown above (q. 110, a. 2) that corporeal matter does not obey spiritual substances at will, but the creator alone. therefore it is better to say, that by a strong imagination the (corporeal) spirits of the body united to that soul are changed, which change in the spirits takes place especially in the eyes, to which the more subtle spirits can reach. and the eyes infect the air which is in contact with them to a certain distance: in the same way as a new and clear mirror contracts a tarnish from the look of a "menstruata," as aristotle says (de somn. et vigil.; [*de insomniis ii]). hence then when a soul is vehemently moved to wickedness, as occurs mostly in little old women, according to the above explanation, the countenance becomes venomous and hurtful, especially to children, who have a tender and most impressionable body. it is also possible that by god's permission, or from some hidden deed, the spiteful demons co-operate in this, as the witches may have some compact with them. reply obj. 3: the soul is united to the body as its form; and the sensitive appetite, which obeys the reason in a certain way, as stated above (q. 81, a. 3), it is the act of a corporeal organ. therefore at the apprehension of the human soul, the sensitive appetite must needs be moved with an accompanying corporeal operation. but the apprehension of the human soul does not suffice to work a change in exterior bodies, except by means of a change in the body united to it, as stated above (ad 2). _______________________ fourth article [i, q. 117, art. 4] whether the separate human soul can move bodies at least locally? objection 1: it seems that the separate human soul can move bodies at least locally. for a body naturally obeys a spiritual substance as to local motion, as stated above (q. 110, a. 5). but the separate soul is a spiritual substance. therefore it can move exterior bodies by its command. obj. 2: further, in the itinerary of clement it is said in the narrative of nicetas to peter, that simon magus, by sorcery retained power over the soul of a child that he had slain, and that through this soul he worked magical wonders. but this could not have been without some corporeal change at least as to place. therefore, the separate soul has the power to move bodies locally. _on the contrary,_ the philosopher says (de anima i, 3) that the soul cannot move any other body whatsoever but its own. _i answer that,_ the separate soul cannot by its natural power move a body. for it is manifest that, even while the soul is united to the body, it does not move the body except as endowed with life: so that if one of the members become lifeless, it does not obey the soul as to local motion. now it is also manifest that no body is quickened by the separate soul. therefore within the limits of its natural power the separate soul cannot command the obedience of a body; though, by the power of god, it can exceed those limits. reply obj. 1: there are certain spiritual substances whose powers are not determinate to certain bodies; such are the angels who are naturally unfettered by a body; consequently various bodies may obey them as to movement. but if the motive power of a separate substance is naturally determinate to move a certain body, that substance will not be able to move a body of higher degree, but only one of lower degree: thus according to philosophers the mover of the lower heaven cannot move the higher heaven. wherefore, since the soul is by its nature determinate to move the body of which it is the form, it cannot by its natural power move any other body. reply obj. 2: as augustine (de civ. dei x, 11) and chrysostom (hom. xxviii in matt.) say, the demons often pretend to be the souls of the dead, in order to confirm the error of heathen superstition. it is therefore credible that simon magus was deceived by some demon who pretended to be the soul of the child whom the magician had slain. _______________________ question 118 of the production of man from man as to the soul (in three articles) we next consider the production of man from man: first, as to the soul; secondly, as to the body. under the first head there are three points of inquiry: (1) whether the sensitive soul is transmitted with the semen? (2) whether the intellectual soul is thus transmitted? (3) whether all souls were created at the same time? _______________________ first article [i, q. 118, art. 1] whether the sensitive soul is transmitted with the semen? objection 1: it would seem that the sensitive soul is not transmitted with the semen, but created by god. for every perfect substance, not composed of matter and form, that begins to exist, acquires existence not by generation, but by creation: for nothing is generated save from matter. but the sensitive soul is a perfect substance, otherwise it could not move the body; and since it is the form of a body, it is not composed of matter and form. therefore it begins to exist not by generation but by creation. obj. 2: further, in living things the principle of generation is the generating power; which, since it is one of the powers of the vegetative soul, is of a lower order than the sensitive soul. now nothing acts beyond its species. therefore the sensitive soul cannot be caused by the animal's generating power. obj. 3: further, the generator begets its like: so that the form of the generator must be actually in the cause of generation. but neither the sensitive soul itself nor any part thereof is actually in the semen, for no part of the sensitive soul is elsewhere than in some part of the body; while in the semen there is not even a particle of the body, because there is not a particle of the body which is not made from the semen and by the power thereof. therefore the sensitive soul is not produced through the semen. obj. 4: further, if there be in the semen any principle productive of the sensitive soul, this principle either remains after the animal is begotten, or it does not remain. now it cannot remain. for either it would be identified with the sensitive soul of the begotten animal; which is impossible, for thus there would be identity between begetter and begotten, maker and made: or it would be distinct therefrom; and again this is impossible, for it has been proved above (q. 76, a. 4) that in one animal there is but one formal principle, which is the soul. if on the other hand the aforesaid principle does not remain, this again seems to be impossible: for thus an agent would act to its own destruction, which cannot be. therefore the sensitive soul cannot be generated from the semen. _on the contrary,_ the power in the semen is to the animal seminally generated, as the power in the elements of the world is to animals produced from these elements--for instance by putrefaction. but in the latter animals the soul is produced by the elemental power, according to gen. 1:20: "let the waters bring forth the creeping creatures having life." therefore also the souls of animals seminally generated are produced by the seminal power. _i answer that,_ some have held that the sensitive souls of animals are created by god (q. 65, a. 4). this opinion would hold if the sensitive soul were subsistent, having being and operation of itself. for thus, as having being and operation of itself, to be made would needs be proper to it. and since a simple and subsistent thing cannot be made except by creation, it would follow that the sensitive soul would arrive at existence by creation. but this principle is false--namely, that being and operation are proper to the sensitive soul, as has been made clear above (q. 75, a. 3): for it would not cease to exist when the body perishes. since, therefore, it is not a subsistent form, its relation to existence is that of the corporeal forms, to which existence does not belong as proper to them, but which are said to exist forasmuch as the subsistent composites exist through them. wherefore to be made is proper to composites. and since the generator is like the generated, it follows of necessity that both the sensitive soul, and all other like forms are naturally brought into existence by certain corporeal agents that reduce the matter from potentiality to act, through some corporeal power of which they are possessed. now the more powerful an agent, the greater scope its action has: for instance, the hotter a body, the greater the distance to which its heat carries. therefore bodies not endowed with life, which are the lowest in the order of nature, generate their like, not through some medium, but by themselves; thus fire by itself generates fire. but living bodies, as being more powerful, act so as to generate their like, both without and with a medium. without a medium--in the work of nutrition, in which flesh generates flesh: with a medium--in the act of generation, because the semen of the animal or plant derives a certain active force from the soul of the generator, just as the instrument derives a certain motive power from the principal agent. and as it matters not whether we say that something is moved by the instrument or by the principal agent, so neither does it matter whether we say that the soul of the generated is caused by the soul of the generator, or by some seminal power derived therefrom. reply obj. 1: the sensitive soul is not a perfect self-subsistent substance. we have said enough (q. 25, a. 3) on this point, nor need we repeat it here. reply obj. 2: the generating power begets not only by its own virtue but by that of the whole soul, of which it is a power. therefore the generating power of a plant generates a plant, and that of an animal begets an animal. for the more perfect the soul is, to so much a more perfect effect is its generating power ordained. reply obj. 3: this active force which is in the semen, and which is derived from the soul of the generator, is, as it were, a certain movement of this soul itself: nor is it the soul or a part of the soul, save virtually; thus the form of a bed is not in the saw or the axe, but a certain movement towards that form. consequently there is no need for this active force to have an actual organ; but it is based on the (vital) spirit in the semen which is frothy, as is attested by its whiteness. in which spirit, moreover, there is a certain heat derived from the power of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of which the inferior bodies also act towards the production of the species as stated above (q. 115, a. 3, ad 2). and since in this (vital) spirit the power of the soul is concurrent with the power of a heavenly body, it has been said that "man and the sun generate man." moreover, elemental heat is employed instrumentally by the soul's power, as also by the nutritive power, as stated (de anima ii, 4). reply obj. 4: in perfect animals, generated by coition, the active force is in the semen of the male, as the philosopher says (de gener. animal. ii, 3); but the foetal matter is provided by the female. in this matter, the vegetative soul exists from the very beginning, not as to the second act, but as to the first act, as the sensitive soul is in one who sleeps. but as soon as it begins to attract nourishment, then it already operates in act. this matter therefore is transmuted by the power which is in the semen of the male, until it is actually informed by the sensitive soul; not as though the force itself which was in the semen becomes the sensitive soul; for thus, indeed, the generator and generated would be identical; moreover, this would be more like nourishment and growth than generation, as the philosopher says. and after the sensitive soul, by the power of the active principle in the semen, has been produced in one of the principal parts of the thing generated, then it is that the sensitive soul of the offspring begins to work towards the perfection of its own body, by nourishment and growth. as to the active power which was in the semen, it ceases to exist, when the semen is dissolved and the (vital) spirit thereof vanishes. nor is there anything unreasonable in this, because this force is not the principal but the instrumental agent; and the movement of an instrument ceases when once the effect has been produced. _______________________ second article [i, q. 118, art. 2] whether the intellectual soul is produced from the semen? objection 1: it would seem that the intellectual soul is produced from the semen. for it is written (gen. 46:26): "all the souls that came out of [jacob's] thigh, sixty-six." but nothing is produced from the thigh of a man, except from the semen. therefore the intellectual soul is produced from the semen. obj. 2: further, as shown above (q. 76, a. 3), the intellectual, sensitive, and nutritive souls are, in substance, one soul in man. but the sensitive soul in man is generated from the semen, as in other animals; wherefore the philosopher says (de gener. animal. ii, 3) that the animal and the man are not made at the same time, but first of all the animal is made having a sensitive soul. therefore also the intellectual soul is produced from the semen. obj. 3: further, it is one and the same agent whose action is directed to the matter and to the form: else from the matter and the form there would not result something simply one. but the intellectual soul is the form of the human body, which is produced by the power of the semen. therefore the intellectual soul also is produced by the power of the semen. obj. 4: further, man begets his like in species. but the human species is constituted by the rational soul. therefore the rational soul is from the begetter. obj. 5: further, it cannot be said that god concurs in sin. but if the rational soul be created by god, sometimes god concurs in the sin of adultery, since sometimes offspring is begotten of illicit intercourse. therefore the rational soul is not created by god. _on the contrary,_ it is written in de eccl. dogmat. xiv that "the rational soul is not engendered by coition." _i answer that,_ it is impossible for an active power existing in matter to extend its action to the production of an immaterial effect. now it is manifest that the intellectual principle in man transcends matter; for it has an operation in which the body takes no part whatever. it is therefore impossible for the seminal power to produce the intellectual principle. again, the seminal power acts by virtue of the soul of the begetter according as the soul of the begetter is the act of the body, making use of the body in its operation. now the body has nothing whatever to do in the operation of the intellect. therefore the power of the intellectual principle, as intellectual, cannot reach the semen. hence the philosopher says (de gener. animal. ii, 3): "it follows that the intellect alone comes from without." again, since the intellectual soul has an operation independent of the body, it is subsistent, as proved above (q. 75, a. 2): therefore to be and to be made are proper to it. moreover, since it is an immaterial substance it cannot be caused through generation, but only through creation by god. therefore to hold that the intellectual soul is caused by the begetter, is nothing else than to hold the soul to be non-subsistent and consequently to perish with the body. it is therefore heretical to say that the intellectual soul is transmitted with the semen. reply obj. 1: in the passage quoted, the part is put instead of the whole, the soul for the whole man, by the figure of synecdoche. reply obj. 2: some say that the vital functions observed in the embryo are not from its soul, but from the soul of the mother; or from the formative power of the semen. both of these explanations are false; for vital functions such as feeling, nourishment, and growth cannot be from an extrinsic principle. consequently it must be said that the soul is in the embryo; the nutritive soul from the beginning, then the sensitive, lastly the intellectual soul. therefore some say that in addition to the vegetative soul which existed first, another, namely the sensitive, soul supervenes; and in addition to this, again another, namely the intellectual soul. thus there would be in man three souls of which one would be in potentiality to another. this has been disproved above (q. 76, a. 3). therefore others say that the same soul which was at first merely vegetative, afterwards through the action of the seminal power, becomes a sensitive soul; and finally this same soul becomes intellectual, not indeed through the active seminal power, but by the power of a higher agent, namely god enlightening (the soul) from without. for this reason the philosopher says that the intellect comes from without. but this will not hold. first, because no substantial form is susceptible of more or less; but addition of greater perfection constitutes another species, just as the addition of unity constitutes another species of number. now it is not possible for the same identical form to belong to different species. secondly, because it would follow that the generation of an animal would be a continuous movement, proceeding gradually from the imperfect to the perfect, as happens in alteration. thirdly, because it would follow that the generation of a man or an animal is not generation simply, because the subject thereof would be a being in act. for if the vegetative soul is from the beginning in the matter of offspring, and is subsequently gradually brought to perfection; this will imply addition of further perfection without corruption of the preceding perfection. and this is contrary to the nature of generation properly so called. fourthly, because either that which is caused by the action of god is something subsistent: and thus it must needs be essentially distinct from the pre-existing form, which was non-subsistent; and we shall then come back to the opinion of those who held the existence of several souls in the body--or else it is not subsistent, but a perfection of the pre-existing soul: and from this it follows of necessity that the intellectual soul perishes with the body, which cannot be admitted. there is again another explanation, according to those who held that all men have but one intellect in common: but this has been disproved above (q. 76, a. 2). we must therefore say that since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it follows of necessity that both in men and in other animals, when a more perfect form supervenes the previous form is corrupted: yet so that the supervening form contains the perfection of the previous form, and something in addition. it is in this way that through many generations and corruptions we arrive at the ultimate substantial form, both in man and other animals. this indeed is apparent to the senses in animals generated from putrefaction. we conclude therefore that the intellectual soul is created by god at the end of human generation, and this soul is at the same time sensitive and nutritive, the pre-existing forms being corrupted. reply obj. 3: this argument holds in the case of diverse agents not ordered to one another. but where there are many agents ordered to one another, nothing hinders the power of the higher agent from reaching to the ultimate form; while the powers of the inferior agents extend only to some disposition of matter: thus in the generation of an animal, the seminal power disposes the matter, but the power of the soul gives the form. now it is manifest from what has been said above (q. 105, a. 5; q. 110, a. 1) that the whole of corporeal nature acts as the instrument of a spiritual power, especially of god. therefore nothing hinders the formation of the body from being due to a corporeal power, while the intellectual soul is from god alone. reply obj. 4: man begets his like, forasmuch as by his seminal power the matter is disposed for the reception of a certain species of form. reply obj. 5: in the action of the adulterer, what is of nature is good; in this god concurs. but what there is of inordinate lust is evil; in this god does not concur. _______________________ third article [i, q. 118, art. 3] whether human souls were created together at the beginning of the world? objection 1: it would seem that human souls were created together at the beginning of the world. for it is written (gen. 2:2): "god rested him from all his work which he had done." this would not be true if he created new souls every day. therefore all souls were created at the same time. obj. 2: further, spiritual substances before all others belong to the perfection of the universe. if therefore souls were created with the bodies, every day innumerable spiritual substances would be added to the perfection of the universe: consequently at the beginning the universe would have been imperfect. this is contrary to gen. 2:2, where it is said that "god ended" all "his work." obj. 3: further, the end of a thing corresponds to its beginning. but the intellectual soul remains, when the body perishes. therefore it began to exist before the body. _on the contrary,_ it is said (de eccl. dogmat. xiv, xviii) that "the soul is created together with the body." _i answer that,_ some have maintained that it is accidental to the intellectual soul to be united to the body, asserting that the soul is of the same nature as those spiritual substances which are not united to a body. these, therefore, stated that the souls of men were created together with the angels at the beginning. but this statement is false. firstly, in the very principle on which it is based. for if it were accidental to the soul to be united to the body, it would follow that man who results from this union is a being by accident; or that the soul is a man, which is false, as proved above (q. 75, a. 4). moreover, that the human soul is not of the same nature as the angels, is proved from the different mode of understanding, as shown above (q. 55, a. 2; q. 85, a. 1): for man understands through receiving from the senses, and turning to phantasms, as stated above (q. 84, aa. 6, 7; q. 85, a. 1). for this reason the soul needs to be united to the body, which is necessary to it for the operation of the sensitive part: whereas this cannot be said of an angel. secondly, this statement can be proved to be false in itself. for if it is natural to the soul to be united to the body, it is unnatural to it to be without a body, and as long as it is without a body it is deprived of its natural perfection. now it was not fitting that god should begin his work with things imperfect and unnatural, for he did not make man without a hand or a foot, which are natural parts of a man. much less, therefore, did he make the soul without a body. but if someone say that it is not natural to the soul to be united to the body, he must give the reason why it is united to a body. and the reason must be either because the soul so willed, or for some other reason. if because the soul willed it--this seems incongruous. first, because it would be unreasonable of the soul to wish to be united to the body, if it did not need the body: for if it did need it, it would be natural for it to be united to it, since "nature does not fail in what is necessary." secondly, because there would be no reason why, having been created from the beginning of the world, the soul should, after such a long time, come to wish to be united to the body. for a spiritual substance is above time, and superior to the heavenly revolutions. thirdly, because it would seem that this body was united to this soul by chance: since for this union to take place two wills would have to concur--to wit, that of the incoming soul, and that of the begetter. if, however, this union be neither voluntary nor natural on the part of the soul, then it must be the result of some violent cause, and to the soul would have something of a penal and afflicting nature. this is in keeping with the opinion of origen, who held that souls were embodied in punishment of sin. since, therefore, all these opinions are unreasonable, we must simply confess that souls were not created before bodies, but are created at the same time as they are infused into them. reply obj. 1: god is said to have rested on the seventh day, not from all work, since we read (john 5:17): "my father worketh until now"; but from the creation of any new genera and species, which may not have already existed in the first works. for in this sense, the souls which are created now, existed already, as to the likeness of the species, in the first works, which included the creation of adam's soul. reply obj. 2: something can be added every day to the perfection of the universe, as to the number of individuals, but not as to the number of species. reply obj. 3: that the soul remains without the body is due to the corruption of the body, which was a result of sin. consequently it was not fitting that god should make the soul without the body from the beginning: for as it is written (wis. 1:13, 16): "god made not death . . . but the wicked with works and words have called it to them." _______________________ question 119 of the propagation of man as to the body (in two articles) we now consider the propagation of man, as to the body. concerning this there are two points of inquiry: (1) whether any part of the food is changed into true human nature? (2) whether the semen, which is the principle of human generation, is produced from the surplus food? _______________________ first article [i, q. 119, art. 1] whether some part of the food is changed into true human nature? objection 1: it would seem that none of the food is changed into true human nature. for it is written (matt. 15:17): "whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy." but what is cast out is not changed into the reality of human nature. therefore none of the food is changed into true human nature. obj. 2: further, the philosopher (de gener. i, 5) distinguishes flesh belonging to the species from flesh belonging to "matter"; and says that the latter "comes and goes." now what is formed from food comes and goes. therefore what is produced from food is flesh belonging to matter, not to the species. but what belongs to true human nature belongs to the species. therefore the food is not changed into true human nature. obj. 3: further, the "radical humor" seems to belong to the reality of human nature; and if it be lost, it cannot be recovered, according to physicians. but it could be recovered if the food were changed into the humor. therefore food is not changed into true human nature. obj. 4: further, if the food were changed into true human nature, whatever is lost in man could be restored. but man's death is due only to the loss of something. therefore man would be able by taking food to insure himself against death in perpetuity. obj. 5: further, if the food is changed into true human nature, there is nothing in man which may not recede or be repaired: for what is generated in a man from his food can both recede and be repaired. if therefore a man lived long enough, it would follow that in the end nothing would be left in him of what belonged to him at the beginning. consequently he would not be numerically the same man throughout his life; since for the thing to be numerically the same, identity of matter is necessary. but this is incongruous. therefore the food is not changed into true human nature. _on the contrary,_ augustine says (de vera relig. xi): "the bodily food when corrupted, that is, having lost its form, is changed into the texture of the members." but the texture of the members belongs to true human nature. therefore the food is changed into the reality of human nature. _i answer that,_ according to the philosopher (metaph. ii), "the relation of a thing to truth is the same as its relation to being." therefore that belongs to the true nature of any thing which enters into the constitution of that nature. but nature can be considered in two ways: firstly, in general according to the species; secondly, as in the individual. and whereas the form and the common matter belong to a thing's true nature considered in general; individual signate matter, and the form individualized by that matter belong to the true nature considered in this particular individual. thus a soul and body belong to the true human nature in general, but to the true human nature of peter and martin belong this soul and this body. now there are certain things whose form cannot exist but in one individual matter: thus the form of the sun cannot exist save in the matter in which it actually is. and in this sense some have said that the human form cannot exist but in a certain individual matter, which, they said, was given that form at the very beginning in the first man. so that whatever may have been added to that which was derived by posterity from the first parent, does not belong to the truth of human nature, as not receiving in truth the form of human nature. but, said they, that matter which, in the first man, was the subject of the human form, was multiplied in itself: and in this way the multitude of human bodies is derived from the body of the first man. according to these, the food is not changed into true human nature; we take food, they stated, in order to help nature to resist the action of natural heat, and prevent the consumption of the "radical humor"; just as lead or tin is mixed with silver to prevent its being consumed by fire. but this is unreasonable in many ways. firstly, because it comes to the same that a form can be produced in another matter, or that it can cease to be in its proper matter; wherefore all things that can be generated are corruptible, and conversely. now it is manifest that the human form can cease to exist in this (particular) matter which is its subject: else the human body would not be corruptible. consequently it can begin to exist in another matter, so that something else be changed into true human nature. secondly, because in all beings whose entire matter is contained in one individual there is only one individual in the species: as is clearly the case with the sun, moon and such like. thus there would only be one individual of the human species. thirdly, because multiplication of matter cannot be understood otherwise than either in respect of quantity only, as in things which are rarefied, so that their matter increases in dimensions; or in respect of the substance itself of the matter. but as long as the substance alone of matter remains, it cannot be said to be multiplied; for multitude cannot consist in the addition of a thing to itself, since of necessity it can only result from division. therefore some other substance must be added to matter, either by creation, or by something else being changed into it. consequently no matter can be multiplied save either by rarefaction as when air is made from water; or by the change of some other things, as fire is multiplied by the addition of wood; or lastly by creation. now it is manifest that the multiplication of matter in the human body does not occur by rarefaction: for thus the body of a man of perfect age would be more imperfect than the body of a child. nor does it occur by creation of fresh matter: for, according to gregory (moral. xxxii): "all things were created together as to the substance of matter, but not as to the specific form." consequently the multiplication of the human body can only be the result of the food being changed into the true human nature. fourthly, because, since man does not differ from animals and plants in regard to the vegetative soul, it would follow that the bodies of animals and plants do not increase through a change of nourishment into the body so nourished, but through some kind of multiplication. which multiplication cannot be natural: since the matter cannot naturally extend beyond a certain fixed quantity; nor again does anything increase naturally, save either by rarefaction or the change of something else into it. consequently the whole process of generation and nourishment, which are called "natural forces," would be miraculous. which is altogether inadmissible. wherefore others have said that the human form can indeed begin to exist in some other matter, if we consider the human nature in general: but not if we consider it as in this individual. for in the individual the form remains confined to a certain determinate matter, on which it is first imprinted at the generation of that individual, so that it never leaves that matter until the ultimate dissolution of the individual. and this matter, say they, principally belongs to the true human nature. but since this matter does not suffice for the requisite quantity, some other matter must be added, through the change of food into the substance of the individual partaking thereof, in such a quantity as suffices for the increase required. and this matter, they state, belongs secondarily to the true human nature: because it is not required for the primary existence of the individual, but for the quantity due to him. and if anything further is produced from the food, this does not belong to true human nature, properly speaking. however, this also is inadmissible. first, because this opinion judges of living bodies as of inanimate bodies; in which, although there be a power of generating their like in species, there is not the power of generating their like in the individual; which power in living bodies is the nutritive power. nothing, therefore, would be added to living bodies by their nutritive power, if their food were not changed into their true nature. secondly, because the active seminal power is a certain impression derived from the soul of the begetter, as stated above (q. 118, a. 1). hence it cannot have a greater power in acting, than the soul from which it is derived. if, therefore, by the seminal power a certain matter truly assumes the form of human nature, much more can the soul, by the nutritive power, imprint the true form of human nature on the food which is assimilated. thirdly, because food is needed not only for growth, else at the term of growth, food would be needful no longer; but also to renew that which is lost by the action of natural heat. but there would be no renewal, unless what is formed from the food, took the place of what is lost. wherefore just as that which was there previously belonged to true human nature, so also does that which is formed from the food. therefore, according to others, it must be said that the food is really changed into the true human nature by reason of its assuming the specific form of flesh, bones and such like parts. this is what the philosopher says (de anima ii, 4): "food nourishes inasmuch as it is potentially flesh." reply obj. 1: our lord does not say that the "whole" of what enters into the mouth, but "all"--because something from every kind of food is cast out into the privy. it may also be said that whatever is generated from food, can be dissolved by natural heat, and be cast aside through the pores, as jerome expounds the passage. reply obj. 2: by flesh belonging to the species, some have understood that which first receives the human species, which is derived from the begetter: this, they say, lasts as long as the individual does. by flesh belonging to the matter these understand what is generated from food: and this, they say, does not always remain, but as it comes so it goes. but this is contrary to the mind of aristotle. for he says there, that "just as in things which have their species in matter"--for instance, wood or stone--"so in flesh, there is something belonging to the species, and something belonging to matter." now it is clear that this distinction has no place in inanimate things, which are not generated seminally, or nourished. again, since what is generated from food is united to, by mixing with, the body so nourished, just as water is mixed with wine, as the philosopher says there by way of example: that which is added, and that to which it is added, cannot be different natures, since they are already made one by being mixed together. therefore there is no reason for saying that one is destroyed by natural heat, while the other remains. it must therefore be said that this distinction of the philosopher is not of different kinds of flesh, but of the same flesh considered from different points of view. for if we consider the flesh according to the species, that is, according to that which is formed therein, thus it remains always: because the nature of flesh always remains together with its natural disposition. but if we consider flesh according to matter, then it does not remain, but is gradually destroyed and renewed: thus in the fire of a furnace, the form of fire remains, but the matter is gradually consumed, and other matter is substituted in its place. reply obj. 3: the "radical humor" is said to comprise whatever the virtue of the species is founded on. if this be taken away it cannot be renewed; as when a man's hand or foot is amputated. but the "nutritive humor" is that which has not yet received perfectly the specific nature, but is on the way thereto; such is the blood, and the like. wherefore if such be taken away, the virtue of the species remains in its root, which is not destroyed. reply obj. 4: every virtue of a passible body is weakened by continuous action, because such agents are also patient. therefore the transforming virtue is strong at first so as to be able to transform not only enough for the renewal of what is lost, but also for growth. later on it can only transform enough for the renewal of what is lost, and then growth ceases. at last it cannot even do this; and then begins decline. in fine, when this virtue fails altogether, the animal dies. thus the virtue of wine that transforms the water added to it, is weakened by further additions of water, so as to become at length watery, as the philosopher says by way of example (de gener. i, 5). reply obj. 5: as the philosopher says (de gener. i, 5), when a certain matter is directly transformed into fire, then fire is said to be generated anew: but when matter is transformed into a fire already existing, then fire is said to be fed. wherefore if the entire matter together loses the form of fire, and another matter transformed into fire, there will be another distinct fire. but if, while one piece of wood is burning, other wood is laid on, and so on until the first piece is entirely consumed, the same identical fire will remain all the time: because that which is added passes into what pre-existed. it is the same with living bodies, in which by means of nourishment that is renewed which was consumed by natural heat. _______________________ second article [i, q. 119, art. 2] whether the semen is produced from surplus food? objection 1: it would seem that the semen is not produced from the surplus food, but from the substance of the begetter. for damascene says (de fide orth. i, 8) that "generation is a work of nature, producing, from the substance of the begetter, that which is begotten." but that which is generated is produced from the semen. therefore the semen is produced from the substance of the begetter. obj. 2: further, the son is like his father, in respect of that which he receives from him. but if the semen from which something is generated, is produced from the surplus food, a man would receive nothing from his grandfather and his ancestors in whom the food never existed. therefore a man would not be more like to his grandfather or ancestors, than to any other men. obj. 3: further, the food of the generator is sometimes the flesh of cows, pigs and suchlike. if therefore, the semen were produced from surplus food, the man begotten of such semen would be more akin to the cow and the pig, than to his father or other relations. obj. 4: further, augustine says (gen. ad lit. x, 20) that we were in adam "not only by seminal virtue, but also in the very substance of the body." but this would not be, if the semen were produced from surplus food. therefore the semen is not produced therefrom. _on the contrary,_ the philosopher proves in many ways (de gener. animal. i, 18) that "the semen is surplus food." _i answer that,_ this question depends in some way on what has been stated above (a. 1; q. 118, a. 1). for if human nature has a virtue for the communication of its form to alien matter not only in another, but also in its own subject; it is clear that the food which at first is dissimilar, becomes at length similar through the form communicated to it. now it belongs to the natural order that a thing should be reduced from potentiality to act gradually: hence in things generated we observe that at first each is imperfect and is afterwards perfected. but it is clear that the common is to the proper and determinate, as imperfect is to perfect: therefore we see that in the generation of an animal, the animal is generated first, then the man or the horse. so therefore food first of all receives a certain common virtue in regard to all the parts of the body, which virtue is subsequently determinate to this or that part. now it is not possible that the semen be a kind of solution from what is already transformed into the substance of the members. for this solution, if it does not retain the nature of the member it is taken from, it would no longer be of the nature of the begetter, and would be due to a process of corruption; and consequently it would not have the power of transforming something else into the likeness of that nature. but if it retained the nature of the member it is taken from, then, since it is limited to a certain part of the body, it would not have the power of moving towards (the production of) the whole nature, but only the nature of that part. unless one were to say that the solution is taken from all the parts of the body, and that it retains the nature of each part. thus the semen would be a small animal in act; and generation of animal from animal would be a mere division, as mud is generated from mud, and as animals which continue to live after being cut in two: which is inadmissible. it remains to be said, therefore, that the semen is not something separated from what was before the actual whole; rather is it the whole, though potentially, having the power, derived from the soul of the begetter, to produce the whole body, as stated above (a. 1; q. 108, a. 1). now that which is in potentiality to the whole, is that which is generated from the food, before it is transformed into the substance of the members. therefore the semen is taken from this. in this sense the nutritive power is said to serve the generative power: because what is transformed by the nutritive power is employed as semen by the generative power. a sign of this, according to the philosopher, is that animals of great size, which require much food, have little semen in proportion to the size of their bodies, and generate seldom; in like manner fat men, and for the same reason. reply obj. 1: generation is from the substance of the begetter in animals and plants, inasmuch as the semen owes its virtue to the form of the begetter, and inasmuch as it is in potentiality to the substance. reply obj. 2: the likeness of the begetter to the begotten is on account not of the matter, but of the form of the agent that generates its like. wherefore in order for a man to be like his grandfather, there is no need that the corporeal seminal matter should have been in the grandfather; but that there be in the semen a virtue derived from the soul of the grandfather through the father. in like manner the third objection is answered. for kinship is not in relation to matter, but rather to the derivation of the forms. reply obj. 4: these words of augustine are not to be understood as though the immediate seminal virtue, or the corporeal substance from which this individual was formed were actually in adam: but so that both were in adam as in principle. for even the corporeal matter, which is supplied by the mother, and which he calls the corporeal substance, is originally derived from adam: and likewise the active seminal power of the father, which is the immediate seminal virtue (in the production) of this man. but christ is said to have been in adam according to the "corporeal substance," not according to the seminal virtue. because the matter from which his body was formed, and which was supplied by the virgin mother, was derived from adam; whereas the active virtue was not derived from adam, because his body was not formed by the seminal virtue of a man, but by the operation of the holy ghost. for "such a birth was becoming to him," [*hymn for vespers at christmas; breviary, o. p.], who is above all god for ever blessed. amen. the riches of bunyan: selected from his works, for the american tract society, by rev. jeremiah chaplin. with an introductory notice by rev. william r. williams. d. d. new york 1850 contents. prefatory notice, by rev. dr. williams i. god glory of god majesty of god justice of god holiness of god sovereignty of god sovereignty of god in conversion providence of god in conversion condescension of god mercy of god god the justifier glory of god in redemption god a father faithfulness of god presence of god god's repenting providence of god ii. the trinity iii. the scriptures iv. man the image of god value of the soul adam's transgression depravity of nature love of sin sin pride envy drunkenness sinners sinful ease the child and the bird the sinner warned conscience a good conscience a tender conscience a guilty conscience v. the law its nature and effects the law and the gospel the law a rule of life vi. divine grace grace, love, and mercy grace described operation of grace grace abused grace, the water of life vii. christ the incarnation of christ the humanity of christ the humiliation of christ the glory of christ the love of christ the righteousness of christ christ a complete saviour christ not a saviour by his example christ a teacher the death of christ the resurrection of christ the glorification of christ the offices of christ christ an intercessor christ an advocate viii. the holy spirit ix. justification by faith faith the instrumental cause of salvation true and false faith distinguished faith and works justification and sanctification distinguished x. conviction of sin xi. conversion the difficulty of conversion conversion the power of god regeneration the strait gate coming to christ temptations of the soul coming to christ trials and encouragements of the awakened fears in coming to christ mercy's experience fears and encouragements of the awakened despair of mercy unreasonable power of the gospel bunyan's conversion fears about election young converts xii. the christian described happiness of the christian dignity of the christian the family in heaven and earth feebleness of the christian the christian under a sense of guilt--bunyan's experience sin and the saviour the christian in darkness the valley of the shadow of death the christian doubting indwelling sin mr. fearing encouragement for the doubting christian adoption christ our life union with christ life of faith divine love improved holy living opportunities improved good works self-denial obedience in little things motives to holy living obedience rewarded self-examination watchfulness constitution-sins the christian professor admonished failings and sins of christians the backslider xiii. the christian race xiv. trials of the christian affliction--its nature and benefits persecution bunyan's trial and imprisonment martyrs christian courage the christian warfare the christian armor xv. temptations temptations of satan temptations of the world encouragements for the tempted bunyan's temptations xvi. security of christians xvii. the promises xviii. christian graces faith trust faith and hope hope patience love fear humility zeal repentance xix. prayer characteristics of prayer preparation for prayer the throne of grace prayer in the name of christ benefit of prayer discouragements in prayer discouragements to prayer removed affectionate confidence in prayer god's method of answering prayer relief in prayer faith in prayer wrestling prayer the publican's prayer posture in prayer closet-iniquity formal prayer the prayerless xx. false profession hypocrisy christ's love abused perversion of the truth a latitudinarian changing sins the unholy professor the fruitless professor the unpardonable sin the man in the iron cage xxi. the church from the preface to the "holy city" church-fellowship the church a light spiritual character of the church warning to the professor church-order the church in affliction satan's hostility to the church security of the church future glory of the church xxii. the ministry importance of the ministry duty of churches to the ministry different classes of ministers duty of ministers ministers warned ministers servants of the church gifts and grace in ministers the false minister the minister at the day of judgment bunyan's ministry bunyan's character and principles xxiii. antichrist antichrist described rise and progress of antichrist corruption of the church by antichrist conflict between the church and antichrist fall of antichrist manner of antichrist's destruction present state of antichrist slaying of the witnesses reasons for antichrist's destruction time of antichrist's destruction signs of antichrist's destruction hope of antichrist's destruction effects of antichrist's destruction warning against a return to antichrist introduction to the "holy city" the wooden cross xxiv. death death of the sinner death of the christian the christian wishing to depart the dying christian death of mr. badman's wife death of standfast death of christian and hopeful bunyan's death xxv. the resurrection salvation complete at the resurrection xxvi. the judgment the saints judged saints rewarded at the judgment sinners judged sinners without excuse at the judgment "ignorance" condemned at the judgment xxvii. heaven happiness and glory of heaven employments of heaven soul and body glorified in heaven christ the glory of heaven the glory of salvation heaven xxviii. hell xxix. miscellaneous the sabbath woman the family bunyan's domestic character dr. owen truth style the old and new dispensations the pilgrim in new england notices of bunyan prefatory notice. the subscriber has been requested by his friend the rev. jeremiah chaplin, the worthy son of an honored father, [footnote: the late rev. dr. chaplin, the founder and first president of waterville college, in the state of maine.] and the editor of the present selections from bunyan, to attach to them some prefatory remarks. needless as he feels it himself to be, and presumptuous as, to some, the attempt even may seem, to say aught in behalf of a work that, faithfully drawn as it is from bunyan's overflowing stores, can require no other recommendation; yet the subscriber could not refuse all compliance with the wishes of one who has given diligent and hearty and appreciating study to the rich and varied remains of "the immortal dreamer." many of the christians of our time, though conversant with the pilgrim's progress, and holy war, are apparently little aware of the glowing genius, and fervent piety, and strong sense, and picturesque imagery, and racy, vigorous english, that mark the many other writings of the honored tinker of elstow. these last, if less known than the story of the pilgrimage to the celestial city, and of the siege and recovery of the good town of mansoul, yet bear all of them the traces of the same vivid fancy, the same earnest heart, and the same robust and sanctified intellect. to save from comparative disuse and consequent unprofitableness--from being buried in an undeserved seclusion, if not oblivion, many sparkling truths, and pithy sayings, and pungent rebukes, likely to do great good if they could but have, in our busy day, a more general currency over the wide mart of the world;--and to bespeak a new circle of influence, and a broader sphere of notoriety and usefulness for these overlooked legacies of a good and great man of a former age, has been the editor's object in the prolonged sifting to which he has subjected all bunyan's writings. of that patient and conscientious study the present selection has been the result. it is not hoped, or even wished for them, that in the case of any readers able to give the requisite leisure, these excerpts should supersede the original writings. but these last, in mass, are beyond the means and the time which are at the command of many christians, who would yet greatly prize the briefer examples of bunyan's experience and bunyan's teachings that are here presented. and even to others of more affluence and leisure, this manual may serve to commend the author's works in their entireness. mr. chaplin himself would most anxiously disavow any claim to have exhausted the mines from which he brings these gatherings. his specimens resemble rather those laces which the good bunyan tagged in bedford jail--not in themselves garments, but merely adjuncts and ornaments of larger fabrics. he who would see the entire wardrobe of the dreamer's mind, and the shape and proportions of the goodly vestures of truth in which he sought to array himself and his readers, must, after handling these the laces, turn to the robes, from whose edge these have been skilfully detached. in the character and history of john bunyan, the great head of the church seems to have provided a lesson of special significance, and singular adaptedness, for the men and the strifes of our own time. born of the people, and in so low a condition, that one of bunyan's modern reviewers, by a strange mistake, construed bunyan's self-disparaging admissions to mean that he was the offspring of gypsies--bred to one of the humblest of handicrafts, and having but the scantiest advantages as to fortune or culture, he yet rose, under the blessings of god's word and providence and spirit, to widest usefulness, and to an eminence that shows no tokens of decline. down to our own times, the branches of his expanding influence seem daily spreading and extending themselves; and the roots of his earthly renown seem daily shooting themselves deeper, and taking a firmer hold on the judgment of critics and the hearts of the churches. when the english houses of parliament were recently rebuilt, among the imagery commemorative of the nation's literary glories, a place was voted for the bust of the bedford pastor, once so maligned and persecuted. once tolerated by dainty christians for the sake of his piety, while they apologized for what they deemed his uncouthness; he is now, at last, even from men of the world, who do not value that piety, receiving the due acknowledgment of his rare genius and witching style. it is not many years since gilpin, an english clergyman of cultivated taste--himself a ready and popular writer--issued an edition of the pilgrim's progress, modified, if not rewritten in much of its phraseology, because he deemed the original too rude for usefulness. in our own day, one of the highest authorities as to the graces and powers of our language, the english statesman and scholar, t. b. macaulay, has pronounced upon that style, which gilpin by implication so disparaged, the most glowing eulogies. schools and leisure and wealth are useful, but they are not indispensable either to felicity or to honor. bunyan lacked them all; and yet in the absence of them achieved greatness --and what is far better, wide and enduring usefulness. no man, with god's exhaustless scriptures in his hands, and with the rich book of nature and providence open in its pictured radiance before his eyes, needs to have either a dwindling or an impoverished soul. of that latter volume, the works of god, as of that former, the word of god, bunyan was evidently a delighted and unwearied student. his references to birds and insects, flowers and running brooks and evening clouds, and forests and mountains, all show a man whose nature was genially awake to the harmony and beauty of the material world that lay in order and splendor around him. it was, in bunyan, no mere mimicry caught from books and companions--the echo of any fashion of his times. he writes of what he had seen with his own eyes; and seems to avoid aiming at aught beyond that. hence to the ocean, which probably he never thus saw--and which had he beheld it in its placid vastness, or in its stormy wrath, he could not well have forgotten--his writings contain, as far as we remember, no allusions, in all the varied and exuberant imagery which they employ. his books, more than those of his more learned contemporaries, richard baxter, and john owen, that "mighty armor-bearer of the truth," as bunyan happily calls him, were written exclusively from the resources of his own personal observation. and, in consequence of this, they have the freshness and odors of the outer world pervading them--scents and sounds of the highways along which, in the trampings of his trade, he had plodded, and of the hedges that had shaded him. to use the language of the patriarch's benediction, they have "the smell of a field which the lord hath blessed." his books are, like walton's angler, of the open air, and the purling streams. you catch, back of the good man's bible, as he reverently ponders and commends it, glimpses of rural landscapes, and of open skies--god's beautiful world, still lovely, even though sin has marred it. like the sermon on the mount, bunyan's page has the traits of field-preaching. and it was so, also, in his references to the inner world of his own heart. he wrote not from the dried specimens of earlier collectors--from the shrivelled and rustling leaves of some old herbary--from the philosophy and metaphysical analysis of other men's emotions, so much as from the glowing records of his own consciousness and experience, the fruits of grace and plants of righteousness, blooming and fragrant in the watered garden of his own heart. and this dipping of the pencil into his own soul, and into the freshness of nature around him, is doubtless a part of the secret of his perpetual originality and unsating freshness. now, when men say repiningly, and in a temper which impeaches alike society and providence, that a lowly lot, with its necessary privations and its consequent ignorance, is a barrier, perpetual and insuperable, against usefulness and happiness and honor, we turn to the name and memory of bunyan as an embodied denial of the impeachment, and as carolling forth their cheerful rebuke of such unmanly and ungodly plaints. with god's grace in the heart, and with the gleaming gates of his heaven brightening the horizon beyond the grave, we may be reformers; but it cannot be in the destructive spirit displayed by some who, in the prophet's language, amid darkness on the earth, "fret themselves, and curse their king and their god, and look upward." poverty cannot degrade, nor ignorance bedwarf, nor persecution crush, nor dungeon enthral the free, glad spirit of a child of god, erect in its regenerate strength, and rich in its eternal hopes and heritage. and this hopeful and elastic temperament colors and perfumes every treatise that bunyan sent out even from the precincts of his prison. with a style sinewy as cobbett's, and simple and clear as swift's; with his sturdy, peasant nature showing itself in the roundness and directness of his utterance, how little has he of their coarseness. he was not, on the one hand, like cobbett, an anarchist, or libeller; but yet, on the other hand, as little was he ever a lackey, cringing at the gates of power, or a train-bearer in the retinue of fashion. still less was he, like swift, the satirist of his times and of his kind, snarling at his rulers, and turning at last to gnaw, in venomous rage, his own heart. and yet he who portrayed the character of by-ends, and noted the gossipings of mrs. bats-eyes, lacked neither keenness of vision, nor niceness of hand, to have made him most formidable in satire and irony. his present station in the literature of britain affords an illustration, familiar and obvious to every eye, of god's sovereignty, and of the arrangements of him "who seeth not as man seeth." had pepys, or any other contemporary courtier that hunted for place and pension, or fluttered in levity and sin, in the antechambers of the later stuarts, been asked, who of all the writers of the times were likely to go down to posterity among the lights of their age, how ludicrously erroneous would have been his apportionments of fame. pepys might, from the puritan education of his boyhood, have named owen, bates, and baxter; or from the conformist associations of his later years, have selected south, or patrick, or tillotson, as the religious writers who had surpassed all rivalry, or named a walton or castell, as having taken bonds of fame for the perpetuity of their influence. had he known of clarendon's preparations to become the historian of the commonwealth and restoration, or of burnet's habits of preserving memoirs of the incidents and characters around him, he might have conjectured their probable honors in after-times. but in poetry he would have classed dryden the royalist far above milton the republican apologist of regicide; and might, aping the fashions of the palace, have preferred to either the author of hudibras together with the lewd playwrights who were the delight of a shameless court--hailing the last as the most promising candidates for posthumous celebrity. how little could he have dreamed that among these puritans and non-conformists, whose unpopular cause he had himself deserted, and whom his royal masters charles and james had betrayed, amerced, exiled, and incarcerated; in those conventicles so closely watched and so sternly visited, which these persecuted confessors yet by stealth maintained; aye, and in those dungeons, whither the informer so often from these conventicles dragged them, british freedom had its truest guardians, and british literature some of its noblest illustrations. how little thought he that god had there, in his old and glorious school of trial, his "hidden ones," like bunyan, whose serene testimony was yet to shine forth victorious over wrong and neglect, and reproach and ridicule, eclipsing so many contemporary celebrities, and giving to the homes and the sanctuaries of every land inhabited by an english race, one of the names "men will not willingly let die." how little could gilded and callous favorites of the palace have dreamed that their acts of uniformity and five-mile acts, and the like legislation of ecclesiastical proscription, were but rearing for the best men of the age, in the prisons where they had been immured, a patmos, serene though stern, where the sufferer withdrew from man to commune with the king of kings. there the prisoned student was receiving for the churches new lessons of surpassing beauty and potency; and the confessor, pillaged by informers and bullied by judges, and lamented in his own stricken household and desolate home, but only derided by his godless sovereign and heartless courtiers, yet often found himself compensated for every loss, when, like an earlier witness for the gospel of the cross, enwrapped "in the spirit, on the lord's day." such were the schools where non-conformist piety received its temper, its edge, and its lustre. the story of bunyan is, we say, one of the golden threads binding together into harmony and symmetry, what, seen apart, seem but fragmentary and incoherent influences--the track of a divine providence controlling the fates and reputations of the race. it is a providence disappointing men's judgments and purposes, exalting the lowly and depressing the illustrious, rebuking despondency on the one hand and on the other curbing presumption, setting up one and putting down another. this is done even now and even here, as one of the many intimations which even time and earth present, of that final and universal reparation which is reserved for the general resurrection and the last judgment. then the unforgetting and universal sovereign will avenge all the forgotten of his people, nor leave unpunished one among the tallest and mightiest of his enemies. as the foreshadowing of this, there is often in this life what milton has called, "a resurrection of character." seen in bunyan and others on earth, it will be one day accomplished as to all the families of mankind. we pronounce too soon upon the apparent inequalities of fame and recompense around us; while we fail to take in the future as well as the present, and attempt to solve the mysteries of time without including in the field of our survey the retributions of that eternity which forms the selvage and hem of all the webs of earth. and we pronounce not only too soon but very superficially upon the inequalities of happiness in the lot of those who fear and those who scorn god; while we look mainly or merely to the outward circumstances of home and station and bodily well-being, but take no note of the inner and more enduring elements of felicity, supplied to the sufferer for christ by the blended powers of conscience and of hope--the one of them purified and pacified by the blood of the great sacrifice on calvary; the other of them steadily and cheerfully soaring to the glories and rest of the mount zion above. faithful, in his cage, bearing the gibes and flouts of the rabble who thirsted for his blood, was one of the happiest men in all vanity fair, even ere the hour when his spirit mounted the fiery chariot that hurried him to his celestial home. the style of bunyan, it may be further said, is one of the countless and brilliant testimonials to the merit and power of our excellent received version of the bible. shut out, as bunyan was, from direct contact with much other literature, he was most thoroughly conversant with the remains of prophets and apostles, embalmed in that venerable work. with those scriptures his mind was imbued, saturated, and tinged, through its whole texture and substance. upon the phraseology and imagery and idioms of that book was formed his own vernacular style, so racy, glowing, and energetic--long indeed underrated and decried, but now beginning to receive its due honors, and winning the praise of critics whose judgment and taste few will have the hardihood to impeach. no immaculate perfection, indeed, is claimed for the english version of the scriptures. no perfect version has the world ever seen, or is it ever like to see; but the writings of bunyan must be admitted to stand among the many crowding trophies of the power of our common bible to furnish the mind with "thoughts that breathe and words that burn"--with holiest conceptions and mightiest utterances. and bunyan himself, as a theologian on whose head no learned academy had laid its hand of patronage, or let fall its anointing dews, but who, whether confronting the fanatics of his time or the distinguished latitudinarian divines, showed himself so powerful a reasoner, so acute and clear and practical a thinker, and so mighty in his knowledge of the scriptures--bunyan himself, in his position and merits as a theologian, furnishes a standing monument of the power of the divine spirit to fashion, by prayer and the study of the bible, by affliction and by temptation, and by bitter persecutions even, a preacher, pastor, and writer, such as no university need have disdained to own. to that spirit bunyan gave zealous, earnest, and continual worship. receiving his light and power from that good spirit, and anxiously directing to that great agent all the hopes and the praises of the flock whom he led, and of the readers whom he taught, his writings remain to diffuse and perpetuate the lesson of his life. into whatever tribe of the ancient east or of the remote west his pilgrim has been introduced, the name and story of the writer bear, as their great lesson, the testimony that god's scriptures are the richest of pastures to the human soul; and that god the holy ghost, as working with those scriptures and by those scriptures, is the one teacher on whose sovereign aid all the churches, all the nations, and all the ages must depend. for the absence of those influences of the divine spirit no earthly lore can compensate; while the exuberance of those influences may supply, as on pentecost, the lack of all human helpers and patrons, and more than replace all universities and all libraries. we love to dwell on the illustrious dreamer, as one of those characters for whom man had done so little and god did so much. and to christians who are neither authors nor preachers, this life of romantic privacy and illustrious obscurity has its lessons, alike to awe and to cheer, of solemn warning and of sustaining hope. no scene or station of all the earth that can eye paradise, or catch the gleams of the atoning cross, is truly ignoble or utterly forlorn. he who promised that, in the last days, the inscription which shone on the front of the high-priest's mitre, "holiness unto the lord," should be written also on the very bells of the horses, and that "every pot" in jerusalem, and its outlying streets should become holy as the consecrated furniture of his own temple and altar, can in like manner render the lowliest scenes of human art and toil and traffic the schools of truth and duty and peace, schools ministering alike to the truest happiness and to the most perfect holiness of our race. he who gave, as in bunyan's case he did, to the maker or mender of culinary vessels the sacred skill to grave the all-holy name, as one dignifying and consecrating them, on all the objects and scenes and accompaniments of his humble labors, can, in our times and in our various stations, make each allowable task of our earthly life to become also "holiness to the lord;" and as the christian's body is made a temple of the holy grhost, so can he render the christian himself, in all his social relations and enterprises, "a priest and a king unto god." and the great principle of conciliation amid earth's jarring tribes and clashing interests, and of true and helpful communion among mankind, is not external but internal, not material but spiritual, not, terrene but celestial; and is found in the blending by this one divine spirit, of all earth's inhabitants, in a common contrition before a common redemption, tending as these inhabitants are, under a common sin and doom, to the same inevitable graves; but all of them invited, in the one name of one christ, to aspire to the same heaven of endless and perfect blessedness. william r. williams. new york, january, 1851. the riches of bunyan. i. god. glory of god. god is the chief good--good so as nothing is but himself. he is in himself most happy; yea, all good and all true happiness are only to be found in god, as that which is essential to his nature; nor is there any good or any happiness in or with any creature or thing but what is communicated to it by god. god is the only desirable good; nothing without him is worthy of our hearts. right thoughts of god are able to ravish the heart; how much more happy is the man that has interest in god. god alone is able by himself to put the soul into a more blessed, comfortable, and happy condition than can the whole world; yea, and more than if all the created happiness of all the angels of heaven did dwell in one man's bosom. i cannot tell what to say. i am drowned. the life, the glory, the blessedness, the soul-satisfying goodness that is in god, are beyond all expression. it was this glory of god, the sight and visions of this god of glory, that provoked abraham to leave his country and kindred to come after god. the reason why men are so careless of and so indifferent about their coming to god, is because they have their eyes blinded--because they do not perceive his glory. god is so blessed a one, that did he not hide himself and his glory, the whole world would be ravished with him; but he has, i will not say reasons of state, but reasons of glory, glorious reasons why he hideth himself from the world and appeareth but to particular ones. what is heaven without god? but many there be who cannot abide god; no, they like not to go to heaven, because god is there. the nature of god lieth cross to the lusts of men. a holy god, a glorious holy god, an infinitely holy god; this spoils all. but to the soul that is awakened, and that is made to see things as they are, to him god is what he is in himself, the blessed, the highest, the only eternal good, and he without the enjoyment of whom all things would sound but empty in the ears of that soul. methinks, when i consider what glory there is at times upon the creatures, and that all their glory is the workmanship of god, "o lord," say i, "what is god himself?" he may well be called the god of glory, as well as the glorious lord; for as all glory is from him, so in him is an inconceivable well-spring of glory, of glory to be communicated to them that come by christ to him. wherefore, let the glory and love and bliss and eternal happiness that are in god, allure thee to come to him by christ. majesty of god. what is god's majesty to a sinful man, but a consuming fire? and what is a sinful man in himself, or in his approach to god, but as stubble fully dry? what mean the tremblings, the tears, those breakings and shakings of heart that attend the people of god, when in an eminent manner they receive the pronunciation of the forgiveness of sins at his mouth, but that the dread of the majesty of god is in their sight mixed therewith? god must appear like himself, speak to the soul like himself; nor can the sinner, when under these glorious discoveries of its lord and saviour, keep out the beams of his majesty from the eyes of its understanding. alas, there is a company of poor, light, frothy professors in the world, that carry it under that which they call the presence of god, more like to antics than sober, sensible christians; yea, more like to a fool of a play, than those who have the presence of god. they would not carry it so in the presence of a king, nor yet of the lord of their land, were they but receivers of mercy at his hand. they carry it even in their most eminent seasons, as if the sense and sight of god, and his blessed grace to their souls in christ, had a tendency in it to make men wanton: but indeed it is the most humbling and heart-rending sight in the world; it is fearful. objection. but would you not have us rejoice at the sight and sense of the forgiveness of our sins? answer. yes; but yet i would have you, and indeed you shall when god shall tell you that your sins are pardoned indeed, "rejoice with trembling;" for then you have solid and godly joy: a joyful heart and wet eyes in this, will stand very well together; and it will be so, more or less. for if god shall come to you indeed, and visit you with the forgiveness of sins, that visit removeth the guilt, but increaseth the sense of thy filth; and the sense of this, that god hath forgiven a filthy sinner, will make thee both rejoice and tremble. o, the blessed confusion which will then cover thy face, while thou, even thou, so vile a wretch, shalt stand before god to receive at his hand thy pardon, and so the first-fruits of thy eternal salvation. "that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when i am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the lord god." jer. 33:8, 9; ezek. 16:63. since the name of god is that by which his nature is expressed, and since he naturally is so glorious and incomprehensible, his name must needs be the object of our fear; and we ought always to have a reverent awe of god upon our hearts at what time soever we think of or hear his name; but most of all when we ourselves do take his holy and fearful name into our mouths, especially in a religious manner; that is, in preaching, praying, or holy conference. make mention then of the name of the lord at all times with great dread of his majesty on your hearts, and in great soberness and truth. to do otherwise is to profane the name of the lord, and to take his name in vain. next to god's nature and name, his service, his instituted worship, is the most dreadful thing under heaven. his name is upon his ordinances, his eye is upon the worshippers, and his wrath and judgment upon those that worship not in his fear. his presence is dreadful; and not only his presence in common, but his special, yea, his most comfortable and joyous presence. when god comes to bring a soul news of mercy and salvation, even that visit, that presence of god is fearful. when jacoh went from beersheba to haran, he met with god in the way by a dream, in the which he apprehended a ladder set upon the earth, whose top reached to heaven. now in this dream, at the top of this ladder, he saw the lord, and heard him speak unto him, not threateningly, not as having his fury come up into his face, but in the most sweet and gracious manner, saluting him with promise of goodness after promise of goodness, to the number of eight or nine. yet, i say, when he awoke, all the grace that discovered itself in this heavenly vision to him could not keep him from dread and fear of god's majesty: "and jacob awoke out of his sleep and said, 'surely the lord was in this place, and i knew it not;' and he was afraid, and said, 'how dreadful is this place; this is none other but the house of god, and this is the gate of heaven.'" at another time, when jacob had that memorable visit from god, in which he gave him power as a prince to prevail with him; yea, and gave him a name, that by his remembering it he might call god's favor the better to his mind; yet, even then and there such dread of the majesty of god was upon him, that he went away wondering that his life was preserved. man crumbles to dust at the presence of god; yea, though he show himself to us in his robes of salvation. gen. 28:10-17; 32:30. justice of god. you may see a few of the sparks of the justice of god against sin and sinners, by his casting off angels for sin from heaven and hell, by his drowning the old world, by his burning of sodom and gomorrah to ashes. god is resolved to have the mastery. god is merciful, and is come forth into the world by his son, tendering grace unto sinners by the gospel, and would willingly make a conquest over them for their good by his mercy. now he being come out, sinners like briars and thorns do set themselves against him, and will have none of his mercy. well, but what says god? saith he, "then i will march on. i will go through them, and burn them together. i am resolved to have the mastery one way or another; if they will not bend to me and accept of my mercy in the gospel, i will bend them and break them by my justice in hell-fire." holiness of god. the holiness of god makes the angels cover their faces, and crumbles christians, when they behold it, into dust and ashes. sovereignty of god. the will of god is the rule of all righteousness, neither knoweth he any other way by which he governeth and ordereth any of his actions. whatsoever god doeth, it is good because he doeth it; whether it be to give grace or to detain it, whether in choosing or refusing. the consideration of this made the holy men of old ascribe righteousness to their maker, even when yet they could not see the reason of his actions; they would rather stand amazed and wonder at the heights and depths of his unsearchable judgments, than quarrel at the most strange and obscure of them. sovereignty of god in conversion. mercy may receive him that we have doomed to hell, and justice may take hold on him whom we have judged to be bound up in the bundle of life. we, like joseph, are for setting of manasseh before ephraim; but god, like jacob, puts his hands across, and lays his right hand upon the worst man's head and his left hand upon the best, gen. 48, to the amazement and wonderment even of the best of men. providence of god in conversion. doth no man come to jesus christ by the will, wisdom, and power of man, but by the gift, promise, and drawing of the father? then here is room for christians to stand and wonder at the effectual working of god's providence, that he hath made use of as means to bring them to jesus christ. what was the providence that god made use of as a means, either more remote or near, to bring thee to jesus christ? was it the removing of thy habitation, the change of thy condition, the loss of relations, estate, or the like? was it the casting of thine eye upon some good book, the hearing thy neighbors talk of heavenly things, the beholding of god's judgments as executed upon others, or thine own deliverance from them, or thy being strangely cast under the ministry of some godly man? o take notice of such providence or providences. they were sent and managed by mighty power to do thee good. god himself hath joined himself to this chariot, yea, and so blessed it that it failed not to accomplish the thing for which it was sent. condescension of god. notwithstanding there is such a revelation of god in his word, in the book of creatures, and in the book of providences, yet the scripture says, "lo, these are parts of his ways, but how little a portion is heard of him;" so great is god above all that we have read, heard, or seen of him, either in the bible, in heaven, or earth, or sea, or what else is to be understood. but now that a poor mortal, a lump of sinful flesh, or, as the scripture phrase is, poor dust and ashes, should be in the favor, in the heart, and wrapped up in the compassions of such a god! o amazing; o astonishing consideration! and yet, "this god is our god for ever and ever, and he will be our guide even unto death." mercy of god. as god has mercies to bestow, and as he has designed to bestow them, so those mercies are no fragments or the leavings of others, but mercies that are full and complete to do for thee what thou wantest, wouldst have, or canst desire. as i may so say, god has his bags that were never yet untied, never yet broken up, but laid by him through a thousand generations for those that he commands to hope in his mercy. i tell you, sirs, you must not trust your own apprehensions nor judgments of the mercy of god; you do not know how he can cause it to abound: that which seems to be short and shrunk up to you, he can draw out and cause to abound exceedingly. there is a breadth and length and depth and height therein, when god will please to open it, that for its infiniteness can swallow up not only all thy sins, but all thy thoughts and imaginations, and that also can drown thee at last. "now unto him that is able," as to mercy, "to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by christ jesus throughout all ages, world without end. amen." this therefore is a wonderful thing, and shall be wondered at to all eternity, that the river of mercy, that at first did seem to be but ancle deep, should so rise and rise that at last it became "waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over." ezck. 47:5. god the justifier. the first cause of justification before god dependeth upon the will of god, who will justify because he will; therefore the meritorious cause must also be of his own providing, else his will cannot herein be absolute; for if justification depend upon our personal performances, then not upon the will of god. he may not have mercy upon whom he will, but on whom man's righteousness will give him leave; but his will, not ours, must rule here, therefore his righteousness and his only. so then, men are justified from the curse in the sight of god, while sinners in themselves. glory of god in redemption. in redemption by the blood of christ, god is said to abound towards us in all wisdom. here we see the highest contradictions reconciled; here justice kisseth the sinner; here a man stands just in the sight of god, while confounded at his own pollutions; and here he that hath done no good, hath yet a sufficient righteousness, "even the righteousness of god which is by faith of jesus christ." the justice of god is here more seen than in punishing all the damned. the mystery of god's will is here more seen than in hanging the earth upon nothing; while he condemneth christ though righteous, and justifieth us though sinners, while he "maketh him to be sin for us, and us the righteousness of god in him." the power of god is here more seen than in making heaven and earth; for, for one to hear and get the victory over sin when charged by the justice of an infinite majesty, in so doing he shows the height of the highest power; for where sin by the law is charged, and that by god immediately, there an infinite majesty opposeth, and that with the whole of his justice, holiness, and power; so then, he that is thus charged and engaged for the sin of the world, must not only he equal with god, but show it by overcoming that curse and judgment that by infinite justice is charged upon him for sin. when angels and men had sinned, how did they fall and crumble before the anger of god! they had not power to withstand the terror, nor could there be worth found in their persons or doings to appease displeased justice. here then is power seen: sin is a mighty thing; it crusheth all in pieces, save him whose spirit is eternal. heb. 9:14. set christ and his sufferings aside, and you neither see the evil of sin nor the displeasure of god against it; you see them not in their utmost. jesus christ made manifest his eternal power and godhead more by bearing and overcoming our sins, than in making or upholding the whole world. 1 cor. 1:24. the love and mercy of god are more seen in and by this doctrine than any other way. here is love, that god sent his son--his darling--his son that never offended--his son that was always his delight! herein is love, that he sent him to save sinners--to save them by bearing their sins, by bearing their curse, by dying their death, and by carrying their sorrows! here is love, in that while we were yet without strength, christ died for the ungodly! god a father. o how great a task is it for a poor soul that comes, sensible of sin and the wrath of god, to say in faith but this one word, father! i tell you, however hypocrites think, yet the christian that is so indeed finds all the difficulty in this very thing; he cannot say god is his father. o, saith he, i dare not call him father. and hence it is that the spirit must be sent into the hearts of god's people for this very thing, to cry father; it being too great a work for any man to do knowingly and believingly without it. when i say knowingly, i mean knowing what it is to be a child of god and to be born again; and when i say believingly, i mean for the soul to believe, and that from good experience, that the work of grace is wrought in him. this is the right calling of god, father; and not as many do, to say in a babbling way the lord's prayer by heart. no, here is the life of prayer, when in or with the spirit, a man being made sensible of sin and how to come to the lord for mercy, he comes, i say, in the strength of the spirit, and crieth, father. that one word spoken in faith, is better than a thousand prayers in a formal, cold, lukewarm way. naturally the name of god is dreadful to us, especially when he is discovered to us by those names that declare his justice, holiness, power, and glory; but the word father is a familiar word; it frighteth not the sinner, but rather inclineth his heart to love and be pleased with the remembrance of him. hence christ also, when he would have us to pray with godly boldness, put this word father into our mouths, saying, "when ye pray, say, our father which art in heaven;" concluding thereby that in the familiarity which by such a word is intimated, the children of god may take more holdness to pray for and ask great things. i myself have often found that when i can say but this word, father, it doth me more good than when i call him by any other scripture name. it is worth your noting, that to call god by his relative title was rare among the saints in old testament times; but now in new testament times, he is called by no name so often as this, both by the lord jesus christ himself and by the apostles afterwards. indeed the lord jesus was he that first made this name common among the saints, and that taught them in their discourses, in their prayers, and in their writings, so much to use it; it being more pleasing to, and discovering more plainly our interest in god, than any other expression. for by this one name we are made to understand that all our mercies are the offspring of god, and that we also who are called are his children by adoption. faithfulness of god. faithfulness in him that rules is that which makes zion rejoice, because thereby the promises yield milk and honey. for now the faithful god, that keepeth covenant, performs to his church that which he told her he would. wherefore our rivers shall run and our brooks yield honey and butter. job 20:17. let this teach all god's people to expect, to look, and wait for good things from the throne. but o, methinks this throne out of which good comes like a river, who but would be a subject to it? who but would worship before it? presence of god. god's presence is renewing, transforming, seasoning, sanctifying, commanding, sweetening, and lightening to the soul. nothing like it in all the world: his presence supplies all wants, heals all maladies, saves from all dangers, is life in death, heaven in hell, all in all. god's repenting. "and it repented the lord that he had made man on the earth." repentance in us is a change of the mind, but in god a change of his dispensations; for otherwise he repenteth not, neither can he, because it standeth not with the perfection of his nature. "in him is no variableness, nor shadow of turning." wherefore it is man, not god, that turns. when men reject the mercy and ways of god, they cast themselves under his wrath and displeasure; which, because it is executed according to the nature of his justice and the severity of his law, they miss of the mercy promised before; which that we may know, those shall one day feel that shall continue in final impenitency. therefore god, speaking to their capacity, tells them he hath repented of doing them good. it repented the lord that he had made saul king; and yet this repentance was only a change of the dispensation which saul by his wickedness had put himself under; otherwise the strength, the eternity of israel will not lie nor repent. the sum is, therefore, that men had now by their wickedness put themselves under the justice and law of god; which justice, by reason of its perfection, could not endure they should abide on the earth any longer; and therefore now, as a just reward of their deed, they must be swept from the face thereof. providence of god. we should tremblingly glory and rejoice when we see god in the world, though upon those that are the most terrible of his dispensations. god the creator will sometimes mount himself and ride through the earth, in such majesty and glory that he will make all to stand in the tent-doors to behold him. o how he rode in his chariots of salvation, when he went to save his people out of the land of egypt. how he shook the nations. then his glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. his brightness was as the light: he had horns coming out of his hand, and there was the hiding of his power. these are glorious things, though shaking dispensations god is worthy to be seen in his dispensations as well as in his word, though the nations tremble at his presence. "o that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest comedown," saith the prophet, "that the mountains might flow down at thy presence." "we know god, and he is our god, our own god; of whom or of what should we be afraid? when god roars out of zion, and utters his voice from jerusalem, when the heavens and the earth do shake, the lord shall be the hope of his people and the strength of the children of israel." he that knows the sea, knows the waves will toss themselves; he that knows a lion, will not much wonder to see his paw or to hear the voice of his roaring. and shall we that know our god, be stricken with a panic fear when he cometh out of his holy place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity? we should stand like those that are next to angels, and tell the blind world who it is that is thus mounted upon his steed, and that hath the clouds for the dust of his feet, and that thus rideth upon the wings of the wind: we should say unto them, "this god is our god for ever and ever, and he shall be our guide even unto death." there are providences of two sorts, seemingly good and seemingly bad; and those do usually as jacob did when he blessed the sons of joseph, cross hands and lay the blessing where we would not. there are providences unto which we would have the blessings entailed; but they are not. and these are providences that smile upon the flesh, such as cast into the lap health, wealth, plenty, ease, friends, and abundance of this world's good: because these, as manasseh's name doth signify, have in them an aptness to make us forget our toil, our low estate, and from whence we were; but the great blessing is not in them. there are providences again, that take away from us whatever is desirable to the flesh; such are sickness, losses, crosses, persecution, and affliction; and usually in these, though they shock us whenever they come upon us, blessing coucheth and is ready to help us. for god, as the name of ephraim signifies, makes us fruitful in the land of affliction. he therefore, in blessing his people, lays his hands across, guiding them wittingly and laying the chiefest blessing on the head of ephraim, or in that providence that sanctifies affliction. abel-what to the reason of eve was he, in comparison with cain? rachel called benjamin the son of her sorrow; but jacob knew how to give him a better name. jabez, also, though his mother so called him because, as it seems, she brought him forth with more than ordinary sorrow, was yet more honorable, more godly, than his brethren. he that has skill to judge of providences aright, has a great ability in him "to comprehend with other saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height;" but he that has no skill as to discerning them, is but a child in his judgment in those high and mysterious things. and hence it is that some shall suck honey out of that at which others tremble, for fear it should poison them. i have often been made to say, "sorrow is better than laughter, and the house of mourning better than the house of mirth." and i have more often seen that the afflicted are always the best sort of christians. there is a man never well, never prospering, never but under afflictions, disappointments, and sorrows; why, this man, if he be a christian, is one of the best of men: "they that go down to the sea, that do business in great waters, they see the works of the lord and his wonders in the deep." i do not question but that there are some that are alive who have been able to say the days of affliction have been the best unto them, and who could, if it were lawful, pray that they might always be in affliction, if god would but do to them as he did when his hand was last upon them; for by them he caused his light to shine. oh how should we, and how would we were but our eyes awake, stand and wonder at the preservations, the deliverances, the salvations, and benefits with which we are surrounded daily, while so many mighty evils seek daily to swallow us up as the grave! how many deaths have some been delivered from and saved out of before conversion. some have fallen into rivers, some into wells, some into the sea, some into the hands of men; yea, they have been justly arraigned and condemned, as the thief upon the cross, but must not die before they were converted. they were preserved in christ, and called. ii. the trinity if in the godhead there be but one, not three, then the father, the son, or the spirit must needs be that one, if any one only; so then the other two are nothing. again, if the reality of a being be neither in the father, son, nor spirit, as such, but in the eternal deity, without consideration of father son and spirit as three, then neither of the three are any thing but notions in us, or manifestations of the godhead, or nominal distinctions, so related by the word; but if so, then when the father sent the son, and the father and son the spirit, one notion sent another one manifestation sent another. this being granted, it unavoidably follows there was no father to beget a son, no son to be sent to save us, no holy ghost to be sent to comfort us and to guide us into all the truth of the father and son. at most it amounts to hut this: a notion sent a notion, a distinction sent a distinction, or one manifestation sent another. of this error these are the consequences: we are only to believe in notions and distinctions, when we believe in the father and the son; and so shall have no other heaven and glory than notions and nominal distinctions can furnish us withal. if thou feel thy thoughts begin to wrestle about this truth, and to struggle concerning this, one against another, take heed of admitting such a question, "how can this be?" for here is no room for reason to make it out; here is only room to believe it is a truth. you find not one of the prophets propounding an argument to prove it, but asserting it; they let it lie for faith to take it up and embrace it. "the grace of our lord jesus christ, and the love of god, and the communion of the holy ghost, be with you all. amen." in a word, if you would see it altogether, god's love was the cause why christ was sent to bleed for sinners. jesus christ's bleeding stops the cries of divine justice. god looks upon them as complete in him, and gives them to him as by right of purchase. jesus ever lives to pray for them that are thus given unto him. god sends his holy spirit into them to reveal this to them, sends his angels to minister for them, and all this by virtue of an everlasting covenant between the father and the son. "happy the people that are in such a case." he hath made them brethren with jesus christ, members of his flesh and of his bones, the spouse of this lord jesus; and all to show how dearly, really, and constantly he loveth us who by the faith of his operation have laid hold upon him. the doctrine of the trinity! that is the substance, that is the ground and fundamental of all, for by this doctrine and this only the man is made a christian; and he that has not this doctrine, his profession is not worth a button. you must know that sometimes the church in the wilderness has but little light, hut the diminution of her light is not then so much in or as to substantials, as it is as to circumstantial things; she has then the substantials with her in her darkest day. the doctrine of the trinity! you may ask me what that is? i answer, it is that doctrine that showeth us the love of god the father in giving his son, the love of god the son in giving himself, and the love of the lord the spirit in his work of regenerating us, that we may be made able to lay hold of the love of the father by his son, and so enjoy eternal life by grace. the father's grace saveth no man without the grace of the son, neither do the father and the son save any without the grace of the spirit; for as the father loves, the son must die, and the spirit must sanctify, or no soul must be saved. some think that the love of the father, without the blood of the son, will save them; but they are deceived, "for without shedding of blood is no remission." some think that the love of the father and blood of the son will do, without the holiness of the spirit of god; but they are deceived also, for "if any man have not the spirit of christ, he is none of his." there is a third sort, that think the holiness of the spirit is sufficient of itself; but they are deceived also, for it must be the grace of the father, the grace of the son, and the grace of the spirit, jointly, that must save them. but yet, as these three do put forth grace jointly and truly in the salvation of a sinner, so they put it forth after a diverse manner. the father designs us for heaven, the son redeems from sin and death, and the spirit makes us meet for heaven: not by electing, that is the work of the father; not by dying, that is the work of the son; but by his revealing christ, and applying christ to our souls, by shedding the love of god abroad in our hearts, by sanctifying our souls, and taking possession of us as an earnest of our possession in heaven. iii. the scriptures. the scriptures carry such a blessed beauty in them to that soul that has faith in the things contained in them, that they do take the heart and captivate the soul of him that believeth them into the love and liking of them, believing all things that are written in the law and the prophets, and having hope towards god that there shall be a resurrection of the dead both of the just and unjust. to him that believes the scriptures aright, the promises or threatenings are of more power to comfort or cast down, than all the promises or threatenings of all the men in the world; and this was the cause why the martyrs of jesus did so slight both the promises of their adversaries when they would have overcome them with proffering the great things of this world unto them, and also their threatenings when they told them they would rack them, hang them, burn them. none of these things could prevail upon them or against them. i never had in all my life so great an inlet into the word of god as now, [in prison.] those scriptures that i saw nothing in before, were made in this place and state to shine upon me. jesus christ also was never more real and apparent than now. here i have seen and felt him indeed: o that word, "we have not preached unto you cunningly devised fables," and that, "god raised christ from the dead and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might he in god," were blessed words unto me in this condition. these three or four scriptures also have been great refreshments in this condition to me, john 14:1-4; 16:33; heb. 12:22-24; so that sometimes, when i have been in the savor of them, i have been able to laugh at destruction, and to fear neither the horse nor his rider. i have had sweet sights of the forgiveness of my sins in this place, and of my being with jesus in another world. oh the mount zion, the heavenly jerusalem, the innumerable company of angels, and god the judge of all, and the spirits of just men made perfect; and jesus has been sweet to me in this place: i have seen that here, which i am persuaded i shall never while in this world be able to express. i have seen a truth in this scripture, "whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." the glass was one of a thousand. it would present a man one way with his own features exactly, and turn it but another way and it would show one the very face and similitude of the prince of the pilgrims himself. yes, i have talked with them that can tell, and they have said that they have seen the very crown of thorns upon his head by looking in that glass; they have therein also seen the holes in his hands, in his feet, and in his side. yea, such an excellency is there in that glass, that it will show him to one where they have a mind to see him, whether living or dead, whether in earth or in heaven, whether in a state of humiliation or in his exaltation, whether coming to suffer or coming to reign. james i: 23-25; i cor. 13:12; 2 cor. 3:13. then said greatheart to mr. valiant-for-truth, "thou hast worthily behaved thyself; let me see thy sword." so he showed it him. "when he had taken it into his hand, and looked thereon awhile, he said, ha, it is a right jerusalem blade." valiant. "it is so. let a man have one of these blades, with a hand to wield it and skill to use it, and he may venture upon an angel with it. he need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. its edge will never blunt. it will cut flesh and bones, and soul and spirit, and all." i saw then in my dream, that they went on in this their solitary ground, till they came to a place at which a man is apt to lose his way. now, though when it was light their guide could well enough tell how to miss those ways that led wrong, yet in the dark he was put to a stand; but he had in his pocket a map of all ways leading to or from the celestial city; wherefore he struck a light--for he never goes without his tinder-box also--and takes a view of his book or map, which bids him be careful in that place to turn to the right hand.. and had he not been careful to look in his map, they had in all probability been smothered in the mud; for just a little before them, and that at the end of the cleanest way too, was a pit, none knows how deep, full of nothing but mud, there made on purpose to destroy the pilgrims in. then thought i with myself, who that goeth on pilgrimage but would have one of these maps about him, that he may look when he is at a stand which is the way he must take? if we consider that our next state must be eternal, either eternal glory or eternal fire, and that this eternal glory or this eternal fire must be our portion according as the word of god revealed in the holy scriptures shall determine, who will not but conclude that therefore the words of god are they at which we should tremble, and they by which we should have our fear of god guided and directed? for by them we are taught how to please him in every thing. "noah drank of the wine and was drunken." the holy ghost, when it hath to do with sin, loves to give it its own name; drunkenness must be drunkenness, murder must he murder, and adultery must bear its own name. nay, it is neither the goodness of the man, nor his being in favor with god, that will cause him to lessen or mince his sin. noah was drunken; lot lay with his daughters; david killed uriah; peter cursed and swore in the garden, and also dissembled at antioch. but this is not recorded to the intent that the name of these godly should rot, but to show that the best men are nothing without grace, and that "he that standeth should not be high-minded, but fear." yea, they are also recorded for the support of the tempted, who, when they are fallen, are oft raised up by considering the infirmities of others. "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." god's word has two edges; it can cut back-stroke and fore-stroke: if it do thee no good, it will do thee hurt; it is the savor of life unto life to those that receive it, but of death unto death to them that refuse it. i do find in most such a spirit of idolatry concerning the learning of this world and wisdom of the flesh, and god's glory so much stained and diminished thereby, that had i all their aid and assistance at command, i durst not make use of aught thereof, and that for fear lest that grace and those gifts that the lord hath given me, should be attributed to their wits, rather than to the light of the word and spirit of god. wherefore i will not take of them from a thread to a shoe-latchet, lest they should say, we have made abraham rich. what you find suiting with the scriptures, take, though it should not suit with authors; but that which you find against the scriptures, slight, though it should be confirmed by multitudes of them. yea, further, where you find the scriptures and your authors agree, yet believe it for the sake of scripture's authority. i honor the godly as christians, but i prefer the bible before them; and having that still with me, i count myself far better furnished than if i had, without it, all the libraries of the two universities. besides, i am for drinking water out of my own cistern: what god makes mine by the evidence of his word and spirit, that i dare make bold with. wherefore, seeing, though i am without their learned lines, yet well furnished with the words of god, i mean the bible, i have contented myself with what i have there found; and having set it before your eyes, i pray read and take, sir, what you like best; and that which you like not, leave for the rest. read, and read again, and do not despair of help to understand something of the will and mind of god, though you think they are fast locked up from you. neither trouble your heads though you have not commentaries and expositions; pray and read, and read and pray; for a little from god is better than a great deal from men: also what is from men is uncertain, and is often lost and tumbled over and over by men; but what is from god is fixed as a nail in a sure place. there is nothing that so abides with us, as what we receive from god; and the reason why christians at this day are at such a loss as to some things, is because they are content with what comes from men's mouths, without searching and kneeling before god to know of him the truth of things. things that we receive at god's hand come to us as things from the minting-house, though old in themselves, yet new to us. old truths are always new to us, if they come to us with the smell of heaven upon them. iv. man. the image of god. man is god's image, and to curse wickedly the image of god, is to curse god himself. suppose that a man should say with his mouth, i wish that the king's picture were burned; would not this man's so saying render him as an enemy to the person of the king? even so it is with them that by cursing wish evil to their neighbors or themselves; they contemn the image of god himself. this world, as it dropped from the fingers of god, was far more glorious than it is now. value of the soul. the soul is a thing, though of most worth, least minded by most. the souls of most lie waste, while all other things are inclosed. soul-concerns are concerns of the highest nature, and concerns that arise from thoughts most deep and ponderous. he never yet knew what belonged to great and deep thoughts, that is a stranger to soul-concerns. the soul is capable of having to do with invisibles, with angels, good or bad, yea, with the highest and supreme being, even the holy god of heaven. i told you before that god sought the soul of man to have it for his companion; and now i tell you that the soul is capable of communion with him, when the darkness that sin hath spread over its face is removed. the soul is an intelligent power, and it can be made to know and understand depths and heights and lengths and breadths, in those high, sublime, and spiritual mysteries that only god can reveal and teach; yea, it is capable of diving unutterably into them. and herein is god, the god of glory, much delighted--that he hath made for himself a creature that is capable of hearing, of knowing and of understanding his mind, when opened and revealed to it. the greatness of the soul is manifest by the greatness of the price that christ paid for it to make it an heir of glory, and that was his precious blood. we do use to esteem things according to the price that is given for them, especially when we are convinced that the purchase has not been made by the estimation of a fool. now the soul is purchased by a price, that the son, the wisdom of god, thought fit to pay for the redemption thereof; what a thing then is the soul! suppose a prince, or some great man, should on a sudden descend from his throne or chair of state, to take up, that he might put in his bosom, something that he had espied lying trampled under the feet of those that stand by; would you think that he would do this for an old horseshoe, or for so trivial a thing as a pin or a point? nay, would you not even of yourselves conclude that that thing for which the prince, so great a man, should make such a stoop, must needs be a thing of very great worth? why, this is the case of christ and the soul. christ is the prince, his throne is in heaven, and as he sat there he espied the souls of sinners trampled under the foot of the law and death for sin. now what doth he, but comes down from his throne, stoops down to the earth, and there, since he could not have the trodden-down souls without price, he lays down his life and blood for them. adam's transgression. in a word, adam led mankind out of their paradise; that is one woe: and put out their eyes, that is another; and left them to the leading of the devil. o sad! canst thou hear this, and not have thy ears to tingle and burn on thy head? canst thou read this and not feel it, and not feel thy conscience begin to throb? if so, surely it is because thou art either possessed with the devil, or beside thyself. o, this was the treasure that adam left to his posterity, it was a broken covenant, insomuch that death reigned over all his children, and doth still to this day, as they come from him---both natural and eternal death. rom. 5. depravity of nature. let a man be as devout as is possible for the law and the holiness of the law. yet if the principles from which he acts be but the habit of soul, the purity, as he feigns, of his own nature--principles of natural reason, or the dictates of human nature; all this is nothing else but the old gentleman in his holiday clothes: the old heart, the old spirit, the spirit of the man, not the spirit of christ, is here. love of sin. sin has been delightfully admitted to an entertainment by all the powers of the soul. the soul hath chosen it rather than god; and also, at god's command, refuses to let it go. if there be at any time, as indeed there is, a warrant issued out from the mouth of god to apprehend, to condemn and mortify sin, why then the souls of sinners do presently make these shifts for the saving of sin from things that by the word men arc commanded to do unto it: 1. they will, if possible, hide it, and not suffer it to be discovered. 2. as the soul will hide it, so it will excuse it, and plead that this and that piece of wickedness is no such evil thing, men need not be so nice. 3. as the soul will do this, so to save sin it will cover it with names of virtue, either moral or civil. 4. if convictions and discovery of sin be so strong and so plain that the soul cannot deny but that it is sin, and that god is offended therewith, then it will give flattering promises to god that it will indeed put it away; but yet it will prefix a time that shall he long first, saying, yet a little sleep, yet a little slumber, yet a little folding of sin in my arms, till i am older, till i am richer, till i have had more of the sweetness and the delights of sin. 5. if god yet pursues, and will see whether this promise of putting sin out of doors shall he fulfilled by the soul, why then it will be partial in god's law; it will put away some, and keep some; put away the grossest, and keep the finest; put away those that can best be spared, and keep the most profitable for a help at a pinch. 6. yea, if all sin must be abandoned, or the soul shall have no rest, why then the soul and sin will part--with such a parting as it is--even as phaltiel parted with david's wife, with an ill-will and a sorrowful mind; or as orpah left her mother, with a kiss. 2 sam. 3:16; ruth 1:14. 7. and if at any time they can or shall meet with each other again, and nobody never the wiser, o what courting will be between sin and the soul. by all these, and many more things that might be instanced, it is manifest that sin has a friendly entertainment by the soul, and that therefore the soul is guilty of damnation; for what do all these things argue, but that god, his word, his ways and graces, are out of favor with the soul, and that sin and satan are its only pleasant companions? sin. sin so sets itself against the nature of god that, if possible, it would annihilate and turn him into nothing, it being in its nature point-blank against him. what a thing is sin; what a devil and master of devils is it, that it should, where it takes hold, so hang that nothing can unclutch its hold, but the mercy of god and the heart-blood of his dear son. no sin is little in itself; because it is a contradiction of the nature and majesty of god. o, sin, what art thou! what hast thou done! and what still wilt thou further do, if mercy and blood and grace do not prevent thee! sin is the living worm, the lasting fire; hell soon would loss its heat, could sin expire. better sinless in hell, than to be where heaven is, and to be found a sinner there. one sinless with infernals might do well, but sin would make of heaven a very hell. look to thyself then, keep it out of door, lest it get in and never leave thee more. no match has sin but god in all the world; men, angels, has it from their station hurled, holds them in chains as captives, in despite of all that here below is called might. release, help, freedom from it none can give, but even he by whom we breathe and live. watch therefore, keep this giant out of door, lest, if once in, thou get him out no more. fools make a mock at sin, will not believe it carries such a dagger in its sleeve. how can it be, say they, that such a thing, so full of sweetness, e'er should wear a sting? they know not that it is the very spell of sin, to make men laugh themselves to hell. look to thyself, then, deal with sin no more, lest he that saves, against thee shut the door. there are sins against light, sins against knowledge, sins against love, sins against learning, sins against threatenings, sins against promises and vows and resolutions, sins against experience, sins against examples of anger, and sins that have great and high and strange aggravations attending them; the which we are ignorant of, though not altogether, yet in too great a measure. sins go not alone, hut follow one another as do the links of a chain. a presumptuous sin is such a one as is committed in the face of the command, in a desperate venturing to run the hazard, or in a presuming upon the mercy of god through christ, to be saved notwithstanding: this is a leading sin to that which is unpardonable, and will be found with such professors as do hanker after iniquity. one leak will sink a ship; and one sin will destroy a sinner. he that lives in sin and hopes for happiness hereafter, is like him that soweth cockle and thinks to fill his barn with wheat and barley. crush sin in the conception, lest it bring forth death in thy soul. some men's hearts are narrow upwards and wide downwards--narrow as to god, but wide for the world. pride. pride is the ringleader of the seven abominations that the wise man nameth. prov. 6: 16, 17. apparel is the fruit of sin; wherefore, let such as pride themselves therein remember, that they cover one shame with another. but let them that are truly godly have their apparel modest and sober, and with such shame-facedness put them on; remembering always, that the first cause of our covering our nakedness was the sin and shame of our first parents. envy. mr. badman's envy was so rank and strong, that if it at any time turned its head against a man, it would hardly ever be pulled in again. he would watch over that man to do him mischief, as the cat watches over the mouse to destroy it; yea, he would wait seven years but he would have an opportunity to hurt him, and when he had it, he would make him feel the weight of his envy. this envy is the very father and mother of a great many hid eous and prodigious wickednesses. it both begets them, and also nourishes them up till they come to their cursed maturity in the bosom of him that entertains them. drunkenness. drunkenness is so beastly a sin, a sin so much against nature, that i wonder that any who have but the appearance of men can give up themselves to so beastly, yea, worse than beastly a thing. many that have begun the world with plenty, have gone out of it in rags, through drunkenness. yea, many children that have been born to good estates, have yet been brought to a flail and a rake through this beastly sin of their parents. yea, it so stupefies and besots the soul, that a man who is far gone in drunkenness is hardly ever recovered to god. tell me, when did you see an old drunkard converted? no, no; such a one will sleep till he dies, though he sleep on the top of a mast; so that if a man have any respect either to credit, health, life, or salvation, he will not be a drunken man. "and noah was uncovered." behold ye now, that a little of the fruit of the vine lays gravity, grey hairs, and a man that for hundreds of years was a lover of faith, holiness, goodness, sobriety, and all righteousness, shamelessly as the object to the eye of the wicked. "and noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years." he lived, therefore, to see abraham fifty-and-eight years old; he lived also to see the foundation of babel laid, nay, the top-stone thereof; and also the confusion of tongues; he lived to see of the fruit of his loins, mighty kings and princes. but in all this time he lived not to do one, work that the holy ghost thought worthy to record, for the savor of his name or the edification and benefit of his church, save only, that he died at "nine hundred and fifty years:" so great a breach did this drunkenness make upon his spirit. sinners. usually in wicked families, some one or two are more arch for wickedness than are any other that are there. now such are satan's conduit-pipes; for by them he conveys of the spawn of hell, through their being crafty in wickedness, into the ears and souls of their companions. "and she bare cain:" the first sprout of a disobedient couple, a man in shape, but a devil in disposition. the sinner, when his conscience is fallen asleep and grown hard, will lie like the smith's dog at the foot of the anvil, though the fire-sparks fly in his face. peace in a sinful course is one of the greatest of curses. there is a wicked man that goes blinded, and a wicked man that goes with his eyes open, to hell; there is a wicked man that cannot see, and a wicked man that will not see, the danger he is in; but hell-fire will open the eyes of both. the soul with some is the game, their lusts are the dogs, and they themselves are the huntsmen; and never do they more halloo and lure and laugh and sing, than when they have delivered up their soul, their darling, to these dogs. i may safely say, that the most of men who are concerned in a trade, will be more vigilant in dealing with a twelvepenny customer, than they will be with christ when he comes to make unto them by the gospel a tender of the incomparable grace of god. sinful ease. 'tis true there is no man more at ease in his mind--with such ease as it is--than the man that hath not closed with the lord jesus, but is shut up in unbelief. oh, but that is the man that stands convicted before god, and that is bound over to the great assize! that is the man whose sins are still his own, and upon whom the wrath of god abideth; for the ease and peace of such, though it keep them far from fear, is but like to that of the secure thief that is ignorant that the constable standcth at the door: the first sight of an officer makes his peace to give up the ghost. oh, how many thousands that can now glory that they were never troubled for sin against god--i say, how many be there that god will trouble worse than he troubled cursed achan, because their peace, though false and of the devil, was rather chosen by them than peace by jesus christ, than peace with god by the blood of his cross. awake, careless sinners, awake, and arise from the dead, and christ shall give you light. content not yourselves either with sin or righteousness, if you be destitute of jesus christ; but cry, cry, oh cry to god for light to see your condition by. light is in the word of god, for therein is the righteousness of god revealed; cry therefore for light to see this righteousness by: it is a righteousness of christ's finishing, of god's accepting, and that which alone can save the soul from the stroke of eternal justice. the child and the bird. "my little bird, how canst thou sit and sing amidst so many thorns? let me but hold vipon thee get, my love with honor thee adorns. thou art at present little worth, five farthings none will give for thee, but prithee, little bird, come forth, thou of more value art to me. "'tis true it is sunshine to-day, to-morrow birds will have a storm; my pretty one, come thou away. my bosom then shall keep thee warm. thou subject art to cold o' nights, when darkness is thy covering; at day thy danger's great by kites; how canst thou then sit there and sing? "thy food is scarce and scanty too, 'tis worms and trash that thou dost eat thy present state i pity do, come, i'll provide thee better meat. i'll feed thee with white bread and milk, and sugar-plums, if them thou crave; i'll cover thee with finest silk, that from the cold i may thee save. "my father's palace shall be thine, yea, in it thou shalt sit and sing; my little bird, if thou'lt be mine, the whole year round shall be thy spring. i'll teach thee all the notes at court, unthought-of music thou shalt play, and all that thither do resort shall praise thee for it every day. "i'll keep thee safe from cat and cur, no manner o' harm shall come to thee; yea, i will be thy succorer, my bosom shall thy cabin be." but lo, behold, the bird is gone! these charmings would not make her yield; the child's left at the bush alone, the bird flies yonder o'er the field. the child of christ an emblem is; the bird to sinners i compare; the thorns are like those sins of theirs, which do surround them everywhere. her songs, her food, her sunshine day, are emblems of those foolish toys which to destruction lead the way- the fruit of worldly, empty joys. the arguments this child doth choose to draw to him a bird thus wild, shows christ familiar speech doth use, to make the sinner reconciled. the bird, in that she takes her wing to speed her from him after all, shows us vain man loves any thing much better than the heavenly call. the sinner warned. thy bed, when thou liest down in it, preacheth to thee thy grave; thy sleep, thy death; and thy rising in the morning, thy resurrection to judgment. wouldst thou know, sinner, what thou art? look up to the cross, and behold a weeping, bleeding, dying jesus; nothing could do but that, nothing could save thee but his blood: angels could not, saints could not, god could not, because he could not lie, because he could not deny himself. what a thing is sin, that it should sink all that bear its burden; yea, it sunk the son of god himself into death and the grave, and had also sunk him into hell-fire for ever, had he not teen the son of god, had he not been able to take it on his hack and bear it away. o this lamh of god! sinners were going to hell; christ was the delight of his father, and had a whole heaven to himself; hut that did not content him, heaven could not hold him, he must come into the world to save sinners. aye, and had he not come thy sins had sunk thee, thy sins had provoked the wrath of god against thee to thy destruction for ever. there is no man hut is a sinner; there is no sin hut would damn an angel, should god lay it to his charge. sinner, the doctrine of christ crucified cries therefore aloud unto thee, that sin has made thy condition dreadful. see yourselves, your sins, and consequently the condition that your souls are in by the death and blood of christ christ's death gives us the most clear discovery of the dreadful nature of our sins. i say again, if sin he so dreadful a thing as to break the heart of the son of god, how shall a poor, wretched, impenitent, damned sinner wrestle with the wrath of god? awake, sinners; you are lost, you are undone, you perish, you are damned; hell-fire is your portion for ever, if you abide in your sins, and be found without a saviour in the dreadful day of judgment. sinner, doth not all this discourse make thy heart twitter after the mercy that is with god, and after the way that is made by this plenteous redemption thereto? methinks it should; yea, thou couldest not do otherwise, didst thou but see thy condition. look behind thee, take a view of the path thou hast trodden these many years. dost thou think that the way that thou art in will lead thee to the strait gate, sinner? ponder the path of thy feet with the greatest seriousness; thy life lies upon it; what thinkest thou? but make no answer till in the night, till thou art in the night-watches; commune with thine own heart upon thy hed, and there say what thou thinkest of whither thou art going. oh that thou wert serious! is not it a thing to be lamented, that madness and folly should be in thy heart while thou livest, and after that to go to the dead; when so much life stands before thee, and light to see the way to it? surely men void of grace and possessed of carnal minds must either think that sin is nothing, that hell is easy, and that eternity is short; or else that whatever god has said about the punishing of sinners, he will never do as he has said; or that there is no sin, no god, no heaven, no hell, and so no good or bad hereafter; or else they could not live as they do. but perhaps thou presumest upon it, and sayest, i shall have peace, though i live so sinful a life. sinner, if this wicked thought be in thy heart, tell me again, dost thou thus think in earnest? canst thou imagine thou shalt at the day of account outface god, or make him believe thou wast what thou wast not; or that when the gate is shut up in wrath, he will at thy pleasure and to the reversing of his own counsel, open it again to thee? why shall thy deceived heart turn thee aside, that thou canst not deliver thy soul, nor say, is there not a lie in my right hand? friend, because it is a dangerous thing to be walking towards the place of darkness and anguish, and because notwithstanding, it is the journey that most of the poor souls in the world are taking, i have thought it my duty for preventing thee, to tell thee what sad success those souls have had that have persevered therein. why, friend, it may be--nay, twenty to one, thou hast had thy back to heaven and thy face towards hell ever since thou didst come into the world. why, i beseech thee, put a little stop to thy earnest race, and take a view of what entertainment thou art like to have, if thou do in deed and in truth persist in thy course. "thy ways lead down to death, and thy steps to hell." it may he, indeed, the path is pleasant to the flesh, but the end thereof will he bitter to thy soul. hark! dost thou not hear the bitter cries of them that are newly gone before thee, saying, "let him dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for i am tormented in this flame!" dost thou not hear them say, "send one from the dead, to prevent my father, my brother, my father's house, from coming to this place of torment!" shall not these mournful groans pierce thy flinty heart? wilt thou stop thine ears and shut thine eyes? and wilt thou not regard? take warning, and stop thy journey before it be too late. wilt thou he like the silly fly, that is not quiet unless she be either entangled in the spider's web or burnt in the candle? o sinner, sinner, there are better things than hell to be had! there is heaven, there is god, there is christ, there is communion with an innumerable assembly of saints and angels! the poor, carnal, ignorant world miss of heaven, even because they love their sins and cannot part with them john 3:9, 20. the poor ignorant world miss of heaven, because they stop their ears against convictions, and refuse to come when god calls. prov. 1: 24-29. the poor ignorant world miss of heaven, because the god of this world hath blinded their eyes, that they can neither see the evil and damnable state they are in at present, nor the way to get out of it; neither do they see the beauty of jesus christ, nor how willing he is to save poor sinners. 2 cor. 4: 2, 3. the poor ignorant world miss of heaven, because they defer coming to christ until the time of god's patience and grace is over. some indeed are resolved never to come; but some again say, "we will come hereafter;" and so it comes to pass, that because god called and they did not hear, so "they shall cry and i will not hear," saith the lord. zech. 7: 11-13. the poor ignorant world miss of heaven, because they have false apprehensions of god's mercy. they say in their hearts, "we shall have peace, though we walk in the imagination of our heart." deut. 29: 19-21. the poor ignorant world miss of heaven, because they make light of the gospel that offers mercy to them freely, and because they lean upon their own good meanings and thinkings and doings. matt. 22: 1-5; rom. 9: 30, 31. the poor carnal world miss of heaven, because by unbelief, which reigns in them, they are kept for ever from being clothed with christ's righteousness, and from washing in his blood, without which there is no remission of sin nor justification. blush, sinner, blush! ah, that thou hadst grace to blush. my first word shall be to the openly profane. poor sinner, thou readest that many that expect heaven will go without heaven. what sayest thou to this, poor sinner? if judgment begins at the house of god, what will be the end of them that obey not the gospel of god? this is peter's question: canst thou answer it, sinner? yea, i say again, if judgment must begin at them, will it not make thee think, what shall become of me? and i add, when thou shalt see the stars of heaven tumble down to hell, canst thou think that such a muck-heap of sin as thou art shall be lifted up to heaven? peter asks thee another question: "if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" canst thou answer this question, sinner? stand among the righteous thou mayst not: "the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment." stand among the wicked thou then wilt not dare to do: where wilt thou appear, sinner? to stand among the hypocrites will avail thee nothing: "the hypocrite shall not come before him," that is, with acceptance, "but shall perish." because it concerns thee much, let me over with it again. when thou shalt see less sinners than thou art bound up by angels in bundles to burn them, where wilt thou appear, sinner? thou mayst wish thyself another man, but that will not help thee, sinner. thou mayst wish, "would i had been converted in time;" but that will not help thee neither. and if, like the wife of jeroboam, thou shouldst feign thyself to be another, the prophet, the lord jesus, would soon find thee out. what wilt thou do, poor sinner? heavy tidings, heavy tidings will attend thee, except thou repent, poor sinner! sluggard, art thou asleep still? art thou resolved to sleep the sleep of death? will neither tidings from heaven nor hell awake thee? wilt thou say still, "yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the arms to sleep?" o that i was one that was skilful in lamentation, and had but a yearning heart towards thee, how would i pity thee; how would i bemoan thee! poor soul, lost soul, dying soul, what a hard heart have i that i cannot mourn for thee! if thou shouldst lose but a limb, a child, or a friend, it would not be so much; but, poor man, it is thy soul: if it was to lie in hell but for a day, but for a year, nay, ten thousand years, it would in comparison be nothing; but o it is for ever! o this cutting ever! sinner, awake; yea, i say unto thee, awake! sin lieth at thy door, and god's axe lieth at thy root, and hell-fire is right underneath thee. i say again, awake. every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire. poor sinner, awake: eternity is coming, and his son; they are both coming to judge the world: awake; art yet asleep, poor sinner? let me set the trumpet to thine ear once again. the heavens will he shortly on a burning flame; the earth and the works thereof shall be burned up, and then wicked men shall go into perdition: dost thou hear this, sinner? hark again: the sweet morsels of sin will then be fled and gone, and the bitter, burning fruits of them only left. what sayst thou now, sinner? canst thou drink hell-fire? will the wrath of god be a pleasant dish to thy taste? this must be thine every day's meat and drink in hell, sinner. i will yet propound to thee god's ponderous question, and then for this time leave thee: "can thine heart endure, or can thy hands be strong in the day that i shall deal with thee, saith the lord?" what sayst thou? wilt thou answer this question now; or wilt thou take time to do it; or wilt thou be desperate and venture all? and let me put this text in thine ear to keep it open, and so the lord have mercy upon thee: "upon the wicked shall the lord rain snares, fire, and brimstone, and a horrible tempest; this shall be the portion of their cup." repent, sinners. conscience. conscience hath its place in the soul, where it is as a judge to discern of things good or bad, and judge them accordingly. romans 2: 14. this conscience is that in which is the law of nature, i cor. 11: 14, which is able to teach the gentiles that sin against the law is sin against god. now this conscience, this nature itself, because it can control and chide them for sin who give ear unto it--must it therefore be idolized and made a god of? o wonderful! that men should make a god and a christ of their consciences because they can convince of sin. thou gayest, he that convinces of sins against the law, leads up to the fulfilling of the law.. friend, thy conscience convinces of sins against the law: follow thy conscience, and it may lead thee under the curse of the law, through its weakness; but it can never deliver thee from the curse of the law by its power. for if righteousness come by obedience to the law, or by thy conscience either, then christ is dead in vain. gal. 2: 21. a good conscience. this must needs be a blessed help in distress, for a man to have a good conscience when affliction hath taken hold on him; for a man then, in his looking behind and before, to return with peace to his own soul, that man must needs find honey in this lion. this is the way to maintain always the answer, the echoing answer of a good conscience in thy own soul. godliness is of great use this way; for the man that hath a good conscience to god-ward, hath a continual feast in his own soul: while others say there is casting down, he shall say there is lifting up; for god shall save the humble person. some indeed, in the midst of their profession, are reproached, smitten, and condemned of their own heart, their conscience still biting and stinging them because of the uncleanness of their hands; and they cannot lift up their face unto god, they have not the answer of a good conscience towards him, but must walk as persons false to their god and as traitors to their own eternal welfare. but the godly upright man shall have the light shine upon his ways, and he shall take his steps in butter and honey. the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness, and assurance for ever. "if our heart condemn us, god is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards god." a tender conscience. a tender conscience is to some people like solomon's brawling woman, a burthen to those that have it; but let it be to thee like those that invited david to go up to the house of the lord. a guilty conscience. "and adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the lord god." these latter words are spoken, not to persuade us that men can hide themselves from god, but that adam and those that are his by nature will seek to do it, because they do not know him aright. these words therefore further show us what a bitter thing sin is to the soul; it is only for hiding-work, sometimes under its fig-leaves, sometimes among the trees of the garden. o what a shaking, starting, timorous evil conscience is a sinful, guilty conscience: especially when it is but a little awakened, it could run its head into every hole, first by one fancy, then by another; for the power and goodness of a man's own righteousness cannot withstand or answer the demands of the justice of god and his holy law. there is yet another witness for the condemning transgressors of these laws, and that is conscience: "their consciences also bearing witness," says the apostle. conscience is a thousand witnesses. conscience! it will cry amen to every word that the great god doth speak against thee. conscience is a terrible accuser; it will hold pace with the witness of god, as to the truth of evidence, to a hair's breadth. the witness of conscience, it is of great authority; it commands guilt and fastens it on every soul which it accuses. conscience will thunder and lighten at the day of judgment; even the consciences of the most pagan sinners in the world will have sufficient wherewith to accuse, to condemn, and to make paleness appear in their faces and breaking in their loins, by reason of the force of its conviction. o the mire and dirt that a guilty conscience, when it is forced to speak, will cast up and throw out before the judgment-seat. it must out; none can speak peace nor health to that man upon whom god has let loose his own conscience. cain will now cry, "my punishment is greater than i can bear;" judas will hang himself; and both belshazzar and felix will feel the joints of their loins to be loosened, and their knees to smite one against another, when conscience stirreth. when conscience is once thoroughly awakened, as it shall be before the judgment-seat, god will need say no more to the sinner than solomon said to filthy shimei, "thou knowest all the wickedness that thy heart is privy to." as who should say, "thy conscience knows, and can well inform thee of all the evil and sin that thou art guilty of." to all which it answers even as face answers a face in a glass; or as an echo answers the man that speaks: as fast, i say, as god chargeth, conscience will cry out, "guilty, guilty, lord; guilty of all, of every whit; i remember clearly all the crimes thou layest before me." thus will conscience be a witness against the soul in the day of god. v. the law. its nature and effects. the law is the chief and most pure resemblance of the justice and holiness of the heavenly majesty, and doth hold forth to all men the sharpness and keenness of his wrath. this is the rule and line and plummet whereby every act of every man shall be measured; and he whose righteousness is not found every way answerable to this law, which all will fall short of but they that have the righteousness of god by faith in jesus christ, he must perish. the law is spiritual, i am carnal. therefore every requirement is rejected and rebelled against. strike a steel against a flint, and the fire flies about you. strike the law against a carnal heart, and sin appears, sin multiplies, sin rageth, sin is strengthened. sin seen in the glass of the law is a terrible thing; no man can behold it and live. "when the commandment came, sin revived and i died;" when it came from god to my conscience, as managed by an almighty arm, then it slew me. and now is the time to confess sin, because now a soul knows what it is, and sees what it is, both in the nature and consequence of it. he that is under the law is under the edge of the axe. the proper work of the law is to slay the soul, and leave it dead, in a helpless state. the law has laid all men for dead as they come into the world; but all men do not see themselves dead, until they see the law that struck them dead striking in their souls and having struck them that fatal blow. as a man that is fast asleep in a house, and that on fire about his ears, and he not knowing it because he is asleep; even so because poor souls are asleep in sin, though the wrath of god, the curse of his law, and the flames of hell have beset them round about, yet they do not believe it because they are asleep in sin. now, as he that is awakened and sees this, sees that through this he is a dead man, even so they that see their state by nature, being such a sad condition, do also see themselves by that law to be dead men naturally. take heed of fleshly wisdom. reasoning suiteth much with the law: "i thought verily that i ought to do many things against the name of jesus," and so to have sought for life by the law. for thus reason will say, here is a righteous law, the rule of life and death; besides, what can be better than to love god, and my neighbor as myself? again, god has thus commanded, and his commands are just and good; therefore, doubtless, life must come by the law. further, to love god and keep the law, are better than to sin and break it; and seeing men lost heaven by sin, how should they get it again but by working righteousness? besides, god is righteous, and will therefore bless the righteous. o the holiness of the law! it mightily swayeth with reason when a man addicts himself to religion. the light of nature teaches that sin is not the way to heaven; and seeing no word doth more condemn sin, than the words of the ten commandments, it must needs be therefore the most perfect rule for holiness. wherefore, says reason, the safest way to life and glory is to keep myself close to the law. but though the law indeed be holy, yet the mistake as to the matter in hand is as wide as the east from the west; for therefore the law can do thee no good, because it is holy and just; for what can he that has sinned expect from a law that is holy and just? naught but condemnation. "there is one that accuseth you, even. moses in whom ye trust." here is the poison; to set this law in the. room of a mediator, as those do who seek to stand just before god thereby. and then nothing is so dishonorable to christ, nor of so soul-destroying a nature as the law; for that, thus placed, has not only power when souls are deluded, but power to delude by its real holiness, the understanding, conscience, and reason of a man; and by giving the soul a semblance of heaven, to cause it to throw away christ, grace, and faith. alas, he who boasteth himself in the works of the law, he doth not hear the law. when that speaks, it shakes mount sinai, and writeth death upon all faces, and makes the church itself cry out, a mediator! else we die. the law out of christ is terrible as a lion; the law in him is meek as a lamb. faithful. "so i went on my way up the hill. now when i had got about half-way up, i looked behind me and saw one coming after me swift as the wind; so he overtook me just about the place where the settle stands. "so soon as the man overtook me, he was but a word and a blow; for down he knocked me, and laid me for dead. but when i was a little come to myself again, i asked him wherefore he served me so. he said, 'because of thy secret inclination to adam the first;' and with that he struck me another deadly blow on the breast, and beat me down backwards; so i lay at his foot as dead as before. when i came to myself again, i cried to him for mercy; but he said, 'i know not how to show mercy;' and with that knocked me down again. he had doubtless made an end of me, but that one came by and bid him forbear." christian. "who was it that bid him forbear?" faithful. "i did not know him at first, but as he went by i perceived the holes in his hands and his side; then i concluded that he was our lord. so i went up the hill." christian. "the man that overtook you was moses. he spareth none, neither knoweth he how to show mercy to those that transgress his law." faithful. "i know it very well; it was not the first time that he has met with me. it was he that came to me when i dwelt securely at home, and that told me he would burn my house over my head if i staid there." this ungodly fear of god, is that which will put men upon adding to the revealed will of god their own inventions and their own performances of them, as a means to pacify the anger of god. for the truth is, where this ungodly fear reigneth, there is no end of law and duty. when those that you read of in the hook of kings, 2 kings, 17: 26, were destroyed by the lions because they had set up idolatry in the land of israel, they sent for a priest from babylon that might teach them the manner of the god of the land; but behold, when they knew it, being taught it by the priest, yet their fear would not suffer them to be content with that worship only. "they feared the lord," saith the text, "and served their own gods." and again, "so these nations feared the lord, and served their graven images." it was this fear also that put the pharisees upon inventing so many traditions; as the washing of cups, and beds, and tables, and basins, with abundance of such other gear. mark 7: 4. none knows the many dangers that an ungodly fear of god will drive a man into. how has it racked and tortured the papists for hundreds of years together! for what else is the cause but this ungodly fear, at least in the most simple and harmless of them, of their penances--as creeping to the cross, going barefoot on pilgrimage, whipping themselves, wearing of sackcloth, saying so many pater-nosters, so many ave-marias, making so many confessions to the priest, giving so much money for pardons, and abundance of other the like---but this ungodly fear of god? for could they be brought to believe this doctrine, that christ was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification, and to apply it by faith with godly boldness to their own souls, this fear would vanish, and so consequently all those things with which they so needlessly and unprofitably afflict themselves, offend god, and grieve his people. the law and the gospel. thou must have salvation either at the door of the law or at the door of grace. "but," sayest thou, "i am for having it at the hands of both. i will trust solely to neither. i love to have two strings to my bow. if one of them, as you think, can help me by itself, my reason tells me that both can help me better; therefore will i be righteous and good, and will seek by my goodness to be commended to the mercy of god; for surely he that hath something of his own to ingratiate himself into the favor of his prince withal, shall sooner obtain his mercy and favor than one that comes to him stripped of all good." i answer, "but there are not two ways to heaven: there is but one 'new and living way which christ hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;' and besides that one, there is no more. heb. 10: 19-24. why then dost thou talk of two strings to thy bow?" mercy then is to be found alone in jesus christ. again, the righteousness of the law is to be obtained only by faith of jesus christ; that is, in the son of god is the righteousness of the law to be found; for he, by his obedience to his father, is become the end of the law for righteousness. and for the sake of his legal righteousness---which is also called the righteousness of god, because it was god in the flesh of the lord jesus that did accomplish it---are mercy and grace from god extended to whomsoever dependeth by faith upon god, by this righteousness of jesus, for them. he that is dark as touching the scope, intents, and nature of the law, is also dark as to the scope, nature, and glory of the gospel. i must confess it is a wonderful mysterious thing, and he had need have a wiser spirit than his own that can rightly set these two covenants in their right places, that when he speaks of the one he doth not jostle the other out of its place. o, to be so well enlightened as to speak of the one, that is the law, for to magnify the gospel---and also to speak of the gospel so as to establish and yet not to idolize the law, nor any particulars thereof---it is rare; and to be heard and found but in very few men's breasts. a man may appeal from the law to the throne, from moses to christ---from him that spoke on earth to him that speaks from heaven; but from heaven to earth, from christ to moses, none can appeal. acts 3: 22, 23. tell me, you that desire to mingle the law and the gospel together, and to make of both one and the same gospel of christ, did you ever see yourselves undone and lost, unless the righteousness, blood, death, resurrection, and intercession of that man christ jesus in his own person, were imputed to you; and until you could by faith own it as done for you, and counted yours by imputation? yea, or no? nay, rather, have you not set up your consciences and the law, and counted your obedience to them better and of more value than the obedience of the son of mary without you to be imputed to you? and if so, it is because you have not been savingly convinced by the spirit of christ of the sin of unbelief. i would riot be mistaken; i do not say that the spirit of christ gives the least liberty to sin; god forbid; but its convictions are of a more saving and refreshing nature than the convictions of the law, and do more constrain the soul to holiness than that: the law saying, work for life; the spirit saying, now to him that worketh not (for life,) but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. as thus: if i should owe to two creditors ten thousand talents, the one should say unto me, "thou owest me five thousand talents, pay that thou owest;" the other should say, "thou owest me five thousand talents, and i frankly and freely forgive thee all." now, these expressions are contrary one to another; even so is the end of the convictions of the law not according to the end of the convictions of the spirit of christ: the one saying, "pay me that thou owest;" the other saying, "thou art frankly and freely forgiven all." then the interpreter took christian by the hand, and led him into a very large parlor that was full of dust, because never swept; the which, after he had reviewed it a little while, the interpreter called for a man to sweep. now, when he began to sweep, the dust began so abundantly to fly about, that christian had almost therewith been choked. then said the interpreter to a damsel that stood by, "bring hither water and sprinkle the room;" the which, when she had done, it was swept and cleansed with pleasure. then said christian, "what means this?" the interpreter answered, "this parlor is the heart of a man that was never sanctified by the sweet grace of the gospel; the dust is his, original sin and inward corruptions that have defiled the whole man. he that began to sweep at first is the law; but she that brought water and did sprinkle it, is the gospel. now whereas thou sawest that so soon as the first began to sweep, the dust did so fly about that the room by him could not be cleansed, but that thou wast almost choked therewith: this is to show thee that the law, instead of cleansing the heart by its working, from sin, doth revive, put strength into, and increase it in the soul, even as it doth discover and forbid it; for it doth not give power to subdue it. rom. 5: 20; 7:11; 1 cor. 15:56." again, as thou sawest the damsel sprinkle the room with, water, upon which it was cleansed with pleasure this is to show thee that when the gospel comes in the sweet and precious influences thereof to the heart, then, i say, even as thou sawest the damsel lay the dust fry sprinkling the floor with water, so is sin vanquished and subdued, and the soul made clean through the faith of it, and consequently fit for the king of glory to inhabit. john 14: 21-23; 15:3; acts 15:9; rom. 16: 25, 26; eph. 5:26. when christ dwells in my heart by faith and the moral law dwells in my members, the one to keep up peace with god, the other to keep my conversation in a good decorum, then am i right, and not till then. but this will not be done without much experience, diligence, and delight in christ. for there is nothing that satan more desires, than that the law may abide in the conscience of an awakened christian, and there take up the place of christ and faith; for he knows if this may be obtained, the veil is presently drawn over the face of the soul, and the heart darkened as to the knowledge of christ; and being darkened, the man is driven into despair of mercy, or is put upon it to work for life. there is therefore much diligence required of him that will keep these two in their places assigned them of god; much diligent study of the word, diligent prayer, with diligence to walk with god in the world. when this law with its thundering threatenings doth attempt to lay hold on thy conscience, shut it out with a promise of grace: cry, the inn is taken up already; the lord jesus is here entertained, and here is no room for the law. indeed, if it will be content with being my informer, and so lovingly leave off to judge me, i will be content; it shall be in iny sight, i will also delight therein: but otherwise, i being now made upright without it, and that too with that righteousness which this law speaks well of and approveth, i may not, will not, cannot, dare not make it my saviour and judge, nor suffer it to set up its government in my conscience; for by so doing i fall from grace, and christ jesus doth profit me nothing. the sum then of what hath been said is this: the christian hath now nothing to do with the law as it thundereth and burneth on sinai, or as it bindeth the conscience to wrath and the displeasure of god for sin; for from its thus appearing he is freed by faith in christ. yet he is to have regard thereto, and is to count it holy, just, and good; which that he may do, he is always, whenever he seeth or regards it, to remember that he who giveth it to us is merciful, gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth. here thou mayst say, o law, thou mayst roar against sin, but thou canst not reach me; thou mayst curse and condemn, but not my soul; for i have a righteous jesus, a holy jesus, a soul-saving jesus, and he hath delivered me from thy threats, thy curses, thy condemnations; i am out of thy reach and out of thy bounds; i am brought into another covenant, under better promises of life and salvation, free promises to comfort me without my merit, even through the blood of jesus, the satisfaction given to god for me by him. the law is that which standeth at the entrance of the paradise of god, as a flaming sword, turning every way to keep out those that are not righteous with the righteousness of god--that have not skill to come to the throne of grace by that new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. for though this law, i say, be taken away by christ jesus for all that truly and savingly believe, yet it remains in full force and power in every tittle of it against every soul of man that now shall be found in his tabernacle, that is in himself and out of the lord jesus; it lie'th, i say, like a lion rampant at the gates of heaven, and will roar upon every unconverted soul, fiercely accusing every one that new would gladly enter in through the gates into this city. so then, he that can answer all its most perfect and legal commands, and that can live in the midst of devouring fire and there enjoy god and solace himself, he shall dwell on high and shall not be hurt by this law. his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks; bread shall be given him, and his waters shall he sure; thine eyes shall behold the king in his beauty, they shall see the land that is very far off. the law a rule of life. the law is cast behind the back of many, when it should be carried in the hand and heart that we might do it, to the end the gospel which we profess might he glorified in the world. let then the law be with thee to love it, and do it in the spirit of the gospel, that thou be not unfruitful in thy life. let the law, i say, be with thee, not as it comes from moses, but from christ; for though thou art set free from the law as a covenant for life, yet thou still art under the law to christ; and it is to be received by thee, as out of his hand, to be a rule for thy conversation in the world. vi. divine grace. grace, loye, and mercy. _i_ find that the goodness of god to his people is diversely expressed in his word, sometimes by the word grace, sometimes by the word love, and sometimes by the word mercy. when it is expressed by that word grace, then it is to show that what he doeth is of his princely will, his royal bounty, and sovereign pleasure. when it is expressed by that word love, then it is to show us that his affection was and is in what he doeth, and that he doeth what he doeth for us with complacency and delight. but when it is set forth to us under the notion of mercy, then it bespeaks us to be in a state both wretched and miserable, and that his bowels and compassions yearn over us in this our fearful plight. grace described. there are many things which men call the grace of god that are not. 1. the light and knowledge that are in every man. 2. that natural willingness that is in man to be saved. 3. that power that is in man by nature to do something, as he thinketh, towards his own salvation. but do thou remember that the grace of god is his good-will and great love to sinners, in his son jesus christ; by the which good-will they are sanctified, through the offering up of the body of jesus christ once for all. his blood is not laws, nor ordinances, nor commandments, but a price, a redeeming price. he justifies us by bestowing upon us, not by expecting from us. he justifies us by his grace, not by our works. operation of grace. the good child is not the first-born, but abel. god often doth as jacob did, even cross hands in bestowing blessings, giving that which is best to him that is least esteemed; for cain was "the man" in eve's esteem: she thought, when she had him, she had got an inheritance; but as for abel (vanity,) he was little worth; by his name they showed how little they set by him. it is so with the sincere to this day; they bear not the name of glory with the world: cain with them is the profitable son; abel is of no credit with them, neither see they form or comeliness in him; he is the melancholy or lowering child whose countenance spoils the mirth of the world. "the heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth." abel, last in appearance, but in truth the first in grace; as it also is at this day. who do so flutter it out as our ruffling, formal worshippers? alas, the good, the sincere, the humble, they seem to be least and last; but the conclusion of the tragedy will make manifest that the first is last and the last first. "and the lord had respect unto abel and to his offering." herein are the true footsteps of grace discovered; the person must be the first in favor with god---the person first, the performance afterwards: for though it be true among men that the gift makes way for the acceptance of the person, yet in the order of grace it is after another manner; for if the person be not first accepted, the offering must be abominable; for it is not a good work that makes a good man, but a good man makes a good work. the fruit does not make a good tree, but a good tree bringeth forth good fruit. abel then presented his person and offering, as shrouding both by faith under the righteousness of christ, which lay wrapped up in the promise; but cain stands upon his own legs, and so presents his offering. abel therefore is accepted, both his person and offering, while cain remains accursed. this then makes the difference hetwixt abel and his brother; abel had faith, but cain had none. abel's faith covered him with jesus christ; therefore he stood righteous in his person before god. there is a man proceeded against for life by the law and the sentence of death is in conclusion most justly and righteously passed upon him by the judge. suppose now, that after this, this man lives and is exalted to honor, enjoys great things, and is put into place of trust and power, and this by him that he has offended, even by him that did pass the sentence upon him. what will all say, or what will they conclude, even upon the very first hearing of this story? will they not say, "well, whoever he was that found himself wrapped up in this strange providence, must thank the mercy of a gracious prince; for all these things bespeak grace and favor?" forgiveness is according to the riches of god's grace, wherein he has abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence. grace can continue to pardon, favor, and save---from falls, in falls, and out of falls. grace can comfort, relieve, and help those that have hurt themselves; and grace can bring the unworthy to glory. this the law cannot do; this man cannot do; this angels cannot do; this god cannot do, but only by the riches of his grace, through the redemption that is in christ jesus. a throne is the seat of majesty and greatness; it is not for things of an inferior quality to ascend or assume a throne. now, then, since this river of water of life proceeds from the throne, it intimates that in grace and mercy there is great majesty; for grace, as it proceeds, has a voice from the throne. and indeed there is nothing in heaven or earth that can so awe the heart as the grace of god. hos. 3: 5. it is that which makes a man fear; it is that which makes a man tremble; it is that which makes a man how and bend, and break to pieces. jer. 33: 9; exod. 34: 6-9. nothing has such majesty, and commanding greatness in and upon the hearts of the sons of men, as has the grace of god. there is nothing overmastereth the heart like grace, and so obligeth to sincere and unfeigned obedience as that. strong grace makes corruptions weak and strikes them through, laying them at the point of death, always gasping for life. mercy and the revelation thereof is the only antidote against sin. it is of a thawing nature; it will loose the heart that is frozen up in sin; yea, it will make the unwilling willing to come to christ for life. some say, when grace and a good nature meet together, they do make shining christians: but i say, when grace and a great sinner meet, and when grace shall subdue that great sinner to itself, and shall operate after its kind in the soul of that great sinner, then we have a shining christian. men may fall by sin, but cannot raise up themselves without the help of grace. there were two men that went on pilgrimage; the one began when he was young, the other when he was old: the young man had strong corruptions to grapple with, the old man's were weak with the decays of nature: the young man trode his steps as even as did the old one, and was every way as light as he. who now, or which of them, had their graces shining clearest, since both seemed to be alike? the young man's, doubtless; for that which heads it against the greatest opposition, gives best demonstration that it is strongest. as nature, even where grace is, cannot without the assistance of that grace do any thing acceptably before god; so grace received, if it be not also supplied with more grace, cannot cause that we continue to do acceptable service to god. a present dispensation of grace is like a good meal, a seasonable shower, or a penny in one's pocket, all of which will serve for the present necessity. but will that good meal that i ate last week enable me without supply to do a good day's work in this? or, will that seasonable shower which fell last year, be, without supplies, a seasonable help to the grain and grass that is growing now? or will that penny that supplied my want the other day--i say, will the same penny also, without a supply, supply my wants to-day? the day of grace is the day of expense; this is our spending time. hence we are called pilgrims and strangers in the earth; that is, travellers from place to place, from state to state, from trial to trial. now, as the traveller at the fresh inn is made to spend fresh money, so christians, at a fresh temptation, at a new temptation, are made to spend fresh and a new supply of grace. great men, when and while their sons are travellers, appoint that their bags of money be lodged ready or conveniently paid in at such and such a place; and so they meet with supplies. why, so are the sons of the great one; and he has allotted that we should travel beyond sea, or at a great distance from our father's house: wherefore he has appointed that grace shall be provided for us, to supply at such a place, such a state or temptation, as need requires. but withal, as my lord expeeteth his son should acquaint him with the present emptiness of his purse and with the difficulty he hath now to grapple with; so god our father expects that we should plead by christ our need at the throne of grace, in order to a supply of grace. "let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." then i saw in my dream that the interpreter took christian by the hand, and led him into a place where was a fire burning against a wall, and one standing by it always casting much water upon it to quench it; yet did the fire burn higher and hotter. then said christian, "what means this?" the interpreter answered, "this fire is the work of grace that is wrought in the heart; he that casts water upon it to extinguish and put it out, is the devil; but in that thou seest the fire notwithstanding burn higher and hotter, thou shalt also see the reason of that." so he had him about to the backside of the wall, where he saw a man with a vessel of oil in his hand, of which he did also continually cast, but secretly, into the fire. then said christian, "what means this?" the interpreter answered, "this is christ, who continually with the oil of his grace maintains the work already begun in the heart; by the means of which, notwithstanding what the devil can do, the souls of his people prove gracious still. 2 cor. 12: 9. and in that thou sawest that the man stood behind the wall to maintain the fire; this is to teach thee that it is hard for the tempter to see how this work of grace is maintained in the soul." there is to be seen at the bottom of this holy river, the glory of god. we are saved, saved by grace, saved by grace through the redemption that is in christ, to the praise and glory of god. and what a good bottom is here. grace will not fail, christ has been sufficiently tried, and god will not lose his glory; therefore they that drink of this river, shall doubtless be saved; to wit, they that drink of it with a spiritual appetite to it. it pleased god, for the glory of his wisdom, to make this the way; to wit, to set up grace to reign. i have often thought, and sometimes said, if god will be pleased with any way, surely he will be pleased with his own. now this is the way of his own devising, the fruit and effect of his own wisdom. wherefore, sinner, please him, please him in that wherein he is well pleased; come to the waters, cast thyself into them and fear not drowning; let god alone to cause them to carry thee into his paradise, that thou mayest see his throne. let us take notice of the carriage of god to man, and again of man to god, in his conversion. first, of god's carriage to man. he comes to him while he is in his sins; he comes to him now, not in the heat and fire of his jealousy, but in the cool of the day, in unspeakable gentleness, mercy, pity, and love--not in clothing himself with vengeance, but in a way of entreaty, and meekly beseecheth the sinner to be reconciled unto him. 2 cor. 5: 19, 20. it is expected among men, that he who gives the offence, should be the first in seeking peace; but, sinner, betwixt god and man it is not so: not that we loved god, not that we chose god; but god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. god is the first that seeketh peace; and in a way of entreaty, he bids his ministers pray you in christ's stead: "as if god did beseech you by us, we pray you in christ's stead, be ye reconciled to god." o sinner, wilt thou not open? behold, god the father and his son jesus christ stand both at the door of thy heart, beseeching there for favor from thee, that thou wilt be reconciled to them; with the promise, if thou wilt comply, to forgive thee all thy sins. o grace, o amazing grace! to see a prince entreat a beggar to receive an alms, would be a strange sight; to see a king entreat the traitor to accept of mercy, would be a stranger sight than that; but to see god entreat a sinner, to hear christ say, "i stand at the door and knock, with a heart full and a heaven full of grace to bestow upon him that opens;" this is such a sight as dazzles the eyes of angels. what sayest thou now, sinner? is not this god rich in mercy? hath not this god great love for sinners? nay, further, that thou mayst not have any ground to think that all this is hut complimenting, there is also here declared, that "god hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of god in him." if god would have stuck at any thing, it would have been at the death of his son; but he delivered him up for us freely: how shall he not then with him freely give us all things? let us now come to the carriage of these sinners to god, and that from the first day he begins to deal with their souls, even to the time that they are to be taken up into heaven. 1. and to begin with god's ordinary dealing with sinners: when at first he ministers conviction to them by his word, how strangely do they behave themselves. they love not to have their consciences touched; they like not to ponder upon what they have been, what they are, or what is like to become of them hereafter: such thoughts they count unmanly and hurtful. and now they are for any thing rather than the word: an alehouse, a playhouse, sports, pleasures, sleep, the world, and what not, so they may stave of the power of the word of god. 2. if god now comes up closer to them, and begins to fasten conviction upon the conscience, though such convictions be the first step to faith and repentance, yea, to life eternal, yet what shifts will they have to forget them and wear them off! yea, although they now begin to see that they must either turn or turn, yet ofttimes they will study to waive a present conversion. they object, they are too young to turn yet; seven years hence is time enough; when they are old, or come upon a sick bed. o what an enemy is man to his own salvation! i am persuaded that god has visited some of you often with his word, and you have thrown water, as fast as he hath by the word cast fire, upon your conscience. christian, what had become of thee, if god had taken thy denial for an answer, and said, "then will i carry the word of salvation to another, and he will hear it?" "sinner, turn!" says god. "lord, i cannot attend to it," says the sinner. "turn or burn," says god. "i will venture that," says the sinner. "turn and be saved," says god. "i cannot leave my pleasures," says the sinner; "sweet sins, sweet pleasures, sweet delights," says the sinner. but what grace is it in god thus to parley with the sinner! o the patience of god to a poor sinner! what if god should now say, "then get thee to thy sins, get thee to thy delights, get thee to thy pleasures, take them for thy portion; they shall be all thy heaven, all thy happiness, all thy portion?" 3. but god comes again, and shows the sinner the necessity of turning now or not at all; yea, and giveth the sinner this conviction so strongly that he cannot put it if. but behold, the sinner has one spark of enmity still: if he must needs turn now, he will either turn from one sin to another, from great ones to little ones, from many to few, or from all to one, and there stop. but perhaps convictions will not thus leave him. why, then he will turn from profaneness to the law of moses, and will dwell as long as god will let him, upon his own seeming goodness. and now observe him, he is a great stickler for legal performance; now he will be a good neighbor, he will pay every man his own, will leave off his swearing, the ale-house, his sports, and carnal delights; he will read, pray, talk of scripture, and be a very busy one in religion, such as it is; now he will please god, and make him amends for all the wrong he has done him, and will feed him with chapters, and prayers, and promises, and vows, and a great many more such dainty dishes as these; persuading himself that now he must be fair for heaven, and thinks besides that he serveth god as well as any man: but all this while he is as ignorant of christ as the stool he sits on, and no nearer heaven than was the blind pharisee, only he has got in a cleaner way to hell than the rest of his neighbors are. might not god now cast off this sinner, and cast him out of his sight? might he not leave him to his own choice, to be deluded by and to fall in his own righteousness, because he trusts to it and commits iniquity? but grace, preventing grace preserves him. it is true, this turn of the sinner is a turning short of christ. but, 4. god in this way of the sinner will mercifully follow him, and show him the shortness of his performances, the emptiness of his duties, and the uncleanness of his righteousness. this i speak of the sinner, the salvation of whose soul is graciously intended and contrived of god; for he shall by gospel light be wearied out of all; he shall be made to see the vanity of all, and that the personal righteousness of jesus christ, and that only, is it which of god is ordained to save the sinner from the due reward of his sins. but behold, the sinner now, at the sight and sense of his own nothingness, falleth into a kind of despair; for although he hath it in him to presume of salvation through the delusiveness of his own good opinion of himself, yet he hath it not in himself to have a good opinion of the grace of god in the righteousness of christ. wherefore he concludeth that if salvation be alone of the grace of god through the righteousness of christ, and all of a man's own is utterly rejected as to the justification of his person with god, then he is cast away. now, the reason of this sinking of heart is the sight that god has given him--a sight of the uncleanness of his best performance. the former sight of his immoralities did somewhat distress him, and make him betake himself to his own good deeds to ease his conscience; wherefore this was his prop, his stay. but behold, now god has taken this from under him, and now he falls. wherefore his best doth also now forsake him, and fly away like the morning dew. besides, this revelation of the emptiness of his own righteousness brings also with it a further discovery of the naughtiness of his heart, in its hypocrisies, pride, unbelief, hardness of heart, deadness, and backwardness to all gospel obedience; which sight of himself lies like millstones upon his shoulders, and sinks him yet further into doubts and fears of damnation. for bid him now receive christ; he answers, he cannot, he dares not. ask him why he cannot; he will answer, he has no faith nor hope in his heart. tell him that grace is offered him freely; he says, "but i have no heart to receive it." besides, he finds not, as he thinks, any gracious disposition in his soul, and therefore concludes he does not belong to god's mercy, nor has an interest in the blood of christ, and therefore dares not presume to believe. wherefore he sinks in his heart, he dies in his thoughts, he doubts, he despairs, and concludes he shall never be saved. 5. but behold, the god of all grace leaves him not in this distress, but comes up now to him closer than ever; he sends the spirit of adoption, the blessed comforter, to him to tell him god is love, and therefore not willing to reject the broken in heart; bids him cry and pray for an evidence of mercy to his soul, and says, "peradventure you may be hid in the day of the lord's anger." at this the sinner takes some encouragement; yet he can get no more than that which will hang upon a mere probability, which, by the next doubt that ariseth in the heart, is blown quite away, and the soul left again in its first plight, or worse; where he lamentably bewails his miserable state, and is tormented with a thousand fears of perishing; for he hears not a word from heaven, perhaps for several weeks together. wherefore unbelief begins to get the mastery of him, and takes off the very edge and spirit, of prayer, and inclination to hear the word any longer; yea, the devil also claps in with these thoughts, saying, "all your prayers, and hearing, and reading, and godly company, which you frequent, will rise up in judgment against you at last; therefore better it is, if you must be damned, to choose as easy a place in hell as you can." the soul at this being quite discouraged, thinks to do as it has been taught, and with dying thoughts it begins to faint when it goes to prayer or to hear the word. but behold, when all hope seems to be quite gone, and the soul concludes, "i die, i perish," in comes on a sudden the spirit of god again, with some good word of god which the soul never thought of before; which word of god commands a calm in the soul, makes unbelief give place, encourages to hope and wait upon god again: perhaps it gives some little sight of christ to the soul, and of his blessed undertaking for sinners. but behold, so soon as the power of things again begins to wear off the heart, the sinner gives place to unbelief, questions god's mercy, and fears damning again. he also entertains hard thoughts of god and christ, and thinks former encouragements were fancies, delusions, or mere think-sos. and why doth not god now cast the sinner to hell, for thus abusing his mercy and grace? o no: "he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he will have compassion on whom he will have compassion;" wherefore goodness and mercy shall follow him all the days of his life, that he may dwell in the house of the lord for ever. 6. god, therefore, after all these provocations, comes by his spirit to the soul again, and brings sealing grace and pardon to the conscience, testifying to it that its sins are forgiven and that freely, for the sake of the blood of christ. and now has the sinner such a sight of the grace of god in christ, as kindly breaks his heart with joy and comfort. now the soul knows what it is to eat promises; it also knows what it is to eat and drink the flesh and blood of jesus christ by faith; now it is driven by the power of his grace to its knees, to thank god for forgiveness of sins and for hopes of an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith which is in christ; now it has a calm and a sunshine; now "he washes his steps with butter, and the rock pours him out rivers of oil." 7. but after this, perhaps the soul grows cold again; it also forgets the grace received, and waxes carnal; begins again to hanker after the world; loseth the life and savor of heavenly things; grieves the spirit of god; wofully backslides; casteth off closet duties quite, or else retains only the formality of them; is a reproach to religion, and grieves the heart of them that are awake and tender of god's name. but what will god now do? will he take this advantage to destroy the sinner? no. will he let him alone in his apostasy? no. will he leave him to recover himself by the strength of his now languishing grace? no. what then? why, he will seek this man out till he finds him, and bring him home to himself again: "for thus saith the lord god, behold i, even i, will both search my sheep, and seek them out, as a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among the sheep that are scattered; so will i seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered. i will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away; i will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick." ezek. 34:11-16. of god's ordinary way of fetching the backslider home i will not now discourse; namely, whether he always breaketh his bones for his sins, as he broke david's, or whether he will all the days of his life for this leave him under guilt and darkness; or whether he will kill him now, that he may not be condemned in the day of judgment, as he dealt with them at corinth. i cor. 11: 30-32. god is wise, and can tell how to imbitter backsliding to them he loveth. he can break their bones and save them; he can lay them in the lowest pit, in darkness and the deep, and save them; he can slay them as to this life, and save them. and herein appears wonderful grace, that israel is not forsaken. 8. but suppose god deals not either of these ways with the backslider, but shines upon him again, and seals up to him the remission of his sins a second time, saying, "i will heal their backslidings, and love them freely." what will the soul do now? surely it will walk humbly now, and holily all its days. it will never backslide again, will it? it may happen it will not; it may happen it will. it is just as his god keeps him; for although his sins are of himself, his standing is of god; i say, his standing while he stands, and his recovery if he falls, are both of god. wherefore, if god leaves him a little, the next gap he finds, away he is gone again: "my people," says god, "are bent to backsliding from me." here is grace. so many times as the soul backslides, so many times god brings him back again--i mean the soul that must be saved by grace; he renews his pardons and multiplies them. yea, for aught i know, there are some saints, and they not long-lived either, that must receive, before they enter into life, millions of pardons from god for these; and every pardon is an act of grace, through the redemption that is in christ's blood. the first step to the cure of a wounded conscience is for thee to know the grace of god, especially the grace of god as to justification. grace can pardon our ungodliness and justify us with christ's righteousness; it can put the spirit of jesus christ within us; it can help us when we are down; it can heal us when we are wounded; it can multiply pardons, as we through frailty multiply transgressions. grace abused. a self-righteous man, a man of the law, takes grace and mercy for his greatest enemy. the best of things that are of this world are some way hurtful. honey is hurtful, wine is hurtful, silver and gold are hurtful; but grace is not hurtful. never did man yet catch harm by the enjoyment and fulness of the grace of god. there is no fear of excess or surfeiting here. grace makes no man proud, no man wanton, no man haughty, no man careless or negligent as to his duty that is incumbent upon him, towards either god or man. no; grace keeps a man low in his own eyes, humble, self-denying, penitent, watchful, savory in good things, charitable: and makes him kindly affectioned to the brethren, pitiful and courteous to all men. true, there are men in the world that abuse the grace of god, as some are said to turn it into wantonness and into lasciviousness. but this is not because grace has any such tendency, but because such men are themselves empty of grace, and have only done as death and hell have done with wisdom, "heard the fame thereof with their ears." some receive the rain of god and the droppings of his clouds, because they continually sit under the means of grace. but alas, they receive it as stones receive showers, or as dunghills receive the rain: they either abide as hard as stones still, or else return nothing to heaven for his mercy, hut as dunghills do, a company of stinking fumes. to slight grace, to do despite to the spirit of grace, to prefer our own works, thus derogating from grace---what is it but to contemn god? to contemn him when he is on the throne, when he is on the throne of his glory? i say again, it is to spit in his face, even then when he commands thee to how before him, to be subject unto him, and to glorify the grace of his glory, that proceeds from the throne of his glory. if men in old time were damned because they glorified him not as god, shall not they be more than damned, if more than damned can he, who glorify him not for his grace? and, to he sure, none glorify him for his grace but those that close in therewith, and submit themselves thereto. talkers of grace are but mockers of god, but flatterers of god. grace god has exalted; has set it upon the throne, and so made it a king, and given it authority to reign; and thou goest by and nearest thereof, but wilt not submit thyself thereto, neither thy soul, nor thy life. why, what is this more than to flatter god with thy lips, and than to lie unto him with thy tongue? what is this but to count him less wise than thyself, while he seeks glory by that by which thou wilt not glorify him---while he displays his grace before thee in the world from the throne, and as thou goest by, with a nod thou callest it a fine thing, but followest that which leadeth therefrom? tremble, tremble, ye sinners, that have despised the riches of his goodness. the day is coming when ye shall behold and wonder and perish, if grace prevaileth not with you to be content to be saved by it to the praise of its glory, and to the glory of him who hath set it upon the throne. acts 13: 38-41. there is a spring that yields water good and clear, but the channels through which this water comes to us are muddy, foul, or dirty; now of the channels the waters receive a disadvantage, and so come to us as savoring of what came not with them from the fountain, hut from the channels. this is the cause of the coolness, and of the weakness, and of the flatness, and of the many extravagances that attend some of our desires: they come warm from the spirit and grace of god in us; hut as hot water running through cold pipes, or as clear water running through dirty convey ances, so our desires gather soil. grace--the water of life. "and he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of god and of the lamb." rev. 22: 1. this "water of life" is the spirit and grace of god, and the spirit of life. zech. 12: 10; john 4: 10, 11, 14; 7: 37-39; rev. 11: 11. a throne is the seat of justice: "justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne." psal. 89: 14. and it is also from justice that this river of grace flows to us: justice to christ, and justice to those that are found in him. rom. 3: 24. god declares that he can justly justify, justly forgive: now, if he can justly justify and justly forgive, then can he give grace and cause that it should proceed to, yea, flow after us as a river. but whence must this come? the text says, from the throne--from the throne, the seat of justice; for from thence, by reason of what he hath found in christ for us, he in a way of righteousness and justice lets out to us rivers of his pleasures, whoso original is that great and wide sea of mercy that flows in his infinite heart beyond thought. there is a river, clear and pleasant, the streams whereof make glad the city of god. these are the waters that the doves love to sit by, because by the clearness of these streams they can see their pretty selves as in a glass. song 5: 12. these he the streams where the doves wash their eyes, and by which they solace themselves and take great content. these streams are instead of a looking-glass; their clearness presents us with an opportunity of seeing our own features. as in fair waters a man may see the hody of the sun, and of the moon, and of the stars, and the very body of heaven; so ho that stands upon the bank of this river, and that washeth his eyes with this water, may see the son of god, the stars of god, the glory of god, and the habitation that god has prepared for his people. and are not these pleasant sights? is not this excellent water? has not this river pleasant streams? some men fly from the "river of the water of life," as from a bear; arid some are afraid to drink of it, for fear it should he poison unto them. some again, dare not take it, because it is not mixed, and as they, poor souls, imagine, qualified and made toothsome by a little of that which is called the wisdom of this world. thus one shucks, another shrinks, and another will none of god. meanwhile, whoso shall please to look into this river, shall find it harmless and clear; yea, offering itself to the consciences of all men to make trial if it be not the only chief good, the only necessary waters, the only profitable for the health of the soul, of all the things that are in the world, and as clear of mischief as is the sun of spots. in old times the ancients had their habitations by the rivers; yea, we read of aroer, that stood upon the brink of the river arnon. balaam also had his dwelling in his city pethor, by the river of the land of the children of his people. o, by the river side is the pleasantest dwelling in the world; and of all rivers, the river of the water of life is the best. they that dwell there shall not hunger nor thirst, neither shall the heat or sun smite them; for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by springs of water shall he guide them. isa. 49: 10; psal. 1: 3; jer. 17: 8. trees planted by the rivers, and that spread out their roots by the rivers, they are the flourishing trees, they bring forth their fruit in their season. and the promise is, that men that take up their dwellings by this river of water of life, shall be fruitful as such trees. if thou be a christian, thou hast more than an ordinary call and occasion to abide by these waters; thy things will not grow but by these waters. weeds, and the excellences of most men, we may find in the barren wilderness; they grow under every hedge, jer. 31: 12; but thine are garden, and so choice, things, and will not thrive without much water; no, not without the water of god's river. isa. 21: 1-3. dwell therefore here, that thy soul may be as a watered garden. by the characters that are given of this water of life, thou art capacitated to judge, when a notion, a doctrine, an opinion comes to thy ears, whether it is right good and wholesome, or how. this river is pure, is clear, is pure and clear as crystal. is the doctrine offered unto thee so? or is it muddy and mixed with the doctrines of men? look, man, and see if the foot of the worshippers of bel [footnote: story of bel and the dragon in the apychrypha.] be not there; and if the waters be not fouled thereby. what water is fouled is not the water of life, or at least, not the water of life in its clearness. wherefore, if thou findest it not right, go up higher to the spring-head; for always the nearer to the spring, the more pure and clear is the water. fetch then thy doctrine from afar, if thou canst not have it good nearer hand. job 36: 3. thy life lies at stake; the counterfeit of things is dangerous; every body that is aware, is afraid thereof. now a counterfeit here is most dangerous, is most destructive; wherefore take heed how you hear what you hear; for, as men say of the fish, by your color it will be seen what waters you swim in. wherefore look you well to yourselves. the grace of god is called a river, to show that it is only suited to those who are capable of living therein. water, though it is that which every creature desireth, yet is not an element in which every creature can live. who is it that would not have the benefit of grace, of a throne of grace? but who is it that can live by grace? even none but those whose temper and constitution is suited to grace. hence, as the grace of god is compared to a river, so those that live by grace are compared to fish; for that, as water is that element in which the fish liveth, so grace is that which is the life of the saint. "and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither; for they shall he healed, and every thing shall live whither the river cometh." ezek. 47: 9. art thou a fish, man--art thou a fish? canst thou live in the water? canst thou live always, and nowhere else hut in the water? is grace thy proper element? the fish dieth if she be taken out of the water, unless she be timely put in again; the saint dieth if he be not in this river. take him from his river, and nothing can make him live; let him have water, water of life enough, and nothing can make him die. i know that there are some things besides fish that can make a shift to live in the water; but the water is not their proper, their only proper element. the frog can live in the water, but not in the water only; the otter can live in the water, hut not in the water only. give some men grace and the world, grace and sin--admit them to make use of their lusts for pleasure, and of grace to remove their guilt, and they will make a pretty good shift, as we say; they will finely scrabble on in a profession. but hold them to grace only, confine their life to grace, put them into the river and let them have nothing hut river, and they die; the word, and way, and nature of grace, is to them as light bread, and their soul can do no other but loathe it, for they are not suited and tempered for that element. vii. christ. the incarnation of christ. the first main design of the life and conversation of the lord jesus, was that thereby god, the eternal majesty, according to his promise, might be seen by, and dwell with, mortal men. for the godhead being altogether in its own nature invisible, and yet desirous to be seen by and dwell with the children of men, therefore was the son, who is the self-same substance with the father, clothed with or tabernacled in our flesh, that in that flesh the nature and glory of the godhead might be seen by and dwell with us. "the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory;" what glory? "the glory as of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth." again, "the life"--that is, the life of god in the works and conversation of christ--"was manifest, and we have seen it and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the father and was manifested unto us." and hence he is called the image of the invisible god; or he by whom the invisible god is most perfectly presented to the sons of men. did i say before that the god of glory is desirous to be seen of us? even so also have the pure in heart a desire that it should be so. "lord," say they, "show us the father, and it sufficeth us." and therefore the promise is for their comfort, that "they shall see god." but how then must they see him? why, in the person, and by the life and works of jesus, when philip, under a mistake, thought of seeing god some other way than in and by this lord jesus christ, what is the answer? "have i been so long time with you," saith christ, "and hast thou not known me, philip? he that hath seen me, hath seen the father; and how sayest thou then, show us the father? believest thou not that i am in the father, and the father in me? the words that i speak unto you, i speak not of myself; hut the father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. believe me that i am in the father, and the father in me, or else believe me for the very work's sake." see, here, that both the words and works of the lord jesus were not to show you, and so to call you back to the holiness we had lost, but to give us visions of the perfections that are in the father. "he hath given us the knowledge of the glory of god in the face of jesus christ." and hence it is that the apostle, in that brief collection of the wonderful mystery of godliness, places this in the front thereof: "god was manifest in the flesh"--was manifested in and by the person of christ, when in the flesh he lived among us; manifest, i say, for this as one reason, that the pure in heart, who long after nothing more, might see him. "i beseech thee," said moses, "show me thy glory." "and will god indeed dwell with men on the earth?" saith solomon. though adam be called the image or similitude of god, yet but so as that he was the shadow of a more excellent image. adam was a type of christ, who only is the express image of his father's person, and the likeness of his excellent glory; for those things that were in adam were but of a human, but of a created substance; but those things that were in christ, of the same divine and eternal excellency with the father. is christ then the image of the father, simply as considered of the same divine and eternal excellency with him? certainly not; for an image is doubtless inferior to that of which it is a figure. understand, then, that christ is the image of the father's glory, as born of the virgin mary, yet so as being very god also: not that his godhead in itself was a shadow or image, but by the acts and doing of that man, every act being infinitely perfect by virtue of his godhead, the father's perfections were made manifest to flesh. an image is to be looked upon, and by being looked upon, another thing is seen; so by the person and doings of the lord jesus, they that indeed could see him as he was, discovered the perfection and glory of the father. "philip, he that hath seen me, hath seen the father; and how sayest thou then, show us the father?" neither the father nor the son can by us at all be seen, as they are simply and entirely in their own essence. therefore the person of the father must be seen by us through the son, as consisting of god and man; the godhead, by working effectually in the manhood, showing clearly there through the infinite perfection and glory of the father. "the word was made flesh, and" then "we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of his father"--he being in his personal excellencies, infinitely and perfectly, what is recorded of his father, "full of grace and truth." when jesus christ came down from glory, it was that he might bring us to glory; and that he might be sure not to fail, he clothed himself with our nature--as if we should take a piece out of the whole lump instead of the whole, heb. 11:l4--and invested it with that glory which he was in before he came down from heaven. eph. 2:6. the humanity of christ. we perceive love, in that the human nature, the nature of man, not of angels, is taken into union with god. whoso could consider this as it is possible for it to be considered, would stand amazed till he died with wonder. by this very act of the heavenly wisdom we have an inconceivable pledge of the love of christ to man; for in that he hath taken into union with himself our nature, what doth it signify but that he intends to take into union with himself our persons? for this very purpose did he assume our nature. wherefore we read that in the flesh he took upon him, in that flesh he died for us, "the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to god." the psalmist saith of christ, that "he was fairer than the children of men;" and that, as i believe in his outward man as well as in his inward part, he was the exactest, purest, completest, and beautifulest creature that ever god made, till his visage was so marred by his persecutions; for in all things he had, and shall have the preeminence. the humiliation of christ christ did not only come into our flesh, but also into our condition, into the valley and shadow of death, where we were, and where we are, as we are sinners. that which would have been death to some--the laying aside of glory, and the king of princes becoming a servant of the meanest form--this he of his own goodwill was heartily content to do. wherefore he that was once the object of the fear of angels, is now become a little creature, a worm, an inferior one, born of a woman, brought forth in a stable, laid in a manger, scorned of men, tempted of devils, was beholden to his creatures for food, for raiment, for harbor, and a place wherein to lay his head when dead. in a word, he made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, that he might become capable to do this kindness for us, to give himself a ransom for us. and it is worth your noting, that all the while that he was in the world, putting himself upon those other preparations which were to be antecedent to his being made a sacrifice for us, no man, though he told what he came about to many, had, as we read of, a heart once to thank him for what he came about. no; they railed on him they degraded him, they called him devil, they said he was mad and a deceiver, a blasphemer of god and a rebel against the state; they accused him to the governor; yea, one of his own disciples sold him, another denied him, and they all forsook him, and left him to shift for himself in the hands of his horrible enemies, who beat him with their fists, spat on him, mocked him, crowned him with thorns, scourged him, made a gazing-stock of him, and finally, hanged him up by the hands and feet alive, and gave him vinegar to increase his affliction, when he complained that his anguish had made him thirsty. and yet all this could not take his heart off the work of our redemption. to die he came, die he would, and die he did, before he made his return to the father, for our sins, that we might live through him. when christ betook himself to his ministry, he lived upon the charity of the people; when other men went to their own houses, jesus went to the mount of olives. the glory of christ. christ is rich indeed, both in his blood, resurrection, intercession, and all his offices, together with his relations, and all his benefits; all which he bestoweth upon every one that receiveth him, and maketh them unspeakably wealthy. the pearl, as it is rich, and so worth much, so again it is beautiful and amiable, even to take the eyes of all beholders; it hath, i say, a very sweet and sparkling light and glory in it, enough to take the eye and affect the heart of all those that look upon it. and thus is christ to all that come to him, and by him to the father. "my beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest of ten thousand; his mouth is most sweet, he is altogether lovely." the love of christ. here is love, that god sent his son, his darling, his son that never offended, his son that was always his delight. herein is love, that he sent him to save sinners; to save them by bearing their sins, by bearing their curse, by dying their death, and by carrying their sorrows. here is love, in that while we were yet enemies, christ died for us; yea, here is love, in that while we were yet without strength, christ died for the ungodly. oh, blessed jesus, how didst thou discover thy love to man in thy thus suffering! and, o god the father, how didst thou also declare the purity and exactness of thy justice, in that, though it was thine only, holy, innocent, harmless, and undefiled son jesus, that did take on him our nature and represent our persons, answering for our sins instead of ourselves; thou didst so wonderfully pour out thy wrath upon him, to the making of him cry out, "my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" and, o lord jesus, what a glorious conquest hast thou made over the enemies of our souls--even wrath, sin, death, hell, and devils--in that thou didst wring thyself from under the power of them all. and not only so, but hast led them captive which would have led us captive; and also hast received for us that glorious and unspeakable inheritance that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. the great bringer of the gospel is the good lord jesus christ himself; he came and preached peace to them that the law proclaimed war against. and to touch a little upon the dress in which, by the gospel, christ presents himself unto us, while he offers unto sinful souls his peace by the tenders thereof: he is set forth as born for us, to save our souls. isa. 9:6; luke 2:9-12; 1 cor. 15:3; gal. 3:13; rom 10:4; dan. 9:24. he is set forth before us as bearing our sins for us, and suffering god's wrath for us. he is set forth before us as fulfilling the law for us, and as bringing everlasting righteousness to us for our covering. again, as to the manner of his working out the salvation of sinners for them, that they might have peace and joy, and heaven and glory for ever: he is set forth as sweating blood while he was in his agony, wrestling with the thoughts of death, while he was to suffer for our sins, that he might save the soul. luke 22:24. he is set forth as crying, weeping, and mourning under the lashes of justice that he put himself under, and was willing to bear for our sins. he is set forth as betrayed, apprehended, condemned, spit on, scourged, buffeted, mocked, crowned with thorns, crucified, pierced with nails and a spear, to save the soul from being betrayed by the devil and sin; to save it from being apprehended by justice and condemned by the law; to save it from being spit on in a way of contempt by holiness; to save it from being scourged with guilt of sins as with scorpions; to save it from being continually buffeted by its own conscience; to save it from being mocked at by god; to save it from being crowned with ignominy and shame for ever; to save it from dying the second death; to save it from wounds and grief for ever. dost thou understand me, sinful soul? he wrestled with justice, that thou mightest have rest; he wept and mourned, that thou mightst laugh and rejoice; he was betrayed, that thou mightest go free; was apprehended, that thou mightst escape; he was condemned, that thou mightst be justified, and was killed, that thou mightest live; he wore a crown of thorns, that thou mightest wear a crown of glory; and was nailed to the cross with his arms wide open, to show with what freeness all his merits shall be bestowed on the coming soul, and how heartily he will receive it into his bosom. all this he did of mere good-will, and offers the benefit thereof unto thee freely. yea, he comes unto thee in the word of the gospel, with the blood running down from his head upon his face, with his tears abiding upon his cheeks, as with the holes fresh in his hands and his feet, and as with the blood still bubbling out of his side, to pray thee to accept of the benefit, and to be reconciled to god thereby. by this we may see his love, in that as a forerunner he is gone into heaven to take possession thereof for us; there to make ready and prepare for us our summer-houses, our mansions and dwelling-places; as if we were the lords, and he the servant. oh, this love! thou son of the blessed, what grace was manifest in thy condescension! grace brought thee down from heaven; grace stripped thee of thy glory; grace made thee poor and despicable; grace made thee bear such burdens of sin, such burdens of sorrow, such burdens of god's curse as are unspeakable. o son of god, grace was in all thy tears; grace came bubbling out of thy side with thy blood; grace came forth with every word of thy sweet mouth; grace came out where the whip smote thee, where the thorns pricked thee, where the nails and spear pierced thee. o blessed son of god, here is grace indeed! unsearchable riches of grace! unthought of riches of grace! grace to make angels wonder, grace to make sinners happy, grace to astonish devils! and what will become of them that trample under foot this son of god? christ is the desire of nations, the joy of angels, the delight of the father. what solace then must that soul be filled with, that hath the possession of him to all eternity. who can tell how many heart-pleasing thoughts christ had of us before the world began? who can tell how much he then was delighted in that being we had in his affections, as also in the consideration of our beings, believings, and being with him afterwards? christ was never so joyful in all his life, that we read of, as when his sufferings grew near; then he takes the sacrament of his body and blood into his own hands, and with thanksgiving bestows it among his disciples; then he sings a hymn, then he rejoices, then he comes with a "lo, i come." o the heart, the great heart that jesus had for us to do us good! he did it with all the desire of his soul. when a man shall not only design me a purse of gold, but shall venture his life to bring it to me, this is grace indeed. but, alas, what are a thousand such short comparisons to the unsearchable love of christ? christ jesus has bags of mercy that were never yet broken up or unsealed. hence it is said, he has goodness laid up; things reserved in heaven for his. and if he breaks up one of these bags, who can tell what he can do? it is not exaltation, nor a crown, nor a kingdom, nor a throne that shall make christ neglect his poor ones on earth; yea, because he is exalted and on the throne, therefore it is that such a river of life, with its golden streams, proceeds with us. and it shall proceed, to be far higher than ever were the swellings of jordan. rev. 22:1. how the brave sun doth peep up from beneath, shows us his golden face, doth on us breathe; yea, he doth compass us around with glories whilst he ascends up to his highest stories, where he his banner over us displays and gives us light to see our works and ways. nor are we now, as at the peep of light, to question is it day or is it night; the night is gone, the shadow's fled away, and now we are most certain that 'tis day. and thus it is when jesus shows his face, and doth assure us of his love and grace. this makes christ precious, if i consider how he did deliver me: it was, i, with his life, his blood; it cost him tears, groans, agony, separation from god; to do it, he endured his father's wrath, bare his father's curse, and died thousands of deaths at once. 2. he did this while i was his enemy, without my desires, without my knowledge, without my deserts; he did it unawares to me. 3. he did it freely, cheerfully, yea, he longed to die for me; yea, heaven would not hold him for the love he had to my salvation, which also he has effectually accomplished for me at jerusalem. honorable jesus! precious jesus! loving jesus! jonathan's kindness captivated david, and made him precious in his eyes for ever. "i am distressed for thee, my brother jonathan," said he; "very pleasant hast thou been to me; thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." why, what had jonathan done? oh, he had delivered david from the wrath of saul. but how much more should he be precious to me, who hath saved me from death and hell--who hath delivered me from the wrath of god? "the love of christ constraineth us." nothing will so edge the spirit of a christian as, "thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to god by thy blood." this makes the heavens themselves ring with joy and shouting. the day, before the sun-rising. but all this while, where's he whose golden rays drive night away, and beautify our days? where's he whose goodly face doth warm and heal, and show us what the darksome nights conceal? where's he that thaws our ice, drives cold away? let's have him, or we care not for the day. thus 'tis with those who are possessed of grace; there's naught to them like the redeemer's face. oh thou loving one, oh thou blessed one, thou descrvest to have me; thou hast bought me; thou deservest to have me all; thou hast paid for me ten thousand times more than i am worth! o you that are upon this march [to hell,] i beseech you, consider a little. what, shall christ become a servant for you, and will you be drudges for the devil? shall christ covenant with god for the salvation of sinners, and shall sinners covenant with hell, death, and the devil, for the damnation of their souls? shall christ come down from heaven to earth to declare this to sinners; and shall sinners stop their ears against these good tidings? will you not hear the errand of christ, although he telleth you tidings of peace and salvation? how if he had come, having taken a command from his father to damn you and to send you to dwell with devils in hell? sinners, hear this message, john 3: 16, 17, etc.; he speaketh no harm, his words are eternal life; all men that give ear unto them have eternal advantage by them-advantage, i say, that never hath an end. besides, do but consider these two things; they may have some sway upon thy soul. 1. when he came on his message, he came with tears in his eyes, and did even weepingly tender the terms of reconciliation to them--i say, with tears in his eyes. and when he came near the city with the message of peace, beholding the hardness of their hearts, he wept over it, and took up a lamentation over it, because he saw they rejected his mercy, which was tidings of peace. i say, wilt thou then slight a weeping jesus, one that so loveth the soul that rather than he will lose thee, he will with tears persuade thee? 2. not only so, but also when he came, he came all on a gore of blood, to proffer mercy to thee, to show thee still how dearly he did love thee; as if he had said, "sinner, here is mercy for thee; but behold my bloody sweat, my bloody wounds, my accursed death; behold, and see what danger i have gone through to come unto thy soul. i am come indeed unto thee, and do bring thee tidings of salvation, but it cost me my heart's blood before i could come at thee, to give thee the fruits of my everlasting love." the righteousness of christ. many there are who, in the day of grace and mercy, despise those things which are indeed the birthright to heaven, who yet when the declining days appear will cry as loud as esau, "lord, lord, open to us;" but then, as isaac would not repent, no more will god the father, but will say, "i have blessed these, yea, and they shall be blessed; but as for you, depart, you are workers of iniquity." when i had thus considered these scriptures and found that thus to understand them was not against, but according to the scriptures, this still added further to my encouragement and comfort, and also gave a great blow to that objection--to wit, that the scriptures could not agree in the salvation of my soul. and now remained only the hinder part of the tempest, for the thunder was gone beyond me, only some drops did still remain that now and then would fall upon me; but because my former frights and anguish were very sore and deep, therefore it oft befell me still, as it befalleth those that have been seared with the fire, i thought every voice was, "fire, fire'!" every little touch would hurt my tender conscience. but one day, as i was passing into the field, and that too with some dashes on my conscience, fearing lest yet all was not right, suddenly this sentence fell upon my soul: "thy righteousness is in heaven;" and methought withal i saw with the eyes of my soul jesus christ at god's right hand--there, i say, as my righteousness; so that wherever i was, or whatever i was doing, god could not say to me, he wanted my righteousness, for that was just before him. i also saw, moreover, that it was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better, nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse; for my righteousness was jesus christ himself, "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." now did my chains fall off my legs indeed; i was loosed frorn my afflictions and irons; my temptations also fled away; so that from that time those dreadful scriptures [footnote: numb. 15:30; jer. 7:16; heb. 10:31; 12:27.] of god left off to trouble me: now went i also home rejoicing, for the grace and love of god. so when i came home, i looked to see if i could find that sentence, "thy righteousness is in heaven," but could not find such a saying; wherefore my heart began to sink again, only that was brought to my remembrance, "he is made unto us of god wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption." by this word i saw the other sentence true. for by this scripture i saw that the man christ jesus, as he is distinct from us as touching his bodily presence, so he is our righteousness and sanctification before god. here, therefore, i lived for some time very sweetly at peace with god through christ. oh, methought, christ! christ! there was nothing but christ that was before my eyes. i was now not only for looking upon this and the other benefits of christ apart, as of his blood; burial, or resurrection, but considering him as a whole christ--as he in whom all these, and all his other virtues, relations, offices, and operations met together, and that he sat on the right hand of god in heaven. further, the lord did also lead me into the mystery of the union with the son of god--that i was joined to him, and that i was flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; and now was that a sweet word to me in eph. 5:30. by this also was my faith in him as my righteousness, the more confirmed in me; for if he and i were one, then his righteousness was mine, his merits mine, his victory also mine. now, i could see myself in heaven and earth at once: in heaven, by my christ, by my head, by my righteousness and life, though on earth by body or person. let divine and infinite justice turn itself which way it will, it finds one that can tell how to match it. for if it say, "i will require the satisfaction of man," there is a man to satisfy its cry; and if it say, "but i am an infinite god, and must and will have an infinite satisfaction," here is one also that is infinite, even "fellow" with god; fellow in his essence and being; fellow in his power and strength; fellow in his wisdom; fellow in his mercy and grace, together with the rest of the attributes of god. so that, let justice turn itself which way it will, here is a complete person and a complete satisfaction. "the law," sayst thou, "must be obeyed." i answer, "christ jesus has done that in his own person, and justified me thereby; and for my part, i will not labor now to fulfil the law for justification, lest i should undervalue the merits of the man christ jesus, and what he has done without me; and yet will i labor to fulfil, if it were possible, ten thousand laws, if there were so many. and oh, let it be out of love to my sweet lord jesus; for the love of christ constraineth me." though no man can be justified by the works of the law, yet unless the righteousness and holiness by which they attempt to enter into this kingdom be justified by the law, it is in vain once to think of entering in at this strait gate. now, the law justifieth not, but upon the account of christ's righteousness; if therefore thou be not indeed found in that righteousness, thou wilt find the law lie just in the passage into heaven to keep thee out. christ a complete saviour. "this is the father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, i should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." john 6:39. the father therefore, in giving them to him to save them, must needs declare unto us the following things: 1. that he is able to answer this design of god to save them to the uttermost sin, the uttermost temptation. hence he is said to "lay help on one that is mighty," mighty to save. sin is strong, satan is also strong, death and the grave are strong, and so is the curse of the law; therefore it follows, that this jesus must needs be by god the father accounted almighty, in that he hath given his elect to him to save them from these, and that in despite of all their force and power. and he gave us testimony of this his might, when he was employed in that part of our deliverance that called for a declaration of it. he abolished death; he destroyed him that had the power of death; he was the destruction of the grave; he hath finished sin, and made an end of it; he hath vanquished the curse of the law, nailed it to his cross, triumphed over them upon his cross, and made a show of these things openly. yea, and even now, as a sign of his triumph and conquest, he is alive from the dead, and hath the keys of death and hell in his own keeping. 2. the father's giving them to him to save them, declares unto us that he is and will be faithful in his office of mediator, and that therefore they shall be secured from the fruit and wages of their sins, which is eternal damnation. and of this the son hath already given a proof; for when the time was come that his blood was by divine justice required for their redemption, washing, and cleansing, he as freely poured it out of his heart as if it had been water out of a vessel; not sticking to part with his own life, that the life which was laid up for his people in heaven might not fail to be bestowed upon them. 3. the father's giving of them to him to save them, declares that he is and will be gentle and patient towards them under all their provocations and miscarriages. it is not to be imagined, the trials and provocations that the son of god hath all along had with these people that have been given to him to save. indeed, he is said to be a tried stone; for he has been tried not only by the devil, guilt of sin, death, and the curse of the law, but also by his people's ignorance, unruliness, falls into sin, and declining to errors in life and doctrine. were we but capable of seeing how this lord jesus has been tried, even by his people, ever since there was one of them in the world, we should be amazed at his patience and gentle carriages to them. it is said indeed, "the lord is very pitiful, slow to anger, and of great mercy." and indeed, if he had not been so, he could never have endured their manners as he has done, from adam hitherto. therefore are his pity and bowels towards his church preferred above the pity and bowels of a mother towards her child. "can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will i not forget thee, saith the lord." god did once give moses, as christ's servant, a handful of his people to carry them in his bosom, but no further than from egypt to canaan; and this moses, as is said of him by the holy ghost, was the meekest man that was then to be found upon the earth. god gave them to moses that he might carry them in his bosom, that he might show gentleness and patience towards them, under all the provocations wherewith they would provoke him from that time till he had brought them to their land. but he failed in the work; he could not exercise it, because he had not that sufficiency of patience towards them. but now it is said of the person speaking in the text, that "he shall gather his lambs with his arm, shall carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead them that are with young." 4. the father's giving them to him to save them, declares that he hath a sufficiency of wisdom to wage with all those difficulties that would attend him in his bringing his sons and daughters unto glory. he hath made him to us to be wisdom; yea, he is called wisdom itself. and god saith, moreover, that he "shall deal prudently." and indeed, he that shall take upon him to be the saviour of the people, had need be wise, because their adversaries are subtle above any. here they are to encounter the serpent, who for his subtlety outwitted our father and mother when their wisdom was at highest. but if we talk of wisdom, our jesus is wise, wiser than solomon, wiser than all men, wiser than all angels; he is even "the wisdom of god." and hence it is that he turneth sins, temptations, persecutions, falls, and all things, for good unto his people. i do not doubt but there is virtue enough in the blood of christ, would god almighty so apply it, to save the souls of the whole world. but it is the blood of christ, his own blood, and he may do what he will with his own. it is also the blood of god, and he also may restrain its merits, or apply it as he sees good. but the coming soul, he shall find and feel the virtue thereof, even the soul that comes to god by christ, for he is the man concerned in its worth. there is sufficiency of merit in christ to save a thousand times as many more as are like to be saved by him. no man needs at all to go about to come at life and peace and rest: let him come directly from sin to grace, from satan to jesus christ. the cross, it stands and hath stood from the beginning as a way-mark to the kingdom of heaven. art thou inquiring the way to heaven? why, i tell thee christ is the way; into him thou must get, into his righteousness to be justified; and if thou art in him, thou wilt presently see the cross: thou must go close by it, thou must touch it, nay, thou must take it up, or else thou wilt quickly go out of the way that leads to heaven, and turn up some of those crooked lanes that lead down to the chambers of death. many there be that begin with grace and end with works, and think that is the only way. indeed, works will save from temporal punishments, when their imperfections are purged from them by the intercession of christ; but to be saved and brought to glory, to be carried through this dangerous world from my first moving after christ until i set foot within the gates of paradise, this is the work of my mediator, of my high-priest and intercessor. it is he that fetches us again when we are run away; it is he that lifts us up when the devil and sin have thrown us down; it is he that quickens us when we grow cold; it is he that comforts us when we despair; it is he that obtains fresh pardon when we have contracted sin, and that purges our consciences when they are laden with guilt. i know that rewards do wait for them in heaven, that believe in christ, and shall do well on earth; but this is not a reward of merit, but of grace. we are saved by christ, brought to glory by christ, and all our works are no other ways made acceptable to god but by the person and personal excellencies and works of christ; therefore, whatever the jewels are, and the bracelets and the pearls, that thou shalt be adorned with as a reward of service done for god in the world, for them thou must thank christ, and before all confess that he was the meritorious cause thereof. christ must be helpful to thee every way, or he will be helpful to thee no way; thou must enter in by every whit of christ, or thou shalt enter in by never a whit of him. wherefore look not to have him thy saviour, if thou take him not for king and prophet; nay, thou shalt not have him in any one, if thou dost not take him in every one of these. christ shall bear the glory of our salvation from sin, preservation in the midst of all temptations, and of our going to glory; also he shall bear the glory of our labor in the gospel, of our gifts and abilities, of making our work and labor effectual to the saving of sinners, that in all things he might have the preeminence. if you have indeed laid christ, god-man, for your foundation, then you do lay the hope of your felicity and joy on this, that the son of mary is now absent from his children in his person and humanity, making intercession for them and for thee in the presence of his father. 2 cor. 5:6. and the reason that thou canst rejoice hereat is, because thou hast not only heard of it with thine ear, but dost enjoy the sweet hope and faith of it in thy heart; which hope and faith are begotten by the spirit of christ, which spirit dwelleth in thee if thou be a believer, and showeth those things to thee to be the only things. and god having shown thee these things thus within thee, by the spirit that dwells in thee, thou hast mighty encouragement to hope for the glory that shall be revealed at the coming again of the man christ jesus; of which glory thou hast also greater ground to hope for a share, because that spirit which alone is able to discover to thee the truth of these things, is given to thee of god as the first fruits of that glory which is hereafter to be revealed---being obtained for thee by the man christ jesus' death on calvary, and by his blood that was shed there, together with his resurrection from the dead out of the grave where they had laid him. also, thou believest that he is gone away from thee in the same body which was hanged on the cross, to take possession of that glory which thou, through his obedience, shalt at his the very same man's return from heaven the second time, have bestowed upon thee, he having all this while prepared and preserved it for thee; as he saith himself, "i go to prepare a place for you. and if i go and prepare a place for you, i will come again and receive you to myself; that where i am, there ye may be also." again, if thou hast laid christ, god-man, for thy foundation, though thou hast the spirit of this man christ within thee, yet thou dost not look that justification should be wrought out for thee by that spirit of christ that dwells within thee; for thou knowest that salvation is already obtained for thee by the man christ jesus without thee, and is witnessed to thee by his spirit which dwells within thee. and thus much doth this man christ jesus testify unto us, where he says, "he shall glorify me," saith the son of mary. but how? why, "he shall take of mine"---what i have done and am doing in the presence of the father--"and shall show it unto you." john 16:14. christ not a saviour by his example. a third thing you mention is, that "the son of god taught men their duty by his own example, and did himself perform what he required of them; and that himself did tread before us every step of that which he hath told us leadeth to eternal life." answer. now we are come to the point, namely, that "the way to eternal life is, first of all, to take christ for our example, treading his steps." and the reason, if it be true, is weighty; for "he hath trod every step before us which he hath told us leads to eternal life." "every step." therefore he went to heaven by virtue of an imputative righteousness; for this is one of our steps thither. "every step." then he must go thither by faith in his own blood for pardon of sin; for this is another of our steps thither. "every step." then he must go thither by virtue of his own intercession at the right hand of god before he came thither; for this is one of our steps thither. "every step." then he must come to god and ask mercy for some great wickedness which he had committed; for this is also one of our steps thither. but again, we will consider it the other way. "every step." then we cannot come to heaven before we first be made accursed of god; for so was he before he came thither. "every step." then we must first make our body and soul an offering for the sin of others; for this did he before he came thither. "every step." then we must go to heaven for the sake of our own righteousness; for that was one of his steps thither. o, sir, what will thy gallant, generous mind do here? indeed, you talk of his being an expiatory sacrifice for us, but you put no more trust to that than to baptism or the lord's supper; counting that with the other two but things indifferent in themselves. you add again, that "this son of god being raised from the dead and ascended to heaven, is our high-priest there." but you talk not at all of his sprinkling the mercy-seat with his blood, but clap upon him the heathens' demons, negotiating the affairs of men with the supreme god, and so wrap up [footnote: that is, dismiss the subject.] with a testification that it is needless to enlarge on the point. what man that ever had read or assented to the gospel, but would have spoken more honorably of christ than you have done? his sacrifice must be stepped over; his intercession is needless to be enlarged upon. but when it falleth in your way to talk of your human nature, of the dictates of the first principles of morals within you, and of your generous mind to follow it, oh what need there is now of amplifying, enlarging, and pressing it on men's consciences, as if that poor heathenish pagan principle was the very spirit of god within us, and as if righteousness done by that was that and that only that would or could fling heaven's gates off the hinges. yea, a little after you tell us that "the doctrine of sending the holy ghost was to move and excite us to our duty, and to assist, cheer, and comfort us in the performance of it;" still meaning our close adhering, by the purity of our human nature, to the dictates of the law as written in our hearts as men; which is as false as god is true. for the holy ghost is sent into our hearts, not to excite us to a compliance with our old and wind-shaken excellencies that came into the world with us, but to write new laws in our hearts, even the law of faith, the word of faith and of grace, and the doctrine of remission of sins through the blood of the lamb of god, that holiness might flow from thence. christ a teacher. at this time i sat under the ministry of holy mr. gifford. whose doctrine, by god's grace, was much for my stability. this man made it much his business to deliver the people of god from all those hard and unsound tests that by nature we are prone to. he would bid us take special heed that we took not up any truth upon trust, as from this or that or any other man or men; but cry mightily to god that he would convince us of the reality thereof, and set us down therein by his own spirit in the holy word; "for," said he, "if you do otherwise, when temptation comes strongly upon you, you not having received them with evidence from heaven, will find you want that help and strength now to resist, that once you thought you had." this was as seasonable to my soul as the former and latter rain in their season, for i had found, and that by sad experience, the truth of these his words; for i had felt that no man, especially when tempted by the devil, "can say that jesus christ is lord, but by the holy ghost." but o now, how was my soul led from truth to truth by god; even from the birth and cradle of the son of god, to his ascension and second coming from heaven to judge the world. once i was troubled to know whether the lord jesus was a man as well as god, and god as well as man; and truly, in those days, let men say what they would, unless i had it with evidence from heaven, all was nothing to me. well, i was much troubled about this point, and could not tell how to be resolved; at last, that in rev. 5:6 came into my mind: "and i beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne, and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a lamb." "in the midst of the throne"--thought i, there is the godhead; "in the midst of the elders"--there is his manhood: but oh, methought this did glister; it was a goodly touch, and gave me sweet satisfaction. that other scripture also did help me much in this: "unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders; and his name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty god, the ever lasting father, the prince of peace." o friends, cry to god to reveal jesus christ unto you; there is none teacheth like him. it would be long to tell you in particular how god did set me down in all the things of christ, and how he did, that he might do so, lead me into his words; yea, and also how he did open them unto me, and make them shine before me, and cause them to dwell with me, talk with me, and comfort me over and over, both of his own being and the being of his son and spirit, and word and gospel. the death of christ. we never read that jesus christ was more cheerful in all his life on earth, than when he was going to lay down his life for his enemies; now he thanked god, now he sang. christ died and endured the wages of sin, and that without an intercessor, without one between god and him. he grappled immediately with the eternal justice of god, who inflicted on him death, the wages of sin; there was no man to hold off the hand of god; justice had his full blow at him, and made him a curse for sin. a second thing that demonstrates that christ died the cursed death for sin, is the frame of spirit that he was in at the time he was to be taken. never was poor mortal so beset with the apprehensions of approaching death as was this lord jesus christ; amazement beyond measure, sorrow that exceeded seized upon his soul: "my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. and he began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy." add to this that jesus christ was better able to grapple with death, even alone, than the whole world joined all together. 1. he was anointed with the spirit without measure. 2. he had all grace perfect in him. 3. never had any so much of his father's love as he. 4. never one so harmless and without sin as he, and consequently never man had so good a conscience as he. 5. never one prepared such a stock of good works to bear him company at the hour of death as he. 6. never one had greater assurance of being with the father eternally in the heavens than he. and yet, behold, when he comes to die, how weak is he, how amazed at death, how heavy, how exceeding sorrowful! and, i say, no cause assigned but the approach of death. alas, how often is it seen that we poor sinners can laugh at destruction when it cometh; yea, and rejoice exceedingly when we find the grave, looking upon death as a part of our portion, yea, as that which will be a means of our present relief and help. 1 cor. 3:22. this jesus could not do, considered as dying for our sin; but the nearer death, the more heavy and oppressed with the thoughts of the revenging hand of god; wherefore he falls into an agony and sweats--not after the common rate, as we do when death is severing body and soul: "his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." what should be the reason but that death assaulted him with his sting? if jesus christ had been to die for his virtues only, doubtless he would have borne it lightly. how have the martyrs despised death, having peace with god by jesus christ, scorning the most cruel torments that men and hell could devise and invent! but jesus christ could not do so, as he was a sacrifice for sin; he died for us, he was made a curse for us. o, my brethren, christ died many deaths at once; he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. it was because of sin, the sin that was put into the death he died, and the curse of god that was due to sin, that that death was so bitter to jesus christ; it is christ that died. the apostle speaks as if never any died but christ; nor indeed did there, so wonderful a death as he. death, considered simply as a deprivation of natural life, could not have these effects in a person personally more righteous than an angel; yea, even carnal wicked men, not awakened in their conscience, how securely they can die! it must therefore he concluded that the sorrows and agony of jesus christ came from a higher cause, even from the curse of god that was now approaching for sin. at last they condemn him to death, even to the death of the cross, where they hang him up by wounds made through his hands and feet, between the earth and the heavens; where he hanged for the space of six hours. no god yet appears for his help. while he hangs there some rail at him, others wag their heads, others tauntingly say, "he saved others, himself he cannot save." some divide his raiment, casting lots for his raiment before his face; others mockingly hid him come down from the cross; and when he desires succor, they give him vinegar to drink. no god yet appears for his help. now the earth quakes, the rocks are rent, the sun becomes black, and jesus still cries out, that he was forsaken of god; and presently boweth his head and dies. and for all this there is no cause assigned from god, but sin. "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed." the resurrection of christ. you shall have the testimony of the holy angels by the scriptures, to the resurrection of the son of god. and first, in mark 16: 3-7, the words are these: "and they said among themselves, who shall roll away the stone?" they had a good mind to see their lord; but they could not, as they thought, get away the stone which covered the mouth of the sepulchre. "and when they had looked," that is, towards the sepulchre, "they saw the stone rolled away, for it was great; and entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man," that is, an angel, "sitting on the right side, clothed with a long white garment; and they were affrighted. and he saith unto them, be not afraid," you have no cause for it; "you seek jesus of nazareth, who was crucified; he is not here, he is risen: behold the place where they laid him." what scripture can be plainer spoken than this? here is an angel of the lord ready to satisfy the disciples of jesus that he was risen from the dead. and lest they should think it was not the right jesus he spoke of, yes, saith he, it is the same jesus that you mean; you seek jesus of nazareth, do you not? why, "he is risen, he is not here." but do you speak seriously and in good earnest? yea, surely; if you will not believe me, "behold the place where they laid him." this scripture is very clear to our purpose. but again, in matt. 28: 3-7, there is an angel as before bearing witness of the resurrection of jesus. "his countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. and the angel answered and said unto them," the women who came to seek jesus, "fear you not; but let them that seek to keep the lord in his grave fear if they will, for you have no ground of fear who seek the jesus that was crucified: he is not here, he is risen; he cannot be here, in body, and risen too: if you will not believe me, come, see where the lord lay. and go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he goeth before you into galilee, there shall you see him." but shall we be sure of it? "yea," saith the angel; "lo, it is i that have told you." see how plainly this scripture also doth testify of christ's resurrection. "here," saith the angel, "you seek a saviour, and none will content you but he, even the same that was crucified: well, you shall have him, but he is not here." why, where is he then? "he is risen from the dead." but are you sure it is the same that we look for? "yea, it is the same that was crucified." but where shall we find him? why, "he goeth before you into galilee, where he used to be in his lifetime, before he was crucified. and that you might be sure of it there to find him, know that he is an angel of god that has told you." the glorification of christ. for god to adorn his son with all this glory in his ascension, thus to make him ride conqueror up into the clouds, thus to go up with sound of trumpet, with shout of angels and with songs of praises, and let me add, to be accompanied also with those that rose from the dead after his resurrection, who were the very price of his blood--this does greatly demonstrate that jesus christ, by what he has done has paid a full price to god for the souls of sinners, and obtained eternal redemption for them: he had not else rode thus in triumph to heaven. consider those glorious circumstances that accompany his approach to the gates of the everlasting habitation. the everlasting gates are set, yea, bid stand open: "be ye open, ye everlasting doors, and the king of glory shall come in." the king of glory is jesus christ, and the words are a prophecy of his glorious ascending into the heavens, when he went up as the high-priest of the church, to carry the price of his blood into the holiest of all. the offices of christ. christ as a saviour is not divided. he that hath him not in all, shall have him in none at all of his offices in a saving manner. christ an intercessor. study the priesthood, the high-priesthood of jesus christ, both the first and second part of it. the first part was that when he offered up himself without the gate, when he bore our sins in his own body on the tree. the second part is that which he executes there whither he is now gone, even into heaven itself, where the throne of grace is. i say, study what christ has done and is doing. oh, what is he doing now? he is sprinkling his blood, with his priestly robes on, before the throne of grace. that is too little thought on by the saints of god: "we have such a high-priest, who is set down on the right hand of the majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the lord pitched and not man." busy thyself, fellow-christian, about this blessed office of christ. it is full of good, it is full of sweet, it is full of heaven, it is full of relief and succor for the tempted and dejected. the priestly office of christ is the first and great thing that is presented to us in the gospel; namely, how he died for our sins, and gave himself to the cross, that the blessing of abraham might come upon us through him. but now because this priestly office of his is divided into two parts, and because one of them, to wit, this of his intercession, is to be accomplished for us within the veil, therefore--as we say among men, out of sight, out of mind--he is too much as to this forgotten by us. we satisfy ourselves with the slaying of the sacrifice; we look not after our aaron as he goes into the holiest, there to sprinkle the mercy-seat with blood upon our account. but since his dying is his laying down his price, and his intercession the urging and managing the worthiness of it in the presence of god against satan, there is glory to be found therein, and we should look after him into the holy place. the second part of the work of the high-priests under the law, had great glory and sanctity put upon it. forasmuch as the holy garments were provided for him to officiate in within the veil, also it was there that the altar stood on which he offered incense. also there were the mercy-seat and the cherubim of glory, which were figures of the angels, that love to be continually looking and prying into the management of this second part of the priesthood of christ in the presence of god. for although themselves are not the persons so immediately concerned therein as we, yet the management of it, i say, is with so much grace and glory, and wisdom and efiectualness, that it is a heaven to the angels to see it. o, to enjoy the odorous scent and sweet memorial, the heart-refreshing perfumes that ascend continually from the mercy-seat to the throne where god is, and also to behold how effectual it is to the end for which it is designed, is glorious; and he that is not somewhat let into this by the grace of god, there is a great thing lacking to his faith, and he misseth of many a sweet bit that he might otherwise enjoy. wherefore, i say, be exhorted to the study of this part of christ's work in the managing of our salvation for us. they who are justified by the blood of christ, should still look to him for the remaining part of their salvation; and let them look for it with confidence, for it is in a faithful hand. and for thy encouragement to look and hope for the completing of thy salvation in glory, let me present thee with a few things. 1. the hardest or worst part of the work of thy saviour is over: his bloody work, his bearing thy sin and curse, his loss of the light of his father's face for a time. his dying upon the cursed tree, that was the worst, the sorest, the hardest, and most difficult part of the work of redemption; and yet this he did willingly, cheerfully, and without thy desires; yea, this he did, as considering those for whom he did it in a state of rebellion and enmity to him. 2. consider also that he has made a beginning with thy soul to reconcile thee to god, and to that end has bestowed his justice upon thee, put his spirit within thee, and begun to make the unwieldable mountain and rock, thy heart, to turn towards him and desire after him, to believe in him and rejoice in him. 3. consider also that some comfortable pledges of his love thou hast already received; namely, as to feel the sweetness of his love, as to see the light of his countenance, as to be made to know his power in raising thee when thou wast down, and how he has made thee to stand while hell has been pushing at thee utterly to overthrow thee. 4. thou mayst consider also, that what remains behind of the work of thy salvation in his hands, as it is the most easy part, is so the most comfortable, and that part which will more immediately issue in his glory; and therefore he will mind it. 5. that which is behind is also more safe in his hand than if it was in thine own. he is wise, he is powerful, he is faithful, and therefore will manage that part that is lacking to our salvation well, until he has completed it. it is his love to thee has made him that he putteth no trust in thee: he knows that he can himself bring thee to his kingdom most surely, and therefore has not left that work to thee, no, not any part thereof. live in hope, then, in a lively hope, that since christ is risen from the dead he lives to make intercession for thee; and that thou shalt reap the blessed benefit of this twofold salvation that is wrought and that is working out for thee by jesus christ our lord. every believer may say, christ did not only die and rise again, but he ascended into heaven to take possession thereof for me, to prepare a place for me. he standeth there in the second part of his suretyship to bring me safe thither, and to present me in a glorious manner, "not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing." he is therefore exercising his priestly office for me, pleading the perfection of his own righteousness and the virtue of his blood. he is there ready to answer the accusations of the law, the devil, and sin, for me. here a believer may through faith look the devil in the face and rejoice, saying, "o satan, i have a precious jesus, a soul-comforting jesus, a sin-pardoning jesus." here he may listen to the thunders of the law, and yet not be daunted. he may say, "o law, thou mayest roar against sin, but thou canst not reach me; thou mayest curse and condemn, but not my soul; for i have a righteous jesus, a holy jesus, a soul-saving jesus; and he hath delivered me from thy threats, thy curses, and thy condemnation. i am brought into another covenant, under better promises of life and salvation, freely to comfort me without my merit, through the blood of jesus; therefore though thou layest my sins to my charge and provest me guilty, yet so long as christ hath brought in everlasting righteousness and given it to me, i shall not fear thy threats. my christ is all, hath done all, and will deliver me from thine accusations." thus also thou mayest say, when death assaulteth thee, "o death, where is thy sting? thou canst not devour; i have comfort through jesus christ, who hath taken thee captive and taken away thy strength; he hath pierced thy heart and let out all thy soul-destroying poison. though i see thee, i am not afraid of thee; though i feel thee, i am not daunted; for thou hast lost thy sting in the side of the lord jesus, through whom i overcome thee. also, o satan, though i hear thee make a hellish noise, and though thou threaten me highly, yet my soul shall triumph over thee so long as christ is alive and can be heard in heaven--so long as he hath broken thy head and won the field--so long as thou art in prison and canst not have thy desire. when i hear thy voice, my thoughts are turned to christ my saviour; i hearken to what he will say, for he will speak comfort: he hath gotten the victory and doth give me the crown, and causeth me to triumph through his most glorious conquest. "and i beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne stood a lamb as it had been slain." rev. 5: 6. that in the midst of the throne is our sacrifice, with the very marks of his death upon him, showing to god that sitteth upon the throne the holes of the thorns, of the nails, of the spear; and how he was disfigured with blows and blood when at his command he gave himself a ransom for his people; for it cannot be imagined that either the exaltation or glorification of the body of jesus christ should make him forget the day in which he died the death for our sins; especially since that which puts worth into his whole intercession is the death he died, and the blood he shed upon, the cross for our trespasses. since christ is an intercessor, i infer that believers should not rest at the cross for comfort: justification they should look for there; but being justified by his blood, they should ascend up after him to his throne. at the cross you will see him in his sorrows and humiliations, in his tears and blood; but follow him to where he is now, and then you shall see him in his robes, in his priestly robes, and with his golden girdle about him. there you shall see him wearing the breastplate of judgment, and with all your names written upon his heart. then you shall perceive that the whole family in heaven and earth is named of him, and how he prevails with god the father of mercies for you. stand still awhile and listen, yea, enter with boldness unto the holiest, and see your jesus as he now appears in the presence of god for you; what work he makes against the devil and sin, and death and hell, for you. ah, it is brave following of jesus christ to the holiest: the veil is rent; you may see with open face as in a glass the glory of the lord. this then is our high-priest; this is intercession--these the benefits of it. it lies in our part to improve it; and wisdom to do so--that also comes from the mercy-seat or throne of grace where he, even our high-priest, ever liveth to make intercession for us. to whom he glory for ever and ever. christ an advocate. "we have an advocate with the father, jesus christ the righteous." this consideration will yield relief, when by satan's abuse of some other of the offices of christ, thy faith is discouraged and made afraid. christ, as a prophet, pronounces many a dreadful sentence against sin; and christ, as a king, is of power to execute them: and satan, as an enemy, has subtlety enough to abuse both these to the almost utter overthrow of the faith of the children of god. this consideration will help thee to put by that vizor [footnote: that is, mask.] wherewith christ by satan is misrepresented to thee, to the weakening and affrighting thee. there is nothing more common among saints, than thus to be wronged by satan; for he will labor to fetch fire out of the offices of christ to burn us: so to present him to us with so dreadful and so ireful a countenance, that a man in temptation and under guilt shall hardly be able to lift up his face to god. but now, to think really that he is my advocate, this heals all. put a vizor upon the face of a father, and it may perhaps for a while fright the child; but let the father speak, let him speak in his own fatherly dialect to the child, and the vizor is gone, if not from the father's face, yet from the child's mind; yea, the child, notwithstanding that vizor, will adventure to creep into its father's bosom. why, thus it is with the saints when satan deludes and abuses them by disfiguring the countenance of christ to their view: let them but hear their lord speak in his own natural dialect--and he doth so indeed when we hear him speak as an advocate--and their minds are calmed, their thoughts settled, their guilt vanished, and their faith revived. is christ jesus the lord my advocate with the father? then awake, my faith, and shake thyself like a giant; stir up thyself and be not faint: christ is the advocate of his people; and as for sin, which is one great stumble to thy actings, o my faith, christ has not only died for that as a sacrifice, nor only carried his sacrifice unto the father into the holiest of all, but is there to manage that offering as an advocate, pleading the efficacy and worth thereof before god against the devil for us. the modest saint is apt to be abashed, to think what a troublesome one he is, and what a make-work he has been in god's house all his days; and let him be filled with holy blushing, but let him not forsake his advocate. if thy foot slippeth, if it slippeth greatly, then know thou it will not be long before a bill be in heaven preferred against thee by the accuser of the brethren; wherefore then thou must have recourse to christ as advocate, to plead before god thy judge against the devil thine adversary for thee. and as to the badness of thy cause, let nothing move thee save to humility and self-abasement, for christ is glorified by being concerned for thee; yea, the angels will shout aloud to see him bring thee off. for what greater glory can we conceive christ to obtain as advocate, than to bring off his people when they have sinned, notwithstanding satan's so charging of them as he doth? he gloried when he was going to the cross to die; he went up with a shout and the sound of a trumpet to make intercession for us; and shall we think that by his being an advocate he receives no additional glory? christ, when he pleads as an advocate for his people in the presence of god against satan, can plead those very weaknesses of his people for which satan would have them damned, for their relief and advantage. "is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" this is part of the plea of our advocate against satan, for his servant joshua, when he said, "the lord rebuke thee, o satan." zech. 13: 2. now, to be a brand plucked out of the fire, is to be a saint--impatient, weakened, defiled, and made imperfect by sin. this then is the next plea of our goodly advocate for us: "o satan, this is a brand plucked out of the fire." as if he should say, "thou objectest against my servant joshua, that he is black like a coal, or that the fire of sin at times is still burning in him. and what then? the reason why he is not totally extinct as tow, is not thy pity but rny father's mercy to him. i have plucked him out of the fire, yet not so out but that the smell thereof is yet upon him; and my father and i, we consider his weakness and pity him; for since he is as a brand pulled out, can it be expected by my father or me, that he should appear before us as clear and do our biddings as well as if he had never been there? this is a brand plucked out of the fire, and must be considered as such, and must be borne with as such." his righteousness christ presents to god for us; and god, for this righteousness' sake, is well pleased that we should be saved, and for it can save us and secure his honor and preserve the law in its sanction. for christ, in pleading against satan as an advocate with, the father for us, appeals to the law itself if he has not done it justice; saying, "most mighty law, what command of thine have i not fulfilled? what demand of thine have i not fully answered? where is that jot or tittle of the law that is able to object against my doings for want of satisfaction?" here the law is mute; it speaks not one word by way of the least complaint, but rather testifies of this righteousness that it is good and holy. rom. 3:22,23; 5:15-19. now then, since christ did this as a public person, it follows that others must be justified thereby; for that was the end and reason of christ's taking on him to do the righteousness of the law. nor can the law object against the equity of this dispensation of heaven; for why might not that god who gave the law its being and its sanction, dispose as he pleases of the righteousness which it commends? besides, if men be made righteous, they are so; and if by a righteousness which the law commends, how can fault be found with them by the law? nay, it is "witnessed by the law and the prophets," who consent that it should be "unto all and upon all them that believe," for their justification. rom. 3:20,21. and that the mighty god suffereth the prince of the devils to do with the law what he can against this most wholesome and godly doctrine, it is to show the truth, goodness, and permanency thereof; for this is as if it were said, devil, do thy worst. when the law is in the hand of an easy pleader, though the cause that he pleads be good, a crafty opposer may overthrow the right; but here is the salvation of the children in debate, whether it can stand with law and justice: the opposer of this is the devil, his argument against it is the law; he that defends the doctrine is christ the advocate, who in his plea must justify the justice of god, defend the holiness of the law, and save the sinner from all the arguments, pleas, stops, and demurs that satan is able to put in against it. and this he must do fairly, righteously, simply, pleading the voice of the self-same law for the justification of the soul that he standeth for, which satan leads against it; for though it is by the new law that our salvation comes, yet by the old law is the new law approved of, and the way of salvation thereby consented to. viii. the holy spirit. it is the spirit of god, even the holy ghost that convinceth us of sin, and so of our damnable state because of sin. therefore the spirit of god, when he worketh in the heart as a spirit of bondage, doeth it by working in us by the law, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. rom. 6: 20. and he in this his working is properly called a spirit of bondage; because by the law he shows us that indeed we are in bondage to the law, the devil, and death and danmation. he is called in his working the spirit of bondage, because he here also holds us--to wit, in this sight and sense of our bondage state--so long as it is meet we should be so held; which to some of the saints is a longer, and to some a shorter time. paul was held in it three days and three nights, but the jailer and the three thousand, so far as can be gathered, not above an hour; but some in these later times are so held for days and months, if not for years. but i say, let the time be longer or shorter, it is the spirit of god that holdeth him under this yoke, and it is good that a man should be his time held under it. now, as i said, the sinner at first is by the spirit of god held under this bondage; that is, hath such a discovery of his sin and of his damnation for sin made to him, and also is held so fast under the sense thereof, that it is not in the power of any man, nor yet of the very angels in heaven, to release or set him free, until the holy spirit changeth his ministration and comes in the sweet and peaceable tidings of salvation by christ in the gospel to his poor dejected and afflicted conscience. the spirit loveth to do what it does in private: that man to whom god intendeth to reveal great things, he taketh him aside from the lumber and cumber of this world, and carrieth him away in the solace and contemplation of the things of another world. this water of life is the very groundwork of life in us, though not the groundwork of life for us. the groundwork of life for us is the passion and merits of christ; this is that for the sake of which grace is given unto us, as is intimated by the text, rev. 22:1. it proceeds from the throne of god, who is christ. christ then having obtained grace for us, must needs be precedent as to his merit, to that grace he hath so obtained. besides, it is clear that the spirit and grace come from god through him. therefore, as to the communication of grace to us, it is the fruit of his merit and purchase. but i say, in us grace is the groundwork of life; for though we may be said before to live virtually in the person of christ before god, yet we are dead in ourselves, and so must be until the spirit be poured upon us from on high; for the spirit is life, and its graces are life, and when that is infused by god from the throne, then we live, and not till then. and hence it is called as before, living water, the water of life, springing up in us into everlasting life. the spirit then and graces of the spirit, which is the river here spoken of, is that, and that only, which can cause us to live; that being life to the soul, as the soul is life to the body. all men therefore, as was said afore--though elect, though purchased by the blood of christ--are dead and must be dead until the spirit of life from god and his throne shall enter into them; until they shall drink it in by vehement thirst, as the parched ground drinks in the rain. now when this living water is received, it takes up its seat in the heart, whence it spreads itself to the awakening of all the powers of the soul. for as in the first creation, the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters, in order to the putting of that creation into that excellent fashion and harmony which now we behold with our eyes, even so the new creation, to wit, the making of us new to god, is done by the overspreading of the same spirit also. as the herb that is planted or seed sown needs watering with continual showers of the mountains, so our graces implanted in us by the spirit of grace must also be watered by the rain of heaven. "thou waterest the ridges thereof abundantly, thou settest the furrows thereof, thou makest it soft with showers, thou blessest the springing thereof." hence he says that our graces shall grow. but how? "i will be as the dew unto israel; he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as lebanon. his branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive-tree, and his smell as lebanon. they that dwell under his shadow shall return; they shall revive as the corn, and grow as the vine; the scent thereof shall be as the wine of lebanon." all the warmth that we have in our communion, is the warmth of the spirit. when a company of saints are gathered together in the name of christ to perform any spiritual exercise, and their souls are edified warmly and made glad therein, it is because this water, this river of water of life, has, in some of the streams thereof, run into that assembly. then are christians like those that drink wine in bowls, merry and glad; for that they have drank into the spirit, and had their souls refreshed with the sweet gales and strong wine thereof. this is the feast that isaiah speaks of when he saith, "in this mountain shall the lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined." isa. 25:6. this is called in another place, "the communion of the holy ghost." 2 cor. 13:14. now he warmeth spirits, uniteth spirits, enlighteneth spirits, reviveth, cherisheth, quickeneth, strengtheneth graces; renews assurances, brings old comforts to mind, weakens lusts, emboldeneth and raiseth a spirit of faith, of love, of hope, of prayer, and makes the word a blessing, conference a blessing, meditation a blessing, and duty very delightful to the soul. without this water of life, communion is weak, flat, cold, dead, fruitless, lifeless; there is nothing seen, felt, heard, or understood, in a spiritual, heart-quickening way. now ordinances are burdensome, sins strong, faith weak, hearts hard, and the faces of our souls dry, like the dry and parched ground. this drink also revives us when tempted, when sick, when persecuted, when in the dark, and when we faint for thirst. the life of religion is this water of life; where that runs, where that is received, and where things are done in this spirit, there all things are well--the church thrifty, the soul thrifty, graces thrifty, and all is well. you that are spiritual, you know what a high and goodly lifting up of heart one small gale of the good spirit of god will make in your souls; how it will make your lusts to languish, and your souls to love and take pleasure in the lord that saves you. you know, i say, what a flame of love, and compassion, and self-denial, and endeared affection to god and all saints, it will beget in the soul: "oh, it is good to be here," saith the gracious heart. this is the reason why so many are carried away with the errors that are broached in these days, because they have not indeed received the lord jesus by the revelation of the spirit and with power, but by the relation of others only; and so having no other witness to set them down withal, but the history of the word and the relation of others concerning the truths contained in it, yet not having had the spirit of the lord to confirm these things effectually to them, they are carried away with delusions. ix. justification by faith. true justifying faith is said to receive, to embrace, to obey the son of god as tendered in the gospel; by which expressions is showed both the nature of justifying faith in its actings in point of justification, and also the cause of its being full of good works in the world. a gift is not made mine by my seeing it, or because i know the nature of the thing so given; but it is mine if i receive and embrace it, yea, and as to the point in hand, if i yield myself up to stand and fall by it. now he that shall not only see but receive, not only know but embrace the son of god to be justified by him, cannot but bring forth good works; because christ, who is now received and embraced by faith, leavens and seasons the spirit of this sinner, through his faith, to the making of him so to be. acts 15:9. for faith has joined christ and the soul together, and being so joined, the soul is one spirit with him: not essentially, but in agreement and oneness of design. besides, when christ is truly received and embraced to the justifying of the sinner, in that man's heart he dwells by his word and spirit through the same faith also. now christ by his spirit and word must needs season the soul he thus dwells in; so then the soul being seasoned, it seasoneth the body and soul, the life and conversation. if the receiving of a temporal gift naturally tends to the making of us to move our cap and knee, and binds us to be the servant of the giver, shall we think that faith will leave him who by it has received christ, to be as unconcerned as a stock or stone, or that its utmost excellency is to provoke the soul to a lip-labor, and to give christ a few fair words for his pains and grace, and so wrap up the business? no, no; the love of christ constraineth us thus to judge, that it is but reasonable, since he gave his all for us, that we should give our some for him. 2 cor. 5:14. we are said to be saved by faith, because by faith we lay hold of, venture upon, and put on jesus christ for life: for life, i say, because god having made him the saviour, has given him life to communicate to sinners; and the life that he communicates to them is the merit of his flesh and blood, which whoso eateth and drinketh by faith hath eternal life, because that flesh and blood have merit sufficient to obtain the favor of god. yea, it hath done so, that day it was offered through the eternal spirit a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savor to him. wherefore god imputeth the righteousness of christ to him that believeth in him, by which righteousness he is personally justified and saved from that just judgment of the law that was due unto him. john 5:26; 6:53-57; eph. 4:32; 5:2; rom. 4:23-25. here let christians warily distinguish betwixt the meritorious and the instrumental cause of their justification. christ, with what he has done and suffered, is the meritorious cause of our justification; therefore he is said to be "made unto us of god wisdom and righteousness," and we are said to be "justified by his blood and saved from wrath through him," 1 cor. 1:30; rom. 5:9,10; for it was his life and blood that was the price of our redemption. thou art therefore to make christ jesus the object of thy faith for justification; for by his righteousness thy sins must be covered from the sight of the justice of the law. acts 16:31; matt. 1:21. faith the instrumental cause of salvation. faith as the gift of god is not the saviour, as our act doth merit nothing. faith was not the cause that god gave christ, neither is it the cause why god converts men to christ; but faith is a gift bestowed upon us by the gracious god, the nature of which is to lay hold on christ, whom god before did give for a ransom to redeem sinners. this faith hath its nourishment and supplies from the same god who at the first did give it; and is the only instrument through the spirit that doth keep the soul in a comfortable frame both to do and suffer; for christ helps the soul to receive comfort from him, when it can get none from itself, bearing up the soul in its progress heavenward. but that it is the first cause of salvation, i deny; or that it is the second, i deny. it is only the instrument or hand that receiveth the benefits that god hath prepared for thee before thou hadst any faith; so that we do nothing for salvation, as men. but if we speak properly, it was god's grace that moved him to give christ a ransom for sinners, and the same god with the same grace, that doth give to the soul faith to believe and by believing to close in with him whom god out of his love and pity did send into the world to save sinners; so that all the works of the creature are shut out as to justification and life, and men are saved freely by grace. true and false faith distinguished. there are two sorts of good works; and a man may be shrewdly guessed at with reference to his faith, even by the works that he chooseth to be conversant in. there are works that cost nothing, and works that are chargeable; and observe it, the unsound faith will choose to itself the most easy works it can find: for example, there is reading, praying, hearing of sermons, baptism, breaking of bread, church-fellowship, preaching, and the like; and there is mortification of lusts, charity, simplicity, and open-heartedness with a liberal hand to the poor, and their like also. now, the unsound faith picks and chooses, and takes and leaves; but the true faith does not so. satan is afraid that men should hear of justification by christ, lest they should embrace it. but yet if he can prevail with them to keep fingers off, although they do hear and look on and practise lesser things, he can the better bear it; yea, he will labor to make such professors bold to conclude they shall by that kind of faith enjoy christ, though by that they cannot embrace him nor lay hold of him; for he knows that how far soever a man engages in a profession of christ with a faith that looks on but cannot receive nor embrace him, that faith will leave him to nothing but mistakes and disappointments at last. the son of god was manifest that he might destroy the works of the devil, but these men profess his faith and keep these works alive in the world. 1 john, 3. shall these pass or such as believe to the saving of the soul? for a man to be content with this kind of faith and to look to go to salvation by it, what to god is a greater provocation? the devil laugheth here, for he knows he has not lost his vassal by such a faith as this, but that rather he hath made use of the gospel, that glorious word of life, to secure his captive, through his presumption of the right faith, the faster in his shackles. faith and works. when i write of justification before god from the dreadful curse of the law, then i must speak of nothing but grace, christ, the promise, and faith; hut when i speak of our justification before men, then i must join to these good works; for grace, christ, and faith are things invisible, and so not to be seen by another, otherwise than through a life that befits so blessed a gospel as has declared unto us the remission of our sins for the sake of jesus christ. he then that would have forgiveness of sins, and so be delivered from the curse of god, must believe in the righteousness and blood of christ; but he that would show to his neighbors that he hath truly received this mercy of god, must do it by good works, for all things else to them is but talk; as for example, a tree is known to be what it is, whether of this or that kind, by its fruit. a tree it is without fruit; but so long as it so abideth, there is minisered occasion to doubt what manner of tree it is. justification and sanctification distinguished. a believer is to do nothing for justification, only believe and be saved; though the law be a rule for every one that believes to walk by, it is not for justification. but if you do not put a difference between justification wrought by the man christ without, and sanctification wrought by the spirit of christ within, teaching believers their duty to their god for his love in giving christ, you are not able to divide the word aright; but contrariwise, you corrupt the word of god, and cast stumbling-blocks before the people, and will certainly one day most deeply smart for your folly, except you repent. to those who do believe in christ aright, and lay him for their foundation: see that you are laborers after a more experimental knowledge of our lord jesus christ; fly more to his birth, death, blood, resurrection, ascension, and intercession, and fetch refreshing for your souls more and more from him without, through the operation of his spirit within; and though the fruits of the spirit be excellent, and to be owned where they are found, yet have a care you take not away the glory of the blood of christ shed on the cross without the gates of jerusalem, and give it them; which you will do, if you content yourselves and satisfy your consciences with this--that you find the fruits of the spirit within you--and do not go for peace and consolation of conscience to the blood of jesus shed on the cross. therefore learn of the saints, or rather of the spirit, who teaches to sing this song, "thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to god by thy blood." rev. 5: 9. and as for you that cannot yet well endure to think that you should be justified by the blood of the son of mary shed on the cross without the gate, i say to you, "kiss the son, lest he he angry and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little: blessed are all they that put their trust in him." psa. 2:12. the work of the spirit is to lead us into the sayings of christ; which, as to our redemption from death, are such as these: "i lay down my life, that you may have life; i give my life a ransom for many; and the bread which i give is my flesh, which i will give for the life of the world." the holy ghost breatheth nowhere so as in the ministry of this doctrine; this doctrine is sent with the holy ghost from heaven. what is the church of god redeemed by from the curse of the law? it is by something done within them, or by something done without them. if you say it is redeemed by something that worketh in them, then why did the man christ jesus hang on the cross on calvary, without the gate of jerusalem, for the sins of his children? and why do the scriptures say that "through this man is preached to us the forgiveness of sins?" the answer thou givest is, "the church of god is redeemed by christ jesus who is revealed in all believers, and christ jesus wrought in them mightily, and it was he that wrought in them to will and to do. this is plain scripture; and the man christ jesus," sayest thou, "hanged on the cross on calvary because they wickedly judged him to be a blasphemer, and through their envy persecuted him to death because he bore witness against them, and in their account he died and hanged on the cross an evil-doer." ha, friend, i had thought thou hadst not been so much hardened. art thou not ashamed thus to slight the death of the man christ jesus on the cross, and reckon it not effectual for salvation, but sayest, the church is redeemed by christ jesus who is revealed within? and to confirm it, thou dost also corruptly bring in this scripture: "whereunto i labor, according to his working which worketh in me mightily; "by which words paul signifies, that as god was with him in the ministry of the word, so did he also strive according to his working which wrought in him mightily. what is this to the purpose? that thy answer is false, i shall clearly prove. first, because thou deniest that redemption was wrought out for sinners by the man christ jesus on the cross on calvary; when the scripture says plainly, that when he did hang on the tree, then did he bear our sins there in his own body. and secondly, in thy saying it is redeemed by christ within, by being within, when the work of the spirit of christ in believers is to make known to the soul, by dwelling within, which way and how they are redeemed by the man christ jesus on the cross. and this i prove further, because when thou art forced to answer to these words, why did the man christ jesus hang en the cross, on calvary for the sins of his children? thou sayest, "because they wickedly judged him to be a blasphemer." friend, i did not ask thee why the jews did put him to death; but why was he crucified there for the sins of his children? but thou, willing to cover over thine error, goest on cunningly, saying, that through their envy they persecuted him to death for an evil-doer. as for thy saying that salvation is christ within, if thou mean in opposition to christ without, instead of pleading for christ thou wilt plead against him; for christ, god-man, without on the cross, did bring in salvation for sinners; and the right believing of that justifies the soul. therefore christ within, or the spirit of him who did give himself a ransom, doth not work out justification for the soul in the soul, but doth lead the soul out of itself and out of what can he done within itself, to look for salvation in that man that is now absent from his saints on earth. 2 cor. 5:6. why so? for it knows that there is salvation in none other, acts 4: 12; and therefore i would wish thee to have a care what thou doest, for i tell thee, that man who is now jeered by some, because he is preached to be without them, will very suddenly come the second time to the great overthrow of those who have spoken and shall still speak against him. and indeed they that will follow christ aright must follow him without, to the cross without, for justification on. calvary without--that is, they must seek for justification by his obedience without--to the grave without, and to his ascension and intercession in heaven without; and this must be done through the operation of his own holy spirit that he has promised shall show these things unto them, being given within them for that purpose. now the spirit of christ, that leads also; but whither? it leads to christ without. what a poor argument is this to say, that "because the spirit of christ doth convince of sin, therefore whatsoever doth convince of sin must needs be the spirit of christ:" as much as to say, because the saints are called the light of the world, therefore the saints are the saviour of the world, seeing christ also doth call himself the light of the world; or because the moon hath or is light, therefore the moon is the sun. x. conviction of sin. when man is taken and laid under the day of god's power, when christ is opening his ear to discipline, and speaking to him that his heart may receive instruction, many times that poor man is as if the devil had found him, and not god. how frenzily he imagines; how crossly he thinks; how ungainly he carries it under convictions, counsels, and his present apprehension of things! i know some are more powerfully dealt withal, and more strongly bound at first by the word; but others more in an ordinary manner, that the flesh and reason may be seen to the glory of christ. yea, and where the will is made more quickly to comply with its salvation, it is no thanks to the sinner at all. it is the day of the power of the lord that has made the work so soon to appear. therefore count this an act of love, in the height of love; love in a great degree. "i heard thy voice in the garden." gen. 3: 10. it is a word from without that does it. while adam listened to his own heart, he thought fig-leaves a sufficient remedy; but the voice that walked in the garden shook him out of all such fancies. a man's own righteousness will not fortify his conscience from fear and terror, when god begins to come near to him to judgment. few know the weight of sin. when the guilt thereof takes hold of the conscience, it commands homeward all the faculties of the soul. it was upon this account that peter and james and john were called the sons of thunder, because in the word which they were to preach there were to be not only lightnings, but thunders--not only illuminations, but a great seizing of the heart with the dread and majesty of god, to the effectual turning of the sinner to him. lightnings without thunder are in this case dangerous, because they that receive the one without the other are subject to miscarry: they were once enlightened, but you read of no thunder they had, and they were subject to fall into an irrecoverable state. paul had thunder with his lightning, to the shaking of his soul; so had the three thousand, so had the jailer: they that receive light without thunder, are subject to turn the grace of god into wantonness; but they that know the terror of god will persuade men. so then, when he decrees to give the rain of his grace to a man, he makes a way for the lightning and thunder; not the one without the other, but the one following the other. we have had great lightnings in this land of late years, but little thunders; and that is one reason why so little grace is found where light is, and why so many professors run on their heads in such a day as this is, notwithstanding all they have seen. the method of god is to kill and make alive, to smite and then heal. he that hath not seen his lost condition, hath not seen a safe condition; he that did never see himself in the devil's snare, did never see himself in christ's bosom. grace proceeds from the throne, from the throne of god and of the lamb. wherefore, sinner, here is laid a necessity upon thee; one of the two must be thy lot: either thou must accept of god's grace, and be content to be saved freely thereby, notwithstanding all thy undeservings and unworthiness, or else thou must be damned for thy rebellion, and for thy neglecting of this grace. wherefore consider with thyself, and think what is best to be done. is it better that thou submit to the grace and mercy of god, and that thou accept of grace to reign for thee, in thee, and over thee, than that thou shouldst run the hazard of eternal damnation because thou wouldst not be saved by grace? consider of this, i say, for grace is now in authority: it reigns, and proceeds from the throne. this therefore calls for thy most grave and sedate thoughts. thou art in a strait; wilt thou fly before moses, or with david fall into the hands of the lord? wilt thou go to hell for sin, or to life by grace? one of the two, as was said before, must be thy lot; for grace is king, is upon the throne, and will admit of no other way to glory. rom. 5:2. in and by it thou must stand, if thou hast any hope, or canst at all rejoice in hope of the glory of god. if thou do get off thy convictions, and not the right way--which is by seeing thy sins washed away by the blood of jesus christ--it is a question whether god will ever knock at thy heart again or no; but rather say, "such a one is joined to idols; let him alone. my spirit, my ministers, my word, my mercy, my grace, my love, my pity, my common providences, shall no more strive with him; let him alone." o sad! o miserable! who would slight convictions that are on their souls, which tend so much for their good? in the creation of man, god began with his outside; but in the work of regeneration, he first begins within, at the heart. whoever receive the grace that is tendered in the gospel, they must be quickened by the power of god, their eyes must be opened, their understandings illuminated, their ears unstopped, their hearts circumcised, their wills also rectified, and the son of god revealed in them. xi. conversion. the difficulty of conversion. conversion to god is not so easy and so smooth a thing, as some would have men believe it is. why is man's heart compared to fallow ground, god's word to a plough, and his ministers to ploughmen, if the heart indeed has no need of breaking in order to the receiving of the seed of god unto eternal life? why is the conversion of the the soul compared to the grafting of a tree, if that be done without cutting? conversion the power of god. a broken heart is the handy-work of god, a sacrifice of his own preparing, a material fitted for himself. by breaking the heart he opens it, and makes it a receptacle for the graces of his spirit; that is the cabinet, when unlocked, where god lays up the jewels of the gospel: there he puts his fear: "i will put my fear in their heart;" there he writes his law: "i will write my law in their heart;" there he puts his spirit: "i will put my spirit within you." the heart god chooses for his cabinet: there he hides his treasure; there is the seat of justice, mercy, and of every grace of god. here is naught but open war, acts of hostility, and shameful rebellion on the sinner's side; and what delight can god take in that? wherefore, if god will bend and buckle the spirit of such a one, he must shoot an arrow at him, a bearded arrow, such as may not be plucked out of the wound--an arrow that will stick fast, and cause that the sinner fall down as dead at god's foot. then will the sinner deliver up his arms, and surrender up himself as one conquered into the hand of god, and beg for the lord's pardon, and not till then sincerely. and now god has overcome, and his right hand and his holy arm have gotten him the victory. now he rides in triumph, with his captive at his chariot-wheel; now he glories, now the bells in heaven do ring, now the angels shout for joy, yea, are bid to do so: "rejoice with me, for i have found my sheep which was lost." regeneration. thou thinkest that thou art a christian; thou shouldst be sorry else. well, but when did god show thee that thou wert no christian? when didst thou see that; and in the light of the spirit of christ see that thou wert under the wrath of god because of original sin? rom. 5:12. nay, dost thou know what original sin means? is it not the least in thy thoughts? and dost thou not rejoice in secret that thou art the same that thou ever wert? if so, then know for certain that the wrath of god to this very day ahideth on thee, john 3:36; and if so, then thou art one of those that will fall in the judgment, except thou art born again and made a new creature. 2 cor. 5:17 the strait gate. the porch, at which was an ascent to the temple, had a gate belonging to it. this gate, according to the prophet ezekiel, was six cubits wide. the leaves of this gate were double, one folding this way, the other folding that. ezek. 40:48. now here some may object, and say, "since the way to god by these doors was so wide, why doth christ say the way and gate is narrow?" answer. the straitness, the narrowness, must not be understood of the gate simply, but because of that cumber that some men carry with them that pretend to be going to heaven. six cubits! what is sixteen cubits to him who would enter in here with all the world on his back? the young man in the gospel who made such a noise for heaven, might have gone in easy enough, for in six cubits breadth there is room; but, poor man, he was not for going in thither unless he might carry in his houses upon his shoulders too; and so the gate was strait. mark 10:17-23. wherefore, he that will enter in at the gate of heaven, of which this gate into the temple was a type, must go in by himself, and not with his bundles of trash on his back; and if he will go in thus, he need not fear but there is room. "the righteous nation that keepeth the truth, they shall enter in." they that enter in at the gate of the inner court must be clothed in fine linen; how then shall they go into the temple that carry the clogs of the dirt of this world at their heels? thus saith the lord, "no stranger uncircumcised in heart, or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary." the wideness, therefore, of this gate, is for this cause here made mention of, namely, to encourage them that would gladly enter thereat according to the mind of god, and not to flatter them that are not for leaving off all for god. wherefore let such as would go in remember that here is room, even a gate to enter at, six cubits wide. we have been all this while but on the outside of the temple, even in the courts of the house of the lord, to see the beauty and glory that is there. the beauty hereof made men cry out and say, "how amiable are thy tabernacles, o lord of hosts; my soul longeth, yea, fainteth for the courts of the lord;" and to say, "a day in thy courts is better than a thousand." coming to christ. question. how must i be qualified before i shall dare to believe in christ? answer. come, sensible of thy sins and of the wrath of god due unto them, for thus thou art bid to come matt. 11:28. question. did ever any come thus to christ? answer. david came thus, paul and the jailer came thus; also christ's murderers came thus. psa. 51:1-3; acts 9:6; 16:30, 31; 2:37. question. but doth it not seem most reasonable that we should first mend and be good? answer. the whole have no need of the physician, but those that are sick; christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. question. but is it not the best way, if one can, to mend first? answer. this is just as if a sick man should say, "is it not best for me to be well before i go to the physician?" or as if a wounded man should say, "when i am cured i will lay on the plaster." question. but when a poor creature sees its vileness, it is afraid to come to christ, is it not? answer. yes, but without ground; for he has said, "say to them that are of a fearful heart, be strong, fear not;" and "to this man will i look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." isa. 35:4; 66:2. question. what encouragement can be given us thus to come? answer. the prodigal came thus, and his father received him, and fell upon his neck and kissed him. thus christ received the colossians, and consequently all that are saved. luke 15; col. 2:13. question. will you give me one more encouragement? answer. the promises are so worded, that they that are scarlet sinners, crimson sinners, blasphemous sinners, have encouragement to come to him with hopes of life. isa. 1: 18; mark 3:28; john 6:36; luke 24:47; acts 13:36 temptations of the soul coming to christ. no sooner doth satan perceive what god is doing with the soul in a way of grace and mercy, but he endeavoreth what he may, to make the renewing thereof bitter and wearisome work to the sinner. o what mists, what mountains, what clouds, what darkness, what objections, what false apprehensions of god, of christ, of grace, of the word, and of the soul's condition, doth he now lay before it, and haunt it with! whereby he dejecteth, casteth down, daunteth, distresseth, and almost driveth it quite into despair. now, by the reason of these things, faith and all the grace that is in the soul is hard put to it to come at the promise, and by the promise, to christ; as it is said, when the tempest and great danger of shipwreck lay upon the vessel in which paul was, "they had much work to come by the boat." acts 27:16. for satan's design is, if he cannot keep the soul from christ, to make his coming to him and closing with him as hard, as difficult and troublesome as he by his devices can. but faith, true justifying faith, is a grace that is not weary by all that satan can do; but meditateth upon the word, and taketh stomach and courage, fighteth and crieth; and by crying and fighting, by help from heaven, its way is made through all the oppositions that appear so mighty, and draweth up at last to jesus christ, into whose bosom it putteth the soul; where, for the time, it sweetly resteth, after its marvellous tossings to and fro. and besides what hath been said, let me yet illustrate this truth unto you by this familiar similitude. suppose a man, a traitor, that by the law should die for his sin, is yet such a one that the king hath exceeding kindness for; may not the king of his clemency pardon this man, yea, order that his pardon should be drawn up and sealed, and so in every sense be made sure, and yet for the present keep all this close enough from the ears or the knowledge of the person therein concerned? yea, may not the king after all leave this person, with others under the same transgression, to sue for and obtain this pardon with great expense and difficulty, with many tears and heartachings, with many fears and dubious cogitations? why, this is the case between god and the soul that he saveth: he saveth him, pardoneth him, and secureth him from the curse and death that are due unto sin, but yet doth not tell him so; but he ascends in his great suit unto god for it. only this difference we must make between god and the potentates of this world: god cannot pardon before the sinner stands before him righteous by the righteousness of christ; because he has, in judgment, and justice, and righteousness, threatened and concluded that he that lacks righteousness shall die. trials and encouragements of the awakened. there are two things in special, when men begin to be awakened, that kill their thoughts of being saved. 1. a sense of sin. 2. the wages due thereto. these kill the heart; for who can bear up under the guilt of sin? "if our sins he upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?" how, indeed! it is impossible. so neither can man grapple with the justice of god. can thy heart endure, or thy hands be strong? they cannot. a wounded spirit, who can bear? men cannot, angels cannot; wherefore, if now christ he hid, and the blessing of faith in his blood denied, woe be to them: such go after saul and judas, one to the sword and the other to the halter, and so miserably end their days. for come to god they dare not; the thoughts of that eternal majesty strike them through. but now present such poor dejected sinners with a crucified christ, and persuade them that the sins under which they shake and tremble were long ago laid upon the back of christ, and the noise and sense and fear of damning begins to cease, depart, and fly away: dolors and terrors fade and vanish, and that soul conceiveth hopes of life; for thus the soul argueth: "is this indeed the truth of god, that christ was made to be sin to me--was made the curse of god for me? hath he indeed borne all my sins, and spilt his blood for my redemption? o blessed tidings, o welcome grace! bless the lord, o my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name. now is peace come, now the face of heaven is altered. behold, all things are become new." now the sinner can abide god's presence, yea, sees unutterable glory and beauty in him; for here he sees justice smile. while jacob was afraid of esau, how heavily did he drive, even towards the promised land; but when killing thoughts were turned into kissing, and the fears of the sword's point turned into brotherly embraces, what says he? "i have seen thy face as though it had been the face of god, and thou wast pleased with me." so and far better is it with a poor distressed sinner, at the revelation of the grace of god through jesus christ. "god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." o, what work will such a word make upon a wounded conscience, especially when the next words follow: "for he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of god in him." now the soul sees qualifications able to set him quiet in the sight of god--qualifications prepared already. prepared, i say, already, and that by god through christ; even such as can perfectly answer the law. what doth the law require? if obedience, here it is; if bloody sacrifice, here it is; if infinite righteousness, here it is. now then the law condemns no more him that believes before god; for all its demands are answered, all its curses are swallowed up in the death and curse christ underwent. objection. but reason saith, "since personal sin brought the death, surely personal obedience must bring us life and glory." answer. true, reason saith so, and so doth the law itself, rom. 10:5; but god we know is above them both, and he in the covenant of grace saith otherwise, to wit, "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the lord jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that god hath raised hint from the dead, thou shalt be saved." let reason then hold its tongue; yea, let the law with all its wisdom subject itself to him that made it; let it look for sin where god hath laid it; let it approve the righteousness which god approveth: yea, though it be not that of the law, but that by faith of jesus christ. god hath made him our righteousness; god hath made him our sin; god hath made him our curse; god hath made him our blessing: methinks this word, god hath made it so, should silence all the world. i shall leave the obstinate where i found him, and shall say to him that is willing to be saved, "sinner, thou hast the advantage of thy neighbor, not only because thou art willing to live, but because there are those that are willing thou shouldst, to wit, those unto whom the issues of death belong; and they are the father and the son, to whom be glory with the blessed spirit of grace." i have seen some, that have promised nothing at first setting out to be pilgrims, and that one would have thought could not have lived another day, that have yet proved very good pilgrims. objection. i am afraid the day of grace is past, and if it should be, what shall i do then? answer. with some men indeed, the day of grace is past before their lives are at an end: or thus, the day of grace is past before the day of death is come; as christ saith, "if thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace," the word of grace or reconciliation; "but now they are hid from thine eyes." luke 19:42. but for thy better satisfaction, let me ask, doth the lord knock still at the door of thy heart, by his word and spirit? if so, then the day of grace is not passed with thy soul; for where he doth so knock, there he doth also proffer and promise to come in and sup, that is, to communicate of his love unto them; which he would not do were the day of grace passed with the soul. rev 3:20. objection. but how shall i know whether christ doth so knock at my heart as to be desirous to come in, that i may know also whether the day of grace be passed with me or not? answer. doth the lord make thee sensible of thy miserable state without an interest in jesus christ; and that naturally thou hast no share in him, no faith in him, no communion with him, no delight in him, or the least love to him? if he hath, and is doing this, he is knocking at thy heart. doth he, together with this, put into thy heart an earnest desire after communion with him, with holy resolutions not to be satisfied without it? doth he sometimes give thee some secret persuasions, though scarcely discernible, that thou mayest attain an interest in him? doth he now and then glance in some of the promises into thy heart, causing them to leave some heavenly savor, though but for a short time, on thy spirit? dost thou at times see some little excellency in christ, and doth it stir up in thy soul some breathings after him? if so, then fear not. the day of grace is not passed with thy poor soul; for if the day of grace should be passed with such a soul as this, then that scripture must be broken, where christ saith, "him that cometh to me, i will in no wise," upon no terms whatsoever, "cast out." john 6:37. get thy heart warmed with the sweet promise of christ's acceptance of the coming sinner, and that will make thee make more haste unto him. discouraging thoughts are like unto cold weather; they benumb the senses and make us go ungainly about our business; but the sweet and warm gleeds [footnote: glowing coals.] of promise are like the comfortable beams of the sun, which enliveneth and refresheth. you see how little the bee and the fly do play in the air in winter--why, the cold hinders them from doing it: but when the wind and sun are warm, who so busy as they? objection. but saith another, "i am so heartless, so slow, and, as i think, so indifferent in my coming, that to speak truth, i know not whether my kind of coming ought to be called a coming to christ." answer. i read of some that are to follow christ in chains--i say, to come after him in chains. isa. 45:14. surely they that come after christ in chains, come to him in great difficulty. and what chain so heavy as those that discourage thee? thy chain, which is made up of guilt and filth, is heavy; it is a wretched band about thy neck, by which thy strength doth fail. but come, though thou comest in chains; it is glory to christ, that a sinner comes after him in chains. the chinking of thy chains, though troublesome to thee, is not, nor can be, destruction to thy salvation. it is christ's work and glory to save thee from thy chains, to enlarge thy steps, and set thee at liberty. the blind man, though called, surely could not come apace to jesus christ; but jesus christ could stand still and stay for him. to slight grace, to despise mercy, and to stop the ear when god speaks, when he speaks such great things so much to our profit, is a great provocation. he offers, he calls, he woos, he invites, he prays, he beseeches us, in this day of his grace, to be reconciled to him; yea, and has provided for us the means of reconciliation himself. now, to despise these must needs be a provoking; and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living god. objection. but some man may say unto me, "fain i would be saved, fain i would be saved by christ; but i fear this day of grace is past, and that i shall perish, notwithstanding the exceeding riches of the grace of god." answer. to this doubt i would answer several things. first, with respect to the day: 1. art thou jogged and shaken and molested at the hearing of the word? is thy conscience awakened and convinced, then, that thou art at present in a perishing state, and that thou hast need to cry to god for mercy? this is a hopeful sign that the day of grace is not past with thee. 2. are there in thy more retired condition, arguings, strugglings, and strivings with thy spirit to persuade thee of the vanity of what vain things thou lovest, and to win thee in thy soul to a choice of christ jesus and his heavenly things? take heed and rebel not, for the day of god's grace and patience will not be past with thee till he saith his spirit shall strive no more with thee: for then the woe comes, when he shall depart from them, and when he says to the means of grace, "let them alone." 3. art thou visited in the night seasons with dreams about thy state, and that thou art in danger of being lost? hast thou heart-shaking apprehensions, when deep sleep is upon thee, of hell, death, and judgment to come? these are signs that god has not wholly left thee, or cast thee behind his back for ever. all this while god has not left the sinner, nor is come to the end of his patience towards him, but stands at least with the door of grace ajar in his hand, as being loath as yet to bolt it against him. 4. art thou followed with affliction, and dost thou hear god's angry voice in thy affliction? doth he send with thy affliction an interpreter to show thee thy vileness, and why or wherefore the hand of god is upon thee and upon what thou hast, to wit, that it is for thy sinning against him, and that thou mightst be turned to him? if so, thy summer is not quite ended, thy harvest is not quite over and gone. take heed; stand out no longer, lest he cause darkness, and lest thy feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and lest while you look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness. 5. hast thou any enticing touches of the word of god upon thy mind? doth as it were some holy word of god give a glance upon thee, cast a smile upon thee, let fall though it be but one drop of its savor upon thy spirit; yea, though it stays but one moment with thee? oh, then, the day of grace is not past, the gate of heaven is not shut, nor god's heart withdrawn from thee as yet. take heed therefore, and beware that thou make much of the heavenly gift and of that good word of god of which he has made thee taste. secondly, with respect to thy desires, what are they? wouldst thou be saved? wouldst thou be saved with a thorough salvation? wouldst thou be saved from guilt and filth too? wouldst thou be the servant of thy saviour? art thou indeed weary of the service of thy old masters, the devil, sin, and the world? and have these desires put thy soul to the flight? hast thou through desires betaken thyself to thy heels? dost thou fly to him that is a saviour from the wrath to come, for life? if these be thy desires, and if they be unfeigned, fear not. thou art one of those runaways which god has commanded our lord to receive, and not to send thee back to the devil thy master again, but to give thee a place in his house, even the place which thou likest best. "but," you say, "i am afraid i am not elect or chosen to salvation." at present, lay the thoughts of thy election by, and ask thyself these questions: do i see my lost condition? do i see salvation is nowhere but in christ? would i share in this salvation by faith in him? and would i be thoroughly saved from the filth as well as from the guilt? do i love christ, his father, his saints, his words and ways? this is the way to prove we are elect. wherefore, sinner, when satan or thine own heart seeks to puzzle thee with election, say thou, "i cannot attend to talk of this point now; but stay till i know that i am called of god to the fellowship of his son, and then i will show you that i am elect, and that my name is written in the book of life." if poor distressed souls would observe this order, they might save themselves the trouble of an unprofitable labor under these unreasonable and soul-sinking doubts. let us therefore, upon the sight of our wretchedness, fly and venturously leap into the arms of christ, which are now as open to receive us into his bosom as they were when nailed to the cross. let me tell thee, soul, for thy comfort, who art coming in to christ panting and sighing as if thy heart would break, let me tell thee, soul, thou wouldst never have come to christ if he had not first, by the virtue of his blood and intercession, sent into thy heart an earnest desire after christ; let me tell thee also, that it is his business to make intercession for thee, not, only that thou mayest come in, but that thou mayest be preserved when thou art come in. they that are coming to jesus christ are ofttimes heartily afraid that jesus christ will not receive them. this word, "in nowise," cutteth the throat of all objections; and it was dropped by the lord jesus for that very end, and to help the faith that is mixed with unbelief. but i am a great sinner, sayest thou. i will in nowise cast out, says christ. but i am an old sinner, sayest thou. i will in nowise cast out, says christ. but i am a hard-hearted sinner, sayest thou. i will in nowise cast out, says christ. but i have served satan all my days, sayest thou. i will in nowise cast out, says christ. but i have sinned against light, sayest thou. i will in nowise cast out, says christ. but i have sinned against mercy, sayest thou. i will in nowise cast out, says christ. but i have no good thing to bring with me, sayest thou. i will in nowise cast out, says christ. fears in coming to christ. 1. this fear that christ will not receive thee is for cant of the knowledge of christ. thou knowest but little of the grace and kindness that is in the heart of christ; thou knowest but little of the virtue and merit of his blood; thou knowest but little of the willingness that is in his heart to save thee. slowness of heart to believe flows from thy foolishness in the things of christ; this is evident to all that are acquainted with themselves, and are seeking after jesus christ. the more ignorance, the more unbelief; the more knowledge of christ, the more faith. "they that know thy name, will put their trust in thee." 2. thy fears that christ will not receive thee may be also a consequence of thy earnest and strong desires after thy salvation by him. for this i observe, that strong desires to have are attended with strong fears of missing. what man most sets his heart upon, and what his desires are most after, he ofttimes most fears he shall not obtain. so, the ruler of the synagogue had a great desire that his daughter should live, and that desire was attended with fear that she would not. therefore christ saith unto him, "be not afraid." now thou fearest the sins of thy youth, the sins of thine old age, the sins of thy calling, the sins of thy christian duties, the sins of thine heart, or something; thou thinkest something or other will alienate the heart and affections of jesus christ from thee. but be content. a little more knowledge of him will make thee take better heart; thy earnest desires shall not be attended with such burning fears; thou shalt hereafter say, "this is my infirmity." 3. thy fear that christ will not receive thee, may arise from a sense of thy own unworthiness. thou seest what a poor, sorry, wretched, worthless creature thou art; and seeing this, thou fearest christ will not receive thee. "alas," sayst thou, "i am the vilest of all men, a townsinner, a ringleading sinner. i am not only a sinner my self, but i have made others twofold worse the children of hell also. besides, now i am under some awakenings and stirrings of mind after salvation, even now i find my heart rebellious, carnal, hard, treacherous, desperate, prone to unbelief, to despair; it forgetteth the word, it wandereth, it runneth to the ends of the earth. there is not, i am persuaded, one in all the world that hath such a desperate wicked heart as mine is. my soul is careless to do good; but none more earnest to do that which is evil. "can such a one as i am live in glory? can a holy, a just, and a righteous god think, with honor to his name, of saving such a vile creature as i am? saved i would be; and who is there that would not, were he in my condition? indeed i wonder at the madness and folly of others, when i see them leap and skip so carelessly about the mouth of hell. bold sinner, how darest thou tempt god by laughing at the breach of his holy law? but, alas, they are not so bad one way, but i am worse another; i wish myself were any body but myself. and yet, here again i know not what to wish. when i see such as i believe are coming to jesus christ, oh i bless them. but i am confounded in myself, to see how unlike i am to a very good many in the world. they can hear, read, pray, remember, repent, he humble, and do every thing better than so vile a wretch as i." thus the sense of unworthiness creates and heightens fears in the hearts of them that are coming to jesus christ. but indeed it should not, for who needs the physician but the sick? or whom did christ come into the world to save, but the chief of sinners? wherefore, the more thou seest thy sins, the faster fly thou to jesus christ. as it is with the man that carrieth his broken arm in a sling to the bonesetter, still, as he thinks of his broken arm, and as he feels the pain and anguish, he hastens his pace to the man. and if satan meets thee, and asketh, "whither goest thou?" tell him thou art maimed, and art going to the lord jesus. if he objects thine own unworthiness, tell him, that even as the sick seeketh the physician; as he that hath broken bones seeks him that can set them; so thou art going to jesus christ for healing for thy sin-sick soul. but it ofttimes happeneth to him that flies for his life, he despairs of escaping, and therefore delivers himself up into the hand of the pursuer. but up, up, sinner; be of good cheer; christ came to save the unworthy one. be not faithless, but believing. come away, man. the lord jesus calls thee, saying, ".and him that cometh to me, i will in nowise cast out." 4. thy fear that christ will not receive thee, may arise from a sense of the exceeding mercy of being saved. besides, the holy ghost hath a way to greaten heavenly things to the understanding of the coming sinner; yea, and at the same time to greaten, too, the sin and unworthiness of that sinner. now, the soul staggering by wonders, saying, "what! to be made like angels, like christ; to live in eternal bliss, joy, and felicity! this is for angels, and for them that can walk like angels." thus doth the greatness of the things desired quite dash and overthrow the mind of the desire. "o, it is too big, it is too big, it is too great a mercy." but, coming sinner, let me reason with thee. thou sayest it is too big, too great. well, will things that are less satisfy thy soul? will a less thing than heaven, than glory and eternal life, answer thy desires? "no, nothing less. yet i fear they are too big, and too good for me even to obtain." well, as big and as good as they are, god giveth them to such as thou. they are not too big for god to give; no, not too big to give freely. be content; let god give like himself; he is that eternal god, and giveth like himself. when kings give, they do not use to give as poor men do. now, god is a great king; let him give like a king; nay, let him give like himself, and do thou receive like thyself. he has all, and thou hast nothing. 5. thy fears that christ will not receive thee, may arise from thine own folly in inveting, yea, in thy chalking out to god a way to bring thee home to jesus christ. some souls that are coming to jesus christ are great tormentors of themselves upon this account. they conclude that if their coming to jesus christ is right, they must needs be brought home thus and thus. now, i say, if god brings thee to christ, and not by the way that thou hast appointed, then thou art at a loss; and for thy being at a loss, thou mayest thank thyself. god hath more ways than thou knowest of to bring a sinner to jesus christ; but he will not give thee before-hand an account by which of them he will bring thee to christ. sometimes he hath his ways in the whirlwind, but sometimes the lord is not there. if god will deal more gently with thee than with others of his children, grudge not at it; refuse not the waters that go softly, lest he bring up to thee the waters of the rivers strong and many, even those two smoking firebrands, the devil and guilt of sin. he saith to peter, "follow me;" and what thunder did zaccheus hear or see? "zaccheus, come down," said christ; and he came down, says luke, and received him joyfully. but had peter or zaccheus made the objection that thou hast made-looking for a heavy load of guilt, or fearful temptations of satan-and directed the spirit of the lord as thou hast done, they might have looked long enough before they had found themselves coming to jesus christ. poor creature! thou criest, "if i were tempted, i could come faster and with more confidence to jesus christ." thou sayest thou knowest not what. what says job? "withdraw thy hand far from me, and let not thy dread make me afraid: then call thou, and i will answer; or let me speak, and answer thou me." job 13: 21, 22. it is not the over-heavy load of sin, but the discovery of mercy-not the roaring of the devil, but the drawing of the father, that makes a man come to jesus christ. i myself know all these things. true, sometimes they that come to jesus christ, come the way that thou desirest-the loading, tempted way; but the lord also leads some by the waters of comfort. if i was to choose when to go a long journey, to wit, whether i would go it in the dead of winter or in the pleasant spring-though if it was a very profitable journey, as that of coming to christ is, i would choose to go it through fire and water before i would lose the benefit-but i say, if i might choose the time, i would choose to go in the pleasant spring, because the way would be more delightsome, the days longer and warmer, the nights shorter, and not so cold. trouble not thyself, coming sinner: if thou seest thy lost condition by original and actual sin; if thou seest thy need of the spotless righteousness of jesus christ; if thou art willing to be found in him, and to take up thy cross and follow him, then pray for a fair wind and good weather, and come away. stick no longer in a muse and doubt about things, but come away to jesus christ. 6. thy fears that christ will not receive thee may arise from those decays that thou findest in thy-soul, even while thou art coming to him. some, even as they are coming to jesus christ, do find themselves grow worse and worse. to explain myself: there is such a one coming to jesus christ, who, when he first began to look out after him, was sensible, affectionate, and broken in spirit, but now is grown dark, senseless, hard-hearted, and inclining to neglect spiritual duties. besides, he now finds in himself inclinations to unbelief, atheism, blasphemy, and the like; now, he finds he cannot tremble at god's word, his judgments, nor the apprehension of hell-fire; neither can he, as he thinketh, be sorry for these things. this man is in the wilderness among wild beasts. here he sees a bear, there a lion, yonder a leopard, a wolf, a dragon. devils of all sorts, doubts of all sorts, fears of all sorts haunt and molest his soul. this man feeleth the infirmity of his flesh; he findeth a proneness in himself to be desperate. now he chides with god, flings and tumbles like a wild bull in a net, and still the guilt of all returns upon himself to the crushing of him to pieces. yet he feeleth his heart so hard that he can find, as he thinks, no kindness under any of his miscarriages. now, he is a lump of confusion in his own eyes, whose spirit and actions are without order. "now, i see i am lost," says the sinner; "this is not coming to jesus christ; such a desperately hard and wretched heart as mine is, cannot be a gracious one," saith the sinner. and bid such a one be better, he says, "i cannot; no, i cannot." question. but what will you say to a soul in this condition? answer. i will say, that temptations have attended the best of god's people; i will say that temptations come to do us good; and i will say also, that there is a difference betwixt growing worse and worse, and thy seeing more clearly how bad thou art. there is a man of an ill-favored countenance who hath too high a conceit of his heauty, and wanting the benefit of a glass, he still stands in his own conceit. at last a limner is sent unto him, who draweth his ill-favored face to the life. now, looking thereon, he hegins to be convinced that he is not half so handsome as he thought he was. coming sinner, thy temptations are these painters; they have drawn out thy ill-favored heart to the life, and have set it before thine eyes, and now thou seest how ill-favored thou art. some that are coming to christ cannot lie persuaded, until the temptation comes, that they are so vile as the scripture saith they are. true, they see so much of their wretchedness as to drive them to christ. but there is an over and above of wickedness which they see not. peter little thought that he had had in his heart cursing and swearing and lying, and an inclination to deny his master, before the temptation came; but when that indeed came upon him, then he found it there to his sorrow. it may be that thy graces must be tried in the fire, that that rust which cleaveth to them may be taken away, and themselves proved, both before angels and devils, to be far better than gold that perisheth. it may be also, that thy graces are to receive special praises and honor and glory, at the coming of the lord jesus christ to judgment, for all the exploits that thou hast acted by them against hell and its infernal crew, in the day of thy temptation. but to conclude this, put the worst to the worst, and then things will be bad enough: suppose that thou art to this day without the grace of god; yet thou art but a miserable creature, a sinner that has need of a blessed saviour; and the text presents thee with one as good and kind as heart can wish, who also for thy encouragement saith, "and him that cometh to me, i will in no wise cast out." mercy's experience. so the interpreter addressed him to mercy, and said unto her, "and what moved thee to come hither, sweetheart?" then mercy blushed and trembled, and for a while continued silent. then said he, "be not afraid; only believe, and speak thy mind." then she began, and said, "truly, sir, my want of experience is that which makes me covet to be in silence, and that also that filleth me with fears of coming short at last. i cannot tell of visions and dreams as my friend christiana can, nor know i what it is to mourn for my refusing of the counsel of those that were good relations." interpreter. "what was it then, dear heart, that hath prevailed with thee to do as thou hast done?" mercy. "why, when our friend here was packing up to be gone from our town, [the city of destruction,] i and another went accidentally to see her. so we knocked at the door and went in. when we were within, and seeing what she was doing, we asked her what she meant. she said she was sent for to go to her husband; and then she up and told us how she had seen him in a dream, dwelling in a curious place, among immortals, wearing a crown, playing upon a harp, eating and drinking at his prince's table, and singing praises to him for the bringing him thither. now methought, while she was telling these things unto us, my heart burned withm ran. and i said in my heart, 'if this be true, i will leave my father and my mother, and the land of my nativity, and will, if i may, go along with christiana.' "so i asked her further of the truth of these things, and if she would let me go with her; for i saw how that there was no dwelling, but with the danger of ruin, any longer in our town. but yet i came away with a heavy heart; not for that i was unwilling to come away, hut for thai so many of my relations were left behind. and i am come with all my heart, and will, if i may, go with christiana to her husband and his king." interpreter. "thy setting out is good, for thou hast given credit to the truth; thou art a ruth, who did, for the love she hare to naomi and to the lord her god, leave father and mother, and the land of her nativity, to come out and go with a people that she knew not before. 'the lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the lord god of israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.'" fears and encouragements of the awakened. some men are blood-red sinners, crimson sinners, sinners of a double dye: dipped and dipped again before they come to jesus christ. art thou that readest these lines such a one? speak out, man. art thou such a one? and art thou now coming to jesus christ for the mercy of justification, that thou mightest be made white in his blood and be covered with his righteousness? fear not; forasmuch as this thy coming betokeneth that thou art of the number of them that the father hath given to christ; for he will in no wise cast thee out. "come now," saith christ, "and let us reason together: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." i might tell you of the contests and battles that great sinners at their conversion are engaged in, wherein they find the besettings of satan above any other of the saints. at which time satan assaults the soul with darkness, fears, frightful thoughts of apparitions; now they sweat, pant, cry out, and struggle for life. the angels now come down to behold the sight, and rejoice to see a bit of dust and ashes overcome principalities, and powers, and mights, and dominions. but whea these come to be a little settled, they are prepared for helping others, and are great comforts unto them. their great sins give great encouragement to the devil to assault them; and by these temptations christ takes advantage to make them the more helpful to the churches. the biggest sinner, when he is converted and comes into the church, says to them all by his very coming in, "behold me, all you that are men and women of a low and timorous spirit, you whose hearts are narrow--for that you have never had the advantage to know, because your sins are few, the largeness of the grace of god--behold, i say, in me the exceeding riches of his grace. i am a pattern set forth before your faces, on whom you may look and take heart." christ jesus makes of the biggest sinners bearers and supporters to the rest. christ saved the thief, to encourage thieves to come to him for mercy; he saved magdalen, to encourage other magdalens to come to him for mercy; he saved saul, to encourage sauls to come to him for mercy; and this paul himself doth say: "for this cause," saith he, "i obtained mercy, that in me first jesus christ might show forth all long-suffering for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." when christ was crucified and hanged up between the earth and heavens, there were two thieves crucified with him; and behold, he lays hold of one of them and will have him away with him to glory. was not this a strange act and a display of unthought of grace? were there none but thieves there, or were the rest of that company out of his reach? could he not, think you, have stooped from the cross to the ground, and have laid hold of some honester man, if he would? yes, doubtless. o, but then he would not have displayed his grace, nor have so pursued his own designs, namely, to get himself a praise and a name; but now he has done it to purpose. for who that shall read this story but must confess that the son of god is full of grace? for a proof of the riches thereof he left behind him, when upon the cross he took the thief away with him to glory. i have one thing more to offer for thy encouragement, who deemest thyself one of the biggest sinners; and that is, thou art as it were called by thy name, in the first place to come in for mercy. thou man of jerusalem, luke 24:47, hearken to thy call: men do so in courts of judicature, and presently cry out, "here, sir;" and then shoulder and crowd, and say, "pray give way, i am called into the court." why, this is thy case, thou great, thou jerusalem sinner; be of good cheer, he calleth thee. why sittest thou still? arise. why standest thou still? come, man, thy call should give thee authority to corne. "begin at jerusalem," is thy call and authority to come; wherefore up and shoulder it, man; say, "stand away, devil, christ calls me; stand away, unbelief, christ calls me; stand away, all ye discouraging apprehensions, for my saviour calls me to him to receive of his mercy." men will do thus, as i said, in courts below; and why shouldst not thou approach thus to the courts above? the jerusalem sinner is first in thought, first in commission, first in the record of names; and therefore should give attendance with expectation that he is first to receive mercy of god. is not this an encouragement to the biggest sinners to make their application to christ for mercy? "come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden," doth also confirm this thing; that is, that the biggest sinner and he that hath the biggest burden, is he who is first invited. christ pointeth over the heads of thousands as he sits on the throne of grace, directly to such a man, and says, "bring in hither the maimed, the halt, and the blind; let the jerusalem shiner that stands there hehind, come to me." wherefore, since christ says to thee, come, let the angels make a lane and let all men give place, that the jerusalem sinner may come to christ for mercy. despair of mercy unreasonable. would jesus christ have mercy offered, in the first place, to the biggest sinners? then this shows how unreasonable a thing it is for men to despair of mercy. i am concerned only with the despair of those that would be saved, but are too strongly borne down with the burden of their sins. i say, therefore, to thee that art thus, and why despair? thy despair, if it was reasonable, should flow from thee because found in the land that is beyond the grave, or because thou certainly knowest that christ will not or cannot save thee. but for the first, thou art yet in the land of the living; and for the second, thou hast ground to believe quite the contrary. christ is able to save to the uttermost them that come to god by him; and if he were not willing, he would not have commanded that mercy, in the first place, should be offered to the biggest sinners. besides, he hath said, "and let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely"--that is, with all my heart. what ground, now, is here for despair? if thou sayest, "the number and burden of my sins;" i answer, nay; that is rather a ground for faith; because such a one, above all others, is invited by christ to come unto him, yea, promised rest and forgiveness, if he come. matt. 11: 28. what ground, then, to despair? verily, none at all thy despair, then, is a thing unreasonable, and without footing in the word. "but i have no experience of god's love; god has given me no comfort or ground of hope, though i have waited upon him for it many a day." thou hast experience of god's love, in that he has opened thine eyes to see thy sins, and in that he has given thee desires to be saved by jesus christ. for by thy sense of sin, thou art made to see thy poverty of spirit, and that has laid thee under a sure ground to hope that heaven shall be thine hereafter. also, thy desires to be saved by christ have put thee under another promise, matt. 5: 3, 6; so there are two to hold thee up in them, though thy present burden be never so heavy. as for what thou sayest as to god's silence to thee, perhaps he has spoken to thee once or twice already, but thou hast not perceived it. job 33:14, 15. besides, god says, "they that wait upon the lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles;" but perhaps it may be long first. "i waited patiently," says david, "i sought the lord;" and at length his cry was heard: wherefore, he bids his soul wait on god, and says, "for it is good" so to do "before thy saints." psalm 40:1; 52:9; 62:5. and what if thou waitest upon god all thy days? is it below thee? and what if god will cross his book and blot out the handwriting that is against thee, arid not let thee know it as yet? is it fit to say unto god, thou art hard-hearted? despair not; thou hast no ground to despair, so long as thou livest in this world. it is a sin to begin to despair before one sets his foot over the threshold of hell-gates. for them that are there, let them despair, and spare not; but as for thee, thou hast no ground to do it. what, despair of bread in a land that is full of corn; despair of mercy, when our god is full of mercy; despair of mercy, when god goes about by his ministers, beseeching sinners to be reconciled to him? thou scrupulous fool, where canst thou find that god was ever false to his promise, or that he ever deceived the soul that ventured itself upon him? he often calls upon sinners to trust him, though they walk in darkness, and have no light. isa. 50:10. they have his promise and oath for their salvation, that flee for refuge to the hope set before them. despair, when we have a god of mercy and a redeeming christ alive! for shame, forbear; let them despair that dwell where there is no god, and that are confined to those chamhers of death which can be reached by no redemption. a living man despair, when he is chid for murmuring and complaining! lam. 3:39. oh, so long as we are where promises swarm, where mercy is proclaimed, where grace reigns, and where jerusalem sinners are privileged with the first offer of mercy, it is a base thing to despair. despair undervalues the promise, undervalues the invitation, undervalues the proffer of grace. despair undervalues the ability of god the father, and the redeeming blood of christ his son. oh, unreasonable despair! despair makes man god's judge; it is a controller of the promise, a contradictor of christ in his large offers of mercy; and one that undertakes to make unbelief the great manager of our reason and judgment, in determining about what god can and will do for sinners. despair! it is the devil's fellow, the devil's master; yea, the chains with which he is captivated, and held under darkness for ever: arid to give way thereto, in a land, in a state and time that flows with milk and honey, is an uncomely thing. i would say to my soul, o my soul, this is not the place of despair; this is not the time to despair in. as long as mine eyes can find a promise in the bible, as long as there is a moment left me of breath or life ill this world, so long will i wait or look for mercy, so long will i fight against unbelief and despair. this is the way to honor god and christ; this is the way to set the crown on the promise; this is the way to welcome the invitation and the inviter; and this is the way to thrust thyself under the shelter and protection of the word of grace. never despair, so long as our text is alive; for that doth sound it out, that mercy by christ is offered in the first place to the biggest sinner. let none despair, let none presume: let none despair, that are sorry for their sins and would he saved by jesus christ; let none presume that abide in the liking of their sins, though they seem to know the exceeding grace of christ; for though the doors stand wide open for the reception of the penitent, yet they are fast enough barred and bolted against the presumptuous sinner. be not deceived, god is not mocked; whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. it cannot be that god should be wheedled out of his mercy, or prevailed upon by lips of dissimulation; he knows them that trust in him, and that sincerely come to him by christ for mercy. it is, then, not the abundance of sins committed, but the not coming heartily to god by christ for mercy, that shuts men out of doors. is it so, that they that are coining to jesus christ, are ofttimes heartily afraid that he will not receive them? then this should teach old christians to pity and pray for young comers. you know the heart of a stranger, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of egypt. you know the fears and doubts and terrors that take hold of them, for they sometimes took hold of you. wherefore, pity them, pray for them, encourage them; they need all this. the power of the gospel. that jesus christ, by what he has done, has paid full price to god for sinners and obtained eternal redemption for them, is evident, if you consider how the preaching thereof has been from that time to this a mighty conqueror over all kinds of sinners. what nation, what people, what kind of sinners have not been subdued by the preaching of a crucified christ? he upon the white horse with his bow and his crown has conquered, doth conquer, and goeth forth yet conquering and to conquer. the doctrine of forgiveness of sin conquered his very murderers. they could not withstand the grace; those bloody ones that would kill him whatever it cost them, could stand no longer, but received his doctrine, fell into his bosom, and obtained the salvation which is in christ jesus. "they shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son, and they shall be in bitterness for him as one is in bitterness for his first-born." now was the scripture eminently fulfilled, when the kindness of a crucified christ broke to pieces the hearts of them that had before been his betrayers and murderers. now was there a great mourning in jerusalem; now was there wailing and lamentation, mixed with joy and rejoicing. though paul was mad, exceeding mad against jesus christ of nazareth, seeking to put out his name from under heaven; yet the voice from heaven, "i am jesus, i am the saviour," how did it conquer him, make him throw down his arms, fall down at christ's feet, and accept of the forgiveness of sins freely by grace, through redemption by faith in his blood. how was the sturdy jailer overcome by a promise of forgiveness of sins by faith in jesus christ. it stopped his hand of self-murder, it eased him of the gnawings of a guilty conscience and fears of hell-fire, and filled his soul with rejoicing in god. what shall i say? no man could as yet stand before, and not fall under, the revelation of the forgiveness of sins through a crucified christ; as hanged, as dying, as accursed for sinners, he draws all men unto him, men of all sorts, of all degrees. shall i add, how have men broken through all difficulties to jesus, when he hath been discovered to them! neither lions, nor fires, nor sword, nor famine, nor nakedness, nor peril; "neither death nor life; nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers; nor things present, nor things to come; nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of god which is in christ jesus our lord." bunyan's conversion i speak by experience: i was one of these verminous ones, one of these great sin-breeders; i infected all the youth of the town where i was born with all manner of youthful vanities. the neighbors counted me so; my practice proved me so: wherefore christ jesus took me first, and taking me first, the contagion was much allayed all the town over. when god made me sigh, they would hearken, and inquiringly say, "what is the matter with john?" they also gave their various opinions of me; but, as i said, sin cooled, and failed as to his full career. when i went out to seek the bread of life, some of them would follow, and the rest be put into a muse at home. when it pleased the lord to begin to instruct my soul, he found me one of the black sinners of the world; he found me making a sport of oaths, and also of lies; and many a soul-poisoning meal did i make out of divers lusts, as drinking, dancing, etc., with the wicked ones of the world. the lord finding me in this condition, opened the glass of his law unto me, showing me so clearly my sins--both the greatness of them, and also how abominable they were in his sight--that i thought the very clouds were charged with the wrath of god, and ready to let fall the fire of his jealousy upon me; yet for all this i was so wedded to my sins, that i thought with myself, "i will have them, though i lose my soul," wretch that i was. but god, the great, the rich, the infinitely merciful god, did not take this advantage of my soul to cast me away; but followed me still, arid won my heart by giving me some understanding, not only of my miserable state which i was very sensible of, but also that there might he hopes of mercy; taking away my love to lust, and placing in the room thereof a holy love to religion. thus the lord won my heart to some desire to hear the word, to grow a stranger to my old companions, and to accompany the people of god, giving me many sweet encouragements from several promises in the scriptures. but after this, the lord wonderfully set my sins upon my conscience; those sins especially that i had committed since the first convictions: temptations also followed me very hard; especially such as tended to make me question the way of salvation--whether jesus christ was the saviour or not, and whether i had best to venture my soul upon him for salvation, or take some other course--and i continued a year and upwards without any sound evidence as from god to my soul, touching salvation as it comes by jesus christ. but at the last, as i may say, when the set time was come, the lord did set me down blessedly in the truth of the doctrine of jesus christ. about this time the state and happiness of these poor people at bedford was thus, in a kind of a vision, presented to me. i saw as if they were on the sunny side of some high mountain, there refreshing themselves with the pleasant beams of the sun, whilst i was shivering and shrinking in the cold, afflicted with frost, snow, and dark clouds. methought also, between me and them i saw a wall that did compass about this mountain. now, through this mountain my soul did greatly desire to pass; concluding that if i could, i would even go into the very midst of them and there also comfort myself with the heat of their sun. about this wall i bethought myself to go again and again, still prying as i went, to see if i could find some way or passage by which i might enter therein; but none could i find for some time: at the last, i saw as it were a narrow gap, like a little door-way in the wall, through which i attempted to pass; now the passage being very strait and narrow, i made many offers to get in, but all in vain, even until i was well-nigh quite beat out by striving to get in; at last, with great striving, methought i at first did get in my head, and after that, by a sideling striving, my shoulders and my whole body; then was i exceeding glad, and went and sat down in the midst of them, and so was comforted with the light and heat of their sun. now, this mountain and wall, etc., was thus made out to me: the mountain signified the church of the living god; the sun that shone thereon, the comfortable shining of his merciful face on them that were therein; the wall i thought was that which did make separation betwixt the christians and the world; and the gap which was in the wall, i thought was jesus christ, who is the way to god the father. but forasmuch as the passage was wonderful narrow, even so narrow that i could not but with great difficulty enter in thereat, it showed me that none could enter into life but those that were in downright earnest, and unless also they left that wicked world behind them; for here was only room for body and soul, but not for body and soul and sin. this resemblance abode upon my spirit many days; all which time i saw myself in a forlorn and sad condition, but yet was provoked to a vehement hunger and desire to be one of that number that did sit in the sunshine; now also would i pray wherever i was, whether at home or abroad, in house or field; and would also often, with lifting up of heart, sing that of the fifty-first psalm, "o lord, consider my distress;" for as yet i knew not where i was. neither as yet could i attain to any comfortahle persuasion that i had faith in christ; hut instead of having satisfaction here, i began to find my soul to be assaulted with fresh doubts about my future happiness; especially with such as these: "whether i was elected;" "but how if the day of grace should be past and gone?" now was i in great distress, thinking in very deed that this might well be so: wherefore i went up and down bemoaning my sad condition; counting myself far worse than a thousand fools for standing off thus long, and spending so many years in sin as i had done; still crying out, "o that i had turned sooner! o that i had turned seven years ago!" it made me also angry with myself to think that i should have no more wit but to trifle away my time till my soul and heaven were lost. but when i had been long vexed with this fear, and was scarce able to take one step more, these words broke in upon my mind: "compel them to come in, that my house may he filled; and yet there is room." these words, but especially these, "and yet there is room," were sweet words to me; for truly i thought that by them i saw there was place enough in heaven for me, and moreover, that when the lord jesus spake these words, he did then think of me; and that he knowing that the time would come that i should be afflicted with fear that there was no place left for me in his bosom, did before speak this word and leave it upon record, that i might find help thereby against this vile temptation. how lovely now in my eyes were all those that i thought to be converted men and women. they shone, they walked like a people that carried the broad seal of heaven about them. oh, i saw the lot was fallen to them in pleasant places, and they had a goodly heritage. but that which made me sick, was that of christ in mark 3:13, "he went up into a mountain, and called unto him whom he would; and they came unto him." this scripture made me faint and fear, yet it kindled fire in my soul. that which made me fear was this, lest christ should have no liking to me; for he called "whom he would." but oh, the glory that i saw in that condition did still so engage my heart, that i could seldom read of any that christ did call; but i presently wished, "would i had been in their clothes; would i had been born peter; would i had been born john; or would i had been by and had heard him when he called them, how would i have cried, 'o lord, call me also.'" but oh, i feared he would not call me. fears about election before thou canst know whether thou art elected, thou must believe in jesus christ so really, that by thy faith there shall be life begotten in thy soul--life from the condemning of the law; life from the guilt of sin; life over its filth; life also to walk with god in his son and ways; the life of love to god the father, to jesus christ his son, to his saints, and to his ways, because they are holy, harmless, and altogether contrary to iniquity. young converts in young converts, hope and distrust, or a degree of despair, do work and answer one another as doth the noise of the balance of the watch in the pocket. life and death is always the motion of the mind then; and this noise continues until faith is stronger grown, and until the soul is better acquainted with the methods and ways of god with a sinner. yea, was but a carnal man in a convert's heart, and could see, he should discern these two, to wit, hope and fear, to have a continual motion in the soul--wrestling and opposing one another as do light and darkness, in striving for the victory. and hence it is that you find such people so fickle and uncertain in their spirits; now on the mount, then in the valleys; now in the sunshine, then in the shade; now warm, then frozen; now bonny and blithe, then in a moment pensive and sad, as thinking of a portion nowhere but in hell. in the general, all the days of our pilgrimage here are evil; yea, every day has a sufficiency of evil in it to destroy the best saint that breatheth, were it not for the grace of god. but there are also particular specious times, times more eminently dangerous and hazardous unto saints. as, 1. there are their young days, the days of their youth and childhood in grace. this day is usually attended with much evil towards him or them that are asking the way to zion with their faces thitherward. now the devil has lost a sinner; there is a captive has broke prison, and one run away from his master; now hell seems to be awakened from sleep; the devils are come out, they roar, and roaring they seek to recover their runaway; they tempt him, threaten him, flatter him, stigmatize him, throw dust in his eyes, poison him with errors, spoil him while he is upon the potter's wheel; any thing to keep him from coming to jesus christ. and is not this a needy time? doth not such a one want abundance of grace? is it not of absolute necessity that thou, if thou art the man thus beset, shouldst ply it at the throne of grace for mercy and grace to keep thee in such a time of need as this? to want a spirit of prayer now, is as much as thy life is worth. oh, therefore, you that know what i say, you that are broke loose from hell, that are fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before you, and that do hear the lion roar after you, and that are kept awake with the continual voice of his chinking chain, cry as you fly; yea, the promise is, that they that come to god with weeping, with supplication, he will lead them. well, this is one needy time; now thy hedge is low, now thy branch is tender, now thou art but in the bud. pray that thou be not marred in the potter's hand. xii. the christian described happiness of the christian o how happy is he who is not only a visible, but also an invisible saint! he shall not be blotted out the book of god's eternal grace and mercy. dignity of the christian there are a generation of men in the world, that count themselves men of the largest capacities, when yet the greatest of their desires lift themselves no higher than to things below. if they can with their net of craft and policy encompass a bulky lump of earth, oh, what a treasure have they engrossed to themselves! meanwhile, the man who comes to god by christ, has laid siege to heaven, has found out the way to get into the city, and is resolved, in and by god's help, to make that his own. earth is a drossy thing in this man's account; earthly greatness and splendors are but like vanishing bubbles in this man's esteem. none but god as the end of his desires, none but christ as the means to accomplish this his end, are things counted great by this man. no company now is acceptable to this man, but the spirit of god, christ, angels and saints, as fellow-heirs with himself. all other men and things, he deals with as strangers and pilgrims were wont to do. this man's mind soars higher than the eagle, or stork of the heavens. he is for musing about things that are above and their glory, and for thinking what shall come to pass hereafter. is it so, that coming to christ is by the father? then this should teach us to set a high esteem upon them that are indeed coming to jesus christ, for the sake of him by virtue of whose grace they are made to come to jesus christ. we see that when men, by the help of human abilities, do arrive at the knowledge of, and bring to pass that which, when done, is a wonder to the world, how he that did it is esteemed and commended. yea, how are his wits, parts, industry, and unweariedness in all, admired; and yet the man, as to this, is but of the world; and his work the effect of natural ability. the things also attained by him, end in vanity and vexation of spirit. further, perhaps, in the pursuit of these his achievements, he sins against god, wastes his time vainly, and at long run loses his soul by neglecting of better things. yet he is admired. but, i say, if this man's parts, labor, diligence, and the like, will bring him to such esteem in the world, what esteem should we have of such a one that is, by the gift, promise, and power of god, coming to jesus christ? 1. this is the man with whom god is, in whom god works and walks--a man, whose motion is governed and steered by the mighty hand of god, and the effectual working of his power. here is a man! 2. this man, by the power of god's might which worketh in him, is able to cast a whole world behind him, with all the lusts and pleasures of it, and to charge through all the difficulties that men and devils can set against him. here is a man! 3. this man is travelling "to mount zion, the heavenly jerusalem, the city of the living god; and to an innumerable company of angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect, to god the judge of all, and to jesus." here is a man! 4. this man can look upon death with comfort, can laugh at destruction when it cometh, and long to hear the sound of the last trump, and to see the judge coming in the clouds of heaven. here is a man, indeed! we pass through a threefold state from nature to glory; the state of grace in this life, the state of felicity in paradise, and our state in glory after the resurrection. they are all kings that go to that world, and so shall be proclaimed there. they shall also be crowned with crowns, and they shall wear crowns of life and glory, crowns of everlasting joy, crowns of loving-kindness. the coming man, the man that comes to god by christ, if his way, all his way thither were strewed with burning coals, would choose, god helping him, to tread that path rather than to have his portion with them that perish. "the angel of the lord encampeth about them that fear him, and delivereth them." this, therefore, is a glorious privilege of the men that fear the lord. alas, they are some of them so mean, that they are counted not worth taking notice of by the high ones of the world; but their betters do respect them: the angels of god count not themselves too good to attend on them, and camp about them to deliver them. this then is the man that hath his angel to wait on him, even he that feareth the lord. it is said, that when the church is "fair as the sun, and clear as the moon," she is "terrible as an army with banners." the presence of godly samuel made the elders of bethlehem tremble; yea, when elisha was sought for by the king of syria, he durst not engage him but with chariots and horses, a heavy host. godliness is a wonderful thing; it commandeth reverence, and the stooping of the spirit, even of the ungodly ones. godliness puts such a majesty and dread upon the professors of it, that their enemies are afraid of them; yea, even then when they rage against them, and lay heavy afflictions upon them. it is marvellous to see in what fear the ungodly are, even of godly men and godliness; in that they stir up the mighty, make edicts against them, yea, and raise up armies, and what else can be imagined, to suppress them; while the persons thus opposed, if you consider them as to their state and capacity in this world, are the most inconsiderable--but as a dead dog or a flea. o, but they are clothed with godliness; the image and presence of god is upon them. this makes the beasts of this world afraid. "one of you shall chase a thousand." the ornament and beauty of this lower world, next to god and his wonders, are the men that spangle and shine in godliness. the family in heaven and earth "the whole family in heaven, and earth." the difference betwixt us and them is, not that we are really two, but one body in christ, in divers places. true, we are below stairs, and they above; they in their holiday, and we in our working-day clothes; they in harbor, but we in the storm; they at rest, but we in the wilderness; they singing, as crowned with joy, we crying, as crowned with thorns. but we are all of one house, one family, and are all the children of one father. feebleness of the christian israel, as the child of god, is a pitiful thing of himself; one that is full of weaknesses, infirmities, and defects, should we speak nothing of his transgressions. he that is to be attended with so many mercies, absolutely necessary mercies, must needs be in himself a poor indigent creature. should you see a child attended with so many engines to make him go, as the child of god is attended with mercies to make him stand, you would say, "what an infirm, decrepid, helpless thing is this!" would you not say, "such a one is not worth the keeping, and his father cannot look for any thing from him, but that he should live upon high charge and expense, as long as he liveth?" why, this is the case. israel is such a one, nay, a worse: he cannot live without tender mercy, without great mercy, without rich mercy, without manifold mercy. he cannot stand, if mercy doth not compass him round about, nor go, unless mercy follows him. yea, if mercy that rejoiceth against judgment doth not continually flutter over him, the very moth will eat him up, the canker will consume him. the christian under a sense of guilt--bunyan's experience i had no sooner began to recall to my mind my former experience of the goodness of god to my soul, but there came flocking into my mind an innumerable company of my sins and transgressions; amongst which these were at this time most to my affliction, namely, my deadness, dulness, and coldness in holy duties; my wanderings of heart, my wearisomeness in all good things, and my want of love to god, his ways, and his people, with this at the end of all: "are these the fruits of christianity? are these the tokens of a blessed man?" now, i sunk and fell in my spirit, and was giving up all for lost; but, as i was walking up and down in the house, as a man in a most woful state, that word of god took hold of my heart, "ye are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in jesus christ." but oh, what a turn it made upon me. now was i as one awakened out of some troublesome sleep and dream; and listening to this heavenly sentence, i was as if i had heard it thus spoken to me: "sinner, thou thinkest that, because of thy sins and infirmities, i cannot save thy soul; but behold, my son is by me, and upon him i look, and not on thee, and shall deal with thee according as i am pleased with him." at this i was greatly enlightened in my mind, and made to understand that god could justify a sinner at any time; it was but his looking upon christ, and imputing his benefits to us, and the work was forthwith done. and as i was thus in a muse, that scripture also came with great power upon my spirit, "not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us." now was i got on high; i saw myself within the arms of grace and mercy; and though i was before afraid to think of a dying hour, yet now i cried, "let me die;" now death was lovely and beautiful in my sight, for i saw we should never live indeed till we reach the other world. oh, methought, this life is but a slumber, in comparison of that above. at this time also i saw more in these words, "heirs of god," than ever i shall be able to express while i live in this world. heirs of god! god himself is the portion of the saints. this i saw and wondered at, but cannot tell you what i saw. sometimes i have been so loaded with my sins, that i could not tell where to rest nor what to do; and at such times i thought it would have taken away my senses; but god, through grace, hath so effectually applied the atonement of jesus to my poor wounded, guilty conscience, and i have found such a sweet, solid, sober, heart-comforting peace, that it hath made me rejoice exceedingly; and i have for a time been in a strait and trouble, that i should love and honor him no more, the virtue of whose blood hath so comforted my soul. my sins have at times appeared so great, that i have thought one of them as heinous as all the sins of all the men in the world. reader, these things are not fancies, for i have smarted for this experience; yet the least believing view of the blood of jesus hath made my guilt vanish to my astonishment, and delivered me into sweet and heavenly peace and joy in the holy ghost. sometimes when my heart hath been hard, slothful, blind, and senseless--which are sad frames for a poor christian--then hath the precious blood of christ softened, enlivened, quickened, and enlightened my soul. when i have been loaded with sin and harassed with temptations, i had a trial of the virtue of christ's blood, with a trial of the virtue of other things; and i have found that when tears, prayers, repentings, and all other things could not reach my heart, one shining of the virtue of his blood hath in a very blessed manner delivered me. it hath come with such life and power, with such irresistible and marvellous glory, as to wipe off all the slurs, silence all the outcries, and quench all the fiery darts and flames of hell-fire, that are begotten by the charges of the law, satan, and doubtful remembrances of a sinful life. sin and the saviour. saints are sweetly sensible that the sense of sin and the assurance of pardon will make famous work in their poor hearts. ah, what meltings without guilt; what humility without casting down; and what a sight of the creature's nothingness, yet without fear, will this sense of sin work in the soul. the sweetest frame, the most heart-endearing frame that possibly a christian can get into while in this world, is to have a warm sight of sin and of a saviour upon the heart at one time. now it weeps not for fear and through torment, but by virtue of constraining grace and mercy, and is at this very time so far off of disquietness of heart by reason of the sight of its wickedness, that it is driven into an ecstasy by reason of the love and mercy that is mingled with the sense of sin in the soul. the heart never sees so much of the power of mercy as now, nor of the virtue, value, and excellency of christ in all his offices, as now; and the tongue is never so sweetly enlarged to proclaim and cry up grace as now: now will christ come to be glorified in his saints and admired in them that believe. dost thou see in thee all manner of wickedness? the best way that i can direct a soul in such a case, is to place a steadfast eye on him that is full, and so to look to him by faith as that thereby thou mayest draw his fulness into thy heart. the best saints are most sensible of their sins, and most apt to make mountains of their molehills. the christian in darkness. i know it is dreadful walking in darkness; but if that should be the lord's lot upon me, i pray god i may have faith enough to stay upon him till death; and then will the clouds blow over, and i shall see him in the light of the living. the valley of the shadow of death. then they went on again, and their conductor did go before them, till they came to a place where was cast up a pit the whole breadth of the way; and before they could be prepared to go over that, a great mist and a darkness fell upon them so that they could not see. then said the pilgrims, "alas, what now shall we do?" but their guide made answer, "fear not; stand still, and see what an end will be put to this also." so they staid there, because their path was marred. then they also thought they did hear more apparently the noise and rushing of the enemies; the fire also and smoke of the pit was much easier to be discerned. then said christiana to mercy, "now i see what my poor husband went through; i have heard much of this place, but i never was here before now. poor man! he went here all alone in the night; he had night almost quite through the way; also these fiends were busy about him, as if they would have torn him in pieces. many have spoke of it, but none can tell what the valley of the shadow of death should mean until they come in themselves. the 'heart knoweth its own bitterness; a stranger intermeddleth not with its joy.' to be here is a fearful thing." "this," said mr. greatheart, "is like doing business in great waters, or like going down into the deep; this is like being in the heart of the sea, and like going down to the bottom of the mountains; now it seems as if the earth with its bars were about us for ever. but let them that walk in darkness and have no light, trust in the name of the lord, and stay upon their god. for my part, i have often gone through this valley, and have been much harder put to it than now i am; and yet you see i am alive. i would not boast, for that i am not my own saviour; but i trust we shall have a good deliverance. come, let us pray for light to him that can lighten our darkness, and can rebuke not only these, but all the devils in hell." so they cried and prayed, and god sent light and deliverance. the christian doubting. it is a rare thing for some christians to see their graces, but a thing very common for such to see their sins, yea, and to feel them too in their lusts and desires, to the shaking of their souls. question. but since i have lusts and desires both ways, how shall i know to which my soul adheres? answer. this may be known thus: 1. which wouldest thou have prevail; the desires of the flesh, or the lusts of the spirit? whose side art thou of? doth thy soul now inwardly say, and that with a strong indignation, "oh, let god, let grace, let my desires that are good, prevail against my flesh, for jesus christ's sake?" 2. what kind of secret wishes hast thou in thy soul, when thou feelest the lusts of thy flesh to rage? dost thou not inwardly, and with indignation against sin, say, "o that i might never, never feel one such motion more. o that my soul were so full of grace, that there might be no longer room for even the least lust to come into my thoughts?" 3. what kind of thoughts hast thou of thyself, now thou seest those desires of thine that are good so briskly opposed by those that are bad? dost thou not say, "oh, i am the basest of creatures; i could even spew at myself. there is no man in all the world, in my eyes, so loathsome as myself is. i abhor myself; a toad is not so vile as i am. o lord, let me be any thing but a sinner; any thing, so thou subduest mine iniquities for me?" 4. how dost thou like the discovery of that which thou thinkest is grace in other men! dost thou not cry out, "oh, i bless them in my heart! oh, methinks grace is the greatest beauty in the world! yea, i could be content to live and die with those people that have the grace of god in their souls. a hundred times, and a hundred when i have been upon my knees before god, i have desired, were it the will of god, that i might be in their condition?" 5. how art thou, when thou thinkest that thou thyself hast grace? "oh, then," says the soul, "i am as if i could leap out of myself; joy, joy, joy then is in my heart. it is, methinks, the greatest mercy under heaven to be made a gracious man." and is it thus with thy soul indeed? happy man! it is grace that has thy soul, though sin at present works in thy flesh. yea, all those breathings are the very actings of grace, even of the grace of desire, of love, of humility, and of the fear of god within thee. be of good courage; thou art on the right side. "i find," says the doubting christian, "weakness and faintness as to my graces; my faith, my hope, my love and desires to these and all other christian duties, are weak: i am like the man in the dream, that would have run, but could not; that would have fought, but could not, and that would have fled, but could not." answer. weak graces are graces--weak graces may grow stronger; but if the iron be blunt, put to the more strength. eccles. 10:10. christ seems to be most tender of the weak: "he shall gather lambs with his arm, shall carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead them that are with young." only here thy wisdom will be manifested, to wit, that thou grow in grace, and that thou use lawfully and diligently the means to do it. 2 pet. 3:18; phil. 3:10, 11; i thess. 3:11-13. i never heard a presumptuous man in my life say that he was afraid that he presumed; but i have heard many an honest, humble soul say that they have been afraid that their faith has been presumptive. indwelling sin. a man, in mind and affections, may depart from that which yet will not depart from him, yea, a man in mind may depart from that which yet will dwell in him as long as he lives. for instance, there are many diseases that cleave to men, from which in their minds they willingly depart; yea, their greatest disquietment is, that so bad a distemper will abide by them; and might they but have their desire accomplished, they would be as far therefrom as the ends of the earth are asunder: and while they are found to continue together, the mind departs therefrom, and is gone either to god or to physicians for help and deliverance from it. and thus it is with the saint, and should be with every one that by way of profession nameth the name of christ, rom. 7; he should depart from his indwelling sin with his mind: "with his mind he should serve the law of god." mr. fearing. honest. it seems he was well at last. great-heart. yes, yes; i never had a doubt about him. he was a man of a choice spirit; only he was always kept very low, and that made his life so burdensome to himself and so very troublesome to others. he was, above many, tender of sin; he was so afraid of doing injuries to others, that he would often deny himself of that which was lawful, because he would not offend. honest. but what should be the reason that such a good man should be all his days so much in the dark? great-heart. there are two sorts of reasons for it. one is, the wise god will have it so; some must pipe, and some must weep: now, mr. fearing was one that played upon the bass. he and his fellows sound the sackbut, whose notes are more doleful than the notes of other music are, though indeed some say the bass is the ground of music. and, for my part, i care not at all for that profession that begins not in heaviness of mind. the first string that the musician usually touches is the bass, when he intends to put all in tune; god also plays upon this string first, when he sets the soul in tune for himself. only, there was the imperfection of mr. fearing, he could play upon no other music but this till towards his latter end. honest. he was a very zealous man, as one may see by the relation which you have given of him. difficulties, lions, or vanity fair, he feared not at all: it was only sin, death, and hell that were to him a terror, because he had some doubts about his interest in that celestial country. when he was come at the river where was no bridge, there he was in a heavy case. "now, now," he said, "he should be drowned for ever, and so never see that face with comfort, that he had come so many miles to behold." and here i took notice of what was very remarkable--the water of that river was lower at this time than ever i saw it in all my life; so he went over at last, not much above wet-shod when he was going up to the gate, mr. great-heart began to take his leave of him, and to wish him a good reception above; so he said, "i shall, i shall;" then parted we asunder, and i saw him no more. encouragement for the doubting christian. doth this water of life run like a river, like a broad, full, and deep river? then let no man, be his transgressions never so many, fear at all but there is enough to save his soul and to spare. nothing has been more common to many, than to doubt the grace of god: a thing most unbecoming a sinner of any thing in the world. to break the law, is a fact foul enough; but to question the sufficiency of the grace of god to save therefrom, is worse than sin, if worse can be. wherefore, despairing soul, for it is to thee i speak, forbear thy mistrusts, cast off thy slavish fears, hang thy misgivings as to this upon the hedge, and believe; thou hast an invitation sufficient thereto, a river is before thy face. and as for thy want of goodness and works, let that by no means daunt thee; this is a river of water of life, streams of grace and mercy. there is, as i said, enough therein to help thee, for grace brings all that is wanting to the soul. thou, therefore, hast nothing to do--i mean as to the curing of thy soul of its doubts and fears and despairing thoughts--but to drink and live for ever. prudence. can you remember by what means you find your annoyances, at times, as if they were vanquished? christian. yes; when i think on what i saw at the cross, that will do it; and when i look upon my embroidered coat, that will do it; and when i look into the roll that i carry in my bosom, that will do it; and when my thoughts wax warm about whither i am going, that will do it. prudence. and what is it that makes you so desirous to go to mount zion? christian. why, there i hope to see him alive that did hang dead on the cross, and there i hope to be rid of all those things that to this day are in me, an annoyance to me: there, they say, there is no death; and there shall i dwell with such company as i like best. for, to tell you the truth, i love him because i was by him eased of my burden; and i am weary of my inward sickness. i would fain be where i shall die no more, and with the company that shall continually cry, "holy, holy, holy!" be often remembering what a blessed thing it is to be saved, to go to heaven, to be made like angels, and to dwell with god and christ to all eternity. adoption. the spirit cannot, after he hath come to the soul as a spirit of adoption, come again as a spirit of bondage to put the soul into his first fear, to wit, a fear of eternal damnation, because he cannot say and unsay, do and undo. as a spirit of adoption, he told me that my sins were forgiven me and i was included in the covenant of grace, that god was my father through christ, that i was under the promise of salvation, and that this calling and gift of god to me are permanent and without repentance. and do you think that, after he told me this, and sealed up the truth of it to my precious soul, he will come to me and tell me that i am yet in my sins, under the curse of the law and the eternal wrath of god? no, no; the word of the gospel is not yea, yea; nay, nay. it is only yea and amen; it is so, "as god is true." 2 cor. 17:20. sin, after that the spirit of adoption has come, cannot dissolve the relations of father and son, of father and child. and this the church did rightly assert, and that when her heart was under great hardness and when she had the guilt of erring from his ways; saith she, "doubtless thou art our father:" doubtless thou art, though this be our case, and though israel should not acknowledge us for such. that sin dissolveth not the relation of father and son, is further evident: when the fulness of time was come, god sent forth his son made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. and because ye are sons, god hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, "father, father!" now mark: "wherefore, thou art no more a servant;" that is, no more under the law of death and damnation, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of god through christ. suppose a child doth grievously transgress against and offend his father; is the relation between them therefore dissolved? again, suppose the father should scourge and chasten the son for such offences, is the relation between them therefore dissolved? yea, suppose the child should now, through ignorance, cry and say, "this man is now no more my father;" is he therefore no more his father? doth not every body see the folly of arguings? why, of the same nature is the doctrine, the faith, that after we have received the spirit of adoption, the spirit of bondage is sent to us again to put us in fear of eternal damnation. know then that thy sin, after thou hast received the spirit of adoption to cry unto god, "father, father," is counted the transgression of a child, not of a slave; and that all that happeneth to thee for that transgression is but the chastisement of a father: "and what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?" now let not any, from what hath been said, take courage to live loose lives, under a supposition that once in christ they are ever in christ, and the covenant cannot he broken, nor the relation of father and child dissolved; for they that do so, it is evident, have not known what it is to receive the spirit of adoption. it is the spirit of the devil, in his own hue, that suggesteth this unto them, and that prevaileth with them to do so. shall we do evil that good may come? shall we sin that grace may abound; or shall we be base in life because god by grace hath secured us from wrath to come? god forbid: these conclusions betoken one void of the fear of god indeed, and of the spirit of adoption too. though god cannot, will not dissolve the relation which the spirit of adoption hath made betwixt the father and the sons, for any sins that such do commit; yet he can and often doth take away from them the comfort of their adoption, not suffering children while sinning to have the sweet and comfortable sense thereof on their hearts. god can lay thee in the dungeon in chains, and roll a stone upon thee; he can make thy feet fast in the stocks, and make thee a gazing-stock for men and angels. god can tell how to cause to cease the sweet operations and blessed influences of his grace in thy soul; to make those gospel-showers that formerly thou hast enjoyed, to become now to thee nothing but powder and dust. god can tell how to fight against thee with the sword of his mouth, and to make thee a butt for his arrows; and this is a dispensation most dreadful. god can tell how to bow thee down with guilt and distress, that thou shalt in nowise be able to lift up thy head. god can tell how to break thy bones, and to make thee, by reason of that, to live in continual anguish of spirit; yea, he can send a fire into thy bones that shall burn, and none shall quench it. god can tell how to lay thee aside, and make no use of thee as to any work for him in thy generation. he can throw thee aside as a broken vessel. god can tell how to kill thee, and take thee away from the earth for thy sins. god can tell how to plague thee in thy death, with great plagues and of long continuance. what shall i say? god can tell how to let satan loose upon thee; when thou liest dying, he can license him then to assault thee with great temptations; he can tell how to make thee possess the guilt of all thy unkindness towards him, and that when thou, as i said, art going out of the world; he can cause that thy life shall be in continual doubt before thee, and not suffer thee to take any comfort day or night; yea, he can drive thee even to a madness with his chastisements for thy folly, and yet all shall be done by him to thee as a father chastiseth his son. further, god can tell how to tumble thee from off thy death-bed in a cloud, he can let thee die in the dark; when thou art dying, thou shalt not know whither thou art going, to wit, whether to heaven or to hell. yea, he can tell how to let thee seem to come short of life, both in thine own eyes and also in the eyes of them that behold thee. "let us therefore fear," says the apostle--though not with slavish, yet with filial fear--"lest, a promise being left us of entering into rest, any of us should seem to come short of it." now all this and much more can god do to his, as a father by his rod and a father by rebukes: ah, who know but those that are under them, what terrors, fears, distresses, and amazements, god can bring his people into? he can put them into a furnace, a fire, and no tongue can tell what, so unsearchable and fearful are his fatherly chastisements, and yet never give them the spirit of bondage again to fear. therefore, if thou art a son, take heed of sin, lest all these things overtake thee and come upon thee. dost thou fear the lord? "the mercy of the lord is from everlasting to everlasting on them that fear him." child of god, thou that fearest god, here is mercy nigh thee, mercy enough, everlasting mercy upon thee. this is long-lived mercy. it will live longer than thy sin; it will live longer than temptation; it will live longer than thy sorrows; it will live longer than thy persecutors. it is mercy from everlasting to contrive thy salvation, and mercy to everlasting to resist all thy adversaries. now what can hell and death do to him that hath this mercy of god upon him? and this hath the man that feareth the lord. take that other blessed word, and o, thou man that fearest the lord, hang it like a chain of gold about thy neck: "as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy to them that fear him." if mercy as big, as high, and as good as heaven itself will be a privilege, the man that feareth god shall have the privilege. christ our life. here is my life, namely, the birth of this man, the righteousness of this man, the blood of this man, the death and resurrection of this man, the ascension and intercession of this man for me, and the second coming of this man to judge the world in righteousness. i say, here is my life, if i see this by faith without me, through the operation of the spirit within me: i am safe, i am at peace, i am comforted, i am encouraged; and i know that my comfort, peace, and encouragement is true, and given me from heaven by the father of mercies, through the son of the virgin mary--the son of man, the son of god, the true god. union with christ. stay not in some transient comforts, but abide restless till thou seest a union betwixt thee and this blessed one, to wit, that he is a root and thou a branch--that he is head, and thou a member. and then shalt thou know that the case is so between thee and him, when grace and his spirit have made thee to lay the whole stress of thy justification upon him, and have subdued thy heart and mind to be one spirit with him. life of faith. o man or woman, whoever thou art, that art savingly convinced by the spirit of christ, thou hast such an endless desire after the lord jesus christ, that thou canst not be content with any thing below the blood of the son of god to purge thy conscience withal; even that blood that was shed without the gates. also thou canst not be at quiet, till thou dost see by true faith that the righteousness of the son of mary is imputed unto thee and put upon thee. rom. 3:21-23. then also thou canst not be at quiet, till thou hast power over thy lusts and corruptions, till thou hast brought them into subjection to the lord jesus christ. then thou wilt never think that thou hast enough of faith: no, thou wilt be often crying out, "lord, give me more precious faith; lord, more faith in thy righteousness; more faith in thy blood and death; more faith in thy resurrection; and, lord, more faith in this--that thou art now at the right hand of thy father in thy human nature, making intercession for me a miserable sinner." and then, o poor soul, if thou comest but hither, thou wilt never have an itching ear after another gospel. if thou wouldst be faithful to do that work that god has allotted thee to do in this world for his name labor to live in the savor and sense of thy freedom and liberty by jesus christ; that is, keep this, if possible, ever before thee--that thou art a redeemed one, taken out of this world and from under the curse of the law, out of the power of the devil, and placed in a kingdom of grace and forgiveness of sins for christ's sake. this is of absolute use in this matter; yea, so absolute that it is impossible for any christian to do his work christianly, without some enjoyment of it. the first thing of which the soul is sick, and by which the conscience receiveth wounding, is the guilt of sin and fear of the curse of god for it; for which are provided the wounds and precious blood of christ, which flesh and blood, if the soul eat thereof by faith, give deliverance therefrom. upon this filth of sin appears most odious; for that it hath not only at present defiled the soul, but because it keeps it from doing those duties of love which by the love of christ it is constrained to endeavor the perfecting of. for filth appears filth, that is, irksome and odious to a contrary principle now implanted in the soul; which principle had its conveyance thither by faith in the sacrifice and death of christ going before. "the love of christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but to him that died for them and rose again." the man that has received christ desires to be holy, because the nature of the faith that lays hold on christ worketh by love, and longeth, yea, greatly longeth, that the soul may be brought not only into a universal conformity to his will, but into his very likeness; and because that state agreeth not with what we are now, but with what we shall be hereafter: "therefore in this we groan, being burdened" with that which is of a contrary nature, "earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven;" which state is not that of adam'a innocency, but that which is spiritual and heavenly, even that which is now in the lord in heaven. blessed be god for jesus christ, and for that he took our nature and sin and curse and death upon him; and for that he did also by himself, by one offering, purge our sins. we that have believed have found rest, even there where christ and his father have smelled a sweet savor of rest: because we are presented to god even now complete in the righteousness of him, and stand discharged of guilt even by the faith of him; yea, as sins past, so sins to come, were taken up and satisfied for by that offering of the body of jesus. we who have had a due sense of sins, and of the nature of the justice of god, know that no remission of the guilt of any one can be, but by atonement made by blood. heb. 9:22. we also know that where faith in jesus christ is wanting, there can be neither good principle, nor good endeavor; for faith is the first of all graces, and without it there is nothing but sin. rom. 14:23. we know also that faith, as a grace in us, severed from the righteousness of christ, is only a beholder of things, but not a justifier of persons; and that if it lay not hold of and applieth not that righteousness which is in christ, it carries us no further than to the devils. we know that this doctrine killeth sin, and curseth it at the very roots: i say, we know it, who have mourned over him whom we have pierced, and who have been confounded to see that god by his blood should be pacified towards us for all the wickedness we have done. yea, we have a double motive to be holy and humble before him: one, because he died for us on earth; another, because he now appears for us in heaven, there sprinkling for us the mercy-seat with his blood, there ever living to make intercession for them that come unto god by him. "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, jesus christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins." yet this works in us no looseness nor favor to sin, but so much the more an abhorrence of it: "she loveth much, for much was forgiven her;" yea, she weeps, she washeth his feet, and wipeth them with the hairs of her head, to the confounding of simon the pharisee, and all such ignorant hypocrites. divine love improved. empty notions of the love of god and of christ will do nothing but harm; wherefore they are not empty notions that i press thee to rest in, but that thou labor after the knowledge of the savor of this good ointment which the apostle calls "the savor of the knowledge of this lord jesus." know it until it becomes sweet or pleasant to thy soul, and then it will preserve and keep thee. make this love of god and of christ thine own, and not another's. many there are that can talk largely of the love of god to abraham, to david, to peter, and paul. but that is not the thing. give not over until this love be made thine own; until thou find and feel it to run warm in thy heart by the shedding of it abroad there, by the spirit that god has given thee. then thou wilt know it with an obliging and engaging knowledge; yea, then thou wilt know it with a soul-strengthening and soul-encouraging knowledge. wouldst thou improve this love of god and of christ? then set it against the love of all other things whatsoever, even until this love shall conquer thy soul from the love of them to itself. this is christian. do it therefore, and say, "why should any thing have my heart but god, but christ? he loves me with love that passeth knowledge. he loves me, and he shall have me; he loves me, and i will love him; his love stripped him of all for my sake; lord, let my love strip me of all for thy sake. i am a son of love, an object of love, a monument of love, of free love, of distinguishing love, of peculiar love, and of love that passeth knowledge; and why should not i walk in love? in love to god, in love to men, in holy love, in love unfeigned?" this is the way to improve the love of god for thy advantage, for the subduing of thy passions, and for sanctifying of thy nature. it is an odious thing to hear men of base lives talking of the love of god, of the death of christ, and of the glorious grace that is presented unto sinners by the word of the truth of the gospel. praise is comely for the upright, not for the profane. therefore let him speak of love that is taken with love, that is captivated with love, that is carried away with love. if this man speaks of it, his speaking signifies something; the powers and bands of love are upon him, and he shows to all that he knows what he is speaking of. but the very mentioning of love is, in the mouth of the profane, like a parable in the mouth of fools. wherefore, christian, improve this love of god as thou shouldst, and that will improve thee as thou wouldst. it is natural for children to depend upon their father for what they want. if they want a pair of shoes, they go and tell him; if they want bread, they go and tell him; so should the children of god do. do you want spiritual bread? go tell god of it. do you want strength of grace? ask it of god. do you want strength against satan's temptations? go and tell god of it. when the devil tempts you, run home and tell your heavenly father; go pour out your complaints to god; this is natural to children--if any wrong them, they go and tell their father. if thou wouldst improve this love of god and of christ, keep thyself in it: "keep yourselves in the love of god." living a holy life is the way, after a man has believed unto justification, to keep himself in the favor and comfort of the love of god. and o that thou wouldst indeed do so. and that because, if thou shalt want the savor of it, thou wilt soon want tenderness to the commandment, which is the rule by which thou must walk, if thou wilt do good to thyself, or honor god in the world. "to him that ordereth his conversation aright, i will show the salvation of god." he that would live a sweet, comfortable, joyful life, must live a very holy life. all god's children are criers: cannot you be quiet unless you are filled with the milk of god's word? cannot you be satisfied unless you have peace with god? pray you consider it, and be serious with yourselves; if you have not these marks, you will fall short of the kingdom of god, you shall never have an interest there: there is no intruding: they will say, "lord, lord, open unto us;" and he will say, "i know you not." no child of god, no heavenly inheritance. o do not flatter yourselves with a portion among the sons, unless you live like sons. when we see a king's son playing with a beggar, this is unbecoming; so if you bo the king's children, live like the king's children: if you be risen with christ, set your affections on things above, and not on things below; when you come together, talk of what your father promised you; you should all love your father's will, and be content and pleased with the exercises you meet with in the world; if you are the children of god, live together lovingly; if the world quarrel with you, it is no matter, but it is sad if you quarrel together: if this be among you, it is a sign of ill-breeding; it is according to no rules you have in the word of god. dost thou see a soul that has the image of god in him? love him, love him; say, "this man and i must go to heaven one day;" serve one another, do good for one another; if any wrong you, pray to god to right you, and love the brotherhood. holy living. remember, man, if the grace of god hath taken hold of thy soul, thou art a man of another world, and indeed a subject of another and more noble kingdom, the kingdom of god--which is the kingdom of the gospel, of grace, of faith, and righteousness, and the kingdom of heaven hereafter. in these things thou shouldst exercise thyself, not making heavenly things which god hath bestowed upon thee, stoop to things that are of the world; but rather here beat down the body, to mortify thy members, hoist up thy mind to the things that are above, and practically hold forth before all the world that blessed word of life. assure thyself, thy god will not give thee straw, but he will expect brick. it is amiable and pleasant to god when christians keep their rank, relation, and station, doing all as becomes their quality and calling. when christians stand all in their places, and do the work of their stations, then they are like the flowers in the garden, that stand and grow where the gardener hath planted them; and then they shall both honor the garden in which they are planted, and the gardener that hath so disposed of them. from the hyssop in the wall to the cedar in lebanon, their fruit is their glory. and seeing the stock into which we are planted is the most fruitful stock, the sap conveyed thereout the most fruitful sap, and the dresser of our souls the wisest husband-man, how contrary to nature, example, and expectation we should be, if we should not be rich in good works. wherefore, take heed of being painted fire, wherein is no warmth; of being painted flowers, which retain no smell; and of being painted trees, whereon is no fruit. whoso boasteth himself of a false gift, is like clouds and wind without rain. farewell; the lord be with thy spirit, that thou mayest profit for time to come. they only have benefit by christ to eternal life, who die by his example as well as live by his blood; for in his death was both merit and example; and they are like to miss in the first, that are not concerned in the second. as it is natural for the stranger, so soon as ever he has entered the gates of a city, to have his feet in the streets of the city, so it is natural for the sinner, so soon as ever he is entered into the church of christ, to have his feet treading in the way and paths of holiness. wherefore it is usual in the holy scripture to call the transformation of the sinner from satan to god a holy way, and also to admonish him that is so transformed to walk in that way, saying, walk in the faith, love, spirit, and newness of life, and walk in the truth, ways, statutes, and judgments of god. jacob, when sick, would worship god, though so weak as not able to do it without leaning upon the top of his staff: a blessed example for the diligent, and reproof for those that are slothful. opportunities improved. good opportunities are god's seasons for doing the work; wherefore, watch for them and take them as they come. paul tells us, he was "in watchings often;" surely it was that he might take the season that god should give him to do his work for him; as he also says to timothy, "watch thou in all things, do the work," etc. opportunities as to some things come but once in one's lifetime, as in the case of esther, and of nicodemus and holy joseph; when esther begged the lives of the jews, and the other the body of jesus; which had they once let slip or neglected, they could not have recovered it again for ever. watch, then, for the opportunity: because it is god's season, which without doubt is the best season and time for every purpose. because satan watches to spoil, by mistiming as well as by corrupting whatever thou shalt do for god. "when i would do good," says paul, "evil is present;" that is, either to withdraw me from my purpose, or else to infect my work. that the opportunity may not slip thee, either for want of care or forecast, 1. sit always loose from an overmuch affecting thine own concernments, and believe that thou wast not born for thyself: a brother is born for adversity. 2. get thy heart tenderly affected with the welfare of all things that bear the stamp and image of god. 3. study thy own place and capacity that god hath put thee in in this world; for suitable to thy place are thy work and opportunities. 4. make provision beforehand, that when things present themselves, thou mayst come up to a good performance: be prepared for every good work. 5. take heed of carnal reasonings; keep the heart tender, but set thy face like a flint for god. 6. and look well to the manner of every duty. good works. to stoop low is a good work, if it be done in faith and love; though but by a cup of cold water, it is really more worth in itself, and of higher esteem with god, than all worldly and perishing glory. when holiness is lovely and beautiful to the soul, and when the name of christ is more precious than life, then will the soul sit down and be afflicted, because men keep not god's law. "i beheld the transgressors, and was grieved, because they kept not thy word." psalm 119:158. the heart that is fullest of good works has in it the least room for satan's temptations. souls rightly touched, will labor to draw not only their families, but a whole city after christ. john 4:28, 29. self-denial. if thou wouldst be faithful to do that work that god hath appointed thee to do in this world for his name, then beware thou do not stop and stick when hard work comes before thee. the word and spirit of god come sometimes like chainshot to us, as if it would cut down all--as when abraham was to offer up isaac, and the levites to slay their brethren. oh, how willingly would our flesh and blood escape the cross for christ! the comfort of the gospel, the sweetness of the promise, how pleasing is it to us! like ephraim, we like to tread out the corn, and to hear those pleasant songs and music that gospel sermons make, where only grace is preached and nothing of our duty as to works of self-denial. but as for such, god will tread upon their fair neck, and yoke them with christ's yoke; for then they have a work to do, even a work of self-denial. "whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me." let him first sit down and count up the cost and the charge he is like to be at, if he follow me; for following of me is not like following of some other masters. the winds set always on my face; and the foaming rage of the sea of this world, and the proud and lofty waves thereof do continually beat upon the sides of the bark that myself, my cause, and my followers are in; he therefore that will not run hazards, and that is afraid to venture a drowning, let him not set foot into this vessel. some, when they come at the cross, will either there make a stop and go no further, or else, if they can, step over it; if not, they will go round about. do not thou do this, but take it up and kiss it, and bear it after jesus. where is the man that walketh with his cross upon his shoulder? where is the man that is zealous of moral holiness? indeed, for those things that have nothing of the cross of the purse, or of the cross of the belly, or of the cross of the back, or of the cross of the vanity of household affairs--for those things, i find we have many, and very busy sticklers; but otherwise, the cross, self-denial, charity, purity in life and conversation, is almost quite out of doors among professors. but, man of god, do thou be singular as to these. obedience in little things. little things do ofttimes prove us most; for we, through the pride of our hearts, are apt to overlook little things, because, though commanded, they are but little. sometimes god would have men exact to a word, sometimes even to a tack or pin or loop, sometimes to a step. be careful, then, in little things, but yet leave not the other undone. motives to holt living. when god shows a man the sin he has committed, the hell he has deserved, the heaven he has lost--and yet that christ and grace and pardon may be had--this will make him serious, this will make him melt, this will break his heart, this will show him that there is more than air, than a noise, than an empty sound in religion; and this is the man whose heart, whose life, whose conversation and all will be engaged in the matter of the eternal salvation of his precious and immortal soul. though there are many mercies that lay an obligation upon men to be holy, yet he that shall want the obligation that is begotten by the faith of redeeming mercy, wanteth the main principle of true holiness; nor will any other be found sufficiently to sanctify the heart to the causing of it to produce such a life; nor can such holiness be accepted, because it comes not forth in the name of christ. that which constrained david was forgiving and redeeming mercy, and that which constrained paul was the love that christ showed to him in dying for his sins and in rising from the dead. paul also beseecheth the romans by the redeeming, justifying, preserving, and electing mercy of god, that they present their body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to god, which, saith he, is your reasonable service. hence all along, they that are exhorted to holiness in the new testament, are exhorted to it upon the supposition of the benefit of redemption which they have received by jesus christ. walk in love, as christ loved us. can you give me some motive to self-denial? yes, the lord jesus denied himself for thee: what sayest thou to that? oh, i have thought sometimes what bloody creatures hath sin made us. the beasts of the field must be slain by thousands before christ came, to signify to us that we should have 'a saviour; and after that, he must come himself and die a worse death than died those beasts, before the work of saving could be finished. o redemption, redemption by blood, is the heart-endearing consideration! this is that which will make the water stand in our eyes, that will break a heart of flint, and that will make one do as they do that are in bitterness for their firstborn. perhaps in the day of thy conversion thou wast more unruly than many. like a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke, hardly tamed, thou wast brought home by strong hands. thou wouldst not drive: the lord jesus must take thee up, lay thee upon his shoulder, and carry thee home to his father's house. this should engage thy heart to study to advance the grace of god. it may do thee no harm but good to cast an eye over thy shoulder, at those that now lie roaring under the vengeance of eternal fire; it may put thee in mind of what thou wast once, and of what thou must yet assuredly be, if grace by christ preventeth not: keep then thy conscience awake with wrath and grace, with heaven and hell; but let grace and heaven bear sway. get thou thy soul possessed with the spirit of the son, and believe thou art perfectly set free by him from whatsoever thou by sin hast deserved at the hand of revenging justice. this doctrine unlooseth thy hands, takes off thy yoke, and lets thee go upright; this doctrine puts spiritual and heavenly inclinations into thy soul, and the faith of this truth doth show thee that god hath so surprised thee and gone beyond thee with his blessed and everlasting love, that thou canst not but reckon thyself his debtor for ever. "therefore, brethren, we are debtors not to the flesh, to live after the flesh." rom. 8: 12. if thou wouldst be faithful to that work that god hath allotted thee to do in this world for his name, then labor to see a beauty and glory in holiness and in every good work; this tends much to the engaging of thy heart. o worship the lord in the beauty of holiness; fear before him all the earth; and for thy help in this, think much on this in general, that "thus saith the lord" is the wind-up of every command; for indeed much of the glory and beauty of duties doth lie in the glory and excellency of the person that doth command them; and hence it is, that "be it enacted by the king's most excellent majesty" is the head of every law, that that law should therefore be reverenced by and be made glorious and beautiful to all. and we see upon this very account, what power and place the precepts of kings do take in the hearts of their subjects, every one loving and reverencing the statute because there is the name of their king. will you rebel against the king? is a word that shakes the world. well then, turn these things about for an argument to the matter in hand, and let the name of god, seeing he is wiser and better and of more glory and beauty than kings, beget in thy heart a beauty in all things that are commanded thee of god. and indeed, if thou do not in this act thus, thou wilt stumble at some of thy duty and work thou hast to do; for some of the commands of god are in themselves so mean and low, that take away from them the name of god and thou wilt do as naaman the syrian, despise instead of obeying. what is there in the lord's supper, in baptism, yea, in preaching the word and prayer, were they not the appointments of god? his name being entailed to them makes them every one glorious and beautiful. wherefore no marvel if he that looks upon them without their title-page, goeth away in a rage like naaman, preferring others before them. "what is jordan? are not abana and pharpar, rivers of damascus, better than all the waters in israel? may i not wash in them and be clean?" saith he. this was because he remembered not that the name of god was in the command. israel's trumpets of rams'-horns, and isaiah's walking naked, and ezekiel's wars against a tile, would doubtless have been ignoble acts, but that the name of god was that which gave them reverence, power, glory, and beauty. set therefore the name of god and "thus saith the lord" against all reasonings, defamings, and reproaches that either by the world or thy own heart thou findest to arise against thy duty; and let his name and authority alone be a sufficient argument with thee, to hehold the beauty that he hath put upon all his ways, and to inquire in his temple. christians should so manage their time and the work that god hath appointed them to do for his name in this world, that they may not have part thereof to do when they should be departing this world; because, if they do not, dying will be a hard work with them, especially if god awakeneth them about their neglect of their duty. the way of god with his people is to visit their sins in this life; and the worst time for thee to be visited by them is when thy life is smitten down as it were to the dust of death, even when all natural infirmities break in like a flood upon thee-sickness, fainting, pains, wearisomeness, and the like: now, i say, to be charged also with the neglect of duty when in no capacity to do it-yea, when perhaps so feeble, as scarce able to abide to hear thy dearest friend in this life speak to thee-will not this make dying hard? yea, when thou shalt seem both in thine own eyes and also in the eyes of others, to fall short of the kingdom of heaven for this and the other transgressions; will not this make dying hard? david found it hard when he cried, "o spare me a little, that i may recover strength, before i go hence and be no more." david at this time was chastened for some iniquity, yea, brought for his folly to the doors of the shadow of death. but here he could not enter without great distress of mind; wherefore he cries out for respite, and time to do the will of god and the work allotted him. so again: "the pains of hell caught hold upon me, the sorrows of death compassed me about, and i found trouble and sorrow; then i cried unto the lord." aye, this will make thee cry, though thou he as good as david. wherefore learn by his sorrow, as he himself also learned at last to serve his own generation by the will of god, before he fell asleep. god can tell how to pardon thy sins, and yet make them such a bitter thing and so heavy a burden to thee that thou wouldst not, if thou wast but once distressed with it, come there again for all this world. ah, it is easy with him to have this pardon in his bosom, even when he is breaking all thy bones and pouring out thy gall upon the ground--yea, to show himself then unto thee in so dreadful a majesty, that heaven and earth shall seem to thee to tremble at his presence. let then the thoughts of this prevail with thee as a reason of great weight, to provoke thee to study to manage thy time and work in wisdom while thou art well. obedience rewarded. keep those grounds and evidences that god hath given you of your call to be partakers of this love of christ, with all clearness upon your hearts and in your minds. for he that lacks that sight of them, or a proof that they are true and good, can take but little comfort in this love. there is a great mystery in the way of god with his people. he will justify them without their works, he will pardon them for his son's sake. but they that are careless, carnal, and not holy in their lives, shall have but little comfort of what he hath done, doth, and will do for them. nor shall they have their evidences for heaven at hand, nor out of doubt with them; yea, they shall walk without the sun, and have their comforts by bits and knocks; while others sit at their father's table, have liberty to go into the wine-cellar, rejoice at the sweet and pleasant face of their heavenly father towards them, and know it shall go well with them at the end. those that make conscience of walking in the commandments of god, they shall be blessed with the bread of life, when others shall be hunger-bit. the greatest part of professors nowadays take up their time in contracting guilt and asking for pardon, and yet are not much the better. whereas, if they had but the grace to add to their faith, virtue, etc., they might have more peace, live better lives, and not have their heads so often in a bag, as they have. "to him that ordereth his conversation aright, will i show the salvation of god." "and all the days of enoch were three hundred sixty and five years. and enoch walked with god, and was not, for god took him." enoch therefore lived here but a while: he was too good to live long in this world; the world was not worthy of him; neither could he be spared so long out of heaven, for god took him. the end of walking with god, or the pathway thereof, leads men to heaven, to the enjoyment of the glory of god. thus also it was with blessed elijah; he followed god from place to place, till at length he was caught up into heaven. those that shall be found, in the day of their resurrection, the people of god most laborious for god while here, they shall at that day enjoy the greatest portion of god, or shall be possessed of most of the glory of the godhead then. for that is the portion of the saints in general. and why shall he that doeth most for god in this world, enjoy most of him in that which is to come, but because by doing and acting, the heart and every faculty of the soul are enlarged and more capacitated, whereby more room is made for glory? every vessel of glory shall at that day be made full of it: but every one will not be capable to contain a like measure; and so if they should have it communicated to them, would not be able to stand under it; for there is an eternal weight in the glory that saints shall then enjoy; and every vessel must be at that day filled, that is, have its heavenly load of it. self-examination. examine: dost thou labor after those qualifications that the scriptures describe a child of god by-that is, faith, yea, the right faith, the most holy faith, the faith of the operation of god? and also, dost thou examine whether there is a real growth of grace in thy soul, as love, zeal, self-denial, and a seeking by all means to attain, if possible, to the resurrection of the dead; that is, not to satisfy thyself until thou be dissolved and rid of this body of death, and be transformed into that glory that the saints shall be in after the resurrection-day? and in the mean time, dost thou labor and take all opportunities to walk as near as may be to the mark, though thou knowest thou canst not attain it perfectly? yet i say, thou dost aim at it, seek after it, press towards it, and hold on in thy race; thou shunnest that which may any way hinder thee, and also closest in with what may any way further the same, knowing that that must be, or desiring that it should be, thine eternal frame; and therefore, out of love and liking to it, thou dost desire and long after it, as being the thing that doth most please thy soul. or how is it with thy soul? art thou such a one as regards not these things, but rather busiest thy thoughts about the things here below, following those things that have no scent of divine glory upon them? if so, look to thyself; thou art an unbeliever, and so under the wrath of god, and wilt for certain fall into the same place of torment that thy fellows have fallen into before thee, to the grief of thy own soul and thy everlasting destruction. consider and regard these things, and lay them to thy heart before it be too late to recover thyself, by repenting of the one and desiring to close in with the other. oh, i say, regard, regard; for hell is hot, god's hand is up, the law is resolved to discharge against thy soul. the judgment-day is at hand; the graves are ready to fly open; the trumpet is near the sounding; the sentence will ere long be past, and then you and i cannot call time again. reckon with thy own heart every day before thou lie down to sleep, and cast up what thou hast received from god and done for him, and where thou hast also been wanting. this will beget praise and humility, and put thee upon redeeming the day that is past; whereby thou wilt be able, through the continual supplies of grace, in some good measure to drive thy work before thee, and to shorten it as thy life doth shorten, and mayst comfortably live in the hope of bringing both ends sweetly together. watchfulness. he that will keep water in a sieve, must use more than ordinary diligence. our heart is a leaky vessel; and therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. constitution-sins. they that name the name of christ, let them depart from their constitution-sin, or if you will, the sin that their temper most inclines them to. every man is not alike inclined to the same sin, but some to one, and some to another. now, let the man that professes the name of christ religiously consider with himself, "unto what sin or vanity am i most inclined? is it pride? is it covetousness? is it fleshly lust?" and let him labor by all means to leave off and depart from that. this is that which david called his own iniquity, and saith, "i was also upright before him, and i kept myself from mine iniquity." psa. 18:23. rightly are these two put together, for it is not possible that he should be an upright man that indulgeth or countenanceth his constitution-sin; but on the contrary, he that keeps himself from that will be upright as to all the rest; and the reason is, because if a man has grace to trample upon and mortify his darling, his bosom, his only sin, he will more easily and more heartily abhor and fly the rest. and indeed, if a man will depart from iniquity, he must depart from his darling sin first; for as long as that is entertained, the other, at least those that are most suiting to that darling, will always be haunting of him. there is a man that has such and such haunt his house and spend his substance, and would be rid of them, but cannot; but now, let him rid himself of that for the sake of which they haunt his house, and then he shall with ease be rid of them. thus it is with sin. there is a man that is plagued with many sins, perhaps because he embraceth one; well, let him turn that one out of doors, and that is the way to be rid of the rest. keep thee from thy darling, thy bosom, thy constitution-sin. among the motives to prevail with thee to fall in with this exhortation, are, 1. there can no great change appear in thee, make what profession of christ thou wilt, unless thou cast away thy bosom sin. a man's constitution-sin is, as i may call it, his visible sin; it is that by which his neighbors know him and describe him, whether it be pride, covetousness, lightness, or the like. now, if these abide with thee, though thou shouldst be much reformed in thy notions and in other parts of thy life, yet say thy neighbors, "he is the same man still: his faith has not saved him from his darling. he was proud before, and is proud still; was covetous before, and is covetous still; was light and wanton before, and is so still; he is the same man, though he has got a new mouth." but now, if thy constitution-sin be parted with, if thy darling be cast way, thy conversion is apparent; it is seen of all; for the casting away of that is death to the rest, and ordinarily makes a change throughout. 2. so long as thy constitution-sin remains, as winked at by thee, so long thou art a hypocrite before god, let thy profession be what it will; also, when conscience shall awake and be commanded to speak to thee plainly what thou art, it will tell thee so, to thy no little vexation and perplexity. the christian professor admonished. o thou professor! thou lamp-carrier! have a care and look to thyself; content not thyself with only that which will maintain thee in a profession, for that may be done without saving grace; but i advise thee to go to aaron, to christ the trimmer of our lamps, and beg of him thy vessel full of oil, that is, grace for the seasoning of thy heart, that thou mayest have wherewith not only to bear thee up now, but at the day of the bridegroom's coming when many a lamp will go out and many a professor be left in the dark. sin is in the best of men; and as long as it is so, without great watchfulness and humble walking with god, we may be exposed to shame and suffering for it. it is possible for christians to suffer for evil-doing, and therefore let christians beware; it is possible for christians to be brought to public justice for their faults, and therefore let christians beware. a christian can never be overcome unless he should yield of himself. there is no way to kill a man's righteousness but by his own consent. this job's wife knew full well; hence she tempted him to lay violent hands on his own integrity. job 2:9. failings and sins of christians. "and noah began to lie a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard. and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent." this is the blot in this good man's scutcheon; and a strange blot it is, that such a one as noah should be thus overtaken with evil. one would have thought that moses would now have begun with a relation of some eminent virtues and honorable actions of noah, since now he was delivered from the death that overtook the whole world; and was delivered, both he and his children, to possess the whole earth himself. indeed, he stepped from the ark to the altar, as israel of old did sing on the shore of the red sea; but as they, he soon forgot; he rendered evil to god for good. neither is noah alone in this matter. lot also, being delivered from that fire from heaven which burnt up sodom and gomorrah, falls soon after into lewdness. gideon also, after he was delivered out of the hands of his enemies, took that very gold which god had given him as the spoil of them that hated him, and made himself idols therewith. what shall i say of david, and of solomon also, who, after he had been twenty years at work for the service of the true god, both in building and preparing for his worship, and in writing proverbs by divine inspiration, did after this make temples for idols, yea, almost for the gods of all countries? yea, he did it when he was old, when he should have been preparing for his grave and for eternity. all these were sins against mercies, yea, and doubtless against covenants and the most solemn resolutions to the contrary. for who can imagine but that when noah was tossed with the flood, and lot within the scent and smell of the fire and brimstone that burned down sodom with his sons and daughters, and gideon, when so fiercely engaged with so great an enemy, and delivered by so strange a hand, should in the most solemn manner both promise and vow to god? but behold, now they in truth are delivered and saved, they recompense all with sin: "lord, what is man? how abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh in iniquity like water!" let these things teach us "to cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?" indeed, it is a vain thing to build our faith upon the most godly man in the world, because he is subject to err; yea, better men than he have been so. if noah and lot and gideon and david and solomon--who wanted not matter from arguments, and that of the strongest kind, as arguments that are drawn from mercy and goodness be, to engage to holiness and the fear of god--yet, after all, did so foully fall as we see, let us admire grace that any stand; let the strongest fear, lest he fearfully fall; and let no man but jesus christ himself be the absolute platform and pattern of faith and holiness: as the prophet saith, "let us cease from man." the backslider. none knows the things that haunt the backslider's mind; his new sins are all turned talking devil's, threatening devils, roaring devils, within him. besides, he doubts of the truth of his first conversion, consequently he has it lying upon him as a strong suspicion, that there was nothing of truth in all his first experience; and this also adds lead to his heels, and makes him come, as to sense and feeling, more heavily and with the greater difficulty, to god by christ. as the faithfulness of other men kills him, he cannot see an honest, humble, holy, faithful servant of god, but he is pierced and wounded at the heart. "aye," says he within himself, "that man fears god; that man hath faithfully followed god; that man, like the elect angels, has kept his place; but i am fallen from my station like a devil. that man honoreth god, edifieth the saints, convinceth the world and condemneth them, and is become 'heir of the righteousness which is by faith.' but i have dishonored god, stumbled and grieved saints, made the world blaspheme, and, for aught i know, been the cause of the damnation of many. "these are the things, i say, together with many more of the same kind, that come to him; yea, they will come with him, yea, and will stare him in the face, will tell him of his baseness and laugh him to scorn, all the way that he is coming to god by christ-i know what i say-and this makes his coming to god by christ hard and difficult to him. shame covereth his face all the way he comes. he doth not know what to do; the god that he is returning to is the god that he has slighted, the god before whom he has preferred the vilest lusts; and he knows god knows it, and has before him all his ways. the man that has been a backslider, and is returning to god, can tell strange stories, and yet such as are very true. no man was in the whale's belly, and came out again alive, but backsliding and returning jonah; consequently no man could tell how he was there, what he felt there, what he saw there, and what workings of heart he had when he was there, so well as he. the returning again of the backslider gives a second testimony to the truth of man's state being by nature miserable, of the vanity of this world, of the severity of the law, certainty of death, and terribleness of judgment to come. his first coming to god by christ told them so, but his second coming tells them so with a double confirmation of the truth. "it is so," saith his first coming; "oh, it is so!" saith his second. the backsliding of a christian comes through the overmuch persuading of satan and lust, that the man was mistaken, and that there was no such horror in the things from which he fled, nor so much good in the things to which he hasted. "turn again, fool," says the devil, "turn again to thy former course. i wonder what frenzy it was that drove thee to thy heels, and that made thee leave so much good behind thee, as other men find in the lusts of the flesh and the good of the world. as for the law, and death, and an imagination of the day of judgment, they are but mere scarecrows, set up by polite heads to keep the ignorant in subjection." "well," says the backslider, "i will go back again and see;" so, fool as he is, he goes back, and has all things ready to entertain him: his conscience sleeps, the world smiles, flesh is sweet, carnal company compliments him, and all that can be got is presented to this backslider to accommodate him. but behold, he doth again begin to see his own nakedness, and he perceives that the law is whetting his axe: as for the world, he perceives it is a bubble; he also smells the smell of brimstone, for god hath scattered it upon his tabernacle and it begins to burn within him. "oh," saith he, "i am deluded; oh, i am ensnared. my first sight of things was true. i see it so again." now he begins to be for flying again to his first refuge: "o god," saith he, "i am undone; i have turned from thy truth to lies; i believed them such at first, and find them such at last: have mercy upon me, o god." this, i say, is a testimony, a second testimony by the same man. "and him that cometh to me, i will in no wise cast out." i shall here speak a word or two to him that is coming, after backsliding, to jesus christ for life. thy way, o thou sinner of a double dye, thy way is open to come to jesus christ. i mean thee, whose heart, after long backsliding, doth think of turning to him again. thy way, i say, is open to him, as is the way of the other sorts of comers; as appears by what follows. 1. because the text makes no exception against thee. it doth not say, "and any one but a backslider; any one but him." the text doth not thus object, but indefinitely openeth wide its golden arms to every coming soul, without the least exception. therefore thou mayest come. and take heed that thou shut not that door against thy soul by unbelief, which god has opened by his grace. 2. nay, the text is so far from excepting against thy coming, that it strongly suggesteth that thou art one of the souls intended, o thou coming backslider; else why need that clause have been so inserted, "i will in no wise cast out?" as if he should say, "though those that come now are such as have formerly backslidden, i will in no wise cast away the fornicator, the covetous, the railer, the drunkard, or other common sinners, nor yet the backslider neither." if thou yet, instead of repenting and doing thy first works, dost remain a backslider, 1. then remember that thou must die; and remember also, that when the terrors of god, of death, and a back-slidden heart meet together, there will be sad work in that soul: this is the man that hangeth tilting over the mouth of hell, while death is cutting the thread of his life. 2. remember, that though god doth sometimes, yea, often, receive backsliders, yet it is not always so. some draw back unto perdition; for, because they have flung up god and would none of him, he in justice flings up them and their souls for ever. prov. i: 24-28. xiii. the christian race. they that will go to heaven must run for it, because, as the way is long, so the time in which they are to get to the end of it is very uncertain; the time present is the only time: it may be thou hast no more time allotted thee than that thou now enjoyest: "boast not thyself of to-morrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth." do not say, i have time enough to get to heaven seven years hence; for i tell thee the bell may toll for thee before seven days more be ended; and when death comes, away thou must go, whether thou art provided or not; and therefore look to it--make no delays--it is not good dallying with things of so great concernment as the salvation or damnation of thy soul. you know, he that hath a great way to go in a little time, and less by half than he thinks of, he had need to run for it. they that will have heaven must run for it, because the devil, the law, sin, death, and hell, follow them. there is never a poor soul that is going to heaven, but the devil, the law, sin, death, and hell make after that soul. "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour." and i will assure you the devil is nimble; he can run apace, he is light of foot, he hath overtaken many, he hath turned up their heels, and hath given them an everlasting fall. also the law, that can shoot a great way; have a care thou keep out of the reach of those great guns the ten commandments. hell also hath a wide mouth; it can stretch itself further than you are aware of. and as the angel said to lot, "take heed; look not behind thee, neither tarry thou in all the plain"--that is, anywhere between this and the mountain--"lest thou be consumed;" so say i to thee, take heed; tarry not, lest either the devil, hell, death, or the fearful curses of the law of god, do overtake thee and throw thee down in the midst of thy sins; then thou, as well as i, wouldst say, they that will have heaven must run for it. they that go to heaven must run for it, because, perchance, the gates of heaven may be shut shortly. sometimes sinners have not heaven's gates open to them so long as they suppose, and if they be once shut against a man, they are so heavy that all the men in the world and all the angels in heaven are not able to open them. "i shut, and no man can open," saith christ. and how if thou shouldst come but one quarter of an hour too late? i tell thee it will cost thee an eternity to bewail thy misery in. francis spira [footnote: francis spira, an eminent lawyer of padua, italy, flurished in the first half of the sixteenth century. he embraced the reformed religion, and advocated evangelical sentiments with very great zeal. but at legnth, terrified by the threats of the papal church, he made a public recantation of his religious opinions. his apostasy from the faith threw him into despair, and amid intolerable mental agonies, refusing all sustenance and comfort, and affirming his certain condemnation for having abjured the known truth, he miserably expired. see sleidan's history of the reformation, page 475.] can tell thee what it is to stay till the gate of mercy be quite shut; or to run so lazily that they be shut before thou get within them. what, to be shut out--what, out of heaven! sinner, rather than lose it, run for it; yea, and "so run that thou mayest obtain." be not daunted though thou meetest with never so many discouragements in thy journey thither. that man that is resolved for heaven, if satan cannot win him by flatteries, he will endeavor to weaken him by discouragements, saying, thou art a sinner, thou hast broke god's law, thou art not elected, thou comest too late, the day of grace & past, god doth not care for thee, thy heart is naught, thou art lazy--with a hundred other discouraging suggestions. then thou must encourage thyself with the freeness of the promises, the tender-heartedness of christ, the freeness of his invitations to come in, the greatness of the sin of others that have been pardoned, and that the same god through the same christ holdeth forth the same grace free as ever. if these be not thy meditations, thou wilt draw very heavily in the way to heaven if thou do not give up all for lost; therefore i say, take heart in thy journey, and say to them that seek thy destruction, "rejoice not against me, o my enemy, for when i fall i shall arise, when i sit in darkness the lord shall be a light unto me." let me give thee a few motives along with thee. it may be they will be as good as a pair of spurs to prick on thy lumpish heart in this rich journey. 1. consider there is no way but this; thou must either win or lose. if thou winnest, then heaven, god, christ, glory, ease, peace, life, yea, life eternal, are thine; thou shalt be made equal to the angels in heaven; thou shalt sorrow no more, sigh no more, feel no more pain; thou shalt be out of the reach of sin, hell, death, the devil, the grave, and whatever else may endeavor thy hurt. but contrariwise, if thou lose, then thy loss is heaven, glory, god, christ, ease, peace, and whatever else tends to make eternity comfortable to the saints; besides, thou procurest eternal death, sorrow, pain, blackness and darkness, fellowship with devils, together with the everlasting damnation of thy own soul. 2. consider that this devil, this hell, death, and damnation follow after thee as hard as they can, and have their commission so to do by the law, against which thou hast sinned; and therefore for thy soul's sake make haste. 3. if they seize upon thee before thou get to the city of refuge, they will put an everlasting stop to thy journey. this also cries, run for it. 4. know also, that now heaven-gates, the heart of christ with his arms are wide open to receive thee o methinks that this consideration, that the devil followeth after to destroy, and that christ standeth open-armed to receive, should make thee reach out and fly with all haste and speed! 5. keep thine eyes upon the prize: be sure that thine eyes be continually upon the profit thou art like to get. the reason why men are so apt to faint in their race for heaven, lies chiefly in either of these two things: (1.) they do not seriously consider the worth of the prize; or else if they do, they are afraid it is too good for them. therefore keep thine eye much upon the excellency, the sweetness, the beauty, the comfort, the peace that is to be had there by those that win the prize. (2.) and do not let the thoughts of the rareness of the place make thee say in thy heart, this is too good for me; for i tell thee, heaven is prepared for whosoever will accept of it, and they shall he entertained with hearty good welcome. 6. think much of them that are gone before; how safe they are in the arms of jesus. would they be here again for a thousand worlds? or if they were, would they be afraid that god would not make them welcome? what would they judge of thee if they knew thy heart began to fail thee in thy journey, or thy sins began to allure thee and to persuade thee to stop thy race? would they not call thee a thousand fools, and say, o that he did but see what we see, feel what we feel, and taste of the dainties that we taste of? o if he were one quarter of an hour to behold, to feel, to taste, and enjoy but the thousandth part of what we enjoy, what would he do? what would he suffer? what would he leave undone? would he favor sin? would he love this world below? would he be afraid of friends, or shrink at the most fearful threatenings that the greatest tyrants could invent to give him? nay, those who have had but a sight of these things by faith, when they have been as far off from them as heaven from earth, yet they have been able to say with a comfortable and merry heart as the bird that sings in the spring, that this and more shall not stop them from running to heaven. sometimes when my base heart hath been inclining to this world, and to loiter in my journey towards heaven, the very consideration of the glorious saints and angels in heaven hath caused me to rush forward--to disdain these poor, low, empty, beggarly things, and say to my soul, come soul, let us not be weary; let us see what this heaven is; let us even venture all for it, and try if that will quit the cost. surely abraham, david, paul, and the rest of the saints of god, were as wise as any are now, and yet they lost all for this glorious kingdom. 7. to encourage thee a little further, set to work, and when thou hast run thyself down weary, then the lord jesus will take thee up and carry thee. is not this enough to make any poor soul begin his race? thou perhaps criest, "o, but i am feeble, i am lame;" well, but christ has a bosom; consider, therefore, when thou hast run thyself down weary, he will put thee in his bosom. "he shall gather the lambs with his arms, and carry them in his bosom." this is the way that fathers take to encourage their children, saying, run, sweet babe, until thou art weary, and then i will take thee up and carry thee. 8. or else he will convey new strength from heaven into thy soul. 9. again, methinks the very industry of the devil, and the industry of his servants, should make you that have a desire to heaven and happiness, run apace. why, the devil he will lose no time, spare no pains, also neither will his servants, both to seek the destruction of themselves and others; and shall not we be as industrious for our own salvation? shall the world venture the damnation of their souls for a poor corruptible crown, and shall not we venture the loss of a few trifles for an eternal crown? shall they venture the loss of eternal friends, as god to love, christ to redeem, the holy spirit to comfort, heaven for habitation, saints and angels for company, and all this to get and hold communion with sin and this world, and a few base wretches like themselves? and shall not we labor as hard, run as fast, seek as diligently, nay, a hundred times more diligently, for the company of these glorious eternal friends, though with the loss of such as these, nay, with the loss of a thousand times better than these poor, low, base, contemptible things? shall it be said at the last day, that wicked men made more haste to hell than you did make to heaven; that they spent more hours, days, and that early and late, for hell, than you spent for that which is ten thousand thousand of thousand times better? o let it not be so, but run with all might and main. is the soul such an excellent thing, and is the loss thereof so unspeakably great? then this commends those for the wise ones that above all business concern themselves with the salvation of their souls; those that make all other matters but things by the by, and the salvation of their soul the one thing needful. let me then encourage those that are of this mind to be strong and hold on their way. soul, thou hast chosen right; i will say of thy choice, as david said of goliath's sword, "there is none like that, give it me." but who told thee that thy soul was such an excellent thing as by thy practice thou declarest thou believest it to be? what, set more by thy soul than by all the world? what, cast a world behind thy back for the welfare of a soul! is not this to play the fool in the account of sinners, while angels wonder at and rejoice for thy wisdom? what a thing is this, that thy soul and its welfare should be more in thy esteem than all these glories wherewith the eyes of the world are dazzled! surely, thou hast looked upon the sun, and that makes gold look like a clod of clay in thine eyesight. but who put the thoughts of the excellencies of the things that are eternal--i say, who put the thoughts of the excellency of those things into thy mind in this wanton age, in an age wherein the thoughts of eternal life and the salvation of the soul are with too many like the morocco ambassador [footnote: evelyn, who lived in the times of charles i., cromwell. charles ii., and william, refers in his "diary" to this ambassador, named hamet. when presented to the king, he and his retinue were "clad in the moorish habite, cassocks of colored cloth or silk, with buttons and loopes; over this an alhaga or white woolen mantle, so large as to wrap both head and body; a shash or small turban; naked legg'd and armed, but with leather socks like the turks; rich scymeters, and large calico-sleeved shirts. the ambassador had a string of pearls oddly woven in the turban. their presents were lions and estridges (ostriches.) but the concourse and tumult of the people was intolerable, so as the officers could keep no order."] and his men of strange faces, in strange habits, with strange gestures and behaviors, monsters to behold? but where hadst thou that heart that gives entertainment to these thoughts, these heavenly thoughts? these thoughts are like the french protestants, [footnote: by the famous edict of nantes, which was granted the huguenots by henry iv., they were allowed liberty of conscience and the free exercise of religion. louis xiv., grandson of henry, after a series of arbitrary infractions of that edict by his father and himself at the instigation of the jesuits, at length in 1685 abrogated it, and banished the protestants from the kingdom under circumstances of aggravated cruelty. great numbers of them were dispersed through all the countries of europe. evelyn, in his diary, says that in 1685, "there had now been numbered to passe through geneva onely forty thousand towards swisserland. in holland, denmark, and all germany were dispersed some hundred thousands, besides those in england." in the memoirs of the reformation in france prefixed to saurin's sermons, it is stated that eight hundred thousand were banished from france, and that they carried with them more than twenty millions of property. the refugees charged their sufferings on the religion of rome, for pope innocent xi highly approved of this persecution. he wrote a brief to the king, assuring him that what he had done against the heretics of his kingdom would be immortalieied by the eulogies of the catholic church. he delivered a discourse in the consistory in 1689, in which he said, "the most christian king's zeal and piety did wonderfully appear in extirpating heresy." he ordered the te deum to be sung. evelyn says, "i was show'd the harangue which the bishop of valentia on rhone made in the name of the cleargie, celebrating the french king for persecuting the poor protestants; with this expression in it: 'his victory over heresy was greater than all the conquests of alexander and caesar.'"] banished thence where they willingly would have harbor: how came they to thy house, to thy heart, and to find entertainment in thy soul? the lord keep them in every imagination of the thoughts of thy heart for ever, and incline thine heart to seek him more and more. and since the whole world have slighted and despised and counted foolish the thoughts wherewith thy soul is exercised, what strong and mighty supporter is it upon and with which thou bearest up thy spirit, and takest encouragement in this thy forlorn, unoccupied, and singular way, for so i dare say it is with the most? but certainly it is something above thyself, and that is more mighty to uphold thee than is the power, rage, and malice of all the world to cast thee down, or else thou couldst not bear up, now the stream and the force thereof are against thee. objection. "i know my soul is an excellent thing, and that the world to come and its glories, even in the smallest glimpse thereof, do swallow up all the world that is here; my heart also doth greatly desire to be exercised about the thoughts of eternity, and i count myself never better than when my poor heart is filled with them; and as for the rage and fury of this world, it swayeth very little with me, for my heart is come to a point; but yet for all that, i meet with many discouragements, and such things as indeed do weaken my strength in the way." but, brave soul, pray tell me what the things are that discourage thee, and that weaken thy strength in the way. "why, the amazing greatness of this my enterprise. i am now pursuing things of the highest, the greatest, the most enriching nature, even eternal things; and the thoughts of the greatness of them drowned me: for when the heat of my spirit in the pursuit after them is a little returned and abated, methinks i hear myself talking thus to myself: fond fool, canst thou imagine that such a gnat, a flea as thou art, can take and possess the heavens, and mantle thyself up in the eternal glories? if thou makest first a trial of the successfulness of thy endeavors upon things far lower, more base, but much more easy to obtain, as crowns, kingdoms, earldoms, dukedoms, gold, silver, or the like, how vain are these attempts of thine, and yet thou thinkest to possess thy soul of heaven. away, away! by the height thereof, thou mayest well conclude it is far above, out of thy reach; and by the breadth thereof, it is too large for thee to grasp; and by the nature of the excellent glory thereof, too good for thee to possess. these are the thoughts that sometimes discourage me, and that weaken my strength in the way." answer. the greatness of thy undertakings does but show the nobleness of thy soul, in that it cannot, will not be content with such low and dry things as the base-born spirits that are in the world can and do content themselves withal. and as to the greatness of the things thou aimest at, though they be, as they are indeed, things that have not their like, yet they are not too big for god to give; and he has promised to give them to the soul that seeketh him; yea, he hath prepared the kingdom, and laid up in the kingdom of heaven the things that thy soul longeth for, presseth after, and cannot he content without. art thou got into the right way? art thou in christ's righteousness? do not say, yes, in thy heart, when in truth there is no such matter. it is a dangerous thing, you know, for a man to think he is in the right way, when he is in the wrong. it is the next way for him to lose his way; and not only so, but if he run for heaven, as thou sayest thou dost, even to lose that too. o this is the misery of most men, to persuade themselves that they are right, when they never had one foot in the way! the lord give thee understanding here, or else thou art undone for ever. prithee, soul, search when it was thou turnedst out of thy sins and righteousness into the righteousness of jesus christ. i say, dost thou see thyself in him; and is he more precious to thee than the whole world? is thy mind always musing on him; and lovest thou to be walking with him? dost thou count his company more precious than the whole world? dost thou count all things but poor, lifeless, empty, vain things, without communion with him? doth his company sweeten all things; and his absence imbitter all things? soul, i beseech thee be serious, and lay it to heart, and do not take things of such weighty concernment as the salvation or damnation of thy soul without good ground. art thou unladen of the things of this world; as pride, pleasures, profits, lusts, vanities? what, dost thou think to run fast enough, with the world, thy sins and lusts in thy heart? i tell thee, soul, they that have laid all aside, every weight, every sin, and are got into the nimblest posture, they find work enough to run; so to run as to hold out. to run through all the opposition, all the jostles, all the rubs, over all the stumbling-blocks, over all the snares, from all the entanglements that the devil, sin, the world, and their own hearts lay before them--i tell thee, if thou art going heavenward, thou wilt find it no small or easy matter. art thou therefore discharged or unladen of these things? never talk of going to heaven if thou art not. it is to be feared thou wilt be found among the "many that shall seek to enter in and shall not be able." if so, then in the next place, what will become of them that are grown weary before they are got half-way thither? why, man, it is he that holdeth out to the end, that must be saved; it is he that overcometh, that shall inherit all things; it is not every one that begins. agrippa took a fair step for a sudden: he steps almost into the bosom of christ in less than half an hour. "almost," saith he to paul, "thou persuadest me to be a christian." ah, it was but almost; and so he had as good have never been a whit; he stepped fair indeed, but yet he stepped short; he was hot while he was at it, but he was quickly out of wind. o this but almost! i tellyou, this but almost lost his soul. methinks i have seen sometimes how these poor wretches that get but almost to heaven, how fearfully their almost and their but almost will torment them in hell; when they shall cry out in the bitterness of their souls, saying, "almost a christian. i was almost got into the kingdom, almost out of the hands of the devil, almost out of my sins, almost from under the curse of god; almost, and that was all; almost, but not altogether. o that i should be almost at heaven, and should not go quite through!" friend, it is a sad thing to sit down before we are in heaven, and to grow weary before we come to the place of rest; and if it should be thy case, i am sure thou dost not so run as to obtain. evangelist. the crown is before you, and it is an incorruptible one; "so run, that you may obtain it." some there be that set out for this crown, and after they have gone far for it, another comes in and takes it from them: "hold fast, therefore, that ye have; let no man take your crown:" you are not yet out of the gunshot of the devil; "you have not resisted unto blood, striving against sin:" let the kingdom be always before you, and believe stead-fastly concerning things that are invisible; let nothing that is on this side the other world get within you; and, above all, look well to your own hearts and to the lusts thereof, for they are "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:" set your faces like a flint; you have all power in heaven and earth on your side. though the way to heaven be but one, yet there are many crooked lanes and by-paths that shoot down upon it, as i may say. and again, notwithstanding the kingdom of heaven be the chief city, yet usually those by-paths are most beaten, most travellers go those ways; and therefore the way to heaven is hard to be found, and as hard to be kept in, by reason of these. yet, nevertheless, it is in this case as it was with the harlot of jericho; she had one scarlet thread tied in her window, by which her house was known: so it is here; the scarlet streams of christ's blood run throughout the way to the kingdom of heaven; therefore mind that: see if thou do find the besprinkling of the blood of christ in the way; and if thou do, be of good cheer, thou art in the right way. xiv. trials of the christian affliction--its nature and benefits. the school of the cross is the school of light; it discovers the world's vanity, baseness, and wickedness, and lets us see more of god's mind. out of dark afflictions comes a spiritual light. in times of affliction, we commonly meet with the sweetest experiences of the love of god. the end of affliction is the discovery of sin; and of that, to bring us to a saviour. doth not god ofttimes even take occasion, by the hardest of things that come upon us, to visit our souls with the comforts of his spirit, to lead us into the glory of his word and to cause us to savor that love that he has had for us even from before the world began till now? a nest of bees and honey did samson find even in the belly of that lion that roared upon him. and is all this no good; or can we do without such holy appointments of god? let these things be considered by us, and let us learn like christians to kiss the rod, and love it. the lamps of gideon were discovered, when his soldiers' pitchers were broken: if our pitchers are broken for the lord and his gospel's sake, those lamps will then be discovered that before lay hid and unseen. people that live high and in idleness bring diseases upon the body; and they that live in all fulness of gospel ordinances, and are not exercised with trials, grow gross, are diseased and full of bad humors in their souls. the righteous are apt to be like well-fed children, too wanton, if god should not appoint them some fasting-days. the lord useth his flail of tribulation to separate the chaff from the wheat. observe paul: he died daily, he was always delivered unto death, he despaired of life. and this is the way to be prepared for any calamity. when a man thinks he has only to prepare for an assault by footmen, how shall he contend with horses; or if he looks no further than to horses, what will he do at the swellings of jordan? oh, when every providence of god unto thee is like the messengers of job, and the last to bring more heavy tidings than all that went before him; when life, estate, wife, children, body and soul, and all at once, seem to be struck at by heaven and earth, here are hard lessons--now to behave myself even as a weaned child: now to say, "the lord gave, and the lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the lord." our afflictions work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. our afflictions do it, not only because there is laid up a reward for the afflicted according to the measure of affliction, but because afflictions, and so every service of god, make the heart more deep, more experimental, more knowing and profound, and so, more able to hold, to contain, and bear more. let christians beware that they set not times for god, lest all men see their folly. "it is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the father hath put in his own power;" yea, i say again, take heed lest, for thy setting of god a seven-day's time, he set thee so many as seven times seven. god's time is the time, the best time, because it is the time appointed by him for the proof and trial of our graces, and that in which so much of the rage of the enemy and of the power of god's mercy, may the better be discovered unto us. "i the lord do hasten it in his time;" not before, though we were the signet upon his hand. afflictions are governed by god, both as to time, number, nature, and measure. in measure, when it shooteth forth, thou wilt debate with it: "he stayeth his rough wind in the day of his east wind." our times, therefore, and our conditions in these times, are in the hand of god, yea, and so are our souls and bodies, to be kept and preserved from the evil while the rod of god is upon us. ease and release from persecution and affliction come not by chance, or by the good moods and gentle dispositions of men; but the lord doth hold them back from sin, the lord restraineth them. 2 chron. 18:31. "and he stayed yet other seven days." it is not god's way with his people to show them all their troubles at once, but first he shows them a part: first, forty days, after that, seven other days, and yet again, seven days more; that coming upon them by piecemeal, they may the better be able to travel through them. when israel was in affliction in egypt, they knew not the trial which would meet them at the red sea. again, when they had gone through that, they little thought that yet for forty years they must be tempted and proved in the wilderness. "and noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked;" the failing again of his expected comforter caused him to be up and doing. probably he had not as yet uncovered the ark, that is, to look round about him, if the dove, by returning, had pleased his humor; but she failing, he stirs up himself. thus it should also be with the christian now. doth the dove forbear to come to thee with a leaf in her bill as before? let not this make thee sullen and mistrustful, but uncover the ark and look; and by looking, thou shalt see a further testimony of what thou receivest by the first manifestations. "he looked, and behold the earth was dry." god doth not let us see the hills for our help before we have first of all seen them drowned. look not to them, therefore, while the water is at the rising; but if they begin to cease their raging, if they begin to fall, and with that the tops of the mountains be seen, you may look upon them with comfort; they are tokens of god's deliverance. gen. 8. it was requisite that the hills, gen. 7:19, should be covered, that noah might not have confidence in them; but surely this dispensation of god was a heart-shaking providence to noah and them that were with him; for here indeed was his faith tried, there was no hill left in all the world; now were his carnal helpers gone, there was none shut up or left. now therefore, if they could rejoice, it must be only in the power of god. noah was to have respect in his deliverance not only to himself and family, but to the good of all the world. men's spirits are too narrow for the mind of god, when their chief end, or their only design in their enjoying this or the other mercy, is for the sake of their own selves only. it cannot be according to god, that such desires should be encouraged. "none of us liveth unto himself;" why, then, should we desire life only for ourselves? the church cries out thus: "god be merciful to us and bless us, and cause his face to shine upon us." why? "that thy way may be known upon earth, and thy saving health among all nations." so david: "restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with thy free spirit; then will i teach transgressors thy ways, and sinners shall be converted unto thee." so then, we must not desire to come out of trials and afflictions alone or by ourselves, but that in our deliverance the salvation of many may be concerned. in every affliction and persecution, the devil's design is to impair christ's kingdom; wherefore, no marvel that god designs in our deliverance the impairing and lessening the kingdom of sin and satan. wherefore, o thou church of god, which art now upon the waves of affliction and temptation, when thou comest out of the furnace, if thou come out at the bidding of god, there shall come out with thee the fowl, the beast, and abundance of creeping things. gen. 8:17. "o judah, he hath set a harvest for thee, when i returned the captivity of my people." persecution. there are several degrees of suffering for righteousness: there is the scourge of the tongue, the ruin of an estate, the loss of liberty, a jail, a gibbet, a stake, a dagger. now answerable to these are the comforts of the holy ghost prepared, like to like, part proportioned to part; only the consolations are said to abound. 2 cor. 1:5. but the lighter the sufferings are, the more difficult it is to judge of the comforts of the spirit of god; for it is common for a man to be comfortable under sufferings when he suffereth but little, and knows also that his enemy can touch his flesh, his estate, or the like, but little. and this maybe the joy of the flesh, the result of reason; and may be very much, if not altogether, without a mixture of the joy of the holy ghost therewith. the more deep, therefore, and the more dreadful the sufferings are, the more clearly are seen the comforts of the spirit. when a man has comfort where the flesh is dead, stirreth not, and can do nothing; when a man can be comfortable at the loss of all; when he is under sentence of death, or at the place of execution--if yet a man's cause, a man's conscience, the promise, and the holy ghost, have all one comfortable voice, and do all together with their trumpets make one sound in the soul, then good are the comforts of god and his spirit. there are several degrees of sufferings; wherefore it is not to be expected that he that suffers but little should partake of the comforts that are prepared for them that suffer much. he that has only the scourge of the tongue, knows not what are the comforts that are prepared for him that meets with the scourge of the whip. and how should a man know what manner of comforts the holy ghost doth use to give at the jail and the gibbet, when himself for righteousness never was there? persecution of the godly was never intended of god for their destruction, but for their glory, and to make them shine the more when they are beyond this valley of the shadow of death. "we that are christians have been trained up by his son in his school this many a day, and have been told what a god our father is, what an arm he has, and with what a voice he can thunder; how he can deck himself with majesty and excellency, and array himself with beauty and glory; how he can cast abroad the rage of his wrath, and behold every one that is proud and abase him. have we not talked of what he did at the red sea and in the land of ham, many years ago; and have we forgot him now? have we not vaunted and boasted of our god, both in church, pulpit, and books, and spake to the praise of them that attempted to drive antichrist out of the world with their lives and their blood instead of stones; and are we afraid of our god? he was god, a creator, then; and is he not god now? and will he not be as good to us as to them that have gone before us? or would we limit him to appear in such ways as only smile upon our flesh, and have him stay and not show himself in his heart-shaking dispensations until we are dead and gone? what if we must now go to heaven, and what if he is thus come to fetch us to himself? if we have been as wise as serpents and innocent as doves--if we can say, neither against the law of the jews, neither against the temple, nor against caesar, have we offended any thing at all--of what should we be afraid? let heaven and earth come together; i dare say they will not hurt us." religion that is pure is a hot thing; and il usually burns the fingers of those that fight against it. ah, when god makes the bed, he must needs lie easy whom weakness hath cast thereon: a blessed pillow hath. that man for his head, though to all beholders it is hard as a stone. psa. 41:1-3. it is as ordinary as for the light to shine, for god to make back and dismal dispensations usher in bright and pleasing. christian reader, let me beg of thee that thou wilt not be offended either with god or men, if the cross is laid heavy upon thee. not with god, for he doeth nothing without a cause; nor with men, for they are the hand of god: and will they, nill they, they are the servants of god to thee for good. psa. 17:14; jer. 24:5. take, therefore, what comes from god by them thankfully. if the messenger that brings it is glad that it is in his power to do thee hurt and to afflict thee, if he skips for joy at thy calamity, be sorry for him, pity him, and pray to thy father for him: he is ignorant, and understandeth not the judgment of thy god; yea, he showeth by this his behavior, that though he as god's ordinance serveth thee by afflicting thee, yet means he nothing less than to destroy thee: by the which also he prognosticates before thee that he is working out his own damnation by doing thee good. lay therefore the woful state of such to heart, and render him that which is good for his evil, and love for his hatred to thee; then shalt thou show that thou art moved by a spirit of holiness, and art like thy heavenly father. and be it so, that thy pity and prayers can do such a one no good, yet they must light somewhere, or return again, as ships come laden from the indies, full of blessings into thine own bosom. poor man, thou hast thy time to be afflicted by thy enemies, that thy golden graces may shine the more; thou art in the fire and they blow the bellows. but wouldst thou change places with them? wouldst thou sit upon their place of ease? dost thou desire to be with them? o rest thyself contented; in thy patience possess thy soul, and pity and bewail them in the condition in which they are. the cup that god's people in all ages have drank of, even the cup of affliction and persecution, it is not in the hand of the enemy, but in the hand of god; and he, not they, poureth out of the same. there are but two ways of obeying: the one to do that which i in my conscience do believe that i am bound to do, actively; and where i cannot obey actively, there i am willing to lie down and to suffer what they shall do unto me. a christian, when he sees trouble coming upon him, should not fly in the face of the instrument that brings, but in the face of the cause of its coming. now the cause is thyself, thy base self, thy sinful self, and thy unworthy carriages towards god under all the mercy, patience, and long-suffering that god has bestowed upon thee, and exercised towards thee. here thou mayest quarrel, and be revenged, and spare not, so thou take vengeance in a right way; and thou wilt do so, when thou takest it by godly sorrow. 1 cor. 7:10,11. it is a rare thing to suffer aright, and to have thy spirit in suffering beat only against god's enemy, sin. let them that are god's sufferers pluck up a good heart; let them not be afraid to trust god with their souls, and with their eternal concerns. let them cast all their care upon god, for he careth for them. "but i am in the dark." i answer, never stick at that. it is most bravely done to trust god with the soul in the dark, and to resolve to serve god for nothing, rather than give out. not to see and yet to believe, and to be a follower of the lamb and yet to be at uncertainty what we shall have at last, argues love, fear, faith, and an honest mind, and gives the greatest sign of one that hath true sincerity in his soul. it was this that made job and peter so famous; and the want of it took away much of the glory of the faith of thomas. wherefore, believe verily that god is ready, willing; yea, that he looks for and expects that thou, who art a sufferer, shouldst commit the keeping of thy soul to him as unto a faithful creator. is there nothing in dark providences, for the sake of the sight and observation of which such a day may be rendered lovely, when it is upon us? is there nothing of god, of his wisdom and power and goodness, to be seen in thunder and lightning, in hailstones, in storms and darkness and tempests? why then is it said, he hath his way in the whirlwind and storm? and why have god's servants of old made such notes, and observed from them such excellent and wonderful things? there is that of god to be seen in such a day, which cannot be seen in another. his power in holding up some, his wrath in leaving others; his making shrubs to stand, and his suffering cedars to fall; his infatuating the counsels of men, and his making the devil to outwit himself; his giving his presence to his people, and his leaving his foes in the dark; his discovering the uprightness of the hearts of his sanctified ones, and laying open the hypocrisy of others, is a working of spiritual wonders in the day of his wrath and of the whirlwind and storm. these days, these days of trial, are the days that do most aptly give an occasion to christians to take the exactest measures and scantlings of ourselves. we are apt to overshoot in days that are calm, and to think ourselves far higher and more strong than we find we are when the trying day is upon us. the mouth of gaal, judges 9:38, and the boasts of peter, were great and high before the trial came; but when that came, they found themselves to fall far short of the courage they thought they had. we also, before the temptation comes, think we can walk upon the sea; but when the winds blow, we feel ourselves begin to sink. hence such a time is rightly said to be a time to try us, or to find out what we are; and is there no good in this? is it not this that rightly rectifies our judgment about ourselves, that makes us to know ourselves, that tends to cut off those superfluous sprigs of pride and self-concitedness, wherewith we are subject to be overcome? is not such a day the day that bends us, humbles us, and that makes us bow before god for our faults committed in our prosperity? and yet doth it yield no good unto us? we could not live without such turnings of the hand of god upon us. thine own doubts and mistrusts about what god will do and about whither thou shalt go, when thou for him hast suffered awhile he can resolve, yea, dissolve, crush, and bring to nothing. he can make fear flee far away, and place heavenly confidence in its room. he can bring invisible and eternal things to the eye of thy soul, and make thee see that, in those things in which thine enemies shall see nothing, that thou shalt count worth the loss of ten thousand lives to enjoy. he can pull such things out of his bosom, and can put such things into thy mouth; yea, can make thee choose to be gone, though through the flames, rather than to stay here and die in silken sheets. yea, he can himself come near, and bring his heaven and glory to thee. the spirit of glory and of god resteth upon them that are but reproached for the name of christ. and what the spirit of glory is, and what is his resting upon his sufferers, is quite beyond the knowledge of the world, is but little felt by saints at peace. they that are engaged, that are under the lash for christ--they, i say, have it, and understand something of it. look not upon the sufferings of god's people for their religion, to be tokens of god's great anger. it is, to be sure, as our heavenly father orders it, rather a token of his love; for suffering for the gospel and for the sincere profession of it, is indeed a dignity put upon us, a dignity that all men are not counted worthy of. count it therefore a favor that god has bestowed upon thee his truth, and grace to enable thee to profess it, though thou be made to suffer for it. let god's people think never the worse of religion because of the coarse entertainment it meeteth with in the world. it is better'to choose god and affliction, than the world, and sin, and carnal peace. it is necessary that we should suffer, because we have sinned; and if god will have us suffer a little while here for his word, instead of suffering for our sins in hell, let us be content, and count it a mercy with thankfulness. the wicked are reserved to the day of destruction, they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath. how kindly, therefore, doth god deal with us, when he chooses to afflict us but for a little, that with everlasting kindness he may have mercy upon us. since the rod is god's as well as the child, let us not look upon our troubles as if they came from and were managed only by hell. it is true, a persecutor has a black mark upon him; but yet the scriptures say that all the ways of the persecutor are god's. wherefore as we should, so again we should not, be afraid of men: we should be afraid of them, because they will hurt us; but we should not be afraid of them as if they were let loose to do to us and with us what they will. god's bridle is upon them, god's hook is in their nose; yea, and god hath determined the bounds of their rage; and if he lets them drive his church into the sea of troubles, it shall he hut up to the neck; and so far it may go and not he drowned. isaiah 8:7, 8. "may we not fly in a time of persecution? your pressing upon us that persecution is ordered and managed by god, makes us afraid to fly." thou mayest do in this even as it is in thy heart. if it is in thy heart to fly, fly; if it be in thy heart to stand, stand. anything but a denial of the truth. he that flies, has warrant to do so; he that stands, has warrant to do so. yea, the same man may both fly and stand, as the call and working of god with his heart may be. moses fled, moses stood; jeremiah fled, jeremiah stood; christ withdrew himself, christ stood; paul fled, paul stood. but in flying, fly not from religion; fly not, for the sake of a trade; fly not, that thou mayest have care for the flesh: this is wicked, and will yield neither peace nor profit to thy soul, neither now, nor at death, nor at the day of judgment. the hotter the rage and fury of men are against righteous ways, the more those that love righteousness grow therein. for they are concerned for it, not to hide it, but to make it spangle; not to extinguish it, but to greaten it, and to show the excellency of it in all its features and in all its comely proportion. now such an one will make straight steps for his feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way. heb. 12: 13. now he shows to all men what faith is, by charity, by self-denial, by meekness, by gentleness, by long-suffering, by patience, by love to enemies, and by doing good to them that hate us. now he walketh upon his high places, yea, will not now admit that so slovenly a conversation should come within his doors, as did use to haunt his house in former times. now it is christ-mas, now it is suffering-time, now we must keep holy day every day. the reason is, that a man when he suffereth for christ, is set upon a hill, upon a stage, as in a theatre, to play a part for god in the world. and you know, when men are to play their parts upon a stage, they count themselves if possible more bound to circumspection; and that for the credit of their master, the credit of their art, and the credit of themselves. for then the eyes of every body are fixed, they gape and stare upon them, psalm 22:17, and a trip here is as bad as a fall in another place. also now god himself looks on. yea, he smileth, as being pleased to see a good behavior attending the trial of the innocent. there are some of the graces of god that are in thee, that as to some of their acts cannot show themselves, nor their excellency, nor their power, nor what they can do, but as thou art in a suffering state. faith and patience in persecution have that to do, that to show, and that to perform, that cannot be done, shown, nor performed, anywhere else but there. there is also a patience of hope, a rejoicing in hope when we are in tribulation, that is over and above that which we have when we are at ease and quiet. that also that all graces can endure and triumph over, shall not be known, but when and as we are in a state of affliction. now these acts of our graces are of such worth and esteem with god, and he so much delighteth in them, that occasion, through his righteous judgment, must be ministered for them to show their beauty and what bravery there is in them. it is also to be considered that those acts of our graces that cannot be put forth or show themselves in their splendor but when we christianly suffer, will yield such fruit to those whose trials call them into exercise, as will in the day of god abound to their comfort and tend to their perfection in glory. 1 peter, 1:7; 2 cor. 4:17. why then should we think that our innocent lives will exempt us from sufferings, or that troubles shall do us harm? alas, we have need of those bitter pills at which we so much wince. i see that i still have need of these trials; and if god will by these judge me, as he judges his saints, that i may not he condemned with the world, i will cry, grace, grace, for ever. shall we deserve correction, and be angry because we have it? or shall it come to save us, and shall we he offended with the hand that brings it? our sickness is so great that our enemies take notice of it; let them know too that we take our purges patiently. we are willing to pay for those potions that are given us for the health of our body, how sick soever they make us; and if god will have us pay too for that which is to better our souls, why should we grudge thereat? those that bring us these medicines have little enough for their pains; for my part, i profess i would not for a great deal be bound, for their wages, to do their work. true, physicians are for the most part chargeable, and niggards are too loath to part with their money to them; but when necessity says they must either take physic or die, of two evils they desire to choose the least. why, affliction is better than sin; and if god sends the one to cleanse us from the other, let us thank him, and be also content to pay the messenger. bunyan's trial and imprisonment. from bunyan's examination before justices keeling, chester, [footnote: on the restoration of the house of stuart, charles ii. entered london, in may, 1600. in november of that year, bunyan was indicted for an upholder of unlawful assemblies and conventicles, and for not conforming to the church of england. "he was sentenced,"] etc. keeling. justice keeling said that i ought not to preach, and asked me where i had my authority; with many other such like words. bunyan. i said that i would prove that it was lawful for me, and such as i am, to preach the word of god. keeling. he said unto me, by what scripture? bunyan. i said, by that in the first epistle of peter, fourth chapter and eleventh verse, and acts eighteenth, with other scriptures; which he would not suffer me to mention, but said, hold, not so many: which is the first? bunyan. i said, this: "as every man hath received the gift, even so let him minister the same unto another, as good stewards of the grace of god. if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of god." keeling. he said, let me a little open that scripture to you. as every man hath received the gift; that is, said he, as every man hath received a trade, so let him follow says crosby, "to perpetual banishment, in pursuance of an act made by the then parliament." this sentence was never executed, but he was kept in prison for more than twelye years. subsequently to this year, 1660, several oppressive acts were passed, as the corporation act, 1661, the act of uniformity, 1662, the five-mile act, 1665, the conventicle acts, 1666 and 1671, and the test act, 1673. the act of uniformity required that every clergyman should be reordained; should declare his assent to every thing contained in the book of common prayer, etc. by this act, about two thousand dissenting ministers were ejected from their livings, and the most cruel persecution followed. the five-mile and conventicle acts imposed various fines, imprisonment, and death upon all persons above sixteen years of age, who attended divine service where the liturgy was not read; ordained that no non-conformist minister should live within five miles of any town; and aimed to suppress all meetings for worship among the non-conformists. these in a short time made frightful desolations, and all the jails in the kingdom soon became filled with men who were the brightest ornaments of christianity. the persecuted included both sexes and all ages, from the child of nine or ten years, to the hoary-headed saint of eighty. in picart's religious ceremonies, it is stated that the number of dissenters of all sects, who perished in prison under charles ii., was eight thousand. on the accession of william iii., these penalties and disabilities were removed by the toleration act. the corporation and test acts, however, disgraced the statute-book of england till the year 1828, when they were triumphantly repealed. offer's introduction, hume's history, and ency. amer. it. if any man hath received a gift of tinkering, as thou hast done, let him follow his tinkering; and so other men their trades, and the divine his calling, etc. bunyan. nay, sir, said i, but it is most clear that the apostle speaks here of preaching the word: if you do but compare both the verses together, the next verse explains this gift what it is; saying, "if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of god;" so that it is plain that the holy ghost doth not so much in this place exhort to civil callings, as to the exercising of those gifts that we have received from god. i would have gone on, but he would not give me leave. keeling. he said we might do it in our families, but not otherwise. bunyan. i said, if it was lawful to do good to some, it was lawful to do good to more. if it was a good duty to exhort our families, it is good to exhort others; but if they held it a sin to meet together to seek the face of god, and exhort one another to follow christ, i should sin still; for so we should do. keeling. he said he was not so well versed in scripture as to dispute, or words to that purpose. and said, moreover, that they could not wait upon me any longer; but said to me, then you confess the indictment; do you not? now, and not till now, i saw i was indicted. bunyan. i said, this i confess: we have had many meetings together both to pray to god and to exhort one another, and we have had the sweet comforting presence of the lord among us for encouragement; blessed be his name therefor. i confessed myself guilty no otherwise. keeling. then said he, hear your judgment. you must be had back again to prison, and there lie for three months following; and at three months' end, if you do not submit to go to church to hear divine service, and leave your preaching, you must be banished the realm: and if, after such a day as shall be appointed you to be gone, you shall be found in this realm, or be found to come over again without special license from the king, you must stretch by the neck for it; i tell you plainly. and so he bid my jailer have me away. bunyan. i told him, as to this matter i was at a point with him; for if i was out of prison today, i would preach the gospel again tomorrow, by the help of god. i continued in prison till the next assizes, which are called midsummer assizes, being then kept in august, 1661. now at that assizes, because i would not leave any possible means unattempted that might be lawful, i did, by my wife, [footnote: "this courageous woman [his second wife] and lord chief-justice hale and bunyan have long since met in heaven; but how little could they recognize each other's character on earth! how little could the distressed, insulted wife have imagined, that beneath the judge's ermine there was beating the heart of a child of god, a man of humility, integrity, and prayer! how little could the great, learned, illustrious, and truly pious judge have dreamed that the man, the obscure tinker whom he was suffering to languish in prison for want of a writ of error, would one day be the subject of greater admiration and praise than all the judges in the kingdom of great britain." dr. cheever's lectures on pilgrim's progress, p. 158.] present a petition to the judges three times, that i might be heard, and that they would impartially take my case into consideration. the first time my wife went, she presented it to judge hale, who very mildly received it at her hand, telling her that he would do her and me the best good he could; but he feared, he said, he could do none. the next day again, lest they should through the multitude of business forget me, we did throw another petition into the coach to judge twisdon, who, when he had seen it, snapt her up, and angrily told her i was a convicted person, and could not be released unless i would promise to preach no more, etc. well, after this, she again presented another to judge hale, as he sat on the bench, who, as it seemed, was willing to give her audience; only justice chester being present, stept up and said that i was convicted in the court, and that i was a hot-spirited fellow, or words to that purpose; whereat he waived it, and did not meddle with it. but yet, my wife being encouraged by the high-sheriff, did venture once more into their presence, as the poor widow did to the unjust judge, to try what she could do with them for my liberty before they went forth of the town. the place where she went to them was to the swan chamber, where the two judges and many justices and gentry of the country were in company together. she then, coming into the chamber with abashed face and a trembling heart, began her errand to them in this manner. woman. my lord-directing herself to judge hale--i make bold to come once again to your lordship to know what may be done with my husband. judge hale. to whom he said, woman, i told thee before i could do thee no good, because they have taken that for a conviction which thy husband spoke at the sessions; and unless there be something done to undo that, i can do thee no good. woman. my lord, said she, he is kept unlawfully in prison; they clapped him up before there was any proclamation against the meetings; the indictment also is false; besides, they never asked him whether he was guilty or no; neither did he confess the indictment. one of the justices. then one of the justices that stood by, whom she knew not, said, my lord, he was lawfully convicted. woman. it is false, said she; for when they said to him, do you confess the indictment? he said only this, that he had been at several meetings, both where there was preaching the word and prayer, and that they had god's presence among them. judge twisdon. whereat judge twisdon answered very angrily, saying, what, you think we can do as we list! your husband is a breaker of the peace, and is convicted by the law, etc. whereupon judge hale called for the statute-book. woman. but, said she, my lord, he was not lawfully convicted. chester. then justice chester said, my lord, he was lawfully convicted. woman. it is false, said she; it was but a word of discourse that they took for conviction. chester. but it is recorded, woman, it is recorded, said justice chester; as if it must of necessity be true, because it was recorded. with which words he often endeavored to stop her mouth, having no other argument to convince her but, it is recorded, it is recorded. woman. my lord, said she, i was a while since at london, to see if i could get my husband's liberty; and there i spoke with my lord burkwood, one of the house of lords, to whom i delivered a petition, who took it of me and presented it to some of the rest of the house of lords for my husband's releasement; who, when they had seen it, said that they could not release him, but had committed his releasement to the judges at the next assizes. this he told me; and now i come to you to see if any thing can be done in this business, and you give neither releasement nor relief. to which they gave her no answer, but made as if they heard her not. chester. only justice chester was often up with this, he is convicted, and it is recorded. woman. if it be, it is false, said she. chester. my lord, said justice chester, he is a pestilent fellow; there is not such a fellow in the country again. twisdon. what, will your husband leave preaching? if he will do so, then send for him. woman. my lord, said she, he dares not leave preaching as long as he can speak. twisdon. see here: what should we talk any more about such a fellow? must he do what he lists? he is a breaker of the peace. woman. she told him again, that he desired to live peaceably and to follow his calling, that his family might be maintained; and moreover said, my lord, i have four small children that cannot help themselves, of which one is blind; and we have nothing to live upon but the charity of good people. hale. whereat justice hale, looking very soberly on the matter, said, alas, poor woman! twisdon. but judge twisdon told her that she made poverty her cloak; and said, moreover, that he understood i was maintained better by running up and down a preaching, than by following my calling. hale. what is his calling? said judge hale. answer. then some of the company that stood by said, a tinker, my lord. woman. yes, said she, and because he is a tinker and a poor man, therefore he is despised and cannot have justice. hale. then judge hale answered, very mildly, saying, i tell thee, woman, seeing it is so that they have taken what thy husband spake for a conviction, thou must apply thyself to the king, or sue out his pardon, or get out a writ of error. chester. but when justice chester heard him give her this counsel, and especially, as she supposed, because he spoke of a writ of error, he chafed and seemed to be very much offended, saying, my lord, he will preach and do what he lists. woman. he preacheth nothing but the word of god, said she. twisdon. he preach the word of god! said twisdon--and withal she thought he would have struck her--he runneth up and down and doeth harm. woman. no, my lord, said she, it is not so; god hath owned him, and done much good by him. twisdon. god! said he; his doctrine is the doctrine of the devil. woman. my lord, said she, when the righteous judge shall appear, it will be known that his doctrine is not the doctrine of the devil. twisdon. my lord, said he to judge hale, do not mind her, but send her away, hale. then said judge hale, i am sorry, woman, that i can do thee no good: thou must do one of those three things aforesaid, namely, either to apply thyself to the king, or sue out his pardon, or get a writ of error; but a writ of error will be cheapest. woman. at which chester again seemed to be in a chafe, and put off his hat, and as she thought scratched his head for anger; but when i saw, said she, that there was no prevailing to have my husband sent for, though i often desired them that they would send for him, that he might speak for himself, telling them that he could give them better satisfaction than i could in what they demanded of him, with several other things which now i forget: only this i remember, that though i was somewhat timorous at my first entrance into the chamber, yet before i went out i could not but break forth into tears, not so much because they were so hard-hearted against me and my husband, but to think what a sad account such poor creatures will have to give at the coming of the lord, when they shall there answer for all things whatsoever they have done in the body, whether it be good or whether it be bad. so when i departed from them, the book of statutes was brought; but what they said of it i know nothing at all, neither did i hear any more from them. martyrs. in the house of the forest of lebanon you find pillars, pillars; so in the church in the wilderness. oh the mighty ones of which the church was compacted; they were all pillars, strong, bearing up the house against wind and weather; nothing but fire and sword could dissolve them. as therefore this house was made up of great timber, so this church in the wilderness was made up of giants in grace. these men had the faces of lions; no prince, no king, no threat, no terror, no torment could make them yield. they loved not their lives unto the death. they have laughed their enemies in the face, they have triumphed in the flames. none ever showed higher saints than were they in the church in the wilderness. others talked, these have suffered; others have said, these have done; these have voluntarily taken their lives in their hands, for they loved them not to the death, and have fairly and in cool blood laid them down before the world, god, angels, and men, for the confirming of the truth which they have professed. that which makes a martyr, is suffering for the word of god after a right manner. and that is when he suffereth not only for righteousness, but for righteousness' sake; not only for truth, but of love to truth; not only for god's word, but according to it, to wit, in that holy, humble, meek manner that the word of god requireth. a man may give his body to be burned for god's truth, and yet be none of god's martyrs. 1 cor. 13:1-3. christian courage. when we see our brethren before us fall to the earth by death, through the violence of the enemies of god, for their holy and christian profession, we should covet to make good their ground against them, though our turn should be next. we should valiantly do in this matter as is the custom of soldiers in war; take great care that the ground be maintained, and the front kept full and complete. there are but few when they come to the cross, cry, welcome, cross! as some of the martyrs did to the stake they were burned at. therefore, if you meet with the cross in thy journey, in what manner soever it be, be not daunted and say, alas, what shall i do now? but rather take courage, knowing that by the cross is the way to the kingdom. can a man believe in christ, and not be hated by the devil? can he make a profession of christ, and that sweetly and convincingly, and the children of satan hold their tongue? can darkness agree with light? the christian warfare. departing from iniquity is not a work of an hour, or a day, or a week, or a month, or a year; but it is a work that will last thee thy lifetime, and there is the greatness and difficulty of it. were it to be done presently, or were the work to be quickly over, how many are there that would be found to have departed from iniquity; but for that it is a work of continuance, and not worth any thing unless men hold out to the end; therefore it is that so few are found actors or overcomers therein. departing from iniquity, with many, is but like the falling out of two neighbors; they hate one another for a while, and then renew their old friendship again. but again, since to depart from iniquity is a work of time, of all thy time, no wonder if it dogs thee, and offereth to return upon thee again and again; for sin is mischievous, and seeks nothing less than thy ruin. wherefore, thou must in the first place take it for granted that thus it will be, and so cry the harder to god for the continuing of his presence and grace upon thee in this blessed work, that as thou hast begun to depart from iniquity, so thou mayest have strength to do it to the last gasp of thy life. and further, for that departing from iniquity is a kind of warfare with it-for iniquity will hang in thy flesh what it can, and will not be easily kept under-therefore no marvel if thou find it wearisome work, and that the thing that thou wouldst get rid of is so unwilling to let thee depart from it. and since the work is so weighty, and makes thee to go groaning on, i will for thy help give thee here a few things to consider of: and, 1. remember that god sees thee, and has his eyes open upon thee, even then when sin and temptation are flying at thee to give them some entertainment. this was the thought that made joseph depart from sin, when solicited to embrace it by a very powerful argument. genesis 39:6, 7. 2. remember that god's wrath burns against it, and that he will surely be revenged on it, and on all that give it entertainment. this made job afraid to countenance it, and put him upon departing from it: "for destruction from god was a terror to me, and by reason of his highness i could not endure." job 31: 23. 3. remember the mischiefs that it has done to those that have embraced it, and what distress it has brought upon others. this made the whole congregation of israel tremble to think that any of their brethren should give countenance to it. joshua 22: 16-18. 4. remember what christ hath suffered by it, that he might deliver us from the power of it. this made paul so heartily depart from it, and wish all christians to do so as well as he. 2 cor. 5: 14. 5. remember that those that are now in hell-fire went thither for that they loved iniquity, and would not depart from it. psalm 9: 17; 11:6. 6. remember that a profession is not worth a pin, if they that make it do not depart from iniquity. james 2:16, 17. 7. remember that thy death-bed will be very uneasy to thee, if thy conscience at that day shall be clogged with the guilt of thy iniquity. hos. 7: 13, 14. 8. remember that at the judgment-day christ will say, depart from me, to those that have not here departed from their sin and iniquity. luke 13:27; matt 25:41. lastly, remember well, and think much upon what a blessed reward the son of god will give to them at that day, that have joined to their profession of faith in him a holy and blessed conversation. he that will depart from iniquity must be well fortified with faith and patience and the love of god; for iniquity has its beauty-spots and its advantages attending on it; hence it is compared to a woman, zech. 5: 7, for it allureth greatly. therefore i say, he that will depart there-from had need have faith; that being it which will help him to see beyond it, and that will show him more in things that are invisible, than can be found in sin, were it ten thousand times more entangling than it is. 2 cor. 4:18. he has need of patience also to hold out in this work of departing from iniquity. for indeed, to depart from that is to draw my mind off from that which will follow me with continual solicitations. samson withstood his delilah for a while, but she got the mastery of him at the last. why so? because he wanted patience; he grew angry and was vexed, and could withstand her solicitations no longer. judges 16: 15-17. many there be, also, that can well enough be contented to shut sin out of doors for a while; but because sin has much fair speech, therefore it overcomes at last. prov. 7:21. for sin and iniquity will not be easily said nay. wherefore, departing from iniquity is a work of length, as long as life shall last. a work, did i say? it is a war, a continual combat; wherefore, he that will adventure to set upon this work, must needs be armed with faith and patience, a daily exercise he will find himself put to by the continual attempts of iniquity to be putting forth itself. matt. 24: 13; rev. 3:10. the christian armor. the war that the church makes with antichrist is rather defensive than offensive. a christian also, if he can but defend his soul in the sincere profession of the true religion, doth what by duty, as to this, he is bound. wherefore, though the new testament admits him to put on the whole armor of god, yet the whole and every part thereof is spiritual, and only defensive. true, there is mention made of the sword, but that sword is the word of god-a weapon that hurteth none, none at all but the devil and sin, and those that love it. indeed, it was made for christians to defend themselves and their religion with, against hell and the angels of darkness. objection. but he that shall use none other than this, must look to come off a loser. answer. in the judgment of the world this is true, but not in the judgment of them that have skill and a heart to use it. for this armor is not saul's which david refused, but god's; by which the lives of all those have been secured, that put it on and handled it well. you read of some of david's mighty men of valor, that their faces were as the faces of lions, and that they were as swift of foot as the roes upon the mountains. why, god's armor makes a man's face look thus; also it makes him that useth it more lively and active than before. god's armor is no burden to the body, nor clog to the mind, but rather a natural, instead of an artificial fortification. but this armor comes not to any, but out of the king's hand. christ distributeth his armor to his church. hence it is said, "it is given to us to suffer for him." it is given to us by himself, and on his behalf. i saw also, that the interpreter took him again by the hand and led him into a pleasant place, where was builded a stately palace beautiful to behold; at the sight of which christian was greatly delighted: he saw also upon the top thereof certain persons walking, who were clothed all in gold. then said christian, "may we go in thither?" then the interpreter took him, and led him up towards the door of the palace; and behold, at the door stood a great company of men, as desirous to go in, but durst not. there also sat a man at a little distance from the door, at a table-side, with a book and his ink-horn before him, to take the name of him that should enter therein; he saw also, that in the doorway stood many men in armor to keep it, being resolved to do to the men that would enter what hurt and mischief they could. now was christian somewhat in a maze; at last, when every man started back for fear of the armed men, christian saw a man of a very stout countenance come up to the man that sat there to write, saying, "set down my name, sir;" the which when he had done, he saw the man draw his sword, and put a helmet upon his head, and rush towards the door upon the armed men, who laid upon him with deadly force; but the man was not at all discouraged, but fell to cutting and hacking most fiercely. so after he had received and given many wounds to those that attempted to keep him out, he cut his way through them all, and pressed forward into the palace; at which there was a pleasant voice heard from those that were within, even of those that walked upon the top of the palace, saying, "come in, come in; eternal glory thou shalt win." so he went in, and was clothed with such garments as they. then christian smiled and said, "i think verily i know the meaning of this." in the description of the christian armor, we have no provision for the back. xv. temptations. temptations of satan. satan, even from himself, besides the working of our own lust, doth do us wonderful injury, and hits our souls with many a fiery dart, that we think comes either from ourselves or from heaven and god himself. satan diligently waiteth to come in at the door, if careless has left it a little ajar. there is nothing that satan more desires than to get good men in his sieve to sift them as wheat, that if possible he may leave them nothing but bran; no grace, but the very husk and shell of religion. so long as we retain the simplicity of the word, we have satan at the end of the staff; for unless we give way to a doubt about that, about the truth and simplicity of it, he gets no ground upon us. in time of temptation, it is our wisdom and duty to keep close to the word that prohibits and forbids the sin; and not to reason with satan, of how far our outward and worldly privileges go, especially of those privileges that border upon the temptation, as eve here did: "we may eat of all but one." by this she goeth to the outside of her liberty, and sees herself upon the brink of the danger. christ might have told the tempter, when he assaulted him, that he could have made stones bread, and that he could have descended from the pinnacle of the temple, as afterwards he did; but that would have admitted of other questions; wherefore he chooseth to lay aside such needless and unwarrantable reasonings, and resisteth him with a direct word of god, most pertinent to quash the tempter and also to preserve himself in the way. to go to the outside of privileges, especially when tempted of the devil, is often if not always very dangerous and hazardous. as long as the devil is alive there is danger; and though a strong christian may lie too hard for, and may overcome him in one thing, he may be too hard for, yea, and may overcome the christian two for one afterwards. thus he served david, and thus he served peter, and thus he in our day has served many more. the strongest are weak, the wisest are fools, when suffered to be sifted as wheat in satan's sieve; yea, and have often been so proved, to the wounding of their great hearts and the dishonor of religion. it is usual with the devil in his temptings of poor creatures, to put a good and bad together, that by show of the good the tempted might be drawn to do that which in truth is evil. thus he served saul; he spared the best of the herd and flock, under pretence of sacrificing to god, and so transgressed the plain command. but this the apostle said was dangerous, and therefore censureth such as in a state of condemnation. thus he served adam; he put the desirableness of sight and a plain transgression of god's law together, that by the loveliness of the one they might the easier be brought to do the other. o, poor eve, do we wonder at thy folly? doubtless we had done as bad with half the argument of thy temptation. satan by tempting one may chiefly intend the destruction of another. by tempting the wife, he may aim at the destruction of the husband; by tempting the father, he may design the dsstruction of his children; and by tempting the king, he may design the ruin of his subjects, even as in the case of david: "satan stood up against israel, and provoked david to number the people." he had a mind to destroy seventy thousand, therefore he tempted david to sin. i have sent you here enclosed a drop of that honey that i have taken out of the carcass of a lion. i have eaten thereof myself, and am much refreshed thereby. temptations, when we meet them at first, are as the lion that roared upon samson; but if we overcome them, the next time we see them we shall find a nest of honey within them. temptations of the world. if thou wouldst be faithful to do that work that god hath appointed thee to do in this world for his name, then labor always to possess thy heart with a right understanding, both of the things that this world yieldeth, and of the things that shall be hereafter. i am confident that most if not all the miscarriages of the saints and people of god have their rise from deceivable thoughts here. the things of this world appear to us more, and those that are to come less, than they are; and hence it is that many are so hot and eager for things that be in the world, and so cold and heartless for those that be in heaven. satan is here a mighty artist, and can show us all earthly things in a multiplying-glass; but when we look up to things above, we see them as through sackcloth of hair. but take thou heed; be not ruled by thy sensual appetite that can only savor fleshly things, neither be thou ruled by carnal reason which always darkeneth the things of heaven; but go to the word, and as that says, so judge thou. that tells thee all things under the sun are vanity, nay, worse, vexation of spirit; that tells thee the world is not, even when it doth most appear to be: wilt thou set thine heart upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings, and fly away as an eagle towards heaven. the same may be said for honors, pleasures, and the like; they are poor, low, base things to be entertained by a christian's heart. the man that hath most of them may in the fulness of his sufficiency be in straits; yea, when he is about to fill his belly with them, god may cast the fury of his wrath upon him; so is every one that layeth up treasure for himself on earth, and is not rich towards god. a horse that is laden with gold and pearls all day, may have a foul stable and a galled back at night. and "woe to him that increaseth that which is not his, and that ladeth himself with thick clay." o man of god, throw this bone to the dogs; suck not at it, there is no marrow there. "set thy affections on things that are above, where christ sitteth on the right hand of god." colos. 3:1-4. encouragements for the tempted. let us cast ourselves upon this love of christ. no greater encouragement can be given us, than what is in the text, eph. 3:18,19, and about it. it is great; it is "love that passeth knowledge." men that are sensible of danger, are glad when they hear of such helps upon which they may boldly venture for escape. why, such a help and relief the text helpeth trembling and fearful consciences to. fear and trembling as to misery hereafter, can flow but from what we know, feel, or imagine; but the text speaks of a love that passeth knowledge, consequently of a love that goes beyond all these. besides, the apostle's conclusion upon this subject plainly makes it manifest, that this meaning which i have put upon the text is the mind of the holy ghost. now "unto him," saith he, "that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by christ jesus throughout all ages, world without end. amen." what can be more plain? what can be more full? what can be more suitable to the most desponding spirit in any man? he can do more than thou knowest he will. he can do more than thou thinkest he can. what dost thou think? why, i think, saith the sinner, that i am cast away. well, but there are worse thoughts than these; therefore think again. why, saith the sinner, i think that my sins are as many as all the sins in the world. indeed this is a very black thought, but there are worse thoughts than this; therefore prithee think again. why, i think, saith the sinner, that god is not able to pardon all my sins. aye, now thou hast thought indeed; for this thought makes thee look more like a devil than a man; and yet, because thou art a man and not a devil, see the condescension and boundlessness of the love of thy god. he is able to do above all that we think. couldst thou, sinner, if thou hadst been allowed, thyself express what thou wouldst have expressed--the greatness of the love thou wantest--with words that could have suited thee better? for it is not said he can do above what we think, meaning our thinking at present, but above all we can think; meaning, above the worst and most soul-dejecting thoughts that we have at any time. sometimes the dejected have worse thoughts than they have at other times. well, take them at their worst times, at times when they think, and think, till they think themselves down into the very pangs of hell, yet this word of the grace of god is above them, and shows that he can yet recover and save these miserable people. and now i am upon this subject, i will a little further walk and travel with these desponding ones, and will put a few words in their mouths for their help against temptations that may come upon them hereafter. for as satan follows such now with charges and applications of guilt, so he may follow them with interrogatories and appeals; for he can tell how by appeals, as well as by charging of sin, to sink and drown the sinner whose soul he has leave to engage. suppose, therefore, that some distressed man or woman should after this way be engaged, and satan should with his interrogatories and appeals be busy with them, to drive them to desperation; the text last mentioned, eph. 3: 18,19, to say nothing of the subject of our discourse, yields plenty of help for the relief of such a one. says satan, dost thou not know that thou hast horribly sinned? yes, says the soul, i do. says satan, dost thou not know that thou art one of the vilest in all the pack of professors? yes, says the soul, i do. says satan, doth not thy conscience tell thee that thou art and hast been more base than any of thy fellows can imagine thee to be? yes, says the soul, my conscience tells me so. well, saith satan, now will i come upon thee with my appeals. art thou not a graceless wretch? yes. hast thou a heart to be sorry for this wickedness? no, not as i should. and albeit, saith satan, thou prayest sometimes, yet is not thy heart possessed with a belief that god will not regard thee? yes, says the sinner. why then, despair, and go hang thyself, saith the devil. and now we are at the end of the thing designed and driven at by satan. and what shall i now do, saith the sinner? i answer, take up the words of the text against him: christ loves with a love that "passeth knowledge." and answer him further, saying, satan, though i cannot think that god loves me, though i cannot think that god will save me, yet i will not yield to thee; for god can do more than i think he can. and whereas thou appealedst unto me, if whether, when i pray, my heart is not possessed with the belief that god will not regard me, that shall not sink me neither; for god can "do abundantly above what i ask or think." thus this text helpeth where obstructions are put in against our believing, and thereby casting ourselves upon the love of god in christ for salvation. and yet this is not all; for the text is yet more full: "he is able to do abundantly more, yea, exceeding abundantly more, or above all that we ask or think." it is a text made up of words picked and packed together by the wisdom of god; picked and packed together on purpose for the succor and relief of the tempted; that they may, when in the midst of their distresses, cast themselves upon, the lord their god. he can do abundantly more than we ask. o, says the soul, that he would but do so much for me as i could ask him to do: how happy a man should i then be. why, what wouldst thou ask for, sinner? you may be sure, says the soul, i would ask to be saved from my sins. i would ask for faith in, and love to, christ; i would ask to be preserved in this evil world, and ask to be glorified with christ in heaven. he that asketh for all this, doth indeed ask for much, and for more than satan would have him believe that god is able or willing to bestow upon him. but mark: the text doth not say that god is able to do all that we can ask or think, but that he is able to do above all, yea, abundantly above all, yea, exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think. what a text is this! what a god have we! god foresaw the sins of his people, and what work the devil would make with their hearts about them; and therefore, to prevent their ruin by his temptation, he has thus largely, as you see, expressed his love by his word. let us therefore, as he has bidden us, make this good use of this doctrine of grace, to cast ourselves upon this love of god in the times of distress and temptation. the bird in the air knows not the notes of the bird in the snare, until she comes thither herself. when i have been laden with sin, and pestered with several temptations, and in a very sad manner, then have i had the trial of the virtue of christ's blood, with trial of the virtue of other things; and i have found that when tears would not do, prayers would not do, repentings and all other things could not reach my heart, o then one touch, one drop, one shining of the virtue of the blood, of that blood that was let out with a spear, it hath in such a blessed manner delivered me, that it hath made me to marvel. o, methinks it hath come with such life, such power, with such irresistible and marvellous glory, that it wipes off all the slurs, silences all the outcries, and quenches all the fiery darts and all the flames of hell-fire, that are begotten by the charges of the law, satan, and doubtful remembrances of my sinful life. there are three things that do usually afflict the soul that is earnestly looking after jesus christ. 1. dreadful accusations from satan. 2. grievous, defiling, and infectious thoughts. 3. a strange readiness in our nature to fall in with both. by the first, of these, the heart is made continually to tremble. hence his temptations are compared to the roaring of a lion. for as the lion by roaring killeth the heart of his prey, so doth satan kill the spirit of those that hearken to him; for when he tempteth, especially by way of accusation, he doth to us as rabshakeh did to the jews; he speaks to us in our own language. he speaks our sin at every word; our guilty conscience knows it. he speaks our death at every word; our doubting conscience feels it. 2. besides this, there do now arise even in the heart such defiling and soul-infectious thoughts, as put the tempted to his wit's end, for now it seems to the soul that the very flood-gates of the flesh are opened, and that to sin there is no stop at all; now the air seems to be covered with darkness, and the man is as if he was changed into the nature of a devil. now, if ignorance and unbelief prevail, he concludeth that he is a reprobate, made to be taken and destroyed. 3. now also he feeleth in him a readiness to fall in with every temptation--a readiness, i say, continually present. romans 7:21. this throws all down. now despair begins to swallow him up; now he can neither pray, nor read, nor hear, nor meditate on god, but fire and smoke continually burst forth of the heart against him; now sin and great confusion puts forth itself in all. yea, and the more the sinner desireth to do a duty sincerely, the further off he always finds himself; for by how much the soul struggleth under these distresses, by so much the more doth satan put forth himself to resist, still infusing more poison, that if possible it might never struggle more, for stragglings are also as poison to satan. the fly in the spider's web is an emblem of the soul in such a condition: the fly is entangled in the web; at this the spider shows himself; if the fly stirs again, down comes the spider to her, and claps a foot upon her; if yet the fly makes a noise, then with poisoned mouth the spider lays hold upon her; if the fly struggles still, then he poisons her more and more: what shall the fly do now? why, she dies, if somebody does not quickly release her. this is the case of the tempted; they are entangled in the web, their feet and wings are entangled; now satan shows himself; if the soul now struggleth, satan laboreth to hold it down; if it now shall make a noise, then he bites with blasphemous mouth, more poisonous than the gall of a serpent. if it struggle again, then he poisoneth more and more; insomuch that it must needs at last die in the net, if the man, the lord jesus, helps not out. the afflicted conscience understands my words. further, though the fly in the web is altogether incapable of looking for relief, yet this awakened, tempted christian, is not. what must he do, therefore? how should he entertain hopes of life? if he looks to his heart, there is blasphemy; if he looks to his duties, there is sin; if he strives to mourn and lament, perhaps he cannot; unbelief and hardness hinder. shall this man lie down and despair? no. shall he trust to his duties? no. shall he stay from christ till his heart is better? no. what then? let him now look to jesus christ crucified; then shall he see his sins answered for, then shall he see death dying, then shall he see guilt borne by another, and then shall he see the devil overcome. this sight destroys the power of the first temptation, purifies the heart, and inclines the mind to all good things. didst thou never learn to outshoot the devil with his own bow, and to cut off his head with his own sword, as david served goliath, who was a type of satan? question. o how should a poor soul do this? this is rare indeed. answer. why, truly thus: doth satan tell thee thou prayest but faintly, and with very cold devotion? answer him thus, and say, i am glad you told me, for this will make me trust the more to christ's prayers, and the less to my own; also i will endeavor henceforward to groan, to sigh, and to be so fervent in my crying at the throne of grace, that i will, if i can, make the heavens rattle again with the mighty groans thereof. and whereas thou sayest that i am so weak in believing, i am glad you remind me of it; i hope it will henceforward stir me up to cry the more heartily to god for strong faith, make me the more restless till i have it. and seeing thou tellest me that i run so softly, and that i shall go near to miss of glory, this also shall be through grace to my advantage, and cause me to press the more earnestly towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of god in christ jesus. and seeing thou dost tell me that my sins are wondrous great, hereby thou bringest the remembrance of the unsupportable vengeance of god into my mind if i die out of jesus christ, and also the necessity of the blood, death, and merits of christ to help me; i hope it will make me fly the faster and press the harder after an interest in him. and so all along, if he tell thee of thy deadness, dulness, coldness, or unbelief, or the greatness of thy sins, answer him and say, i am glad you told me; i hope it will be a means to make me run faster, seek more earnestly, and be the more restless after jesus christ. if thou didst but get this art, so as to outrun him in his own shoes, as i may say, and to make his own darts to pierce himself, then thou mightest also say, now do satan's temptations, as well as all other things, work together for my good. objection. but i find so many weaknesses in every duty that i perform, as when i pray, when i read, when i hear or attempt any other duty, that it maketh me out of conceit with myself; it maketh me think that my duties are nothing worth. answer. thou by this means art taken off from leaning on any thing below jesus for eternal life. it is likely, if thou wast not sensible of many by-thoughts and wickednesses in thy best performances, thou wouldst go near to be some proud, abominable hypocrite, or a silly, proud, dissembling wretch at the best; such a one as wouldst send thy soul to the devil in a bundle of thy own righteousness. would jesus christ have mercy offered, in the first place, to the biggest sinner? let the tempted harp upon this string for their help and consolation. the tempted, wherever he dwells, always thinks himself the biggest sinner, one most unworthy of eternal life. this is satan's master-argument: thou art a horrible sinner, a hypocrite, one that has a profane heart, and one that is an utter stranger to a work of grace. i say, this is his maul, his club, his masterpiece; he does with this, as some do by their most enchanting songs, singing them everywhere. i believe there are but few saints in the world that have not had this temptation sounding in their ears. but were they but aware, satan by all this does but drive them to the gap out at which they should go, and so escape his roaring. saith he, thou art a great sinner, a horrible sinner, a profane-hearted wretch, one that cannot be matched for a vile one in the country. and all this while christ says to his ministers, offer. mercy in the first place to the biggest sinners. so that this temptation drives thee directly into the arms of jesus christ. was therefore the tempted but aware, he might say, aye, satan, so i am, i am a sinner of the biggest size, and therefore have most need of jesus christ; yea, because i am such a wretch, therefore jesus christ calls me; yea, he calls me first--the first proffer of the gospel is to be made to the jerusalem sinner. i am he; wherefore stand back, satan, make way for me, my right is first to come to jesus christ. this now will be like for like. this would foil the devil. this would make him say, i must not deal with this man. thus; for then i put a sword into his hand to cut off my head. well, sinner, thou now speakest like a christian; but say thus in a strong spirit in the hour of temptation, and then thou wilt, to thy commendation and comfort, quit thyself well. this improving of christ in dark hours is the life, though the hardest part of our christianity. we should neither stop at darkness, nor at the raging of our lusts, but go on in a way of venturing and casting the whole of our concerns for the next world at the foot of jesus christ. this is the way to make the darkness light, and also to allay the raging of our corruption. what a brave encouragement is it for one that is come for grace to the throne of grace, to see so great a number already there on their seats, in their robes, with their palms in their hands and their crowns upon their heads, singing of salvation to god and the lamb! and i say again--and speak now to the dejected--methinks it would be strange, o thou that art so afraid that the greatness of thy sins will be a bar unto thee, if amongst all this great number of pipers and harpers that are got to glory, thou canst not espy one that, when here, was as vile a sinner as thyself. look, man; they are there for thee to view them, and for thee to take encouragement to hope, when thou shalt consider what grace and mercy have done for them. look again, i say, now thou art upon thy knees, and see if some that are among them have not done worse than thou hast done. and yet behold, they are set down; and yet behold, they have crowns on their heads, their harps in their hands, and sing aloud of salvation to their god and the lamb. behold, tempted soul; dost thou not yet see what a throne of grace here is, and what multitudes are already arrived thither, to give thanks unto his name that sits thereon, and to the lamb for ever and ever? and wilt thou hang thy harp upon the willows, and go drooping up and down the world, as if there was no god, no grace, no throne of grace, to apply thyself unto for mercy and grace to help in time of need? hark; dost thou not hear them what they say? "worthy," say they, "is the lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. and every creature which is in heaven"--where they are--"and on the earth"--where thou art--"and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are therein, heard i saying, blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the lamb, for ever and ever." and this is written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope; and that the drooping ones might come boldly to the throne of grace, to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. in general, god was pleased to take this course with me: first, to suffer me to be afflicted with temptations concerning the truths of the gospel, and then reveal them to me; as sometimes i should lie under great guilt for sin, even crushed to the ground therewith; and then the lord would show me the death of christ, yea, and so sprinkle my conscience with his blood, that i should find, and that before i was aware, that in that conscience where but just now did reign and rage the law, even there would rest and abide the peace and love of god through christ. thus by the strange and unusual assaults of the tempter, my soul was like a broken vessel driven as with the winds, and tossed, sometimes headlong into despair, sometimes upon the covenant of works, and sometimes to wish that the new covenant and the conditions thereof might, so far forth as i thought myself concerned, be turned another way and changed. but in all these, i was as those that jostle against the rocks; more broken, scattered, and rent. oh, the unthought of imaginations, frights, fears, and terrors that are effected by a thorough application of guilt yielding to desperation. this is the man that hath his dwelling among the tombs, with the dead--that is always crying out, and cutting himself with stones. but i say, all in vain; desperation will not comfort him, the old covenant will not save him: nay, heaven and earth shall pass away before one jot or tittle of the word and law of grace will fail or be removed. this i saw, this i felt, and under this i groaned. yet this advantage i got thereby, namely, a further confirmation of the certainty of the way of salvation, and that the scriptures were the word of god. oh, i cannot now express what i then saw and felt of the steadfastness of jesus christ, the rock of man's salvation: what was done could not be undone, added to, nor altered. often when i have been making towards the promise, john 6:30, i have seen as if the lord would refuse my soul for ever; i was often as if i had run upon the pikes, and as if the lord had thrust at me, to keep me from him, as with a flaming sword. then would i think of esther, who went to petition the king contrary to the law. i thought also of benhadad's servants, who went with ropes upon their heads to their enemies for mercy. the woman of canaan also, that would not be daunted though called a dog by christ, and the man that went to borrow bread at midnight, were also great encouragements unto me. i never saw such heights and depths in grace and love and mercy, as i saw after this temptation. great sins draw out great grace; and where guilt is most terrible and fierce, there the mercy of god in christ, when showed to the soul, appears most high and mighty. when job had passed through his calamity, he had twice as much as he had before. blessed be god for jesus christ our lord. if ever satan and i did strive for any word of god in all my life, it was for this good word of christ: "him that cometh to me, i will in nowise cast out;" he at one end, and i at the other. oh, what work we made. it was for this, in john.6:30, i say, that we did so tug and strive: he pulled, and i pulled; but, god be praised, i overcame him and got sweetness from it. i prayed to god, in prison, that he would comfort me, and give me strength to do and suffer what he should call me to; yet no comfort appeared, but all continued hid. i was also at this time so really possessed with the thought of death, that oft i was as if on the ladder with a rope about my neck: only this was some encouragement to me: i thought i might now have an opportunity to speak my last words unto a multitude, which i supposed would come to see me die; and thought i, if it must be so, if god will but convert one soul by my last words, i shall not count my life thrown away nor lost. but yet all the things of god were kept out of my sight, and still the tempter followed me with, but whither must you go when you die? what will become of you? where will you be found in another world? what evidence have you for heaven and glory, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified? thus was i tossed for many weeks, and knew not what to do; at last, this consideration fell with weight upon me, that it was for the word and way of god that i was in this condition; wherefore, i was engaged not to flinch a hair's breadth from it. i thought, also, that god might choose whether he would give me comfort now, or at the hour of death; but i might not therefore choose whether i would hold my profession or no. i was bound, but he was free: yea, it was my duty to stand to his word, whether he would ever look upon me, or save me at the last. wherefore, thought i, the point being thus, i am for going on and venturing my eternal state with christ, whether i have comfort here or no: if god doth not come in, thought i, i will leap off the ladder even blindfold into eternity, sink or swim, come heaven come hell. lord jesus, if thou wilt catch me, do; if not, i will venture for thy name. before i had got thus far out of these my temptations, i did greatly long to see some ancient godly man's experience, who had writ some hundreds of years before i was born; for those who had writ in our days, i thought--but i desire them now to pardon me--that they had writ only that which others felt; or else had, through the strength of their wits and parts, studied to answer such objections as they perceived others were perplexed with, without going themselves down into the deep. well, after many such longings in my mind, the god in whose hands are all our days and ways, did cast into my hand one day a book of martin luther's: it was his comment on the galatians; it was also so old that it was ready to fall piece from piece, if i did but turn it over. now i was pleased much that such an old book had fallen into my hands; the which when i had but a little way perused, i found my condition in his experience so largely and profoundly handled, as if this book had been written out of my heart. this made me marvel; for thus thought i, this man could not know any thing of the state of christians now, but must needs write and speak the experience of former days. besides, he doth most gravely also, in that book, debate of the rise of these temptations, namely, blasphemy, desperation, and the like; showing that the law of moses, as well as the devil, death, and hell, hath a very great hand therein: the which, at first, was very strange to me; but considering and watching, i found it so indeed. but of particulars here i intend nothing; only this methinks i must let fall before all men, i do prefer this book of martin luther upon the galatians, excepting the holy bible, before all the books that ever i have seen, as most fit for a wounded conscience. xvi. security of christians. christians, were you awake, here would be matter of wonder to you, to see a man assaulted with all the power of hell, and yet come off a conqueror. is it not a wonder to see a poor creature, who in himself is weaker than the moth, stand against and overcome all devils, all the world, all his lusts and corruptions? or if he fall, is it not a wonder to see him, when devils and guilt are upon him, rise again, stand upon his feet again, walk with god again, and persevere after all this in the faith and holiness of the gospel? he that knows himself, wonders; he that knows temptation, wonders; he that knows what falls and guilt mean, wonders: indeed, perseverance is a wonderful thing and is managed by the power of god; for he only "is able to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of his glory, with exceeding joy." he that is saved must, when this world can hold him no longer, have a safe conduct to heaven; for that is the place where they that are saved must to the full enjoy their salvation. here we are saved by faith and hope of glory; but there we that are saved shall enjoy the end of our faith, and hope, even the salvation of our souls. but now for a poor creature to be brought thither, this is the life of the point. but how shall i come thither? there are heights and depths to hinder. rom. 8:38, 39. suppose the poor christian is upon a sick-bed, beset with a thousand fears, and ten thousand at the end of that--sick-bed fears, and they are sometimes dreadful ones: fears that are begotten by the review of the sin perhaps of forty years' profession--fears that are begotten by fearful suggestions of the devil, the sight of death and the grave, and it may be of hell itself--fears that are begotten by the withdrawing and silence of god and christ. but now, out of all these the lord will save his people; not one sin, nor fear, nor devil shall hinder, nor the grave nor hell disappoint thee. but how must this be? why, thou must have a safe conduct to heaven. what conduct? a conduct of angels. "are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them that shall be heirs of salvation?" these angels therefore are not to fail them that are saved, but must, as commissioned of god, come down from heaven to do this office for them. they must come, i say, and take the care of our souls, to conduct them safely into abraham's bosom. it is not our meanness in the world, nor our weakness of faith, that shall hinder this; nor shall the loathsomeness of our diseases make these delicate spirits shy of taking this charge upon them. lazarus the beggar found this a truth--a beggar so despised of the rich glutton that he was not suffered to come within his gate; a beggar full of sores and noisome putrefaction--yet behold, when he dies angels come from heaven to fetch him thither. true, death-bed temptations are ofttimes the most violent, because then the devil plays his last game with us; he is never to assault us more. besides, perhaps god suffereth it thus to be that the entering into heaven may be the sweeter, and ring of this salvation the louder. o it is a blessed thing for god to be our god and our guide, even unto death, and then for his angels to conduct us safely to glory. this is saving indeed. mercy seems to be asleep when we are sinking; for then we are as if all things were careless of us; but it is but as a lion couchant, it will awake in time for our help. there are those that have been in the pit, psa. 40:2, now upon mount zion, with the harps of god in their hands, and with the song of the lamb in their mouths. god hath set a saviour against sin, a heaven against a hell, light agamst darkness, good against evil, and the breadth and length and depth and height of the grace that is in himself for my good, against all the power and strength and subtlety of every enemy. is it not a thing amazing, to see one poor inconsiderable man, in a spirit of faith and patience, overcome all the threatenings, cruelties, afflictions, and sorrows that a whole world can lay upon him? none can quail him, none can crush him, none can bend down his spirit; none can make him forsake what he has received of god, a commandment to hold fast. his holy, harmless, and profitable notions, because they are spiced with grace, yield to him more comfort, joy, and peace; and do kindle in his soul a goodly fire of love to and zeal for god that all the waters of the world shall never be able to quench. now, a creation none can destroy but a creator, wherefore, here is comfort. but again, god hath created us in christ jesus; that's another thing. the sun is created in the heavens; the stars are created in the heavens; the moon is created in the heavens. who can reach them, touch them, destroy them, but the creator? why, this is the case of the saint, because he has to do with a creator: he is fastened to christ, yea, is in him by an act of creation. so that unless christ and the creation of the holy ghost can be destroyed, he is safe that is suffering according to the will of god, and that hath committed the keeping of his soul to him in well-doing, as unto a faithful creator. the strife is now, who shall be lord of all: whether satan the prince of this world, or christ jesus the son of god; or which can lay the best claim to god's elect, he that produces their sins against them, or he that laid down his heart's blood a price of redemption for them. who then shall condemn, when christ has died and does also make intercession? stand still, angels, and behold how the father divides his son a "portion with the great," and how he "divides the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and did bear the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." the grace of god and the blood of christ will, before the end of the world, make brave work among the sons of men. they shall come for a wonderment to god by christ, and--be saved for a wonderment for christ's sake." behold, these shall come from far; and lo, these from the north and from the west, and these from the land of sinim." "what man is he that feareth the lord?" says david; "him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose." now, to be taught of god, what is like it? yea, what is like being taught in the way that them shalt choose? thou hast chosen the way to life, god's way; hut perhaps thy ignorance about; it is so great, and those that tempt thee to turn aside are so many and so subtle, that, they seem to outwit thee and confound thee with their guile. well, but the lord whom thou fearest will not leave thee to thy ignorance, nor yet to thine enemies' power or subtlety, but will take it upon himself to be thy teacher and thy guide, and that in the way that thou hast chosen. hear, then, and beliold thy privilege, o thou that fearest the lord; and--whoever wanders, turns aside, and swerveth from the way of salvation, whoever is benighted and lost in the midst of darkness--thou shalt find the way to heaven and the glory that thou hast chosen. there is between those that have taken sanctuary in christ, and the bottomless pit, an invincible and mighty wall of grace and heavenly power, and of the merits of christ to save to the utmost all and every one that are thus fled to him for safety. oh, how my soul did at this time [while in spiritual darkness] prize the preservation that god did set about his people. ah, how safely did i see them walk whom god had hedged in. now did those blessed places that spake of god's keeping his people, shine like the sun before me, though not to comfort me, yet to show me the blessed state and heritage of those whom the lord had blessed. now i saw that as god had his hand in all the providences and dispensations that overtake his elect, so he had his hand in all the temptations that they had to sin against him; not to animate them in wickedness, but to choose their temptations and troubles for them, and also to leave them for a time to such things only as might not destroy, but humble them--as might not put them beyond, but lay them in the way of the renewing of his mercy. but oh, what love, what care, what kindness and mercy did i now see, mixing itself with the most severe and dreadful of all god's ways to his people! he would let david, hezekiah, solomon, peter, and others fall; but he would not let them fall into the sin unpardonable, nor into hell for sin. o, thought i, these be the men that god hath loved--these be the men that god, though he chastiseth them, keeps in safety by him, and whom he makes to abide under the shadow of the almighty. surely his salvation, his saving, pardoning grace, is nigh them that fear him; that is, to save them out of the hand of their spiritual enemies. the devil and sin and death do always wait even to devour them that fear the lord; but to deliver them from these, his salvation doth attend them. so, then, if satan tempts, here is their salvation nigh; if sin by breaking forth beguiles them, here is god's salvation nigh them; yea, if death itself shall suddenly seize upon them, why, here is their god's salvation nigh them. i have seen that great men's little children must go no whither without their nurses be at hand. if they go abroad, their nurses must go with them; if they go to meals, their nurses must go with them; if they go to bed, their nurses must go with them; yea,--and if they fall asleep, their nurses must stand by them. o, my brethren, those little ones that fear the lord are the children of the highest; therefore they shall not walk alone, be at their spiritual meats alone, go to their sick-beds or to their graves alone: the salvation of their god is nigh them, to deliver them from the evil. this is then the glory that dwells in the land of them that fear the lord. "he will fulfil the desire of them that fear him." where now is the man that feareth the lord? let him hearken to this. "what sayest thou, poor soul? will this content thee? the lord fulfil thy desires. o thou that fearest the lord, what is thy desire? "all my desire," says david, "is all my salvation;" so sayest thou, "all my salvation is all my desire?" well, the desire of thy soul is granted thee; yea, god himself hath engaged himself even to fulfil this thy desire. "he will fulfil the desires of them that fear him; he will hear their cry, and will save them." o this desire, when it cometh, what "a tree of life" will it be to thee! thou desirest to be rid of thy present trouble; the lord shall rid thee out of trouble. thou desirest to be delivered from temptation; the lord shall deliver thee out of temptation. thou desirest to be delivered from thy body of death; and the lord shall change this thy vile body, that it may be like to his glorious body. thou desirest to be in the presence of god, and among the angels in heaven; this thy desire also shall be fulfilled, and thou shalt be made equal to the angels. exod. 6:6; 2 peter, 2:9; phil. 3:20, 21; luke 16:22; 26:35, 36. "oh, but it is long first." well, learn first to live upon thy portion in the promise of it, and that will make thy expectation of it sweet. god will fulfil thy desires; god will do it, though it tarry long: wait for it, because it will surely come, it will not tarry." xvii. the promises. god hath strewed all the way from the gate of hell where thou wast, coming sinner, to the gate of heaven whither thou art going, with flowers out of his own garden. behold how the promises, invitations, calls, and encouragements, like lilies, lie about thee. take heed thou dost not tread them under foot. you say you believe the scriptures to be the word of god. i say, wert thou ever quickened from a dead state by the power of the spirit of christ through the covenant of promise? i tell thee from the lord, if thou hast been, thou hast felt such a quickening power in the words of christ, that thou hast been lifted out of the dead condition thou before wert in; and that when thou wast under the guilt of sin, the curse of the law, the power of the devil, and the justice of the great god, thou hast been enabled by the power of god in christ, revealed to thee by the spirit through and by the scripture, to look sin, death, hell, the devil, and the law, and all things that are at enmity with thee, with boldness and comfort in the face, through the blood, death, resurrection, and intercession of christ, made mention of in the scriptures. on this account, o how excellent are the scriptures to thy soul! o how much virtue dost thou see in such a promise, in such an invitation! they are so large as to say, christ will in nowise cast me out. my crimson sins shall be as white as snow. i tell thee, friend, there are some promises through and by which the lord has helped me to lay hold of jesus christ, that i would not have out of the bible for as much gold and silver as can lie between york and london piled up to the stars; because through them christ is pleased by his spirit to convey comfort to my soul. i say, when the law curses, when the devil tempts, when hell-fire flames in my conscience, my sins with the guilt of them tearing of me, then is christ revealed so sweetly to my poor soul through the promises, that all is forced to fly and leave off to accuse my soul. so also when the world frowns, when the enemies rage and threaten to kill me, then also the precious promises do weigh down all, and comfort the soul against all. the grace of god and the spirit of grace are called or compared to a river, to answer those unsatiable desires, and to wash away those mountainous doubts, that attend those who indeed do thirst for that drink. the man that thirsteth with spiritual thirst, fears nothing more than that there is not enough to quench his thirst: all the promises and sayings of god's ministers to such a man, seem but as thimbles instead of bowls: i mean, so long as his thirst and doubts walk hand in hand together. there is not enough in this promise, i find not enough in that promise, to quench the drought of my thirsting soul. he that thirsteth aright, nothing but god can quench his thirst. "my soul thirsteth for god, for the living god." psalm 43:2; 63:1; 143:6. well, what shall he done for this man? will his god humor him, and answer his desires? mark what follows: "when the poor and needy seek water, and there is none"--when all the promises seem to be dry, and like clouds that return after the rain--"and their tongue faileth for thirst, i the lord will hear them, i the god of israel will not forsake them." aye, but, lord, what wilt thou do to quench their thirst? "i will open rivers," saith he, "in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys: i will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water." behold, here are rivers and fountains, a pool and springs, and all to quench the thirst of them that thirst for god. what greater argument to holiness, than to see the scriptures so furnished with promises of grace and salvation by christ, that a man can hardly cast his eye into the bible but he espies one or another of them? who would not live in such a house, or he a servant to such a prince; who, besides his exceeding in good conditions, has gold and silver as common in his palace as stones are by the highway side? it sometimes so falleth out, that the very promise we have thought could not reach us to comfort us by any means, has at another time swallowed us up with joy unspeakable: christ the true prophet has the right understanding of the word as an advocate, has pleaded it before god against satan; and having overcome him at the common law, he has sent to let us know it by his good spirit, to our comfort and the confusion of our enemies. xviii. christian graces. faith. faith! peter saith, faith, in the very trial of it, is much more precious than gold that perisheth. if so, what is the worth or value that is in the grace itself? faith is so great an artist in arguing and reasoning with the soul, that it will bring over the hardest heart that it hath to deal with. it will bring to my remembrance at once, both my vileness against god, and his goodness towards me; it will show me, that though i deserve not to breathe in the air, yet god will have me an heir of glory. faith is the mother-grace, the root-grace, the grace that has all others in the bowels of it, and that from which all others flow. faith will suck sweetness out of god's rod; but unbelief can find no comfort in his greatest mercies. faith makes great burdens light; but unbelief maketh light ones intolerably heavy. faith helpeth us when we are down; but unbelief throws us down when we are up. unbelief may be called the white devil; for it often-times, in its mischievous doing in the soul, shows as if it was an angel of light; yea, it acteth like a counsellor of heaven. it is that sin above all others that most suiteth the wisdom of our flesh. the wisdom of our flesh thinks it prudent to question a while, to stand back a while, to hearken to both sides a while; and not to be rash, sudden, or unadvised in too bold a presuming upon jesus christ. there is nothing like faith to help at a pinch; faith dissolves doubts, as the sun drives away the mists. and that you may not be put out, know your time of believing is always. there are times when some graces may be out of use; but there is no time wherein faith can be said to be so. faith is the eye, the mouth, the hand, and one of these is of use all day long. faith is to see, to receive, to work, or to eat; and a christian should be seeing, or receiving, or working, or feeding, all day long. let it rain, let it blow, let it thunder, let it lighten, a christian must still believe. "above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked:" to quench them, though they come from him as kindled with the very fire of hell. none knows, save he that feels it, how burning hot the fiery darts of satan are; and how, when darted, they kindle upon our flesh and unbelief; neither can any know the power and worth of faith to quench them, but he that hath it and hath power to act it. there are three things in faith, that directly tend to make a man depart from iniquity. 1. it apprehendeth the truth of the being and great ness of god, and so it aweth the spirit of a man. 2. it apprehendeth the love of this god in christ, and so it conquereth and overcometh the spirit of a man. 3. it apprehendeth the sweetness and blessedness of the nature of the godhead, and thence persuadeth the soul to desire here communion with him, that it may be holy, and the enjoyment of him when this world is ended, that it may be happy in and by him for ever. there is a man sows his field with wheat, but as he sows, some is covered with great clods: now, that grows as well as the rest, though it runs not upright as yet; it grows, and yet is kept down. so do thy desires--when one shall remove the clod, the blade will soon point upward i know thy mind; that which keeps thee that thou canst not yet arrive to this, to desire to depart and to be with christ, is because some strong douht or clod of unbelief as to thy eternal welfare lies hard upon thy desiring spirit. now let but jesus christ remove this clod, and thy desires will quickly start up to be gone. upon the swallow. this pretty bird, o how she flies and sings! but could she do so if she had not wings? her wings bespeak my faith, her songs my peace. when i believe and sing, my doubtings cease. trust. why, this is the case, thou art bound for heaven, but the way thither is dangerous. it is beset everywhere with evil angels, who would rob thee of thy soul. what now? why, if thou wouldst go cheerfully on in thy dangerous journey, commit thy treasure, thy soul, to god to keep. and then thou mayest say with comfort, "well, that care is over. for whatever i meet with in my way thither, my soul is safe enough; the thieves, if they meet me, cannot come at that; i know to whom i have committed my soul, and i am persuaded that he will keep that to my joy and everlasting comfort against the great day." when a tyrant goes to dispossess a neighboring prince of what is lawfully his own, the men that he employeth at arms to overcome and get the land, fight for half-crowns and the like, and are content with the wages; but the tyrant is for the kingdom, nothing will serve him but the kingdom. this is the case: men, when they persecute, are for the stuff; but the devil is for the soul, nor will any thing less than that satisfy him. let him then that is a sufferer, commit the keeping of his soul to god, lest stuff and soul and all be lost at once. now, to commit this soul to god, is to carry it to him, to lift it to him upon bended knees, and to pray him for the lord jesus christ's sake, to take it into his holy care, and to let it be under his keeping. also, that he will please to deliver it from all those snares that are laid for it between this and the next world, and that he will see that it be forthcoming, safe and sound, at the great and terrible judgment, notwithstanding so many have engaged themselves against it. faith and hope. no faith, no hope. to hope without faith, is to see without eyes, or to expect without grounds; for "faith is the substance of things hoped for," as well with respect to the grace, as to the doctrine of faith. faith has its excellency in this, hope in that, and love in another thing. faith will do that which hope cannot do, hope can do that which faith cannot do, and love can do things distinct from both their doings. faith goes in the van, hope in the body, and love brings up the rear; and thus now abideth faith, hope, and charity. faith is the mother-grace, for hope is born of her, but charity floweth from them both. faith comes by hearing, hope by experience. faith comes by hearing the word of god, hope by the credit that faith has given to it. faith believes the truth of the word, hope waits for the fulfilling of it. faith lays hold of that end of the promise that is next to us, to wit, as it is in the bible; hope lays hold of that end of the promise that is fastened to the mercy-seat. for the promise is like a mighty cable that is fastened by one end to a ship, and by the other to the anchor. the soul is the ship where faith is, and to which the hither end of this cable is fastened; but hope is the anchor that is at the other end of this cable, and "which entereth into that within the veil." thus faith and hope getting hold of both ends of the promise, they carry it safely all away. faith looks to christ as dead, buried, and ascended; and hope to his second coming. faith looks to him for justification, hope for glory. faith fights for doctrine, hope for a reward; faith for what is in the bible, hope for what is in heaven. faith purifies the heart from bad principles, hope from bad manners. 2 peter, 3:11, 14. faith sets hope at work, hope sets patience at work. faith says to hope, look for what is promised; hope says to faith, so i do, and will wait for it too. faith looks through the word of god in christ; hope looks through faith, beyond the world, to glory. thus faith saves, and thus hope saves. faith saves by laying hold of god by christ; hope saves by prevailing with the soul to suffer all troubles, afflictions, and adversities that it meets with betwixt this and the world to come, for the sake thereof. take the matter in this plain similitude: there was a king that adopted such a one to be his child, and clothed him with the attire of the children of the king, and promised him that if he would fight his father's battles and walk in his father's ways, he should at last share in his father's kingdom. he has received the adoption and the king's robe, but not yet his part in the kingdom; but now, hope of a share in that will make him fight the king's battles, and also tread the king's paths. yea, and though he should meet with many things that have a tendency to deter him from so doing, yet thoughts of the interest promised in the kingdom, and hopes to enjoy it, will make him cut his way through those difficulties, and so save him from the ruin that those obstructions would bring upon him, and will, in conclusion, usher him into a personal possession and enjoyment of that inheritance. hope has a thick skin, and will endure many a blow; it will put on patience as a vestment, it will wade through a sea of blood, it will endure all things if it be of the right kind, for the joy that is set before it. hence patience is called "patience of hope," because it is hope that makes the soul exercise patience and long-suffering under the cross, until the time conies to enjoy the crown. learn of abraham not to faint, stumble, or doubt, at the sight of your own weakness; for if you do, hope will stay below, and creak in the wheels as it goes, because it will want the oil of faith. hope. hope is the grace that relieves the soul when dark and weary. hope calls upon the soul not to forget how far it is arrived in its progress towards heaven. hope will point and show it the gate afar off; and therefore it is called the hope of salvation. true hope, in the right exercise of it upon god, makes no stumble at weakness or darkness, but rather worketh up the soul to some comfort by these. thus abraham's hope wrought by his weakness. and as for the dark, it is its element to act in that, "for hope which is seen is not hope." hope is a head-grace and governing. there are several lusts in the soul that cannot be mastered, if hope be not in exercise-especially if the soul be in great and sore trials. there is peevishness and impatience, there is fear and despair, there is doubting and misconstruing of god's present hand; and all these become masters, if hope be not stirring; nor can any grace besides put a stop to their tumultuous raging in the soul. but now, hope in god makes them all hush, takes away the occasion of their working, and lays the soul at the foot of god. patience. "and he stayed yet other seven days." this staying shows us that lie exercised patience, waiting god's leisure till the flood should be taken away. this grace, therefore, has yet seven days' work to do, before he obtained any further testimony that the waters were decreasing. o this staying work is hard work. alas, sometimes patience is accompanied with so much heat and feverishness, that every hour seems seven until the end of the trial, and the blessing promised be possessed by the waiting soul. it may be, noah might not be altogether herein a stranger. i am sure the psalmist was not, in that he often under affliction cries, but how long, o lord; for ever? make haste. o lord, how long? love. love is the very quintessence of all the graces of the gospel. fear. it seems to me as if this grace of fear was the darling grace, the grace that god sets his heart upon at the highest rate. as it were, he embraces and lays in his bosom the man that hath and grows strong in this grace of the fear of god. this grace of fear is the softest and most tender of god's honor of all the graces. it is that tender, sensible, and trembling grace, that keepeth the soul upon its continual watch. to keep a good watch is, you know, a wonderful safety to a place that is in continual danger because of the enemy. why, this is the grace that setteth the watch, and that keepeth the watchman awake. a man cannot watch as he should, if he be destitute of fear: let him be confident, and he sleeps; he unadvisedly lets into the garrison those that should not come there. this fear of the lord is the pulse of the soul; and as some pulses heat stronger, some weaker, so is this grace of fear in the soul. they that beat best are a sign of best life; but they that beat worst, show that life is present. as long as the pulse beats, we count not that the man is dead, though weak; and this fear, where it is, preserves to everlasting life. pulses there are also that are intermitting; to wit, such as have their times of beating for a little, a little time to stop, and beat again: true, these are dangerous pulses, which, nevertheless, are a sign of life. this fear of god also is sometimes like this intermitting pulse; there are times when it forbears to work, and then it works again. david had an intermitting pulse; peter had an intermitting pulse, as also many other of the saints of god. i call that an intermitting pulse, with reference to the fear we speak of, when there is some obstruction by the workings of corruption in the soul: i say, some obstruction from and hinderance of the continual motion of this fear of god; yet none of these--though they are various, and some of them signs of weakness--are signs of death, but life. "i will put my fear in their heart, and they shall not depart from me." where the fear of the lord and sin are, it will be with the soul as it was with israel when amri and tibni strove to reign among them both at once. one of them must be put to death, they cannot live together. sin must down, for the fear of the lord begetteth in the soul a hatred against it, an abhorrence of it; therefore sin must die, that is, as to the affections and lusts of it. "thy heart shall fear and be enlarged"--enlarged towards god, enlarged to his ways, enlarged to his holy people, enlarged in love after the salvation of others. indeed, when this fear of god is wanting, though the profession be never so famous, the heart is shut up and straitened, and nothing is done in that princely free spirit, which is called "the spirit of the fear of the lord," but with grudging, legally, or with desire of vain glory. psa. 51:12; isa. 11:2. if a king will keep a town secure to himself, let him be sure to man sufficiently the main fort thereof. if he have twenty thousand men well armed, if they lie scattered here and there, the town may be taken for all that; but if the main fort be well manned, then the town is more secure. what if a man had all the parts, yea, all the arts of men and angels, that will not keep the heart to god. but when the heart, this principal fort, is possessed with the fear of god, then he is safe, not else. o they are a sweet couple, to wit, a christian conversation coupled with fear. your great, ranting, swaggering roysters, that are ignorant of the nature of this fear of god, count it a poor, sneaking, pitiful, cowardly spirit in men to fear and tremble before the lord. but whoso looks back to jails and gibbets, to the sword and the burning stake, shall see in the martyrs there the most mighty and invincible spirit that has been in the world. this grace of fear can make the man that in many other things is not capable of serving god, serve him better than those that have all else without it. poor christian man, thou hast scarce been able to do any thing for god all thy days, but only to fear the lord. thou art no preacher, and so canst not do him service that way: thou art no rich man, and so canst not do him service with outward substance: thou art no wise man, and so canst not do any thing that way; but here is thy mercy, thou fearest god. though thou canst not preach, thou canst fear god. though thou hast no bread to feed the belly, nor fleece to clothe the back of the poor, thou canst fear god. o how blessed is the man that feareth the lord, because this duty of fearing of god is an act of the mind, and may be done by the man that is destitute of all things but that holy and blessed mind. blessed, therefore, is that man; for god hath not laid the comfort of his people in the doing of external duties, nor the salvation of their souls, but in believing, loving, and fearing god. neither hath he laid these things in actions done in their health, nor in the due management of their most excellent parts, but in the receiving of christ, and fear of god; the which, good christian, thou mayest do, and do acceptably, even though thou shouldst lie bedrid all thy days; thou mayest also be sick and believe, be sick and love, be sick and fear god, and so be a blessed man. and here the poor christian hath something to answer them that reproach him for his ignoble pedigree, and shortness of the glory of the wisdom of the world. true, may that man say, i was taken out of the dunghill, i was born in a base and low estate; but i fear god. i have no worldly greatness, nor excellency of natural parts, but i fear god. when obadiah met with elijah, he gave him no worldly and fantastical compliment, nor did he glory in his promotion by ahab the king of israel, but gravely and after a gracious manner said, "i thy servant fear the lord from my youth." also, when the mariners inquired of jonah, saying, "what is thine occupation, and whence comest thou; what is thy country, and of what people art thou?" this was the answer he gave them: "i am a hebrew, and i fear the lord, the god of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land." jonah 1:8, 9. indeed this answer is the highest and most noble in the world, nor are there any, save a few, that in truth can thus express themselves, though other answers they have enough: most can say, i have wisdom, or might, or riches, or friends, or health, or the like; these are common, and are greatly boasted in by the most; but the man that feareth god can say, when they say to him, "what art thou?" "i thy servant do fear the lord:" he is the man of many, he is to be honored of men, though this, to wit, that he feareth the lord, is all that he hath in this world. he hath the thing, the honor, the life, and glory, that is lasting; his blessedness will abide when all men's but his is buried in the dust, in shame and contempt. dost thou fear god? the least drachm of that fear giveth the privilege to be blessed with the greatest saint: "he will bless them that fear the lord, small and great." psalm 115:13. art thou in thine own thoughts, or in the thoughts of others, of these last small ones, small in grace, small in gifts, small in esteem upon this account? yet if thou fearest god, if thou fearest god indeed, thou art certainly blessed with the best of saints. the least star stands as fixed as the brightest of them all, in heaven. "he shall bless them that fear him, small and great." he shall bless them, that is, with the same blessing of eternal life. for the difference in degrees of grace in saints doth not make the blessing, as to its nature, differ. it is the same heaven, the same life, the same glory, and the same eternity of felicity, that they are in the text promised to be blessed with. christ at the day of judgment particularly mentioneth and owneth the least: "inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least." the least then was there, in his kingdom and in his glory, as well as the greatest of all. dost thou fear god? why, the holy ghost hath on purpose indited for thee a whole psalm to sing concerning thyself. so that thou mayest even as thou art, in thy calling, bed, journey, or whenever, sing out thine own blessed and happy condition to thine own comfort, and the comfort of thy fellows. the psalm is called the 128th psalm. "ye that fear the lord, trust in the lord; he is their help and their shield." psalm 115:11. now what a privilege is this: an exhortation in general to sinners, as sinners, to trust in him, is a privilege great and glorious; but for a man to be singled out from his neighbors, for a man to be spoken to from heaven as it were by name, and to be told that god has given him a license, a special and peculiar grant to trust in him, this is abundantly more; and yet this is the grant that god has given that man that feareth the lord. "o fear the lord, ye his saints, for there is no want to them that fear him. the young lions do lack, and suffer hunger; but they that seek the lord"--that fear him--"shall want no good thing." psalm 34:9, 10. not any thing that god sees good for them, shall those men want that fear the lord. if health will do them good, if sickness will do them good, if riches will do them good, if poverty will do them good, if life will do them good, if death will do them good, then they shall not want them; neither shall any of these come nigh them, if they will not do them good. sinner, hast thou deferred to fear the lord? is thy heart still so stubborn as not to say yet, let us fear the lord? o, the lord hath taken notice of this thy rebellion, and is preparing some dreadful judgments for thee. "shall i not visit for these things, saith the lord; shall not my soul be avenged of such a nation as this?" sinner, why shouldst thou pull vengeance down upon thee? why shouldst thou pull vengeance down from heaven upon thee? look up; perhaps thou hast already been pulling this great while, to pull it down upon thee. oh, pull no longer; why shouldst thou be thine own executioner? fall down upon thy knees, man, and up with thy heart and thy hands to the god that dwells in the heavens; cry, yea, cry aloud, "lord, unite my heart to fear thy name, and do not harden mine heart from thy fear." thus holy men have cried before thee, and by crying have prevented judgment. humility. i take the pinnacles on the top of the temple to be types of those lofty, airy notions, with which some delight themselves, while they hover like birds above the solid and godly truths of christ. satan attempted to entertain christ jesus with this type and antitype at once, when he set him on one of the pinnacles of the temple, and offered to thrust him upon a false confidence in god, by a false and unsound interpretation of a text. matt. 4:5,6; luke 4:9-11. you have some men who cannot be content to worship in the temple, but must be aloft; no place will serve them but pinnacles--pinnacles, that they may be speaking in and to the air, that they may be promoting their heady notions, instead of solid truth--not considering that now they are where the devil would have them be. they strut upon their points, their pinnacles; but let them look to it: there is difficult standing upon pinnacles; their neck, their soul, is in danger. we read, god is in his temple, not upon these pinnacles. psalm 4; hab. 2:20. it is true, christ was once upon one of these; but the devil set him there, with intent to dash him in pieces by a fall; and yet even then told him, if he would venture to tumble down, he should be kept from dashing his foot against a stone. to be there, therefore, was one of christ's temptations; consequently one of satan's stratagems: nor went he thither of his own accord, for he knew that there was danger; he loved not to clamber pinnacles. this should teach christians to be low and little in their own eyes, and to forbear to intrude into airy and vain speculations, and to take heed of being puffed up with a foul and empty mind. zeal. the loaves or showbread in the temple were to have frankincense strewed upon them as they stood upon the golden table, which was a type of the sweet perfumes of the sanctification of the holy ghost. they were to be set upon the pure table, new and hot, to show that god delights in the company of new and warm believers. "i remember thee, the kindness of thy youth; when israel was a child, i loved him." men at first conversion are like to a cake well baked, and new taken from the oven; they are warm, and cast forth a very fragrant scent, especially when, as warm, sweet increase is strewed upon them. "when the showbread was old and stale, it was to be taken away, and new and warm put in its place, to show that god has but little delight in the service of his own people, when their duties grow stale and mouldy. therefore he removed his old, stale, mouldy church of the jews from before him, and set in their room upon the golden table the warm church of the gentiles." zeal without knowledge is like a mettled horse without eyes, or like a sword in a madman's hand; and there is no knowledge where there is not the word. repentance. repentance carries with it a divine rhetoric, and persuades christ to forgive a multitude of sins committed against him. one difference between true and false repentance lieth in this: the man who truly repents crieth out against his heart; but the other, as eve, against the serpent, or something else. there are abundance of dry-eyed christians in the world, and abundance of dry-eyed duties too--duties that never were wet with the tears of contrition and repentance. take heed that a sin in thy life goes not unrepented of, for that will make a flaw in thine evidence, a wound in thy conscience, and a breach in thy peace; and a hundred to one if at last it doth not drive all the grace in thee into so dark a corner of thy heart, that thou shalt not be able, for a time, by all the torches that are burning in the gospel, to find it out to thy own comfort and consolation. as vices hang together, and have the links of a chain, dependence one upon another, even so the graces of the spirit also are the fruits of one another, and have such dependence on each other that the one cannot be without the other. no faith, no fear of god: devil's faith, devil's fear; saints' faith, saints' fear. xix. prayer. characteristics of prayer. what is prayer? a sincere, sensible, affectionate pouring out of the soul to god, through christ, in the strength and assistance of the spirit, for such things as god hath promised. the best prayers have often more groans than words. alas, how few there be in the world whose heart and mouth in prayer shall go together. dost thou, when thou askest for the spirit, or faith, or love to god, to holiness, to saints, to the word, and the like, ask for them with love to them, desire of them, hungering after them? oh, this is a mighty thing; and yet prayer is no more before god than as it is seasoned with these blessed qualifications. wherefore it is said, that while men are praying, god is searching the heart to see what is the meaning of the spirit, or whether there be the spirit and his meaning in all that the mouth hath uttered, either by words, sighs, or groans, because it is by him and through his help only that any make prayers according to the will of god. rom. 8:26,27. preparation for prater. before you enter into prayer, ask thy soul these questions: to what end, o my soul, art thou retired into this place? art thou not come to discourse the lord in prayer? is he present, will he hear thee? is he merciful, will he help thee? is thy business slight, is it not concerning the welfare of thy soul? what words wilt thou use to move him to compassion? the throne of grace. we know the throne of grace from other thrones by the glory that it always appears in when revealed to us of god: its glory outshines all; there is no such glory to be seen anywhere else, either in heaven or earth. but i say, this comes by the sight that god gives, not by any excellency that there is in my natural understanding, as such: my understanding and apprehension, simply as natural, are blind and foolish; wherefore, when i set to work in mine own spirit and in the power of mine own abilities, to reach to this throne of grace and to perceive somewhat of the glory thereof, then am i dark, rude, foolish; i see nothing, and my heart grows flat, dull, savorless, lifeless, and has no warmth in the duty; but it mounts up with wings like an eagle when the throne is truly apprehended. this throne is the seat of grace and mercy, and therefore it is called the mercy-seat and throne of grace. this throne turns all into grace, all into mercy; this throne makes all things work together for good. it is said of saul's sons, 2 sam. 21:10-14, they were not buried after they were hanged until water dropped upon them out of heaven; and it may be said of us, there is nothing suffered to come near us until it is washed in that water that proceeds from the throne of grace. hence afflictions flow from grace; persecutions flow from grace; poverty, sickness, yea, death itself is now made ours by the grace of god through christ. psa. 119:67-71; 1 cor. 3:22; rev. 3:19; heb. 12:5-7. o grace, o happy church of god! all things that happen to thee are for christ's sake turned into grace. they talk of the philosopher's stone, and how if one had it, it would turn all things into gold. oh, but can it turn all things into grace--can it make all things work together for good? no, no; this quality, virtue, excellency--what shall i call it?--nothing has in it but the grace that reigns on the throne of grace, the river that proceeds from the throne of god. this, this turns majesty, authority, the highest authority, glory, wisdom, faithfulness, justice, and all into grace. here is a throne; may god let us see it. john had the honor to see it, and to see the streams proceeding from it. o sweet sight, o heart-cherishing sight! "he showed me a pure river of water of life proceeding out of the throne of god." indeed, as was hinted before, in the days of the reign of antichrist there are not those visions of this throne, nor of the river that proceedeth therefrom: now he holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth a cloud upon it; but the preserving, saving benefits thereof we have, as also have all the saints in the most cloudy and dark day. and since we can see so little, we must believe the more; and by believing, give glory to god. we must also labor for more clear scripture knowledge of this throne, for the holy word of god is the perspective-glass by which we may, and the magnifying-glass that will cause us to behold with open face the glory of this lord. 2 cor. 3: 18. "a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne;" that is, god. and this intimates his desirable rest for ever; for to sit is to rest, and christ is his rest for ever. was it not therefore well worth the seeing-yea, if john had taken the pains to go up thither upon his hands and knees? it is grace that chooses, it is grace that calleth; it is grace that preserveth, and it is grace that brings to glory, even the grace that, like a river of water of life, proceeds from this" throne of grace;" and hence it is, that from first to last, we must cry, grace, grace, unto it. thus you see what a throne the christian is invited to: it is a throne of grace whereon doth sit the god of all grace; it is a throne of grace before which the lord jesus ministers continually for us; it is a throne of grace sprinkled with the blood, and in the midst of which is a lamb as it had been slain; it is a throne with a rainbow round about it, which is the token of the everlasting covenant, and out of which proceeds a river, a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal. look then for these signs of the throne of grace, all you that would come to it, and rest not until by some of them you know that you are even come to it: they are all to be seen, have you but eyes; and the sight of them is very delectable, and has a natural tendency to revive and quicken the soul. prayer in the name of chuist. he that thinks to find grace at god's hand, and yet enters not into the holiest by the blood of jesus, will find himself mistaken, and will find a dead instead of a living way. for if not any thing below or besides blood can yield remission on god's part, how should remission be received by us without our acting faith therein? we are justified by his blood, through faith in his blood. wherefore look, when thou approachest the throne of grace, that thou give diligence to seek for the "lamb as it had been slain," that is in the midst of the throne of grace; and then thou wilt have not only a sign that thou presentest thy supplication to god where and as thou shouldst, but there also wilt thou meet with matter to break, to soften, to bend, to bow, and to make thy heart as thou wouldst have it. this sight shall dissolve and melt down the spirit of that man that is upon his knees before the throne of grace for mercy; especially when he shall see, that not his prayers, nor his tears, nor his wants, but the blood of the lamb, has prevailed with a god of grace to give mercy and grace to an undeserving sinner. god hath prepared a golden altar for thee to offer thy prayers and tears upon, coming sinner. a golden altar! it is called a _golden altar_, to show what worth it is of in god's account; for this golden altar is jesus christ--this altar sanctifies thy gift, and makes thy sacrifice acceptable. this altar then makes thy groans golden groans, thy tears golden tears, and thy prayers golden prayers, in the eye of that god thou comest to. benefit of prayer. pray often; for prayer is a shield for the soul, a sacrifice to god, and a scourge for satan. look yonder! ah, methinks mine eyes do see clouds edged with silver, as fine garments be; they look as if they saw the golden face that makes black clouds most beautiful with grace. unto the saints' sweet incense of their prayer, these smoky curled clouds i do compare; for as these clouds seem edged or laced with gold, their prayers return with blessings manifold. prayer is as the pitcher that fetcheth water from the brook, therewith to water the herbs: break the pitcher and it will fetch no water, and for want of water the garden withers. the godly have found all other places, the throne of grace excepted, empty, and places that hold no water. they have been at mount sinai for help, but could find nothing there but fire and darkness, but thunder and lightning, but earthquakes and trembling, and a voice of killing words. they have sought for grace by their own performances; but, alas, they have yielded them nothing but wind and confusion; not a performance, not a duty, not an act in any part of religious worship, but they, looking upon it in the glass of the lord, do find it specked and defective. they have sought for grace by their resolutions, their vows, their purposes, and the like; but alas, they all do as the other, discover that they have been very imperfectly managed, and so are such as can by no means help them to grace. they have gone to their tears, their sorrow, and repentance, if perhaps they might find some help there; but all has fled away like the early dew. they have gone to god as the great creator, and have beheld how wonderful his works have been; they have looked to the heavens above, to the earth beneath, and to all their ornaments; but neither have these, nor what is of them, yielded grace to those that had sensible want thereof. they have gone with these pitchers to their fountains, and have returned empty and ashamed; they found no water, no river of water of life. paul, not finding it in the law, despairs to find it in any thing else below, but presently betakes himself to look for it where he had not yet found it: he looked for it by jesus christ, who is the throne of grace, where he found it, and rejoiced in hope of the glory of god. o, when a god of grace is upon a throne of grace, and a poor sinner stands by and begs for grace, and that in the name of a gracious christ, in and by the help of the spirit of grace, can it be otherwise but such a sinner must obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need? all the sorrow that is mixed with our christianity proceeds, as the procuring cause, from ourselves, not from the throne of grace; for that is the place where our tears are wiped away, and also where we hang up our crutches: the streams thereof are pure and clear, not muddy nor frozen, but warm and delightful, and they make glad the city of god. discouragements in prayer. there is an aptness in those that come to the throne of grace, to cast every degree of faith away that carries not in it self-evidence of its own being and nature, thinking that if it be faith, it must be known to the soul; yea, if it be faith, it will do so and so--even so as the highest degree of faith will do: when, alas, faith is sometimes in a calm, sometimes up, and sometimes down, and sometimes in conflict with sin, death, and the devil. faith now has but little time to speak peace to the conscience; it is now struggling for life, it is now fighting with angels, with infernals; all it can do now, is to cry, groan, sweat, fear, fight, and gasp for life. i know what it is to go to god for mercy, and stand all the while through fear afar off, being possessed with this, will not god now smite me at once to the ground for my sins? david thought something so when he said as he prayed, "cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy spirit from me." none know, but those that have them, what turns and returns, what coming on and going off, there are in the spirit of a man that indeed is awakened, and that stands awakened before the glorious majesty in prayer. it is a great matter, in praying to god, not to go too far; nor come too short; and a man is very apt to do one or the other. the pharisee went so far, he was too bold; he came into the temple making, such a ruffle with his own excellencies, there was in his thoughts no need of a mediator. it has been the custom of praying men to keep their distance, and not to be rudely bold in rushing into the presence of the holy and heavenly majesty, especially if they have been sensible of their own vileness and sins, as the prodigal, the lepers, and the poor publican were. yea, peter himself, when upon a time he perceived more than commonly he did of the majesty of jesus his lord, what doth he do? "he fell down at jesus' knees, saying, depart from me, for i am a sinful man, o lord." oh, when men see god and themselves, it fills them with holy fear of the greatness of the majesty of god, as well as with love to, and desire after, his mercy. what is poor sorry man, poor dust and ashes, that he should crowd up, and go jostlingly into the presence of the great god? for my part, i find it one of the hardest things that i can put my soul upon, even to come to god, when warmly sensible that i am a sinner, for a share in grace, in mercy. oh, methinks it seems to me as if the whole face of the heavens were set against me. yea, the very thought of god, strikes me through; i cannot bear up, i cannot stand before him; i cannot but with a thousand tears say, "god be merciful to me a sinner." ezra 9: 15. at another time, when my heart is more hard and stupid, and when his terror doth not make me afraid, then i can come before him and ask mercy at his hand, and scarce be sensible of sin or grace, or that indeed i am before god. but above all, they are the rare times, when i can go to god as the publican, sensible of his glorious majesty, sensible of my misery, and bear up, and affectionately cry, "god be merciful to me a sinner." at certain times the most godly man in the world may be hard put to it by the sin that dwelleth in him; yea, so hard put to it, that there can be no way to save himself from a fall, but by imploring heaven and the throne of grace for help. this is called the needy-time, the time when the wayfaring man that knocked at david's door shall knock at ours; or when we are got into the sieve into which satan did get peter; or when those fists are about our ears that were about paul's; and when that thorn pricks us that paul said was in his flesh. but why, or how comes it to pass, that the godly are so hard put to it at these times, but because there is in them--that is, in their flesh--no good thing, but consequently all aptness to close in with the devil and his suggestions, to the overthrow of the soul? but now, here we are presented with a throne of grace, unto which, as david says, we must continually resort; and that is the way to ohtain relief and to find help in time of need. discouragements to prayer removed. query. what would you have a poor creature do, that cannot tell how to pray? answer. thou canst not, thou complainest, pray; canst thou see thy misery? hath god showed thee that thou art by nature under the curse of his law? if so, do not mistake. i know thou dost groan, and that most bitterly; i am persuaded thou canst scarcely be found doing any thing in thy calling. but prayer breaks from thy heart. have not thy groans gone up to heaven from every corner of thy house? i know it is thus: and so also doth thine own sorrowful heart witness thy tears and thy forgetfulness of thy calling. is not thy heart so full of desires after the things of another world, that many times thou dost even forget the things of this world? prithee, read this scripture: job 23: 12. query. yea, but when i go in secret, and intend to pour out my soul before god, i can scarce say any thing at all. answer. ah, sweet soul, it is not thy words that god so much regards, that he will not mind thee except thou comest before him with some eloquent oration. his eye is on the brokenness of thy heart; and that it is which makes the compassions of the lord run over: "a broken and a contrite heart, o god, thou wilt not despise." the stopping of thy words--may arise from overmuch trouble in thy heart. david was so troubled sometimes that he could not speak. but this may comfort all such sorrowful hearts as thine, that though thou canst not through the anguish of thy spirit speak much, yet the holy spirit stirs up in thy heart groans and sighs so much the more vehement. affectionate confidence in prayer. god has given thee his son's righteousness to justify thee; he has also, because thou art a son, sent forth the spirit of his son into thy heart to satisfy thee, and to help thee to cry unto him, father, father! wilt thou not cry? wilt thou not desire? thy god has "bidden thee open thy mouth; he has bid thee open it wide," and promised, saying, "and i will fill it;" and wilt thou not desire? oh, thou hast a license, a leave, a grant to desire; wherefore, "be not afraid to desire great mercies of the god of heaven." objection. "but i am an unworthy creature." answer. that is true; but god gives to no man for his worthiness, nor rejects any for their sinfulness, that come to him sensible of the want and worth of mercy for them. besides, the desires of a righteous man, and the desires or his god, agree. god has a desire to thee, thou hast a desire to him. god desires truth in the inward parts and so dost thou with all thy heart. god desires mercy, and to show it to the needy; that is what thou also wantest, and what thy soul craves at his hand. seek, man; ask, knock, and do not be discouraged; the lord will grant all thy desires. thou sayest thou art unworthy to ask the greatest things, things spiritual and heavenly: well, will carnal things serve thee, and answer the desires of thy heart? canst thou be content to be put off with a belly well filled and a back well clothed? "oh, better i never had been born." see! thou wilt not ask the best, and yet canst not make shift without them. "shift? no; no shift without them; i am undone without them, undone for ever and ever," sayest thou. well then, desire. "so i do," sayest thou. ah, but desire with more strong desires; desire with more large desires; desire spiritual gifts, covet them earnestly; thou hast a license too to do so. god bids thee do so, for he hath said, "the desire of the righteous shall be granted." god's method of answering prayer. "the desire of the righteous shall be granted." but i find it not so, says one; for though i have desired and desired a thousand times upon my knees, for something that i want, yet i have not my desire; and indeed, the consideration of this has made me question whether i am one of those to whom the promise of granting desires is made. answer. what are the things thou desirest; are they lawful or unlawful? for a christian may desire unlawful things. but we will suppose that the thing thou. desirest is good, and that thy heart may be right in asking, as, suppose thou desirest more grace; yet there are several things for thy instruction may be applied to thy objection: as, 1. thou, though thou desirest more of this, mayest not yet be so sensible of the worth of what thou askest, as perhaps god will have thee be before he granteth thy desire. 2. hast thou well improved what thou hast received already? 3. when god gives to his people the grant of their desires, he doth it so as may be best for our advantage: as, (1.) just before a temptation comes; then if it rains grace on thee from heaven, it may be most for thy advantage. this is like god's sending plenty in egypt just before the years of famine came. (2.) christians, even righteous men, are apt to lean too much to their own doings; and god, to wean them from them, ofttimes defers to do, what they by doing expect, until in doing their spirits are spent, and they, as to doing, can do no longer. when they that cried for water, had cried till their spirits failed, and their tongue did cleave to the roof of their mouth for thirst, then the lord did hear, and then the god of israel did give them their desire. the righteous would be too light in asking, and would too much owrprize their works, if their god should not sometimes deal in this manner with them. (3.) it is also to the advantage of the righteous, that they be kept and led in that way which will best improve grace already received, and that is, when they spin it out and use it to the utmost; when they do with it as the prophet did with that meal's meat that he ate under the juniper-tree, "go in the strength of it forty days and forty nights, even to the mount of god." or when they do as the widow did--spend upon their handful of flour in the barrel, and upon that little oil in the cruse, till god shall send more plenty. a little true grace will go a great way, yea, and do more wonders than we are aware of. if we have but grace enough to keep us groaning after god, it is not all the world that can destroy us. 4. perhaps thou mayest be mistaken. the grace thou prayest for may in a great measure be come unto thee. thou hast been desiring of god, thou sayest, more grace, but hast it not. but how, if while thou lookest for it to come to thee at one door, it come to thee at another? and that we may a little inquire into the truth of this, let us a little, consider what are the effects of grace in its coming to the soul, and then see if it has not been coming unto thee almost ever since thou hast set upon this fresh desire after it. (1.) grace, in the general effect of it, is to mend the soul, and to make it better disposed. hence, when it comes, it brings convincing light along with it, by which a man sees more of his baseness than at other times. if, then, thou seest thyself more vile than formerly, grace by its coming to thee has done this for thee. (2.) grace, when it comes, breaks and crumbles the heart in the sense and sight of its own vileness. a man stands amazed and confounded in himself; breaks and falls down on his face before god; is ashamed to lift up so much as his face to god, at the sight and apprehension of how wicked he is. (3.) grace, when it comes, shows to a man more of the holiness and patience of god; his holiness to make us wonder at his patience, and his patience to make us wonder at his mercy, that yet, even yet, such a vile one as i am should be admitted to breathe in the land of the living, yea more, suffered to come to the throne of grace. (4.) grace is of a heart-humbling nature; it will make a man account himself the most unworthy of any thing, of all saints. it will make a man put all others before him, and be glad too if he may be one beloved, though least beloved because most unworthy. it will make him with gladness accept of the lowest room, as counting all saints more worthy of exaltation than himself. (5.) grace will make a man prize other men's graces and gracious actions above his own; as he thinks every man's candle burns brighter than his, every man improves grace better than he, every good man does more sincerely his duty than he. and if these be not some of the effects of the renewings of grace, i will confess i have taken my mark amiss. (6.) renewings of grace beget renewed self-bemoanings, self-condemnations, self-abhorrences. and say thou prayest for communion with, and the presence of god. god can have communion with thee and grant thee his presence, and all this shall, instead of comforting thee at present, more confound thee and make thee see thy wickedness. some people think they never have the presence and renewings of god's grace upon them, but when they are comforted and when they are cheered up--when, alas, god may be richly with them, while they cry out by these visions, my sorrows are multiplied; or, because i have seen god, i shall die. and tell me now, all these things considered, has not grace, even the grace of god which thou hast so much desired, been coming to thee and working in thee in all these hidden methods? thus therefore thy desire is accomplishing, and when it is accomplished will be sweet to thy soul. 5. but we will follow thee a little in the way of thy heart. thou sayest thou desirest, and desirest grace, yea, hast been a thousand times upon thy knees before god for more grace, and yet thou canst not attain. i answer, (1.) it maybe, the grace which thou prayest for is worth thy being upon thy knees yet a thousand times more. "we find that usually they that go to king's courts for preferment, are there at great expenses, yea, and wait a great while, even until they have spent their whole estates, and worn out their patience too." yet they at last prevail, and the thing desired comes; yea, and when it is come, it sets them up anew and makes them better men, though they did spend all they had to obtain it, than ever they were before. wait, therefore, wait, i say, on the lord; bid thy soul cheer up and wait. "blessed are all they that wait for him." (2.) thou must consider that great grace is reserved for great service. thou desirest abundance of grace; thon doest well, and thou shalt have what shall qualify thee for the service that god has for thee to do for him, and for his name in the world. the apostles themselves were to stay for great grace until the time their work was come. i will not allot thy service, but assure thyself, when thy desire cometh, thou wilt have occasion for it--new work, new trials, new sufferings, or something that will call for the power and virtue of all the grace thou shalt have to keep thy spirit even, and thy feet from slipping, while thou art exercised in new engagements. assure thyself thy god will not give thee straw, but he will expect brick. "for unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required." wherefore, as thou art busy in desiring more grace, be also desirous that wisdom to manage it with faithfulness may also be granted unto thee. thou wilt say, grace, if i had it, will do all this for me. it will, and will not. it will, if thou watch and be sober; it will not, if thou be foolish and remiss. men of great grace may grow consumptive in grace, and idleness may turn him that wears a plush jacket into rags. david was once a man of great grace, but his sin made the grace which he had so to shrink up and dwindle away as to make him cry out, o take not thy spirit utterly from me! (3.) or, perhaps god withholds what thou wouldst have, that it may be the more prized by thee when it comes. "hope deferred maketh the heart sick; but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life." (4.) lastly. but dost thou think that thy more grace will exempt thee from temptations? alas, the more grace, the greater trials. thou must be, for all that, like the ship of which thou readest: sometimes high, sometimes low; sometimes steady, sometimes staggering; and sometimes even at the end of thy very wits: "for so he brings us to our desired haven." yet grace is the gold and preciousness of the righteous man: yea, and herein appears the uprightness of his soul, in that, though all these things attend the grace of god in him, yet he chooseth grace here above all, for that it makes him the more like god and his christ, and for that it seasons his heart best to his own content; and also for that it capacitates him to glorify god in the world. relief in prayer. if from a sense of thy vileness thou do pour out thy heart to god, desiring to be saved from the guilt and cleansed from the filth with all thy heart, fear not; thy vileness will not cause the lord to stop his ear from hearing thee. the value of the blood of christ, which is sprinkled upon the mercy-seat, stops the course of justice, and opens a floodgate for the mercy of the lord to be extended unto thee. faith in prayer. of old, beggars did use to carry their bowls in their laps when they went to a door for alms; consequently, if their bowls were but little, they ofttimes came off with a loss, though the charity of the giver was large. art thou a beggar, a beggar at god's door? be sure thou gettest a great bowl, for as thy bowl is, so will be thy mess. "according to thy faith be it unto thee." wrestling prayer. a wrestling spirit of prayer is a demonstration of an israel of god; this jacob had, this he made use of, and by this he obtained the name of israel. a wrestling spirit of prayer in straits, difficulties, and distresses--a wrestling spirit of prayer when alone, in private, in the night, when no eye seeth but god's, then to be at it, then to lay hold of god, then to wrestle, to hold fast, and not to give over until the blessing is obtained, is a sign of one that is an israel of god. as this word, "let israel hope in the lord," is sometimes equivalent to a command, so it is expressed sometimes also to show a grant, leave, or license to do a thing, such are these that follow: "let us come boldly to the throne of grace; let us draw near with a true heart; let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering." understand the word thus, and it shows you how muddy how dark those of israel are, and how little they are acquainted with the goodness of their god who stand shrinking at his door like beggars, and dare not in a godly sort be bold with his mercy. wherefore standest thou thus with thy ifs and thy o-buts, o thou poor benighted israelite? wherefore puttest thou thy hand in thy bosom, as being afraid to touch the hem of the garment of thy lord? the publican's prayer. "god be merciful to me a sinner." herein the publican showeth wonderful wisdom. for, 1. by this he thrusts himself under the shelter and blessing of the promise; and i am sure it is better and safer to do so than to rely upon the best excellencies that this world can afford. hosea 14: 1-4. 2. he takes the ready way to please god; for god takes more delight in showing mercy than in any thing that we can do. hosea 6:6; matt. 9:13; 12:7. yea, and that also is the man that pleaseth him, even he that hopes in his mercy. psalm 147: 1. the publican, therefore, whatever the pharisee might think, stood all this while upon sure ground, and had by far the start of him for heaven. alas, his dull head could look no further than to the conceit of the pitiful beauty and splendor of his own righteousness; nor durst he leave that to trust wholly to the mercy of god. but the publican comes out, though in his sins, yet like an awakened, enlightened, resolved man; and first abases himself, then gives god the glory of his justice, and after that the glory of his mercy, by saying, "god be merciful to me a sinner." and thus in the ears of the angels he did ring the changes of heaven. and, 3. the publican, in his thus putting himself upon mercy, showeth that in his opinion there is more virtue in mercy to save, than there is in the law and sin to condemn. and although this is not counted a great matter to do, while men are far from the law and while their conscience is asleep within them, yet when the law comes near and conscience is awake, whoso tries it will find it a laborious work. cain could not do thus for his heart, no, nor soul; nor judas neither. this is another kind of thing than most men think it to be, or shall find it whenever they shall behold god's angry face, and when they shall hear the words of his law. however, our publican did it, and ventured his body, soul, and future condition for ever in this bottom, with other the saints and servants of god; leaving the world to swim over the sea of god's wrath, if they, will, in their weak and simple vessels of bulrushes, or to lean upon their cobweb-hold, when he shall arise to the judgment that he hath appointed. "he would not lift up his eyes to heaven." why? surely because shame had covered his face. shame will make a man blush and hang his head like a bulrush. shame for sin is a virtue, a comely thing, yea, a beauty-spot in the face of a sinner that cometh to god for mercy. oh, to stand, or sit, or lie, or kneel, or walk before god in prayer, with blushing cheeks for sin, is one of the excellent sights that can be seen in the world. posture in prayer. there is no stinted order presented for our behaving ourselves in prayer, whether kneeling, or standing, or walking, or lying, or sitting; for all these postures have been used by the godly. paul kneeled down and prayed; abraham and the publican stood and prayed; david prayed as he walked; abraham prayed lying upon his face; moses prayed sitting. and indeed prayer, effectual fervent prayer, may be and often is made unto god under all these circumstances. for god has not tied us up to any of them; and he that shall tie himself or his people to any of these, doeth more than he hath warrant for from god. and let such take care of innovating; it is the next way to make men hypocrites and dissemblers in those duties in which they should be sincere. acts 20:36; 2 sam. 15:30, 31; gen. 17:17, 18; exod. 17:12. closet-iniquity. let those that name the name of christ depart from the iniquity of their closet--when men have a closet to talk of, not to pray in; a closet to look upon, not to bow before god in, a closet to lay up gold in, but not to mourn in for the sins of the life; a closet that, could it speak, would say, my owner is seldom here upon his knees before the god of heaven, seldom here humbling himself for the iniquity of his heart, or to thank god for the mercies of his life. then also a man is guilty of closet-iniquity when, though he doth not utterly live in the neglect of duty, he formally, carnally, and without reverence and godly fear, performs it. also when he asketh god for that which he cannot abide should be given him; or when he prayeth for that in his closet, that he cannot abide in his house nor his life. it is a great thing to be a closet-christian, and to hold it; he must be a close-christian that will be a closet-christian. when i say a close-christian, i mean one that is so in the hidden part, and that also walks with god. many there be that profess christ, who do oftener frequent the coffee-house than their closet; and that sooner in a morning run to make bargains, than to pray unto god and begin the day with him. but for thee, who professest the name of christ, do thou depart from all these things; do thou make conscience of reading and practising; do thou follow after righteousness; do thou make conscience of beginning the day with god. for he that begins it not with him, will hardly end it with him; he that runs from god in the morning, will hardly find him at the close of the day; nor will he that begins with the world and the vanities thereof in the first place, be very capable of walking with god all the day after. it is he that finds god in his closet, that will carry the savor of him into his house, his shop, and his more open conversation. when moses had been with god in the mount his face shone, he brought of that glory into the camp. exod. 34. formal prayer. "thy kingdom come; thy will be done." wouldst thou have the kingdom of god come indeed, and also his will to be done in earth as it is in heaven? nay, notwithstanding thou sayest, "thy kingdom come," yet would it not make thee ready to run mad, to hear the trumpet sound, to see the dead arise, and thyself just now to go and appeal before god, to reckon for all the deeds thou hast done in the body? nay, are not the very thoughts of it altogether displeasing to thee? and if god's will should be done on earth as it is in heaven, must it not be thy ruin? there is never a rebel against god in heaven; and if he should so deal on earth, must he not whirl thee down to hell? and so of the rest of the petitions. ah, how sadly would even these men look, and with what terror would they walk up and down the world, if they did but know the lying and blaspheming that proceedeth out of their mouth, even in their most pretended sanctity! the prayerless. i tell thee who never prayest, the ravens shall rise up in judgment against thee; for they will, according to their kind, make signs and a noise for something to refresh them when they want it; but thou hast not the heart to ask for heaven, though thou must eternally perish in hell if thou hast it not. xx. false profession. as there are trees and herbs that are wholly right and noble, fit indeed for the vineyard, so there are also their semblance, but wild; not right, but ignoble. there is the grape, and the wild grape; the vine, and the wild vine; the rose, and the canker-rose; flowers, and wild flowers; the apple, and the wild apple, which we call the crab. now, fruit from these wild things, however they may please the children to play with, yet the prudent and grave count them of little or no value. there are also in the world a generation of professors that, notwithstanding their profession, are wild by nature; yea, such as were never cut out or off from the wild olive-tree, nor ever yet planted into the good olive-tree. now these can bring forth nothing but wild olive-berries; they cannot bring forth fruit unto god. such are all those that have lightly taken up a profession, and crept into the vineyard without a new birth and the blessing of regeneration. the porch [footnote: this passage is from "the house of the forest of lebanon," which bunyan regarded as a type of the church in her persecuted state.] is but the entrance of the house, whither many go that yet step not into the house, but make their retreat from thence; but it is because they are non-residents: they only come to see; or else, if they pretended more, it was not from the heart. "they went out from us," said john, "but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us." and forasmuch as this porch was fifty cubits long, men may take many a step straightforward therein, and be but in the porch yet; even as we have seen men go as one would think till they are out of view, in the porch of this church in the wilderness; but presently you have them without the door again. true, this porch was made of pillars; and so to every one, at first entrance, it seemed the power of the place. the church in the wilderness also is so builded, that men may see that it is ordained for defence. men also, at their first offer to step over the threshold there, with mouth profess that they will dwell as soldiers there. but words are but wind: when they see the storm coming, they will take care to shift for themselves. this house or church in the wilderness must see to itself for all them. the church also in the wilderness, even in her porch or first entrance into it, is full of pillars--apostles, prophets, and martyrs of jesus. there also hang up the shields that the old warriors have used, and there are plastered upon the walls the brave achievements which they have done. there also are such encouragements there for those that stand, that one would think none that came thither with pretence to serve there, would for very shame attempt to go back again; and yet not to their credit be it spoken, they will forsake the place without blushing, yea, and plead for this their so doing. there is the wilfully ignorant professor, or he that is afraid to know more for fear of the cross. he is for picking and choosing of truth, and loveth not to hazard his all for that worthy name by which he would be called. when he is at any time overset by arguments or awakenings of conscience, he uses to heal all by, "i was not brought up in this faith;" as if it were unlawful for christians to know more than hath been taught them at first conversion. there are many scriptures that lie against this man, as the mouths of great guns. there is another professor; and he is for god and for baal too: he can be any thing for any company; he can throw stones with both hands; his religion alters as fast as his company; he is a frog of egypt, and can live in the water and out of the water; he can live in religious company, and again as well out. nothing that is disorderly comes amiss to him; he can hold with the hare and run with the hound; he carries fire in one hand and water in the other; he is a very, any thing but what he should be. this is also one of the many that "will seek to enter in, and will not be able." christian and hopeful, after their headstrong manner, (said mr. by-ends,) conclude that it is their duty to rush on their journey all weathers; and i am for waiting for wind and tide. they are for hazarding all for god at a clap; and i am for taking all advantages to secure my life and estate. they are for holding their notions, though all other men be against them; but i am for religion in what and so far as the times and any safety will bear it. they are for religion when in rags and contempt; but i am for him when he walks in golden slippers, in the sunshine, and with applause. then i saw in my dream that christian and hopeful forsook him, and kept their distance before him; but one of them looking back, saw three men following mr. by-ends; and behold, as they came up with him he made them a very low congee, and they also gave him a compliment. the men's names were, mr. hold-the-world, mr, money-love, and mr. save-all; men that mr. by-ends had formerly been acquainted with, for in their minority they were schoolfellows, and were taught by one mr. gripe-man, a schoolmaster in love-gain, which is a market-town in the county of coveting, in the north. this schoolmaster taught them the art of getting, either by violence, cozenage, flattery, lying, or by putting on a guise of religion; and these four gentlemen had attained much of the art of their master, so that they could each of them have kept such a school themselves. the interpreter takes them out into his garden, and had them to a tree whose inside was all rotten and gone, and yet it grew and had leaves. then said mercy, "what means this?" "this tree," said he, "whose outside is fair and whose inside is rotten, is it which may be compared to them that are in the garden of god, who with their mouths speak high in behalf of god, but in deed will do nothing for him; whose leaves are fair, but their heart good for nothing but to be tinder for the devil's tinder-box." this is the reason of that evil-favoredness that you see attending some men's lives and professions; they have been corrupted, as adam was, either by evil words or bad examples, even till the very face of their lives and professions are disfigured as with the pox or canker. as the bramble said to the rest of the trees, so saith christ to feigned thanksgivers, who pretend to give thanks for liberty, but rather use their liberty as an occasion for the flesh: if in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust under my shadow; submit to my law, and be governed by my testament. hypocrisy. hypocrisy is one of the most abominable of iniquities. it is a sin that dares it with god. it is a sin that saith god is ignorant, or that he delighteth in iniquity. it is a sin that flattereth, that dissembleth, that offereth to hold god, as it were, fair in hand, about that which is neither purposed nor intended. it is also a sin that puts a man upon studying and contriving to beguile and deceive his neighbor as to the bent and intent of the heart, and also as to the cause and end of actions. it is a sin that persuadeth a man to make a show of civility, morality, or religion, as a cloak, a pretence, a guise to deceive withal. it will make a man preach for a place and praise, rather than to glorify god and save souls; it will put a man upon talking, that he may be commended; it will make a man, when he is at prayer in his closet, strive to be heard without door; it will make a man ask for that he desireth not, and show zeal in duties when his heart is as cold, as senseless, and as much without savor as a clod; it will make a man pray to be seen and heard of men, rather than to be heard of god; it will make a man strive to weep when he repenteth not, and to pretend much friendship when he doth not love; it will make a man pretend to experience and sanctification when he has none, and to faith and sincerity when he knows not what they are. there is opposed to this sin, simplicity, innocence, and godly sincerity, without which three graces thou wilt be a hypocrite. believe that a hypocrite, with the cunning and shrouds for his hypocrisy, can go unseen no further than the grave; nor can he longer flatter himself with thoughts of life. a hypocrite and a false professor may go a great way; they may pass through the first and second watch, to wit, may be approved by christians and churches; but what will they do when they come at the iron gate that leadeth into the city? as luther says, "in the name of god" begins all mischief. for hypocrites have no other way to bring their evils to maturity, but by using and mixing the name of god and religion therewith. thus they become whited walls; for by this white, the white of religion, the dirt of their actions is hid. religion to most men is but a by-business, with which they use to fill up spare hours; or as a stalking-horse, which is used to catch the game. the pharisees did carry the bell and wear the garland for religion. a fawning dog and a wolf in sheep's clothing; they differ a little in outward appearance, but they can both agree to worry christ's lambs. christ's love abused. take heed of abusing this love of christ, eph. 3: 18, 19. this exhortation seems needless; for love is such a thing as one would think none could find in their hearts to abuse. but for all that, i am of opinion that there is nothing that is more abused among professors at this day, than is this love of god. and what can such a one say for himself in the judgment, that shall be charged with the abuse of love? christians, deny yourselves, deny your lusts, deny the vanities of this present life, devote yourselves to god, become lovers of god, lovers of his ways, and a people zealous of good works; then shall you show to one another and to all men that you have not received the grace of god in vain. and what a thing will it be to be turned off at last, as one that abused the love of christ; as one that presumed upon his lusts, this world, and all manner of naughtiness, because the love of christ to pardon sins was so great! what an unthinking, what a disingenuous one wilt thou be counted at that day; yea, thou wilt be found to be the man that made a prey of love, that made a stalk ing-horse of love, that made of love a slave to sin, the devil, and the world; and will not that be had? objection. if it be so, then men need not care what they do; they may live in sin, seeing christ hath made satisfaction. answer. if i were to point out one under the power of the devil, going hastily to hell, i would look no further for such a man than to him that would make such a use as this of the grace of god. what, because christ is a saviour, thou wilt be a sinner; because his grace abounds, therefore thou wilt abound in sin! o wicked wretch, let me tell thee before _i_ leave thee, as god's covenant with christ for his children stands sure, immutable, and unchangeable, so also hath god taken such a course with thee, that unless he deny himself, it is impossible that thou shouldst go to heaven, dying in that condition. they tempted god, proved him, and turned his grace into lasciviousness; so he sware in his wrath, they shall not enter into my rest. no, saith god, if christ and heaven will not satisfy them, hell must devour them. god hath more places than one in which to put sinners: if they do not like heaven, hell must be their residence; if they do not love christ, they must dwell for ever with devils. perversion of the truth. let those that name the name of christ depart from the iniquity that cleaveth to opinions. this is a sad age for that: let opinions in themselves be never so good, never so necessary, never so innocent, yet there are spirits in the world that will entail iniquity to them, and will make the vanity so inseparable from the opinion, that it is almost impossible with some to take in the opinion and leave out the iniquity that by craft and subtlety of satan is joined thereto. nor is this a thing new and of yesterday; it has been thus almost in all ages of the church of god, and that not only in things small and indifferent, but in things fundamental and most substantial. i need instance in none other for proof hereof, but the doctrine of faith and holiness. if faith be preached as that which is absolutely necessary to justification, then faith fantastical, and looseness and remissness in life, with some, are joined therewith. if holiness of life be preached as necessary to salvation, then faith is undervalued and set below its place, and works, as to justification with god, set up and made copartners with christ's merits in the remission of sins. thus iniquity joineth itself with the greatest and most substantial truths of the gospel; and it is hard to receive any good opinion whatever, but iniquity will join itself thereto. a latitudinarian. what you say about doubtful opinions, alterable modes, rites, and circumstances in religion, i know none so wedded thereto as yourselves, for you thus argue: "whatsoever of such are commended by the custom of the place we live in, or commanded by superiors, or made by any circumstance convenient to be done, our christian liberty consists in this-that we have leave to do them." so that, do but call them things indifferent, things that are the customs of the place we live in, or made by any circumstance convenient, and a man may not doubt but he hath leave to do them, let him live at rome or constantinople, or amidst the greatest corruption of worship and government. there are therefore, doubtless, a third sort of fundamentals, by which you can wrestle with conviction of conscience, and stifle it-by which you can suit yourself for every fashion, mode, and way of religion. here you may hop from presbyterianism to a prelatical mode; and if time and chance should serve you, backwards and forwards again: yea, here you can make use of several consciences, one for this way now, another for that anon; now putting out the light of this by a sophistical, delusive argument. then putting out the other by an argument that best suits the time. yea, how oft is the candle of the wicked put out by such glorious learning as this. nay, _i_ doubt not but a man of your principles, were he put upon it, would not stick to count those you call gospel-positive precepts, [footnote: "latitudinarian." this term is used of a "remarkable class of divines," who flourished in england about the middle and towards the close of the seventeenth century. coleridge, in his literary remains, says that they were generally platonists, and all of them admirers of grotius. "they fell into the mistake of finding in the greek philosophy many anticipations of the christian faith, which in fact were but its echoes. the inference is as perilous as inevitable, namely, that even the mysteries of christianity needed no revelation, having been previously discovered and set forth by unaided reason." they are thus characterized by dr. wm. r. williams, ("miscellanies," p. 196:) "against infidelity and popery they did good service in the cause of truth. their dread of enthusiasm made them frigid, and their mastery of the ancient philosophy made them profound. their doctrines were generally arrninian. their notions of church power were less rigid than those of the rival party, and they were also more tolerant of difference in opinion. but in their preaching they laid the whole stress, well-nigh, of their efforts upon morals, to the neglect of doctrine; and in their theology, they attributed to human reason a strength and authority which gradually opened the way to the invasion of the gravest heresies. of generally purer character than their opponents, they were also abler preachers. but while valuable as moral treatises, their sermons were most defective; for the peculiar doctrines and spirit of the gospel were evaporated." it cannot be doubted, that a class which included such men as henry more, cudworth, tillotson, and burnet, hardly deserves the wholesale reprobation hurled upon it by bunyan. that some of them carried their liberalism to a dangerous extreme, and that all of them allowed too great latitude of sentiment in theology, and, by their philosophical speculations, obscured the simple glory of the gospel, is indeed true; but some who bore this name were men of unquestionable piety, as well as of eminent genius and scholarship.] it is interesting to contrast the mixture of divine truth and human speculation, and the almost melancholy doubts, exhibited in the writings of so excellent a man as cudworth, with the strong and certain convictions, and the clear, well-defined views of christian doctrine of john bunyan, connected as they were in his case with the almost exclusive study of the word of god. we learn thereby not to despise learning and philosophy, but to beware of lowering the authority and of no value at all in the christian religion; for now, even now, you do not stick to say that even the duty of going to god by christ is one of these, and such a one as, if absolutely considered in itself, is neither good nor evil. how, then, if god should cast you into turkey, where mahomet reigns as lord? it is but reckoning that it is the religion and custom of the country, and that which is authorized by the power that is there; wherefore, it is but sticking to your dictates of human nature, and remembering that coming to god by christ is a thing of an indifferent nature in itself, and then for peace' sake and to sleep in a whole skin, you may comply and do as your superior commands. why? because in turkey are your first sort of fundamentals all found; there are men that have human nature and the law of morals written in their hearts; they have also the dictates thereof written within them, which teach them those you call the eternal laws of righteousness: wherefore you both would agree in your essential and immutable differences of good and evil, and differ only about these positive laws--indifferent things. yea, and mahomet also for the time, because by a custom it is made convenient, might be now accounted worshipful; and the circumstances that attend his worship, especially those of them that clash not with the dictates of your human nature, might also be swallowed down. behold you here then, good reader, a glorious latitudinarian, that can, as to religion, turn and twist like an eel on the hook; or rather like the weathercock that stands on the steeple. changing sins. dost thou profess the name of christ, and dost thou pretend to be a man departing from iniquity? then take sufficiency of divine revelation before human reason and speculation, and to acknowledge with humble gratitude the rich rewards of an earnest and prayerful study of the english scriptures. heed thou dost not deceive thyself, by changing one bad way of sinning for another bad way of sinning. this was a trick that israel played of old; for when god's prophets followed them hard with demands of repentance and reformation, then they would "gad about to change their ways." jer. 2: 36. but behold, they would not change a bad way for a good, but one bad way for another; hopping as the squirrel from bough to bough, but not willing to forsake the tree. many times men change their darling sins, as some change their servants; that which would serve for such a one this year, may not serve for the year ensuing. hypocrisy would do awhile ago, but now debauchery. profaneness would do when profaneness was in fashion, but now a deceitful profession. take heed, professor, that thou dost not throw away thy old darling sin for a new one. men's tempers alter. youth is for pride and wantonness; middle age for cunning and craft; old age for the world and covetousness. take heed, therefore, of deceit in this thing. dost thou profess the name of christ, and dost thou pretend to be a man departing from iniquity? take heed lest thy departing from iniquity should be but for a time. some do depart from iniquity, as persons in wrangling fits depart from one another, to wit, for a time; but when the quarrel is over, by means of some intercessor they are reconciled again. oh, satan is the intercessor between the soul and sin; and though the breach between these two may seem to be irreconcilable, yea, though the soul has sworn it will never more give countenance to so vile a thing as sin is, yet he can tell how to make up this difference, and to fetch them back to their vomit again, who, one would have thought, had quite escaped his sins and been gone. 2 pet. 2: 18--22. take heed, therefore, o professor, for there is danger of this, and the height of danger lies in it; and i think that satan, to do this thing, makes use of those sins again to begin, this rejoinder, which he findeth most suitable to the temper and constitution of the sinner. these are, as _i_ may call them, the master-sins, they suit, they agree with the temper of the soul. these, as the little end of the wedge, enter with ease, and so make way for those that come after, with which satan knows he can rend the soul in pieces. wherefore, to help this, take heed of parleying with thy sins again, when once thou hast departed from them: sin has a smooth tongue; if thou hearken to its enchanting language, ten thousand to one but thou art entangled. take heed, therefore, of listening to the charms wherewith sin enchanteth the soul. in this, be like the deaf adder; stop thine ear, plug it up to sin, and let it only be open to hear the words of god. the unholy professor. a professor that hath not forsaken his iniquity, is like one that comes out of the pest-house, among the whole, with his plague-sores running upon him. this is the man that hath the breath of a dragon; he poisons the air round about him. this is the man that slays his children, his kinsmen, his friend, and himself. what shall _i_ say? a man that nameth the name of christ, and that departeth not from iniquity, to whom may he be compared? the pharisees, for that they professed religion but walked not answerably thereto, unto what doth christ compare them but to serpents and vipers; what does he call them but hypocrites, whited walls, painted sepulchres, fools, and blind, and tells them that they made men more the children of hell than they were before? matt. 23. wherefore, such a one cannot go out of the world by himself; for as he gave occasion of scandal when he was in the world, so is he the cause of the damnation of many. the apostle did use to weep when he spake of these professors, such an offence he knew they were and would be in the world. acts 20:30; phil. 3:18, 19. these are the chief of the engines of satan; with these he worketh wonders. one balaam, one jeroboam, one ahab, o how many fish such bring to satan's net. these are the tares that he strives to sow among the wheat, for he knows they are mischief to it. "wherefore let every one that nameth the name of christ depart from iniquity." those that religiously name the name of christ and do not depart from iniquity, how will they die; and how will they look that man in the face, unto the profession of whose name they have entailed an unrighteous conversation; or do they think that he doth not know what they have done, or that they may take him off with a few cries and wringing of hands, when he is on the throne to do judgment against transgressors. o, it had been better they had not known, had not professed; yea, better they had never been born. and as christ says it had been good, so peter says it had been better, mark 14:12; 14:22; 2 pet. 2: 20, 2l--good they had not been born, and better they had not known and made profession of the name of christ. we read that the tail of the dragon, or that the dragon by his tail, did draw and cast down abundance of the stars of heaven to the earth. rev. 12:4; isa. 9:14,15. the prophet that speaketh lies either by opinion or practice, he is the tail, the dragon's tail, the serpentine tail of the devil. isa. 9:14,15. and so in his order, every professor that by his iniquity draweth both himself and others down to hell, he is the tail. nor can satan work such exploits by any, as he can by unrighteous professors. these he useth in his hand as the giant useth his club; he, as it were, drives all before him with it. it is said of behemoth, that "he moveth his tail like a cedar." job 40:17. behemoth is a type of the devil; but behold how he handleth his tail, even as if a man should swing about a cedar. this is spoken to show the hurtfulness of the tail, as it is also said in another place, rev. 9:5,10,19. better no professor than a wicked professor; better openly profane, than a hypocritical namer of the name of christ; and less hurt shall such a one do to his own soul, to the poor ignorant world, to the name of christ, and to the church of god. there is the sin of professors; there is a profession that will stand with an unsanctified heart and life. the sin of such will overpoise the salvation of their souls, the sin-end being the heaviest end of the scale: i say, that being the heaviest end which hath sin in it, they tilt over, and so are, notwithstanding their glorious profession, drowned in perdition and destruction. the iniquity that cleaveth to men that profess, if they cast it not away, but countenance it, will all prove nettles and briars to them; and i will assure thee, yea, thou knowest, that nettles and thorns will sting and scratch but ill-favoredly. "i went," saith solomon, "by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; and lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down." prov. 24:30,31. suppose a man were, after work all day, to be turned into a bed of nettles at night; or, after a man had been about such a business, should be rewarded with chastisements of briars and thorns; this reward for work would be but little help, relief, or comfort to him. but this is the reward of a wicked man, of a wicked professor from god: nettles and thorns are to cover over the face of his vineyard, his field, his profession, and that at the last of all; far this covering over the face of his vineyard with nettles and thorns, is to show what fruit the slovenly, slothful, careless professor will reap out of his profession when reaping-time shall come. nor can he whose vineyard, whose profession is covered over with these nettles and thorns of iniquity, escape being afflicted with them in his conscience; for, as they cover the face of his vineyard through his sloth now, so will they cover the face of his conscience in the day of judgment. for profession and conscience cannot be separated long: if a man then shall make profession without conscience of god's honor in his conversation, his profession and conscience will meet in the day of his visitation. nor will he whose condition this shall be, be able to ward off the guilt and sting of a slothful and bad conversation from covering the face of his conscience, by retaining in his profession the name of jesus christ; for naming and professing the name of christ will, instead of salving such a conscience, put venom, sting, and keenness into those nettles and thorns that then shall be spread over the face of such consciences. i beseech you, consider this, namely, that the man that professeth the name of christ and yet liveth a wicked life, is the greatest enemy that god has in the world, and consequently one that god will most eminently set his face against. the fruitless professor. barren-fig-tree, thou art not licensed by thy profession, nor by the lord of the vineyard, to bear these clusters of gomorrah; neither shall the vineyard, nor thy being crowded among the trees there, shelter thee from the sight of the eye of god. many make religion their cloak and christ their stalking-horse, and by that means cover themselves and hide their own wickedness from men: but god seeth their hearts, hath his print upon the heels of their feet, and pondereth all their goings; and at last, when their iniquity is found to be hateful, he will either smite them with hardness of heart and so leave them, or awaken them to bring forth fruit. fruit he looks for, seeks, and expects, o thou barren fig-tree. but what, come into the presence of god to sin what, come into the presence of god to hide thy sin! alas, man, the church is god's garden, and christ jesus is the great apostle and high-priest of our profession. what, come into the house that is called by his name, into the place where his honor dwelleth, where his eyes and heart are continually--what, come there to sin, to hide thy sin, to cloak thy sin! his plants are an orchard with pleasant fruits; and every time he goeth into his garden, it is "to see the fruits of the valley," and to see if the vines flourish and if the pomegranates bud. yea, he came seeking fruit on this fig-tree. the church is the place of god's delight, where he ever desires to be; there he is night and day. he is there to seek for fruit, to seek for fruit of all and every tree in the garden. wherefore assure thyself, o fruitless one, that thy ways must needs be open before the eyes of the lord. one black sheep is soon espied, although in company with many; it is taken with the first cast of the eye; its different color still betrays it. i say, therefore, a church and a profession are not places where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves from god, that seeks for fruit: "my vineyard," saith god, "which is mine, is before me." song 8:12; psa. 26:8; 1 kings, 9:3; song 4:13-15. barren soul, how many showers of grace, how many dews from heaven, hast thou enjoyed! how many times have the silver streams of the city of god run gliding by thy roots, to cause thee to bring forth fruit! these showers and streams, and the drops that hang upon thy boughs, will all be accounted for; and will they not testify against thee, that thou oughtest of right to be burned? hear and tremble, o thou barren professor! when a man seeks for fruit on a tree, he goes round it and round it, now looking into this bough and then into that; he peeps into the inmost boughs and the lowermost boughs, if perhaps fruit may be thereon. barren fig-tree, god will look into all thy boughs. there is a man that hath a hundred trees in his vine yard, and at the time of the season he walketh into his vineyard to see how the trees flourish; and as he goes and views and pries and observes how they are hung with fruit, behold, he cometh to one where he findeth naught but leaves. now he makes a stand, looks upon it again and again; he looks also here and there, above and below; and if, after all this seeking, he finds nothing but leaves thereon, then he begins to cast in his mind how he may know this tree next year, what stands next it, or how far it is off the hedge; but if there be nothing there that may be as a mark to know it by, then he takes his hook and giveth it a private mark, saying, go thy way, fruitless fig-tree, thou hast spent this season in vain. yet doth he not cut it down--"i will try it another year; may be this was not a hitting season." therefore he comes again next year to see if now it have fruit; but as he found it before, so he finds it now, barren, barren, every year barren; he looks again, but finds no fruit. now he begins to have second thoughts. how, neither hit last year nor this! surely the barrenness is not in the season, sure the fault is in the tree; however, i will spare it this year also, but will give it a second mark; and, it may be, he toucheth it with a hot iron, because he begins to be angry. well, at the third season he comes again for fruit, but the third year is like the first and second, no fruit yet; it only cumbereth the ground. what now must be done with this fig-tree? why, the lord will lop its boughs with terror; yea, the thickets of those professors with iron. i have waited, saith god, these three years; i have missed of fruit these three years; it hath been a cumber-ground these three years; cut it down. precept hath been upon precept, and line upon line, one year after another, for these three years, hut no fruit can be seen; i find none: fetch out the axe. "lord, let it alone this year also." here is astonishing grace indeed; astonishing grace, that the lord jesus should concern himself with a barren fig-tree; that he should step in to stop the blow from a barren fig-tree! true, he stopped the blow but for a time; but why did he stop it at all? why did he not fetch out the axe? why did he not do execution? why did he not cut it down? barren fig-tree, it is well for thee that there is a jesus at god's right hand, a jesus of that largeness of pity to have compassion for a barren fig-tree; else justice had never let thee alone to cumber the ground, as thou hast done. see the care, the love, the labor, and way which the lord jesus, the dresser of the vineyard, is fain to take with thee, if haply thou mayest be made fruitful. "lord, let it alone this year." lord, a little longer; let us not lose a soul for want of means. i will try, i will see if i can make it fruitful; i will not beg a long life, nor that it might still be barren, and so provoke thee. i beg for the sake of the soul, the immortal soul; lord, spare it one year only, one year longer, this year also; if i do any good to it, it will be in little time. thou shalt not be overwearied with waiting; one year and then-barren fig-tree, dost thou hear what a striving there is between the vinedresser and the husbandman for thy life? "cut it down," says one; "lord, spare it," says the other. "it is a cumber-ground," saith the father; "one year longer," prays the son: "let it alone this year also." "till i shall dig about it and dung it." i doubt if it is not too much ground-bound. "the love of this world and the deceitfulness of riches" lie too close to the roots of the heart of this professor. the love of riches, the love of honors, the love of pleasures, are the thorns that choke the word; how then can there be fruit brought forth to god? barren fig-tree, see how the lord jesus by these words suggests the cause of thy fruitlessness of soul. the things of this world lie too close to thy heart; the earth and its things have bound up thy roots; thou art an earth-bound soul, thou art wrapped up in thick clay. "if any man love the world, the love of the father is not in him;" how then can he be fruitful in the vineyard? this kept judas from the fruit of caring for the poor. this kept demas from the fruit of self-denial. and this kept ananias and sapphira his wife from the goodly fruit of sincerity and truth. i john, 2:15, 16; john 12: 6; 2 tim. 4:10; acts 5: 5-10; i tim. 6: 9, 10. "and if it bear fruit, well." and if the outlay of all my labor doth make this fig-tree fruitful, i shall count my time, my labor, and means, well bestowed upon it; and thou also, o my god, shalt be therewith much delighted; for thou art gracious and merciful, and repentest thee of the evil which thou threatenest to bring upon a people. these words therefore inform us, that if a barren figtree, a barren professor, shall now at last bring forth fruit to god, it shall go well with that professor, it shall go well with that poor soul. his former barrenness, his former tempting of god, his abuse of god's patience and long-suffering, his misspending year after year, shall now be all forgiven him. yea, god the father and our lord jesus christ will now pass by and forget all, and say, "well done," at the last. "and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." there is nothing more exasperating to the mind of a man, than to find all his kindness and favor slighted; neither is the lord jesus so provoked with any thing, as when sinners abuse his means of grace. if it be barren and fruitless under my gospel, if it turn my grace into wantonness, if, after digging and dunging and waiting, it yet remain unfruitful, i will let thee cut it down. gospel-means applied are the last remedy for a barren professor; if the gospel, if the grace of the gospel will not do, there can be nothing expected but, "cut it down." "o jerusalem, jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would i have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! behold, your house is left unto you desolate." matt. 23:37,38. yet it cannot be but that this lord jesus, who at first did put a stop to the execution of his father's justice, because he desired to try more means with the fig-tree--it cannot be but that a heart so full of compassion as his, should be touched to behold this professor must now be cut down. "and when he was come near, he beheld the city and wept over it, saying, if thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things that belong to thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes." when christ giveth thee over, there is no intercessor, no mediator, no more sacrifice for sin; all is gone but judgment, but the axe, but "a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." heb. 10:26-28. the day of grace ends with some men before god takes them out of this world. now, then, i would show you by some signs how you may know that the day of grace is ended, or near to ending with the barren professor. first sign. the day of grace is like to be past, when a professor hath withstood, abused, and worn out god's patience: then he is in danger; this is a provocation; now god cries, "cut it down." there are some men that steal into a profession, nobody knows how, even as this fig-tree was brought into the vineyard by other hands than god's; and there they abide lifeless, graceless, careless, and without any good conscience to god at all. perhaps they came in for the loaves, for a trade, for credit, for a blind; or it may be, to stifle and choke the checks and grinding pangs of an awakened and disquieted conscience. now, having obtained their purpose, like the sinners of zion, they are at ease and secure, saying, like agag, surely the bitterness of death is past: i am well; i shall be saved and go to heaven. thus in these vain conceits they spend a year, two, or three; not remembering that at every season of grace, and at every opportunity of the gospel, the lord comes seeking fruit. well, sinner, well, barren fig-tree, this is but an evil beginning. god comes for fruit. what have i here? saith god. what a fig-tree is this, that hath stood this year in my vineyard, and brought me forth no fruit! i will cry unto him, professor, barren fig-tree, be fruitful; i look for fruit, i expect fruit, i must have fruit; therefore bethink thyself. at these the professor pauses; but these are words, not blows; therefore off goes this consideration from the heart. when god comes the next year, he finds him still as he was, a barren, fruitless cumber-ground. and now again he complains, here are two years gone, and no fruit appears; well, i will defer mine anger for my name's sake. i will yet wait to be gracious. but this helps not, this hath not the least influence upon the barren fig-tree: tush, saith he, here is no threatening; god is merciful, he will defer his anger, he waits to be gracious; i am not yet afraid. o, how ungodly men, that are unawares crept into the vineyard, how do they turn the grace of our god into lasciviousness! well, he comes the third year for fruit, as he did before, but still he finds but a barren fig-tree; no fruit. now he cries out again, o thou dresser of my vineyard, come hither: here is a fig-tree hath stood these three years in my vineyard, and hath at every season disappointed my expectation; for i have looked for fruit in vain. cut it down; my patience is worn out, i shall wait on this fig-tree no longer. and now he begins to shake the fig-tree with his threatenings: fetch out the axe. now the axe is death; death therefore is called for. death, come, smite me this fig-tree. and withal the lord shakes this sinner, and whirls him upon a sick-bed, saying, take him, death; he hath abused my patience and forbearance, not remembering that it should have led him to repentance and to the fruits thereof: death, fetch away this fig-tree to the fire, fetch this barren professor to hell. at this, death comes with grim looks into the chamber, yea, and hell follows with him to the bedside, and both stare this professor in the face, yea, begin to lay hands upon him. one smites him with pains in his body, with headache, heartache, backache, shortness of breath, fainting qualms, trembling of joints, stopping at the chest, and almost all the symptoms of a man past all recovery. now, while death is thus tormenting the body, hell is busy with the mind and conscience, striking them with its pains, casting sparks of fire in thither, wounding with sorrows and fears of everlasting damnation the spirit of this poor creature. and now he begins to bethink himself, and to cry to god for mercy: lord, spare me; lord, spare me. nay, saith god, you have been a provocation to me these three years. how many times have you disappointed me! how many seasons have you spent in vain! how many sermons and other mercies did i of my patience afiord you; but to no purpose at all. take him, death. o good lord, saith the sinner, spare me but this once; raise me but this once. indeed i have been a barren professor, and have stood to no purpose at all in thy vineyard; hut spare, o spare me this one time, i beseech thee, and i will he better. away, away, you will not; i have tried you these three years already; you are naught: if i should recover you again, you would he as bad as you were before. (and all this talk is while death stands by.) the sinner cries again, good lord, try me this once; let me get up again this once, and see if i do not rnend. but will you promise me to mend? yes indeed, lord, and vow it too. i will never be so bad again, i will he better. well, saith god, death, let this professor alone for this time: i will try him a little longer; he hath promised, he hath vowed, that he will amend his ways. it may be he will mind to keep his promises. vows are solemn things; it may he he may fear to break his vows. arise from off thy bed. and now god lays down his axe. at this the poor creature is very thankful, praises god, and fawns upon him, shows as if he did it heartily, and calls to others to thank him too. he therefore riseth, as one would think, to be a new creature indeed. but by that he hath put on his clothes, is come down from his bed, and ventured into the yard or shop, and there sees how all things are gone to sixes and sevens, he begins to have second thoughts, and says to his folks, what have you all been doing? how are all things out of order! i am i cannot tell how much behindhand; one may see if a man be but a little laid aside, that you have neither wisdom nor prudence to order things. and now, instead of seeking to spend the rest of his time for god, he doubleth his diligence after this world. alas, he saith, all must not be lost; we must have provident care. and thus, quite forgetting the sorrows of death, the pains of hell, the promises and vows which he made to god to be better, because judgment was not speedily executed, therefore the heart of this poor creature is fully set in him to do evil. these things proving ineffectual, god takes hold of his axe again, sends death to a wife, to a child, to his cattle. i will blast him, cross him, disappoint him, cast him down; and will set myself against him in all that he putteth his hand unto. at this the poor barren professor cries out again, lord, i have sinned; spare me once more, i beseech thee. o take not away the desire of mine eyes; spare my children, bless me in my labors, and i will mend and be better. no, saith god, you lied to me last time, i will trust you in this no longer; and withal he tumbleth the wife, the child, the estate, into a grave. at this the poor creature is afflicted and distressed, rends his clothes, and begins to call the breaking of his promise and vows to mind; he mourns and prays, and like ahab, a while walks softly at the remembrance of the justness of the hand of god upon him. and now he renews his promises: lord, try me this one time more, take off thy hand and see; they go far that never turn. well, god spareth him again, sets down his axe again: "many times he did deliver them, but they provoked him with their counsels, and were brought low for their iniquities." now they seem to be thankful again, and are as if they resolved to be godly indeed. now they read, they pray, they go to meetings, and seem to be serious for a while; but at last they forget. their lusts prick them, suitable temptations present themselves; wherefore, they return to their own crooked ways again. yet again, the lord will not leave this barren professor, luke 13: 6-9, but will take up his axe again, and will put him under a more heart-searching ministry, a ministry that shall search him and turn him over and over--a ministry that shall meet with him, as elijah met with ahab, in all his acts of wickedness: and now the axe is laid to the roots of the tree. besides, this ministry doth not only search the heart, but presenteth the sinner with the golden rays of the glorious gospel: now is christ jesus set forth evidently, now is grace displayed sweetly; now, now are the promises broken, like boxes of ointment, to the perfuming of the whole room. but alas, there is yet no fruit on this fig-tree. while his heart is searched, he wrangles; while the glorious grace of the gospel is unveiled, this professor wags and is wanton, gathers up some scraps thereof, tastes the good word of god and the power of the world to come, drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon him, but bringeth not forth fruit meet for him whose gospel it is; takes no heed to walk in the law of the lord god of israel with all his heart, but counteth that the glory of the gospel consisteth in talk and show, and that our obedience thereto is a matter of speculation--that good works lie in good words, and if men can finely talk, they may think they bravely please god. he thinks the kingdom of god consisteth only in word, not in power; and thus proves ineffectual this fourth means also. well, now the axe begins to be heaved higher, for now indeed god is ready to smite the sinner: yet before he will strike the stroke, he will try one way more at last; and if that misseth, down goes the fig-tree. now this last way is to labor and strive with this professor by his spirit. therefore the spirit of the lord is now come to him; but not always to strive with man, gen. 6:8; yet awhile he will strive with him, he will awaken, he will convince, he will call to remembrance former sins, former judgments, the breach of former vows and promises, the misspending of former days. he will also present persuasive arguments, encouraging promises, dreadful judgments, the shortness of time to repent in; and that there is hope if he come. he will show him the certainty of death and of the judgment to come, yea, he will pull and strive with this sinner. but behold, the mischief now lies here; here is laboring and striving on both sides. the spirit convinces, the man turns a deaf ear to god; the spirit saith, receive my instruction and live, but the man pulls away his shoulder; the spirit shows him whither he is going, but the man closeth his eyes against it; the spirit offers violence, the man strives and resists: he has "done despite unto the spirit of grace." heb. 10:29. the spirit parleyeth a'second time and urgeth reasons of a new nature, but the sinner answereth, no; i have loved strangers, and after them will i go. amos 4: 6-12. at this, god comes out of his holy-place, and is terrible; now he sweareth in his wrath they shall never enter into his rest. ezek. 34:13. i exercised towards you my patience, yet you have not turned unto me, saith the lord. i smote you in your person, in your relations, in your estate, yet you have not returned unto me, saith the lord. "cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?" the second sign that such a professor is almost, if not quite past grace, is when god hath given him over, or lets him alone and suffers him to do any thing, and that without control; helpeth him not either in works of holiness, or in straits and difficulties: "ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone." "woe be to them when i depart from them." "i will laugh at their calamity; i will mock when their fear cometh." barren fig-tree, thou hast heretofore been digged about; god's mattock has heretofore been at thy roots; thou hast heretofore been striven with, convinced, awakened, made to taste and see, and cry, o the blessedness! thou hast heretofore been met with under the word; thy heart has melted, thy spirit has fallen, thy soul has trembled, and thou hast felt something of the power of the gospel. but thou hast sinned, thou hast provoked the eyes of his glory, thy iniquity is found to be hateful; and now perhaps god has left thee, given thee up, and lets thee alone. heretofore thou wast tender; thy conscience startled at the temptation to wickedness, for thou wert taken off from the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our lord and saviour jesus christ, 2 pet. 2: 20-22; but that very vomit that once thou wert turned from, now thou lappest up again, seest thou a man that heretofore had the knowledge of god, and that had some awe of majesty upon him; seest thou such a one sporting himself in his own deceivings, rom. 1:30, 31, "turning the grace of god into lasciviousness, and walking after his own ungodly lusts? his judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and his damnation slumbereth not." 2 pet. 2:13. dost thou hear, barren professor? it is astonishing to see how those who once seemed sons of the morning, and were making preparations for eternal life, now at last, for the rottenness of their hearts, by the just judgment of god are permitted, being past feeling, "to give themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." eph. 4:18, 19. a great number of such were in the first gospel days; against whom peter and jude and john pronounce the just judgment of god. 2 pet. 2:3-8; jude 5-8. barren fig-tree, dost thou hear? these are beyond all mercy; these are beyond all promises; these are beyond all hopes of repentance; these have no intercessor, nor any more share in the one sacrifice for sin. for these there remains nothing but a fearful looking for of judgment. these men go whither they will, do what they will; they may range from opinion to opinion, from notion to notion, from sect to sect, but are steadfast nowhere: they are left to their own uncertainties; they have not grace to establish their hearts; and though some of them have boasted themselves of this liberty, yet jude calls them wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. they are left to be fugitives and vagabonds in the earth, to wander everywhere but to abide nowhere, until they shall descend to their own place, with cain and judas, men of the same fate with themselves. look thou certainly, fruitless professor, for an eternal disappointment in the day of god; for it must be; thy lamp will he out at the first sound the trump of god shall make in thine ears; thou canst not hold up at the appearance of the son of god in his glory; his very looks will he to thy profession as a strong wind is to a blinking candle, and thou shalt he left only to smoke. oh, the alteration that will befall a foolish virgin. she thought she was happy, and that she should have received happiness with those that were right at the heart; but behold the contrary: her lamp is going out, she has now to seek for saving grace, when the time of grace is over; her heaven she thought of has proved a hell, and her god has proved a devil. god hath cast her out of his presence, and closes the door upon her. she pleads her profession and the like, and she hath for her answer repulses from heaven. "so are the paths of all that forget god; and the hypocrite's hope shall perish; whose hope shall be cut off, and whose trust shall be the spider's web: though he lean upon his house, it shall not stand; he shall hold it fast, but it shall not endure." take heed, therefore; thy soul, heaven, and eternity lie at stake; yea, they turn either to thee or from thee upon the hinge of thy faith, if it be right, all is thine; if wrong, then all is lost, however thy hope and expectations are to the contrary. there are bare notions, there are common workings, and there is a work that is saving and that will do the soul good to eternity. 1. there are bare notions, and they that have them are such unto whom the gospel comes in word only, 1 thess. 1:5; 1 cor. 4:19, 20; such whose religion stands in word only, and is not attended with a power suitable: that is, there goes not with the word a power sufficient to subdue and work over the heart to a cordial and gracious close with thut word that comes to them. yet such is the noise and sound of the word, that they are willing to become professors thereof; there is some kind of musicalness in it, especially when well handled and fingered by a skilful preacher. "and lo," saith god unto such preachers, when their auditory is made up of such kind of hearers, "lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument; for they hear thy words, but they do them not." 2. but then, besides these there is another sort, and they go further than these. for to them the word came, not in word only but also in power: though not in such a power as is sufficient, absolutely against all attempts whatsoever, to bring the soul to glory. (1.) they attain light or illumination to see much of their state by nature. heb. 6:4. (2.) this light stands not in bare speculation, but lets fall upon the conscience convincing arguments to the bowing and humbling of the spirit. 1 kings, 21: 27-29. (3.) they submit to these convictions and reforms, and may for a time not only come out from them that live in error, but escape the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of our lord and saviour jesus christ. 2 peter, 2:18-20; gal. 3:4; 4:20. (4.) yea, so powerful will this dispensation be, that it will prevail with them to do and suffer many things for the vindication of the truth of that gospel which they profess. for the word will be sweet unto them; christ, the gift of god, will be relished by them. heb. 6:4, 5. the powers of the world to come will be in them; some workings of the holy ghost will be in them; and joy, which is as oil to the wheels, will be with their souls. luke 8:13. thus is it with some professors, who yet cannot be said to depart from iniquity, because the things that now are upon them abide with them but awhile: "for awhile they believe; they rejoice in the light for a season," and after that return to their old course, and are again entangled with their iniquities and overcome. now the causes of this declension, or falling away again unto iniquity, are many. one is, that this work, this work of power which they have been made partakers of, has not been thorough enough upon all the powers of their souls. their understandings, their judgments and consciences have been dealt with, but the power of god has not been upon their wills and minds and affections rightly to subdue them to the grace of the gospel. therefore also such persons, upon the withdrawing of those influences that at present are mighty upon them, do forthwith forget both what they had and what work it made upon them. straightway they forget what manner of men they were. it is said of israel, "they sang his praises; they soon forgat his word." so these; they forget. they forget what light and what convictions they had. they forget what sorrow for sin they had. they forget what tastes of christ and his word they had. they forget what joy and comfort they had. they forget how fair for heaven they were. and they forget how cleansed once they were. "they have forgotten that they were purged from their old sins." 2 pet. 1:9. now, forgetfulness makes things that are past as nothings; and if so, then it can lay no obligations upon the mind to engage it to delight in them; no, not in thoughts of them, as if they were remembered by us. forgetfulness is a very dangerous thing; it makes preaching vain, profession vain, faith vain, and all to no purpose. 1 cor. 15:1, 2. such profession is but a dream; and such professors but as dreamers; all vanishes in the morning. this made paul so caution the corinthians that they should forget not the preaching; arid the writer to the hebrews so earnestly call them, in their backsliding, back to the remembrance of former days, and to the recollecting what it was that then made them so willingly endure their great fight of affliction. forgetfulness, i say, makes things nothings; it makes us as if things had never been; and so takes away from the soul one great means of stay, support, and encouragement. when choice david was dejected, the remembrance of the hill hermon was his stay; when he was to go out against goliath, the remembrance of the lion and the bear was his support; so when those that have had the power of the things of god upon them, can think of this when they are withdrawn, it will, even the thinking of it, have some kind of operation upon the soul. and therefore you shall find, that the recovering of a backslider usually begins at the remembrance of former things. "remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent and do thy first works." it is marvellous to see how some men are captivated with this forgetfulness. those that sometimes have prayed, cried, groaned, and sighed for eternal life; those that sometimes thought no pains too much, no way too far, no hazards too great to run, for eternal life; those that sometimes were captivated with the word, and with the comforts and joy thereof, and who, had it been possible, would have pulled out their eyes, and have given them to gospel ministers, so dear and sweet were the good tidings which they brought. to such. i say, it is marvellous to see how such men are captivated with the forgetfulness of this. they are as if they had never been those men; they are as if they had had no such things, or as if they never had thought about them. yea, they are strange, and carry it strangely to all those that still are under the power of that word, and of that mighty hand by which sometimes themselves were guided. should one say to them, art not thou the man that i once saw crying under a sermon, that i once heard cry out, "what must i do to be saved?" and that some time ago i heard speak well of the holy word of god? how askew will they look upon one; or if they will acknowledge that such things were with them once, they do it more like images and rejected ghosts, than men. they look as if they were blasted, withered, cast out and dried to powder, and now fit for nothing but to be cast into the fire and burned. john 15. the unpardonable sin. the man in the iron cage. "now," said christian, "let me go hence." "nay, stay," said the interpreter, "till i have showed thee a little more, and after that thou shalt go on thy way." so he took him by the hand again, and led him into a very dark room, where there sat a man in an iron cage. now the man to look on, seemed very sad. he sat with his eyes looking down to the ground, his hands folded together, and he sighed as if he would break his heart. then said christian, "what means this?" at which the interpreter bid him talk with the man. then said christian to the man, "what art thou?" the man answered, "i am what i was not once." cristian. "what wert thou once?" the man said, "i was once a fair and flourishing professor, both in mine own eyes, and also in the eyes of others; i once was, as i thought, fair for the celestial city, luke 8:13, and had then even joy at the thoughts that i should get thither." christian. "well, but what art thou now?" man. "i am now a man of despair, and am shut up in it as in this iron cage. i cannot get out: o now i cannot." christian. "but how earnest thou in this condition?" man. "i left off to watch and be sober; i laid the reins upon the neck of my lusts; i sinned against the light of the word, and the goodness of god; i have grieved the spirit, and he is gone; i tempted the devil, and he is come to me; i have provoked god to anger, and he has left me; i have so hardened my heart that i cannot repent." then said christian to the interpreter, "but is there no hope for such a man as this?" "ask him," said the interpreter. then said christian, "is there no hope but you must be kept in the iron cage of despair?" man. "no, none at all." christian. "why? the son of the blessed is very pitiful." man. "i have crucified him to myself afresh; i have despised his person, i have despised his righteousness, i have counted his blood an unholy thing. i have done despite to the spirit of grace, luke 19:14; heh. 6:4-6; 10:28, 29; therefore i have shut myself out of all the promises, and there now remains to me nothing but threatenings, dreadful threatenings, fearful threatenings of certain judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour me as an adversary." christian. "for what did you bring yourself into this condition?" man. "for the lusts, pleasures, and profits of this world; in the enjoyment of which i did then promise myself much delight; but now every one of those things also bites me and gnaws me like a burning worm." christian. "but canst thou not repent and turn?" man. "god hath denied me repentance. his word gives me no encouragement to believe; yea, himself hath shut me up in this iron cage: nor can all the men in the world let me out. o eternity, eternity! how shall i grapple with the misery that i must meet with in eternity?" then said the interpreter to christian, "let this man's misery he remembered by thee, and be an everlasting caution to thee." "well," said christian, "this is fearful! god help me to watch and he sober, and to pray that i may shun the cause of this man's miseiy." we that religiously name the name of christ should depart from iniquity, because the spirit of the father will else be grieved. eph. 4:30. the countenancing of iniquity, the not departing therefrom, will grieve the spirit of god, by which you are sealed to the day of redemption; and that is a sin of a higher nature than men commonly are aware of. he that grieveth the spirit of god shall smart for it here, or in hell, or both. and that spirit that sometimes did illuminate, teach, and instruct them, can keep silence, can cause darkness, can. withdraw itself, and sufler the soul to sin more and more; and this last is the very judgment of judgments. he that grieves the spirit, quenches it; and he that quenches it, vexes it; and he that vexes it, sets it against himself, and tempts it to hasten destruction upon himself. 1 thess. 5:19. wherefore take heed, professors, i say, take heed, you that religiously name the name of christ, that you meddle not with iniquity, that you tempt not the spirit of the lord to do such things against you; whose beginnings are dreadful, and whose end in working of judgments is unsearchable. isa. 63:10; acts 5:9. a man knows not whither he is sjoing, nor where he shall stop, that is but entering into temptation; nor whether he shall ever turn back, or go out at the gap that is right before him. he that has begun to grieve the holy ghost, may be sufiered to go on until he has sinned that sin which is called the sin against the holy ghost. and if god shall once give thee up to that, then, thou art in the iron cage, out of which there is neither deliverance nor redemption. there is a sin called the sin against the holy ghost, from which there is no redemption, and this sin doth more than ordinarily befall professors; for there are few, if any, that are not professors, that are at present capable of sinning this sin. they which "were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy ghost, and have tasted the good word of god, and the powers of the world to come," heb.6:4, 5--of this sort are they that commit this sin. peter also describes them to be such, that sin the unpardonable sin: "for if after they have escaped the pollution of the world, through the knowledge of our lord and saviour jesus christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning." 2 pet. 2:2. the other passage in the tenth of the hebrews holdeth forth the same thing: "for if we sin wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin. but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation that shall devour the adversaries." these, therefore, are the persons that are the prey for this sin. this sin feedeth upon professors, and they that are such do often fall into the rnouth of this eater. the unpardonable sin, the sin against the holy ghost, is a sin of this nature: for a man after he hath made some profession of salvation to come alone by the blood of jesus, together with some light%and power of the same upon his spirit--i say, for him knowingly, wilfully, and despitefully to trample upon the blood of christ shed on the cross, and to count it an unholy thing, or no better than the blood of another man; and rather to venture his soul any other way, than to be saved by this precious blood. it is called the sin against the holy ghost, because such sin against the manifest light of the spirit; that is, they have been formerly enlightened into the nature of the gospel, and the merits of the man christ, and his blood, righteousness, intercession, etc., and also have professed and confessed the same, with some life and comfort in and through the profession of him; yet now against all that light, they maliciously and with despite to all their former profession, turn their backs, and trample upon the same. this sin is immediately committed against the motions and convictions and light of that holy spirit of god, that makes it his business to hand forth and manifest the truth and reality of the merits and virtue of the lord jesus. to some men that have grievously sinned under a profession of the gospel, god. gives this token of his displeasure: they are denied the power of repentance; their heart is bound, they cannot repent. it is impossible they should ever repent, should they live a thousand years. it is impossible for those fall-aways to be renewed again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the son of god afresh, and put him to open shame. now, to have the heart so hardened, so judicially hardened, this is as a bar put in by the lord god against the salvation of this sinner. this was the burden of spira's complaint: "i cannot do it; o, now i cannot do it." this man sees what he has done, what should help him, and what will become of him; yet he cannot repent. he pulled away his shoulder before, he shut his eyes before, and in that very posture god left him; and so he stands to this very day. i have had a fancy that lot's wife, when she was turned into a pillar of salt, stood yet looking over her shoulder, or else with her face towards sodom; as the judgment caught her, so it bound her, and left her for a monument of god's anger to after-generations. i have been the more plain and simple in my writing, because the sin against the holy ghost is in these days more common than formerly, and the way unto it more beautified with color and pretence of truth i may say of the way to this sin, it is, as was once the way to jerusalem, strewed with boughs and branches, and by some there is cried a kind of hosanna to them that are treading these steps to hell. oh, the plausible pretences, the golden names, the feigned holiness, the demure behavior mixed with damnable hypocrisy, that attend the persons that have forsaken the lord jesus, that have despised his person, trampled upon him, and "counted the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing." they have crucified him to themselves, and think that they can go to heaven without him, yea, pretend they love him, when they hate him; pretend they have him, when they have cast him off; pretend they trust in him, when they bid defiance to his undertakings for the world. so they both went on, and ignorance he came after. now, when they had passed him a little way, they entered into a very dark lane, where they met a man whom seven devils had bound with seven strong cords, and were carrying him back to the door that they saw on the side of the hill. matt. 12: 45; prov. 5: 22. now good christian began to tremble, and so did hopeful, his companion; yet as the devils led away the man, christian looked to see if he knew him; and he thought it might be one turn-away that dwelt in the town of apostasy. but he did not perfectly see his face; for he did hang his head like a thief that is found. but being gone past, hopeful looked after him, and espied on his back a paper with this inscription: "wanton professor and damnable apostate." xxi. the church. from the preface to the "holy city." upon a certain first-day, i being together with my brethren in our prison-chamber, they expected that, according to our custom, something should be spoken out of the word for our mutual edification; but at that time i felt myself--it being my turn to speak--so empty, spiritless, and barren, that i thought i should not have been able to speak among them so much as five words of truth, with life and evidence: but at last it so fell out that providentially i cast my eye upon the 11th verse of the 21st chapter of this prophecy of revelation; upon which when i had considered awhile, methought i perceived something of that jasper, in whose light you there find this holy city is said to come or descend: wherefore, having got in my eye some dim glimmerings thereof, and finding also in my heart a desire to see further thereinto, i, with a few groans, did carry my meditation to the lord jesus for a blessing. this he did forthwith grant, according to his grace; and helping me to set before my brethren, we did all eat and were all refreshed; and behold also, that while i was in the distributing of it, it so increased in my hand that, of the fragments that we left after we had well dined, i gathered up this basketful. methought the more i cast my eye upon the whole discourse, the more i saw lie in it. wherefore, setting myself to a more narrow search, through frequent prayer to god--what first with doing, and then with undoing, and after that with doing again--i thus did finish it. but yet, notwithstanding all my labor and travail in this matter, i do not, neither can i, expect that every godly heart should in every thing see the truth and excellency of what is here discoursed; neither would i have them imagine that i have so thoroughly viewed this holy city, but that much more than i do here crush out is yet left in the cluster. alas, i shall only say thus: i have crushed out a little juice to sweeten their lips withal; not doubting but in a little time more large measures of the excellency of this city, and of its sweetness and glory, will by others be opened and unfolded, yea, if not by the servants of the lord jesus, yet by the lord himself, who will have this city builded and set in its own place. church-fellowship. it is the ordinance of god, that christians should be often asserting the things of god to each other; and that by their so doing, they should edify one another. the doctrine of the gospel is like the dew and the small rain, that distilleth upon the tender grass, wherewith it doth flourish and is kept green. christians are like the several flowers in a garden, that have upon each of them the dew of heaven; which being shaken with the wind, let fall their dew at each other's roots, whereby they are jointly nourished and become nourishers of one another. church-fellowship, rightly managed, is the glory of all the world. no place, no community, no fellowship is adorned and bespangled with such beauties, as is a church rightly knit together to their head, and lovingly serving one another. the church and a profession are the best of places for the upright; but the worst in the world for the cumberground. the church a light. the holy ghost is well pleased to bring in the shining virtues of the church, under the--notion of a shining moon; because, as the church herself is compared to the moon, so her virtues are as naturally compared to a shining light: as christ saith, "let your light so shine;" and again, "let your loins be girded, and your lights burning." for indeed, while we are here, that church and congregation of the lord doth most shine, and most send forth the golden rays and pleasant beams of christianity, that is most in the exercise of the aforementioned virtues. take away the moon, and the night is doubtful; or, though the moon be in the firmament, if she hath lost her light, the night is not thereby made more comfortable. and thus, i say, it is first with the world, where there is no church to shine, or where there is a church that doth not so shine that others may see and be lighted. spiritual character of the church. she meddleth not with any man's matters but her own; she comes all along by the king's highway; that is, only by the rules that her lord hath prescribed for her in his testament. the governors of this world need not at all fear a disturbance from her, or a diminution of aught they have. she will not meddle with their fields nor vineyards, neither will she drink of the water of their wells. only let her go by the king's highway, and she will not turn to the right hand or to the left, until she has passed all their borders it is a false report that the governors of the nations have received against the city, this new jerusalem, if they believe according to the tale that is told of her, that she is and has been of old a rebellious city, and destructive to kings, and a diminisher of their revenues. she is not for meddling with any thing that is theirs, from a thread even to a shoe-latchet. her glory is spiritual and heavenly, and she is satisfied with what is her own. 'tis true, the kings and nations of this world shall one day bring their glory and honor to this city; but yet not by outward force or compulsion: none shall constrain them but the love of christ, and the beauty of this city. "the gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." the light and beauty of this city, these only shall engage their hearts and overcome them. indeed, if any shall, out of mistrust or enmity against this city and her prosperity, bend themselves to disappoint the designs of the eternal god concerning her building and glory, then they must take what follows. her god in the midst of her is mighty; he will rest in his love, and rejoice over her with singing, and will undo all that afflict her. wherefore, associate yourselves, o ye people, and ye shall he broken in pieces; for god is with us. warning to the professor. he that sins himself out of the church, can find no good in the world; and they that have sinned god out, can find no good in the church. a church that has sinned god away from it, is a sad lump indeed. you, therefore, that are in god's church, take heed of sinning yourselves out thence; also take heed, that while you keep in, you sin not god away, for thenceforth no good is there. "yea, woe unto them when i depart from them, saith the lord." church-order. it is hard to have all things according to rule in the day of the church's affliction, because of the weakness and fearfulness of some, and because possibly those who have most skill in that matter may for a time be laid up in chains. but when the church has rest and quietness, then as she praises god, so she conceives and brings forth governors and good government and rule among her members. david, a man of blood, could not build the house to the lord, which peaceable solomon, that man of rest, afterwards did. when armies are engaged and hot in battle, it is harder to keep them in rank and file than when they have rest and time for discipline. the church in affliction. when the church of god is afflicted, both heaven and hell have their hand therein; but from a differing consideration, and to a diverse end. from heaven it comes, that we may remember we have sinned, and that we may be made white and tried; but from hell, that we might sin the more, and that we might despair and be damned. satan's hostility to the church. satan has tried many ways to be at amity with the church--not because he loves her holiness, but because he hates her welfare. and that he might bring about his enterprise, he sometimes has allured her with the dainty delicacies of this world, the lusts of the flesh and of the eyes, and the pride of life. this being fruitless, he has attempted to entangle and bewitch her with his glorious appearance as an angel of light; and to that end he has made his ministers of righteousness, preaching up righteousness, and contending for a divine and holy worship. but this failing also, he has taken in hand at length to fright her into friendship with him, by stirring up the hellish rage of tyrants to frighten and molest her; by finding out strange inventions to torment and afflict her children; by making many bloody examples of her own bowels before her eyes, if by that means he might at last obtain his purpose. but behold, all has been in vain; there can be no reconciliation. and why, but because god himself maintains the enmity? god hath put enmity between the devil and the woman; between that old serpent called the devil and satan, and the holy and beloved and espoused wife of christ. security of the church. gold is a metal so invincible and unconquerable, that no fire can consume it: it may burn it indeed, and melt it; the dross indeed doth consume and give way to the power of the fire, but the gold remains and holds its ground, yea, it gets ground even of the furnace and fire itself; for the more it is burned and melted, the more it recovers its color, and the more it shakes off its dross and dishonor. just thus it is with the people of god, and hath been so even from the beginning: the more men oppressed them, the more they grew. his church has been now for many hundred years in the king of babylon's furnace; all which time she hath most gloriously endured and withstood the heat; and at last, when the fire hath done its worst against her, behold, there comes out a city of gold. wherefore, let her be bold to say, even before she comes out of the fire, "when i am tried, i shall come forth as gold." so long as the church endured hardship and affliction, she was greatly preserved from revolts and backslidings; but after she had turned her face from the sun, and had found the plain of shinar, genesis 11, that is, the fleshly delights that the pleasures and profits and honors of this world afford, she, forgetting the word and order of god, was content to dwell in the land of babel. as the sins of god's people brought them into captivity, so their sins can hold them there; yea, and when the time comes that grace must fetch them out, yet the oxen that draw this cart may stumble, and the way, through roughness, may shake it sorely. however, heaven rules and overrules: and by one means and another, as the captivity of israel did seem to linger, so it came out at the time appointed, in the way that best pleased god, that most profited them, and that most confounded those that were their implacable enemies. this therefore should instruct those that yet dwell where the "woman" sitteth, to quietness and patience. to quietness; for god rules and has the disposal of things. besides, it is a kind of arraigning of his wisdom, to be discontent at that which at present is upon the wheel. above all, it displeases him that any should seek, or go about to revenge their own injuries, or to work their own deliverances; for that is the work of god: nor is he weak, nor has he missed the opportunity; nor does he sleep, but waketh, and waiteth to be gracious. this also should teach them to be patient, and put them upon bearing what at present they may undergo, patiently let them wait upon god; patiently let them wait upon men, and patiently let them bear the fruits of their own transgressions; which though they should be none other but a deferring of the mercy wished for, is enough to try, and crack, and break their patience, if a continual supply and a daily increase thereof be not given by the god of heaven. and before i conclude this, let me add one word more, to wit, to exhort them to look that they may see what god at present may be doing among the babylonians. when god had his people into babylon of old, he presented them with such varieties there as he never showed them in their own country. and is there nothing now to be seen by them that are not yet delivered from that oppression, that may give them occasion to stay themselves and wonder? what, is preservation nothing? what, is baffling and befooling the enemies of god's church nothing? in the maryan [footnote: upon the accession of mary to the throne of england, the sanguinary laws against heretics were revived, and those shocking scenes of cruelty followed which have fixed upon this princess the epithet of bloody queen mary. her gloomy bigotry caused that two hundred and seventy-seven persons should be committed to the flames, including prelates, private clergymen, laymen of all ranks, women, and even children. among the number were archbishop cranmer, bishops ridley. latimer, and hooper, john rogers, john bradford, and john philpot. bishops latimer and ridley were burnt together. when they came to the stake, dr. ridley embraced latimer fervently, and bade him be of good heart; he then knelt by the stake, and after earnestly praying together, they had a short private conversation. a lighted fagot was laid at dr. ridley's feet, which caused the other to say, "be of good cheer, ridley, and play the man. we shall this day, by god's grace, light up such a candle in england, as i trust will never be put out." when dr. ridley saw the flame approaching him, he exclaimed, "into thy hands, o lord, i commend my spirit." latimer ceased not to say, "o father of heaven, receive my soul." sanders, another martyr, was offered a pardon; but he rejected it, and embraced the stake, saying, "welcome the cross of christ! welcome, everlasting life!" fox's book of martyrs and hume's hist. eng] days here at home, there were such sweet songs sung in the fire, such sweet notes answering them from prison, and such providences, like coals of burning fire, still dropping here and there upon the heads of those that hated god, that it might, and douhtless did, make those that did wisely consider of god's doings, think god was yet near in behalf of his despised and afflicted people. deep things are seen by them that are upon the waters. "they that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the lord and his wonders in the deep." indeed it oft falls out that the church sees more of god in affliction, than when she is at rest and ease; when she is tumbled to and fro with waters, then she sees the works of god and his wonders in the deep. and this makes persecution so pleasant a thing; this makes "the ark go upon the face of the waters." she sees more in this her state, than in all the treasures of egypt. nothing is more natural to the church, while in a wilderness condition, than such cups and draughts as the cup of the lord's fury, the cup of trembling, the cup of astonishment. hence she is said to be clothed in sackcloth, to mourn, to weep, to cry out, and to be in pain as a woman in travail. since the church in the wilderness has been so persecuted, so distressed, so oppressed, and made the seat of so much war, so much blood, and so many murders of her children within her, can it be imagined that she drank of more of these cups? yes, yes, she has drunk the red wine at the lord's hand, even the cup of blood, of fury, of trembling, and of astonishment; witness her own cries, sighs, tears, and tremblings, with the cries of the widows, children, and orphans within her. but all these cups are of pure gold. they are of god's ordaining, appointing, filling; and also sanctified by him for good to those of his that drink them. hence moses chose rather to drink a brimmer of these, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. the sourness, bitterness, and wormwood of them, therefore, is only to the flesh, that loveth neither god, nor christ, nor grace. the afflictions, therefore, that the church in the wilderness hath met with, these cups of gold, are of more worth than are all the treasures of egypt; they are needful and profitable, and praiseworthy also, and tend to the augmenting of our glory when the next world shall come. besides, they are signs, tokens, and golden-marks of love, and jewels that set off the beauty of the church in the sight of god the more. they are also a means by which men are proved to be sound, honest, faithful, and true lovers of god; to be those whose graces are not counterfeit, feigned, or unsound, but true, and such as will be found to praise and honor and glory at the appearing of jesus christ. and this has been the cause that the men of our church in the wilderness have gloried in tribulation, taking pleasure in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, and in distresses, for christ's sake. yea, this is the reason why they have bade one another rejoice, when they fell into divers temptations, saying, "happy is the man that endureth temptations;" and, "behold, we count them happy that endure." and again, "if ye be reproached for the name of christ, happy are ye." these, therefore, are vessels of pure gold, though they contain such bitter draughts, at which we make so many wry faces before we can get them down. do you think that a christian, having even this cup in his hand to drink, would change it for a draught of that which is in the hand of the woman that sits on the back of the scarlet-colored beast? no, verily; for he knows that her sweet is poison; and that his bitter is to purge his soul, body, life, and religion, of death. god sends his love-tokens to his church two ways; sometimes by her friends, sometimes by her enemies. when they come by the hand of a friend, as by a minister, a brother, or by the holy ghost, then they come smoothly, sweetly, and are taken, and go down like honey. but when these love-tokens come to them by the hand of an enemy, then they are handed to them roughly. pharaoh handed love-tokens to them roughly; the king of babylon handed these love-tokens to them roughly. they bring them of malice; god sends them of love. they bring them and give them to us, hoping they will be our death; they give them therefore with many a foul curse; but god blesses them still. nor is this cup so bitter but that our lord himself drank deep of it, before it was handed to his church. he did, as loving mothers do, drink thereof himself, to show us it is not poison, also to encourage us to drink it for his sake, and for our endless health. therefore the cup is called christ's cup: "are ye able to drink of the cup that i drink of? ye shall indeed drink of my cup." here you see they are joined in a communion in this cup of affliction. but these are not all the cups that belong to the church in the wilderness. there is also a cup, out of which, at times, is drunk what is exceeding sweet. it is called the cup of consolation, the cup of salvation; a cup in which god himself is, as david said, "the lord is the portion of my cup." this cup, they that are in the church in the wilderness have usually for an after-draught to that bitter one that went before. thus, as tender mothers give their children plums or sugar to sweeten their palate after they have drunk a bitter potion, so god gives his children the cups of salvation and consolation after they have suffered awhile: "for as the sufferings of christ abound in us, so our consolation aboundeth by christ." some of these cups are filled until they run over; as david said his did, when the valley of the shadow of death was before him: "thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over." this is that which the apostle calls "exceeding"--that which is beyond measure. "i am," says he, "filled with comfort; i am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation." now he has one answering the other: "thou hast made summer and winter; thou hast made the warm beams of thy sun answerable to the cold of the dark night." this may yet be signified by the building of this house, this type of the church in the wilderness, in so pleasant a place as the forest of lebanon was. lebanon! lebanon was one of the sweetest places in all the land of canaan. therefore we read of the fruit of lebanon, of the streams from lebanon; the scent, the smell, the glory of lebanon; and also of the wine and flowers of lebanon. lebanon! that was one thing that wrought with moses to desire that he might go over jordan, that he might see that goodly mountain, and lebanon. the glory and excellent beauty of the church christ also setteth forth by comparing her to lebanon: "thy lips, o my spouse, drop as a honeycomb; honey and milk are under thy tongue, and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of lebanon." i know there are extravagant opinions in the world about the kingdom of christ, as if it consisted in temporal glory in part; and as if he would take it to him by carnal weapons, and so maintain it in its greatness and grandeur. but i confess myself an alien to these notions, and believe and profess quite the contrary, and look for the coming of christ to judgment personally; and betwixt this and that, for his coming in spirit and in the power of his word; to destroy antichrist, to inform kings, and so to give quietness to his church on earth: which shall assuredly be accomplished when the reign of the beast, the false prophet, and the man of sin is out. let this teach men not to think that the church is cursed of god, because she is put in a wilderness state. alas, that is but to train her up in a way of solitariness, to make her canaan the more welcome to her. rest is sweet to a laboring man. yea, this condition is the first step to heaven; yea, it is a preparation to that kingdom. god's ways are not as man's: "i have chosen thee," saith he, "in the furnace of affliction." when israel came out of egypt, they were led of god into the wilderness. but why? that he might have them to a land that he had espied for them, that he might bring them to a city of habitation. the world know not the way of the lord, nor the judgment of our god. do you think that saints that dwell in the world, and that have more of the mind of god than the world, could so rejoice in god, in the cross, in tribulations and distresses, were they not assured that through many tribulations is the very road to heaven? let this then encourage the saints to hope, and to rejoice in hope of the glory of god, notwithstanding present tribulations. this is our seed-time, our winter: afflictions are to try us of what mettle we are made; yea, and to shake off worm-eaten fruit, and such as are rotten a core. troubles for christ's sake are but like the prick of an awl in the tip of the ear, in order to hang a jewel there. let this also put the saints upon patience. when we know that a trial will have an end, we are encouraged to exercise patience. i have a bad master, but i have only a year to serve under him, and that makes me serve him with patience. i have but a mile to go in this dirty way, and then i shall have my path pleasant and green, and this makes me tread the dirty way with patience. i am now in my rags; but by that a quarter of a year is come and gone, two hundred [footnote: that is, pounds: a large income in the england bunyan's day.] a year comes into my hand; wherefore i will wait and exercise patience. thus might i multiply comparisons. be patient, then, my brethren. but how long? "to the coming of the lord." but when will that be? "the coming of the lord draweth nigh." how unseen the strength of the church under persecution is of all that are without her. alas, they think that she will be run down with a push; or, as they said, "what do these feeble jews? will they fortify themselves? will they sacrifice? will they make an end in a day? will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish which are burnt? alas, if a fox go up, he will even break down their stone wall." but do you think these men saw the strength of the jews? no, no; their pillars were within, and so were shadowed from their eyes. david himself could not tell what judgment to make of the way of the world against the people of god, until he went into the sanctuary of god. how then can the world judge of the condition of the saints? alas, had they known the church's strength, surely they would not have so furiously assaulted her. but what have they got by all they have done, either, against the head or body of the church? she has yet being in the world, and will have, shall have, though all the nations on earth should gather themselves together against her. nor is it the cutting off of many that will make her cease to flourish. alas, were she not sometimes pruned and trimmed, her boughs would stand too thick. those therefore that are taken away with god's pruning-hooks, are removed that the under branches may grow the better. no man needs be afraid to let jesus christ be chief in the world: he envies nobody; he designs the hurt of none: his kingdom is not of this world, nor doth he covet temporal matters: let but his wife, his church, alone, to enjoy her purchased privileges, and all shall be well; which privileges of hers, since they are soul-concerns, make no infringement upon any man's liberties. let but faith and holiness walk the streets without control, and you may be as happy as the world can make you. i speak now to them that contend with him. but if seasonable counsel will not go down, if hardness of heart and blindness of mind and so perishing from the way shall overtake you, it is but what you of old have been cautioned of: "be wise now, therefore, o ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. serve the lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little. blessed are all they that put their trust in him." the very name of jesus is the very tower of the christian church, and that by which she frights the world, not designedly, but through their misunderstanding; for neither she nor her jesus is for doing them any hurt. however, this is that which renders her yet, in their eye, terrible as an army with banners. always when antichrist made his inroads upon the church in the wilderness, to slay, to cut off, and to kill, yet some of the pillars stood; they were not all burnt in the fire, nor cut down. they said indeed, "come, let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of israel may be no more in remembrance." but what then? there is a difference betwixt saying and doing; the bush was not therefore consumed because it was set on fire; the church shall not be consumed, although she be afflicted. and the reason is, because god has his reserve: therefore if abel falls by the hand of cain, seth is put in his place; if moses is taken away, joshua shall succeed him; and if the devil break the neck of judas, matthias is at hand to take his office. god has a succession of pillars in his house; he has to himself a reserve. they therefore brought out faithful, to do with him according to their law; and first they scourged him, then they buffeted him, then they lanced his flesh with knives; after they had stoned him with stones, they pricked him with their swords; and last of all, they burned him to ashes at the stake. thus came faithful to his end. now i saw in my dream that christian went not forth alone, for there was one whose name was hopeful--being so made by the beholding of christian and faithful in their words and behavior in their sufferings at the fair--who joined himself unto him; and entering into a brotherly covenant, told him that he would be his companion. thus one died to bear testimony to the truth, and another rises out of his ashes, to be a companion with christian in his pilgrimage. "and she bare a son, and called his name seth; for god, saith she, hath appointed me another seed instead of abel, whom cain slew." gen. 4. when seth comes, then the ground is made good again; then a living saint is found to stand, and maintain that truth which but now his brother bled for. the future glory of the church. thy children shall all be holy or righteous, and "great shall be the peace of thy children; and the nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of it." surely the holy ghost would never have spoken such a word as this if he had not intended to show us that at the day of the setting up of this jerusalem, a great harvest of sinners shall be gathered by the grace of the gospel. but the truth is, the scriptures go with open arms towards the latter end of the world, even as if they would grasp and compass about almost all people then upon the face of the whole earth with the grace and mercy of god: "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the lord, as the waters cover the sea." never was fair weather after foul, nor warm weather after cold, nor a sweet and beautiful spring after a heavy and nipping and terrible winter, so comfortable, sweet, and desirable and welcome to the poor birds and beasts of the field, as this day will be to the church of god. darkness! it was the plague of egypt; it is an empty, forlorn, desolate, solitary, and discomforting state. wherefore light, even the illuminating grace of god, especially in the measure that it shall be communicated unto us at that day, it must needs be precious. in light there is warmth and pleasure. it is by the light of the sun that the whole universe appears unto us distinctly, and it is by the heat thereof that every thing groweth and flourisheth; all which will now be gloriously and spiritually answered in this holy and new jerusalem. o how clearly will all the spiders and dragons and owls and foul spirits of antichrist, at that day, be discovered by the light hereof. now also will all the pretty and little birds in the lord's field, most sweetly send forth their pleasant notes, and all the flowers and herbs in his garden spring. then will it be said to the church by her husband and saviour, "rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away; for lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone, the flowers appear on the earth, the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; the fig-tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vine with her tender grapes give a good smell." you know how pleasant this is, even to be fulfilled in the letter of it, not only to birds and beasts, but to men; especially it is pleasant to such men as have for several years been held in the chains of affliction. it must needs therefore be most pleasant and desirable to the afflicted church of christ, who hath lain now in the dungeon of antichrist for. above a thousand years. but, lord, how will this lady, when she gets her liberty and when she is returned to her own city, how will she then take pleasure in the warmth and spangling beams of thy shining grace, and solace herself with thee in the garden, among the nuts and pomegranates, among the lilies and flowers, and all the chief spices! "and in the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." this tree of life is the lord jesus christ; and that he is here called a tree, is to show how fruitful and exceeding advantageous he in all his benefits will be to the inhabitants of this city. this is the tree under whose branches the fowls of heaven shall now most safely lodge, and find relief from the hot and fainting beams of the persecuting sun of this world. in that he saith this city hath a tree of life in it, he alludes to the garden of eden, the pleasant paradise that god began the world withal; whereby he signifies, that as the world began with a paradise, so also it shall end with a paradise, when sin and satan have done their worst. this new jerusalem shall be the wind-up of the world; and in it shall stand the tree of life, as there stood one in the goodly garden which was the beginning thereof. now this tree of life being in the midst of this city, it signifies that the inhabitants of it shall be sweetly shadowed, refreshed, and defended with its coolness, and also sweetly nourished and comforted with its dainties. "as the apple-tree is among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. i sat under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste." indeed the shadow of this tree of life, as always it is refreshing to the tempted and weary, so now it will be far more: "they that dwell under his shadow shall return; they shall revive as the corn and grow as the vine, and the scent thereof shall be as the wine of lebanon." his shadow will make us return, that is, to our first love--to the days of our youth, to our young, fresh, tender, and flourishing faith, love, and self-denial, that we received in the day of our espousals. o they will be green, savory, reviving, flourishing, growing christians that shall walk the streets of the new jerusalem. now there shall be a oneness of judgment and understanding in the hearts of all saints; they shall be now no more two, but one in the lord's hand. alas, the saints are yet but as an army routed, and are apt sometimes through fear, and sometimes through forgetfulness, to mistake the word of their captain-general the son of god, and are also too, too prone to shoot and kill even their very right-hand man. but at that day all such doing shall be laid aside, for the knowledge of the glory of the lord shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea: which knowledge shall then strike through the heart and liver of all swerving and unsound opinions in christ's matters; for then shall every one of the christians call upon the name of the lord, and that with one pure lip, or language, to serve him with one consent. xxii. the ministry. importance of the ministry. the church itself, without its watchmen, is a weak, feeble, and very helpless thing. what can the lady or mistress do to defend herself against thieves and sturdy villains, if there be none but she at home? it is said, when the shepherd is smitten, the sheep will be scattered. what could the temple do without its watchmen? 1 chron. 9:24. then let the churches love their pastors, hear their pastors, be ruled by their pastors, and suffer themselves to be watched over, and to be exhorted, counselled, and if need be, reproved and rebuked by their pastors. and let the ministers not sleep, but be watchful, and look to the ordinances, to the souls of the saints, and the gates of the church. watch, man; watch, man; watch! duty of churches to the ministry. o churches, let your ministers be beautified with your love; that they may beautify you with their love, and also be an ornament unto you, and to that gospel they minister to you, for jesus christ's sake. different classes of ministers. is the soul such an excellent thing, and is the loss thereof so unspeakably great? then this should teach the people to be very careful to whom they commit the teaching and guidance of their souls. this is a business of the greatest concern: men will be careful to whom they commit their children, whom they make the executors of their wills, in whose hand they trust the writing and evidences of their lands; but how much more careful should we be, unto whom we commit the teaching and guidance of our souls. and yet most men are in these matters least of all careful. there are idol shepherds. zech. 11:7. there are foolish shepherds. zech. 11:15. there are shepherds that feed themselves, and not their flocks. ezek. 34:2. there are hard-hearted and pitiless shepherds. zech. 11:3. there are shepherds that instead of healing, smite, push, and wound the diseased. ezek. 34:4, 21. there are shepherds that cause their flocks to go astray. jer. 50:6. and there are shepherds that feed their flocks: these are the shepherds to whom thou shouldst commit thy soul for teaching and for guidance. then said the interpreter, "come in; i will show thee that which will be profitable to thee." so he commanded his man to light a candle, and bade christian follow him. so he had him into a private room, and bid his man open a door: the which when he had done, christian saw the picture of a very grave person hang up against the wall; and this was the fashion of it: it had eyes lifted up to heaven, the best of books in its hand, the law of truth was written upon its lips, the world was behind its back; it stood as if it pleaded with men, and a crown of gold did hang over its head. then said christian, "what meaneth this?" interpreter. "the man whose picture this is, is one of a thousand; he can beget children, 1 cor. 4:15, travail in birth with children, gal. 4:19, and nurse them himself when they are born. and whereas thou seest him with his eyes lifted up to heaven, the best of books in his hand, and the law of truth written on his lips; it is to show thee that his work is to know and to unfold dark things to sinners; even as also thou seest him stand as if he pleaded with men. and whereas thou seest the world as cast behind him, and that a crown hangs over his head; that is to show thee that, slighting and despising the things that are present for the love that he hath to his master's service, he is sure, in the world that comes next, to have glory for his reward. "now," said the interpreter, "i have showed thee this picture first, because the man whose picture this is, is the only man whom the lord of the place whither thou art going hath authorized to be thy guide in all difficult places thou mayest meet with in the way; wherefore, take good heed to what i have showed thee, and bear well in thy mind what thou hast seen, lest in thy journey thau meet with some that pretend to lead thee right, but their way goes down to death." duty of ministers. would jesus christ have mercy offered in the first place to the biggest sinners? then let god's ministers tell them so. there is a tendency in us, i know not how it doth come about, when we are converted to contemn them that are left behind. poor fools as we are, we forget that we ourselves were so. but would it not become us better, since we have tasted that the lord is gracious, so to act towards them that we may give them convincing ground to believe that we have found that mercy which also sets open the door for them to come and partake with us? austerity doth not become us, neither in doctrine nor in conversation. we ourselves live by grace; let us give as we receive, and labor to persuade our fellow-sinners whom god has left behind us, to follow after, that they may partake with us of grace. we are saved by grace, let us live like them that are gracious. let all our things to the world be done in charity towards them; pity them, pray for them, be familiar with them for their good. let us lay aside our foolish, worldly, carnal grandeur; let us not walk the streets, and have such behaviors as signify we are scarce for touching the poor ones that are left behind, no, not with a pair of tongs. remember your lord; he was familiar with publicans and sinners to a proverb. "behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber; a friend of publicans and sinners." matt. 11:19. the first part, concerning his gluttonous eating and drinking, to be sure, was a horrible slander; but for the other, nothing was ever spoken truer of him by the world. now why should we lay hands cross on this text; that is, choose good victuals and love the sweet wine better than the salvation of the poor publican? why not be familiar with sinners, provided we hate their spots and blemishes, and seek that they may be healed of them? why not be fellowly with our carnal neighbors, if we take occasion to do so that we may drop and be distilling some good doctrine upon their souls? why not go to the poor man's house, and give him a penny and a scripture to think upon? ministers warned. "there were giants in the earth in those days." these words seem to be spoken to show us the hazards that noah run while he preached the truth of god; he incurred the displeasure of the giants, who doubtless made all men tremble and kept the whole world in awe. but noah must engage the giants, he must not fear the face of a giant. this way god also took with moses and with his people of israel. they must go to possess the land of the giants, a people high and tall as the cedars, a people of whom went the proverb, "who can stand before the children of anak?" they must not be afraid of og the king of bashan, though his head be as high as the ridge of a house, and his bedstead a bedstead of iron. this should teach us not to fear the faces of men; no, not the faces of the mighty; not to fear them in the matters of god, though they should run upon us like a giant. persecution, or the appearance of the giants against the servants of god, is no new business; not a thing of yesterday, but of old, even when noah did minister for god in the world. "and noah began to be a husbandman." this trade he took up for want of better employment; or rather, in mine opinion, from some liberty he took to himself to be remiss in his care and work as a preacher. for seeing the church was now at rest, and having the world before them, they still retaining outward sobriety, poor noah, good man, now might think with himself, "i need not now be so diligent, watchful, and painful in my ministry as formerly; the church is but small, without opposition and also well settled in the truth; i may now take to myself a little time to tamper with worldly things." so he makes an essay upon husbandry: "he began to be a husbandman." ha, noah, it was better with thee when thou wast better employed; yea, it was better with thee when a world of ungodly men set themselves against thee--yea, when every day thy life was in danger to be destroyed by the giants, against whom thou wast preacher above a hundred years--for then thou didst walk with god: then thou wast better than all the world; but now thou art in the relapse. ministers, servants of the church. gifts and office make no men sons of god; as so, they are but servants; though these, as ministers and apostles, were servants of the highest form. it is the church, as such, that is the lady, a queen, the bride, the lamb's wife; and prophets, apostles, and ministers are but servants, stewards, laborers for her good. as therefore the lady is above the servant, the queen above the steward, or the wife above all her husband's officers, so is the church, as such, above these officers. gifts and grace in ministers. a tinkling cymbal, 1 cor. 13:1, 2, is an instrument of music with which a skilful player can make such melodious and heart-inflaming music, that all who hear him play can scarcely hold from dancing; and yet behold, the cymbal hath not life, neither comes the music from it, but because of the art of him that plays therewith; so then the instrument at last may come to naught and perish,--though in times past such music hath been made upon it. just thus i saw it was and will be with them that have gifts, but want saving grace: they are in the hand of christ, as the cymbal in the hand of david; and as david could with the cymbal make that mirth in the service of god as to elevate the hearts of the worshippers, christ can so use these gifted men, as with them to affect the souls of his people in his church; and yet when he hath done all, hang them by, as lifeless, though sounding cymbals. a man may be used as a servant in the church of god, and may receive many gifts and much knowledge of the things of heaven, and yet at last, himself be no more than a very bubble and nothing. this our day doth indeed abound with gifts; many sparkling wits are seen in every corner; men have the word and truths of christ at their fingers' ends. but alas, with many, yea a great many, there is naught but wits and gifts: they are but words; all their religion lieth in their tongues and heads; the power of what they say and know is seen in others, not in themselves. these are like the lord on whom the king of israel leaned; they shall see the plenty, the blessed plenty that god doth provide and will bestow upon his church, but they shall not taste thereof. alas, great light, great parts, great works, and great confidence of heaven, may be where there is no faith of god's elect, no love of the spirit, no repentance unto salvation, no sanctification of the spirit, and so, consequently, no saving grace. the false minister. so christian and hopeful went on, and ignorance followed. they went then till they came to a place where they saw a way put itself into their way, and seemed withal to lie as straight as the way which they should go; and here they knew not which of the two to take, for both seemed straight before them; therefore, here they stood still to consider. and as they wore thinking about the way, behold, a man black of flesh, but covered with a very light robe, came to them, and asked them why they stood there. they answered, that they were going to the celestial city, but knew not which of these ways to take. "follow me," said the man; "it is thither that i am going." so they followed him in the way that but now came into the road, which by degrees turned, and turned them so far from the city that they desired to go to, that in a little time their faces were turned away from it; yet they followed him. but by and by, before they were aware, he led them both within the compass of a net, in which they were both so entangled that they knew not what to do; and with that the white robe fell off from the black man's back: then they saw where they were. wherefore, there they lay crying some time, for they could not get themselves out. then said christian to his fellow, "now do i see myself in an error. did not the shepherds bid us beware of the flatterer?" thus they lay bewailing themselves in the net. at last they spied a shining one coming towards them with a whip of small cords in his hand. when he was come to the place where they were, he asked them whence they came, and what they did there. they told him that they were poor pilgrims going to zion, but were led out of their way by a black man clothed in white, who bid us, said they, follow him, for he was going thither too. then said he with the whip, "it is flatterer, a false apostle that hath transformed himself into an angel of light." so he rent the net, and let the men out. then said he to them, "follow me, that i may set you in your way again." so he led them back to the way which they had left to follow the flatterer. then he asked them, saying, "where did you lie the last night?" they said, "with the shepherds upon the delectable mountains." he asked them then, if they had not a note of direction for the way. they answered, "yes." "but did you not," said he, "when you were at a stand, pluck out and read your note?" they answered, "no." he asked them, "why?" they said they forgot. he asked, moreover, if the shepherds did not bid them beware of the flatterer. they answered, "yes; but we did not imagine," said they," that this fine-spoken man had been he." rom. 16:17, 18. then i saw in my dream that he commanded them to lie down, deut. 29:2; which when they did, he chastised them sore, to teach them the good way wherein they should walk, 2 chron. 6:26, 27; and as he chastised them he said, "as many as i love, i rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore and repent." this done, he bid them go on their way, and take heed to the other directions of the shepherds. so they thanked him for his kindness, and went softly along the right way, singing. another reason why delusions do so easily take place in the hearts of the ignorant, is because those that pretend to be their teachers do behave themselves so basely among them. and indeed i may say of these, as our lord said of the pharisees in another case, all the blood of the ignorant, from the beginning of the world, shall be laid to the charge of this generation. they that pretend they are sent of the lord, and come saying, thus saith the lord; we are the servants of the lord; our commission is from the lord--i say, those who pretend themselves to be the preachers of truth, but are not, do by their loose conversation render the true doctrine of god and his son jesus christ contemptible, and do give the adversary mighty encouragement to cry out against the truths of our lord jesus christ, because of their wicked walking. now "shall not his soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" who pretend to be teachers of the people in goodness, when, as for the most part of them, they are the men that at this day do harden their hearers in their sins, by giving them such ill examples that none goeth beyond them for impiety? as for example, would a parishioner learn to be proud? he or she need look no further than to the priest, his wife, and family; for there is a notable pattern before them. would the people learn to be wanton? they may also see a pattern among their teachers. would they learn to be drunkards? they may also have that from some of their ministers; for indeed they are ministers in this, to minister ill examples to their congregations. again, would the people learn to be covetous? they need but look to their ministers, and they shall have a lively, or rather a deadly, resemblance set before them, in both riding and running after great benefices and parsonages, by night and by day; nay, they among themselves will scramble for the same. i have seen, that so soon as a man hath but departed from his benefice as he calls it, either by death or out of covetousness of a bigger, we have had one priest from this town, and another from that, so run for these tithe-cocks and handfuls of barley, as if it were their proper trade and calling to hunt after the same. a covetous minister is a base thing; a pillar more symbolizing lot's wife, than a holy apostle of jesus christ. the unbelieving world slight the scriptures because carnal priests tickle the ears of their hearers with vain philosophy and deceit, and thereby harden their hearts against the simplicity of the gospel and word of god; which things the apostle admonished those that have a mind to close in with christ, to avoid, saying, "beware lest any man," be he what he will, "spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men and rudiments of the world, and not after christ." and you who muzzle up your people in ignorance, with aristotle, plato, and the rest of the heathenish philosophers, and preach little if any thing of christ rightly--i say unto you, that you will find you have sinned against god and beguiled your hearers, when god shall in the judgment-day lay the cause of the damnation of many thousands of souls to your charge, and say, "i will require their blood at your hands." the minister at the day of judgment. some men, it is to be feared, at the day of judgment, will be found to be the authors of destroying whole nations. how many souls, do you think, balaam with his deceit will have to answer for? how many mahomet? how many the pharisees that hired the soldiers to say the disciples stole away jesus, and by that means stumbled their brethren to this day? how many poor souls hath bonner to answer for, think you; and several filthy, blind priests? how many souls have they been the means of destroying by their ignorance and corrupt doctrine? preaching that which was no better for their souls than ratsbane to the body, for filthy lucre's sake. they shall see that they, many of them it is to be feared, will have whole towns to answer for, whole cities to answer for. ah, friend, i tell thee, thou that hast taken in hand to preach to the people, it may be thou hast taken in hand thou canst not tell what. will it not grieve thee to see thy whole parish come bellowing after thee to hell, crying out, this we may thank thee for; thou didst not teach us the truth; thou didst lead us away with fables; thou wast afraid to tell us of our sins, lest we should not put meat fast enough into thy mouth. o cursed wretch, that ever thou shouldst beguile us thus, deceive us thus, flatter us thus. we would have gone out to hear the word abroad, but that thou didst reprove us, and also tell us that that which we see now is the way of god was heresy and a deceivable doctrine, and wast not contented, blind guide as thou wert, to fall into the ditch thyself, but hast also led us thither with thee. i say, look to thyself, lest thou cry out when it is too late, send lazarus to my people, my friends, my children, my congregation to whom i preached, and whom i beguiled through my folly. send him to the town in which i did preach last, lest i be the cause of their damnation. bunyan's ministry. in my preaching of the word, i took special notice of this one thing, namely, that the lord did lead me to begin where his word begins with sinners; that is, to condemn all flesh, and to open and allege that the curse of god by the law doth belong to, and lay hold on all men as they come into the world, because of sin. now this part of my work i fulfilled with great feeling; for the terrors of the law, and guilt for my transgressions, lay heavy on my conscience: i preached what i felt, what i smartingly did feel; even that under which my poor soul did groan and tremble to astonishment. indeed, i have been as one sent to them from the dead; i went myself in chains, to preach to them in chains; and carried that fire in my own conscience, that i persuaded them to be aware of. i can truly say, and that without dissembling, that when i have been to preach, i have gone full of guilt and terror even to the pulpit-door, and there it hath been taken off, and i have been at liberty in my mind until i have done my work; and then immediately, even before i could get down the pulpit-stairs, i have been as bad as i was before; yet god carried me on, but surely with a strong hand, for neither guilt nor hell could take me off my work. thus i went on for the space of two years, crying out against men's sins, and their fearful state because of them. after which the lord came in upon my soul with some sure peace and comfort through christ; for he did give me many sweet discoveries of his blessed grace through him: wherefore now i altered my preaching--for still i preached what i saw and felt. now, therefore, i did much labor to hold forth jesus christ in all his offices, relations, and benefits unto the world; and did strive also to discover, to condemn, and remove those false supports and props on which the world doth both lean and by them fall and perish. on these things also i staid as long as on the other. when i have been preaching, i thank god, my heart hath often all the time of this and the other exercise, with great earnestness cried to god that he would make the word effectual to the salvation of the soul; still being grieved lest the enemy should take the word away from the conscience, and so it should become unfruitful: wherefore i have labored so to speak the word, as that thereby, if it were possible, the sin and person guilty might be particularized by it. and when i have done the exercise, it hath gone to my heart to think the word should now fall as rain on stony places; still wishing from my heart, oh, that they who have heard me speak this day did but see as i do, what sin, death, hell, and the curse of god are; and also what the grace, and love, and mercy of god are, through christ; to men in such a case as they are who are yet estranged from him. and indeed, i did often say in my heart before the lord, that if i should be hanged up presently before their eyes, and it would be a means to awaken them and confirm them in the truth, i gladly should be contented. for i have been in my preaching, especially when i have been engaged in the doctrine of life by christ without works, as if an angel of god had stood at my back to encourage me. oh, it hath been with such power and heavenly evidence upon my own soul, while i have been laboring to unfold it, to demonstrate it, and to fasten it upon the consciences of others, that i could not be contented with saying, i believe, and am sure. methought i was more than sure--if it be lawful thus to express myself--that those things which then i asserted were true. if any of those who were awakened by my ministry did after that fall back--as sometimes too many did--i can truly say, their loss hath been more to me than if my own children, begotten of my body, had been going to their grave. i think verily i may speak it without any offence to the lord, nothing has gone so near me as that; unless it was the fear of the loss of the salvation of my own soul. i have counted as if i had goodly buildings and lordships in those places where my children were born: my heart hath been so wrapped up in the glory of this excellent work, that i counted myself more blessed and honored of god by this, than if he had made me emperor of the christian world or the lord of all the glory of the earth without it. oh these words: "he that converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death." "the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise." "they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever." "for what is our hope, our joy, our crown of rejoicing? are not even ye in the presence of our lord jesus christ at his coming? for ye are our glory and joy." these, i say, with many others of a like nature, have been great refreshments to me. i have observed that a word cast in by the by, hath done more execution in a sermon, than all that was spoken besides: sometimes also, when i have thought i did no good, then i did the most of all; and at other times, when i thought i could catch them, i have fished for nothing. bunyan's character and principles for my descent, it was, as is well known by many, of a low and inconsiderable generation; my father's house being of that rank that is meanest and most despised of all the families of the land. wherefore i have not, as others, to boast of noble blood and of any high-born estate according to the flesh; though all things considered, i magnify the heavenly majesty for that by this door he brought me into the world, to partake of the grace and life that is in christ by the gospel. what need you, before you have showed one syllable of a reasonable argument in opposition to what i assert, thus trample my person, my gifts, and grace--have i any--so disdainfully under your feet, because of my low descent among men; stigmatizing me for a person of that rank that need not to be heeded. and what, is my rank so mean that the most gracious and godly among you may not duly and soberly consider what i have said? was it not the act of the false apostles to say thus--to bespatter a man that his doctrine might be disregarded? "is not this the carpenter?" and, "his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible," did not use to be in the mouths of the saints; for they knew the wind blew where it listed. neither is it high birth, worldly breeding, or wealth; but electing love, grace, and the wisdom that comes from heaven, that those who strive for strictness of order in. the things and kingdom of christ, should have in regard and esteem. need i read you a lecture? hath not god chosen the foolish, the weak, the base, yea and even things that are not to bring to naught things that are? why then do you despise my rank, my state, and quality in the world? since you would know by what name i would be distinguished from others, i tell you, i would be, and i hope i am, a christian; and choose, if god should count me worthy, to be called a christian, a believer, or other such name which is approved by the holy ghost. your artificial, squibbling suggestions to the world about myself, my imprisonment, and the like, i freely bind unto me as an ornament among the rest of my reproaches, till the lord shall wipe them off at his coming. faith and holiness are my professed principles, with an endeavor, so far as in me lieth, to be at peace with all men. what shall i say? let mine enemies themselves be judges, if any thing in these following doctrines, or if aught that any man hath heard me preach, doth or hath, according to the true intent of my words, savored either of heresy or rebellion. i say again, let them themselves be judges, if aught they find in my writing or preaching doth render me worthy of almost twelve years' imprisonment, or one that deserveth to be hanged or banished for ever, according to their tremendous sentence. indeed my principles are such as lead me to a denial to communicate in the things of the kingdom of christ with the ungodly and open profane; neither can i consent that my soul should be governed in any of my approaches to god by the superstitious inventions of this world, because commanded to the contrary, or commended for so refusing. wherefore, excepting in this one thing--for which i ought not to be rebuked--i shall, i trust, in despite of slandor and falsehood, discover myself at all times a peaceable anl obedient subject. but if nothing will do, unless i make my conscience a continual butchery or slaughter-shop--unless, putting out mine own eyes, i commit myself to the blind to lead me, as i doubt not is desired by some--i have determined, the almighty god being my help and shield, yet to suffer, if frail life might continue so long, even till the moss shall grow on mine eyebrows, rather than thus to violate my faith and principles. to the reader. i marvel not that both yourself and others do think my long imprisonment strange--or rather strangely of me for the sake of that--for verily i should also have done it myself, had not the holy ghost long since forbidden me. 1 pet. 4: 12; 1 john, 3: 13. nay, verily, notwithstanding that, had the adversary but fastened the supposition of guilt upon me, my long trials might by this time have put it beyond dispute; for i have not hitherto been so sordid, as to stand to a doctrine right or wrong; much less, when so weighty an argument as above eleven years' imprisonment is continually dogging of me to weigh and pause and weigh again the grounds and foundation of those principles for which i thus have suffered. but having not only at my trial asserted them, but also since--even all this tedious tract of time, in cool blood, a thousand times--by the word of god examined them, and found them good, i cannot, i dare not now revolt or deny the same, on pain of eternal damnation. xxiii. antichrist. antichrist described. antichrist is the adversary of christ; an adversary really, a friend pretendedly. so then antichrist is one that is against christ; one that is for christ, and one that is contrary to him; and this is that "mystery of iniquity." against him in deed; for him in word, and contrary to him in practice: antichrist is so proud as to go before christ, so humble as to pretend to come after him, and so audacious as to say that himself is he. antichrist will cry up christ; antichrist will cry down christ; antichrist will proclaim that himself is one above christ. antichrist is the "man of sin," the "son of perdition;" a beast that hath two horns like a lamb, but speaks as a dragon. christ is the son of god; antichrist is the son of hell. christ is holy, meek, and forbearing; antichrist is wicked, outrageous, and exacting. christ seeketh the good of the soul; antichrist seeks his own avarice and revenge. christ is content to rule by his word; antichrist saith the word is not sufficient. christ preferreth his father's will above heaven and earth; antichrist preferreth himself and his traditions above all that is written, or that is called god or worshipped. christ has given us such laws and rules as are helpful and healthful to the soul; antichrist seeketh to abuse those rules to our hurt and destruction. the spirit or soul or life of antichrist is that spirit of error, "that wicked," that "mystery of iniquity," that under color and pretence of verity draws men from truth to falsehood. the body or flesh of antichrist is that church or synagogue of satan in which the spirit of antichrist dwells, or unto which the spirit of antichrist is become a soul and life. but god will destroy both soul and body. antichrist therefore is a mystical man, so made or begotten of the devil, and sent into the world, satan himself being the chief and highest part of him. three things therefore go to the making up of antichrist: the head, body, and soul. the devil, he is the head; the synagogue of satan, that is the body; that wicked spirit of iniquity, that is the soul of antichrist. christ then is the head of his church, the devil is the head of antichrist; the elect are the body of christ, the reprobate professors are the body of antichrist; the holy ghost is the spirit of life that acteth christ's body; that wicked spirit of iniquity is that which acteth the body of antichrist. thus therefore are the two great mighties set forth before us, who are the heads of those two bodies. rise and progress of antichrist. the reason why christ came into the world was, that he might destroy all the works of the head of antichrist, and them which he endeavors to complete by his wicked spirit working in his body. and the reason why antichrist came into the world was, that the church, which is the body of christ, might be tried and made white by suffering under his tyranny, and by bearing witness against his falsehoods. for, for the trial of the faithful and for the punishment of the world, antichrist was admitted to come. but when he came, he first appeared where one would have thought there had been no place nor corner for his reception. here therefore was his first appearance, even in the church of god. not that the church did willingly admit him there to sit as such; he had covered his cloven foot; he had plums in his dragon's mouth, and so came in by flatteries, promising to do for christ and his church that which he never meant to perform; for he showed himself that he was god, and in appearance set his heart to do as the heart of god. and who could have found in their heart to shut the door upon such a one? true, he came, when he came thither, out of the bottomless pit; but there came such a smoke out thence with him, and that smoke so darkened the light of the sun, of the moon, of the stars, and of the day, that had they been upon their watch, as they were not, they could not have perceived him from another man. besides, there came with him so many locusts to usher him into the house of god, and they so suited the flesh and reason of the godly of that day, that with good words and fair speeches, by their crafty and cunning sleights whereby they lay in wait to deceive, they quite got him in, and set him up and made him a great one, even the chief, before they were aware. further, he quickly got him a beast to ride on, far, for sumptuous glory, beyond--though as to nature as assish a creature as--that on which balaam was wont to ride; and by this exaltation he not only became more stately, but the horns of the beast would push for him. again, this man of sin, when he came into the world, had the art of metamorphosing, and could change himself, both in form and shape, into the likeness of a beast, a man, or woman. a lily among thorns, a pearl on a dunghill, and beauty under a veil, will make one turn aside to look on it. answerable to this, the church, even in the wilderness or under persecution, is compared not only to a woman, but to a comely and delicate woman. thus the church, though in her weeds of widowhood, is become the desire of the eyes of the nations; for indeed her features are such considering who is her head, where mostly to the eye beauty lies, that whoso sees but the utmost glimpse of her is easily ravished with her beauties. the church, the very name of the church of god is beautiful in the world; and as among women, she that has beauty has her head desired, if it might be, to stand upon another woman's shoulders; so this and that and every nation that beholds the beauty of the church, would fain be called by that name. the church, one would think, was but in a homely dress when she was coming out of captivity; and yet then the people of the countries desired to be one with her: "let us," said they to zerubbabel and to the fathers of the church, "build with you, for we seek your god as you do." the very name of the church is striven for of the world; but that is the church which christ has made so; her features also remain with herself. hear the relation that the holy ghost gives of the intrinsic beauty of the church when she was to go to be in a persecuted state: "she was clothed with the sun, had the moon under her feet, and had upon her head a crown of twelve stars." and yet now the dragon stood by. but i say, here is a woman! let any one who will attempt it show such another in the world if he can. they therefore that have any regard to morality, civility, or to ceremonial comeliness, covet to be of the church of god, or to appropriate that glorious title to themselves. and here indeed antichrist came in. she took this name to herself; and though she could not come at the sun, nor moon, nor stars, to adorn herself with them, yet she has found something that makes her comely in her followers' eyes. see how the holy ghost sets her forth: she was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand. hence she is called the well-favored harlot, the lady of kingdoms. but because the chaste matron, the spouse of christ, would not allow this harlot to run away with this name therefore she gets upon the back of her beast, and by him pushes this woman into the dirt; but because her faith and love to her husband remain, she turns again and pleads by her titles, her features, and ornaments, that she and she only is she whose square answereth to the characters which her lord had given of his own; and so the strife began. for so soon as this mistress became a dame in the world, and found that she had her stout abettors, she attempts to turn all things topsy-turvy, and to set them and to make of them what she lists. corruption of the church by antichrist. mischief must needs follow this ugly deed of the man of sin. if a house be on fire, though it is not burnt down, the smell of the flame may long remain there: also we count it no wonder to see some of the effects upon rafters, beams, and some of the principal posts thereof. the calf that was set up at dan defiled that people until the captivity of the land. for by antichristian darkness, though they might call it light, the true light was darkened, and so the eye made dim, even the eye of the truly godly. also the holy ghost did much withdraw himself from the church; so the doctrines, traditions, and rudiments of the world took more hold there, and spread themselves more formidably over the face of that whole church. and this being the effect of light against light at first, is the cause of what to this day we see in the church among the true brotherhood. for as a cause produceth an effect, so oftentimes an effect sets on foot another cause. witness the jars, the oppositions, the contentions, emulations, strifes, debates, whisperings, tumults, and condemnations, that like cannon-shot have so frequently on all sides been let fly against one another. the godly all hold the head; for there antichrist could never divide them. their divisions therefore are only about smaller things. i do not say that the antichristian darkness has done nothing in the church as to the hurting it in the great things of god. but i say, it has not been able to do that which could sever their head from them. otherwise, there appears even too much of its doings there. for even as to the offices of our lord, some will have his authority more large, some more strait; some confine his rules to themselves and to their more outward signification, and some believe they are extended further; some will have his power in the church purely spiritual, others again would have it mixed; some count his word perfect and sufficient to guide in all religious matters, others again hold that an addition of something human is necessary. this darkness could not sever the true church from her head; yet it has eclipsed the glory of things. by two lights a man cannot see this or that thing so exactly as by one single light; no, they both make all confused, though they make not all invisible. as for instance, sunlight and moonlight together, firelight and sunlight together, candlelight and moonlight together, make things more obscure than to look on them by a single light. the word reflecting upon the understanding without the interposing of man's traditions, makes the mind of god to a man more clear than when attended with the other. things therefore will never be well in the church of god so long as there is thus light against light therein. when there is but one lord among us, and his name one; and when divisions, by the consent of the whole, are banished--i mean, not persecuted, but abandoned in all by a joint consent, and when every man shall submit his own single opinion to those truths that by their being retained are for the health of all--then look for good days, and not till then. conflict between the church and antichrist. they that are the church do in god's light see light but they that are not, do in their own way see. and let a man and a beast look out at the same window, the same door, the same casement, yet the one will see like a man, and the other but like a beast. no marvel then if there is here a disagreement; the beast can but see as a beast, but the church is resolved not to be guided by the eye of a beast, though he pretends to have his light by that very window by which the church has hers. the beast is moon-eyed, and puts darkness for light, yea, and hates the light that is so indeed; but the saints will not hear him, for they know the voice of their lord. on both sides they are resolved to stand by their way: the church is confident, the man of sin is confident; they both have the same windows--that is, "the word"--to see by, and so they manage their matters; yet not so simply by the windows as by the diverse judgment they make of that which shineth in at them. each one therefore that hath the true or false profession will be confident of his own way: he that was right, knew he was right; and he that was wrong, thought he was right; and so the battle began: "there is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." nor is it in man to help it: there has been reasoning, there has been disputing, there has blood also been spilt on both sides, through the confidence that each had of the goodness of his own way: but no reconciliation is made; the enmity is set here of god; iron and clay cannot mix; god will have things go on thus in the world till his word shall be fulfilled; the deceived and the deceiver are his. things therefore must have their course in the church in the wilderness till the mystery of god shall be fulfilled. god will get to himself great glory by permitting the hoar, the man of sin and the dragon, to revel in the church of god; for they by setting up and contending for their darkness, and calling it the light, and by setting it against that light which is light in very deed, do not only prove the power of truth where it is, but illustrate it so much the more; for as black sets off white, and darkness light, so error sets off truth. he that calls a man a horse, doth but fix the belief of his humanity so much the more in the apprehension of all rational creatures. it is not therefore to be wondered at that we hear both parties plead so much for their authority, crying out against each other as those that destroy religion. so doth the church, so doth the man of sin. the living child is mine, saith one. nay, but the dead child is thine, and the living child is mine, says the other. and thus they spake before the king. the church will not give place, for she knows she has the truth; the dragon and his angels, they will not give place, but as beaten back by the power of truth. therefore there will, there must, there cannot but be a spiritual warfare here, and that until one of the two is destroyed, and its body given to the burning flame. fall of antichrist. antichrist had a time to come into the world, and so must he have a time to go out again. for although he saith that he is a god, yet he must he subject to the will of god, and must go as well as come according to that will. nor can all the fallen angels, with all the members and limbs of antichrist, cause this, that their brat should abide so much as one day longer than our god's prefixed time. the lord jesus shall consume him, and cause him to melt away; not all at once, but now this part and then that, now his soul and after that his body, even until soul and body are both destroyed. and that you may be convinced of the truth of this thing, do but look back and compare antichrist four or five hundred years ago, with antichrist as he is now, and you shall see what work the lord jesus has begun to make with him, even with the spirit and soul and life of antichrist, both in confounding and blasting it by the spirit of his mouth, as also by forcing it to dishonorable retreats, and by making it give up to him as the conqueror, not only some of his superstitious and diabolical rites and ceremonies to be destroyed, but many a goodly truth which this vile one had taken from his church, to be renewed to them. nay, further, he has also already begun to take from him both kingdoms and countries, though as to some not so absolutely as he shall do by and by. and how has this long ago been fulfilled here in england, as also in scotland, holland, germany, france, sweden, denmark, hungary, and other places. nor has this spirit of antichrist, with all his art and artifices, been able to reduce to antichrist again those people, nations, or parts of nations, that by the spirit of christ's mouth and the brightness of his coming have been made to forsake him, and to turn from him to christ. the reason is, that the lord has not retreated, but is still going on in the spirit of his mouth and in his brightness to make that conquest over him that is determined, in the way that is determined; for the pathway that he goeth is as the shining light which shines more and more unto noon. the first and chief proceeding of the lord with the man of sin is to slay his soul, that his body may also be consumed; and when the spirit of antichrist shall be made to leave both the body and ordinances of antichrist, it will be easy to deal both with the one and the other. and first, for the ordinances of antichrist, because the spirit of error is in them as well as in the body itself. when that spirit has left them, they will of themselves even moulder away and not be; as we have seen by experience here in england, and as others also have seen in other countries. for as concerning his masses, prayers for the dead, images, pilgrimages, monkish vows, sinful fasts, and the beastly single life of their priests, though when the spirit of antichrist was in them they did bear some sway in the world, yet now of what esteem are they, or who has reverence for them? they are now blown together under hedges as the dry leaves, for the mice and frogs to harbor in. by ordinances of antichrist, i do not intend things that only respect matters of worship in antichrist's kingdom, but those civil laws that impose and enforce them also, yea, enforce that worship with pains and penalties, as in the spanish inquisition. these are the very pillars and sinews by which antichristianism remains; and were these dispirited, the whole building would quickly become a ruinous heap. what could the king of babylon's golden image have done, had it not been for the burning fiery furnace that stood within view of the worshippers? yea, what could that horrible command to pray for thirty days to neither god nor man but to the king, have done, had it not been for the dark den and the roaring lions there in readiness to devour those that disobeyed it? as therefore the burning fiery furnace and the den of lions were the support of the horrible religion of the babylonians of old, so popish edicts are the support of the religion of antichrist now; and as long as there is spirit, that is, authority in them, they are like to those now mentioned. the spirit of such laws it is that makes them dreadful: for as the furnace would have been next to nothing if void of fire, and the den as little frightful if destitute of lions, so these laws will be as insignificant when christ has slain the spirit that is in them--that spirit which causes that as many as will not worship the image of the beast should be killed. manner of antichrist's destruction. antichrist shall be brought to ruin gradually; a part after a part: here a fenced city and there a high tower, even until she is made to lie even with the ground. as for the order of the angels that pour forth this wrath, they plainly show that this enemy must come down by degrees; for these vials are by them poured out one after another. now, since by these vials antichrist must fall, it is evident that this man of sin, this son of perdition, is to fall and die by degrees. he would not die at all, as is manifest by his wrestling with it; but it is an almighty god that judges, and therefore he must come down. his friends also, with what cordials they can, will labor to lengthen out his tranquillity; but god hath set his bounds, and he cannot go beyond the time appointed. we must also put a difference betwixt his being fought with and wounded, and that of his dying the death. michael and his angels have been holding him in play a long season, but yet he is not dead; but, as i said, he shall descend into battle and perish, and shall be found no more for ever. "and the cities of the nations fell," rev. 16:19; the cities of the nations, the antichristian churches, otherwise called the daughters of the mother of harlots. this is a second stroke that god will give this man of sin, and a third cometh quickly. wherefore it follows, upon the downfall of those cities of the nations, that great babylon came into remembrance before god, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. now then, strike at great babylon. great babylon! what is that? why, i take it to be the mother, the metropolitan, the great harlot herself. for though sometimes by great babylon we may understand the church of antichrist in general, yet by it is meant more properly the mother of the daughters, of whose overthrow we have spoken before. we are now, then, come to the threshold of the door of the house of the old one--to the door of the mother of harlots and abomination of the earth. this then that but now is said to come into remembrance with god, is that which gave being to the cities destroyed before, to wit, the ministers, the queen, the mother-church as she calls herself. and this is the wisdom of god concerning her, that she should not be the first that should die, but that she should live to see the destruction of her daughters, and pine away under the fright and sense of that, even until judgment also shall overtake herself. thus pharaoh and his chief ones did live to see the greatest part of egypt destroyed, before judgment overtook them; but at last it came to their doors also. zedekiah lived to see his children slain before his face, before judgment overtook him to his own personal destruction. babylon also, when god sent the cup of his fury unto her, yet was to live to see the nations drink before her. from all which i conclude that the mother, the metropolitan, the lady of kingdoms, shall live to see her daughters executed before her face; after which, she shall come into consideration herself, for she must assuredly drink of the cup. this destruction must be last for this reason also, because she most deserves the bottom of the cup. the bottom is the dregs, the most bitter part, and that where the most heat and fiercest wrath of god do lie. and great babylon came into remembrance before god: "to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." now then is the time of iniquity, when it will be come to the full; and now also is the time of god's anger, when it will be come to the full. now therefore must the murders and thefts and blasphemies and fornications belonging to this mother of harlots, be recompensed to the full, to wit, with the dregs of this cup. yet since the hailstones come by weight and the wrath comes by measure--for so a talent and a cup imports, rev. 16:17-21--it follows that the almighty god, even in the midst of the heat of all this anger, will keep to the rules of justice and judgment while he is dealing with this enemy: he has not passions to carry him beyond rules of judgment, nor weakness to cause him to fall short of doing justice; therefore he has his judgments for her by weight, and his indignation by measure. but yet this weight and measure are not suited to her constitution, not with an intent to purge or refine her; but it is disposed according to the measure and nature of her iniquity, and comes to sweep her as with the besom of destruction, until she is swept off from the face of all the earth. now since she is dying, let us ring her passing-bell; for when she is dead, we that live to see it intend to ring out. present state of antichrist. now i saw in my dream, that at the end of this valley lay blood, bones, ashes, and mangled bodies of men, even of pilgrims that had gone this way formerly; and while i was musing what should be the reason, i spied a little before me a cave, where two giants, pope and pagan, dwelt in old time; by whose power and tyranny the men whose bones, blood, and ashes lay there, were cruelly put to death. but by this place christian went without much danger, whereat i somewhat wondered; but i have learnt since, that pagan has been dead many a day; and, as for the other, though he be still alive, he is, by reason of age, and also of the many shrewd brushes that he met with in his younger days, grown so crazy and stiff in his joints, that he now can do little more than sit in his cave's mouth, grinning at pilgrims as they go by, and biting his nails because he cannot come at them. slaying of the witnesses. thus, as to sense and reason, all shall be hush, all shall be quiet and still, rev. 11:7-15: the followers of the lamb shall be down; the followers of the beast shall be up, shall cry, peace and safety, and be as secure as a hard heart, false peace, and a deceitful devil can make. them. but behold, while they thus sing in the window, death is striding over the threshold! while they are crying peace and safety, sudden destruction cometh. by that they have well settled themselves at their table with adonijah, 1 kings, 1, they shall hear it proclaimed with sound of trumpet, the witnesses are risen again. now the christians' pipes will go again, and surely the earth will be rent with the sound of their shouts and acclamations, while they cry with joyful sound, "the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our lord and of his christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." reasons for antichrist's destruction. antichrist must be destroyed, for that he has usurped the name and attributes of god upon himself. he hath said, i am god. for that antichrist has thus taken the place of god, prescribed and imposed a worship as a god, got the world to worship and wonder after him as after a god; therefore he shall die the death of the uncircumcised, both in the soul, spirit, body, or flesh of antichrist. therefore will god enlighten and gather and set the kings and nations against him, that both he and his may be buried, and have their dolesome withdrawing-rooms from the world in the sides of the pit's mouth. antichrist must be destroyed, because he hath set himself against the son of god; against the father, and against the son. he had a spite against the son betimes, even then when he came forth but in little things, when he attempted to deny that he was come in the flesh. but seeing he could make no earnings of that, he has changed his methods, and seeks to run him out and down by other means and ways. "because, therefore, he hath set himself against the son of god, the king, therefore he must die." that he hath also set himself against the son of god, is evident; for he has his name from thence: he is therefore called anti-christ. that he hath set himself against him, is yet further evident; for that he has endeavored to take from him his headship once, and his offices for and in the church, which is his body; and has called himself the head of the universal church of god. antichrist must he destroyed, because of his exceeding covetousness. religion, such as it is, is the thing pretended to; but the great things of this world are the things really intended by him in all his seeming self-denials and devotions. and for this covetousness also it is that this destruction is to fall upon him. woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, (to his church,) that he may set his nest on high: for he could not do the one before he had obtained the other. for then indeed they began to be high, when they had so inveigled constantine that he bestowed upon them much riches and honor; and then it was cried, by an angel, and the cry was heard in the city of constantinople, woe! woe! woe! this day is venom poured into the church of god. nor has any generation, since the world began, been so insatiably greedy of gain, as these poor people have been. they have got kingdoms, they have got crowns, they have got--what have they not got? they have got every thing but grace and pardon. did i say before that religion was their pretence? doth not the whole course of their way declare it to their face? every one of them, from the least even to the greatest, is given to covetousness; from the prophet even to the priest, every one dealeth falsely. money, money, [footnote: similar is the testimony of an eminent historian. "in every misapplication which the popes now (thirteenth century) made of their power, money was the object. every new operation which they performed, was one of extortion; and every new act of oppression was on their part, a financial speculation." planck. v. 574. says luther, in his address to the german nobility, speaking of the pope, "he is a shepherd: yes, so far as you have money, and no farther." the above passage from bunyan is altogether in the manner of luther when describing the rapacity and avarice of rome. hath removed them. and these seeds has antichrist sown where the kingdom of christ should stand.] as the pedlar cries, "broken or whole," is the sinews of their religion; and it is for that they set kingdoms, crowns, principalities, places, preferments, sacraments, pardons, prayers, indulgences, liberty, yea, and souls and bodies of men, women, and children, to sale; yea, it is for this that they have invented so many places, offices, names, titles, orders, vows, etc.: it is to get money, to rob countries, that they may make their nests on high. and indeed they have done it, to the amazement of all the world. they are clambered up above kings and princes and emperors; they wear the triple crown; they have made kings bow at their feet, and emperors stand barefoot at their gates; they have kicked the crowns of princes from their heads, and set them on again with their toes. thus their covetousness hath set them on high, even above the suns, moons, and stars of this world: but to what end? that they may be cast down to hell. antichrist must be destroyed, because he stands in the way of the setting up of the kingdom of christ in the world. many princes were in edom before there was a king in israel; and christ has suffered antichrist to set up before him; and he stands in christ's way, and has so overspread the world in all places with that which is directly contrary to him, that he cannot set up his kingdom until that which is antichrist's is tumbled down to the ground. even as a man whose ground is full of thorns and briars and weeds, cannot sow in expectation of a crop, until he hath removed them. and these seeds has antichrist sown where the kingdom of christ should stand. when god came from egypt with his people to set up his kingdom in canaan, he cast out the heathen before them, in order thereunto: "thou hast brought a vine out of egypt; thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it." wherefore antichrist must be removed and destroyed for this; for antichrist is in flat opposition to christ, as tibni was to omri; wherefore antichrist must die. the reason is, because christ's kingdom shall be peaceable, without molestation, and glorious without the fumes and fogs of antichristian darkness. because also, as the world has seen the manner of the reign of antichrist, and how tyrannical and outrageous a kingdom his is; so they shall see the reign of christ by his word and spirit in his people, how peaceable, how fruitful in blessedness and prosperity his kingdom is. and hence it is, that god purposes to bury antichrist before he sets glory in the land of the living; as also you read in the book of revelation, for there you find the kingdom of antichrist was destroyed before the new jerusalem was set up. when men intend to build a new house, if in the place where the old one stood, they first pull down the old one and raze the foundation, and then they begin their new. now god, as i said, will have his primitive church-state set up in this world, even where antichrist has set up; wherefore, in order to this, antichrist must be pulled down, stick and stone; and then they that live to see it, will behold the new jerusalem come down from heaven, as a bride adorned for her husband. time of antichrist's destruction. the time of her fall is not certainly known by the saints, nor at all believed by her; wherefore her plagues must come unlooked for by her. and as to the saints, their guesses as to the time of her ruin must needs be conjectural and uncertain. for her part, she shall say, and that when she stands where she must suddenly fall, "i shall be a lady for ever." nor have i been without thought but that this mistake of the godly may become a snare to antichrist, and a trap to her upholders. for what can be a greater judgment, or more effectually harden the hearts of the wicked, than for them to behold that the predictions, prophecies, expectations, and hopes of their enemies as to their ruin, should quite, as to the time, be frustrate and made void? it is to be bewailed, namely, the forwardness of some in this matter who have predicted concerning the time of the downfall of antichrist, to the shame of them and their brethren; nor will the wrong that such by their boldness have, done to the church of god be ever repaired by them nor their works. but the judgments of god are a great deep; and therefore who can tell, since the enemy of god would not be convinced by the power of truth and the virtuous lives of some, but that god might leave them to be snared, hardened, and emboldened to run upon their unavoidable destruction by the lies and lightness of others? they begin to vaunt it already, and to say, where is the word of the lord as to this? let it come now. but when agag said, "surely the bitterness of death is passed," then was the time for him to be hewn in pieces. i shall not therefore meddle with the times and seasons which the father has put in his own power--no, though they, as to antichrist's ruin, are revealed--because by the holy ghost there is a challenge made, notwithstanding the time is set, and by the word referred to the man of wisdom to find it out if he can. if sampson's riddle was so puzzling, what shall we think of this? and though the angel hath intimated that this sealed matter shall be opened towards the time of the end, yet it is evident some have either been too hasty, or presumed too much upon their own abilities; for i am sure they have missed the mark, hardened the heart of the enemy, stumbled the weak, and shamed them that love them. signs of antichrist's destruction. forbearance is no payment: god's patience is not a sign that he forgetteth to take vengeance, but rather that he waiteth till his own are come out of her, and until her iniquity is filled up; for then he will execute the judgment written, and will remember the babylonians and all their ways. must antichrist be destroyed? then this should make us glad when we see the signs of his fall presenting themselves to our view. indeed, the signs of his fall, or those that forerun it, are terrible and amazing to behold. but what of that, since the wrinkles that are in their faces threaten not us but them? a man is angry and will punish; yea, whets his sword and makes his rod; and he speaks not a word, but blood, blood is in it. indeed this should make them that are concerned in that anger afraid. but what terror is there in all this to those for the pleading of whose cause he is so angry with the other? nothing whereat the innocent should be afraid. cold blasts in november are not received with such gentleness as are colder in march and april; for that these last cold ones are but the farewell notes of a piercing winter; they also bring with them the signs and tokens of a jomfortable summer. why, the church is now at the rising of the year; let then the blasts at present or to come be what they will, antichrist is surely drawing towards his downfall. and though the devil, knowing what is to be done to him and to his kingdom, shall so blind his disciples and fright the godly, and do something like it upon the church of christ, yet we should look through these paper windows, and espy in all this that fear, yea, certain terrible judgments, are following him at the heels, by which not only the soul, spirit, and life of antichrist, but the body thereof--yea, body and soul and head--are quickly to go down thither, from whence they, as such, shall not arise again. amen. hope of antichrist's destruction. is antichrist to be destroyed? then let us live in the expectation of it; and let this be one of our songs in the house of our pilgrimage. god bids his people, while in babylon, to let jerusalem come into their mind; and writes to them that were then in her, to acquaint them that he remembered them still, and would assuredly deliver them from that place and state. and wherefore doth he thus, but to beget an expectation in them of their salvation and deliverance? the lord is so pleased with the faith and expectation of his people as to this, that they seldom are herein concerned as they should, but he steps in with them and warms their hearts. the reason is, because the faith of god's people as to the downfall of babylon, stands upon so sure a foundation as doth the salvation of their souls; and that next to that, god is as much delighted in what he has purposed to do against babylon, as in any thing else in the earth: and therefore, if you consider it well, the great and glorious promises that are to be fulfilled on earth, are to be fulfilled when antichrist is dead and buried. these dainties are too good even for his children to have, so long as this dog is by, lest he should snatch at the crumbs thereof; wherefore they are reserved until he is gone. jer. 19: 31, 32. effects of antichrist's destruction. it shall be done unto antichrist as he hath done to the church of god. as he hath made women childless, so shall he be made childless; as he has made zion sit upon the ground, so now must this wicked one come down to sit in the dust; yea, as he has made many churches desolations, so now shall he lie also made a desolation. wherefore, whoso will find his body, must look for it in the side of the pit's mouth; and whoso will find his friends and companions, must look for them there likewise. now then babylon is gone down, when all these things shall be fulfilled. and what remains now but to talk of her as folk use to do of them that are dead; for the day will come, that the church of god shall have no more of antichrist, babylon, or the mother of harlots, than only the remembrance of her; that there was such an enemy of god in the world; that there was such a superstitious, idolatrous, bloody people in the world. wherefore, the people, that shall be born, that shall live to serve god in these happy days, shall see antichrist only in its ruins; they shall, like the sparrows, the little robins, and the wren, sit and sing, and chirp one to another, while their eyes behold this dead hawk. here, shall they say, did once the lion dwell; and there once a dragon inhabited: here did they live that were the murderers of the saints; and there another that did use to set his throat against the heavens: but now in the places where these ravenous creatures lay, grows grass, with reeds and rushes; now their habitation is cursed; nettles grow, and so do thorns and brambles, where their palaces were wont to be. a day is coming when antichrist shall be unknown; not seen nor felt by the church of god. there are men to be born who shall not know antichrist, but as they read in the word that such a thing has been. these shall talk of her as israel's children's children were to talk of pharaoh--of his cruelty, of his tasks, of his pride, of the red sea, and how he was drowned there. they shall talk of them as of those that have been long dead; as of those who, for their horrible wickedness, are laid in the pit's mouth. this will be some of that sweet chat that the saints shall at their spare hours have, in time to come. there will he a strange alteration when antichrist is dead; and that both in the church and in the world. the church and the members of it then shall wear the name of their god in their foreheads; that is, they shall be bold in the profession of their king and god, yea, it shall be their glory to be godly, and carnal men shall praise them for it; the praise of the whole earth shall the church of god be in those days. now the world shall return and discern, between the righteous and the wicked; yea, they shall cleave to and countenance the people of god, being persuaded, as laban was of jacob, that the lord will bless them for his people's sake. now will he broken up those prophecies and promises that to this day lie as under lock and key, and that cannot be opened until they be fulfilled. now the church of god shall read with great plainness the depths of providence, and the turnings and windings of all god's dark and intricate dispensations, through which she hath waded in the cloudy and dark day: now, i say, they shall see there was a harmony in them, and that, if one of them had been wanting, the work and way of her deliverance could not have been so full of the wisdom and justice and goodness of god. wherefore now will that song be sung with clearer notes than ever: "great and marvellous are thy works, lord god almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou king of saints. who shall not fear thee, o lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest;" warning against a return to antichrist. must antichrist be destroyed? then what mean they who were to appearance once come out, but now are going thither again. if it cost lot's wife dear for but looking hack, shall it not cost them much dearer that are going back, that are gone back again; and that after the angel had flown through the midst of heaven, preaching the gospel to those that dwell on the earth? they that received the mark of the beast at first, before this angel came forth, are, when compared with these, excusable. wherefore they are not threatened with the smoking wrath that these are. you dread that which is like to become of them that will be so mad as to run into a house when fire is put to the gunpowder barrel in order to its blowing up. why, thus do they, let their pretended cause he what it will, that are returning again to babylon. are her plagues pleasant or easy to be borne? or dost thou think that god is at play with thee, and that he threateneth but in jest? her plagues are death and mourning and famine and fire; are these things to be overlooked? and they that, as before hinted, shall receive the mark of the beast in their forehead or in their hand, and shall worship him, they shall drink the wine of the wrath of god. and will this be a delightsome draught? from the "introduction to the holy city." my fourth word is to the lady of kingdoms, the well-favored harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts and the abominations of the earth. i suppose i have nothing here that will either please your wanton eye, or go down with your voluptuous palate. here is bread indeed, as also milk and meat; but here is neither paint to adorn thy wrinkled face, nor crutch to uphold or undershore thy shaking, tottering, staggering kingdom of rome; but rather a certain presage of thy sudden and fearful final downfall, and of the exaltation of that holy matron whose chastity thou dost abhor, because by it she reproveth and condemneth thy lewd and stubborn life. wherefore, lady, smell thou mayest of this, but taste thou wilt not. i know that both thy wanton eye, with all thy mincing brood that are intoxicated with thy cup and enchanted with thy fornications, will, at the sight of so homely and plain a dish as this, cry, foh! will snuff, put the branch to the nose, and say, contemptible! "but wisdom is justified of all her children." "the virgin-daughter of zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee;" yea, her god hath smitten his hands at thy dishonest gains and freaks. "rejoice ye with jerusalem and be glad with her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her, that ye may suck and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory." the wooden cross. some have thought the altar to mean the cross on which the body of christ was crucified when he gave himself an offering for sin; but they are greatly deceived, for he also himself was the altar through which he offered himself; and this is one of the treasures of wisdom which are hid in him, and of which the world and antichrist are utterly ignorant. the altar is always greater than the gift, and since the gift was the body and soul of christ--for so saith the scripture, "he gave himself for our sins"--the altar must be something else than a sorry bit of wood, or than the accursed tree. wherefore i will say to such, as one wiser than solomon said to the jews when they superstitiously magnified the gift, in counting it more honorable than the altar, "ye fools and blind; for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?" if the altar be greater than the gift, and yet the gift so great a thing as the very humanity of christ, can it--i will now direct my speech to the greatest fool--can that greater thing be the cross? was the cross, the wooden cross, the cursed tree that some worship, greater than the gift, to wit, the sacrifice which christ offered, when he gave himself for our sins? o idolatry! o blasphemy! but what then was the altar? the divine nature of christ, that eternal spirit, by and in the assistance of which "he offered himself without spot, to god." "he through the eternal spirit offered himself." and it must be this, because, as was said, the altar is greater than the gift; but there is nothing but christ's divine nature greater than his human. to be sure, a sorry bit of wood, a tree, the stock of a tree, is not. it must be this, because the scripture says plainly, the altar sanctifies the gift, that is, puts worth and virtue into it. but was it the tree, or the godhead of christ, that put virtue and efficacy into this sacrifice that he offered to god for us? if thou canst but count thy fingers, judge. let the tree then be the tree, the sacrifice the sacrifice, and the altar the altar; and let men have a care how, in their worship, they make altars upon which, as they pretend, they offer the body of christ; and let them leave off foolishly to doat upon wood and the works of their hands. xxiv. death. seeing man was taken from the ground, he is neither god nor angel, hut a poor earthen vessel, such as god can easily knock in pieces and cause to return to the ground again. and the time of need is the day of death, when i am to pack up all to be gone from hence, the way of all the earth. now the greatest trial is come, except that of the day of judgment. now a man is to he stripped of all but that which cannot be shaken. now a man grows near the borders of eternity. now he begins to see into the skirts of the next world. now death is death, and the grave the grave indeed. now he begins to see what it is for soul and body to part, and what to go and appear before god. now the dark entry and the thoughts of what is in the way from a death-bed to the gate of the holy heaven, come nearer the heart than when health and prosperity do compass a man about. some men are cut off like the tops of the ears of corn, and some are even nipped by death in the very bud of their spring; but the safety is when a man is ripe, and shall be gathered to his grave as a shock of corn to the barn in its season. death of the sinner. death is the axe which god often useth, therewith to take the barren fig-tree out of the vineyard, out of a profession, and also out of the world at once. but this axe is now new-ground; it cometh well edged to the roots of this barren fig-tree. it hath been whetted by sin, by the law, and by a formal profession, and therefore must and will make deep gashes, not only in the natural life, but in the heart and conscience also of this professor. the wages of sin is death, the sting of death is sin. wherefore, death comes not to this man as he doth to saints, muzzled, or without his sting, but with open mouth, in all his strength; yea, he sends his first-born, which is guilt, to devour his strength and to bring him to the king of terrors. the dark entry which the barren professor is to go through will be a sore amazement to him, for "fears shall be in the way," yea, terrors will take hold on him when he shall see the yawning jaws of death gape upon him, and the doors of the shadow of death open to give him passage out of the world. now, who will meet me in this dark entry? how shall i pass through this dark entry into another world? there is no judgment to be made by a quiet death of the eternal state of him that so dieth. suppose one man should die quietly, another should die suddenly, and a third should die under great consternation of spirit; no man can judge of their eternal condition by the manner of any of these kinds of death. he that dies quietly, suddenly, or under consternation of spirit, may go to heaven, or may go to hell; no man can tell whither a man goes by any such manner of death. the judgment, therefore, that we make of the eternal condition of man, must be gathered from another consideration, to wit, did the man die in his sins? did he die in unbelief? did he die before he was born again? he that is a good man, a man that hath faith and holiness, a lover and worshipper of god by christ, according to his word, may die in consternation of spirit; for satan will not be wanting to assault good men upon their death-bed. but they are secured by the word and power of god, yea, and are also helped, though with much agony of spirit, to exercise themselves in faith and prayer; the which he that dieth in despair can by no means do. death of the christian. let dissolution come when it will, it can do the christian no harm, for it will be but only a passage out of a prison into a palace; out of a sea of troubles into a haven, of rest; out of a crowd of enemies to an innumerable company of true, loving, and faithful friends; out of shame, reproach, and contempt, into exceeding great and eternal glory. another improvement of christ's death for us was this: by it he slew for us our infernal foes; by it he abolished death; by death he destroyed him that had the power of death; by death he took away the sting of death; by death he made death a pleasant sleep to saints, and the grave for a while an easy house and home for the body. we change our drossy dust for gold, from death to life we fly: we let go shadows, and take hold of immortality. blood takes away the guilt; inherent grace weakens the filth; but the grave is the place, at the mouth of which sin and the saved must have a perfect and final parting. not that the grave of itself is of a sin-purging quality, but god will follow satan home to his own door, for the grave is the door or gate of hell, and will there, where the devil thought to have swallowed us up, even there by the power of his mercy, make us shine like the sun and look like angels. the christian wishing to depart. "i have a desire to depart, and to be with christ." the strength of this desire is such that it is ready, so far forth as it can, to dissolve that sweet knot of union that is betwixt body and soul--a knot more dear to a reasonable creature than that can be which is betwixt wife and husband, parent and child, or a man and his estate; for even all that a man hath will he give for his life, and to keep body and soul firmly knit together. but now, when this desire comes, this silver cord is loosed, is loosed by consent. this desire delightfully grants to him that comes to dissolve this union, leave to do it. "we are confident and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the lord." the strength of this desire shows itself in this, that it is willing to grapple with the king of terrors, rather than to be detained from that sweet communion which the soul looks for when it comes into the place where its lord is. death is not to be desired for itself; the apostle chose rather to be clothed upon with his house which is from heaven, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. but yet rather than he would be absent from the lord, he was willing to be absent from the body. death, in the very thought of it, is grievous to flesh and blood; and nothing can so master it in our apprehensions as that by which we attain to these desires. these desires do deal with death, as jacob's love to rachel dealt with the seven long years which he was to serve for her. it made them seem few, or but a little time; so do these desires deal with death itself. they make it seem little, nay, a servant, nay, a privilege, because by that a man may come to enjoy the presence of his beloved lord. i have a desire to depart, to go from the world and relations, to go from my body, that great piece of myself--i have a desire to venture the tugs and pains, and the harsh handling of the king of terrors, so i may be with jesus christ. these are the desires of the righteous. are not these therefore strong desires? is there not life and mettle in them? have they not in them power to loose the bands of nature, and to harden the soul against sorrow? flow they not, think you, from faith of the finest sort, and are they not bred in the bosom of a truly mortified soul? are these the effect of a purblind spirit? are they not rather the fruits of an eagle-eyed confidence? oh, these desires! they are peculiar to the righteous. christ in glory is worth the being with. if the man out of whom the lord jesus cast a legion, prayed that he might be with him notwithstanding all the trials that attended him in this life, how can it be but that a righteous man must desire to be with him, now he is in glory? to see jesus christ, to see him as he is, to see him as he is in glory, is a sight that is worth going from relations and out of the body and through the jaws of death to see; for this is to see him head over all, to see him possessed of heaven for his church, to see him preparing mansion-houses for those his poor ones that are now by his enemies kicked to and fro like footballs in the world: and is not this a blessed sight? secondly, i have a desire to be with him, to see myself with him; this is more blessed still: for a man to see himself in glory, this is a sight worth seeing. sometimes i look upon myself and say, where am i now? and do quickly return answer to myself again, why, i am in an evil world, a great way from heaven, in a sinful body, among devils and wicked men; sometimes benighted, sometimes beguiled, sometimes fearing, sometimes hoping, sometimes breathing, sometimes dying. but then i turn the tables, and say, but where shall i be shortly? where shall i see myself anon, after a few more times have passed over me? and when i can but answer this question thus: i shall see myself with jesus christ; this yields glory, even glory to one's spirit now. thirdly, i have a desire to be with christ: there the spirits of the just are perfected; there the spirits of the righteous are as full as they can hold. a sight of jesus in the word; some know how it will change them from glory to glory. but how then shall we be changed and filled, when we shall see him as he is? "when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." moses and elias appeared to peter and james and john, at the transfiguration of christ, "in glory." hew so? why, they had been in the heavens, and came thence with some of the glories of heaven upon them. gild a bit of wood, yea, gild it seven times over, and it must not be compared, in difference from wood which is not gilt, with the soul that but a little while has been dipt in glory. glory is a strange thing to men that are on this side of heaven; it is that which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man: only the christian has a word and spirit that at times give a little of the glimmering thereof unto him. but oh, when he is in the spirit and sees in the spirit, do you think his tongue can tell? but if the sight of heaven at so vast a distance is so excellent a prospect, what will it be when one is in it? no marvel, then, if the desires of the righteous are to be with christ. there is a man upon a bed of languishing; but oh, he dares not die, for all is not as he would have it betwixt god and his poor soul; and many a night he lies thus in great horror of mind; but do you think that he doth not desire to depart? yes, yes; he also waits and cries to god to set his desires at liberty. at last the visitor comes and sets his soul at ease, by persuading him that he belongs to god; and what then? oh, now let me die; welcome death! the dying christian. when men are faithful to god in this world, to do the work he hath appointed for them, by this means a dying bed is made easier. 1. by reason of that present peace such shall have, even in their time of languishing. 2. by reason of the good company such shall have at their departure. the angels of heaven shall wait upon them, as they did upon the blessed lazarus, to carry them into abraham's bosom. i know all that go to paradise are by these holy ones conducted thither; but yet, for all that, such as die under the clouds for unchristian walking with god, may meet with darkness in that day--may go heavily hence, notwithstanding that; yea, their bed may be as uncomfortable to them as if they lay upon nothing but the cords, and their departing from it, as to appearance, more uncomfortable by far. but as for those who have been faithful to their god, they shall see before them; shall know their tabernacle shall be in peace; "the everlasting gates shall be opened unto them:" in all which from earth they shall see the glory of heaven. death of mr. badman's wife. attentive. "and how did his good wife take it when she saw that he had no amendment, but that he returned to his old courses again?" wiseman. "why, it broke her heart; it was a worse disappointment to her than the cheat that he gave her in marriage; at least she laid it more to heart, and could not so well grapple with it. you must think that she had put up many a prayer to god for him before, even all the time that he had carried it so badly to her; and now when he was so affrighted in his sickness, and so desirous that he might live and mend, poor woman, she thought that the time was come for god to answer her prayers; nay, she did not fail with gladness to whisper out amongst her friends that it was so. but when she saw herself disappointed by her husband turning rebel again, she could not stand up under it, but fell into a languishing distemper, and in a few weeks gave up the ghost." attentive. "pray how did she die?" wiseman. "die! she died bravely; full of comfort in the faith of her interest in christ, and by him in the world to come. she had many brave expressions in her sickness, and gave to those that came to visit her many signs of her salvation. the thoughts of the grave, especially of her rising again, were sweet thoughts to her. she would long for death, because she knew it would be her friend. she expressed herself like one that was making herself ready to go to meet her bridegroom. 'now,' said she, 'i am going to rest from my sorrows, my sighs, my tears, my mournings, and complaints: i have heretofore longed to be among the saints, but might by no means be suffered to go; but now i am going, and no man can stop me, to the great meeting, 'to the general assembly and church of the first-born which are written in heaven.' there i shall have my heart's desire; there i shall worship without temptation or other impediment; there i shall see the face of my jesus whom i have loved, whom i have served, and who now i know will save my soul. i have prayed often for my husband that he might be converted, but there has been no answer of god in that matter. are my prayers lost; are they forgotten; are they thrown over the bar? no; they are hanged upon the horns of the golden altar, and i must have the benefit of them myself that moment that i shall enter into the gates, in at which the righteous nation that keepeth truth shall enter: i say, i shall have the benefit of them. i can say as holy david--i say, i can say of my husband as he could of his enemies, 'as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was of sackcloth; i humbled my soul with fasting, and my prayer returned into my bosom.' my prayers are not lost, my tears are yet in god's bottle; i would have had a crown and glory for my husband, and for those of my children that follow his steps; but so far as i can see yet, i must rest in the hope of having all myself.' "when she drew near her end she called for her husband, and when he was come to her, she told him that now he and she must part; and, said she, 'god knows, and thou shalt know, that i have been a loving, faithful wife unto thee; and as for all the abuses that i have received at thy hand, those i freely and heartily forgive, and still shall pray for thy conversion, even as long as i breathe in this world. but, husband, i am going thither where no bad man shall come; and if thou dost not turn, thou wilt never see me more with comfort. let not my plain words offend thee; i am thy dying wife, and of my faithfulness to thee would leave this exhortation with thee: break off thy sins, fly to god for mercy while mercy's gate stands open: remember that the day is coming when thou, though now lusty and well, must lie at the gates of death, as i do; and what wilt thou then do, if thou shalt be found with a naked soul to meet the cherubims with their flaming swords? yea, what wilt thou then do if death and hell shall come to visit thee, and thou in thy sins and under the curse of the law?' "when she saw that she was not regarded, she fetched a deep sigh and lay still. so he went down; and then she called for her children, and began to talk to them. and first she spoke to those that were rude, and told them the danger of dying before they had grace in their hearts. she told them also, that death might be nearer than they were aware of; and bid them look, when they went through the churchyard again, if there were not little graves there. 'and ah, children,' said she, 'will it not be dreadful to you, if we only shall meet at the day of judgment, and then part again and never see each other more?' and with that she wept; the children also wept. so she held on her discourse: 'children,' said she, 'i am going from you. i am going to jesus christ; and with him there is neither sorrow nor sighing, nor pain nor tears, nor death: thither would i have you go also; but i can neither carry you nor fetch you thither. but if you shall turn from your sins to god, and shall beg mercy at his hands by jesus christ, you shall follow me, and shall, when you die, come to the place where i am going, that blessed place of rest; and then we shall be for ever together, beholding the face of our redeemer, to our mutual and eternal joy.' so she bade them remember the words of a dying mother when she was cold in her grave, and themselves were hot in their sins, if perhaps her words might put a check to their vice, and they might remember and turn to god. "then they all went down but her darling, to wit, the child that she had most love for, because it followed her ways. so she addressed herself to that: 'come to me,' said she, 'my sweet child, thou art the child of my joy; i have lived to see thee a servant of god; thou shalt have eternal life. i, my sweetheart, shall go before, and thou shalt follow after, if thou shalt hold the beginning of thy confidence steadfast to the end. when i am gone, do thou still remember my words. love thy bible, follow my ministers, deny ungodliness still, and if troublesome times shall come, set a higher price upon christ, his word and ways, and the testimony of a good conscience, than upon all the world besides; carry it kindly and dutifully to thy father, but chose none of his ways. "'i would have thee also, my dear child, to love thy brothers and sisters, but learn none of their naughty tricks; 'have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.' thou hast grace; they have none. do thou therefore beautify the way of salvation before their eyes, by a godly life and conversation conformable to the revealed will of god, that thy brothers and sisters may see and be the more pleased with the good ways of the lord.' "thus she talked to her children and gave them counsel; and after she had talked to this a little longer, she kissed it and bid it go down. "well, in short, her time drew on, and the day that she must die. so she died with a soul full of grace, a heart full of comfort, and by her death ended a life of trouble." death of standfast. when mr. standfast had thus set things in order, and the time being come for him to haste him away, he went down to the river. now there was a great calm at that time in the river; wherefore mr. standfast, when he was about half way in, stood a while and talked to his companions that had waited upon him thither: and he said, "this river has been a terror to many; yea, the thoughts of it also have often frightened me: now, methinks, i stand easy; my foot is fixed upon that on which the feet of the priests that bare the ark of the covenant stood, while israel went over this jordan. "the waters indeed are to the palate bitter and to the stomach cold; yet the thoughts of what i am going to, and of the convoy that waits for me on the other side, doth lie as a glowing coal at my heart. i see myself now at the end of my journey; my toilsome days are ended. i am going to see that head that was crowned with thorns, and that face that was spit upon for me. i have formerly lived by hearsay and faith, but now i go where i shall live by sight, and shall be with him in whose company i delight myself. i have loved to hear my lord spoken of; and whenever i have seen the print of his shoe in the earth, there i have coveted to set my foot too. his name has been to me as a civet-box, yea, sweeter than all perfumes. his voice to me has been most sweet, and his countenance i have more desired than they that have most desired the light of the sun. his words i did use to gather for my food, and for antidotes against my faintings. he has held me, and hath kept me from mine iniquities, yea, my steps have been strengthened in his way." now while he was thus in discourse, his countenance changed; his "strong man bowed under him;" and after he had said, "take me, for i am come unto thee," he ceased to be seen of them. but glorious it was to see how the open region was filled with horses and chariots, with trumpeters and pipers, with singers and players on stringed instruments, to welcome the pilgrims as they went up, and followed one another in at the beautiful gate of the city. death of christian and hopeful. they then addressed themselves to the water, and entering, christian began to sink, and crying out to his good friend hopeful, he said, "i sink in deep waters; billows go over my head, all his waves go over me." then said the other, "be of good cheer, my brother; i feel the bottom, and it is good." then said christian, "ah, my friend, the sorrow of death hath compassed me about. i shall not see the land that flows with milk and honey." and with that a great darkness and horror fell upon christian, so that he could not see before him; also he in a great measure lost his senses, so that he could neither remember nor orderly talk of any of those sweet refreshments that he had met wilh in the way of his pilgrimage. but all the words that he spake still tended to discover that he had horror of mind, and heart-fears that he should die in that river and never obtain entrance in at the gate. here also, as they that stood by perceived, he was much in troublesome thoughts of the sins that he had committed both since and before he began to be a pilgrim. it was also observed that he was troubled with apparitions of hobgoblins and evil spirits; for ever and anon he would intimate so much by words. hopeful therefore here had much ado to keep his brother's head above water; yea, sometimes he would be quite gone down, and then, ere a while, he would rise up again half dead. hopeful did also endeavor to comfort him, saying, "brother, i see the gate, and men standing by to receive us; but christian would answer, "it is you, it is you they wait for; you have been hopeful ever since i knew you." "and so have you," said he to christian. "ah, brother," said he, "surely if i was right, he would now arise to help me; but for my sins he hath brought me into the snare, and hath left me." then said hopeful, "my brother, you have quite forgot the text, where it is said of the wicked, 'there are no bands in their death, but their strength is firm: they are not troubled as other men, neither are they plagued like other men.' these troubles and distresses that you go through in these waters, are no sign that god hath forsaken you, but are sent to try you whether you will call to mind that which heretofore you have received of his goodness, and live upon him in your distresses." then i saw in my dream that christian was in a muse a while. to whom also hopeful added these words: "be of good cheer; jesus christ maketh thee whole." and with that christian broke out with a loud voice, "oh, i see him again, and he tells me, 'when thou passest through the waters, i will he with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee.'" then they both took courage, and the enemy was after that as still as a stone until they were gone over. christian therefore presently found ground to stand upon, and so it followed that the rest of the river was but shallow; thus they got over. now upon the bank of the river, on the other side, they saw the two shining men again, who there waited for them. wherefore, being come out of the river, they saluted them, saying, "we are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to those that shall be heirs of salvation." thus they went along towards the gate. bunyan's death. from the first biography of bunyan. "he comforted those that wept about him, exhorting them to trust in god, and pray to him for mercy and forgiveness of their sins; telling them what a glorious exchange it would be, to leave the troubles and cares of a wretched mortality to live with christ for ever, with peace and joy inexpressible; expounding to them the comfortable scriptures by which they were to hope and assuredly come unto a blessed resurrection in the last day. he desired some to pray with him, and he joined with them in prayer; and his last words, after he had struggled with a languishing disease, were these: 'weep not for me, but for yourselves. i go to the father of our lord jesus christ, who will, through the mediation of his blessed son, receive me, though a sinner; where i hope we ere long shall meet to sing the new song, and remain everlastingly happy, world without end.'" xxv. the resurrection. the doctrine of the resurrection, however questioned by heretics and erroneous persons, yet is such a truth, that almost all the holy scriptures of god point at and centre in it. there is a poor dry and wrinkled kernel cast into the ground; and there it lieth, swelleth, breaketh, and, one would think, perisheth. but behold, it receiveth life, it chippeth, it putteth forth a blade, and groweth into a stalk. there also appeareth an ear; it also sweetly blossoms, with a full kernel in the ear. it is the same wheat; yet behold how the fashion doth differ from what was sown. and our bran will be left behind, when we rise again. the body ariseth, as to the nature of it, the self-same nature; but as to the manner of it, how far transcendent! the glory of the terrestrial is one, and the glory of the celestial is another. "it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power." at our first appearance, the world will tremble. behold, the gates of death and the bars of the grave are now carried away on our shoulders, as sampson carried away the gates of the city. death quaketh, and destruction falleth down dead at our feet. what then can stand before us? we shall then carry such grace, majesty, terror, and commanding power in our souls, that our countenances shall be as lightning. then shall death be swallowed up of victory. glory is the sweetness, comeliness, purity, and perfection of a thing. the light is the glory of the sun, strength is the glory of youth, and gray hairs are the glory of old age. that is, it is the excellency of these things and that which makes them shine. therefore to arise in glory, it is to arise in all the beauty and utmost completeness that is possible for a human creature to possess, in all its features and members inconceivably beautiful. sin and corruption have made mad work in our bodies as well as in our souls; 'tis sin commonly that is the cause of all that deformity and ill-favoredness that now cleaveth to us, and that rendereth us so dishonorable at our death. but now at our rising, we shall be raised incorruptible; we shall appear in such perfection that all the beauty and comeliness, sweetness and amiableness that hath at any time been in this world, it shall be swallowed up a thousand times told with this glory. the body when it ariseth will be so swallowed up of life and immortality, that it will be as if it had lost its own human nature. you know that things which are candied by the art of the apothecary, are so swallowed up with the sweetness and virtue of that in which they are candied, that they are now as though they had no other nature than that in which they are boiled. just thus, at the last day, it will be with our bodies. we shall be so candied by being swallowed up of life, that we shall be as if we were all spirit; when in truth, it is but this body that is swallowed up of life. the body is also gathered up into glory, but not simply for its own sake, or because it is capable of itself to know and understand the glories of its maker, but that it has been a companion with the soul in this world, and has also been its house, its mantle, its cabinet, and tabernacle here: it has also been that by which the soul hath acted, in which it hath wrought, and by which its excellent appearances have been manifested; and it shall also there be its copartner and sharer in its glory. in this world the soul of the regenerate is a gracious soul; and in that world it shall be a glorious one. in this world the body was conformable to the soul as it was gracious, and in that world it shall be conformable to it as it is glorious. yea, it shall have an additional glory to adorn and make it yet the more capable of being serviceable to and with the soul in its great acts before god in eternal glory. if a man receive the mercy of the resurrection of the body, what a bundle of mercies will be received as wrapt up in that. he will receive perfection, immortality, heaven, and glory. and what is folded up in these things, who can tell? as to the manner of the change of the body in its rising, this similitude also doth fitly suit: as, 1. it is sown a dead corn, it is raised a living one. 2. it is sown dry, and without comeliness; it riseth green and beautiful. 3. it is sown a single corn, it riseth a full ear. 4. it is sown in the husk, but in its rising it leaveth that husk behind it. further, though the kernel thus die, be buried, and meet with all this change in these things, yet none of them can cause the nature of the kernel to cease; it is wheat still. wheat was sown, and wheat arises; only it was sown dead, dry, and barren wheat, and riseth living, beautiful, and fruitful wheat. "god giveth it a body as it pleaseth him; but to every seed his own body." all the glory that a glorified soul can help this body to, it at this day shall enjoy. that soul that has been these hundreds or thousands of years in the heavens, in the bosom of christ, it shall in a moment come spangling into the body again, and inhabit every member and vein of the body, as it did before its departure. that spirit of god also, that took its leave of the body when it went to the grave, shall now in all perfection dwell in the body again. i tell you, the body at this day will shine brighter than the face of moses or stephen, even as bright as the sun, the stars and angels. "when christ who is our life shall appear, we shall appear with him in glory." christ has showed us what our body at the resurrection shall be, by showing us in his word what his body was at and after his resurrection. we read that his body after he was risen from the dead, though it yet retained the very same flesh and bones that did hang upon the cross, yet how angelical was it at all times, upon all occasions! he could come in to his disciples with that very body, when the doors were shut upon them. he could at pleasure, to their amazement, appear in the twinkling of an eye in the midst of them. he could be visible and invisible, as he pleased, when he sat at meat with them. in a word, he could pass and repass, ascend and descend in that body with far more pleasure and ease than the bird by the art of her wing. now i say, as we have in this world borne the image of our first father; so at that day we shall have the image of jesus christ, and be as he is. 1 cor. 15:49. to mount up to heaven, and to descend again with pleasure, shall with us in that day be ordinary. if there were ten thousand bars of iron, or walls of brass, to separate between us and our pleasure and desire at that day, they should as easily be pierced by us as is the cobweb, or as air by the beams of the sun. and the reason is, because to the spirit, wherewith we shall be inconceivably filled at that day, nothing is impossible; and the working of it at that day shall be in such nature and measure as to swallow up all impossibilities. "who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body"--now mark--"according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." nay further, we do not only see what operation the spirit will have in our body by the carriage of christ after his resurrection, but even by many a saint before his death. the spirit used to catch elijah away, no man could tell whither. it carried ezekiel hither and thither. it carried christ from the top of the pinnacle of the temple into galilee; through it he walked on the sea. the spirit caught away philip from the eunuch, and carried him as far as azotus. thus the great god has given us a taste of the power and glory that are in himself, and how easily they will help us, by possessing us at the resurrection, to act and to do like angels; as christ saith, "they that shall be counted worthy of that world and of the resurrection from the dead, they shall not die, but be equal to the angels." salvation complete at the resurrection. "now we shall see him," to wit, christ in his glory. not by revelation only, as we do now, but then face to face; and he will have us with him to this very end. though john was in the spirit when he had the vision of christ, yet it made him fall at his feet as dead; and also turned daniel's beauty into corruption, it was so glorious and so overweighing a glory that he appeared in. but we shall at the day of our resurrection be so furnished, that we shall with the eagle be able to look upon the sun in his strength. we shall then "see him as he is," who now is in the light that no eye hath seen, nor any man can see till that day. now we shall see into all things; there shall not be any thing hid from us. for the spirit, with which we shall in every cranny of soul and body be filled, "searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of god." we see what strange things have been known by the prophets and saints of god; and that when they knew but in part. abraham could by it tell to a day how long his seed should be under persecution in egypt. elisha by it could tell what was done in the king of assyria's bedchamber. abijah by this could know jeroboam's wife so soon as, yea, before her feet entered within his door, though he saw her not. the prophet of judah could tell by this what god would do to bethel for the idolatry there committed, and could also point out the man by name that should do the execution, long before he was born. what shall i say? enoch by it could tell what should be done at the end of the world. how did the prophets circumstantially prophesy of christ's birth, his death, his burial, of their giving him gall and vinegar, of their parting his raiment and piercing his hands and feet, of his riding on an ass also. all this they saw when they spake of him. peter also, though half asleep, could at the very first word call moses and elias by their names, when they appeared to christ in the holy mount. he is very ignorant of the operation of the spirit that scrupleth these things. but now, i say, if these things have been done, seen, and known by spiritual men while their knowledge has been but "in part," how shall we know, see, and discern, when "that which is perfect is come!" which will be at the resurrection: "it is raised a spiritual body." paul said to the philippians that he was confident that he who had begun a good work in them, would perform it until "the day of christ." which day of christ was not the day of their conversion, for that day was past with them already, they were now the children of god; but this day of christ is the same which in other places is called the day when he shall come with the sound of the last trump to raise the dead. for you must know that the work of salvation is not at an end with them that are now in heaven; no, nor ever will be until their bodies be raised again. god has made our bodies the members of christ, and god does not count us thoroughly saved, until our bodies be as well redeemed and ransomed out of the grave and death, as our soul from the curse of the law and dominion of sin. though god's saints have felt the power of much of his grace, and have had many a secret word fulfilled on them, yet one word will be unfulfilled on their particular person, so long as the grave can shut her mouth upon them. but when the gates of death do open before them, and the bars of the grave do fall asunder, then shall be brought to pass that saying which is written, "death is swallowed up of victory." and then will they hear that most pleasant voice, "awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth her dead." the body is no such ridiculous thing in the account of christ as it was in the account of the sadducees. "the body is not for fornication, but for the lord, and the lord for the body;" and that not only in this world, but in that which is to come. xxvi. the judgment. oh my heart, it is in vain now to dissemble, or to hide, or to lessen transgressions; for there is a judgment to come, a day in which god will judge the secrets of men by his son. the saints judged. when the saints are raised, they must give an account of all things that they have done while they were in the world, of all things "whether they be good or bad." 1. of all their bad. but mark, not under the consideration of vagabond slaves and sinners, but as sons, stewards, and servants of the lord jesus. "we must all stand before the judgment-seat of christ;" we saints; "for it is written, as i live, saith the lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to god." it is true, god loveth his people; but yet he loveth not their sins, nor any thing they do, though with the greatest zeal for him, if it be contrary to his word. wherefore, as truly as god will give a reward to his saints and children, for all that they have indeed well done, so truly will he at this day distinguish their good and bad; and when both are manifest by the righteous judgment of god, he will burn up their bad, with all their labor and travail in it, for ever. he can tell how to save his people, and yet take vengeance on their inventions. that is an observable place, 1 cor. 3:12-15: "if any man build upon this foundation, (christ,) gold, silver, precious-stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be manifest; for the day shall declare it; because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. if any man's work shall abide that he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. if any man's work shall be burned, that man shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." i am persuaded that there are many things done by the best of saints, which then they will gladly disown and be ashamed of; yea, they have and do still do this with great devotion. in many things now, we offend all; and then we shall see the many offences we have committed, and shall ourselves judge them as they are. but yet take notice, that in this day when the saints are thus accounting for their evil before their saviour and judge, they shall not then, as now at the remembrance and confession of sin, be filled with that guilt, confusion, and shame, that now, through the weakness of faith, attend their souls: neither shall they in the least be grieved or offended that god has, before the angels and the rest of their holy brethren, laid open to a tittle their infirmities from the least and first to the biggest and last. for the god to whom they confess all, they will now more perfectly than ever see he doth love them and free them from all, even when and before they confess and acknowledge them to him; and they shall have their soul so full of the ravishing raptures of the life and glory that now they are in, that they shall be of it swallowed up in that measure and manner that neither fear, nor guilt, nor confusion can come near them or touch them. their judge is their saviour, their husband, and head; who, though he will bring every one of them for all things to judgment, yet will keep them for ever out of condemnation. perfect love casteth out fear, even while we are here; much more then when we are with the saviour, our jesus, being passed from death to life. saints rewarded at the judgment. now the saved having accounted for all their evil, and confessed to god's glory how they fell short and did not the truth in this or that particular, and having received their eternal acquittance from the lord and judge, in the sight of both angels and saints, forthwith the lord jesus will make inquiry into all the good and holy actions they do in the world. now here shall all things be reckoned up, from the very first good thing that was done by adam or abel, to the last that will fall out to be done in the world--the good of all the holy prophets, of all apostles, pastors, teachers, and helps in the church--here also will be brought forth to light all the good deeds of masters of families, of parents, of children, of servants, of neighbors, or whatever good things any man doeth. 1. here will be a recompense for all that have labored sincerely in the word and doctrine. now shall paul the planter, and apollos the waterer, with every one of their companions, receive the reward that is according to their works. now all the preaching, praying, watching, and labor thou hast been at, in thy endeavoring to catch men from satan to god, shall be rewarded with spangling glory. not a soul thou hast converted to the lord jesus, not a soul thou hast comforted, strengthened, or helped by thy wholesome counsel, admonition, and comfortable speech, but it shall stick as a pearl in that crown which the lord the righteous judge shall give thee at that day; that is, if thou doest it willingly, delighting to lift up the name of god among men; if thou doest it with love, and longing after the salvation of sinners: otherwise thou wilt have only thy labor for thy pains, and no more. if i do this willingly, i have a reward; but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed to my charge. but if thou do it graciously, then a reward followeth; "for what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? are not even ye," says paul, "in the presence of our lord jesus christ at his coming? for ye are our glory and joy." let him therefore that christ has put into his harvest, take comfort in the midst of all his sorrows; and know that god acknowledges that he that converteth a sinner from the error of his way, doth even save that soul from death, and covereth a multitude of sins. wherefore, labor to convert, labor to water, labor to build up and to feed the flock of god which is among you, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; and when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 2. and as the ministers of christ's gospel shall at this day be recompensed, so shall also those more private saints be with tender affections and love looked on and rewarded for all their work and labor of love which they have showed to the name of christ, in ministering to his saints and suffering for his sake. "whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the lord, whether he be bond or free." ah, little do the people of god think how largely and thoroughly god will at that day own and recompense all the good and holy acts of his people. every bit, every drop, every rag, and every night's harbor though but in a wisp of straw, shall be rewarded in that day before men and angels: "whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones, a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily i say unto you," saith christ, "he shall in no wise lose his reward." "therefore, when thou makest a feast," saith he, "call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." if there be any repentance among the godly at that day, it will be because the lord jesus, in his person, members, and word, was no more owned, honored, entertained, and provided for by them, when they were in this world; for it will be ravishing to all to see what notice the lord jesus will then take of every widow's mite. he will call to mind even all those acts of mercy and kindness which thou hast showed to him when thou wast among men. he will remember, cry up, and proclaim before angels and saints those very acts of thine which thou hast either forgotten or through bashfulness wilt not at that day count worth the owning. he will reckon them up so fast and so fully that thou wilt cry, "lord, when did i do this, and when did i do the other? when saw we thee hungry and fed thee. or athirst and gave thee drink? when saw we thee a stranger and took thee in, or naked and clothed thee? or when saw we thee sick or in a prison, and came unto thee?" and the king shall answer and say unto them, "verily i say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me. the good works of some are manifest beforehand, and they that are otherwise cannot be hid. whatever thou hast done to one of the least of these my brethren, thou hast done it unto me. i felt the nourishment of thy food and the warmth of thy fleece; i remember thy loving and holy visits, when my poor members were sick and in prison and the like. when they were strangers and wanderers in the world, thou tookest them in. well done, thou good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy lord." 3. here also will be a reward for all that hardness and christian enduring of affliction that thou hast met with for thy lord, while thou wast in the world. here now will christ begin from the greatest suffering even unto the least, and bestow a reward on them all, from the blood of the suffering saint to the loss of a hair. 4. there is also a reward at this day for all the more, secret and more retired works of christianity. 1. there is not now one act of faith in thy soul, either upon christ or against the devil and antichrist, but it shall in this day be found out, and praised, honored, and glorified in the face of heaven. 2. there is not one groan to god in secret against thy own lusts, and for more grace, light, spirit, sanctification, and strength to go through this world like a christian, but it shall even at the coming of christ he rewarded openly. 3. there has not one tear dropped from thy tender eye against thy lusts, the love of the world, or for more communion with jesus christ, but as it is now in the bottle of god, so then it shall bring forth such plenty of reward, that it shall return upon thee with abundance of increase. "blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh." "thou tellest my wanderings and puttest my tears in thy bottle; are they not in thy book?" "they that sow in tears shall reap in joy. he that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." if thou indeed and in truth close in with jesus, thou shalt be lovingly received and tenderly embraced of christ at that day, when he hath thousands of noble saints, as abraham, isaac, jacob, david, isaiah, jeremiah, with all the prophets, apostles, and martyrs, attending on him; and many thousands of glittering angels ministering before him. when the ungodly shall appear there, with their pale faces, with their guilty consciences and trembling souls--who would then give thousands of worlds, if they had so many, if they could enjoy but one loving look from christ--then shalt thou have the hand of christ reached to receive thee, saying, come, thou blessed, step up hither; thou wast willing to leave all for me, and now i will give all to thee. here is a throne, a crown, a kingdom; take them. thou wast not ashamed of me when thou wast in the world among my enemies, and now will not i be ashamed of thee before thine enemies, but will, in the view of all these devils and damned reprobates, promote thee to honor and dignity. come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. thou shalt see that those who have served me in truth shall lose nothing, but they shall be as pillars in my temple and inheritors of my glory, and shall have place to walk in among my saints and angels. oh, who would not be in this condition? who would not be in this glory? at the day of judgment, israel will be sufficiently weary of this world; they will even as it were inexpressibly groan to be taken up from hence: wherefore the lord will come, as making use of the weariness and groaning of his people, and will take them up into his chambers of rest, and will wipe away all tears from their eyes. that we are justified in the sight of the divine majesty by free grace, through that one offering of the body of jesus christ once for all, i bless god i believe it; and that we shall be brought to glory by the same grace, through the same most blessed jesus, i thank god i believe that also again, that the glory to which we shall be brought by free grace through the only merits of jesus, is unspeakably glorious and complete, i question no more than i question the blessed truths but now confessed. but notwithstanding all this, there is a reward for the righteous, a reward for their works of faith and love, whether in a doing or in a suffering way, and that not principally to be enjoyed here, but hereafter: "great is your reward in heaven." paul was as great a maintainer of the doctrine of god's free grace, and of justification from sin by the righteousness of christ imputed by grace, as any one that ever lived in christ's service from the world's beginning till now; and yet he was for this doctrine: he expected himself, and encouraged others also to look for such a reward for doing and suffering for christ, which he calls "a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." surely, as christ says in a case not distant from this in hand, "if it were not so, he would have told us." wherefore a reward i find, and that laid up in heaven; but what it is i know not, neither is it possible for any here to know it any further than by certain general words of god, such as these: "praise, honor, glory, a crown of righteousness, a crown of glory, thrones, judging of angels, a kingdom, with a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." wherefore, though in the day of judgment thou shouldst there slight all thou didst on earth for thy lord, saying, "when, lord, when did we do it?" he will answer, "then, even then when ye did it to the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." sinners judged. "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." for as the just go before the unjust in name and dignity and honor, so they shall, in the last day, go before them in the resurrection. now then, when the saints have risen out of their graves, given up their accounts, received their glory, and are set upon their thrones--when they are all of them in their royal apparel, with crowns of glory, every one presenting the person of a king, then come the unjust out of their graves, to receive their judgment for what they have done in the body. "we must all appear before the judgment-seat of christ, that every one," both saints and sinners, "may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." "and the windows," or floodgates, "of heaven were opened." this opening of the floodgates of heaven was a type of the way that shall be made for the justice of god upon ungodly men, when christ has laid aside his mediatorship; for he indeed is the sluice that stops this justice of god from its dealing according to its infinite power and severity with men. he stands like moses, and as it were holdeth the hands of god. oh, but when he shall be taken away, when he shall have finished his mediatorial work, then will the floodgates of heaven be opened, and then will the justice and holiness of god deal with men without stint or diminution, even till it has filled the vessels of wrath with vengeance till they run over. "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living god," the judge is the almighty and eternal god: the law broken is the holy and perfect rule of god, in itself a consuming fire: sin is so odious, and a thing so abominable, that it is enough to make all the angels blush to hear it but so much as once mentioned in so holy a place as that is, where the great god doth sit to judge. this sin now hangs about the neck of him that has committed it, yea, it covers him as doth a mantle. doubtless before the flood had carried off the ark, others besides would with gladness have had there a lodgingroom though no better than a dog-kennel; but now it was too late, "the lord had shut the door." as the just shall rise in power, so the wicked and unjust in weakness and astonishment. sin and guilt bring weakness and faintness in this life; how much more when both, with all their force and power, like a giant fasten on them? as god saith, "can thy hands be strong, and can thy heart endure in the day that i shall deal with thee?" now will the ghastly jaws of despair gape upon thee, and now will condemnings of conscience, like thunderclaps, continually batter against thy weary spirit. it is the godly that have boldness in the day of judgment; but the wicked will be like the chaff which the wind driveth away. now when the wicked are thus raised out of their graves,'they shall, together with all the angels of darkness, their fellow-prisoners, be brought up, being shackled in their sins, to the place of judgment; where there shall sit upon them jesus christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, the lord chief-judge of things in heaven, and earth, and things under the earth. on whose right hand and left shall sit all the princes and heavenly nobles, the saints and prophets, the apostles and witnesses of jesus; every one in his kingly attire upon the throne of his glory. then shall be fulfilled that which is written, "but those my enemies, which would not that i should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me." when every one is thus set in his proper place, the judge on his throne with his attendants, and the prisoners coming up to judgment, forthwith there shall issue forth a mighty fire and tempest from before the throne, which shall compass it round about. which fire shall be as bars and bounds to the wicked, to keep them at a certain distance from the heavenly majesty. "our god will come and not keep silence; a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him." "his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels like burning fire. a fiery stream issued, and came forth from before him." this preparation being made--to wit, the judge with his attendants on the throne, the bar for the prisoners, and the rebels all standing with ghastly faces to look for what comes after--presently the books are brought forth, the books both of death and life, and every one of them opened before the sinners now to be judged and condemned; for after that he had said, "a fiery stream issued, and came forth from before him," he adds, "thousands, thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. the judgment was set, and the book was opened." and again, "i saw a great white throne and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no more place for them', and i saw the dead, small and great, stand before god; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life. and the dead were judged out of the things that were written in the books, according to their works." "for many will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." they will put on all the confidence they can; they will trick and trim up their profession, and adorn it with what bravery they can. thus the foolish virgins sought to enter in; they did trim up their lamps, and made themselves as fine as they could. they made shift to make their lamps to shine a while; but the son of god discovering himself, their confidence failed, their lamps went out, the door was shut upon them, and they were kept out. they will make a stop at this gate, this beautiful gate of heaven; they will begin to stand without at the gate, as being loath to go any further. never did malefactor so unwillingly turn off the ladder when the rope was about his neck, as these will turn away in that day from the gates of heaven to hell. it may be that when thou hearest that the dust of the street, that cleaveth to a minister of the gospel while thou rejectest his word of salvation, shall be a witness against thee at the day of judgment, thou wilt be apt to laugh, and say, the dust a witness! witnesses will be scarce when dust is forced to come in to plead against a man. well, sinner, mock not; god doth use to confound the great and mighty by things that are not, and that are despised. when once the master of the house is risen up, that is, when christ hath laid aside his mediation for sinners, and hath taken upon him only to judge and condemn, then will the wicked begin to stand without, and to knock and contend for a portion among them that are blessed. ah, how will their hearts twitter while they look upon the kingdom of glory! and how will they ache and throb at every view of hell, their proper place; still crying, o that we might inherit life, and o that we might escape eternal death! thus you see how loath the sinner is now to take a hay of life everlasting. he that once would not be persuaded to close with the lord jesus, though one should have persuaded him with tears of blood, behold how fast he now hangs about the lord: what arguments he frames with mournful groans; how with shifts and words he seeks to gain time, and to defer the execution. "lord, open unto us! lord, lord, open unto us! lord, thou hast taught in our streets, and we have both taught in thy name, and in thy name have we cast out devils. we have eat and drank in thy presence. and when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?" o, poor hearts; how loath, how unwillingly do they turn away from christ; how loath are they to partake of their ungodly doings! christ must say, "depart," once, and "depart," twice, before they will depart. when he hath shut the door upon them, yet they knock, and cry, "lord, open unto us:" when he hath given them their answer, that he knows them not, yet they plead and mourn. wherefore, he is fain to answer again, "i tell you, i know you not whence you are; depart." o this word, depart, how dreadful is it; with what weight will it fall on the head of every condemned sinner! for you must note, that while the ungodly stand thus before the judge, they cannot choose but have a most distinct view both of the kingdom of heaven, and of the damned spirits in hell. now they see the god of glory, the king of glory, the saints of glory, and the angels of glory; and the kingdom in which they have their eternal abode. now they also begin to see the worth of christ and what it is to be smiled upon by him, from all which they must depart; and as i say they shall have the view of this, so they will most clearly behold the pit, the bottomless pit, the fire, the brimstone, and the flaming beds that justice hath prepared for them of old. at the day of judgment, will be tried whether thou art within that part of the book of life wherein all the elect are recorded; for all the elect are written here, as christ saith, "rejoice that your names are written in heaven." now then, if thy name be not found either among the prophets or apostles or the rest of saints, thou must be put by as one that is cast away, as one polluted, and as an abominable branch. thy name is wanting in the genealogies and rolls of heaven; thou art not marked for everlasting life; therefore thou must not be delivered from that soul-amazing misery: for there are no souls can, though they would give a thousand worlds, be delivered at the day of god, but such that are found written in this book. every one of those that are written, though never a one of those that are not written, shall in that day be delivered from the wrath to come. but o methinks, with what careful hearts will the damned now begin to look for their names in this book. those that, when once the long-suffering of god waited on them, made light of all admonition, and slighted the counsel of making their calling and election sure, would now give thousands of treasures, that they could but spy their names, though last and least among the sons of god. but, i say, how will they fail; how will they faint; how will they die and languish in their souls, when they shall still, as they look, see their names wanting! what a pinch will it be to cain, to see his brother there recorded, and he himself left out. absalom will now swoon and be as one that giveth up the ghost, when he shall see david his father, and solomon his brother written here, while he withal is written in the earth, among the damned. thus, i say, will sadness be added to sadness in the soul of the perishing world, when they fail of finding their names in this part of the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. sinners without excuse at the judgment. observe, that among all the objections and cavils that are made and will be made by the ungodly in the day of the lord jesus, they have not one about election, and reprobation: they murmur not at all that they were not predestinated to eternal life; and the reason is, because then they shall see, though now they are blind, that god could in his prerogative royal, without prejudice to them that are damned, choose and refuse at pleasure; and besides, they at this day shall be convinced that there was so much reality, and downright willingness in god, in every tender of grace and mercy to the worst of men, and also so much goodness, justness, and reasonableness in every command of the gospel of grace, which they were so often entreated and beseeched to embrace, that they will be drowned in the conviction of this, that they did refuse love, grace, and reason--love, i say, for hatred, grace for sin, and things reasonable for things unreasonable and vain. now they shall see they left glory for shame, god for the devil, heaven for hell, light for darkness. now they shall see, that though they made themselves beasts, yet god made them reasonable creatures; and that he did with reason expect that they should have adhered to, and have delighted in, things that are good and according to god. yea, now they shall see and be convinced, that though god did not determine to bring them to heaven against their hearts and wills, and the love that they had to their sins, yet that god was far from infusing any thing into their souls, that should in the least hinder, weaken, obstruct, or let them in seeking the welfare of their souls. now, men will tattle and prattle at a mad rate about election and reprobation, and conclude that because all are not elected, therefore god is to blame that any are damned. but then they will see that they are not damned because they were not elected, but because they sinned; and also, that they sinned, not because god put any weakness into their souls, but because they gave way, and that wilfully, knowingly, and desperately, to satan and his suggestions; and so turned away from the holy commandment delivered unto them. yea, then they will see, that though god at some times did fasten his cords about their heads and heels and hands, both by godly education and smarting convictions, yet they rushed away with violence from all, saying, "let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us." god will be justified in his sayings, and clear when he judgeth; though men's proud ignorance thinks to have and to multjply cavils against him. now shall be brought before thee and all men, how many strugglings god had with thy heart, on the sick-bed, to do thee good; yea, and at such times, how many vows, promises, engagements, and resolutions thou madest before god to turn, if he would release thee from thy affliction and turn off his rod from thy back; and yet how thou didst, like the man possessed, break and snap in twain all these chains of iron with which thou hadst bound thy soul; and that for a very lust or sin. here also will be opened before thee how often thou hast sinned against thy light and knowledge; how often thou hast laid violent hands on thy own conscience; how often thou hast labored to put out that light that hath stood in thy way to hinder thee from sinning against thy soul. ah, lord, what a condition will the christless soul be in at that day; how will every one of these things afflict the damned soul they will pierce like arrows, and bite like serpents, and sting like an adder. with what shame will that man stand before the judgment-seat of christ, who must have all things he hath done against god to provoke the eyes of his glory to jealousy, laid open before the whole host of the heavenly train. it would make a man blush to have his pockets searched for things that are stolen, in the midst of a market, especially if he stand upon his reputation and honor. but thou must have thy heart searched, the bottom of thy heart searched; and that, i say, before thy neighbor whom thou hast wronged, and before the devils whom thou hast served; yea, before god whom thou hast despised, and before the angels, those holy and delicate creatures, whose holy and chaste faces will scarce forbear blushing. "ignorance" condemned at the judgment. while i was gazing at all these things, i turned my head to look back, and saw ignorance come up to the riverside; but he soon got over, and that without half the difficulty which the other two men met with. for it happened that there was then in that place one vain-hope, a ferryman, that with his boat helped him over. so he, as the others i saw, did ascend the hill to come up to the gate; only he came alone, neither did meet with any the least encouragement. when he was come up to the gate, he looked up to the writing that was above, and then began to knock, supposing that entrance should have been quickly administered to him; but he was asked by the men that looked over the top of the gate, "whence come you? and what would you have?" he answered, "i have eat and drank in the presence of the king, and he has taught in our streets." then they asked him for his certificate, that they might go in and show it to the king. so he fumbled in his bosom for one, and found none. then said they, "have you none?" but the man answered never a word. so they told the king; but he would not come down to see him, but commanded the two shining ones that conducted christian and hopeful to the city, to go out and take ignorance, and bind him hand and foot, and have him away. then they took him up and carried him through the air to the door that i saw in the side of the hill, and put him in there. then i saw that there was a way to hell even from the gates of heaven, as well as from the city of destruction. xxvii. heaven. happiness and glory of heaven. heaven! it is called the paradise of god--a paradise, to show how quiet, harmless, sweet, and beautiful heaven shall be to them that possess it. "the street of the city was pure gold." all the visions were rich, but this the richest, that the floor of the house should be covered with gold. the floor and street are walking-places, and how rich will our steps be then! alas, here we sometimes step into the mire, and then again stumble upon blocks and stones. here we sometimes fall into the holes, and have our heel often catched in a snare; but there will be none of these. gold! gold! all will be gold, and golden perfections, when we come into the holy place. if a sight of sin and the love of god will make such work in that soul where yet there is unbelief, blindness, mistrust, and forgetfulness; what will a sight of sin do in that soul which is swallowed up of love, which is sinless and temptationless, which hath all faculties of soul and body strained by love and grace to the highest pin of perfection that is possible to be in glory enjoyed and possessed? o the wisdom and goodness of god, that he at the day of judgment should so cast about the worst of our things, even those that naturally tend to sink us and damn us, for our great advantage. all things shall work together for good, indeed, to them that love god. those sins that brought a curse upon the whole world, that spilt the heart-blood of our dearest saviour, and that laid his tender soul under the flaming wrath of god, shall, by his wisdom and love, tend to the exaltation of his grace, and the inflaming of our affections to him for ever and ever. these visions, that the saved in heaven shall have of the love of christ, will far transcend our utmost knowledge here; even as far as the light of the sun at noon goes beyond the light of a blinking candle at midnight. as there are great saints and small ones in the church on earth, so there are angels of divers degrees in heaven; some greater than some; but the smallest saint, when he gets to heaven, shall have an angel's dignity, an angel's place. what goodly mansions he for them provides, though here they meet rough winds and swelling tides; how brave a calm they will enjoy at last, who to the lord and to his ways hold fast. employments of heaven. this love of christ, if i may so say, will keep the saints in an employ, even when they are in heaven; though not an employ, that is laborsome, tiresome, burdensome, yet an employ that is dutiful, delightful, and profitable; for although the work and worship of saints in heaven is not particularly revealed as yet, and so it doth not yet appear what we shall be, yet in the general we may say, there will be that for them to do that has not yet by them been done; and by that work which they shall do there, their delight will be unto them. nor will this at all derogate from their glory. the angels now wait upon god, and serve him; the son of god is now a minister, and waiteth upon his service in heaven. some saints have been employed about service for god after they have been in heaven; and why we should be idle spectators when we come thither, i see not reason to believe. it may be said, they there rest from their labors. true, but not from their delights. all things then that once were burdensome, whether in suffering or service, shall be done away, and that which is delightful and pleasurable shall remain. now, just as the gates were opened to let in the men, i looked in after them, and behold, the city shone like the sun; the streets also were paved with gold, and in them walked many men with crowns on their heads, palms in their hands, and golden harps to sing praises withal. there were also of them that had wings; and they answered one another without intermission, saying, "holy, holy, holy is the lord." and after that they shut up the gates; which when i had seen, i wished myself among them. "strive to enter in." "enter in"--into heaven, that is the meaning, where the saved are and shall be--into heaven, that place, that glorious place where god and christ and angels are, and the souls of just men made perfect. "enter in:" that thing included though not expressed in the words, is called in another place the "mount zion, the heavenly jerusalem, the general assembly and church of the first-born which are written in heaven." and therefore the words signify unto us that there is a state most glorious, and that when this world is ended; and that this place and state is likewise to be enjoyed by a generation of men forever. besides, this word "enter in" signifies that salvation to the full is to be enjoyed only there, and that there only is eternal safety; all other places and conditions are hazardous, full of snares, imperfections, temptations, and afflictions. but there all is well; there is no devil to tempt, no desperately wicked heart to deliver us up, no deceitful lust to entangle, nor any enchanting world to bewitch us; there all shall be well to all eternity. further, all the parts of and circumstances that attend salvation, are only there to be enjoyed: there only is immortality and eternal life; there is the glory and fulness of joy and the everlasting pleasures; there is god and christ to be enjoyed by open vision; and more, there are the angels and the saints; there is no death nor sickness, no sorrow nor sighing for ever; there is no pain, nor persecution, nor darkness to eclipse our glory. o this mount zion! o this heavenly jerusalem! soul and body glorified in heaven. "when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass that saying that is written, death is swallowed up in victory." so when this comes to pass, then we shall be saved, then will salvation in all the parts of it meet together in our glory, then we shall be every way saved: saved in god's decree, saved in christ's undertakings, saved by faith, saved in perseverance, saved in soul, and in body and soul together, in the heavens; saved perfectly, everlastingly, gloriously. i would discourse a little of the state of our body and soul in heaven, when we shall enjoy this blessed state of salvation. 1. of the soul. it will then be filled in all the faculties of it with as much his and glory as ever it can hold. the understanding will then be perfect in knowledge. "now we know in part"--we know god, chrit, heaven, and glory, but in part; "butswhen that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." then shall we have perfect and everlasting visions of god, and that blessed one his son jesus christ; a good thought of whom doth sometimes so fill us, while in this world, that it causeth joy unspeakable and full of glory. then shall our will and affections be ever in a burning flame of love to god and his son jesus christ. our love here hath ups and downs; but there it shall be always perfect with that perfection which is not possible in this world to be enjoyed. then will, our conscience have that peace and joy, that neither tongue or pen of men or angels can express. then will our memory be so enlarged as to retain all things that happened to us in this world; so that with unspeakable aptness we shall call to mind all god's providences, all satan's malice, all our weaknesses, all the rage of men, and how god made all work together for his glory and our good, to the everlasting ravishing of our hearts. 2. for our body, it shall be raised in power, in incorruption, a spiritual body and glorious. it is compared to the brightness of the firmament, and to the shining of the stars for ever and ever. it is compared to the shining of the sun. it is said that then our vile body shall be like the glorious body of jesus christ. their state is then to be equally glorious with angels. and now when body and soul are thus united, who can imagine what glory they both possess? they will now be both in capacity without jarring to serve the lord; with shouting, thanksgivings, and with a crown of everlasting joy upon their head. in this world there cannot he the harmony and oneness of body and soul that there will he in heaven. here the body sometimes sins against the soul, and the soul again vexes and perplexes the body with dreadful apprehensions of the wrath and judgment of god. while we are in this world, the body oft hangs this way, and the soul quite the contrary; but there in heaven they shall have such perfect union as never to jar more. the glory of the body shall so suit with the glory of the soul, and both so perfectly suit with the heavenly state, that it passeth words and thoughts. oh sinner, what sayest thou? how dost thou like being saved? doth not thy mouth water? doth not thy heart twitter at being saved? why, come then. "the spirit and the bride say, come; and let him that heareth say, come; and let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." christ the glory of heaven. "for the glory of god did lighten it, and the lamb is the light thereof." mark, though now there shall be no need of temple, sun, or moon, yet christ the lamb, or the man who was offered in sacrifice for our redemption, shall be of use and benefit; "for the glory of god did lighten it, and the lamb is the light thereof." wherefore, all that we who are the saved shall enjoy of glory and sweetness in another world, though we shall not enjoy it from god through christ by and in the ordinances, yet we shall enjoy it through christ the lamb without them; for "the lamb is the light of it." by this word lamb he would have us understand, that when we are in glory, the blood, death, and bloody conquest that the man christ did get over our infernal enemies, will be of eternal use to us; because that benefit of christ shall not only for ever be the foundation of our eternal felicity, but the burden of our song of glory in all our raptures among the angels. it will he the blood, the blood, the redeeming blood of the lamb. "blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sits upon the throne, and unto the lamb, for ever and ever." it is he in whom will be found the seven eyes, the seven spirits of god; in whose light we shall see the heights and depths of those springs and everlasting fountains and depths of glory for ever. and indeed the conceit of the contrary is foolish. is not christ the head, and we the members? and do not the members receive their whole light, guidance, and wisdom from it? is not he also the price, the ground, and bottom of our happiness, both in this world and that which is to come? and is it possible it should be forgotten, or that by it our joy, light, and heaven should not be made the sweeter to all eternity? our soul is now bound up in him as in a bundle of life; and when we come thither he is still the christ, our life; and it is by our being where he is that we shall behold his glory and our glory, because he is glorified: "for the glory of god did lighten it, and the lamb is the light thereof." as he said, "ye now therefore have sorrow; but i will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice and your joy no man taketh from you." the glory of salvation. what a surprise will it be to them that now have come to god by christ, to see themselves in heaven indeed, saved indeed, and possessed of everlasting life indeed. for alas, what is faith to possession?--faith that is mixed with many tears, that is opposed with many assaults, and that seems sometimes to be quite extinguished--i say, what is that to a seeing myself in heaven? hence it is said that "he shall then come to be admired in them that now believe;" then they shall admire that it was their lot to believe when they were in the world. they shall also admire to think, to see, and behold what believing has brought them to; while the rest, for refusing to come to god by christ, drink their tears mixed with burning brimstone. what a joy will it be to the truly godly to think now that they are come to god by christ. it was their mercy to begin to come; it was their happiness that they continued coming; but it is their glory that they are come, that they are come to god by christ. to god! why, he is all in all; all that is good, essentially good, and eternally good. to god, the infinite ocean of good. oh that i could imagine, oh that i could think, that i might write more effectually to thee of the happy estate of them that come to god by christ. heaven. what gladness shall possess our heart, when we shall see these things; what light and life in every part rise like eternal springs! o, blessed face; o, holy grace, when shall we see this day? lord, fetch us to this goodly place, we humbly to thee pray. thus when in heavenly harmony these blessed saints appear, adorned with grace and majesty, what gladness will be there! thus shall we see, thus shall we be, o, would the day were come: lord jesus, take us up to thee, to this desired home. angels we also shall behold, when we on high ascend, each shining like to men of gold, and on the lord attend. these goodly creatures, full of grace, shall stand about the throne, each one with lightning in his face, and shall to us be known. there cherubim, with one accord, continually do cry, "ah, holy, holy, holy lord, and heavenly majesty!" these will us in their arms embrace, and welcome us to rest, and joy to see us clad with grace and of the heavens possest. xxviii. hell. hell is a place and state utterly unknown to any in this visible world, excepting the souls of men; nor shall any for ever be capable of understanding the miseries thereof, save souls and fallen angels. now i think as the joys of heaven stand not only in speculation or in beholding of glory, but in a sensible enjoyment and unspeakable pleasure which these glories will yield to the soul; so the torments of hell will not stand in the present lashes and strokes which by the flames of eternal fire god will scourge the ungodly with; but the torments of hell stand much, if not in the greatest part of them, in those deep thoughts and apprehensions which souls in the next world will have of the nature and occasion of sin, of god, and of separation from him--of the eternity of those miseries, and of the utter impossibility of their help, ease, or deliverance for ever. oh, damned souls will have thoughts that will clash with glory, clash with justice, clash with law, clash with themselves, clash with hell, and with the everlastingness of misery. miseries as well as mercies sharpen and make quick the apprehensions of the soul. behold spira in his book, cain in his guilt, and saul with the witch of endor, and you shall see men ripened, men enlarged and greatened in their fancies, imaginations, and apprehensions, though not about god and heaven and glory, yet about their loss, their misery, their woe, and their hell. a man may endure to touch the fire with a short touch, and away; but to dwell with everlasting burnings, that is fearful. oh then, what is dwelling with them and in them for ever and ever? we use to say, "light burdens carried far are heavy:" what then will it be to bear that burden, that guilt, that the law and the justice and the wrath of god will lay upon the lost soul for ever? now tell the stars, now tell the drops of the sea, and now tell the blades of grass that are spread upon the face of all the earth, if thou canst; and yet sooner mayest thou do this than count the thousands of millions of thousands of years that a damned soul shall lie in hell! suppose every star that is now in the firmament was to burn by himself one by one, a thousand years apiece, would it not be a long while before the last of them was burnt out? and yet sooner might that be done than the damned soul be at the end of punishment. he that has lost his soul has lost himself. he is, as i may say, now out of his own hands; he has lost himself, his soul self, his own self, his whole self, by sin and wrath; and hell hath found him. he is now no more at his own dispose, but at the dispose of justice, of wrath and hell. he is committed to prison, to hell prison, there to abide, not at pleasure, not as long and as little time as he will, but the term appointed by his judge; nor may he there choose his own affliction, neither for manner, measure, or continuance. it is god that will spread the fire and brimstone under him, and it is god himself that will blow the fire. isa. 30:33. there will be no such grace as patience in hell with him who has lost himself: here will also be wanting a bottom for patience, to wit, the providence of god; for a providence of god, though never so dismal, is a bottom for patience to the afflicted; but men go not to hell by providence, but by sin. "depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." this curse is the chief and highest of all kinds of curses. it lieth in a deprivation of all good, and in a being swallowed up of all the most fearful miseries, that a holy and just and eternal god can righteously inflict, or lay upon the soul of a sinful man. now let reason here come in and exercise itself in the most exquisite manner, yea, let it now count up all and all manner of curses and torments that a reasonable and immortal soul is or can be made capable of, and able to suffer under; and when it has done, it shall come infinitely short of this great anathema, this master-curse, which god has reserved amongst his treasures, and intends to bring out in that day of battle and war which he purposeth to make upon damned souls in that day. "the sting of death is sin." sin in the general of it is the sting of hell, for there would be no such thing as torment even there, were it not that sin is there with sinners; for the fire of hell, the indignation and wrath of god can fasten and kindle upon nothing but for or because of sin. sin then, as sin, is the sting and the hell of hells, of the lowest and upmost hells--sin, i say, in the nature of it, simply as it is concluded both by god and the damned to be a breach of his holy law, so it is the sting of the second death, which is the worm of hell. but then, as sin is such a sting in itself, so it is heightened, sharpened, made more keen and sharp, by those circumstances that attend it in every act; for there is not a sin at any time committed by man, but there is some circumstance or other attends it that makes it, when charged home by god's law, bigger and sharper and more venomous and poisonous to the soul, than if it could be committed without them; and this is the sting of the hornet, the great sting. i sinned without a cause, to please a base lust, to gratify the devil: here is the sting. again, i preferred sin before holiness, death before life, hell before heaven, the devil before god, and damnation before a saviour: here is the sting. again, i preferred moments before everlastings, temporals before eternals, to be racked and always slaying before the life that is blessed and endless: here is the sting. also, this i did against light, against convictions, against conscience, against persuasions of friends and ministers, and the godly lives which i beheld in others: here is the sting. also, this i did against warnings; yea, though i saw others fall before my face by the mighty hand of god for committing the same: here is the sting. sinners, would i could persuade you to hear me out: a man cannot commit a sin, but by the commission of it he doth by some circumstance or other sharpen the sting of hell, and that to pierce himself through and through and through with many sorrows. also, the sting of hell to some will be, that the damnation of others stands upon their score; for that by imitating them, by being deluded by them, persuaded by them, drawn in by them, others perish in hell for ever. ah, this will be the sting of those that are principal, chief, and as i may call them, the captain and ringleading sinners. vipers will come out of other men's fire and flames, and settle upon, seize upon, and for ever abide upon their consciences; and this will be the sting of hell, the great sting of hell to them. i will yet add to this, how will the fairness of some for heaven, even the thoughts of that, sting them when they come to hell. it will not be so much their fall into the pit, as from whence they fell into it, that will be to them the buzzing noise and sharpened sting of the great and terrible hornet. "how art thou fallen from heaven, o lucifer!"--there is the sting. thou that art exalted up to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell; though thou hast made thy nest among the stars, from thence will i fetch thee down: there is a sting. to be pulled, for and through love to some vain lust, from the everlasting gates of glory, and caused to be swallowed up for it in the belly of hell, and made to lodge for ever in the darksome chambers of death: there is the piercing sting. but again, as there is the sting of hell, so there is the strength of that sting; for a sting, though never so sharp or venomous, yet if it wanteth strength to force it to the designed execution, it doth but little hurt. but this sting hath strength to cause it to pierce into the soul: "the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." i cor. 15:56; rom. 7:8; 4:15. here then is the strength of the sting of hell: it is the law in the perfect penalty of it; for without the law, sin is dead; yea, where no law is, there is no transgression. the law then followeth, in the executive part of it, the soul into hell; and there strengthened sin, that sting in hell, to pierce the soul for ever and ever by its unutterable charging of sin on the conscience. nor can the soul justly murmur or repine at god or his law; for that then the sharply apprehensive soul will well discern the justness, righteousness, reasonableness, and goodness of the law, and that nothing is done by the law unto it, but that which is just and equal. this, therefore, will put great strength and force into sin to sting the soul, and to strike it with the lashes of a scorpion. and besides these, the abiding life of god, the judge and god of this law, will never die. when princes die, the law may be altered by which at present transgressors are bound in chains; but oh, here is also that which will make this sting so sharp and keen: the god that executes it will never die. "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living god." heb. 10: 30, 31. "this shall they have of my hand, they shall lie down in sorrow;" they shall lie down in it, they shall make their bed there, there they shall lie. and this is the bitter pill that they must swallow down at last; for after all their tears, their sorrows, their repentings, their wishings and wouldings, and all their inventings and desires to change their state for a better, they must lie down in sorrow. the poor condemned man that is upon the ladder or scaffold, has, if one knew them, many a long wish and long desire that he might come down again alive, or that his condition was as one of the spectators, that are not condemned and brought thither to be executed as he. how carefully also does he look with his failing eyes, to see if some one comes not from the king with a pardon for him, all the while endeavoring to fumble away, as well as he can, and to prolong the minute of his execution. but at last, when he has looked, when he has wished, when he has desired and done whatever he can, the blow with the axe, or the turn with the ladder, is his lot: so he goes off the scaffold; so he goes from among men. and thus will it be with those we have under consideration: when all comes to all, and they have said and wished and done what they could, the judgment must not be reversed; they must lie down in sorrow. xxix. miscellaneous. the sabbath. this day is called the lord's day, the day in which he rose from the dead. the lord's day: every day, say some, is the lord's day. indeed this, for discourse' sake, may he granted; but strictly, no day can so properly be called the lord's day, as this first day of the week; for that no day of the week, or of the year, has those hadges of the lord's glory upon it, nor such divine grace put upon it, as his first day of the week. there is nothing, as i know of, that bears this title but the lord's supper, and this day. and since christians count it an abuse to allegorize the first, let them also be ashamed to fantasticalize the last. the lord's day is doubtless the day in which he rose from the dead. to be sure, it is not the old seventh day; for from the day that he arose, to the end of the bible, we find not that he did hang so much as one twist of glory upon that; but this day is beautified with glory upon glory, and that both by the father and the son, by the prophets, and those that were raised from the dead thereon: therefore this day must be more than the rest. as for the seventh day, that is gone to its grave with the signs and shadows of the old testament. yea, and has such a dash left upon it by apostolical authority, that is is enough to make a christian fly from it for ever. 2 cor. 3. god the father leaves such a stamp of divine note and honor upon this day, as he never before did leave upon any, where he saith to our lord, "thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee;" still having respect to the first day of the week, for that and no other is the day here intended by the apostle: this day, saith god, is the day. "and as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he saith on this wise, i will give thee the sure mercies of david;" wherefore he saith in another psalm, "thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption." now shall not christians, when they read that god saith, this day, and that too with reference to a work done on it by him so full of delight to him, and so full of life and heaven to them, set also a mark upon it? "this was the day of god's pleasure," for that his son did rise thereon; "and shall it not be the day of my delight in him?" shall kings and princes and great men set a mark upon the day of their birth and coronation, and expect that both subjects and servants should do them high honor on that day; and shall the day in which christ was both begotten and born be a day contemned by christians? if god remembers it, well may i. if god says, and that with all gladness of heart, "thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee;" may not, ought not i also to set this day apart to sing the songs of my redemption in? this day my redemption was finished. this day my dear jesus revived. this day he was declared to be the son of god with power. yea, this is the day in which the lord jesus finished a greater work than ever yet was done in the world; yea, a work in which the father himself was more delighted than he was in making heaven and earth; and shall darkness and the shadow of death stain this day? or shall a cloud dwell on this day? shall god regard this day from above, and shall not his light shine upon this day? what shall be done to them that curse this day, and would not that the stars should give their light thereon? this day! after this day was come, god never, that we read of, made mention with delight of the old seventh-day sabbath more. "the woman which thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree." gen. 3. the woman was given for a help, not a hinderance; but satan often maketh that to become our snare which god hath given us as a blessing. "and the lord god said unto the woman, what is this that thou hast done?" gen. 3. what is this? god seems to speak as if he were astonished at the inundation of evil which the woman by her sin had overflowed the world withal. what is this that thou hast done? thou hast undone thyself, thou hast undone thy husband, thou hast undone all the world; yea, thou hast brought a curse upon the whole creation, with an overplus of evils, plagues, and distresses. what is this that thou hast done? thou hast defiled thy body and soul, thou hast disabled the whole world from serving god; yea, moreover, thou hast let in the devil at the door of thy heart, and hast also made him the prince of the world. what is this that thou hast done? ah, little, little do sinners know what they have done, when they have transgressed the law of the lord. as death and the curse came into the world by a woman, so also did life and health: "god sent forth his son, made of a woman." yea, to show how much those that came after did abhor the act of the mother, this sex, in the old testament, coveted children, if happily this or that woman might be the mother of the saviour of the world. i will say again, that when the saviour was come, woman rejoiced in him, before either man or angel. i read not that ever man did give unto christ so much as one groat; but the women followed him and ministered unto him of their substance. it was a woman that washed his feet with tears, and a woman that anointed his body to the burial. they were women that wept when he was going to the cross; and women that followed him from the cross, and that sat by his sepulchre when he was buried. they were women that were first with him at his resurrection-morn, and women that brought tidings first to the disciples that he was risen from the dead. women therefore are highly favored, and show by these things that they are sharers with us in the grace of life. all the glory of this world, had not adam had a wife, could not have completed this man's blessedness. he would yet have been wanting. the family. a master of a family and a mistress of the same are those that are entrusted of god with those under their tuition and care to be brought up for him, be they children or servants. look to it and consider with thyself whether thou hast done such duty and service for god in this matter, that, setting common facilities aside, thou canst with good conscience lift up thy face unto god; the which to be sure thou canst by no means do, if iniquity to the utmost be not banished out of thy house. and will it not be a sad complaint that thy servant shall take up against thee before the judge, at the last day, that he learnt the way to destruction in thy house, who art a professor? servants, though themselves be carnal, expect, when they come into the house of professors, that there they shall see religion in spangling colors; but behold, when he enters thy door, he finds sin and wickedness there. there is pride instead of humility, and height of raillery instead of meekness and holiness of mind. he looked for a house full of virtue, and behold nothing but spider-webs; fair and plausible abroad, but like the sow in the mire at home. "bless me," saith such a servant, "are these the religious people? are these the servants of god, where iniquity is made so much of and is so highly entertained?" and now is his heart filled with prejudice against all religion, or else he turns hypocrite like his master and mistress, wearing, as they, a cloak of religion to cover all abroad, while all is naked and shameful at home. but perhaps thy heart is so hard and thy mind so united to the pleasing of thy vile affections, that thou wilt say, "what care i for my servant? i took him to do my work, not to train him up in religion." well, suppose the soul of thy servant be thus little worth in thine eyes; yet what wilt thou say for thy children, who behold all thy ways, and are as capable of drinking up the poison of thy footsteps, as the swine is of drinking up swill: i say, what wilt thou do for them? children will learn to be wicked of parents--of professing parents soonest of all; they will be tempted to think all that they do is right. i say, what wilt thou say to this? or art thou like the ostrich whom god hath deprived of wisdom, and hath hardened her heart against her young? will it please thee, when thou shalt see that thou hast brought forth children to the murderer? or when thou shalt hear them cry, i learnt to go on in the paths of sin by the carriage of professing parents? if it was counted of old a sad thing for a man to bring forth children to the sword, as ephraim did; what will it be for a man to bring up children for hell? hos. 9:13. "and jared lived after he begat enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters." he lived therefore to see the fruit of his good rule and government in the church, even to see his teachable and dedicated son caught up to god and to his throne. a good encouragement to all rulers in the house of god, and also to all godly parents, to teach and rule in the fear of god; for that is the way to part with church-members and children with comfort; yea, that is the way, if we shall outlive them, to send them to heaven and to god before us. if parents carry it lovingly towards their children, mixing their mercies with loving rebukes, and their loving rebukes with fatherly and motherly compassions, they are more likely to save their children than by being churlish and severe towards them. but if they do not save them, if their mercy do them no good, yet it will greatly ease them at the day of death to consider, i have done by love as much as i could to save and deliver my child from hell. let them that name the name of christ depart from family-iniquity. there is a house-iniquity--an iniquity that loves not to walk abroad, but to harbor within doors. this the holy man david was aware of; therefore he said that he would behave himself wisely, in a perfect way; yea, saith he, "i will walk within my house with a perfect heart." many that show like saints abroad, yet act the part of devils when they are at home by giving way to this house-iniquity. this iniquity meeteth the man and his wife at the very threshold of the door, and will not suffer them to enter, no, not with one foot into the house, in peace: but how far this is from walking together as heirs of the grace of life, is easy to be determined. men should carry it in love to their wives, as christ doth to his church; and wives should carry it to their husbands, as the church ought to carry it to her saviour, eph. 5: 21-28; 1 pet. 3: 7; and until each relation be managed with respect to these things, this house-iniquity will be cherished there. oh, god sees within doors as well as without, and will judge too for the iniquity of the house as well as for that more open. a man's house and his conduct there do more bespeak the nature and temper of his mind than all public profession. if i were to judge of a man for my life, i would not judge of him by his open profession, but by his domestic behaviors. open profession is like a man's best cloak, which is worn by him when he walks abroad, and with many is made but little use of at home. but now what a man is at home, that he is indeed. there is abroad, my house, my closet, my heart; and my house, my closet, show most what i am: though not to the world, yet to my family and to angels. to make religion and the power of godliness the chief of my designs at home, before those among whom god by a special hand has placed me, is that which is pleasing to god, and which obtaineth a good report of him. genesis 18:17-19. character of talkative. he talketh of prayer, of repentance, of faith, and of the new birth; but he knows but only to talk of them. i have been in his family, and have observed him both at home and abroad. his house is as empty of religion as the white of an egg is of savor. there is there neither prayer nor sign of repentance for sin; yea, the brute in his kind serves god far better than he. he is the very stain, reproach, and shame of religion to all that know him: it can hardly have a good word in all that end of the town where he dwells, through him. thus say the common people, that know him, "a saint abroad and a devil at home." his poor family find it so: he is such a churl, such a railer at, and so unreasonable with his servants, that they neither know how to do for or speak to him. domestic iniquity stands also in the disorders of children and servants. children's unlawful carriage to their parents is a great house-iniquity, yea, and a common one too. 2 tim. 3:2, 3. disobedience to parents is one of the sins of the last days. o it is horrible to behold how irreverently, how saucily, and malpertly, children, yea, professing children, at this day carry it to their parents; snapping and checking, curbing and rebuking them, as if they had never received their being by them, or had never been beholden to them for bringing them up; yea, as if the relation was lost, or as if they had received a dispensation from god to dishonor and disobey parents. i will add, that this sin reigns in little and great; for not only the small and young, but men are disobedient to their parents; and indeed this is the sin with a shame, that men shall be "disobedient to parents." where nowadays shall we see children that are come to men and women's estate, carry it as by the word they are bound, to their aged and worn-out parents? i say, where is the honor they should put upon them? who speak to their aged parents with that due regard to that relation, to their age, to their worn-out condition, that becomes them? is it not common nowadays for parents to be brought into bondage and servitude by their children; for parents to be under, and children above; for parents to be debased, and children to lord it over them? this sin is, i fear, grown to such a height in some, as to make them weary of their parents, and of doing their duty to them. yea, i wish that some be not murderers of fathers and mothers by their thoughts, while they secretly long after and desire their death, that the inheritance may be theirs, and that they may be delivered from obedience to their parents. 1 tim. 1:9. this is a sin in the house, in the family; a sin that is kept close; but god sees it, and has declared his dislike against it, by an implicit threatening to cut them off that are guilty of it. eph. 5:1-3. many that have had very hopeful beginnings for heaven, have, by virtue of the mischiefs that have attended unlawful marriages, deut. 7:4,5; 2 cor. 6:14, miserably and fearfully miscarried. soon after such marriages, conviction, the first step towards heaven, hath ceased; prayers, the next step towards heaven, have ceased; hungerings and thirstings after salvation, another step towards the kingdom of heaven, have ceased. in a word, such marriages have estranged them from the word, from their godly and faithful friends, and have brought them again into carnal company, among carnal friends, and also into carnal delights; where and with whom they have, in conclusion, both sinfully abode and miserably perished. servants are goers as well as comers: take heed that thou give them no occasion to scandal the gospel when they are gone, for what they observed thee unrighteously to do when they were with thee. though thy parents be never so low, and thou thyself never so high, yet he is thy father, and she thy mother, and they must be in thine eyes in great esteem. bunyan's domestic character. but notwithstanding these helps from god, i found myself a man encompassed with infirmities; the parting with my wife and poor children,[footnote: bunyan had four children, all by his first marriage. about 1658, some three years after his baptism, he married his second wife, the heroic elizabeth. in 1660 he was first imprisoned.] hath often been to me in this place as the pulling the flesh from the bones; and that not only because i am somewhat too fond of these great mercies, but also because i should have often brought to my mind the many hardships, miseries, and wants that my poor family was like to meet with, should i be taken from them; especially my poor blind child, who lay nearer my heart than all beside. oh, the thoughts of the hardships which my poor blind one might undergo, would seem to break my heart in pieces. poor child, thought i, what sorrow art thou like to have for thy portion in this world! thou must he beaten, must beg, suffer hunger, cold, nakedness, and a thousand calamities, though i cannot now endure the wind should blow upon thee. but yet, recalling myself, thought i, i must venture you all with god, though it goeth to the quick to leave you. oh, i saw in this condition i was as a man who was pulling down his house upon the heads of his wife and children; yet, thought i, i must do it, i must do it: and now i thought on those two milch kine that were to carry the ark of god into another country, and to leave their calves behind them. 1 sam 6:10. dr. owen. what if, as you suggest, the sober dr. owen, though he told me and others, at first, he would write an epistle to my book, ("peaceable principles and true,") yet waved it afterwards; this was also to my advantage; because it was the earnest solicitations of several of you that at that time stopped his hand: and perhaps it was more for the glory of god that truth should, go naked into the world, than as seconded by so mighty an armor-bearer as he. truth. the truth is of that nature, that the more it is opposed, the more glory it appears in; and the more the adversary objects against it, the more it will clear itself. there belongs to every true notion of truth, a power; the notion is the shell, the power the kernel and life. it is impossible that a carnal heart should conceive of the weight that truth lays upon the conscience of a believer. they see nothing, alas, nothing at all but a truth; and, say they, are you such fools as to stand groaning to bear up that, or what is contained therein? they see not the weight, the glory, the weight of glory, that is in a truth of god; and therefore they laugh at them that will count it worth the while to endure so much to support it from falling to the ground. truths are often delivered to us, like wheat in full ears, to the end we should rub them out before we eat them, and take pains about them, before we have the comfort of them. style. i could, were i so pleased, use higher-strains, and for applause on tenters stretch my brains; but what needs that? the arrow out of sight does not the sleeper nor the watchman fright: to shoot too high doth make but children gaze, 'tis that which hits the man doth him amaze. should all be forced their brains to lay aside, that cannot regulate the flowing tide by this or that man's fancy, we should have the wise unto the fool become a slave. words easy to be understood do often hit the mark, when high and learned ones do only pierce the air. he also that speaks to the weakest, may make the learned understand him; when he that striveth to be high, is not only for the most part understood but of a sort, but also many times is neither understood by them nor by himself. the old and new dispensations. there is as great a difference between their dispensation and ours for comfort, as there is between the making of a bond with a promise to seal it, and the actual sealing. it was made indeed in their time, but it was not sealed until the blood was shed on calvary. the pilgrim in new england. my pilgrim's book has travelled sea and land; yet could i never come to understand that it was slighted, or turned out of door by any kingdom, were they rich or poor. in france, and flanders, where men kill each other my pilgrim is esteemed a friend, a brother. in holland too, 'tis said, as i am told, my pilgrim is with some worth more than gold; highlanders and wild irish can agree my pilgrim should familiar with them be. 'tis in new england under such advance, receives there so much loving countenance, as to be trimmed, new clothed, and decked with gems, that it may show its features and its limbs. yet more, so public doth my pilgrim walk, that of him thousands daily sing and talk. notices of bunyan. this wonderful book, [the pilgrim's progress,] while it obtains admiration from the most fastidious critics, is loved by those who are too simple to admire it. dr. johnson, all whose studies were desultory, and who hated, as he said, to read books through, made an exception in favor of the pilgrim's progress. that work, he said, was one of the two or three which he wished longer. in every nursery the pilgrim's progress is a greater favorite than jack the giant-killer. every reader knows the strait and narrow path as well as he knows a road in which he has gone backward and forward a hundred times. this is the highest miracle of genius--that things which are not should be as though they were, that the imaginations of one mind should become the personal recollections of another. cowper said, forty or fifty years ago, that he dared not name john bunyan in his verse, for fear of moving a sneer. we live in better times; and we are not afraid to say, that though there were many clever men in england during the latter half of the seventeenth century, there were only two great creative minds. one of those minds produced the paradise lost, the other the pilgrim's progress. the style of bunyan is delightful to every reader, and invaluable as a study to every person who wishes to obtain a wide command over the english language. the vocabulary is the vocabulary of the common people. there is not an expression, if we except a few technical terms of theology, which would puzzle the rudest peasant. we have observed several pages which do not contain a single word of more than two syllables. yet no writer has said more exactly what he meant to say. for magnificence, for pathos, for vehement exhortation, for subtle disquisition, for every purpose of the poet, the orator, and the divine, this homely dialect, the dialect of plain working-men, was sufficient. there is no book in our literature on which we could so readily stake the fame of the old unpolluted english language--no book which shows so well how rich that language is in its own proper wealth, and how little it has been improved by all that it has borrowed. t. b. macaulay--essays. to the names of baxter and howe must be added the name of a man far below them in station and in acquired knowledge, but in virtue their equal, and in genius their superior, john bunyan. bunyan had been bred a tinker, and had served as a private soldier in the parliamentary army. early in his life he had been fearfully tortured by remorse for his youthful sins, the worst of which seem, however, to have been such as the world thinks venial. his keen sensibility and his powerful imagination made his internal conflicts singularly terrible. he fancied that he was under sentence of reprobation, that he had committed blasphemy against the holy ghost, that he had sold christ, that he was actually possessed by a demon. sometimes loud voices from heaven cried out to warn him. sometimes fiends whispered impious suggestions in his ear. he saw visions of distant mountain-tops, on which the sun shone brightly, but from which he was separated by a waste of snow. he felt the devil behind him pulling his clothes. he thought, that the brand of cain had been set upon him. he feared that he was about to burst asunder like judas. his mental agony disordered his health. one day he shook like a man in the palsy. on another day he felt a fire within his breast. it is difficult to understand how he survived sufferings so intense and so long-continued. at length the clouds broke. from the depths of despair the penitent passed to a state of serene felicity. an irresistible impulse now urged him to impart to others the blessing of which he was himself possessed. he joined the baptists, and became a preacher and writer. his education had been that of a mechanic. he knew no language but the english, as it was spoken by the common people. he had studied no great model of composition, with the exception--an important exception undoubtedly--of our noble translation of the bible. his spelling was bad. he frequently transgressed the rules of grammar. yet his native force of genius, and his experimental knowledge of all the religious passions, from despair to ecstasy, amply supplied in him the want of learning. his rude oratory roused and melted hearers who listened without interest to the labored discourses of great logicians and hebraists. his works were widely circulated among the humbler classes. one of them, the pilgrim's progress, was in his own lifetime translated into several foreign languages. it was, however, scarcely known to the learned and polite, and had been during nearly a century the delight of pious cottagers and artisans before it was publicly commended by any man of high literary eminence. at length critics condescended to inquire where the secret of so wide and so durable a popularity lay. they were compelled to own that the ignorant multitude had judged more correctly than the learned, and that the despised little book was really a masterpiece. bunyan is indeed as decidedly the first of allegorists as demosthenes is the first of orators, or shakspeare the first of dramatists. other allegorists have shown equal ingenuity, but no other allegorist has ever been able to touch the heart, and to make abstractions objects of terror, of pity, and of love. it may be doubted whether any english dissenter had suffered more severely under the penal laws than john bunyan. of the twenty-seven years which had elapsed since the restoration, he had passed twelve in confinement. he still persisted in preaching; but that he might preach, he was under the necessity of disguising himself like a carter. he was often introduced into meetings through back doors with a smockfrock on his back, and a whip in his hand. if he had thought only of his own ease and safety, he would have hailed the indulgence with delight. he was now at length free to pray and exhort in open day. his congregation rapidly increased; thousands hung upon his words; and at bedford, where he ordinarily resided, money was plentifully contributed to build a meeting-house for him. his influence among the common people was such that the government would willingly have bestowed on him some municipal office; but his vigorous understanding and his stout english heart were proof against all delusion and all temptation. he felt assured that the proffered toleration was merely a bait intended to lure the puritan party to destruction; nor would he, by accepting a place for which he was not legally qualified, recognize the validity of the dispensing power. one of the last acts of his virtuous life was to decline an interview to which he was invited by an agent of the government. t. b. macaulay--history of england. the demeanor of sir matthew hale in the case of john bunyan, the author of the pilgrim's progress, shows him paying respect both to the rules of law and to the dictates of humanity. this wonderful man--who, though bred a tinker, showed a genius little inferior to that of dante--having been illegally convicted by the court of quarter-sessions, was lying in prison under his sentence in the jail of bedford. soon after the restoration of charles ii., the young enthusiast had been arrested while he was preaching at a meeting in a private house; and, refusing to enter into an engagement that he would preach no more, had been indicted as "a person who devilishly and perniciously abstained from coming to church to hear divine service, and a common upholder of unlawful meetings and conventicles, to the great disturbance and distraction of the good subjects of this realm." little do we know what is for our permanent good. had bunyan then been discharged and allowed to enjoy liberty, he no doubt would have returned to his trade, filling up his intervals of leisure with field-preaching; his name would not have survived his own generation, and he could have done little for the religious improvement of mankind. the prison-doors were shut upon him for twelve years. being cut off from the external world, he communed with his own soul; and inspired by him who touched isaiah's hallowed lips with fire, he composed the noblest of allegories, the merit of which was first discovered by the lowly, but which is now lauded by the most refined critics, and which has done more to awaken piety and to enforce the precepts of christian morality, than all the sermons that have been published by all the prelates of the anglican church. lord campbell. the pilgrim's progress is a book which makes its way through the fancy to the understanding and the heart. the child peruses it with wonder and delight; in youth we discover the genius which it displays; its worth is apprehended as we advance in years; and we perceive its merits feelingly in declining age. if it is not a well of english undefiled, to which the poet as well as the philologist must repair if they would drink of the living waters, it is a clear stream of current english, the vernacular of his age--sometimes indeed in its rusticity and coarseness, but always in its plainness and its strength. robert southey. no man of common-sense and common integrity can deny that bunyan, the tinker of elstow, was a practical atheist, a worthless contemptible infidel, a vile rebel to god and goodness, a common profligate. now be astonished, o heaven, to eternity; and wonder, o earth and hell, while time endures. behold this very man become a miracle of mercy, a mirror of wisdom, goodness, holiness, truth, and love. see his polluted soul cleansed and adorned by divine grace, his guilt pardoned, the divine law inscribed upon his heart, the divine image, or the resemblance of god's moral perfections impressed upon his soul. mr. ryland. it has been the lot of john bunyan, an unlettered artisan, to do more than one in a hundred millions of human beings, even in civilized society, is usually able to do. he has produced a work of imagination of such decided originality as not only to have commanded profound admiration on its first appearance, but amidst all changes of time and style and modes of thinking, to have maintained its place in the popular literature of every succeeding age, with the probability that, so long as the language in which it is written endures, it will not cease to be read by a great number of the youth of all future generations at that period of life when their minds, their imaginations, and their hearts are most impressible with moral excellence, splendid picture, and religious sentiment. it would be difficult to name another work of any kind in our native tongue, of which so many editions have been printed, of which so many readers have lived and died, the character of whose lives and deaths must have been more or less affected by its lessons and examples, its fictions and realities. james montgomery. i know of no book, the bible excepted as above all comparison, which i, according to my judgment and experience, could so safely recommend as teaching and enforcing the whole saving truth, according to the mind that was in christ jesus, as the pilgrim's progress. it is in my conviction the best summa theologiae evangelicae ever produced by a writer not miraculously inspired. coleridge's remains. so great was bunyan's popularity as a preacher, that an eyewitness says, when he preached in london, "if there were but one day's notice given, there would be more people come together to hear him preach than the meeting-house would hold. i have seen, to hear him preach, about twelve hundred at a morning lecture, by seven o'clock on a working-day, in the dark winter time." charles doe. i hold john bunyan to have been a man of incomparably greater genius than any of them, [the old english divines,] and to have given a far truer and more edifying picture of christianity. his pilgrim's progress seems to be a complete reflection of scripture, with none of the rubbish of the theologians mixed up with it. thomas arnold, d. d o thou whom, borne on fancy's eager wing back to the season of life's happy spring, i pleased remember, and while memory yet holds fast her office here, can ne'er forget; ingenious dreamer! in whose weil-told tale, sweet fiction and sweet truth alike prevail; whose humorous vein, strong sense, and simple style, may teach the gayest, make the gravest smile; witty, and well-employed, and like thy lord, speaking in parables his slighted word; i name thee not, lest so despised a name should move a sneer at thy deserved fame; yet e'en in transitory life's late day, that mingles all my brown with sober gray, revere the man, whose pilgrim marks the road and guides the progress of the soul to god. cowper theological translation library edited by the rev. t. k. cheyne ma dd, oriet professor of interpretation oxford and the rev. a. b. bruce, dd professor of apologetics and new testament: exegesis, free church college glasgow vol ii harnacks history of dogma. vol. i [greek: to dogmatos onoma tês anthrôpinês echetai boulês te kai gnômês. hoti de touth' houtos echei, marturei men hikanôs hê dogmatikê tôn iatrôn technê, martyrei de kai ta tôn philosophôn kaloumena dogmata. hoti de kai ta synklêto doxanta eti kai nun dogmata synklêtou legetai, oudena agnoein oimai.] marcellus of ancyra. die christliche religion hat nichts in der philosophie zu thun, sie ist ein machtiges wesen für sich, woran die gesunkene und leidende menschheit von zeit zu zeit sich immer wieder emporgearbeitet hat, und indem man ihr diese wirkung zugesteht, ist sie über aller philosophie erhaben und bedarf von ihr keine stütze. gesprache mit goethe von eckermann, 2 th p 39. history of dogma by dr. adolph harnack ordinary prof. of church history in the university, and fellow of the royal academy of science, berlin _translated from the third german edition_ by neil buchanan vol. i. boston little, brown, and company 1901 vorwort zur englischen ausgabe. ein theologisches buch erhält erst dadurch einen platz in der weltlitteratur, dass es deutsch und englisch gelesen werden kann. diese beiden sprachen zusammen haben auf dem gebiete der wissenschaft vom christenthum das lateinische abgelöst. es ist mir daher eine grosse freude, dass mein lehrbuch der dogmengeschichte in das englische übersetzt worden ist, und ich sage dem uebersetzer sowie den verlegern meinen besten dank. der schwierigste theil der dogmengeschichte ist ihr anfang, nicht nur weil in dem anfang die keime für alle späteren entwickelungen liegen, und daher ein beobachtungsfehler beim beginn die richtigkeit der ganzen folgenden darstellung bedroht, sondern auch desshalb, weil die auswahl des wichtigsten stoffs aus der geschichte des urchristenthums und der biblischen theologie ein schweres problem ist. der eine wird finden, dass ich zu viel in das buch aufgenommen habe, und der andere zu wenig--vielleicht haben beide recht; ich kann dagegen nur anführen, dass sich mir die getroffene auswahl nach wiederholtem nachdenken und experimentiren auf's neue erprobt hat. wer ein theologisches buch aufschlägt, fragt gewöhnlich zuerst nach dem "standpunkt" des verfassers. bei geschichtlichen darstellungen sollte man so nicht fragen. hier handelt es sich darum, ob der verfasser einen sinn hat für den gegenstand den er darstellt, ob er originales und abgeleitetes zu unterscheiden versteht, ob er seinen stoff volkommen kennt, ob er sich der grenzen des geschichtlichen wissens bewusst ist, und ob er wahrhaftig ist. diese forderungen enthalten den kategorischen imperativ für den historiker; aber nur indem man rastlos an sich selber arbeitet, sind sie zu erfullen,--so ist jede geschichtliche darstellung eine ethische aufgabe. der historiker soll in jedem sinn _treu_ sein: ob er das gewesen ist, darnach soll mann fragen. _berlin_, am 1. mai, 1894. adolf harnack. the author's preface to the english edition. no theological book can obtain a place in the literature of the world unless it can be read both in german and in english. these two languages combined have taken the place of latin in the sphere of christian science. i am therefore greatly pleased to learn that my "history of dogma" has been translated into english, and i offer my warmest thanks both to the translator and to the publishers. the most difficult part of the history of dogma is the beginning, not only because it contains the germs of all later developments, and therefore an error in observation here endangers the correctness of the whole following account, but also because the selection of the most important material from the history of primitive christianity and biblical theology is a hard problem. some will think that i have admitted too much into the book, others too little. perhaps both are right. i can only reply that after repeated consideration and experiment i continue to be satisfied with my selection. in taking up a theological book we are in the habit of enquiring first of all as to the "stand-point" of the author. in a historical work there is no room for such enquiry. the question here is, whether the author is in sympathy with the subject about which he writes, whether he can distinguish original elements from those that are derived, whether he has a thorough acquaintance with his material, whether he is conscious of the limits of historical knowledge, and whether he is truthful. these requirements constitute the categorical imperative for the historian: but they can only be fulfilled by an unwearied self-discipline. hence every historical study is an ethical task. the historian ought to be faithful in every sense of the word; whether he has been so or not is the question on which his readers have to decide. _berlin_, 1st may, 1894. adolf harnack. from the author's preface to the first edition. the task of describing the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma which i have attempted to perform in the following pages, has hitherto been proposed by very few scholars, and, properly speaking, undertaken by one only. i must therefore crave the indulgence of those acquainted with the subject for an attempt which no future historian of dogma can avoid. at first i meant to confine myself to narrower limits, but i was unable to carry out that intention, because the new arrangement of the material required a more detailed justification. yet no one will find in the book, which presupposes the knowledge of church history so far as it is given in the ordinary manuals, any repertory of the theological thought of christian antiquity. the diversity of christian ideas, or of ideas closely related to christianity, was very great in the first centuries. for that very reason a selection was necessary; but it was required, above all, by the aim of the work. the history of dogma has to give an account, only of those doctrines of christian writers which were authoritative in wide circles, or which furthered the advance of the development; otherwise it would become a collection of monographs, and thereby lose its proper value. i have endeavoured to subordinate everything to the aim of exhibiting the development which led to the ecclesiastical dogmas, and therefore have neither, for example, communicated the details of the gnostic systems, nor brought forward in detail the theological ideas of clemens romanus, ignatius, etc. even a history of paulinism will be sought for in the book in vain. it is a task by itself, to trace the aftereffects of the theology of paul in the post-apostolic age. the history of dogma can only furnish fragments here; for it is not consistent with its task to give an accurate account of the history of a theology the effects of which were at first very limited. it is certainly no easy matter to determine what was authoritative in wide circles at the time when dogma was first being developed, and i may confess that i have found the working out of the third chapter of the first book very difficult. but i hope that the severe limitation in the material will be of service to the subject. if the result of this limitation should be to lead students to read connectedly the manual which has grown out of my lectures, my highest wish will be gratified. there can be no great objection to the appearance of a text-book on the history of dogma at the present time. we now know in what direction we have to work; but we still want a history of christian theological ideas in their relation to contemporary philosophy. above all, we have not got an exact knowledge of the hellenistic philosophical terminologies in their development up to the fourth century. i have keenly felt this want, which can only be remedied by well-directed common labour. i have made a plentiful use of the controversial treatise of celsus against christianity, of which little use has hitherto been made for the history of dogma. on the other hand, except in a few cases, i have deemed it inadmissible to adduce parallel passages, easy to be got, from philo, seneca, plutarch, epictetus, marcus aurelius, porphyry, etc.; for only a comparison strictly carried out would have been of value here. i have been able neither to borrow such from others, nor to furnish it myself. yet i have ventured to submit my work, because, in my opinion, it is possible to prove the dependence of dogma on the greek spirit, without being compelled to enter into a discussion of all the details. the publishers of the encyclopædia britannica have allowed me to print here, in a form but slightly altered, the articles on neoplatonism and manichæism which i wrote for their work, and for this i beg to thank them. it is now eighty-three years since my grandfather, gustav ewers, edited in german the excellent manual on the earliest history of dogma by münter, and thereby got his name associated with the history of the founding of the new study. may the work of the grandson be found not unworthy of the clear and disciplined mind which presided over the beginnings of the young science. _giessen_, 1st august, 1885. author's preface to the second edition. in the two years that have passed since the appearance of the first edition i have steadily kept in view the improvement of this work, and have endeavoured to learn from the reviews of it that have appeared. i owe most to the study of weizsäcker's work, on the apostolic age, and his notice of the first edition of this volume in the göttinger gelehrte anzeigen, 1886, no. 21. the latter, in several decisive passages concerning the general conception, drew my attention to the fact that i had emphasised certain points too strongly, but had not given due prominence to others of equal importance, while not entirely overlooking them. i have convinced myself that these hints were, almost throughout, well founded, and have taken pains to meet them in the new edition. i have also learned from heinrici's commentary on the second epistle to the corinthians, and from bigg's "lectures on the christian platonists of alexandria." apart from these works there has appeared very little that could be of significance for my historical account; but i have once more independently considered the main problems, and in some cases, after repeated reading of the sources, checked my statements, removed mistakes and explained what had been too briefly stated. thus, in particular, chapter ii. §§ 1-3 of the "presuppositions", also the third chapter of the first book (especially section 6), also in the second book, chapter i. and chapter ii. (under b), the third chapter (supplement 3 and excursus on "catholic and romish"), the fifth chapter (under 1 and 3) and the sixth chapter (under 2) have been subjected to changes and greater additions. finally, a new excursus has been added on the various modes of conceiving pre-existence, and in other respects many things have been improved in detail. the size of the book has thereby been increased by about fifty pages. as i have been misrepresented by some as one who knew not how to appreciate the uniqueness of the gospel history and the evangelic faith, while others have conversely reproached me with making the history of dogma proceed from an "apostasy" from the gospel to hellenism, i have taken pains to state my opinions on both these points as clearly as possible. in doing so i have only wrought out the hints which were given in the first edition, and which, as i supposed, were sufficient for readers. but it is surely a reasonable desire when i request the critics in reading the paragraphs which treat of the "presuppositions", not to forget how difficult the questions there dealt with are, both in themselves and from the nature of the sources, and how exposed to criticism the historian is who attempts to unfold his position towards them in a few pages. as is self-evident, the centre of gravity of the book lies in that which forms its subject proper, in the account of the origin of dogma within the græco-roman empire. but one should not on that account, as many have done, pass over the beginning which lies before the beginning, or arbitrarily adopt a starting-point of his own; for everything here depends on where and how one begins. i have not therefore been able to follow the well-meant counsel to simply strike out the "presuppositions." i would gladly have responded to another advice to work up the notes into the text; but i would then have been compelled to double the size of some chapters. the form of this book, in many respects awkward, may continue as it is so long as it represents the difficulties by which the subject is still pressed. when they have been removed--and the smallest number of them lie in the subject matter--i will gladly break up this form of the book and try to give it another shape. for the friendly reception given to it i have to offer my heartiest thanks. but against those who, believing themselves in possession of a richer view of the history here related, have called my conception meagre, i appeal to the beautiful words of tertullian; "malumus in scripturis minus, si forte, sapere quam contra." _marburg_, 24th december, 1887. author's preface to the third edition. in the six years that have passed since the appearance of the second edition i have continued to work at the book, and have made use of the new sources and investigations that have appeared during this period, as well as corrected and extended my account in many passages. yet i have not found it necessary to make many changes in the second half of the work. the increase of about sixty pages is almost entirely in the first half. _berlin_, 31st december, 1893 contents introductory division. chapter i.--prolegomena to the study of the history of dogma § 1. the idea and task of the history of dogma definition limits and divisions dogma and theology factors in the formation of dogma explanation as to the conception and task of the history of dogma § 2. history of the history of dogma the early, the mediæval, and the roman catholic church the reformers and the 17th century mosheim, walch, ernesti lessing, semler, lange, münscher, baumgarten-crusius, meier baur, neander, kliefoth, thomasius, nitzsch, ritschl, renan, loofs chapter ii.--the presuppositions of the history of dogma § 1. introductory the gospel and the old testament the detachment of the christians from the jewish church the church and the græco-roman world the greek spirit an element of the ecclesiastical doctrine of faith the elements connecting primitive christianity and the growing catholic church the presuppositions of the origin of the apostolic catholic doctrine of faith § 2. the gospel of jesus christ according to his own testimony concerning himself fundamental features details supplements literature § 3. the common preaching concerning jesus christ in the first generation of believers. general outline the faith of the first disciples the beginnings of christology conceptions of the work of jesus belief in the resurrection righteousness and the law paul the self-consciousness of being the church of god supplement 1. universalism supplement 2. questions as to the value of the law; the four main tendencies at the close of the apostolic age supplement 3. the pauline theology. supplement 4. the johannine writings supplement 5. the authorities in the church § 4. the current exposition of the old testament and the jewish hopes of the future in their significance for the earliest types of christian preaching the rabbinical and exegetical methods the jewish apocalyptic literature mythologies and poetical ideas, notions of pre-existence and their application to messiah the limits of the explicable literature § 5. the religious conceptions and the religious philosophy of the hellenistic jews in their significance for the later formulation of the gospel spiritualising and moralising of the jewish religion philo the hermeneutic principles of philo § 6. the religious dispositions of the greeks and romans in the first two centuries, and the current græco-roman philosophy of religion the new religious needs and the old worship (excursus on [greek: theos]) the system of associations, and the empire philosophy and its acquisitions platonic and stoic elements in the philosophy of religion greek culture and roman ideas in the church the empire and philosophic schools (the cynics) literature supplementary. (1) the twofold conception of the blessing of salvation in its significance for the following period (2) obscurity in the origin of the most important christian ideas and ecclesiastical forms (3) significance of the pauline theology for the legitimising and reformation of the doctrine of the church in the following period division i.--the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma, or the genesis of the catholic apostolic dogmatic theology, and the first scientific ecclesiastical system of doctrine. book i. the preparation. chapter i. historical survey chapter ii.--the element common to all christians and the breach with judaism chapter iii. the common faith and the beginnings of knowledge in gentile christianity as it was being developed into catholicism (1) the communities and the church (2) the foundations of the faith; the old testament, and the traditions about jesus (sayings of jesus, the _kerygma_ about jesus), the significance of the "apostolic" (3) the main articles of christianity and the conceptions of salvation. the new law. eschatology. (4) the old testament as source of the knowledge of faith (5) the knowledge of god and of the world, estimate of the world (demons) (6) faith in jesus christ jesus the lord. jesus the christ jesus the son of god, the _theologia christi_ the adoptian and the pneumatic christology ideas of christ's work (7) the worship, the sacred actions, and the organisation of the churches the worship and sacrifice baptism and the lord's supper the organisation supplementary. the premises of catholicism doctrinal diversities of the apostolical fathers chapter iv.--the attempts of the gnostics to create an apostolic dogmatic, and a christian theology; or the acute secularising of christianity (1) the conditions for the rise of gnosticism. (2) the nature of gnosticism (3) history of gnosticism and the forms in which it appeared (4) the most important gnostic doctrines chapter v.--the attempt of marcion to set aside the old testament foundation of christianity, to purify the tradition and reform christendom on the basis of the pauline gospel characterisation of marcion's attempt (1) his estimate of the old testament and the god of the jews (2) the god of the gospel (3) the relation of the two gods according to marcion. the gnostic woof in marcion's christianity (4) the christology (5) eschatology and ethics (6) criticism of the christian tradition, the marcionite church remarks chapter vi.--the christianity of jewish christians, definition of the notion jewish christianity (1) general conditions for the development of jewish christianity (2) jewish christianity and the catholic church, insignificance of jewish christianity, "judaising" in catholicism alleged documents of jewish christianity (apocalypse of john, acts of the apostles, epistle to the hebrews, hegesippus) history of jewish christianity the witness of justin the witness of celsus the witness of irenæus and origen the witness of eusebius and jerome the gnostic jewish christianity the elkesaites and ebionites of epiphanius estimate of the pseudo-clementine recognitions and homilies, their want of significance for the question as to the genesis of catholicism and its doctrine appendices. i. on the different notions of pre-existence. ii. on liturgies and the genesis of dogma. iii. on neoplatonism literature i prolegomena to the discipline of the history of dogma. ii the presuppositions of the history of dogma. chapter i prolegomena to the discipline of the history of dogma. § 1. _the idea and task of the history of dogma_. 1. the history of dogma is a discipline of general church history, which has for its object the dogmas of the church. these dogmas are the doctrines of the christian faith logically formulated and expressed for scientific and apologetic purposes, the contents of which are a knowledge of god, of the world, and of the provisions made by god for man's salvation. the christian churches teach them as the truths revealed in holy scripture, the acknowledgment of which is the condition of the salvation which religion promises. but as the adherents of the christian religion had not these dogmas from the beginning, so far, at least, as they form a connected system, the business of the history of dogma is, in the first place, to ascertain the origin of dogmas (of dogma), and then secondly, to describe their development (their variations). 2. we cannot draw any hard and fast line between the time of the origin and that of the development of dogma; they rather shade off into one another. but we shall have to look for the final point of division at the time when an article of faith logically formulated and scientifically expressed, was first raised to the _articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ_, and as such was universally enforced by the church. now that first happened when the doctrine of christ, as the pre-existent and personal logos of god, had obtained acceptance everywhere in the confederated churches as the revealed and fundamental doctrine of faith, that is, about the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth. we must therefore, in our account, take this as the final point of division.[1] as to the development of dogma, it seems to have closed in the eastern church with the seventh oecumenical council (787). after that time no further dogmas were set up in the east as revealed truths. as to the western catholic, that is, the romish church, a new dogma was promulgated as late as the year 1870, which claims to be, and in point of form really is, equal in dignity to the old dogmas. here, therefore, the history of dogma must extend to the present time. finally, as regards the protestant churches, they are a subject of special difficulty in the sphere of the history of dogma; for at the present moment there is no agreement within these churches as to whether, and in what sense, dogmas (as the word was used in the ancient church) are valid. but even if we leave the present out of account and fix our attention on the protestant churches of the 16th century, the decision is difficult. for, on the one hand, the protestant faith, the lutheran as well as the reformed (and that of luther no less), presents itself as a doctrine of faith which, resting on the catholic canon of scripture, is, in point of form, quite analogous to the catholic doctrine of faith, has a series of dogmas in common with it, and only differs in a few. on the other hand, protestantism has taken its stand in principle on the gospel exclusively, and declared its readiness at all times to test all doctrines afresh by a true understanding of the gospel. the reformers, however, in addition to this, began to unfold a conception of christianity which might be described, in contrast with the catholic type of religion, as a new conception, and which indeed draws support from the old dogmas, but changes their original significance materially and formally. what this conception was may still be ascertained from those writings received by the church, the protestant symbols of the 16th century, in which the larger part of the traditionary dogmas are recognised as the appropriate expression of the christian religion, nay, as the christian religion itself.[2] accordingly, it can neither be maintained that the expression of the christian faith in the form of dogmas is abolished in the protestant churches--the very acceptance of the catholic canon as the revealed record of faith is opposed to that view--nor that its meaning has remained absolutely unchanged.[3] the history of dogma has simply to recognise this state of things, and to represent it exactly as it lies before us in the documents. but the point to which the historian should advance here still remains an open question. if we adhere strictly to the definition of the idea of dogma given above, this much is certain, that dogmas were no longer set up after the formula of concord, or in the case of the reformed church, after the decrees of the synod of dort. it cannot, however, be maintained that they have been set aside in the centuries that have passed since then; for apart from some protestant national and independent churches, which are too insignificant and whose future is too uncertain to be taken into account here, the ecclesiastical tradition of the 16th century, and along with it the tradition of the early church, have not been abrogated in authoritative form. of course, changes of the greatest importance with regard to doctrine have appeared everywhere in protestantism from the 17th century to the present day. but these changes cannot in any sense be taken into account in a history of dogma, because they have not as yet attained a form valid for the church. however we may judge of these changes, whether we regard them as corruptions or improvements, or explain the want of fixity in which the protestant churches find themselves, as a situation that is forced on them, or the situation that is agreeable to them and for which they are adapted, in no sense is there here a development which could be described as history of dogma. these facts would seem to justify those who, like thomasius and schmid, carry the history of dogma in protestantism to the formula of concord, or, in the case of the reformed church, to the decrees of the synod of dort. but it may be objected to this boundary line; (1) that those symbols have at all times attained only a partial authority in protestantism; (2) that as noted above, the dogmas, that is, the formulated doctrines of faith have different meanings on different matters in the protestant and in the catholic churches. accordingly, it seems advisable within the frame-work of the history of dogma, to examine protestantism only so far as this is necessary for obtaining a knowledge of its deviations from the catholic dogma materially and formally, that is, to ascertain the original position of the reformers with regard to the doctrine of the church, a position which is beset with contradictions. the more accurately we determine the relation of the reformers to catholicism, the more intelligible will be the developments which protestantism has passed through in the course of its history. but these developments themselves (retrocession and advance) do not belong to the sphere of the history of dogma, because they stand in no comparable relation to the course of the history of dogma within the catholic church. as history of protestant doctrines they form a peculiar independent province of church history. as to the division of the history of dogma, it consists of two main parts. the first has to describe the origin of dogma, that is, of the apostolic catholic system of doctrine based on the foundation of the tradition authoritatively embodied in the creeds and holy scripture, and extends to the beginning of the fourth century. this may be conveniently divided into two parts, the first of which will treat of the preparation, the second of the establishment of the ecclesiastical doctrine of faith. the second main part, which has to portray the development of dogma, comprehends three stages. in the first stage the doctrine of faith appears as theology and christology. the eastern church has never got beyond this stage, although it has to a large extent enriched dogma ritually and mystically (see the decrees of the seventh council). we will have to shew how the doctrines of faith formed in this stage have remained for all time in the church dogmas [greek: kat' exochên]. the second stage was initiated by augustine. the doctrine of faith appears here on the one side completed, and on the other re-expressed by new dogmas, which treat of the relation of sin and grace, freedom and grace, grace and the means of grace. the number and importance of the dogmas that were, in the middle ages, really fixed after augustine's time, had no relation to the range and importance of the questions which they raised, and which emerged in the course of centuries in consequence of advancing knowledge, and not less in consequence of the growing power of the church. accordingly, in this second stage which comprehends the whole of the middle ages, the church as an institution kept believers together in a larger measure than was possible to dogmas. these in their accepted form were too poor to enable them to be the expression of religious conviction and the regulator of church life. on the other hand, the new decisions of theologians, councils and popes, did not yet possess the authority which could have made them incontestable truths of faith. the third stage begins with the reformation, which compelled the church to fix its faith on the basis of the theological work of the middle ages. thus arose the roman catholic dogma which has found in the vatican decrees its provisional settlement. this roman catholic dogma, as it was formulated at trent, was moulded in express opposition to the theses of the reformers. but these theses themselves represent a peculiar conception of christianity, which has its root in the theology of paul and augustine, and includes either explicitly or implicitly a revision of the whole ecclesiastical tradition, and therefore of dogma also. the history of dogma in this last stage, therefore, has a twofold task. it has, on the one hand, to present the romish dogma as a product of the ecclesiastical development of the middle ages under the influence of the reformation faith which was to be rejected, and on the other hand, to portray the conservative new formation which we have in original protestantism, and determine its relation to dogma. a closer examination, however, shews that in none of the great confessions does religion live in dogma, as of old. dogma everywhere has fallen into the background; in the eastern church it has given place to ritual, in the roman church to ecclesiastical instructions, in the protestant churches, so far as they are mindful of their origin, to the gospel. at the same time, however, the paradoxical fact is unmistakable that dogma as such is nowhere at this moment so powerful as in the protestant churches, though by their history they are furthest removed from it. here, however, it comes into consideration as an object of immediate religious interest, which, strictly speaking, in the catholic church is not the case.[4] the council of trent was simply wrung from the romish church, and she has made the dogmas of that council in a certain sense innocuous by the vatican decrees.[5] in this sense, it may be said that the period of development of dogma is altogether closed, and that therefore our discipline requires a statement such as belongs to a series of historical phenomena that has been completed. 3. the church has recognised her faith, that is religion itself, in her dogmas. accordingly, one very important business of the history of dogma is to exhibit the unity that exists in the dogmas of a definite period, and to shew how the several dogmas are connected with one another and what leading ideas they express. but, as a matter of course, this undertaking has its limits in the degree of unanimity which actually existed in the dogmas of the particular period. it may be shewn without much difficulty, that a strict though by no means absolute unanimity is expressed only in the dogmas of the greek church. the peculiar character of the western post-augustinian ecclesiastical conception of christianity, no longer finds a clear expression in dogma, and still less is this the case with the conception of the reformers. the reason of this is that augustine, as well as luther, disclosed a new conception of christianity, but at the same time appropriated the old dogmas.[6] but neither baur's nor kliefoth's method of writing the history of dogma has done justice to this fact. not baur's, because, notwithstanding the division into six periods, it sees a uniform process in the development of dogma, a process which begins with the origin of christianity and has run its course, as is alleged, in a strictly logical way. not kliefoth's, because, in the dogmas of the catholic church which the east has never got beyond, it only ascertains the establishment of one portion of the christian faith, to which the parts still wanting have been successively added in later times.[7] in contrast with this, we may refer to the fact that we can clearly distinguish three styles of building in the history of dogma, but only three; the style of origen, that of augustine, and that of the reformers. but the dogma of the post-augustinian church, as well as that of luther, does not in any way represent itself as a new building, not even as the mere extension of an old building, but as a complicated rebuilding, and by no means in harmony with former styles, because neither augustine nor luther ever dreamed of building independently.[8] this perception leads us to the most peculiar phenomenon which meets the historian of dogma, and which must determine his method. dogmas arise, develop themselves and are made serviceable to new aims; this in all cases takes place through theology. but theology is dependent on innumerable factors, above all, on the spirit of the time; for it lies in the nature of theology that it desires to make its object intelligible. dogmas are the product of theology, not inversely; of a theology of course which, as a rule, was in correspondence with the faith of the time. the critical view of history teaches this: first we have the apologists and origen, then the councils of nice and chalcedon; first the scholastics, then the council of trent. in consequence of this, dogma bears the mark of all, the factors on which the theology was dependent. that is one point. but the moment in which the product of theology became dogma, the way which led to it must be obscured; for, according to the conception of the church, dogma can be nothing else than the revealed faith itself. dogma is regarded not as the exponent, but as the basis of theology, and therefore the product of theology having passed into dogma limits, and criticises the work of theology both past and future.[9] that is the second point. it follows from this that the history of the christian religion embraces a very complicated relation of ecclesiastical dogma and theology, and that the ecclesiastical conception of the significance of theology cannot at all do justice to this significance. the ecclesiastical scheme which is here formed and which denotes the utmost concession that can be made to history, is to the effect that theology gives expression only to the form of dogma, while so far as it is ecclesiastical theology, it presupposes the unchanging dogma, i.e., the substance of dogma. but this scheme, which must always leave uncertain what the form really is, and what the substance, is in no way applicable to the actual circumstances. so far, however, as it is itself an article of faith it is an object of the history of dogma. ecclesiastical dogma when put on its defence must at all times take up an ambiguous position towards theology, and ecclesiastical theology a corresponding position towards dogma; for they are condemned to perpetual uncertainty as to what they owe each other, and what they have to fear from each other. the theological fathers of dogma have almost without exception failed to escape being condemned by dogma, either because it went beyond them, or lagged behind their theology. the apologists, origen and augustine may be cited in support of this; and even in protestantism, _mutatis mutandis_, the same thing has been repeated, as is proved by the fate of melanchthon and schleiermacher. on the other hand, there have been few theologians who have not shaken some article of the traditional dogma. we are wont to get rid of these fundamental facts by hypostatising the ecclesiastical principle or the common ecclesiastical spirit, and by this normal hypostasis, measuring, approving or condemning the doctrines of the theologians, unconcerned about the actual conditions and frequently following a hysteron-proteron. but this is a view of history which should in justice be left to the catholic church, which indeed cannot dispense with it. the critical history of dogma has, on the contrary, to shew above all how an ecclesiastical theology has arisen; for it can only give account of the origin of dogma in connection with this main question. the horizon must be taken here as wide as possible; for the question as to the origin of theology can only be answered by surveying all the relations into which the christian religion has entered in naturalising itself in the world and subduing it. when ecclesiastical dogma has once been created and recognised as an immediate expression of the christian religion, the history of dogma has only to take the history of theology into account so far as it has been active in the formation of dogma. yet it must always keep in view the peculiar claim of dogma to be a criterion and not a product of theology. but it will also be able to shew how, partly by means of theology and partly by other means--for dogma is also dependent on ritual, constitution, and the practical ideals of life, as well as on the letter, whether of scripture, or of tradition no longer understood--dogma in its development and re-expression has continually changed, according to the conditions under which the church was placed. if dogma is originally the formulation of christian faith as greek culture understood it and justified it to itself, then dogma has never indeed lost this character, though it has been radically modified in later times. it is quite as important to keep in view the tenacity of dogma as its changes, and in this respect the protestant way of writing history, which, here as elsewhere in the history of the church, is more disposed to attend to differences than to what is permanent, has much to learn from the catholic. but as the protestant historian, as far possible, judges of the progress of development in so far as it agrees with the gospel in its documentary form, he is still able to shew, with all deference to that tenacity, that dogma has been so modified and used to the best advantage by augustine and luther, that its christian character has in many respects gained, though in other respects it has become further and further alienated from that character. in proportion as the traditional system of dogmas lost its stringency it became richer. in proportion as it was stripped by augustine and luther of its apologetic philosophic tendency, it was more and more filled with biblical ideas, though, on the other hand, it became more full of contradictions and less impressive. this outlook, however, has already gone beyond the limits fixed for these introductory paragraphs and must not be pursued further. to treat _in abstracto_ of the method of the history of dogma in relation to the discovery, grouping and interpretation of the material is not to be recommended; for general rules to preserve the ignorant and half instructed from overlooking the important, and laying hold of what is not important, cannot be laid down. certainly everything depends on the arrangement of the material; for the understanding of history is to find the rules according to which the phenomena should be grouped, and every advance in the knowledge of history is inseparable from an accurate observance of these rules. we must, above all, be on our guard against preferring one principle at the expense of another in the interpretation of the origin and aim of particular dogmas. the most diverse factors have at all times been at work in the formation of dogmas. next to the effort to determine the doctrine of religion according to the _finis religionis_, the blessing of salvation, the following may have been the most important. (1) the conceptions and sayings contained in the canonical scriptures. (2) the doctrinal tradition originating in earlier epochs of the church, and no longer understood. (3) the needs of worship and organisation. (4) the effort to adjust the doctrine of religion to the prevailing doctrinal opinions. (5) political and social circumstances. (6) the changing moral ideals of life. (7) the so-called logical consistency, that is the abstract analogical treatment of one dogma according to the form of another. (8) the effort to adjust different tendencies and contradictions in the church. (9) the endeavour to reject once for all a doctrine regarded as erroneous. (10) the sanctifying power of blind custom. the method of explaining everything wherever possible by "the impulse of dogma to unfold itself," must be given up as unscientific, just as all empty abstractions whatsoever must be given up as scholastic and mythological. dogma has had its history in the individual living man and nowhere else. as soon as one adopts this statement in real earnest, that mediæval realism must vanish to which a man so often thinks himself superior while imbedded in it all the time. instead of investigating the actual conditions in which believing and intelligent men have been placed, a system of christianity has been constructed from which, as from a pandora's box, all doctrines which in course of time have been formed, are extracted, and in this way legitimised as christian. the simple fundamental proposition that that only is christian which can be established authoritatively by the gospel, has never yet received justice in the history of dogma. even the following account will in all probability come short in this point; for in face of a prevailing false tradition the application of a simple principle to every detail can hardly succeed at the first attempt. _explanation as to the conception and task of the history of dogma_. no agreement as yet prevails with regard to the conception of the history of dogma. münscher (handbuch der christl. d.g. 3rd ed. i. p. 3 f.) declared that the business of the history of dogma is "to represent all the changes which the theoretic part of the christian doctrine of religion has gone through from its origin up to the present, both in form and substance," and this definition held sway for a long time. then it came to be noted that the question was not about changes that were accidental, but about those that were historically necessary, that dogma has a relation to the church, and that it represents a rational expression of the faith. emphasis was put sometimes on one of these elements and sometimes on the other. baur, in particular, insisted on the first; v. hofmann, after the example of schleiermacher, on the second, and indeed exclusively (encyklop. der theol. p. 257 f.: "the history of dogma is the history of the church confessing the faith in words"). nitzsch (grundriss der christl. d.g. i. p. 1) insisted on the third: "the history of dogma is the scientific account of the origin and development of the christian system of doctrine, or that part of historical theology which presents the history of the expression of the christian faith in notions, doctrines and doctrinal systems." thomasius has combined the second and third by conceiving the history of dogma as the history of the development of the ecclesiastical system of doctrine. but even this conception is not sufficiently definite, inasmuch as it fails to do complete justice to the special peculiarity of the subject. ancient and modern usage does certainly seem to allow the word dogma to be applied to particular doctrines, or to a uniform system of doctrine, to fundamental truths, or to opinions, to theoretical propositions or practical rules, to statements of belief that have not been reached by a process of reasoning, as well as to those that bear the marks of such a process. but this uncertainty vanishes on closer examination. we then see that there is always an authority at the basis of dogma, which gives it to those who recognise that authority the signification of a fundamental truth "_quæ sine scelere prodi non poterit_" (cicero quæst. acad. iv. 9). but therewith at the same time is introduced into the idea of dogma a social element (see biedermann, christl. dogmatik. 2. edit. i. p. 2 f.); the confessors of one and the same dogma form a community. there can be no doubt that these two elements are also demonstrable in christian dogma, and therefore we must reject all definitions of the history of dogma which do not take them into account. if we define it as the history of the understanding of christianity by itself, or as the history of the changes of the theoretic part of the doctrine of religion or the like, we shall fail to do justice to the idea of dogma in its most general acceptation. we cannot describe as dogmas, doctrines such as the apokatastasis, or the kenosis of the son of god, without coming into conflict with the ordinary usage of language and with ecclesiastical law. if we start, therefore, from the supposition that christian dogma is an ecclesiastical doctrine which presupposes revelation as its authority, and therefore claims to be strictly binding, we shall fail to bring out its real nature with anything like completeness. that which protestants and catholics call dogmas, are not only ecclesiastical doctrines, but they are also: (1) theses expressed in abstract terms, forming together a unity, and fixing the contents of the christian religion as a knowledge of god, of the world, and of the sacred history under the aspect of a proof of the truth. but (2) they have also emerged at a definite stage of the history of the christian religion; they show in their conception as such, and in many details, the influence of that stage, viz., the greek period, and they have preserved this character in spite of all their reconstructions and additions in after periods. this view of dogma cannot be shaken by the fact that particular historical facts, miraculous or not miraculous are described as dogmas; for here they are regarded as such, only in so far as they have got the value of doctrines which have been inserted in the complete structure of doctrines and are, on the other hand, members of a chain of proofs, viz., proofs from prophecy. but as soon as we perceive this, the parallel between the ecclesiastical dogmas and those of ancient schools of philosophy appears to be in point of form complete. the only difference is that revelation is here put as authority in the place of human knowledge, although the later philosophic schools appealed to revelation also. the theoretical as well as the practical doctrines which embraced the peculiar conception of the world and the ethics of the school, together with their rationale, were described in these schools as dogmas. now, in so far as the adherents of the christian religion possess dogmas in this sense, and form a community which has gained an understanding of its religious faith by analysis and by scientific definition and grounding, they appear as a great philosophic school in the ancient sense of the word. but they differ from such a school in so far as they have always eliminated the process of thought which has led to the dogma, looking upon the whole system of dogma as a revelation and therefore, even in respect of the reception of the dogma, at least at first, they have taken account not of the powers of human understanding, but of the divine enlightenment which is bestowed on all the willing and the virtuous. in later times, indeed, the analogy was far more complete, in so far as the church reserved the full possession of dogma to a circle of consecrated and initiated individuals. dogmatic christianity is therefore a definite stage in the history of the development of christianity. it corresponds to the antique mode of thought, but has nevertheless continued to a very great extent in the following epochs, though subject to great transformations. dogmatic christianity stands between christianity as the religion of the gospel, presupposing a personal experience and dealing with disposition and conduct, and christianity as a religion of cultus, sacraments, ceremonial and obedience, in short of superstition, and it can be united with either the one or the other. in itself and in spite of all its mysteries it is always intellectual christianity, and therefore there is always the danger here that as knowledge it may supplant religious faith, or connect it with a doctrine of religion, instead of with god and a living experience. if then the discipline of the history of dogma is to be what its name purports, its object is the very dogma which is so formed, and its fundamental problem will be to discover how it has arisen. in the history of the canon our method of procedure has for long been to ask first of all, how the canon originated, and then to examine the changes through which it has passed. we must proceed in the same way with the history of dogma, of which the history of the canon is simply a part. two objections will be raised against this. in the first place, it will be said that from the very first the christian religion has included a definite religious faith as well as a definite ethic, and that therefore christian dogma is as original as christianity itself, so that there can be no question about a genesis, but only as to a development or alteration of dogma within the church. again it will be said, in the second place, that dogma as defined above, has validity only for a definite epoch in the history of the church, and that it is therefore quite impossible to write a comprehensive history of dogma in the sense we have indicated. as to the first objection, there can of course be no doubt that the christian religion is founded on a message, the contents of which are a definite belief in god and in jesus christ whom he has sent, and that the promise of salvation is attached to this belief. but faith in the gospel and the later dogmas of the church are not related to each other as theme and the way in which it is worked out, any more than the dogma of the new testament canon is only the explication of the original reliance of christians on the word of their lord and the continuous working of the spirit; but in these later dogmas an entirely new element has entered into the conception of religion. the message of religion appears here clothed in a knowledge of the world and of the ground of the world which had already been obtained without any reference to it, and therefore religion itself has here become a doctrine which has, indeed, its certainty in the gospel, but only in part derives its contents from it, and which can also be appropriated by such as are neither poor in spirit nor weary and heavy laden. now, it may of course be shewn that a philosophic conception of the christian religion is possible, and began to make its appearance from the very first, as in the case of paul. but the pauline gnosis has neither been simply identified with the gospel by paul himself (1 cor. iii. 2 f.; xii. 3; phil. i. 18) nor is it analogous to the later dogma, not to speak of being identical with it. the characteristic of this dogma is that it represents itself in no sense as foolishness, but as wisdom, and at the same time desires to be regarded as the contents of revelation itself. dogma in its conception and development is a work of the greek spirit on the soil of the gospel. by comprehending in itself and giving excellent expression to the religious conceptions contained in greek philosophy and the gospel, together with its old testament basis; by meeting the search for a revelation as well as the desire for a universal knowledge; by subordinating itself to the aim of the christian religion to bring a divine life to humanity as well as to the aim of philosophy to know the world: it became the instrument by which the church conquered the ancient world and educated the modern nations. but this dogma--one cannot but admire its formation or fail to regard it as a great achievement of the spirit, which never again in the history of christianity has made itself at home with such freedom and boldness in religion--is the product of a comparatively long history which needs to be deciphered; for it is obscured by the completed dogma. the gospel itself is not dogma, for belief in the gospel provides room for knowledge only so far as it is a state of feeling and course of action, that is a definite form of life. between practical faith in the gospel and the historico-critical account of the christian religion and its history, a third element can no longer be thrust in without its coming into conflict with faith, or with the historical data--the only thing left is the practical task of defending the faith. but a third element has been thrust into the history of this religion, viz., dogma, that is, the philosophical means which were used in early times for the purpose of making the gospel intelligible have been fused with the contents of the gospel and raised to dogma. this dogma, next to the church, has become a real world power, the pivot in the history of the christian religion. the transformation of the christian faith into dogma is indeed no accident, but has its reason in the spiritual character of the christian religion, which at all times will feel the need of a scientific apologetic.[10] but the question here is not as to something indefinite and general, but as to the definite dogma formed in the first centuries, and binding even yet. this already touches on the second objection which was raised above, that dogma, in the given sense of the word, was too narrowly conceived, and could not in this conception be applied throughout the whole history of the church. this objection would only be justified, if our task were to carry the history of the development of dogma through the whole history of the church. but the question is just whether we are right in proposing such a task. the greek church has no history of dogma after the seven great councils, and it is incomparably more important to recognise this fact than to register the theologoumena which were later on introduced by individual bishops and scholars in the east, who were partly influenced by the west. roman catholicism in its dogmas, though, as noted above, these at present do not very clearly characterise it, is to-day essentially--that is, so far as it is religion--what it was 1500 years ago, viz., christianity as understood by the ancient world. the changes which dogma has experienced in the course of its development in western catholicism are certainly deep and radical: they have, in point of fact, as has been indicated in the text above, modified the position of the church towards christianity as dogma. but as the catholic church herself maintains that she adheres to christianity in the old dogmatic sense, this claim of hers cannot be contested. she has embraced new things and changed her relations to the old, but still preserved the old. but she has further developed new dogmas according to the scheme of the old. the decrees of trent and of the vatican are formally analogous to the old dogmas. here, then, a history of dogma may really be carried forward to the present day without thereby shewing that the definition of dogma given above is too narrow to embrace the new doctrines. finally, as to protestantism, it has been briefly explained above why the changes in protestant systems of doctrine are not to be taken up into the history of dogma. strictly speaking, dogma, as dogma, has had no development in protestantism, inasmuch as a secret note of interrogation has been here associated with it from the very beginning. but the old dogma has continued to be a power in it, because of its tendency to look back and to seek for authorities in the past, and partly in the original unmodified form. the dogmas of the fourth and fifth centuries have more influence to-day in wide circles of protestant churches than all the doctrines which are concentrated around justification by faith. deviations from the latter are borne comparatively easy, while as a rule, deviations from the former are followed by notice to quit the christian communion, that is, by excommunication. the historian of to-day would have no difficulty in answering the question whether the power of protestantism as a church lies at present in the elements which it has in common with the old dogmatic christianity, or in that by which it is distinguished from it. dogma, that is to say, that type of christianity which was formed in ecclesiastical antiquity, has not been suppressed even in protestant churches, has really not been modified or replaced by a new conception of the gospel. but, on the other hand, who could deny that the reformation began to disclose such a conception, and that this new conception was related in a very different way to the traditional dogma from that of the new propositions of augustine to the dogmas handed down to him? who could further call in question that, in consequence of the reforming impulse in protestantism, the way was opened up for a conception which does not identify gospel and dogma, which does not disfigure the latter by changing or paring down its meaning while failing to come up to the former? but the historian who has to describe the formation and changes of dogma can take no part in these developments. it is a task by itself more rich and comprehensive than that of the historian of dogma, to portray the diverse conceptions that have been formed of the christian religion, to portray how strong men and weak men, great and little minds have explained the gospel outside and inside the frame-work of dogma, and how under the cloak, or in the province of dogma, the gospel has had its own peculiar history. but the more limited theme must not be put aside. for it can in no way be conducive to historical knowledge to regard as indifferent the peculiar character of the expression of christian faith as dogma, and allow the history of dogma to be absorbed in a general history of the various conceptions of christianity. such a "liberal" view would not agree either with the teaching of history or with the actual situation of the protestant churches of the present day: for it is, above all, of crucial importance to perceive that it is a peculiar stage in the development of the human spirit which is described by dogma. on this stage, parallel with dogma and inwardly united with it, stands a definite psychology, metaphysic and natural philosophy, as well as a view of history of a definite type. this is the conception of the world obtained by antiquity after almost a thousand years' labour, and it is the same connection of theoretic perceptions and practical ideals which it accomplished. this stage on which the christian religion has also entered we have in no way as yet transcended, though science has raised itself above it.[11] but the christian religion, as it was not born of the culture of the ancient world, is not for ever chained to it. the form and the new contents which the gospel received when it entered into that world have only the same guarantee of endurance as that world itself. and that endurance is limited. we must indeed be on our guard against taking episodes for decisive crises. but every episode carries us forward, and retrogressions are unable to undo that progress. the gospel since the reformation, in spite of retrograde movements which have not been wanting, is working itself out of the forms which it was once compelled to assume, and a true comprehension of its history will also contribute to hasten this process. 1. the definition given above, p. 17: "dogma in its conception and development is a work of the greek spirit on the soil of the gospel," has frequently been distorted by my critics, as they have suppressed the words "on the soil of the gospel." but these words are decisive. the foolishness of identifying dogma and greek philosophy never entered my mind; on the contrary, the peculiarity of ecclesiastical dogma seemed to me to lie in the very fact that, on the one hand, it gave expression to christian monotheism and the central significance of the person of christ, and, on the other hand, comprehended this religious faith and the historical knowledge connected with it in a philosophic system. i have given quite as little ground for the accusation that i look upon the whole development of the history of dogma as a pathological process within the history of the gospel. i do not even look upon the history of the origin of the papacy as such a process, not to speak of the history of dogma. but the perception that "everything must happen as it has happened" does not absolve the historian from the task of ascertaining the powers which have formed the history, and distinguishing between original and later, permanent and transitory, nor from the duty of stating his own opinion. 2. sabatier has published a thoughtful treatise on "christian dogma: its nature and its development." i agree with the author in this, that in dogma--rightly understood--two elements are to be distinguished, the religious proceeding from the experience of the individual or from the religious spirit of the church, and the intellectual or theoretic. but i regard as false the statement which he makes, that the intellectual element in dogma is only the symbolical expression of religious experience. the intellectual element is itself again to be differentiated. on the one hand, it certainly is the attempt to give expression to religious feeling, and so far is symbolical; but, on the other hand, within the christian religion it belongs to the essence of the thing itself, inasmuch as this not only awakens feeling, but has a quite definite content which determines and should determine the feeling. in this sense christianity without dogma, that is, without a clear expression of its content, is inconceivable. but that does not justify the unchangeable permanent significance of that dogma which has once been formed under definite historical conditions. 3. the word "dogmas" (christian dogmas) is, if i see correctly, used among us in three different senses, and hence spring all manner of misconceptions and errors. by dogmas are denoted: (1) the historical doctrines of the church. (2) the historical facts on which the christian religion is reputedly or actually founded. (3) every definite exposition of the contents of christianity is described as dogmatic. in contrast with this the attempt has been made in the following presentation to use dogma only in the sense first stated. when i speak, therefore, of the decomposition of dogma, i mean by that, neither the historical facts which really establish the christian religion, nor do i call in question the necessity for the christian and the church to have a creed. my criticism refers not to the general genus dogma, but to the species, viz., the defined dogma, as it was formed on the soil of the ancient world, and is still a power, though under modifications. 2. _history of the history of dogma._ the history of dogma as a historical and critical discipline had its origin in the last century through the works of mosheim, c. w. f. walch, ernesti, lessing and semler. lange gave to the world in 1796 the first attempt at a history of dogma as a special branch of theological study. the theologians of the early and mediæval churches have only transmitted histories of heretics and of literature, regarding dogma as unchangeable.[12] this presupposition is so much a part of the nature of catholicism that it has been maintained till the present day. it is therefore impossible for a catholic to make a free, impartial and scientific investigation of the history of dogma.[13] there have, indeed, at almost all times before the reformation, been critical efforts in the domain of christianity, especially of western christianity, efforts which in some cases have led to the proof of the novelty and inadmissibility of particular dogmas. but, as a rule, these efforts were of the nature of a polemic against the dominant church. they scarcely prepared the way for, far less produced a historical view of, dogmatic tradition.[14] the progress of the sciences[15] and the conflict with protestantism could here, for the catholic church, have no other effect than that of leading to the collecting, with great learning, of material for the history of dogma, the establishing of the _consensus patrum et doctorum_, the exhibition of the necessity of a continuous explication of dogma, and the description of the history of heresies pressing in from without, regarded now as unheard-of novelties, and again as old enemies in new masks. the modern jesuit-catholic historian indeed exhibits, in certain circumstances, a manifest indifference to the task of establishing the _semper idem_ in the faith of the church, but this indifference is at present regarded with disfavour, and, besides, is only an apparent one, as the continuous though inscrutable guidance of the church by the infallible teaching of the pope is the more emphatically maintained.[16] it may be maintained that the reformation opened the way for a critical treatment of the history of dogma.[17] but even in protestant churches, at first, historical investigations remained under the ban of the confessional system of doctrine and were used only for polemics.[18] church history itself up to the 18th century was not regarded as a theological discipline in the strict sense of the word, and the history of dogma existed only within the sphere of dogmatics as a collection of testimonies to the truth, _theologia patristica_. it was only after the material had been prepared in the course of the 16th and 17th centuries by scholars of the various church parties, and, above all, by excellent editions of the fathers,[19] and after pietism had exhibited the difference between christianity and ecclesiasticism, and had begun to treat the traditional confessional structure of doctrine with indifference,[20] that a critical investigation was entered on. the man who was the erasmus of the 18th century, neither orthodox nor pietistic, nor rationalistic, but capable of appreciating all these tendencies, familiar with english, french and italian literature, influenced by the spirit of the new english science,[21] while avoiding all statements of it that would endanger positive christianity. john lorenz mosheim, treated church history in the spirit of his great teacher leibnitz,[22] and by impartial analysis, living reproduction, and methodical artistic form raised it for the first time to the rank of a science. in his monographic works also, he endeavours to examine impartially the history of dogma, and to acquire the historic stand-point between the estimate of the orthodox dogmatists and that of gottfried arnold mosheim, averse to all fault-finding and polemic, and abhorring theological crudity as much as pietistic narrowness and undevout illuminism, aimed at an actual correct knowledge of history, in accordance with the principle of leibnitz, that the valuable elements which are everywhere to be found in history must be sought out and recognised. and the richness and many-sidedness of his mind qualified him for gaining such a knowledge. but his latitudinarian dogmatic stand-point as well as the anxiety to awaken no controversy or endanger the gradual naturalising of a new science and culture, caused him to put aside the most important problems of the history of dogma and devote his attention to political church history as well as to the more indifferent historical questions. the opposition of two periods which he endeavoured peacefully to reconcile could not in this way be permanently set aside.[23] in mosheim's sense, but without the spirit of that great man, c.w.f. walch taught on the subject and described the religious controversies of the church with an effort to be impartial, and has thus made generally accessible the abundant material collected by the diligence of earlier scholars.[24] walch, moreover, in the "gedanken von der geschichte der glaubenslehre," 1756, gave the impulse that was needed to fix attention on the history of dogma as a special discipline. the stand-point which he took up was still that of subjection to ecclesiastical dogma, but without confessional narrowness. ernesti in his programme of the year 1759. "de theologiae historicae et dogmaticae conjungendae necessitate," gave eloquent expression to the idea that dogmatic is a positive science which has to take its material from history, but that history itself requires a devoted and candid study, on account of our being separated from the earlier epochs by a complicated tradition.[25] he has also shewn in his celebrated "antimuratorius" that an impartial and critical investigation of the problems of the history of dogma, might render the most effectual service to the polemic against the errors of romanism. besides, the greater part of the dogmas were already unintelligible to ernesti, and yet during his lifetime the way was opened up for that tendency in theology, which prepared in germany by chr. thomasius, supported by english writers, drew the sure principles of faith and life from what is called reason, and therefore was not only indifferent to the system of dogma, but felt it more and more to be the tradition of unreason and of darkness. of the three requisites of a historian, knowledge of his subject, candid criticism, and a capacity for finding himself at home in foreign interests and ideas, the rationalistic theologians who had outgrown pietism and passed through the school of the english deists and of wolf, no longer possessed the first, a knowledge of the subject, to the same extent as some scholars of the earlier generation. the second, free criticism, they possessed in the high degree guaranteed by the conviction of having a rational religion; the third, the power of comprehension, only in a very limited measure. they had lost the idea of positive religion, and with it a living and just conception of the history of religion. in the history of thought there is always need for an apparently disproportionate expenditure of power, in order to produce an advance in the development. and it would appear as if a certain self-satisfied narrow-mindedness within the progressing ideas of the present, as well as a great measure of inability even to understand the past and recognise its own dependence on it, must make its appearance, in order that a whole generation may be freed from the burden of the past. it needed the absolute certainty which rationalism had found in the religious philosophy of the age, to give sufficient courage to subject to historical criticism the central dogmas on which the protestant system as well as the catholic finally rests, the dogmas of the canon and inspiration on the one hand, and of the trinity and christology on the other. the work of lessing in this respect had no great results. we to-day see in his theological writings the most important contribution to the understanding of the earliest history of dogma, which that period supplies; but we also understand why its results were then so trifling. this was due, not only to the fact that lessing was no theologian by profession, or that his historical observations were couched in aphorisms, but because like leibnitz and mosheim, he had a capacity for appreciating the history of religion which forbade him to do violence to that history or to sit in judgment on it, and because his philosophy in its bearings on the case allowed him to seek no more from his materials than an assured understanding of them, in a word again, because he was no theologian. the rationalists, on the other hand, who within certain limits were no less his opponents than the orthodox, derived the strength of their opposition to the systems of dogma, as the apologists of the second century had already done with regard to polytheism, from their religious belief and their inability to estimate these systems historically. that, however, is only the first impression which one gets here from the history, and it is everywhere modified by other impressions. in the first place, there is no mistaking a certain latitudinarianism in several prominent theologians of the rationalistic tendency. moreover, the attitude to the canon was still frequently, in virtue of the protestant principle of scripture, an uncertain one, and it was here chiefly that the different types of rational supernaturalism were developed. then, with all subjection to the dogmas of natural religion, the desire for a real true knowledge was unfettered and powerfully excited. finally, very significant attempts were made by some rationalistic theologians to explain in a real historical way the phenomena of the history of dogma, and to put an authentic and historical view of that history in the place of barren pragmatic or philosophic categories. the special zeal with which the older rationalism applied itself to the investigation of the canon, either putting aside the history of dogma, or treating it merely in the frame-work of church history, has only been of advantage for the treatment of our subject. it first began to be treated with thoroughness when the historical and critical interests had become more powerful than the rationalistic. after the important labours of semler which here, above all, have wrought in the interests of freedom,[26] and after some monographs on the history of dogma,[27] s.g. lange for the first time treated the history of dogma as a special subject.[28] unfortunately, his comprehensively planned and carefully written work, which shews a real understanding of the early history of dogma, remains incomplete. consequently, w. münscher, in his learned manual, which was soon followed by his compendium of the history of dogma, was the first to produce a complete presentation of our subject.[29] münscher's compendium is a counterpart to giesler's church history; it shares with that the merit of drawing from the sources, intelligent criticism and impartiality, but with a thorough knowledge of details it fails to impart a real conception of the development of ecclesiastical dogma. the division of the material into particular _loci_, which, in three sections, is carried through the whole history of the church, makes insight into the whole christian conception of the different epochs impossible, and the prefixed "general history of dogma," is far too sketchily treated to make up for that defect. finally, the connection between the development of dogma and the general ideas of the time is not sufficiently attended to. a series of manuals followed the work of münscher, but did not materially advance the study.[30] the compendium of baumgarten crusius,[31] and that of f.k. meier,[32] stand out prominently among them. the work of the former is distinguished by its independent learning as well as by the discernment of the author that the centre of gravity of the subject lies in the so-called general history of dogma.[33] the work of meier goes still further, and accurately perceives that the division into a general and special history of dogma must be altogether given up, while it is also characterised by an accurate setting and proportional arrangement of the facts.[34] the great spiritual revolution at the beginning of our century, which must in every respect be regarded as a reaction against the efforts of the rationalistic epoch, changed also the conceptions of the christian religion and its history. it appears therefore plainly in the treatment of the history of dogma. the advancement and deepening of christian life, the zealous study of the past, the new philosophy which no longer thrust history aside, but endeavoured to appreciate it in all its phenomena as the history of the spirit, all these factors co-operated in begetting a new temper, and accordingly, a new estimate of religion proper and of its history. there were three tendencies in theology that broke up rationalism; that which was identified with the names of schleiermacher and neander, that of the hegelians, and that of the confessionalists. the first two were soon divided into a right and a left, in so far as they included conservative and critical interests from their very commencement. the conservative elements have been used for building up the modern confessionalism, which in its endeavours to go back to the reformers has never actually got beyond the theology of the formula of concord, the stringency of which it has no doubt abolished by new theologoumena and concessions of all kinds. all these tendencies have in common the effort to gain a real comprehension of history and be taught by it, that is, to allow the idea of development to obtain its proper place, and to comprehend the power and sphere of the individual. in this and in the deeper conception of the nature and significance of positive religion, lay the advance beyond rationalism. and yet the wish to understand history, has in great measure checked the effort to obtain a true knowledge of it, and the respect for history as the greatest of teachers, has not resulted in that supreme regard for facts which distinguished the critical rationalism. the speculative pragmatism, which, in the hegelian school, was put against the "lower pragmatism," and was rigorously carried out with the view of exhibiting the unity of history, not only neutralised the historical material, in so far as its concrete definiteness was opposed, as phenomenon, to the essence of the matter, but also curtailed it in a suspicious way, as may be seen, for example, in the works of baur. moreover, the universal historical suggestions which the older history of dogma had given were not at all, or only very little regarded. the history of dogma was, as it were, shut out by the watchword of the immanent development of the spirit in christianity. the disciples of hegel, both of the right and of the left, were, and still are, agreed in this watch-word,[35] the working out of which, including an apology for the course of the history of dogma, must be for the advancement of conservative theology. but at the basis of the statement that the history of christianity is the history of the spirit, there lay further a very one-sided conception of the nature of religion, which confirmed the false idea that religion is theology. it will always, however, be the imperishable merit of hegel's great disciple, f. chr. baur, in theology, that he was the first who attempted to give a uniform general idea of the history of dogma, and to live through the whole process in himself, without renouncing the critical acquisitions of the 18th century.[36] his brilliantly written manual of the history of dogma, in which the history of this branch of theological science is relatively treated with the utmost detail, is, however, in material very meagre, and shews in the very first proposition of the historical presentation an abstract view of history.[37] neander, whose "christliche dogmengeschichte," 1857, is distinguished by the variety of its points of view, and keen apprehension of particular forms of doctrine, shews a far more lively and therefore a far more just conception of the christian religion. but the general plan of the work, (general history of dogma--_loci_, and these according to the established scheme), proves that neander has not succeeded in giving real expression to the historical character of the study, and in attaining a clear insight into the progress of the development.[38] kliefoth's thoughtful and instructive, "einleitung in die dogmengeschichte," 1839, contains the programme for the conception of the history of dogma characteristic of the modern confessional theology. in this work the hegelian view of history, not without being influenced by schleiermacher, is so represented as to legitimise a return to the theology of the fathers. in the successive great epochs of the church several circles of dogmas have been successively fixed, so that the respective doctrines have each time been adequately formulated.[39] disturbances of the development are due to the influence of sin. apart from this, kliefoth's conception is in point of form equal to that of baur and strauss, in so far as they also have considered the theology represented by themselves as the goal of the whole historical development. the only distinction is that, according to them, the next following stage always cancels the preceding, while according to kliefoth, who, moreover, has no desire to give effect to mere traditionalism, the new knowledge is added to the old. the new edifice of true historical knowledge, according to kliefoth, is raised on the ruins of traditionalism, scholasticism, pietism, rationalism and mysticism. thomasius (das bekenntniss der evang-luth. kirche in der consequenz seines princips, 1848) has, after the example of sartorius, attempted to justify by history the lutheran confessional system of doctrine from another side, by representing it as the true mean between catholicism and the reformed spiritualism. this conception has found much approbation in the circles of theologians related to thomasius, as against the union theology. but thomasius is entitled to the merit of having produced a manual of the history of dogma which represents in the most worthy manner,[40] the lutheran confessional view of the history of dogma. the introduction, as well as the selection and arrangement of his material, shews that thomasius has learned much from baur. the way in which he distinguishes between central and peripheral dogmas is, accordingly, not very appropriate, especially for the earliest period. the question as to the origin of dogma and theology is scarcely even touched by him. but he has an impression that the central dogmas contain for every period the whole of christianity, and that they must therefore be apprehended in this sense.[41] the presentation is dominated throughout by the idea of the self-explication of dogma, though a malformation has to be admitted for the middle ages;[42] and therefore the formation of dogma is almost everywhere justified as the testimony of the church represented as completely hypostatised, and the outlook on the history of the time is put into the background. but narrow and insufficient as the complete view here is, the excellences of the work in details are great, in respect of exemplary clearness of presentation, and the discriminating knowledge and keen comprehension of the author for religious problems. the most important work done by thomasius is contained in his account of the history of christology. in his outlines of the history of christian dogma (grundriss der christl. dogmengesch. 1870), which unfortunately has not been carried beyond the first part (patristic period), f. nitzsch, marks an advance in the history of our subject. the advance lies, on the one hand, in the extensive use he makes of monographs on the history of dogma, and on the other hand, in the arrangement. nitzsch has advanced a long way on the path that was first entered by f.k. meier, and has arranged his material in a way that far excels all earlier attempts. the general and special aspects of the history of dogma are here almost completely worked into one,[43] and in the main divisions, "grounding of the old catholic church doctrine," and "development of the old catholic church doctrine," justice is at last done to the most important problem which the history of dogma presents, though in my opinion the division is not made at the right place, and the problem is not so clearly kept in view in the execution as the arrangement would lead one to expect.[44] nitzsch has freed himself from that speculative view of the history of dogma which reads ideas into it. no doubt idea and motive on the one hand, form and expression on the other, must be distinguished for every period. but the historian falls into vagueness as soon as he seeks and professes to find behind the demonstrable ideas and aims which have moved a period, others of which, as a matter of fact, that period itself knew nothing at all. besides, the invariable result of that procedure is to concentrate the attention on the theological and philosophical points of dogma, and either neglect or put a new construction on the most concrete and important, the expression of the religious faith itself. rationalism has been reproached with "throwing out the child with the bath," but this is really worse, for here the child is thrown out while the bath is retained. every advance in the future treatment of our subject will further depend on the effort to comprehend the history of dogma without reference to the momentary opinions of the present, and also on keeping it in closest connection with the history of the church, from which it can never be separated without damage. we have something to learn on this point from rationalistic historians of dogma.[45] but progress is finally dependent on a true perception of what the christian religion originally was, for this perception alone enables us to distinguish that which sprang out of the inherent power of christianity from that which it has assimilated in the course of its history. for the historian, however, who does not wish to serve a party, there are two standards in accordance with which he may criticise the history of dogma. he may either, as far as this is possible, compare it with the gospel, or he may judge it according to the historical conditions of the time and the result. both ways can exist side by side, if only they are not mixed up with one another. protestantism has in principle expressly recognised the first, and it will also have the power to bear its conclusions; for the saying of tertullian still holds good in it; "nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi." the historian who follows this maxim, and at the same time has no desire to be wiser than the facts, will, while furthering science, perform the best service also to every christian community that desires to build itself upon the gospel. after the appearance of the first and second editions of this work, loofs published, "leitfaden für seine vorlesungen über dogmengeschichte," halle, 1889, and in the following year, "leitfaden zum studium der dogmengeschichte, zunächst für seine vorlesungen," (second and enlarged edition of the first-named book). the work in its conception of dogma and its history comes pretty near that stated above, and it is distinguished by independent investigation and excellent selection of material. i myself have published a "grundriss der dogmengeschichte," 2 edit, in one vol. 1893. (outlines of the history of dogma, english translation, hodder and stoughton). that this has not been written in vain, i have the pleasure of seeing from not a few notices of professional colleagues. i may mention the church history of herzog in the new revision by koffmane, the first vol. of the church history of karl müller, the first vol. of the symbolik of kattenbusch, and kaftan's work, "the truth of the christian religion." wilhelm schmidt, "der alte glaube und die wahrheit des christenthums," 1891, has attempted to furnish a refutation in principle of kaftan's work. [footnote 1: weizsäcker, gött. gel. anz. 1886, p. 823 f., says, "it is a question whether we should limit the account of the genesis of dogma to the antenicene period and designate all else as a development of that. this is undoubtedly correct so long as our view is limited to the history of dogma of the greek church in the second period, and the development of it by the oecumenical synods. on the other hand, the latin church, in its own way and in its own province, becomes productive from the days of augustine onwards; the formal signification of dogma in the narrower sense becomes different in the middle ages. both are repeated in a much greater measure through the reformation. we may therefore, in opposition to that division into genesis and development, regard the whole as a continuous process, in which the contents as well as the formal authority of dogma are in process of continuous development." this view is certainly just, and i think is indicated by myself in what follows. we have to decide here, as so often elsewhere in our account, between rival points of view. the view favoured by me has the advantage of making the nature of dogma clearly appear as a product of the mode of thought of the early church, and that is what it has remained, in spite of all changes both in form and substance, till the present day.] [footnote 2: see kattenbusch. luther's stellung zu den ökumenischen symbolen, 1883.] [footnote 3: see ritschl, geschichte des pietismus. i. p. 80 ff., 93 ff. ii. p. 60 f.: 88 f. "the lutheran view of life did not remain pure and undefiled, but was limited and obscured by the preponderance of dogmatic interests. protestantism was not delivered from the womb of the western church of the middle ages in full power and equipment, like athene from the head of jupiter. the incompleteness of its ethical view, the splitting up of its general conceptions into a series of particular dogmas, the tendency to express its beliefs as a hard and fast whole; are defects which soon made protestantism appear to disadvantage in comparison with the wealth of mediæval theology and asceticism ... the scholastic form of pure doctrine is really only the provisional, and not the final form of protestantism."] [footnote 4: it is very evident how the mediæval and old catholic dogmas were transformed in the view which luther originally took of them. in this view we must remember that he did away with all the presuppositions of dogma, the infallible apostolic canon of scripture, the infallible teaching function of the church, and the infallible apostolic doctrine and constitution. on this basis dogmas can only be utterances which do not support faith, but are supported by it. but, on the other hand, his opposition to all the apocryphal saints which the church had created, compelled him to emphasise faith alone, and to give it a firm basis in scripture, in order to free it from the burden of tradition. here then, very soon, first by melanchthon, a summary of _articuli fidei_ was substituted for the faith, and the scriptures recovered their place as a rule. luther himself, however, is responsible for both, and so it came about that very soon the new evangelic standpoint was explained almost exclusively by the "abolition of abuses", and by no means so surely by the transformation of the whole doctrinal tradition. the classic authority for this is the augsburg confession ("hæc fere summa est doctrina apud suos, in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana ... sed dissensio est de quibusdam abusibus"). the purified catholic doctrine has since then become the palladium of the reformation churches. the refuters of the augustana have justly been unwilling to admit the mere "purifying," but have noted in addition that the augustana does not say everything that was urged by luther and the doctors (see ficker, die konfutation des augsburgischen bekenntnisse, 1891). at the same time, however, the lutheran church, though not so strongly as the english, retained the consciousness of being the true catholics. but, as the history of protestantism proves, the original impulse has not remained inoperative. though luther himself all his life measured his personal christian standing by an entirely different standard than subjection to a law of faith; yet, however presumptuous the words may sound, we might say that in the complicated struggle that was forced on him, he did not always clearly understand his own faith.] [footnote 5: in the modern romish church, dogma is, above all, a judicial regulation which one has to submit to, and in certain circumstances submission alone is sufficient, _fides implicita_. dogma is thereby just as much deprived of its original sense and its original authority as by the demand of the reformers, that every thing should be based upon a clear understanding of the gospel. moreover, the changed position of the romish church towards dogma is also shewn by the fact that it no longer gives a plain answer to the question as to what dogma is. instead of a series of dogmas definitely defined, and of equal value, there is presented an infinite multitude of whole and half dogmas, doctrinal directions, pious opinions, probable theological propositions, etc. it is often a very difficult question whether a solemn decision has or has not already been taken on this or that statement, or whether such a decision is still necessary. everything that must be believed is nowhere stated, and so one sometimes hears in catholic circles the exemplary piety of a cleric praised with the words that "he believes more than is necessary." the great dogmatic conflicts within the catholic church, since the council of trent, have been silenced by arbitrary papal pronouncements and doctrinal directions. since one has simply to accommodate oneself to these as laws, it once more appears clear that dogma has become a judicial regulation, administered by the pope, which is carried out in an administrative way and loses itself in an endless casuistry. we do not mean by this to deny that dogma has a decided value for the pious catholic as a summary of the faith. but in the catholic church it is no longer piety, but obedience that is decisive. the solidarity with the orthodox protestants may be explained by political reasons, in order from political reasons again, to condemn, where it is necessary, all protestants as heretics and revolutionaries.] [footnote 6: see the discussions of biedermann (christliche dogmatik. 2 ed. p. 150 f.) about what he calls the law of stability in the history of religion.] [footnote 7: see ritschl's discussion of the methods of the early histories of dogma in the jahrb. f. deutsche theologie. 1871, p. 181 ff.] [footnote 8: in catholicism, the impulse which proceeded from augustine has finally proved powerless to break the traditional conception of christianity, as the council of trent and the decrees of the vatican have shewn. for that very reason the development of the roman catholic church doctrine belongs to the history of dogma. protestantism must, however, under all circumstances be recognised as a new thing, which indeed in none of its phases has been free from contradictions.] [footnote 9: here then begins the ecclesiastical theology which takes as its starting-point the finished dogma it strives to prove or harmonise, but very soon, as experience has shewn, loses its firm footing in such efforts and so occasions new crises.] [footnote 10: weizsäcker, apostolic age, vol. i. p. 123. "christianity as religion is absolutely inconceivable without theology; first of all, for the same reasons which called forth the pauline theology. as a religion it cannot be separated from the religion of its founder, hence not from historical knowledge. and as monotheism and belief in a world purpose, it is the religion of reason with the inextinguishable impulse of thought. the first gentile christians therewith gained the proud consciousness of a gnosis." but of ecclesiastical christianity which rests on dogma ready made, as produced by an earlier epoch, this conception holds good only in a very qualified way; and of the vigorous christian piety of the earliest and of every period, it may also be said that it no less feels the impulse to think against reason than with reason.] [footnote 11: in this sense it is correct to class dogmatic theology as historical theology, as schleiermacher has done. if we maintain that for practical reasons it must be taken out of the province of historical theology, then we must make it part of practical theology. by dogmatic theology here, we understand the exposition of christianity in the form of church doctrine, as it has been shaped since the second century. as distinguished from it, a branch of theological study must be conceived which harmonises the historical exposition of the gospel with the general state of knowledge of the time. the church can as little dispense with such a discipline as there can be a christianity which does not account to itself for its basis and spiritual contents.] [footnote 12: see eusebius' preface to his church history. eusebius in this work set himself a comprehensive task, but in doing so he never in the remotest sense thought of a history of dogma. in place of that we have a history of men "who from generation to generation proclaimed the word of god orally or by writing," and a history of those who by their passion for novelties, plunged themselves into the greatest errors.] [footnote 13: see for example, b. schwane, dogmengesch. d. vornicänischen zeit, 1862, where the sense in which dogmas have no historical side is first expounded, and then it is shewn that dogmas, "notwithstanding, present a certain side which permits a historical consideration, because in point of fact they have gone through historical developments." but these historical developments present themselves simply either as solemn promulgations and explications, or as private theological speculations.] [footnote 14: if we leave out of account the marcionite gnostic criticism of ecclesiastical christianity, paul of samosata and marcellus of ancyra may be mentioned as men who, in the earliest period, criticised the apologetic alexandrian theology which was being naturalised (see the remarkable statement of marcellus in euseb. c. marc. i.4: [greek: to tou dogmatos onoma tês anthrôpinês echetai boulês te kai gnômês k.t.l.] which i have chosen as the motto of this book). we know too little of stephen gobarus (vi. cent.) to enable us to estimate his review of the doctrine of the church and its development (photius bibl. 232). with regard to the middle ages (abelard "sic et non"), see reuter, gesch. der relig. aufklärung im ma., 1875. hahn gesch, der ketzer, especially in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, 3 vols., 1845. keller, die reformation und die alteren reform-parteien, 1885.] [footnote 15: see voigt, die wiederbelebung des classischen alterthums. 2 vols., 1881, especially vol. ii p. 1 ff. 363 ff. 494 ff. ("humanism and the science of history"). the direct importance of humanism for illuminating the history of the middle ages is very little, and least of all for the history of the church and of dogma. the only prominent works here are those of saurentius valla and erasmus. the criticism of the scholastic dogmas of the church and the pope began as early as the 12th century. for the attitude of the renaissance to religion, see burckhardt, die cultur der renaissance. 2 vols., 1877.] [footnote 16: see holtzmann, kanon und tradition, 1859, hase, handbuch der protest. polemik, 1878. joh delitszch, das lehrsystem der röm. kirche, 1875. new revelations, however, are rejected, and bold assumptions leading that way are not favoured: see schwane, above work p. 11: "the content of revelation is not enlarged by the decisions or teaching of the church, nor are new revelations added in course of time ... christian truth cannot therefore in its content be completed by the church, nor has she ever claimed the right of doing so, but always where new designations or forms of dogma became necessary for the putting down of error or the instruction of the faithful, she would always teach what she had received in holy scripture or in the oral tradition of the apostles." recent catholic accounts of the history of dogma are klee, lehrbuch der d.g. 2 vols, 1837, (speculative). schwane, dogmengesch. der vornicänischen zeit, 1862, der patrist zeit, 1869; der mittleren zeit, 1882. bach, die d.g. des ma. 1873. there is a wealth of material for the history of dogma in kuhn's dogmatîk, as well as in the great controversial writings occasioned by the celebrated work of bellarmin; disputationes de controversiis christianæ fidei adversus hujus temporis hæreticos, 1581-1593. it need not be said that, in spite of their inability to treat the history of dogma historically and critically, much may be learned from these works, and some other striking monographs of roman catholic scholars. but everything in history that is fitted to shake the high antiquity and unanimous attestation of the catholic dogmas, becomes here a problem, the solution of which is demanded, though indeed its carrying out often requires a very exceptional intellectual subtlety.] [footnote 17: historical interest in protestantism has grown up around the questions as to the power of the pope, the significance of councils, or the scripturalness of the doctrines set up by them, and about the meaning of the lord's supper, of the conception of it by the church fathers; (see oecolampadius and melanchthon.) protestants were too sure that the doctrine of justification was taught in the scriptures to feel any need of seeking proofs for it by studies in the history of dogma, and luther also dispensed with the testimony of history for the dogma of the lord's supper. the task of shewing how far and in what way luther and the reformers compounded with history has not even yet been taken up. and yet there may be found in luther's writings surprising and excellent critical comments on the history of dogma and the theology of the fathers, as well as genial conceptions which have certainly remained inoperative; see especially the treatise "von den conciliis und kirchen," and his judgment on different church fathers. in the first edition of the _loci_ of melanchthon we have also critical material for estimating the old systems of dogma. calvin's depreciatory estimate of the trinitarian and christological formula, which, however, he retracted at a later period is well known.] [footnote 18: protestant church history was brought into being by the interim, flacius being its father, see his catalogus testium veritatis, and the so called magdeburg centuries 1559-1574, also jundt les centuries de magdebourg paris, 1883 von engelhardt (christenthum justins, p. 9 ff.) has drawn attention to the estimate of justin in the centuries, and has justly insisted on the high importance of this first attempt at a criticism of the church fathers khefoth (eml. in. d. d.g. 1839) has the merit of pointing out the somewhat striking judgment of a. hyperius on the history of dogma chemnitz, examen concilii tridentini, 1565 forbesius a corse (a scotsman) instructiones historico-theologiæ de doctrina christiana 1645.] [footnote 19: the learning, the diligence in collecting, and the carefulness of the benedictines and maurians, as well as of english dutch and french theologians, such as casaubon, vossius, pearson, dallaus spanheim, grabe, basnage, etc. have never since been equalled, far less surpassed. even in the literary historical and higher criticism these scholars have done splendid work, so far as the confessional dogmas did not come into question] [footnote 20: see especially, g. arnold, unpartheyische kirchenund ketzerhistorie, 1699, also baur, epochen der kirchlichen geschichtsschreibung p. 84 ff., floring g. arnold als kirchenhistoriker darmstadt, 1883. the latter determines correctly the measure of arnold's importance. his work was the direct preparation for an impartial examination of the history of dogma however partial it was in itself pietism, here and there, after spener, declared war against scholastic dogmatics as a hindrance to piety, and in doing so broke the ban under which the knowledge of history lay captive.] [footnote 21: the investigations of the so-called english deists about the christian religion contain the first, and to some extent a very significant free-spirited attempt at a critical view of the history of dogma (see lechler, history of english deism, 1841). but the criticism is an abstract rarely a historical one. some very learned works bearing on the history of dogma were written in england against the position of the deists especially by lardner; see also at an earlier time bull, defensio fidei nic.] [footnote 22: calixtus of helmstadt was the forerunner of leibnitz with regard to church history. but the merit of having recognised the main problem of the history of dogma does not belong to calixtus. by pointing out what protestantism and catholicism had in common he did not in any way clear up the historico-critical problem. on the other hand, the _consensus repetitus_ of the wittenberg theologians shews what fundamental questions calixtus had already stirred.] [footnote 23: among the numerous historical writings of mosheim may be mentioned specially his dissert ad hist eccles pertinentes 2 vols. 1731-1741, as well as the work "de rebus christianorum ante constantinum m commentarii," 1753; see also "institutiones hist eccl" last edition, 1755.] [footnote 24: walch, "entwurf einer vollständigen historie der ketzereien, spaltungen und religionsstreitigkeiten bis auf die zeiten der reformation." 11 thle (incomplete), 1762-1785. see also his "entwurf einer vollständigen historie der kirchenversammlungen" 1759, as well as numerous monographs on the history of dogma. such were already produced by the older walch, whose "histor. theol einleitung in die religionsstreitigkeiten der ev. luth. kirche," 5 vols. 1730-1739, and "histor.-theol. einleit. in die religionsstreitigkeiten welche sonderlich ausser der ev luth. kirche entstanden sind 5 thle", 1733-1736, had already put polemics behind the knowledge of history (see gass. "gesch. der protest. dogmatik," 3rd vol. p. 205 ff).] [footnote 25: opusc. p. 576 f.: "ex quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, quæ omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, grascis, latinis ducuntur, possit aliquis bene in definiendo versari et a peccatis multis et magnis sibi cavere, nisi litteras et historiam assumat." the title of a programme of crusius, ernesti's opponent, "de dogmatum christianorum historia cum probatione dogmatum non confundenda," 1770, is significant of the new insight which was steadily making way.] [footnote 26: semler, einleitung zu baumgartens evang. glaubenslehre, 1759: also geschichte der glaubenslehre, zu baumgartens untersuch. theol. streitigkeiten, 1762-1764. semler paved the way for the view that dogmas have arisen and been gradually developed under definite historical conditions. he was the first to grasp the problem of the relation of catholicism to early christianity, because he freed the early christian documents from the fetters of the canon. schröckh (christl. kirchengesch., 1786,) in the spirit of semler described with impartiality and care the changes of the dogmas.] [footnote 27: rössler, lehrbegriff der christlichen kirche in den 3 ersten jahrh. 1775; also, arbeiten by burscher, heinrich, stäudlin, etc., see especially, löffler's "abhandlung welche eine kurze darstellung der entstehungsart der dreieinigkeit enthält," 1792, in the translation of souverain's le platonisme devoilé, 1700. the question as to the platonism of the fathers, this fundamental question of the history of dogma, was raised even by luther and flacius, and was very vigorously debated at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries, after the socinians had already affirmed it strongly. the question once more emerges on german soil in the church history of g. arnold, but cannot be said to have received the attention it deserves in the 150 years that have followed (see the literature of the controversy in tzschirner, fall des heidenthums, p. 580 f.). yet the problem was first thrust aside by the speculative view of the history of christianity.] [footnote 28: lange. ausführ. gesch. der dogmen, oder der glaubenslehre der christl. kirche nach den kirchenväter ausgearbeitet. 1796.] [footnote 29: münscher, handb. d. christl. d.g. 4 vols. first 6 centuries 1797-1809; lehrbuch, 1st edit. 1811; 3rd. edit. edited by v cölln, hupfeld and neudecker, 1832-1838. planck's epoch-making work: gesch. der veränderungen und der bildung unseres protestantischen lehrbegriffs. 6 vols. 1791-1800, had already for the most part appeared. contemporary with münscher are wundemann, gesch. d. christl. glaubenslehren vom zeitalter des athanasius bis auf gregor. d. gr. 2 thle. 1789-1799; münter, handbuch der alteren christl. d.g. hrsg. von ewers, 2 vols. 1802-1804; stäudlin, lehrbuch der dogmatik und dogmengeschichte, 1800, last edition 1822, and beck, comment, hist. decretorum religionis christianæ, 1801.] [footnote 30: augusti, lehrb. d. christl. d.g. 1805. 4 edit. 1835. berthold, handb. der d.g. 2 vols. 1822-1823. schickedanz, versuch einer gesch. d. christl. glaubenslehre etc. 1827. ruperti, geschichte der dogmen, 1831. lenz, gesch. der christl. dogmen. 2 parts. 1834-1835. j.g.v. engelhardt, dogmengesch. 1839. see also giesler, dogmengesch. 2 vols. edited by redepenning, 1855: also illgen, ueber den werth der christl. d.g. 1817.] [footnote 31: baumgarten crusius, lehrb. d. christl. d.g. 1852: also compendium d. christl. d.g. 2 parts 1830-1846, the second part edited by hase.] [footnote 32: meier, lehrb. d. d.g. 1840. 2nd edit. revised by g. baur 1854.] [footnote 33: the "special history of dogma" in baumgarten crusius, in which every particular dogma is by itself pursued through the whole history of the church, is of course entirely unfruitful. but even the opinions which are given in the "general history of dogma," are frequently very far from the mark, (cf., e.g., § 14 and p. 67), which is the more surprising as no one can deny that he takes a scholarly view of history.] [footnote 34: meier's lehrbuch is formally and materially a very important piece of work, the value of which has not been sufficiently recognised, because the author followed neither the track of neander nor of baur. besides the excellences noted in the text, may be further mentioned, that almost everywhere meier has distinguished correctly between the history of dogma and the history of theology, and has given an account only of the former.] [footnote 35: biedermann (christl dogmatik 2 edit 1 vol. p. 332 f) says, "the history of the development of the dogma of the person of christ will bring before us step by step the ascent of faith in the gospel of jesus christ to its metaphysical basis in the nature of his person." this was the quite normal and necessary way of actual faith and is not to be reckoned as a confused mixture of heterogeneous philosophical opinions. the only thing taken from the ideas of contemporary philosophy was the special material of consciousness in which the doctrine of christ's divinity was at any time expressed. the process of this doctrinal development was an inward necessary one.] [footnote 36: baur, lehrbuch der christl d.g. 1847 3rd edit. 1867, also vorles uber die christl d.g. edited by f. baur 1865-68. further the monographs, "ueber die christl lehre v.d. versohnung in ihrergesch entw. 1838." ueber die christl lehre v.d. dreieinigkeit u.d. menschwerdung, 1841, etc. d.f. strauss preceded him with his work die christl glaubenslehre in ihrer gesch entw 2 vols 1840-41. from the stand-point of the hegelian right we have marheineke christl d.g. edited by matthias and vatke 1849. from the same stand-point though at the same time influenced by schleiermacher dorner wrote "the history of the person of christ."] [footnote 37: see p. 63: "as christianity appeared in contrast with judaism and heathenism, and could only represent a new and peculiar form of the religious consciousness in distinction from both reducing the contrasts of both to a unity in itself, so also the first difference of tendencies developing themselves within christianity, must be determined by the relation in which it stood to judaism on the one hand, and to heathenism on the other." compare also the very characteristic introduction to the first volume of the vorlesungen.] [footnote 38: hagenbach's manual of the history of dogma might be put alongside of neander's work. it agrees with it both in plan and spirit. but the material of the history of dogma which it offers in superabundance, seems far less connectedly worked out than by neander. in shedd's history of christian doctrine the americans possess a presentation of the history of dogma worth noting 2 vols 3 edit 1883. the work of fr. bonifas hist des dogmes 2 vols 1886 appeared after the death of the author and is not important.] [footnote 39: no doubt kliefoth also maintains for each period a stage of the disintegration of dogma but this is not to be understood in the ordinary sense of the word. besides there are ideas in this introduction which hardly obtain the approval of their author to-day.] [footnote 40: thomasius' die christl. dogmengesch. als entwickel. gesch. des kirchl. lehrbegriffs. 2 vols. 1874-76. 2nd edit intelligently and carefully edited by bonwetsch. and seeberg, 1887. (seeberg has produced almost a new work in vol. ii). from the same stand-point is the manual of the history of dogma by h. schmid, 1859, (in 4th ed. revised and transformed into an excellent collection of passages from the sources by hauck, 1887), as well as the luther. dogmatik (vol. ii 1864: der kirchenglaube) of kahnis, which, however, subjects particular dogmas to a freer criticism.] [footnote 41: see vol. 1. p. 14.] [footnote 42: see vol. 1. p. 11. "the first period treats of the development of the great main dogmas which were to become the basis of the further development (the patristic age). the problem of the second period was, partly to work up this material theologically, and partly to develop it. but this development, under the influence of the hierarchy, fell into false paths, and became partly, at least, corrupt (the age of scholasticism), and therefore a reformation was necessary. it was reserved for this third period to carry back the doctrinal formation which had become abnormal, to the old sound paths, and on the other hand, in virtue of the regeneration of the church which followed, to deepen it and fashion it according to that form which it got in the doctrinal systems of the evangelic church, while the remaining part fixed its own doctrine in the decrees of trent (period of the reformation)." this view of history, which, from the christian stand-point, will allow absolutely nothing to be said against the doctrinal formation of the early church, is a retrogression from the view of luther and the writers of the "centuries," for these were well aware that the corruption did not first begin in the middle ages.] [footnote 43: this fulfils a requirement urged by weizsäcker (jahrb. f. deutsche theol 1866 p. 170 ff.)] [footnote 44: see ritschl's essay, "ueber die methode der älteren dogmengeschichte" (jahrb. f. deutsche theol. 1871 p. 191 ff.) in which the advance made by nitzsch is estimated, and at the same time, an arrangement proposed for the treatment of the earlier history of dogma which would group the material more clearly and more suitably than has been done by nitzsch. after having laid the foundation for a correct historical estimate of the development of early christianity in his work "entstehung der alt-katholischen kirche", 1857, ritschl published an epoch-making study in the history of dogma in his "history of the doctrine of justification and reconciliation" 2 edit. 1883. we have no superabundance of good monographs on the history of dogma. there are few that give such exact information regarding the patristic period as that of von engelhardt "ueber das christenthum justin's", 1878, and zahn's work on marcellus, 1867. among the investigators of our age, renan above all has clearly recognised that there are only two main periods in the history of dogma, and that the changes which christianity experienced after the establishment of the catholic church bear no proportion to the changes which preceded. his words are as follows (hist. des origin. du christianisme t. vii. p. 503 f.):--the division about the year 180 is certainly placed too early, regard being had to what was then really authoritative in the church.--"si nous comparons maintenant le christianisme, tel qu'il existait vers l'an 180, au christianisme du ive et du ve, siècle, au christianisme du moyen âge, au christianisme de nos jours, nous trouvons qu'en réalité il s'est augmenté des très peu de chose dans les siècles qui ont suivis. en 180, le nouveau testament est clos: il ne s'y ajoutera plus un seul livre nouveau(?). lentement, les épitres de paul out conquis leur place à la suite des evangiles, dans le code sacré et dans la liturgie. quant aux dogmes, rien n'est fixé; mais le germe de tout existe; presque aucune idée n'apparaitra qui ne puisse faire valoir des autorités du 1er et du 2e siècles. il y a du trop, il y a des contradictions; le travail théologique consistera bien plus à émonder, à écarter des superfluités qu'à inventer du nouveau. l'église laissera tomber une foule de choses mal commencées, elle sortira de bien des impasses. elle a encore deux coeurs, pour ainsi dire; elle a plusieurs têtes; ces anomalies tomberont; mais aucun dogme vraiment original ne se formera plus." also the discussions in chapters 28-34, of the same volume. h. thiersch (die kirche im apostolischen zeitalter, 1852) reveals a deep insight into the difference between the spirit of the new testament writers and the post-apostolic fathers, but he has overdone these differences and sought to explain them by the mythological assumption of an apostasy. a great amount of material for the history of dogma may be found in the great work of böhringer, die kirche christi und ihre zeugen, oder die kirchengeschichte in biographien. 2 edit. 1864.] [footnote 45: by the connection with general church history we must, above all, understand, a continuous regard to the world within which the church has been developed. the most recent works on the history of the church and of dogma, those of renan, overbeck (anfänge der patristischen litteratur), aube, von engelhardt (justin), kühn (minucius felix). hatch ("organization of the early church," and especially his posthumous work "the influence of greek ideas and usages upon the christian church," 1890, in which may be found the most ample proof for the conception of the early history of dogma which is set forth in the following pages), are in this respect worthy of special note. deserving of mention also is r. rothe, who, in his "vorlesungen über kirchengeschichte", edited by weingarten, 1875, 2 vols, gave most significant suggestions towards a really historical conception of the history of the church and of dogma. to rothe belongs the undiminished merit of realising thoroughly the significance of nationality in church history. but the theology of our century is also indebted for the first scientific conception of catholicism, not to marheineke or winer, but to rothe. (see vol ii. pp. 1-11 especially p. 7 f.). "the development of the christian church in the græco-roman world was not at the same time a development of that world by the church and further by christianity. there remained, as the result of the process, nothing but the completed church. the world which had built it had made itself bankrupt in doing so." with regard to the origin and development of the catholic cultus and constitution, nay, even of the ethic (see luthardt, die antike ethik, 1887, preface), that has been recognised by protestant scholars, which one always hesitates to recognise with regard to catholic dogma: see the excellent remarks of schwegler, nachapostolisches zeitalter. vol. 1. p. 3 ff. it may be hoped that an intelligent consideration of early christian literature will form the bridge to a broad and intelligent view of the history of dogma. the essay of overbeck mentioned above (histor. zeitschrift. n. f. xii p. 417 ff.) may be most heartily recommended in this respect. it is very gratifying to find an investigator so conservative as sohm, now fully admitting that "christian theology grew up in the second and third centuries, when its foundations were laid for all time (?), the last great production of the hellenic spirit." (kirchengeschichte im grundriss, 1888. p. 37). the same scholar in his very important kirchenrecht. bd. i. 1892, has transferred to the history of the origin of church law and church organization, the points of view which i have applied in the following account to the consideration of dogma. he has thereby succeeded in correcting many old errors and prejudices; but in my opinion he has obscured the truth by exaggerations connected with a conception, not only of original christianity, but also of the gospel in general, which is partly a narrow legal view, partly an enthusiastic one. he has arrived _ex errore per veritatem ad errorem_; but there are few books from which so much may be learned about early church history as from this paradoxical "kirchenrecht."] chapter ii the presuppositions of the history of dogma § 1. _introductory._ the gospel presents itself as an apocalyptic message on the soil of the old testament, and as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, and yet is a new thing, the creation of a universal religion on the basis of that of the old testament. it appeared when the time was fulfilled, that is, it is not without a connection with the stage of religious and spiritual development which was brought about by the intercourse of jews and greeks, and was established in the roman empire; but still it is a new religion because it cannot be separated from jesus christ. when the traditional religion has become too narrow the new religion usually appears as something of a very abstract nature; philosophy comes upon the scene, and religion withdraws from social life and becomes a private matter. but here an overpowering personality has appeared--the son of god. word and deed coincide in that personality, and as it leads men into a new communion with god, it unites them at the same time inseparably with itself, enables them to act on the world as light and leaven, and joins them together in a spiritual unity and an active confederacy. 2. jesus christ brought no new doctrine, but he set forth in his own person a holy life with god and before god, and gave himself in virtue of this life to the service of his brethren in order to win them for the kingdom of god, that is, to lead them out of selfishness and the world to god, out of the natural connections and contrasts to a union in love, and prepare them for an eternal kingdom and an eternal life. but while working for this kingdom of god he did not withdraw from the religious and political communion of his people, nor did he induce his disciples to leave that communion. on the contrary, he described the kingdom of god as the fulfilment of the promises given to the nation, and himself as the messiah whom that nation expected. by doing so he secured for his new message, and with it his own person, a place in the system of religious ideas and hopes, which by means of the old testament were then, in diverse forms, current in the jewish nation. the origin of a doctrine concerning the messianic hope, in which the messiah was no longer an unknown being, but jesus of nazareth, along with the new temper and disposition of believers was a direct result of the impression made by the person of jesus. the conception of the old testament in accordance with the _analogia fidei_, that is, in accordance with the conviction that this jesus of nazareth is the christ, was therewith given. whatever sources of comfort and strength christianity, even in its new testament, has possessed or does possess up to the present, is for the most part taken from the old testament, viewed from a christian stand-point, in virtue of the impression of the person of jesus. even its dross was changed into gold; its hidden treasures were brought forth, and while the earthly and transitory were recognised as symbols of the heavenly and eternal, there rose up a world of blessings, of holy ordinances, and of sure grace prepared by god from eternity. one could joyfully make oneself at home in it; for its long history guaranteed a sure future and a blessed close, while it offered comfort and certainty in all the changes of life to every individual heart that would only raise itself to god. from the positive position which jesus took up towards the old testament, that is, towards the religious traditions of his people, his gospel gained a footing which, later on, preserved it from dissolving in the glow of enthusiasm, or melting away in the ensnaring dream of antiquity, that dream of the indestructible divine nature of the human spirit, and the nothingness and baseness of all material things.[46] but from the positive attitude of jesus to the jewish tradition, there followed also, for a generation that had long been accustomed to grope after the divine active in the world, the summons to think out a theory of the media of revelation, and so put an end to the uncertainty with which speculation had hitherto been afflicted. this, like every theory of religion, concealed in itself the danger of crippling the power of faith; for men are ever prone to compound with religion itself by a religious theory. 3. the result of the preaching of jesus, however, in the case of the believing jews, was not only the illumination of the old testament by the gospel and the confirmation of the gospel by the old testament, but not less, though indirectly, the detachment of believers from the religious community of the jews from the jewish church. how this came about cannot be discussed here: we may satisfy ourselves with the fact that it was essentially accomplished in the first two generations of believers. the gospel was a message for humanity even where there was no break with judaism: but it seemed impossible to bring this message home to men who were not jews in any other way than by leaving the jewish church. but to leave that church was to declare it to be worthless, and that could only be done by conceiving it as a malformation from its very commencement, or assuming that it had temporarily or completely fulfilled its mission. in either case it was necessary to put another in its place, for, according to the old testament, it was unquestionable that god had not only given revelations, but through these revelations had founded a nation, a religious community. the result, also, to which the conduct of the unbelieving jews and the social union of the disciples of jesus required by that conduct, led, was carried home with irresistible power: believers in christ are the community of god, they are the true israel, the [greek: ekklêsia tou theou]: but the jewish church persisting in its unbelief is the synagogue of satan. out of this consciousness sprang--first as a power in which one believed, but which immediately began to be operative, though not as a commonwealth--the christian church, a special communion of hearts on the basis of a personal union with god, established by christ and mediated by the spirit; a communion whose essential mark was to claim as its own the old testament and the idea of being the people of god, to sweep aside the jewish conception of the old testament and the jewish church, and thereby gain the shape and power of a community that is capable of a mission for the world. 4. this independent christian community could not have been formed had not judaism, in consequence of inner and outer developments, then reached a point at which it must either altogether cease to grow or burst its shell. this community is the presupposition of the history of dogma, and the position which it took up towards the jewish tradition is, strictly speaking, the point of departure for all further developments, so far as with the removal of all national and ceremonial peculiarities it proclaimed itself to be what the jewish church wished to be. we find the christian church about the middle of the third century, after severe crisis, in nearly the same position to the old testament and to judaism as it was 150 or 200 years earlier.[47] it makes the same claim to the old testament, and builds its faith and hope upon its teaching. it is also, as before, strictly anti-national; above all, anti-judaic, and sentences the jewish religious community to the abyss of hell. it might appear, then, as though the basis for the further development of christianity as a church was completely given from the moment in which the first breach of believers with the synagogue and the formation of independent christian communities took place. the problem, the solution of which will always exercise this church, so far as it reflects upon its faith, will be to turn the old testament more completely to account in its own sense, so as to condemn the jewish church with its particular and national forms. 5. but the rule even for the christian use of the old testament lay originally in the living connection in which one stood with the jewish people and its traditions, and a new religious community, a religious commonwealth, was not yet realised, although it existed for faith and thought. if again we compare the church about the middle of the third century with the condition of christendom 150 or 200 years before, we shall find that there is now a real religious commonwealth, while at the earlier period there were only communities who believed in a heavenly church, whose earthly image they were, endeavoured to give it expression with the simplest means, and lived in the future as strangers and pilgrims on the earth, hastening to meet the kingdom of whose existence they had the surest guarantee. we now really find a new commonwealth, politically formed and equipped with fixed forms of all kinds. we recognise in these forms few jewish, but many græco-roman features, and finally, we perceive also in the doctrine of faith on which this commonwealth is based, the philosophic spirit of the greeks. we find a church as a political union and worship institute, a formulated faith and a sacred learning; but one thing we no longer find, the old enthusiasm and individualism which had not felt itself fettered by subjection to the authority of the old testament. instead of enthusiastic independent christians, we find a new literature of revelation, the new testament, and christian priests. when did these formations begin? how and by what influence was the living faith transformed into the creed to be believed, the surrender to christ into a philosophic christology, the holy church into the _corpus permixtum_, the glowing hope of the kingdom of heaven into a doctrine of immortality and deification, prophecy into a learned exegesis and theological science, the bearers of the spirit into clerics, the brethren into laity held in tutelage, miracles and healings into nothing, or into priestcraft, the fervent prayers into a solemn ritual, renunciation of the world into a jealous dominion over the world, the "spirit" into constraint and law? there can be no doubt about the answer: these formations are as old in their origin as the detachment of the gospel from the jewish church. a religious faith which seeks to establish a communion of its own in opposition to another, is compelled to borrow from that other what it needs. the religion which is life and feeling of the heart cannot be converted into a knowledge determining the motley multitude of men without deferring to their wishes and opinions. even the holiest must clothe itself in the same existing earthly forms as the profane if it wishes to found on earth a confederacy which is to take the place of another, and if it does not wish to enslave, but to determine the reason. when the gospel was rejected by the jewish nation, and had disengaged itself from all connection with that nation, it was already settled whence it must take the material to form for itself a new body and be transformed into a church and a theology. national and particular, in the ordinary sense of the word, these forms could not be: the contents of the gospel were too rich for that; but separated from judaism, nay, even before that separation, the christian religion came in contact with the roman world and with a culture which had already mastered the world, viz., the greek. the christian church and its doctrine were developed within the roman world and greek culture in opposition to the jewish church. this fact is just as important for the history of dogma as the other stated above, that this church was continuously nourished on the old testament. christendom was of course conscious of being in opposition to the empire and its culture, as well as to judaism; but this from the beginning--apart from a few exceptions--was not without reservations. no man can serve two masters; but in setting up a spiritual power in this world one must serve an earthly master, even when he desires to naturalise the spiritual in the world. as a consequence of the complete break with the jewish church there followed not only the strict necessity of quarrying the stones for the building of the church from the græco-roman world, but also the idea that christianity has a more positive relation to that world than to the synagogue. and, as the church was being built, the original enthusiasm must needs vanish. the separation from judaism having taken place, it was necessary that the spirit of another people should be admitted, and should also materially determine the manner of turning the old testament to advantage. 6. but an inner necessity was at work here no less than an outer. judaism and hellenism in the age of christ were opposed to each other, not only as dissimilar powers of equal value, but the latter having its origin among a small people, became a universal spiritual power, which, severed from its original nationality, had for that very reason penetrated foreign nations. it had even laid hold of judaism, and the anxious care of her professional watchmen to hedge round the national possession, is but a proof of the advancing decomposition within the jewish nation. israel, no doubt, had a sacred treasure which was of greater value than all the treasures of the greeks,--the living god--but in what miserable vessels was this treasure preserved, and how much inferior was all else possessed by this nation in comparison with the riches, the power, the delicacy and freedom of the greek spirit and its intellectual possessions. a movement like that of christianity, which discovered to the jew the soul whose dignity was not dependent on its descent from abraham, but on its responsibility to god, could not continue in the framework of judaism however expanded, but must soon recognise in that world which the greek spirit had discovered and prepared, the field which belonged to it: [greek: eikotôs ioudaiois men nomos, hellesi de philosophia mechris tês parousias enteuthen de hê klêsis hê katholikê] [to the jews the law, to the greeks philosophy, up to the parousia; from that time the catholic invitation.] but the gospel at first was preached exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of israel, and that which inwardly united it with hellenism did not yet appear in any doctrine or definite form of knowledge. on the contrary, the church doctrine of faith, in the preparatory stage, from the apologists up to the time of origen, hardly in any point shews the traces, scarcely even the remembrance of a time in which the gospel was not detached from judaism. for that very reason it is absolutely impossible to understand this preparation and development solely from the writings that remain to us as monuments of that short earliest period. the attempts at deducing the genesis of the church's doctrinal system from the theology of paul, or from compromises between apostolic doctrinal ideas, will always miscarry; for they fail to note that to the most important premises of the catholic doctrine of faith belongs an element which we cannot recognise as dominant in the new testament,[48] viz., the hellenic spirit.[49] as far backwards as we can trace the history of the propagation of the church's doctrine of faith, from the middle of the third century to the end of the first, we nowhere perceive a leap, or the sudden influx of an entirely new element. what we perceive is rather the gradual disappearance of an original element, the enthusiastic and apocalyptic, that is, of the sure consciousness of an immediate possession of the divine spirit, and the hope of the future conquering the present; individual piety conscious of itself and sovereign, living in the future world, recognising no external authority and no external barriers. this piety became ever weaker and passed away: the utilising of the codex of revelation, the old testament, proportionally increased with the hellenic influences which controlled the process, for the two went always hand in hand. at an earlier period the churches made very little use of either, because they had in individual religious inspiration on the basis of christ's preaching and the sure hope of his kingdom which was near at hand, much more than either could bestow. the factors whose co-operation we observe in the second and third centuries, were already operative among the earliest gentile christians. we nowhere find a yawning gulf in the great development which lies between the first epistle of clement and the work of origen, [greek: peri archôn]. even the importance which the "apostolic" was to obtain, was already foreshadowed by the end of the first century, and enthusiasm always had its limits.[50] the most decisive division, therefore, falls before the end of the first century; or more correctly, the relatively new element, the greek, which is of importance for the forming of the church as a commonwealth, and consequently for the formation of its doctrine, is clearly present in the churches even in the apostolic age. two hundred years, however, passed before it made itself completely at home in the gospel, although there were points of connection inherent in the gospel. 7. the cause of the great historical fact is clear. it is given in the fact that the gospel, rejected by the majority of the jews, was very soon proclaimed to those who were not jews, that after a few decades the greater number of its professors were found among the greeks, and that, consequently, the development leading to the catholic dogma took place within græco-roman culture. but within this culture there was lacking the power of understanding either the idea of the completed old testament theocracy, or the idea of the messiah. both of these essential elements of the original proclamation, therefore, must either be neglected or remodelled.[51] but it is hardly allowable to mention details however important, where the whole aggregate of ideas, of religious historical perceptions and presuppositions, which were based on the old testament, understood in a christian sense, presented itself as something new and strange. one can easily appropriate words, but not practical ideas. side by side with the old testament religion as the presupposition of the gospel, and using its forms of thought, the moral and religious views and ideals dominant in the world of greek culture could not but insinuate themselves into the communities consisting of gentiles. from the enormous material that was brought home to the hearts of the greeks, whether formulated by paul or by any other, only a few rudimentary ideas could at first be appropriated. for that very reason, the apostolic catholic doctrine of faith in its preparation and establishment, is no mere continuation of that which, by uniting things that are certainly very dissimilar, is wont to be described as "biblical theology of the new testament." biblical theology, even when kept within reasonable limits, is not the presupposition of the history of dogma. the gentile christians were little able to comprehend the controversies which stirred the apostolic age within jewish christianity. the presuppositions of the history of dogma are given in certain fundamental ideas, or rather motives of the gospel, (in the preaching concerning jesus christ, in the teaching of evangelic ethics and the future life, in the old testament capable of any interpretation, but to be interpreted with reference to christ and the evangelic history), and in the greek spirit.[52] 8. the foregoing statements involve that the difference between the development which led to the catholic doctrine of religion and the original condition, was by no means a total one. by recognising the old testament as a book of divine revelation, the gentile christians received along with it the religious speech which was used by jewish christians, were made dependent upon the interpretation which had been used from the very beginning, and even received a great part of the jewish literature which accompanied the old testament. but the possession of a common religious speech and literature is never a mere outward bond of union, however strong the impulse be to introduce the old familiar contents into the newly acquired speech. the jewish, that is, the old testament element, divested of its national peculiarity, has remained the basis of christendom. it has saturated this element with the greek spirit, but has always clung to its main idea, faith in god as the creator and ruler of the world. it has in the course of its development rejected important parts of that jewish element, and has borrowed others at a later period from the great treasure that was transmitted to it. it has also been able to turn to account the least adaptable features, if only for the external confirmation of its own ideas. the old testament applied to christ and his universal church has always remained the decisive document, and it was long ere christian writings received the same authority, long ere individual doctrines and sayings of apostolic writings obtained an influence on the formation of ecclesiastical doctrine. 9. from yet another side there makes its appearance an agreement between the circles of palestinian believers in jesus and the gentile christian communities, which endured for more than a century, though it was of course gradually effaced. it is the enthusiastic element which unites them, the consciousness of standing in an immediate union with god through the spirit, and receiving directly from god's hand miraculous gifts, powers and revelations, granted to the individual that he may turn them to account in the service of the church. the depotentiation of the christian religion, where one may believe in the inspiration of another, but no longer feels his own, nay, dare not feel it, is not altogether coincident with its settlement on greek soil. on the contrary, it was more than two centuries ere weakness and reflection suppressed, or all but suppressed, the forms in which the personal consciousness of god originally expressed itself.[53] now it certainly lies in the nature of enthusiasm, that it can assume the most diverse forms of expression, and follow very different impulses, and so far it frequently separates instead of uniting. but so long as criticism and reflection are not yet awakened, and a uniform ideal hovers before one, it does unite, and in this sense there existed an identity of disposition between the earliest jewish christians and the still enthusiastic gentile christian communities. 10. but, finally, there is a still further uniting element between the beginnings of the development to catholicism, and the original condition of the christian religion as a movement within judaism, the importance of which cannot be overrated, although we have every reason to complain here of the obscurity of the tradition. between the græco-roman world which was in search of a spiritual religion, and the jewish commonwealth which already possessed such a religion as a national property, though vitiated by exclusiveness, there had long been a judaism which, penetrated by the greek spirit, was, _ex professo_, devoting itself to the task of bringing a new religion to the greek world, the jewish religion, but that religion in its kernel greek, that is, philosophically moulded, spiritualised and secularised. here then was already consummated an intimate union of the greek spirit with the old testament religion, within the empire and to a less degree in palestine itself. if everything is not to be dissolved into a grey mist, we must clearly distinguish this union between judaism and hellenism and the spiritualising of religion it produced, from the powerful but indeterminable influences which the greek spirit exercised on all things jewish, and which have been a historical condition of the gospel. the alliance, in my opinion, was of no significance at all for the _origin_ of the gospel, but was of the most decided importance, first, for the propagation of christianity, and then, for the development of christianity to catholicism, and for the genesis of the catholic doctrine of faith.[54] we cannot certainly name any particular personality who was specially active in this, but we can mention three facts which prove more than individual references. (1) the propaganda of christianity in the diaspora followed the jewish propaganda and partly took its place, that is, the gospel was at first preached to those gentiles who were already acquainted with the general outlines of the jewish religion, and who were even frequently viewed as a judaism of a second order, in which jewish and greek elements had been united in a peculiar mixture. (2) the conception of the old testament, as we find it even in the earliest gentile christian teachers, the method of spiritualising it, etc., agrees in the most surprising way with the methods which were used by the alexandrian jews. (3) there are christian documents in no small number and of unknown origin, which completely agree in plan, in form and contents with græco-jewish writings of the diaspora, as for example, the christian sibylline oracles, and the pseudo-justinian treatise, "de monarchia." there are numerous tractates of which it is impossible to say with certainty whether they are of jewish or of christian origin. the alexandrian and non-palestinian judaism is still judaism. as the gospel seized and moved the whole of judaism, it must also have been operative in the non palestinian judaism. but that already foreshadowed the transition of the gospel to the non-jewish greek region, and the fate which it was to experience there. for that non-palestinian judaism formed the bridge between the jewish church and the roman empire, together with its culture.[55] the gospel passed into the world chiefly by this bridge. paul indeed had a large share in this, but his own churches did not understand the way he led them, and were not able on looking back to find it.[56] he indeed became a greek to the greeks, and even began the undertaking of placing the treasures of greek knowledge at the service of the gospel. but the knowledge of christ crucified, to which he subordinated all other knowledge as only of preparatory value, had nothing in common with greek philosophy, while the idea of justification and the doctrine of the spirit (rom. viii), which together formed the peculiar contents of his christianity, were irreconcilable with the moralism and the religious ideals of hellenism. but the great mass of the earliest gentile christians became christians because they perceived in the gospel the sure tidings of the benefits and obligations which they had already sought in the fusion of jewish and greek elements. it is only by discerning this that we can grasp the preparation and genesis of the catholic church and its dogma. from the foregoing statements it appears that there fall to be considered as presuppositions of the origin of the catholic apostolic doctrine of faith, the following topics, though of unequal importance as regards the extent of their influence: (a) the gospel of jesus christ. (b) the common preaching of jesus christ in the first generation of believers. (c) the current exposition of the old testament, the jewish speculations and hopes of the future, in their significance for the earliest types of christian preaching.[57] (d) the religious conceptions, and the religious philosophy of the hellenistic jews, in their significance for the later restatement of the gospel. (e) the religious dispositions of the greeks and romans of the first two centuries, and the current græco-roman philosophy of religion. § 2. _the gospel of jesus christ according to his own testimony concerning himself._ i. the fundamental features. the gospel entered into the world as an apocalyptic eschatological message, apocalyptical and eschatological not only in its form, but also in its contents. but jesus announced that the kingdom of god had already begun with his own work, and those who received him in faith became sensible of this beginning; for the "apocalyptical" was not merely the unveiling of the future, but above all the revelation of god as the father, and the "eschatological" received its counterpoise in the view of jesus' work as saviour, in the assurance of being certainly called to the kingdom, and in the conviction that life and future dominion is hid with god the lord and preserved for believers by him. consequently, we are following not only the indications of the succeeding history, but also the requirement of the thing itself, when, in the presentation of the gospel, we place in the foreground, not that which unites it with the contemporary disposition of judaism, but that which raises it above it. instead of the hope of inheriting the kingdom, jesus had also spoken simply of preserving the soul, or the life. in this one substitution lies already a transformation of universal significance, of political religion into a religion that is individual and therefore holy; for the life is nourished by the word of god, but god is the holy one. the gospel is the glad message of the government of the world and of every individual soul by the almighty and holy god, the father and judge. in this dominion of god, which frees men from the power of the devil, makes them rulers in a heavenly kingdom in contrast with the kingdoms of the world, and which will also be sensibly realised in the future æon just about to appear, is secured life for all men who yield themselves to god, although they should lose the world and the earthly life. that is, the soul which is pure and holy in connection with god, and in imitation of the divine perfection is eternally preserved with god, while those who would gain the world, and preserve their life, fall into the hands of the judge who sentences them to hell. this dominion of god imposes on men a law, an old and yet a new law, viz., that of the divine perfection and therefore of undivided love to god and to our neighbour. in this love, where it sways the inmost feeling, is presented the better righteousness (better not only with respect to the scribes and pharisees, but also with respect to moses, see matt. v.), which corresponds to the perfection of god. the way to attain it is a change of mind, that is, self-denial, humility before god, and heartfelt trust in him. in this humility and trust in god there is contained a recognition of one's own unworthiness; but the gospel calls to the kingdom of god those very sinners who are thus minded, by promising the forgiveness of the sins which hitherto have separated them from god. but the gospel which appears in these three elements, the dominion of god, a better righteousness embodied in the law of love, and the forgiveness of sin, is inseparably connected with jesus christ; for in preaching this gospel jesus christ everywhere calls men to himself. in him the gospel is word and deed; it has become his food, and therefore his personal life, and into this life of his he draws all others. he is the son who knows the father. in him men are to perceive the kindness of the lord; in him they are to feel god's power and government of the world, and to become certain of this consolation; they are to follow him the meek and lowly, and while he, the pure and holy one, calls sinners to himself, they are to receive the assurance that god through him forgiveth sin. jesus christ has by no express statement thrust this connection of his gospel with his person into the foreground. no words could have certified it unless his life, the overpowering impression of his person, had created it. by living, acting and speaking from the riches of that life which he lived with his father, he became for others the revelation of the god of whom they formerly had heard, but whom they had not known. he declared his father to be their father and they understood him. but he also declared himself to be messiah, and in so doing gave an intelligible expression to his abiding significance for them and for his people. in a solemn hour at the close of his life, as well as on special occasions at an earlier period, he referred to the fact that the surrender to his person which induced them to leave all and follow him, was no passing element in the new position they had gained towards god the father. he tells them, on the contrary, that this surrender corresponds to the service which he will perform for them and for the many, when he will give his life a sacrifice for the sins of the world. by teaching them to think of him and of his death in the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine, and by saying of his death that it takes place for the remission of sins, he has claimed as his due from all future disciples what was a matter of course so long as he sojourned with them, but what might fade away after he was parted from them. he who in his preaching of the kingdom of god raised the strictest self-examination and humility to a law, and exhibited them to his followers in his own life, has described with clear consciousness his life crowned by death as the imperishable service by which men in all ages will be cleansed from their sin and made joyful in their god. by so doing he put himself far above all others, although they were to become his brethren; and claimed a unique and permanent importance as redeemer and judge. this permanent importance as the lord he secured, not by disclosures about the mystery of his person, but by the impression of his life and the interpretation of his death. he interprets it, like all his sufferings, as a victory, as the passing over to his glory, and in spite of the cry of god-forsakenness upon the cross, he has proved himself able to awaken in his followers the real conviction that he lives and is lord and judge of the living and the dead. the religion of the gospel is based on this belief in jesus christ, that is, by looking to him, this historical person, it becomes certain to the believer that god rules heaven and earth, and that god, the judge, is also father and redeemer. the religion of the gospel is the religion which makes the highest moral demands, the simplest and the most difficult, and discloses the contradiction in which every man finds himself towards them. but it also procures redemption from such misery, by drawing the life of men into the inexhaustible and blessed life of jesus christ, who has overcome the world and called sinners to himself. in making this attempt to put together the fundamental features of the gospel, i have allowed myself to be guided by the results of this gospel in the case of the first disciples. i do not know whether it is permissible to present such fundamental features apart from this guidance. the preaching of jesus christ was in the main so plain and simple, and in its application so manifold and rich, that one shrinks from attempting to systematise it, and would much rather merely narrate according to the gospel. jesus searches for the point in every man on which he can lay hold of him and lead him to the kingdom of god. the distinction of good and evil--for god or against god--he would make a life question for every man, in order to shew him for whom it has become this, that he can depend upon the god whom he is to fear. at the same time he did not by any means uniformly fall back upon sin, or even the universal sinfulness, but laid hold of individuals very diversely, and led them to god by different paths. the doctrinal concentration of redemption on sin was certainly not carried out by paul alone; but, on the other hand, it did not in any way become the prevailing form for the preaching of the gospel. on the contrary, the antitheses, night, error, dominion of demons, death and light, truth, deliverance, life, proved more telling in the gentile churches. the consciousness of universal sinfulness was first made the negative fundamental frame of mind of christendom by augustine. ii. details. 1. jesus announced the kingdom of god which stands in opposition to the kingdom of the devil, and therefore also to the kingdom of the world, as a future kingdom, and yet it is presented in his preaching as present; as an invisible, and yet it was visible--for one actually saw it. he lived and spoke within the circle of eschatological ideas which judaism had developed more than two hundred years before: but he controlled them by giving them a new content and forcing them into a new direction. without abrogating the law and the prophets he, on fitting occasions, broke through the national, political and sensuous eudæmonistic forms in which the nation was expecting the realisation of the dominion of god, but turned their attention at the same time to a future near at hand, in which believers would be delivered from the oppression of evil and sin, and would enjoy blessedness and dominion. yet he declared that even now, every individual who is called into the kingdom may call on god as his father, and be sure of the gracious will of god, the hearing of his prayers, the forgiveness of sin, and the protection of god even in this present life.[58] but everything in this proclamation is directed to the life beyond: the certainty of that life is the power and earnestness of the gospel. 2. the conditions of entrance to the kingdom are, in the first place, a complete change of mind, in which a man renounces the pleasures of this world, denies himself, and is ready to surrender all that he has in order to save his soul; then, a believing trust in god's grace which he grants to the humble and the poor, and therefore hearty confidence in jesus as the messiah chosen and called by god to realise his kingdom on the earth. the announcement is therefore directed to the poor, the suffering, those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, not to those who live, but to those who wish to be healed and redeemed, and finds them prepared for entrance into, and reception of the blessings of the kingdom of god,[59] while it brings down upon the self-satisfied, the rich and those proud of their righteousness, the judgment of obduracy and the damnation of hell. 3. the commandment of undivided love to god and the brethren, as the main commandment, in the observance of which righteousness is realised, and forming the antithesis to the selfish mind, the lust of the world, and every arbitrary impulse,[60] corresponds to the blessings of the kingdom of god, viz., forgiveness of sin, righteousness, dominion and blessedness. the standard of personal worth for the members of the king is self-sacrificing labour for others, not any technical mode of worship or legal preciseness. renunciation of the world together with its goods, even of life itself in certain circumstances, is the proof of a man's sincerity and earnest in seeking the kingdom of god; and the meekness which renounces every right, bears wrong patiently, requiting it with kindness, is the practical proof of love to god, the conduct that answers to god's perfection. 4. in the proclamation and founding of this kingdom, jesus summoned men to attach themselves to him, because he had recognised himself to be the helper called by god, and therefore also the messiah who was promised.[61] he gradually declared himself to the people as such by the names he assumed,[62] for the names "anointed," "king," "lord," "son of david," "son of man," "son of god," all denote the messianic office, and were familiar to the greater part of the people.[63] but though, at first, they express only the call, office, and power of the messiah, yet by means of them and especially by the designation son of god, jesus pointed to a relation to god the father, then and in its immediateness unique, as the basis of the office with which he was entrusted. he has, however, given no further explanation of the mystery of this relation than the declaration that the son alone knoweth the father, and that this knowledge of god and sonship to god are secured for all others by the sending of the son.[64] in the proclamation of god as father,[65] as well as in the other proclamation that all the members of the kingdom following the will of god in love, are to become one with the son and through him with the father,[66] the message of the realised kingdom of god receives its richest, inexhaustible content: the son of the father will be the first-born among many brethren. 5. jesus as the messiah chosen by god has definitely distinguished himself from moses and all the prophets: as his preaching and his work are the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, so he himself is not a disciple of moses, but corrects that law-giver; he is not a prophet, but master and lord. he proves this lordship during his earthly ministry in the accomplishment of the mighty deeds given him to do, above all in withstanding the devil and his kingdom,[67] and--according to the law of the kingdom of god--for that very reason in the service which he performs. in this service jesus also reckoned the sacrifice of his life, designating it as a [greek: lutron] which he offered for the redemption of man.[68] but he declared at the same time that his messianic work was not yet fulfilled in his subjection to death. on the contrary, the close is merely initiated by his death; for the completion of the kingdom will only appear when he returns in glory in the clouds of heaven to judgment. jesus seems to have announced this speedy return a short time before his death, and to have comforted his disciples at his departure, with the assurance that he would immediately enter into a supramundane position with god.[69] 6. the instructions of jesus to his disciples are accordingly dominated by the thought that the end, the day and hour of which, however, no one knows, is at hand. in consequence of this, also, the exhortation to renounce all earthly good takes a prominent place. but jesus does not impose ascetic commandments as a new law, far less does he see in asceticism as such, sanctification[70]--he himself did not live as an ascetic, but was reproached as a wine-bibber--but he prescribed a perfect simplicity and purity of disposition, and a singleness of heart which remains invariably the same in trouble and renunciation, in possession and use of earthly good. a uniform equality of all in the conduct of life is not commanded: "to whom much is given, of him much shall be required." the disciples are kept as far from fanaticism and overrating of spiritual results as from asceticism. "rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." when they besought him to teach them to pray, he taught them the "lord's prayer", a prayer which demands such a collected mind, and such a tranquil, childlike elevation of the heart to god, that it cannot be offered at all by minds subject to passion or preoccupied by any daily cares. 7. jesus himself did not found a new religious community, but gathered round him a circle of disciples, and chose apostles whom he commanded to preach the gospel. his preaching was universalistic inasmuch as it attributed no value to ceremonialism as such, and placed the fulfilment of the mosaic law in the exhibition of its moral contents, partly against or beyond the letter. he made the law perfect by harmonising its particular requirements with the fundamental moral requirements which were also expressed in the mosaic law. he emphasised the fundamental requirements more decidedly than was done by the law itself, and taught that all details should be referred to them and deduced from them. the external righteousness of pharisaism was thereby declared to be not only an outer covering, but also a fraud, and the bond which still united religion and nationality in judaism was sundered.[71] political and national elements may probably have been made prominent in the hopes of the future, as jesus appropriated them for his preaching. but from the conditions to which the realising of the hopes for the individual was attached, there already shone the clearer ray which was to eclipse those elements, and one saying such as matt. xxii. 21, annulled at once political religion and religious politics. _supplement_ 1.--the idea of the inestimable inherent value of every individual human soul, already dimly appearing in several psalms, and discerned by greek philosophers, though as a rule developed in contradiction to religion, stands out plainly in the preaching of jesus. it is united with the idea of god as father, and is the complement to the message of the communion of brethren realising itself in love. in this sense the gospel is at once profoundly individualistic and socialistic. the prospect of gaining life, and preserving it for ever, is therefore also the highest which jesus has set forth, it is not, however, to be a motive, but a reward of grace. in the certainty of this prospect, which is the converse of renouncing the world, he has proclaimed the sure hope of the resurrection, and consequently the most abundant compensation for the loss of the natural life. jesus put an end to the vacillation and uncertainty which in this respect still prevailed among the jewish people of his day. the confession of the psalmist, "whom have i in heaven but thee, and there is none upon the earth that i desire beside thee", and the fulfilling of the old testament commandment, "love thy neighbour as thyself", were for the first time presented in their connection in the person of jesus. he himself therefore is christianity, for the "impression of his person convinced the disciples of the facts of forgiveness of sin and the second birth, and gave them courage to believe in and to lead a new life." we cannot therefore state the "doctrine" of jesus; for it appears as a supramundane life which must be felt in the person of jesus, and its truth is guaranteed by the fact that such a life can be lived. _supplement_ 2.--the history of the gospel contains two great transitions, both of which, however, fall within the first century; from christ to the first generation of believers, including paul, and from the first, jewish christian, generation of these believers to the gentile christians, in other words: from christ to the brotherhood of believers in christ, and from this to the incipient catholic church. no later transitions in the church can be compared with these in importance. as to the first, the question has frequently been asked, is the gospel of christ to be the authority or the gospel concerning christ? but the strict dilemma here is false. the gospel certainly is the gospel of christ. for it has only, in the sense of jesus, fulfilled its mission when the father has been declared to men as he was known by the son, and where the life is swayed by the realities and principles which ruled the life of jesus christ. but it is in accordance with the mind of jesus and at the same time a fact of history, that this gospel can only be appropriated and adhered to in connection with a believing surrender to the person of jesus christ. yet every dogmatic formula is suspicious, because it is fitted to wound the spirit of religion; it should not at least be put before the living experience in order to evoke it; for such a procedure is really the admission of the half belief which thinks it necessary that the impression made by the person must be supplemented. the essence of the matter is a personal life which awakens life around it as the fire of one torch kindles another. early as weakness of faith is in the church of christ, it is no earlier than the procedure of making a formulated and ostensibly proved confession the foundation of faith, and therefore demanding, above all, subjection to this confession. faith assuredly is propagated by the testimony of faith, but dogma is not in itself that testimony. the peculiar character of the christian religion is conditioned by the fact that every reference to god is at the same time a reference to jesus christ, and _vice versa_. in this sense the person of christ is the central point of the religion, and inseparably united with the substance of piety as a sure reliance on god. such a union does not, as is supposed, bring a foreign element into the pure essence of religion. the pure essence of religion rather demands such a union; for "the reverence for persons, the inner bowing before the manifestation of moral power and goodness is the root of all true religion" (w. herrmann). but the christian religion knows and names only one name before which it bows. in this rests its positive character, in all else, as piety, it is by its strictly spiritual and inward attitude, not a positive religion alongside of others, but religion itself. but just because the person of christ has this significance is the knowledge and understanding of the "historical christ" required: for no other comes within the sphere of our knowledge. "the historical christ" that, to be sure, is not the powerless christ of contemporary history shewn to us through a coloured biographical medium, or dissipated in all sorts of controversies, but christ as a power and as a life which towers above our own life, and enters into our life as god's spirit and god's word, (see herrmann, der verkehr des christen mit gott. 2. edit. 1892, (i.e., "the fellowship of the christian with god", an important work included in the present series of translations. ed.) kähler, der sog. historische jesus und der geschichtliche biblische christus, 1892). but historical labour and investigation are needed in order to grasp this jesus christ ever more firmly and surely. as to the second transition, it brought with it the most important changes, which, however, became clearly manifest only after the lapse of some generations. they appear, first, in the belief in holy consecrations, efficacious in themselves, and administered by chosen persons; further, in the conviction, that the relation of the individual to god and christ is, above all, conditioned on the acceptance of a definite divinely attested law of faith and holy writings; further, in the opinion that god has established church arrangements, observance of which is necessary and meritorious, as well as in the opinion that a visible earthly community is the people of a new covenant. these assumptions, which formally constitute the essence of catholicism as a religion, have no support in the teaching of jesus, nay, offend against that teaching. _supplement_ 3.--the question as to what new thing christ has brought, answered by paul in the words, "if any man be in christ he is a new creature, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new", has again and again been pointedly put since the middle of the second century by apologists, theologians and religious philosophers, within and without the church, and has received the most varied answers. few of the answers have reached the height of the pauline confession. but where one cannot attain to this confession, one ought to make clear to oneself that every answer which does not lie in the line of it is altogether unsatisfactory; for it is not difficult to set over against every article from the preaching of jesus an observation which deprives it of its originality. it is the person, it is the fact of his life that is new and creates the new. the way in which he called forth and established a people of god on earth, which has become sure of god and of eternal life; the way in which he set up a new thing in the midst of the old and transformed the religion of israel into _the religion_ that is the mystery of his person, in which lies his unique and permanent position in the history of humanity. _supplement_ 4.--the conservative position of jesus towards the religious traditions of his people had the necessary result that his preaching and his person were placed by believers in the frame-work of this tradition, which was thereby very soon greatly expanded. but, though this way of understanding the gospel was certainly at first the only possible way, and though the gospel itself could only be preserved by such means (see § 1), yet it cannot be mistaken that a displacement in the conception of the person and preaching of jesus, and a burdening of religious faith, could not but forthwith set in, from which developments followed, the premises of which would be vainly sought for in the words of the lord (see §§ 3, 4). but here the question arises as to whether the gospel is not inseparably connected with the eschatological world-renouncing element with which it entered into the world, so that its being is destroyed where this is omitted. a few words may be devoted to this question. the gospel possesses properties which oppose every positive religion, because they depreciate it, and these properties form the kernel of the gospel. the disposition which is devoted to god, humble, ardent and sincere in its love to god and to the brethren, is, as an abiding habit, law, and at the same time, a gift of the gospel, and also finally exhausts it. this quiet, peaceful element was at the beginning strong and vigorous, even in those who lived in the world of ecstasy and expected the world to come. one may be named for all, paul. he who wrote 1 cor. xiii. and rom. viii. should not, in spite of all that he has said elsewhere, be called upon to witness that the nature of the gospel is exhausted in its world-renouncing, ecstatic and eschatological elements, or at least, that it is so inseparably united with these as to fall along with them. he who wrote those chapters, and the greater than he who promised the kingdom of heaven to children, and to those who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, he to whom tradition ascribes the words: "rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven"--both attest that the gospel lies above the antagonisms between this world and the next, work and retirement from the world, reason and ecstasy, judaism and hellenism. and because it lies above them it may be united with either, as it originally unfolded its powers under the ruins of the jewish religion. but still more; it not only can enter into union with them, it must do so if it is otherwise the religion of the living and is itself living. it has only one aim; that man may find god and have him as his own god, in order to gain in him humility and patience, peace, joy and love. how it reaches this goal through the advancing centuries, whether with the co-efficients of judaism or hellenism, of renunciation of the world or of culture, of mysticism or the doctrine of predestination, of gnosticism or agnosticism, and whatever other incrustations there may yet be which can defend the kernel, and under which alone living elements can grow--all that belongs to the centuries. however each individual christian may reckon to the treasure itself the earthly vessel in which he hides his treasure; it is the duty and the right, not only of the religious, but also of the historical estimate to distinguish between the vessel and the treasure; for the gospel did not enter into the world as a positive statutory religion, and cannot therefore have its classic manifestation in any form of its intellectual or social types, not even in the first. it is therefore the duty of the historian of the first century of the church, as well as that of those which follow, not to be content with fixing the changes of the christian religion, but to examine how far the new forms were capable of defending, propagating and impressing the gospel itself. it would probably have perished if the forms of primitive christianity had been scrupulously maintained in the church; but now primitive christianity has perished in order that the gospel might be preserved. to study this progress of the development, and fix the significance of the newly received forms for the kernel of the matter, is the last and highest task of the historian who himself lives in his subject. he who approaches from without must be satisfied with the general view that in the history of the church some things have always remained, and other things have always been changing. _literature._--weiss. biblical theology of the new testament. t. and t. clark. wittichen. beitr. z. bibl. theol. 3. thle. 1864-72. schüreer. die predigt jesu in ihrem verhaltniss z. a.t.u. z. judenthum, 1882. wellhausen. abriss der gesch. israels u. juda's (skizzen u. vorarbeiten) i. heft. 1884. baldensperger. das selbstbewusstsein jesu im licht der messianischen hoffnungen seiner zeit, 1888, (2 aufl. 1891). the prize essays of schmoller and issel, ueber die lehre vom reiche gottes im n. test. 1891 (besides gunkel in d. theol. lit. ztg. 1893. n°. 2). wendt. die lehre jesu. (the teaching of jesus. t. and t. clark. english translation.) joh. weiss. die predigt jesu vom reiche gottes, 1892. bousset. jesu predigt in ihrem gegensatz zum judenthum, 1892. c. holtzman. die offenbarung durch christus und das neue testament (zeitschr. f. theol. und kirche i. p. 367 ff.) the special literature in the above work of weiss, and in the recent works on the life of jesus, and the biblical theology of the new testament by beyschlag. (t.t. clark) § 3. _the common preaching concerning jesus christ in the first generation of believers._ men had met with jesus christ and in him had found the messiah. they were convinced that god had made him to be wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. there was no hope that did not seem to be certified in him, no lofty idea which had not become in him a living reality. everything that one possessed was offered to him. he was everything lofty that could be imagined. everything that can be said of him was already said in the first two generations after his appearance. nay, more: he was felt and known to be the ever living one, lord of the world and operative principle of one's own life. "to me to live is christ and to die is gain;" "he is the way, the truth and the life." one could now for the first time be certain of the resurrection and eternal life, and with that certainty the sorrows of the world melted away like mist before the sun, and the residue of this present time became as a day. this group of facts which the history of the gospel discloses in the world, is at the same time the highest and most unique of all that we meet in that history; it is its seal and distinguishes it from all other universal religions. where in the history of mankind can we find anything resembling this, that men who had eaten and drunk with their master should glorify him, not only as the revealer of god, but as the prince of life, as the redeemer and judge of the world, as the living power of its existence, and that a choir of jews and gentiles, greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish, should along with them immediately confess that out of the fulness of this one man they have received grace for grace? it has been said that islam furnishes the unique example of a religion born in broad daylight, but the community of jesus was also born in the clear light of day. the darkness connected with its birth is occasioned not only by the imperfection of the records, but by the uniqueness of the fact, which refers us back to the uniqueness of the person of jesus. but though it certainly is the first duty of the historian to signalise the overpowering impression made by the person of jesus on the disciples, which is the basis of all further developments, it would little become him to renounce the critical examination of all the utterances which have been connected with that person with the view of elucidating and glorifying it; unless he were with origen to conclude that jesus was to each and all whatever they fancied him to be for their edification. but this would destroy the personality. others are of opinion that we should conceive him, in the sense of the early communities, as the second god who is one in essence with the father, in order to understand from this point of view all the declarations and judgments of these communities. but this hypothesis leads to the most violent distortion of the original declarations, and the suppression or concealment of their most obvious features. the duty of the historian rather consists in fixing the common features of the faith of the first two generations, in explaining them as far as possible from the belief that jesus is messiah, and in seeking analogies for the several assertions. only a very meagre sketch can be given in what follows. the presentation of the matter in the frame-work of the history of dogma does not permit of more, because as noted above, § 1, the presupposition of dogma forming itself in the gentile church is not the whole infinitely rich abundance of early christian views and perceptions. that presupposition is simply a proclamation of the one god and of christ transferred to greek soil, fixed merely in its leading features and otherwise very plastic, accompanied by a message regarding the future, and demands for a holy life. at the same time the old testament and the early christian palestinian writings with the rich abundance of their contents, did certainly exercise a silent mission in the earliest communities, till by the creation of the canon they became a power in the church. i. the contents of the faith of the disciples,[72] and the common proclamation which united them, may be comprised in the following propositions. jesus of nazareth is the messiah promised by the prophets. jesus after his death is by the divine awakening raised to the right hand of god, and will soon return to set up his kingdom visibly upon the earth. he who believes in jesus, and has been received into the community of the disciples of jesus, who, in virtue of a sincere change of mind, calls on god as father, and lives according to the commandments of jesus, is a saint of god, and as such can be certain of the sin-forgiving grace of god, and of a share in the future glory, that is, of redemption.[73] a community of christian believers was formed within the jewish national community. by its organisation, the close brotherly union of its members, it bore witness to the impression which the person of jesus had made on it, and drew from faith in jesus and hope of his return, the assurance of eternal life, the power of believing in god the father and of fulfilling the lofty moral and social commands which jesus had set forth. they knew themselves to be the true israel of the messianic time (see § 1), and for that very reason lived with all their thoughts and feelings in the future. hence the apocalyptic hopes which in manifold types were current in the judaism of the time, and which jesus had not demolished, continued to a great extent in force (see § 4). one guarantee for their fulfilment was supposed to be possessed in the various manifestations of the spirit,[74] which were displayed in the members of the new communities at their entrance, with which an act of baptism seems to have been united from the very first[75], and in their gatherings. they were a guarantee that believers really were the [greek: ekklêsia tou theou], those called to be saints, and, as such, kings and priests unto god[76] for whom the world, death and devil are overcome, although they still rule the course of the world. the confession of the god of israel as the father of jesus, and of jesus as christ and lord[77] was sealed by the testimony of the possession of the spirit, which as spirit of god assured every individual of his call to the kingdom, united him personally with god himself and became to him the pledge of future glory[78]. 2. as the kingdom of god which was announced had not yet visibly appeared, as the appeal to the spirit could not be separated from the appeal to jesus as messiah, and as there was actually nothing possessed but the reality of the person of jesus, so in preaching all stress must necessarily fall on this person. to believe in him was the decisive fundamental requirement, and, at first, under the presupposition of the religion of abraham and the prophets, the sure guarantee of salvation. it is not surprising then to find that in the earliest christian preaching jesus christ comes before us as frequently as the kingdom of god in the preaching of jesus himself. the image of jesus, and the power which proceeded from it, were the things which were really possessed. whatever was expected was expected only from jesus the exalted and returning one. the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven is at hand must therefore become the proclamation that jesus is the christ, and that in him the revelation of god is complete. he who lays hold of jesus lays hold in him of the grace of god, and of a full salvation. we cannot, however, call this in itself a displacement: but as soon as the proclamation that jesus is the christ ceased to be made with the same emphasis and the same meaning that it had in his own preaching, and what sort of blessings they were which he brought, not only was a displacement inevitable, but even a dispossession. but every dispossession requires the given forms to be filled with new contents. simple as was the pure tradition of the confession: "jesus is the christ," the task of rightly appropriating and handing down entire the peculiar contents which jesus had given to his self-witnessing and preaching was nevertheless great, and in its limit uncertain. even the jewish christian could perform this task only according to the measure of his spiritual understanding and the strength of his religious life. moreover, the external position of the first communities in the midst of contemporaries who had crucified and rejected jesus, compelled them to prove, as their main duty, that jesus really was the messiah who was promised. consequently, everything united to bring the first communities to the conviction that the proclamation of the gospel with which they were entrusted, resolved itself into the proclamation that jesus is the christ. the [greek: didaskein têrein panta hota eneteilato ho iêsous] (teaching to observe all that jesus had commanded), a thing of heart and life, could not lead to reflection in the same degree, as the [greek: didaskein hoti outos estin ho christos tou theou] (teaching that this is the christ of god): for a community which possesses the spirit does not reflect on whether its conception is right, but, especially a missionary community, on what the certainty of its faith rests. the proclamation of jesus as the christ, though rooted entirely in the old testament, took its start from the exaltation of jesus, which again resulted from his suffering and death. the proof that the entire old testament points to him, and that his person, his deeds and his destiny are the actual and precise fulfilment of the old testament predictions, was the foremost interest of believers, so far as they at all looked backwards. this proof was not used in the first place for the purpose of making the meaning and value of the messianic work of jesus more intelligible, of which it did not seem to be in much need, but to confirm the messiahship of jesus. still, points of view for contemplating the person and work of jesus could not fail to be got from the words of the prophets. the fundamental conception of jesus dominating everything was, according to the old testament, that god had chosen him and through him the church. god had chosen him and made him to be both lord and christ. he had made over to him the work of setting up the kingdom, and had led him through death and resurrection to a supra-mundane position of sovereignty, in which he would soon visibly appear and bring about the end. the hope of christ's speedy return was the most important article in the "christology," inasmuch as his work was regarded as only reaching its conclusion by that return. it was the most difficult, inasmuch as the old testament contained nothing of a second advent of messiah. belief in the second advent became the specific christian belief. but the searching in the scriptures of the old testament, that is, in the prophetic texts, had already, in estimating the person and dignity of christ, given an important impulse towards transcending the frame-work of the idea of the theocracy completed solely in and for israel. moreover, belief in the exaltation of christ to the right hand of god, caused men to form a corresponding idea of the beginning of his existence. the missionary work among the gentiles, so soon begun and so rich in results, threw a new light on the range of christ's purpose and work, and led to the consideration of its significance for the whole human race. finally, the self-testimony of jesus summoned them to ponder his relation to god the father, with the presuppositions of that relation, and to give it expression in intelligible statements. speculation had already begun on these four points in the apostolic age, and had resulted in very different utterances as to the person and dignity of jesus (§ 4).[79] 3. since jesus had appeared and was believed on as the messiah promised by the prophets, the aim and contents of his mission seemed already to be therewith stated with sufficient clearness. further, as the work of christ was not yet completed, the view of those contemplating it was, above all, turned to the future. but in virtue of express words of jesus, and in the consciousness of having received the spirit of god, one was already certain of the forgiveness of sin dispensed by god, of righteousness before him, of the full knowledge of the divine will, and of the call to the future kingdom as a present possession. in the procuring of these blessings not a few perceived with certainty the results of the first advent of messiah, that is, his work. this work might be seen in the whole activity of christ. but as the forgiveness of sins might be conceived as _the_ blessing of salvation which included with certainty every other blessing, as jesus had put his death in express relation with this blessing, and as the fact of this death so mysterious and offensive required a special explanation, there appeared in the foreground from the very beginning the confession, in 1 cor. xv. 3: [greek: paredôxa humin en prôtois, ho kai parelabon, hoti christos apethanen huper tôn hamartion hêmon.] "i delivered unto you first of all that which i also received, that _christ died for our sins_." not only paul, for whom, in virtue of his special reflections and experiences, the cross of christ had become the central point of all knowledge, but also the majority of believers, must have regarded the preaching of the death of the lord as an essential article in the preaching of christ[80], seeing that, as a rule, they placed it somehow under the aspect of a sacrifice offered to god. still, there were very different conceptions of the value of the death as a means of procuring salvation, and there may have been many who were satisfied with basing its necessity on the fact that it had been predicted, ([greek: apethanen kata tas graphas]: "he died for our sins _according to the scriptures_"), while their real religious interests were entirely centered in the future glory to be procured by christ. but it must have been of greater significance for the following period that, from the first, a short account of the destiny of jesus lay at the basis of all preaching about him (see a part of this in 1 cor. xv. 1-11). those articles in which the identity of the christ who had appeared with the christ who had been promised stood out with special clearness, must have been taken up into this report, as well as those which transcended the common expectations of messiah, which for that very reason appeared of special importance, viz., his death and resurrection. in putting together this report, there was no intention of describing the "work" of christ. but after the interest which occasioned it had been obscured, and had given place to other interests, the customary preaching of those articles must have led men to see in them christ's real performance, his "work."[81] 4. the firm confidence of the disciples in jesus was rooted in the belief that he did not abide in death, but was raised by god. that christ had risen was, in virtue of what they had experienced in him, certainly only after they had seen him, just as sure as the fact of his death, and became the main article of their preaching about him.[82] but in the message of the risen lord was contained not only the conviction that he lives again, and now lives for ever, but also the assurance that his people will rise in like manner and live eternally. consequently, the resurrection of jesus became the sure pledge of the resurrection of all believers, that is of their real personal resurrection. no one at the beginning thought of a mere immortality of the spirit, not even those who assumed the perishableness of man's sensuous nature. in conformity with the uncertainty which yet adhered to the idea of resurrection in jewish hopes and speculations, the concrete notions of it in the christian communities were also fluctuating. but this could not affect the certainty of the conviction that the lord would raise his people from death. this conviction, whose reverse side is the fear of that god who casts into hell, has become the mightiest power through which the gospel has won humanity.[83] 5. after the appearance of paul, the earliest communities were greatly exercised by the question as to how believers obtain the righteousness which they possess, and what significance a precise observance of the law of the fathers may have in connection with it. while some would hear of no change in the regulations and conceptions which had hitherto existed, and regarded the bestowal of righteousness by god as possible only on condition of a strict observance of the law, others taught that jesus as messiah had procured righteousness for his people, had fulfilled the law once for all, and had founded a new covenant, either in opposition to the old, or as a stage above it. paul especially saw in the death of christ the end of the law, and deduced righteousness solely from faith in christ, and sought to prove from the old testament itself, by means of historical speculation, the merely temporary validity of the law and therewith the abrogation of the old testament religion. others, and this view, which is not everywhere to be explained by alexandrian influences (see above p. 72 f.), is not foreign to paul, distinguished between spirit and letter in the mosaic law, giving to everything a spiritual significance, and in this sense holding that the whole law as [greek: nomos pneumatikos] was binding. the question whether righteousness comes from the works of the law or from faith, was displaced by this conception, and therefore remained in its deepest grounds unsolved, or was decided in the sense of a spiritualised legalism. but the detachment of christianity from the political forms of the jewish religion, and from sacrificial worship, was also completed by this conception, although it was regarded as identical with the old testament religion rightly understood. the surprising results of the direct mission to the gentiles would seem to have first called forth those controversies (but see stephen) and given them the highest significance. the fact that one section of jewish christians, and even some of the apostles, at length recognised the right of the gentile christians to be christians without first becoming jews, is the clearest proof that what was above all prized was faith in christ and surrender to him as the saviour. in agreeing to the direct mission to the gentiles the earliest christians, while they themselves observed the law, broke up the national religion of israel, and gave expression to the conviction that jesus was not only the messiah of his people, but the redeemer of humanity.[84] the establishment of the universal character of the gospel, that is, of christianity as a religion for the world, became now, however, a problem, the solution of which, as given by paul, but few were able to understand or make their own. 6. in the conviction that salvation is entirely bound up with faith in jesus christ, christendom gained the consciousness of being a new creation of god. but while the sense of being the true israel was thereby, at the same time, held fast, there followed, on the one hand, entirely new historical perspectives, and on the other, deep problems which demanded solution. as a new creation of god, [greek: he ekklêsia tou theou], the community was conscious of having been chosen by god in jesus before the foundation of the world. in the conviction of being the true israel, it claimed for itself the whole historical development recorded in the old testament, convinced that all the divine activity there recorded had the new community in view. the great question which was to find very different answers, was how, in accordance with this view, the jewish nation, so far as it had not recognised jesus as messiah, should be judged. the detachment of christianity from judaism was the most important preliminary condition, and therefore the most important preparation, for the mission among the gentile nations, and for union with the greek spirit. _supplement_ 1.--renan and others go too far when they say that paul alone has the glory of freeing christianity from the fetters of judaism. certainly the great apostle could say in this connection also: [greek: perissoteron autôn pantôn ekopiasa], but there were others beside him who, in the power of the gospel, transcended the limits of judaism. christian communities, it may now be considered certain, had arisen in the empire, in rome for example, which were essentially free from the law without being in any way determined by paul's preaching. it was paul's merit that he clearly formulated the great question, established the universalism of christianity in a peculiar manner, and yet in doing so held fast the character of christianity as a positive religion, as distinguished from philosophy and moralism. but the later development presupposes neither his clear formulation nor his peculiar establishment of universalism, but only the universalism itself. _supplement_ 2.--the dependence of the pauline theology on the old testament or on judaism is overlooked in the traditional contrasting of paulinism and jewish christianity, in which paulinism is made equivalent to gentile christianity. this theology, as we might _a priori_ suppose, could, apart from individual exceptions, be intelligible as a whole to born jews, if to any, for its doctrinal presuppositions were strictly pharisaic, and its boldness in criticising the old testament, rejecting and asserting the law in its historical sense, could be as little congenial to the gentile christians as its piety towards the jewish people. this judgment is confirmed by a glance at the fate of pauline theology in the 120 years that followed. marcion was the only gentile christian who understood paul, and even he misunderstood him: the rest never got beyond the appropriation of particular pauline sayings, and exhibited no comprehension especially of the theology of the apostle, so far as in it the universalism of christianity as a religion is proved, even without recourse to moralism and without putting a new construction on the old testament religion. it follows from this, however, that the scheme "jewish christianity"-"gentile christianity" is insufficient. we must rather, in the apostolic age, at least at its close, distinguish four main tendencies that may have crossed each other here and there,[85] (within which again different shades appear). (1) the gospel has to do with the people of israel, and with the gentile world only on the condition that believers attach themselves to the people of israel. the punctilious observance of the law is still necessary and the condition on which the messianic salvation is bestowed (particularism and legalism, in practice and in principle, which, however, was not to cripple the obligation to prosecute the work of the mission). (2) the gospel has to do with jews and gentiles: the first, as believers in christ, are under obligation as before to observe the law, the latter are not; but for that reason they cannot on earth fuse into one community with the believing jews. very different judgments in details were possible on this stand-point; but the bestowal of salvation could no longer be thought of as depending simply on the keeping of the ceremonial commandments of the law[86] (universalism in principle, particularism in practice; the prerogative of israel being to some extent clung to). (3) the gospel has to do with both jews and gentiles; no one is any longer under obligation to observe the law; for the law is abolished (or fulfilled), and the salvation which christ's death has procured is appropriated by faith. the law (that is the old testament religion) in its literal sense is of divine origin, but was intended from the first only for a definite epoch of history. the prerogative of israel remains, and is shewn in the fact that salvation was first offered to the jews, and it will be shewn again at the end of all history. that prerogative refers to the nation as a whole, and has nothing to do with the question of the salvation of individuals (paulinism: universalism in principle and in practice, and antinomianism in virtue of the recognition of a merely temporary validity of the whole law; breach with the traditional religion of israel; recognition of the prerogative of the people of israel; the clinging to the prerogative of the people of israel was not, however, necessary on this stand-point: see the epistle to the hebrews and the gospel of john). (4) the gospel has to do with jews and gentiles: no one need therefore be under obligation to observe the ceremonial commandments and sacrificial worship, because these commandments themselves are only the wrappings of moral and spiritual commandments which the gospel has set forth as fulfilled in a more perfect form (universalism in principle and in practice in virtue of a neutralising of the distinction between law and gospel, old and new; spiritualising and universalising of the law).[87] _supplement_ 3.--the appearance of paul is the most important fact in the history of the apostolic age. it is impossible to give in a few sentences an abstract of his theology and work; and the insertion here of a detailed account is forbidden, not only by the external limits, but by the aim of this investigation. for, as already indicated (§ 1), the doctrinal formation in the gentile church is not connected with the whole phenomenon of the pauline theology, but only with certain leading thoughts which were only in part peculiar to the apostle. his most peculiar thoughts acted on the development of ecclesiastical doctrine only by way of occasional stimulus. we can find room here only for a few general outlines.[88] (1) the inner conviction that christ had revealed himself to him, that the gospel was the message of the crucified and risen christ, and that god had called him to proclaim that message to the world, was the power and the secret of his personality and his activity. these three elements were a unity in the consciousness of paul, constituting his conversion and determining his after-life. (2) in this conviction he knew himself to be a new creature, and so vivid was this knowledge that he was constrained to become a jew to the jews, and a greek to the greeks in order to gain them. (3) the crucified and risen christ became the central point of his theology, and not only the central point, but the one source and ruling principle. the christ was not in his estimation jesus of nazareth now exalted, but the mighty personal spiritual being in divine form who had for a time humbled himself, and who as spirit has broken up the world of law, sin, and death, and continues to overcome them in believers. (4) theology therefore was to him, looking forwards, the doctrine of the liberating power of the spirit (of christ) in all the concrete relations of human life and need. the christ who has already overcome law, sin and death, lives as spirit, and through his spirit lives in believers, who for that very reason know him not after the flesh. he is a creative power of life to those who receive him in faith in his redeeming death upon the cross, that is to say, to those who are justified. the life in the spirit, which results from union with christ, will at last reveal itself also in the body (not in the flesh). (5) looking backwards, theology was to paul a doctrine of the law and of its abrogation; or more accurately, a description of the old system before christ in the light of the gospel, and the proof that it was destroyed by christ. the scriptural proof, even here, is only a superadded support to inner considerations which move entirely within the thought that that which is abrogated has already had its due, by having its whole strength made manifest that it might then be annulled,--the law, the flesh of sin, death: by the law the law is destroyed, sin is abolished in sinful flesh, death is destroyed by death. (6) the historical view which followed from this begins, as regards christ, with adam and abraham; as regards the law, with moses. it closes, as regards christ, with the prospect of a time when he shall have put all enemies beneath his feet, when god will be all in all; as regards moses and the promises given to the jewish nation, with the prospect of a time when all israel will be saved. (7) paul's doctrine of christ starts from the final confession of the primitive church, that christ is with the father as a heavenly being and as lord of the living and the dead. though paul must have accurately known the proclamation concerning the historical christ, his theology in the strict sense of the word does not revert to it: but springing over the historical, it begins with the pre-existent christ (the man from heaven), whose moral deed it was to assume the flesh in self-denying love, in order to break for all men the powers of nature and the doom of death. but he has pointed to the words and example of the historical christ in order to rule the life in the spirit. (8) deductions, proofs, and perhaps also conceptions, which in point of form betray the theology of the pharisaic schools, were forced from the apostle by christian opponents, who would only grant a place to the message of the crucified christ beside the [greek: dikaiosunê ex ergôn]. both as an exegete and as a typologist he appears as a disciple of the pharisees. but his dialectic about law, circumcision and sacrifice, does not form the kernel of his religious mode of thought, though, on the other hand, it was unquestionably his very pharisaism which qualified him for becoming what he was. pharisaism embraced nearly everything lofty which judaism apart from christ at all possessed, and its doctrine of providence, its energetic insistence on making manifest the religious contrasts, its messianic expectations, its doctrines of sin and predestination, were conditions for the genesis of a religious and christian character such as paul.[89] this first christian of the second generation is the highest product of the jewish spirit under the creative power of the spirit of christ. pharisaism had fulfilled its mission for the world when it produced this man. (9) but hellenism also had a share in the making of paul, a fact which does not conflict with his pharisaic origin, but is partly given with it. in spite of all its exclusiveness the desire for making proselytes, especially in the diaspora, was in the blood of pharisaism. paul continued the old movement in a new way, and he was qualified for his work among the greeks by an accurate knowledge of the greek translation of the old testament, by considerable dexterity in the use of the greek language, and by a growing insight into the spiritual life of the greeks. but the peculiarity of his gospel as a message from the spirit of christ, which was equally near to and equally distant from every religious and moral mode of thought among the nations of the world, signified much more than all this. this gospel--who can say whether hellenism had already a share in its conception--required that the missionary to the greeks should become a greek and that believers should come to know, "all things are yours, and ye are christ's." paul, as no doubt other missionaries besides him, connected the preaching of christ with the greek mode of thought; he even employed philosophic doctrines of the greeks as presuppositions in his apologetic,[90] and therewith prepared the way for the introduction of the gospel to the græco-roman world of thought. but, in my opinion, he has nowhere allowed that world of thought to influence his doctrine of salvation. this doctrine, however, was so fashioned in its practical aims that it was not necessary to become a jew in order to appropriate it. (10) yet we cannot speak of any total effect of paulinism, as there was no such thing. the abundance of its details was too great and the greatness of its simplicity too powerful, its hope of the future too vivid, its doctrine of the law too difficult, its summons to a new life in the spirit too mighty to be comprehended and adhered to even by those communities which paul himself had founded. what they did comprehend was its monotheism, its universalism, its redemption, its eternal life, its asceticism; but all this was otherwise combined than by paul. the style became hellenic, and the element of a new kind of knowledge from the very first, as in the church of corinth, seems to have been the ruling one. the pauline doctrine of the incarnate heavenly man was indeed apprehended; it fell in with greek notions, although it meant something very different from the notions which greeks had been able to form of it. _supplement_ 4.--what we justly prize above all else in the new testament is that it is a union of the three groups, synoptic gospels, pauline epistles,[91] and johannine writings, in which are expressed the richest contents of the earliest history of the gospel. in the synoptic gospels and the epistles of paul are represented two types of preaching the gospel which mutually supplement each other. the subsequent history is dependent on both, and would have been other than it is had not both existed alongside of each other. on the other hand, the peculiar and lofty conception of christ and of the gospel, which stands out in the writings of john, has directly exercised no demonstrable influence on the succeeding development--with the exception of one peculiar movement, the montanistic, which, however, does not rest on a true understanding of these writings--and indeed partly for the same reason that has prevented the pauline theology as a whole from having such an influence. what is given in these writings is a criticism of the old testament as religion, or the independence of the christian religion, in virtue of an accurate knowledge of the old testament through development of its hidden germs. the old testament stage of religion is really transcended and overcome in the johannine christianity, just as in paulinism, and in the theology of the epistle to the hebrews. "the circle of disciples who appropriated this characterisation of jesus is," says weizsäcker, "a revived christ-party in the higher sense." but this transcending of the old testament religion was the very thing that was unintelligible, because there were few ripe for such a conception. moreover, the origin of the johannine writings is, from the stand-point of a history of literature and dogma, the most marvellous enigma which the early history of christianity presents: here we have portrayed a christ who clothes the indescribable with words, and proclaims as his own self-testimony what his disciples have experienced in him, a speaking, acting, pauline christ, walking on the earth, far more human than the christ of paul and yet far more divine, an abundance of allusions to the historical jesus, and at the same time the most sovereign treatment of the history. one divines that the gospel can find no loftier expression than john xvii.: one feels that christ himself put these words into the mouth of the disciple, who gives them back to him, but word and thing, history and doctrine are surrounded by a bright cloud of the suprahistorical. it is easy to shew that this gospel could as little have been written without hellenism, as luther's treatise on the freedom of a christian man could have been written without the "deutsche theologie." but the reference to philo and hellenism is by no means sufficient here, as it does not satisfactorily explain even one of the external aspects of the problem. the elements operative in the johannine theology were not greek theologoumena--even the logos has little more in common with that of philo than the name, and its mention at the beginning of the book is a mystery, not the solution of one[92]--but the apostolic testimony concerning christ has created from the old faith of psalmists and prophets, a new faith in a man who lived with the disciples of jesus among the greeks. for that very reason, in spite of his abrupt anti-judaism, we must without doubt regard the author as a born jew. _supplement_ 5.--the authorities to which the christian communities were subjected in faith and life, were these: (1) the old testament interpreted in the christian sense. (2) the tradition of the messianic history of jesus. (3) the words of the lord: see the epistles of paul, especially 1 corinthians. but every writing which was proved to have been given by the spirit had also to be regarded as an authority, and every tested christian prophet and teacher inspired by the spirit could claim that his words be received and regarded as the words of god. moreover, the twelve whom jesus had chosen had a special authority, and paul claimed a similar authority for himself ([greek: diataxeis tôn apostolôn]). consequently, there were numerous courts of appeal in the earliest period of christendom, of diverse kinds and by no means strictly defined. in the manifold gifts of the spirit was given a fluid element indefinable in its range and scope, an element which guaranteed freedom of development, but which also threatened to lead the enthusiastic communities to extravagance. _literature._--weiss, biblical theology of the new testament, 1884. beyschlag, new testament theology, 1892. ritschl, entstehung der alt-katholischen kirche, 2 edit. 1857. reuss, history of christian theology in the apostolic age, 1864. baur, the apostle paul, 1866. holsten, zum evangelium des paulus und petrus, 1868. pfleiderer, paulinism, 1873: also, das urchristenthum, 1887. schenkel, das christusbild der apostel, 1879. renan, origins of christianity vols. ii.-iv. havet, le christianisme et ses orig. t, iv. 1884. lechler, the apostolic and post-apostolic age, 1885. weizsäcker, the apostolic age, 1892. hatch, article "paul" in the encyclopædia britannica. everett, the gospel of paul. boston, 1893. on the origin and earliest history of the christian proofs from prophecy, see my "texte und unters. z. gesch. der alt-christl." lit. i. 3, p. 56 f. § 4. _the current exposition of the old testament, and the jewish hopes of the future, in their significance for the earliest types of christian preaching._ instead of the frequently very fruitless investigations about "jewish-christian," and "gentile-christian," it should be asked, what jewish elements have been naturalised in the christian church, which were in no way demanded by the contents of the gospel? have these elements been simply weakened in course of the development, or have some of them been strengthened by a peculiar combination with the greek? we have to do here, in the first instance, with the doctrine of demons and angels, the view of history, the growing exclusiveness, the fanaticism; and on the other hand, with the cultus, and the theocracy, expressing itself in forms of law. 1. although jesus had in principle abolished the methods of pedantry, the casuistic treatment of the law, and the subtleties of prophetic interpretation, yet the old scholastic exegesis remained active in the christian communities above all the unhistorical local method in the exposition of the old testament, both allegoristic and haggadic; for in the exposition of a sacred text--and the old testament was regarded as such--one is always required to look away from its historical limitations and to expound it according to the needs of the present.[93] the traditional view exercised its influence on the exposition of the old testament, as well as on the representations of the person, fate and deeds of jesus, especially in those cases where the question was about the proof of the fulfilment of prophecy, that is, of the messiahship of jesus. (see above § 3, 2). under the impression made by the history of jesus it gave to many old testament passages a sense that was foreign to them, and, on the other hand, enriched the life of jesus with new facts, turning the interest at the same time to details which were frequently unreal and seldom of striking importance.[94] 2. the jewish apocalyptic literature, especially as it flourished since the time of antiochus epiphanes, and was impregnated with new elements borrowed from an ethico-religious philosophy, as well as with babylonian and persian myths (greek myths can only be detected in very small number), was not banished from the circles of the first professors of the gospel, but was rather held fast, eagerly read, and even extended with the view of elucidating the promises of jesus.[95] though their contents seem to have been modified on christian soil, and especially the uncertainty about the person of the messiah exalted to victory and coming to judgment,[96] yet the sensuous earthly hopes were in no way repressed. green fat meadows and sulphurous abysses, white horses and frightful beasts, trees of life, splendid cities, war and bloodshed filled the fancy,[97] and threatened to obscure the simple and yet, at bottom, much more affecting maxims about the judgment which is certain to every individual soul, and drew the confessors of the gospel into a restless activity, into politics, and abhorrence of the state. it was an evil inheritance which the christians took over from the jews,[98] an inheritance which makes it impossible to reproduce with certainty the eschatological sayings of jesus. things directly foreign were mixed up with them, and, what was most serious, delineations of the hopes of the future could easily lead to the undervaluing of the most important gifts and duties of the gospel.[99] 3. a wealth of mythologies and poetic ideas was naturalised and legitimised[100] in the christian communities, chiefly by the reception of the apocalyptic literature, but also by the reception of artificial exegesis and haggada. most important for the following period were the speculations about messiah, which were partly borrowed from expositions of the old testament and from the apocalypses, partly formed independently, according to methods the justice of which no one contested, and the application of which seemed to give a firm basis to religious faith. some of the jewish apocalyptists had already attributed pre-existence to the expected messiah, as to other precious things in the old testament history and worship, and, without any thought of denying his human nature, placed him as already existing before his appearing in a series of angelic beings.[101] this took place in accordance with an established method of speculation, so far as an attempt was made thereby to express the special value of an empiric object, by distinguishing between the essence and the inadequate form of appearance, hypostatising the essence, and exalting it above time and space. but when a later appearance was conceived as the aim of a series of preparations, it was frequently hypostatised and placed above these preparations even in time. the supposed aim was, in a kind of real existence, placed, as first cause, before the means which were destined to realise it on earth.[102] some of the first confessors of the gospel, though not all the writers of the new testament, in accordance with the same method, went beyond the declarations which jesus himself had made about his person, and endeavoured to conceive its value and absolute significance abstractly and speculatively. the religious convictions (see § 3. 2): (1) that the founding of the kingdom of god on earth, and the mission of jesus as the perfect mediator, were from eternity based on god's plan of salvation, as his main purpose; (2) that the exalted christ was called into a position of godlike sovereignty belonging to him of right; (3) that god himself was manifested in jesus, and that he therefore surpasses all mediators of the old testament, nay, even all angelic powers,--these convictions with some took the form that jesus pre-existed, and that in him has appeared and taken flesh a heavenly being fashioned like god, who is older than the world, nay, its creative principle.[103] the conceptions of the old teachers, paul, the author of the epistle to the hebrews, the apocalypse, the author of the first epistle of peter, the fourth evangelist, differ in many ways when they attempt to define these convictions more closely. the latter is the only one who has recognised with perfect clearness that the premundane christ must be assumed to be [greek: theos hôn en archê pros ton theon], so as not to endanger by this speculation the contents and significance of the revelation of god which was given in christ. this, in the earliest period, was essentially a religious problem, that is, it was not introduced for the explanation of cosmological problems, (see, especially, epistle to the ephesians, i peter; but also the gospel of john), and there stood peacefully beside it, such conceptions as recognised the equipment of the man jesus for his office in a communication of the spirit at his baptism,[104] or in virtue of isaiah vii., found the germ of his unique nature in his miraculous origin.[105] but as soon as that speculation was detached from its original foundation, it necessarily withdrew the minds of believers from the consideration of the work of christ, and from the contemplation of the revelation of god which was given in the ministry of the historical person jesus. the mystery of the person of jesus in itself, would then necessarily appear as the true revelation.[106] a series of theologoumena and religious problems for the future doctrine of christianity lay ready in the teaching of the pharisees and in the apocalypses (see especially the fourth book of ezra), and was really fitted for being of service to it; e.g., doctrines about adam, universal sinfulness, the fall, predestination, theodicy, etc., besides all kinds of ideas about redemption. besides these spiritual doctrines there were not a few spiritualised myths which were variously made use of in the apocalypses. a rich, spiritual, figurative style, only too rich and therefore confused, waited for the theological artist to purify, reduce and vigorously fashion. there really remained very little of the cosmico-mythological in the doctrine of the great church. _supplement._--the reference to the proof from prophecy, to the current exposition of the old testament, the apocalyptic and the prevailing methods of speculation, does not suffice to explain all the elements which are found in the different types of christian preaching. we must rather bear in mind here that the earliest communities were enthusiastic, and had yet among them prophets and ecstatic persons. such circumstances will always directly produce facts in the history. but, in the majority of cases, it is absolutely impossible to account subsequently for the causes of such productions, because their formation is subject to no law accessible to the understanding. it is therefore inadmissible to regard as proved the reality of what is recorded and believed to be a fact, when the motive and interest which led to its acceptance can no longer be ascertained.[107] moreover, if we consider the conditions, outer and inner, in which the preaching of christ in the first decades was placed, conditions which in every way threatened the gospel with extravagance, we shall only see cause to wonder that it continued to shine forth amid all its wrappings. we can still, out of the strangest "fulfilments", legends and mythological ideas, read the religious conviction that the aim and goal of history is disclosed in the history of christ, and that the divine has now entered into history in a pure form. _literature._--the apocalypses of daniel, enoch, moses, baruch, ezra; schürer, history of the jewish people in the time of christ; baldensperger, in the work already mentioned. weber, system der altsynagogalen palästinischen theologie, 1880, kuenen, hibbert lectures, 1883. hilgenfeld, die jüdische apokalyptik, 1857. wellhausen, sketch of the history of israel and judah, 1887. diestel, gesch. des a. t. in der christl. kirche, 1869. other literature in schürer. the essay of hellwag in the theol. jahrb. von baur and zeller, 1848, "die vorstellung von der präexistenz christi in der ältesten kirche", is worth noting; also joël, blicke in die religionsgeschichte zu anfang des 2 christl. jahrhunderts, 1880-1883. § 5. _the religious conceptions and the religious philosophy of the hellenistic jews, in their significance for the later formulation of the gospel_. 1. from the remains of the jewish alexandrian literature and the jewish sibylline writings, also from the work of josephus, and especially from the great propaganda of judaism in the græco-roman world, we may gather that there was a judaism in the diaspora, for the consciousness of which the cultus and ceremonial law were of comparatively subordinate importance; while the monotheistic worship of god, apart from images, the doctrines of virtue and belief in a future reward beyond the grave, stood in the foreground as its really essential marks. converted gentiles were no longer everywhere required to be even circumcised; the bath of purification was deemed sufficient. the jewish religion here appears transformed into a universal human ethic and a monotheistic cosmology. for that reason, the idea of the theocracy as well as the messianic hopes of the future faded away or were uprooted. the latter, indeed, did not altogether pass away; but as the oracles of the prophets were made use of mainly for the purpose of proving the antiquity and certainty of monotheistic belief, the thought of the future was essentially exhausted in the expectation of the dissolution of the roman empire, the burning of the world, and the eternal recompense. the specific jewish element, however, stood out plainly in the assertion that the old testament, and especially the books of moses, were the source of all true knowledge of god, and the sum total of all doctrines of virtue for the nations, as well as in the connected assertion that the religious and moral culture of the greeks was derived from the old testament, as the source from which the greek poets and philosophers had drawn their inspiration.[108] these jews and the greeks converted by them formed, as it were, a judaism of a second order without law, i.e., ceremonial law, and with a minimum of statutory regulations. this judaism prepared the soil for the christianising of the greeks, as well as for the genesis of a great gentile church in the empire, free from the law; and this the more that, as it seems, after the second destruction of jerusalem, the punctilious observance of the law[109] was imposed more strictly than before on all who worshipped the god of the jews.[110] the judaism just portrayed, developed itself, under the influence of the greek culture with which it came in contact, into a kind of cosmopolitanism. it divested itself, as religion, of all national forms, and exhibited itself as the most perfect expression of that "natural" religion which the stoics had disclosed. but in proportion as it was enlarged and spiritualised to a universal religion for humanity, it abandoned what was most peculiar to it, and could not compensate for that loss by the assertion of the thesis that the old testament is the oldest and most reliable source of that natural religion, which in the traditions of the greeks had only witnesses of the second rank. the vigour and immediateness of the religious feeling was flattened down to a moralism, the barrenness of which drove some jews even into gnosis, mysticism and asceticism.[111] 2. the jewish alexandrian philosophy of religion, of which philo gives us the clearest conception,[112] is the scientific theory which corresponded to this religious conception. the theological system which philo, in accordance with the example of others, gave out as the mosaic system revealed by god, and proved from the old testament by means of the allegoric exegetic method, is essentially identical with the system of stoicism, which had been mixed with platonic elements and had lost its pantheistic materialistic impress. the fundamental idea from which philo starts is a platonic one; the dualism of god and the world, spirit and matter. the idea of god itself is therefore abstractly and negatively conceived (god, the real substance which is not finite), and has nothing more in common with the old testament conception. the possibility, however, of being able to represent god as acting on matter, which as the finite is the non-existent, and therefore the evil, is reached, with the help of the stoic [greek: logos] as working powers and of the platonic doctrine of archetypal ideas, and in outward connection with the jewish doctrine of angels and the greek doctrine of demons, by the introduction of intermediate spiritual beings which, as personal and impersonal powers proceeding from god, are to be thought of as operative causes and as archetypes. all these beings are, as it were, comprehended in the logos. by the logos philo understands the operative reason of god, and consequently also the power of god. the logos is to him the thought of god and at the same time the product of his thought, therefore both idea and power. but further, the logos is god himself on that side of him which is turned to the world, as also the ideal of the world and the unity of the spiritual forces which produce the world and rule in it. he can therefore be put beside god and in opposition to the world; but he can also, so far as the spiritual contents of the world are comprehended in him, be put with the world in contrast with god. the logos accordingly appears as the son of god, the foremost creature, the representative, viceroy, high priest, and messenger of god; and again as principle of the world, spirit of the world, nay, as the world itself. he appears as a power and as a person, as a function of god and as an active divine being. had philo cancelled the contradiction which lies in this whole conception of the logos, his system would have been demolished; for that system with its hard antithesis of god and the world, needed a mediator who was, and yet was not god, as well as world. from this contrast, however, it further followed that we can only think of a world-formation by the logos, not of a world-creation.[113] within this world man is regarded as a microcosm, that is, as a being of divine nature according to his spirit, who belongs to the heavenly world, while the adhering body is a prison which holds men captive in the fetters of sense, that is, of sin. the stoic and platonic ideals and rules of conduct (also the neo-pythagorean) were united by philo in the religious ethic as well as in the cosmology. rationalistic moralism is surmounted by the injunction to strive after a higher good lying above virtue. but here, at the same time, is the point at which philo decidedly goes beyond platonism, and introduces a new thought into greek ethics, and also in correspondence therewith into theoretic philosophy. this thought, which indeed lay altogether in the line of the development of greek philosophy, was not, however, pursued by philo into all its consequences, though it was the expression of a new frame of mind. while the highest good is resolved by plato and his successors into knowledge of truth, which truth, together with the idea of god, lies in a sphere really accessible to the intellectual powers of the human spirit, the highest good, the divine original being, is considered by philo, though not invariably, to be above reason, and the power of comprehending it is denied to the human intellect. this assumption, a concession which greek speculation was compelled to make to positive religion for the supremacy which was yielded to it, was to have far-reaching consequences in the future. _a place was now for the first time provided in philosophy for a mythology to be regarded as revelation._ the highest truths which could not otherwise be reached, might be sought for in the oracles of the deity; for knowledge resting on itself had learnt by experience its inability to attain to the truth in which blessedness consists. _in this very experience the intellectualism of greek ethics was, not indeed cancelled, but surmounted._ the injunction to free oneself from sense and strive upwards by means of knowledge, remained; but the wings of the thinking mind bore it only to the entrance of the sanctuary. only ecstasy produced by god himself was able to lead to the reality above reason. the great novelties in the system of philo, though in a certain sense the way had already been prepared for them, are the introduction of the idea of a philosophy of revelation and the advance beyond the absolute intellectualism of greek philosophy, an advance based on scepticism, but also on the deep-felt needs of life. only the germs of these are found in philo, but they are already operative. they are innovations of world-wide importance: for in them the covenant between the thoughts of reason on the one hand, and the belief in revelation and mysticism on the other, is already so completed that neither by itself could permanently maintain the supremacy. thought about the world was henceforth dependent, not only on practical motives, it is always that, but on the need of a blessedness and peace which is higher than all reason. it might, perhaps, be allowable to say that philo was the first who, as a philosopher, plainly expressed that need, just because he was not only a greek, but also a jew.[114] apart from the extremes into which the ethical counsels of philo run, they contain nothing that had not been demanded by philosophers before him. the purifying of the affections, the renunciation of sensuality, the acquisition of the four cardinal virtues, the greatest possible simplicity of life, as well as a cosmopolitan disposition are enjoined.[115] but the attainment of the highest morality by our own strength is despaired of, and man is directed beyond himself to god's assistance. redemption begins with the spirit reflecting on its own condition; it advances by a knowledge of the world and of the logos, and it is perfected, after complete asceticism, by mystic ecstatic contemplation in which a man loses himself, but in return is entirely filled and moved by god.[116] in this condition man has a foretaste of the blessedness which shall be given him when the soul, freed from the body, will be restored to its true existence as a heavenly being. this system, notwithstanding its appeal to revelation, has, in the strict sense of the word, no place for messianic hopes, of which nothing but very insignificant rudiments are found in philo. but he was really animated by the hope of a glorious time to come for judaism. the synthesis of the messiah and the logos did not lie within his horizon.[117] 3. neither philo's philosophy of religion, nor the mode of thought from which it springs, exercised any appreciable influence on the first generation of believers in christ.[118] but its practical ground-thoughts, though in different degrees, must have found admission very early into the jewish christian circles of the diaspora, and through them to gentile christian circles also. philo's philosophy of religion became operative among christian teachers from the beginning of the second century,[119] and at a later period actually obtained the significance of a standard of christian theology, philo gaining a place among christian writers. the systems of valentinus and origen presuppose that of philo. it can no longer, however, be shewn with certainty how far the direct influence of philo reached, as the development of religious ideas in the second century took a direction which necessarily led to views similar to those which philo had anticipated (see § 6, and the whole following account). _supplement._--the hermeneutic principles (the "biblicalalchemy"), above all, became of the utmost importance for the following period. these were partly invented by philo himself, partly traditional,--the haggadic rules of exposition and the hermeneutic principles of the stoics having already at an earlier period been united in alexandria. they fall into two main classes; "first, those according to which the literal sense is excluded, and the allegoric proved to be the only possible one, and then, those according to which the allegoric sense is discovered as standing beside and above the literal sense."[120] that these rules permitted the discovery of a new sense by minute changes within a word, was a point of special importance.[121] christian teachers went still further in this direction, and, as can be proved, altered the text of the septuagint in order to make more definite what suggested itself to them as the meaning of a passage, or in order to give a satisfactory meaning to a sentence which appeared to them unmeaning or offensive.[122] nay, attempts were not wanting among christians in the second century--they were aided by the uncertainty that existed about the extent of the septuagint, and by the want of plain predictions about the death upon the cross--to determine the old testament canon in accordance with new principles; that is, to alter the text on the plea that the jews had corrupted it, and to insert new books into the old testament, above all, jewish apocalypses revised in a christian sense. tertullian (de cultu fem. i. 3,) furnishes a good example of the latter. "scio scipturam enoch, quæ hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nee in armorium judaicum admittitur ... sed cum enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino prædicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. et legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. a judæis potest jam videri propterea reiecta, sicut et cetera fere quæ christum sonant.... eo accedit quod enoch apud judam apostolum testimonium possidet." compare also the history of the apocalypse of ezra in the latin bible (old testament). not only the genuine greek portions of the septuagint, but also many apocalypses were quoted by christians in the second century as of equal value with the old testament. it was the new testament that slowly put an end to these tendencies towards the formation of a christian old testament. to find the spiritual meaning of the sacred text, partly beside the literal, partly by excluding it, became the watchword for the "scientific" christian theology which was possible only on this basis, as it endeavoured to reduce the immense and dissimilar material of the old testament to unity with the gospel, and both with the religious and scientific culture of the greeks,--yet without knowing a relative standard, the application of which would alone have rendered possible in a loyal way the solution of the task. here, philo was the master; for he first to a great extent poured the new wine into old bottles. such a procedure is warranted by its final purpose; for history is a unity. but applied in a pedantic and stringently dogmatic way it is a source of deception, of untruthfulness, and finally of total blindness. _literature._--gefrörer, das jahr des heils, 1838. parthey, das alexandr. museum, 1838. matter, hist. de l'école d'alex. 1840. dähne, gesch. darstellung der jüd.-alex. religions-philos. 1834. zeller, die philosophie der griechen, iii. 2. 3rd edition. mommsen, history of rome, vol. v. siegfried, philo von alex. 1875. massebieau, le classement des oeuvres de philon. 1889. hatch, essays in biblical greek, 1889. drummond, philo judæus, 1888. bigg, the christian platonists of alexandria, 1886. schürer, history of the jewish people. the investigations of freudenthal (hellenistische studien), and bernays (ueber das phokylideische gedicht; theophrastos' schrift über frömmigkeit; die heraklitischen briefe). kuenen, hibbert lectures: "christian theology could have made and has made much use of hellenism. but the christian religion cannot have sprung from this source." havet thinks otherwise, though in the fourth volume of his "origines" he has made unexpected admissions. § 6. _the religious dispositions of the greeks and romans in the first two centuries, and the current græco-roman philosophy of religion._ 1. after the national religion and the religious sense generally in cultured circles had been all but lost in the age of cicero and augustus, there is noticeable in the græco-roman world from the beginning of the second century a revival of religious feeling which embraced all classes of society, and appears, especially from the middle of that century, to have increased from decennium to decennium.[123] parallel with it went the not altogether unsuccessful attempt to restore the old national worship, religious usages, oracles, etc. in these attempts, however, which were partly superficial and artificial, the new religious needs found neither vigorous nor clear expression. these needs rather sought new forms of satisfaction corresponding to the wholly changed conditions of the time, including intercourse and mixing of the nations; decay of the old republican orders, divisions and ranks; monarchy and absolutism and social crises; pauperism; influence of philosophy on the domain of public morality and law; cosmopolitanism and the rights of man; influx of oriental cults into the west; knowledge of the world and disgust with it. the decay of the old political cults and syncretism produced a disposition in favour of monotheism both among the cultured classes who had been prepared for it by philosophy, and also gradually among the masses. religion and individual morality became more closely connected. there was developed a corresponding attempt at spiritualising the worship alongside of and within the ceremonial forms, and at giving it a direction towards the moral elevation of man through the ideas of moral personality, conscience, and purity. the ideas of repentance and of expiation and healing of the soul became of special importance, and consequently such oriental cults came to the front as required the former and guaranteed the latter. but what was sought above all, was to enter into an inner union with the deity, to be saved by him and become a partaker in the possession and enjoyment of his life. the worshipper consequently longed to find a "præsens numen" and the revelation of him in the cultus, and hoped to put himself in possession of the deity by asceticism and mysterious rites. this new piety longed for health and purity of soul, and elevation above earthly things, and in connection with these a divine, that is, a painless and eternal life beyond the grave ("renatus in æternum taurobolio"). a world beyond was desired, sought for and viewed with an uncertain eye. by detachment from earthly things and the healing of its diseases (the passions) the freed, new born soul should return to its divine nature and existence. it is not a hope of immortality such as the ancients had dreamed of for their heroes, where they continue, as it were, their earthly existence in blessed enjoyment. to the more highly pitched self-consciousness this life had become a burden, and in the miseries of the present, one hoped for a future life in which the pain and vulgarity of the unreal life of earth would be completely laid aside ([greek: enkrateia] and [greek: anastasis]). if the new moralistic feature stood out still more emphatically in the piety of the second century, it vanished more and more behind the religious feature, the longing after life[124] and after a redeemer god. no one could any longer be a god who was not also a saviour.[125] with all this polytheism was not suppressed, but only put into a subordinate place. on the contrary, it was as lively and active as ever. for the idea of a _numen supremum_ did not exclude belief in the existence and manifestation of subordinate deities. apotheosis came into currency. the old state religion first attained its highest and most powerful expression in the worship of the emperor, (the emperor glorified as "dominus ac deus noster",[126] as "præsens et corporalis deus", the antinous cult, etc.)., and in many circles an incarnate ideal in the present or the past was sought, which might be worshipped as revealer of god and as god, and which might be an example of life and an assurance of religious hope. apotheosis became less offensive in proportion as, in connection with the fuller recognition of the spiritual dignity of man, the estimate of the soul, the spirit, as of supramundane nature, and the hope of its eternal continuance in a form of existence befitting it, became more general. that was the import of the message preached by the cynics and the stoics, that the truly wise man is lord, messenger of god, and god upon the earth. on the other hand, the popular belief clung to the idea that the gods could appear and be visible in human form, and this faith, though mocked by the cultured, gained numerous adherents, even among them, in the age of the antonines.[127] the new thing which was here developed, continued to be greatly obscured by the old forms of worship which reasons of state and pious custom maintained. and the new piety, dispensing with a fixed foundation, groped uncertainly around, adapting the old rather than rejecting it. the old religious practices of the fathers asserted themselves in public life generally, and the reception of new cults by the state, which was certainly effected, though with many checks, did not disturb them. the old religious customs stood out especially on state holidays, in the games in honour of the gods, frequently degenerating into shameless immorality, but yet protecting the institutions of the state. the patriot, the wise man, the sceptic, and the pious man compounded with them, for they had not really at bottom outgrown them, and they knew of nothing better to substitute for the services they still rendered to society (see the [greek: logos alêthês] of celsus). 2. the system of associations, naturalised centuries before among the greeks, was developed under the social and political pressure of the empire, and was greatly extended by the change of moral and religious ideas. the free unions, which, as a rule, had a religious element and were established for mutual help, support, or edification, balanced to some extent the prevailing social cleavage, by a free democratic organisation. they gave to many individuals in their small circle the rights which they did not possess in the great world, and were frequently of service in obtaining admission for new cults. even the new piety and cosmopolitan disposition seem to have turned to them in order to find within them forms of expression. but the time had not come for the greater corporate unions, and of an organised connection of societies in one city with those of another we know nothing. the state kept these associations under strict control. it granted them only to the poorest classes (_collegia tenuiorum_) and had the strictest laws in readiness for them. these free unions, however, did not in their historical importance approach the fabric of the roman state in which they stood. that represented the union of the greater part of humanity under one head, and also more and more under one law. its capital was the capital of the world, and also, from the beginning of the third century, of religious syncretism. hither migrated all who desired to exercise an influence on the great scale: jew, chaldean, syrian priest, and neoplatonic teacher. law and justice radiated from rome to the provinces, and in their light nationalities faded away, and a cosmopolitanism was developed which pointed beyond itself, because the moral spirit can never find its satisfaction in that which is realised. when that spirit finally turned away from all political life, and after having laboured for the ennobling of the empire, applied itself, in neoplatonism, to the idea of a new and free union of men, this certainly was the result of the felt failure of the great creation, but it nevertheless had that creation for its presupposition. the church appropriated piecemeal the great apparatus of the roman state, and gave new powers, new significance and respect to every article that had been depreciated. but what is of greatest importance is that the church by her preaching would never have gained whole circles, but only individuals, had not the universal state already produced a neutralising of nationalities and brought men nearer each other in temper and disposition. 3. perhaps the most decisive factor in bringing about the revolution of religious and moral convictions and moods, was philosophy, which in almost all its schools and representatives, had deepened ethics, and set it more and more in the foreground. after possidonius, seneca, epictetus, and marcus aurelius of the stoical school, and men like plutarch of the platonic, attained to an ethical view, which, though not very clear in principle (knowledge, resignation, trust in god), is hardly capable of improvement in details. common to them all, as distinguished from the early stoics, is the value put upon the soul, (not the entire human nature), while in some of them there comes clearly to the front a religious mood, a longing for divine help, for redemption and a blessed life beyond the grave, the effort to obtain and communicate a religious philosophical therapeutic of the soul. from the beginning of the second century, however, already announced itself that eclectic philosophy based on platonism which after two or three generations appeared in the form of a school, and after three generations more was to triumph over all other schools. the several elements of the neoplatonic philosophy, as they were already foreshadowed in philo, are clearly seen in the second century, viz., the dualistic opposition of the divine and the earthly, the abstract conception of god, the assertion of the unknowableness of god, scepticism with regard to sensuous experience, and distrust with regard to the powers of the understanding, with a greater readiness to examine things and turn to account the result of former scientific labour; further, the demand of emancipation from sensuality by means of asceticism, the need of authority, belief in a higher revelation, and the fusion of science and religion. the legitimising of religious fancy in the province of philosophy was already begun. the myth was no longer merely tolerated and re-interpreted as formerly, but precisely the mythic form with the meaning imported into it was the precious element.[128] there were, however, in the second century numerous representatives of every possible philosophic view. to pass over the frivolous writers of the day, the cynics criticised the traditional mythology in the interests of morality and religion.[129] but there were also men who opposed the "ne quid nimis" to every form of practical scepticism, and to religion at the same time, and were above all intent on preserving the state and society, and on fostering the existing arrangements which appeared to be threatened far more by an intrusive religious than by a nihilistic philosophy.[130] yet men whose interest was ultimately practical and political, became ever more rare, especially as from the death of marcus aurelius, the maintenance of the state had to be left more and more to the sword of the generals. the general conditions from the end of the second century were favourable to a philosophy which no longer in any respect took into real consideration the old forms of the state. the theosophic philosophy which was prepared for in the second century,[131] was, from the stand-point of enlightenment and knowledge of nature, a relapse: but it was the expression of a deeper religious need, and of a self-knowledge such as had not been in existence at an earlier period. the final consequences of that revolution in philosophy which made consideration of the inner life the starting-point of thought about the world, only now began to be developed. the ideas of a divine, gracious providence, of the relationship of all men, of universal brotherly love, of a ready forgiveness of wrong, of forbearing patience, of insight into one's own weakness--affected no doubt with many shadows--became, for wide circles, a result of the practical philosophy of the greeks as well as, the conviction of inherent sinfulness, the need of redemption, and the eternal value and dignity of a human soul which finds rest only in god. these ideas, convictions and rules, had been picked up in the long journey from socrates to ammonius saccas: at first, and for long afterwards, they crippled the interest in a rational knowledge of the world; but they deepened and enriched the inner life, and therewith the source of all knowledge. those ideas, however, lacked as yet the certain coherence, but, above all, the authority which could have raised them above the region of wishes, presentiments, and strivings, and have given them normative authority in a community of men. there was no sure revelation, and no view of history which could be put in the place of the no longer prized political history of the nation or state to which one belonged.[132] there was, in fact, no such thing as certainty. in like manner, there was no power which might overturn idolatry and abolish the old, and therefore one did not get beyond the wavering between self-deification, fear of god, and deification of nature. the glory is all the greater of those statesmen and jurists who, in the second and third centuries, introduced human ideas of the stoics into the legal arrangements of the empire, and raised them to standards. and we must value all the more the numerous undertakings and performances, in which it appeared that the new view of life was powerful enough in individuals to beget a corresponding practice even without a sure belief in revelation.[133] _supplement._--for the correct understanding of the beginning of christian theology, that is, for the apologetic and gnosis, it is important to note where they are dependent on stoic, and where on platonic lines of thought. platonism and stoicism, in the second century, appeared in union with each other: but up to a certain point they may be distinguished in the common channel in which they flow. wherever stoicism prevailed in religious thought and feeling, as for example, in marcus aurelius, religion gains currency as _natural_ religion in the most comprehensive sense of the word. the idea of revelation or redemption scarcely emerges. to this rationalism, the objects of knowledge are unvarying, ever the same: even cosmology attracts interest only in a very small degree. myth and history are pageantry and masks. moral ideas (virtues and duties) dominate even the religious sphere, which in its final basis has no independent authority. the interest in psychology and apologetic is very pronounced. on the other hand, the emphasis, which, in principle, is put on the contrast of spirit and matter, god and the world, had for results: inability to rest in the actual realities of the cosmos, efforts to unriddle the history of the universe backwards and forwards, recognition of this process as the essential task of theoretic philosophy, and a deep, yearning conviction that the course of the world needs assistance. here were given the conditions for the ideas of revelation, redemption, etc., and the restless search for powers from whom help might come, received here also a scientific justification. the rationalistic apologetic interests thereby fell into the background: contemplation and historical description predominated.[134] the stages in the ecclesiastical history of dogma, from the middle of the first to the middle of the fifth century, correspond to the stages in the history of the ancient religion during the same period. the apologists, irenæus, tertullian, hippolytus; the alexandrians; methodius, and the cappadocians; dionysius, the areopagite, have their parallels in seneca, marcus aurelius; plutarch, epictetus, numenius; plotinus, porphyry; iamblichus and proclus. but it is not only greek philosophy that comes into question for the history of christian dogma. the whole of greek culture must be taken into account. in his posthumous work, hatch has shewn in a masterly way how that is to be done. he describes the grammar, the rhetoric, the learned profession, the schools, the exegesis, the homilies, etc., of the greeks, and everywhere shews how they passed over into the church, thus exhibiting the philosophy, the ethic, the speculative theology, the mysteries, etc., of the greeks, as the main factors in the process of forming the ecclesiastical mode of thought. but, besides the greek, there is no mistaking the special influence of romish ideas and customs upon the christian church. the following points specially claim attention: (1) the conception of the contents of the gospel and its application as "salus legitima," with the results which followed from the naturalising of this idea. (2) the conception of the word of revelation, the bible, etc., as "lex." (3) the idea of tradition in its relation to the romish idea. (4) the episcopal constitution of the church, including the idea of succession, of the primateship and universal episcopate, in their dependence on romish ideas and institutions (the ecclesiastical organisation in its dependence on the roman empire). (5) the separation of the idea of the "sacrament" from that of the "mystery", and the development of the forensic discipline of penance. the investigation has to proceed in a historical line, described by the following series of chapters: rome and tertullian; rome and cyprian; rome, optatus and augustine; rome and the popes of the fifth century. we have, to shew how, by the power of her constitution and the earnestness and consistency of her policy, rome a second time, step by step, conquered the world, but this time the christian world.[135] greek philosophy exercised the greatest influence not only on the christian mode of thought, but also through that, on the institutions of the church. the church never indeed became a philosophic school: but yet in her was realised in a peculiar way, that which the stoics and the cynics had aimed at. the stoic (cynic) philosopher also belonged to the factors from which the christian priests or bishops were formed. that the old bearers of the spirit--apostles, prophets, teachers--have been changed into a class of professional moralists and preachers, who bridle the people by counsel and reproof [greek: nouthetein kai elenchein], that this class considers itself and desires to be considered as a mediating kingly divine class, that its representatives became "lords" and let themselves be called "lords", all this was prefigured in the stoic wise man and in the cynic missionary. but so far as these several "kings and lords" are united in the idea and reality of the church and are subject to it, the platonic idea of the republic goes beyond the stoic and cynic ideals, and subordinates them to it. but this platonic ideal has again obtained its political realisation in the church through the very concrete laws of the roman empire, which were more and more adopted, or taken possession of. consequently, in the completed church we find again the philosophic schools and the roman empire. _literature._--besides the older works of tzschirner, döllinger, burckhardt, preller, see friedländer, darstellungen aus der sittengesch. roms. in der zeit von august bis zum ausgang der antonine, 3 bd. aufl. boissier, la religion romaine d'auguste aux antonins, 2 bd. 1874. ramsay, the church in the roman empire before 170. london, 1893. réville, la religion à rome sous les sévères, 1886. schiller, geschichte der röm. kaiserzeit, 1883. marquardt, römische staatsverwaltung, 3 bde. 1878. foucart, les associations relig. chez les grecs, 1873. liebeman, z. gesch. u. organisation d. röm. vereinswesen, 1890. k.j. neumann, der röm. staat und die allg. kirche, bd. i. 1890. leopold schmidt, die ethik der alten griechen, 2 bd. 1882. heinrici, die christengemeinde korinth's und die religiösen genossenschaften der griechen, in der ztschr. f. wissensch. theol. 1876-77. hatch, the influence of greek ideas and usages upon the christian church. buechner, de neocoria, 1888. hirschfeld, z. gesch. d. röm. kaisercultus. the histories of philosophy by zeller, erdmann, ueberweg, strümpell, windelband, etc. heinze, die lehre vom logos in der griech. philosophie, 1872. by same author, der eudämonismus in der griech. philosophie, 1883. hirzel, untersuchungen zu cicero's philos. schriften, 3 thle. 1877-1883. these investigations are of special value for the history of dogma, because they set forth with the greatest accuracy and care, the later developments of the great greek philosophic schools, especially on roman soil. we must refer specially to the discussions on the influence of the roman on the greek philosophy. volkmann, die rhetorik der griechen und römer, 1872. _supplementary._ perhaps the most important fact for the following development of the history of dogma, the way for which had already been prepared in the apostolic age, is the twofold conception of the aim of christ's appearing, or of the religious blessing of salvation. the two conceptions were indeed as yet mutually dependent on each other, and were twined together in the closest way, just as they are presented in the teaching of jesus himself; but they began even at this early period to be differentiated. salvation, that is to say, was conceived, on the one hand, as sharing in the glorious kingdom of christ soon to appear, and everything else was regarded as preparatory to this sure prospect; on the other hand, however, attention was turned to the conditions and to the provisions of god wrought by christ, which first made men capable of attaining that portion, that is, of becoming sure of it. forgiveness of sin, righteousness, faith, knowledge, etc., are the things which come into consideration here, and these blessings themselves, so far as they have as their sure result life in the kingdom of christ, or more accurately eternal life, may be regarded as salvation. it is manifest that these two conceptions need not be exclusive. the first regards the final effect as the goal and all else as a preparation, the other regards the preparation, the facts already accomplished by christ and the inner transformation of men as the main thing, and all else as the natural and necessary result. paul, above all, as may be seen especially from the arguments in the epistle to the romans, unquestionably favoured the latter conception and gave it vigorous expression. the peculiar conflicts with which he saw himself confronted, and, above all, the great controversy about the relation of the gospel and the new communities to judaism, necessarily concentrated the attention on questions as to the arrangements on which the community of those sanctified in christ should rest, and the conditions of admission to this community. but the centre of gravity of christian faith might also for the moment be removed from the hope of christ's second advent, and would then necessarily be found in the first advent, in virtue of which salvation was already prepared for man, and man for salvation (rom. iii.-viii.). the dual development of the conception of christianity which followed from this, rules the whole history of the gospel to the present day. the eschatological view is certainly very severely repressed, but it always breaks out here and there, and still guards the spiritual from the secularisation which threatens it. but the possibility of uniting the two conceptions in complete harmony with each other, and on the other hand, of expressing them antithetically, has been the very circumstance that has complicated in an extraordinary degree the progress of the development of the history of dogma. from this follows the antithesis, that from that conception which somehow recognises salvation itself in a present spiritual possession, eternal life in the sense of immortality may be postulated as final result, though not a glorious kingdom of christ on earth; while, conversely, the eschatological view must logically depreciate every blessing which can be possessed in the present life. it is now evident that the theology, and, further, the hellenising, of christianity, could arise and has arisen in connection, not with the eschatological, but only with the other conception. just because the matters here in question were present spiritual blessings, and because, from the nature of the case, the ideas of forgiveness of sin, righteousness, knowledge, etc., were not so definitely outlined in the early tradition, as the hopes of the future, conceptions entirely new and very different, could, as it were, be secretly naturalised. the spiritual view left room especially for the great contrast of a religious and a moralistic conception, as well as for a frame of mind which was like the eschatological in so far as, according to it, faith and knowledge were to be only preparatory blessings in contrast with the peculiar blessing of immortality, which of course was contained in them. in this frame of mind the illusion might easily arise that this hope of immortality was the very kernel of those hopes of the future for which old concrete forms of expression were only a temporary shell. but it might further be assumed that contempt for the transitory and finite as such, was identical with contempt for the kingdom of the world which the returning christ would destroy. the history of dogma has to shew how the old eschatological view was gradually repressed and transformed in the gentile christian communities, and how there was finally developed and carried out a spiritual conception in which a strict moralism counterbalanced a luxurious mysticism, and wherein the results of greek practical philosophy could find a place. but we must here refer to the fact, which is already taught by the development in the apostolic age, that christian dogmatic did not spring from the eschatological, but from the spiritual mode of thought. the former had nothing but sure hopes and the guarantee of these hopes by the spirit, by the words of prophecy and by the apocalyptic writings. one does not think, he lives and dreams, in the eschatological mode of thought; and such a life was vigorous and powerful till beyond the middle of the second century. there can be no external authorities here; for one has at every moment the highest authority in living operation in the spirit. on the other hand, not only does the ecclesiastical christology essentially spring from the spiritual way of thinking, but very specially also the system of dogmatic guarantees. the co-ordination of [greek: logos theou, didachê kuriou, kêrygma tôn dôdeka apostolôn] [word of god, teaching of the lord, preaching of the twelve apostles], which lay at the basis of all gentile christian speculation almost from the very beginning, and which was soon directed against the enthusiasts, originated in a conception which regarded as the essential thing in christianity, the sure knowledge which is the condition of immortality. if, however, in the following sections of this historical presentation, the pervading and continuous opposition of the two conceptions is not everywhere clearly and definitely brought into prominence, that is due to the conviction that the historian has no right to place the factors and impelling ideas of a development in a clearer light than they appear in the development itself. he must respect the obscurities and complications as they come in his way. a clear discernment of the difference of the two conceptions was very seldom attained to in ecclesiastical antiquity, because they did not look beyond their points of contact, and because certain articles of the eschatological conception could never be suppressed or remodelled in the church. goethe (dichtung und wahrheit, ii. 8,) has seen this very clearly. "the christian religion wavers between its own historic positive element and a pure deism, which, based on morality, in its turn offers itself as the foundation of morality. the difference of character and mode of thought shew themselves here in infinite gradations, especially as another main distinction cooperates with them, since the question arises, what share the reason, and what the feelings, can and should have in such convictions." see, also, what immediately follows. 2. the origin of a series of the most important christian customs and ideas is involved in an obscurity which in all probability will never be cleared up. though one part of those ideas may be pointed out in the epistles of paul, yet the question must frequently remain unanswered, whether he found them in existence or formed them independently, and accordingly the other question, whether they are exclusively indebted to the activity of paul for their spread and naturalisation in christendom. what was the original conception of baptism? did paul develop independently his own conception? what significance had it in the following period? when and where did baptism in the name of the father, son and holy spirit arise, and how did it make its way in christendom? in what way were views about the saving value of christ's death developed alongside of paul's system? when and how did belief in the birth of jesus from a virgin gain acceptance in christendom? who first distinguished christendom, as [greek: ekklêsia tou theou], from judaism, and how did the concept [greek: ekklêsia] become current? how old is the triad: apostles, prophets and teachers? when were baptism and the lord's supper grouped together? how old are our first three gospels? to all these questions and many more of equal importance there is no sure answer. but the greatest problem is presented by christology, not indeed in its particular features doctrinally expressed, these almost everywhere may be explained historically, but in its deepest roots as it was preached by paul as the principle of a new life (2 cor. v. 17), and as it was to many besides him the expression of a personal union with the exalted christ (rev. ii. 3). but this problem exists only for the historian who considers things only from the outside, or seeks for objective proofs. behind and in the gospel stands the person of jesus christ who mastered men's hearts, and constrained them to yield themselves to him as his own, and in whom they found their god. theology attempted to describe in very uncertain and feeble outline what the mind and heart had grasped. yet it testifies of a new life which, like all higher life, was kindled by a person, and could only be maintained by connection with that person. "i can do all things through christ who strengtheneth me." "i live, yet not i, but christ liveth in me." these convictions are not dogmas and have no history, and they can only be propagated in the manner described by paul, gal. i. 15, 16. 3. it was of the utmost importance for the legitimising of the later development of christianity as a system of doctrine, that early christianity had an apostle who was a theologian, and that his epistles were received into the canon. that the doctrine about christ has become the main article in christianity is not of course the result of paul's preaching, but is based on the confession that jesus is the christ. the theology of paul was not even the most prominent ruling factor in the transformation of the gospel to the catholic doctrine of faith, although an earnest study of the pauline epistles by the earliest gentile christian theologians, the gnostics, and their later opponents, is unmistakable. but the decisive importance of this theology lies in the fact that, as a rule, it formed the boundary and the foundation--just as the words of the lord himself--for those who in the following period endeavoured to ascertain original christianity, because the epistles attesting it stood in the canon of the new testament. now, as this theology comprised both speculative and apologetic elements, as it can be thought of as a system, as it contained a theory of history and a definite conception of the old testament, finally, as it was composed of objective and subjective ethical considerations and included the realistic elements of a national religion (wrath of god, sacrifice, reconciliation, kingdom of glory), as well as profound psychological perceptions and the highest appreciation of spiritual blessings, the catholic doctrine of faith as it was formed in the course of time, seemed, at least in its leading features, to be related to it, nay, demanded by it. for the ascertaining of the deep-lying distinctions, above all for the perception that the question in the two cases is about elements quite differently conditioned, that even the method is different, in short, that the pauline gospel is not identical with the original gospel and much less with any later doctrine of faith, there is required such historical judgment and such honesty of purpose not to be led astray in the investigation by the canon of the new testament,[136] that no change in the prevailing ideas can be hoped for for long years to come. besides, critical theology has made it difficult, to gain an insight into the great difference that lies between the pauline and the catholic theology, by the one-sided prominence it has hitherto given to the antagonism between paulinism and judaistic christianity. in contrast with this view the remark of havet, though also very one-sided, is instructive, "quand on vient de relire paul, on ne peut méconnaître le caractère élevé de son oeuvre. je dirai en un mot, qu'il a agrandi dans une proportion extraordinaire l'attrait que le judaïsme exerçait sur le monde ancien" (le christianisme, t. iv. p. 216). that, however, was only very gradually the case and within narrow limits. the deepest and most important writings of the new testament are incontestably those in which judaism is understood as religion, but spiritually overcome and subordinated to the gospel as a new religion,--the pauline epistles, the epistle to the hebrews, and the gospel and epistle of john. there is set forth in these writings a new and exalted world of religious feelings, views and judgments, into which the christians of succeeding centuries got only meagre glimpses. strictly speaking, the opinion that the new testament in its whole extent comprehends a unique literature is not tenable; but it is correct to say that between its most important constituent parts, and the literature of the period immediately following there is a great gulf fixed. but paulinism especially has had an immeasurable and blessed influence on the whole course of the history of dogma, an influence it could not have had, if the pauline epistles had not been received into the canon. paulinism is a religious and christocentric doctrine, more inward and more powerful than any other which has ever appeared in the church. it stands in the clearest opposition to all merely natural moralism, all righteousness of works, all religious ceremonialism, all christianity without christ. it has therefore become the conscience of the church, until the catholic church in jansenism killed this her conscience. "the pauline reactions describe the critical epochs of theology and the church."[137] one might write a history of dogma as a history of the pauline reactions in the church, and in doing so would touch on all the turning points of the history. marcion after the apostolic fathers; irenæus, clement and origen after the apologists; augustine after the fathers of the greek church;[138] the great reformers of the middle ages from agobard to wessel in the bosom of the mediæval church; luther after the scholastics; jansenism after the council of trent:--everywhere it has been paul, in these men, who produced the reformation. paulinism has proved to be a ferment in the history of dogma, a basis it has never been.[139] just as it had that significance in paul himself, with reference to jewish christianity, so it has continued to work through the history of the church. [footnote 46: the old testament of itself alone could not have convinced the græco-roman world. but the converse question might perhaps be raised as to what results the gospel would have had in that world without its union with the old testament. the gnostic schools and the marcionite church are to some extent the answer. but would they ever have arisen without the presupposition of a christian community which recognised the old testament?] [footnote 47: we here leave out of account learned attempts to expound paulinism. nor do we take any notice of certain truths regarding the relation of the old testament to the new, and regarding the jewish religion, stated by the antignostic church teachers, truths which are certainly very important, but have not been sufficiently utilised.] [footnote 48: there is indeed no single writing of the new testament which does not betray the influence of the mode of thought and general conditions of the culture of the time which resulted from the hellenising of the east: even the use of the greek translation of the old testament attests this fact. nay, we may go further, and say that the gospel itself is historically unintelligible, so long as we compare it with an exclusive judaism as yet unaffected by any foreign influence. but on the other hand, it is just as clear that, specifically, hellenic ideas form the presuppositions neither for the gospel itself, nor for the most important new testament writings. it is a question rather as to a general spiritual atmosphere created by hellenism, which above all strengthened the individual element, and with it the idea of completed personality, in itself living and responsible. on this foundation we meet with a religious mode of thought in the gospel and the early christian writings, which so far as it is at all dependent on an earlier mode of thought, is determined by the spirit of the old testament (psalms and prophets) and of judaism. but it is already otherwise with the earliest gentile christian writings. the mode of thought here is so thoroughly determined by the hellenic spirit that we seem to have entered a new world when we pass from the synoptists, paul and john, to clement, barnabas, justin or valentinus. we may therefore say, especially in the frame-work of the history of dogma, that the hellenic element has exercised an influence on the gospel first on gentile christian soil, and by those who were greek by birth, if only we reserve the general spiritual atmosphere above referred to. even paul is no exception; for in spite of the well-founded statements of weizsäcker (apostolic age, vol. i. book 11) and heinrici (das 2 sendschreiben an die korinthier, 1887, p. 578 ff), as to the hellenism of paul, it is certain that the apostle's mode of religious thought, in the strict sense of the word, and therefore also the doctrinal formation peculiar to him, are but little determined by the greek spirit. but it is to be specially noted that as a missionary and an apologist he made use of greek ideas (epistles to the romans and corinthians). he was not afraid to put the gospel into greek modes of thought. to this extent we can already observe in him the beginning of the development which we can trace so clearly in the gentile church from clement to justin, and from justin to irenæus.] [footnote 49: the complete universalism of salvation is given in the pauline conception of christianity. but this conception is singular. because: (1) the pauline universalism is based on a criticism of the jewish religion as religion, including the old testament, which was not understood and therefore not received by christendom in general. (2) because paul not only formulated no national anti-judaism, but always recognised the prerogative of the people of israel as a people. (3) because his idea of the gospel, with all his greek culture, is independent of hellenism in its deepest grounds. this peculiarity of the pauline gospel is the reason why little more could pass from it into the common consciousness of christendom than the universalism of salvation, and why the later development of the church cannot be explained from paulinism. baur, therefore, was quite right when he recognised that we must exhibit another and more powerful element in order to comprehend the post-pauline formations. in the selection of this element, however, he has made a fundamental mistake, by introducing the narrow national jewish christianity, and he has also given much too great scope to paulinism by wrongly conceiving it as gentile christian doctrine. one great difficulty for the historian of the early church is that he cannot start from paulinism, the plainest phenomenon of the apostolic age, in seeking to explain the following development, that in fact the premises for this development are not at all capable of being indicated in the form of outlines, just because they were too general. but, on the other hand, the pauline theology, this theology of one who had been a pharisee, is the strongest proof of the independent and universal power of the impression made by the person of jesus.] [footnote 50: in the main writings of the new testament itself we have a twofold conception of the spirit. according to the one he comes upon the believer fitfully, expresses himself in visible signs, deprives men of self-consciousness, and puts them beside themselves. according to the other, the spirit is a constant possession of the christian, operates in him by enlightening the conscience and strengthening the character, and his fruits are love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, etc. (gal. v. 22). paul above all taught christians to value these fruits of the spirit higher than all the other effects of his working. but he has not by any means produced a perfectly clear view on this point: for "he himself spoke with more tongues than they all." as yet "spirit" lay within "spirit." one felt in the spirit of sonship a completely new gift coming from god and recreating life, a miracle of god; further, this spirit also produced sudden exclamations--"abba, father;" and thus shewed himself in a way patent to the senses. for that very reason, the spirit of ecstasy and of miracle appeared identical with the spirit of sonship. (see gunkel, die wirkungen d. h. geistes nach der populären anschauung der apostol. zeit. göttingen, 1888).] [footnote 51: it may even be said here that the [greek: athanasia (zôê aiônios)], on the one hand, and the [greek: ekklêsia], on the other, have already appeared in place of the [greek: basileia tou theou], and that the idea of messiah has been finally replaced by that of the divine teacher and of god manifest in the flesh.] [footnote 52: it is one of the merits of bruno bauer (christus und die cäsaren, 1877), that he has appreciated the real significance of the greek element in the gentile christianity which became the catholic church and doctrine, and that he has appreciated the influence of the judaism of the diaspora as a preparation for this gentile christianity. but these valuable contributions have unfortunately been deprived of their convincing power by a baseless criticism of the early christian literature, to which christ and paul have fallen a sacrifice. somewhat more cautious are the investigations of havet in the fourth volume of le christianisme, 1884; le nouveau testament. he has won great merit by the correct interpretation of the elements of gentile christianity developing themselves to catholicism, but his literary criticism is often unfortunately entirely abstract, reminding one of the criticism of voltaire, and therefore his statements in detail are, as a rule, arbitrary and untenable. there is a school in holland at the present time closely related to bruno bauer and havet, which attempts to banish early christianity from the world. christ and paul are creations of the second century: the history of christianity begins with the passage of the first century into the second--a peculiar phenomenon on the soil of hellenised judaism in quest of a messiah. this judaism created jesus christ just as the later greek religious philosophers created their saviour (apollonius, for example). the marcionite church produced paul and the growing catholic church completed him. see the numerous treatises of loman, the verisimilia of pierson and naber (1886), and the anonymous english work "antiqua mater" (1887), also the works of steck (see especially his untersuchung über den galaterbrief). against these works see p.v. schmidt's, "der galaterbrief," 1892. it requires a deep knowledge of the problems which the first two centuries of the christian church present, in order not to thrust aside as simply absurd these attempts, which as yet have failed to deal with the subject in a connected way. they have their strength in the difficulties and riddles which are contained in the history of the formation of the catholic tradition in the second century. but the single circumstance that we are asked to regard as a forgery such a document as the first epistle of paul to the corinthians, appears to me, of itself, to be an unanswerable argument against the new hypotheses.] [footnote 53: it would be a fruitful task, though as yet it has not been undertaken, to examine how long visions, dreams and apocalypses, on the one hand, and the claim of speaking in the power and name of the holy spirit, on the other, played a _rôle_ in the early church; and further to shew how they nearly died out among the laity, but continued to live among the clergy and the monks, and how, even among the laity, there were again and again sporadic outbreaks of them. the material which the first three centuries present is very great. only a few may be mentioned here: ignat. ad. rom. vii. 2; ad. philad. vii; ad eph. xx. 1, etc.; 1 clem. lxiii. 2; martyr. polyc.; acta perpet. et felic; tertull de animo xlvii.; "major pæne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt." orig. c. celsum. i. 46: [greek: polloi hosperei akontes proselêluthasi christianismô, pneumatos tinos trepsantos ... kai phantasiôsantos autous hupar ê onar] (even arnobius was ostensibly led to christianity by a dream). cyprian makes the most extensive use of dreams, visions, etc., in his letters, see for example ep. xi. 3-5; xvi. 4 ("præter nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum innocens aetas, quæ in ecstasi videt," etc.); xxxix. 1; lxvi 10 (very interesting: "quamquam sciam somnia ridicula et visiones ineptas quibusdam videri, sed utique illis, qui malunt contra sacerdotes credere quam sacerdoti, sed nihil mirum, quando de joseph fratres sui dixerunt: ecce somniator ille," etc.). one who took part in the baptismal controversy in the great synod of carthage writes, "secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti." the enthusiastic element was always evoked with special power in times of persecution, as the genuine african martyrdoms, from the second half of the third century, specially shew. cf. especially the passio jacobi, mariani, etc. but where the enthusiasm was not convenient it was called, as in the case of the montanists, dæmonic. even constantine operated with dreams and visions of christ (see his vita).] [footnote 54: as to the first, the recently discovered "teaching of the apostles" in its first moral part, shews a great affinity with the moral philosophy which was set up by alexandrian jews and put before the greek world as that which had been revealed: see massebieau, l'enseignement des xii. apôtres, paris, 1884, and in the journal "le temoignage," 7 febr. 1885. usener, in his preface to the ges. abhandl. jacob bernays', which he edited, 1885, p.v.f., has, independently of massebieau, pointed out the relationship of chapters 1-5 of the "teaching of the apostles" with the phocylidean poem (see bernays' above work, p. 192 ff.). later taylor, "the teaching of the twelve apostles", 1886, threw out the conjecture that the didache had a jewish foundation, and i reached the same conclusion independently of him: see my treatise: die apostellehre und die judischen beiden wege, 1886.] [footnote 55: it is well known that judaism at the time of christ embraced a great many different tendencies. beside pharisaic judaism as the stem proper there was a motley mass of formations which resulted from the contact of judaism with foreign ideas, customs, and institutions (even with babylonian and persian), and which attained importance for the development of the predominant church as well as for the formation of the so-called gnostic christian communions. hellenic elements found their way even into pharisaic theology. orthodox judaism itself has marks which shew that no spiritual movement was able to escape the influence which proceeded from the victory of the greeks over the east. besides who would venture to exhibit definitely the origin and causes of that spiritualising of religions and that limitation of the moral standard of which we can find so many traces in the alexandrian age? the nations who inhabited the eastern shore of the mediterranean sea had from the fourth century b.c. a common history and therefore had similar convictions. who can decide what each of them acquired by its own exertions and what it obtained through interchange of opinions? but in proportion as we see this we must be on our guard against jumbling the phenomena together and effacing them. there is little meaning in calling a thing hellenic, as that really formed an element in all the phenomena of the age. all our great political and ecclesiastical parties to-day are dependent on the ideas of 1789 and again on romantic ideas. it is just as easy to verify this as it is difficult to determine the measure and the manner of the influence for each group. and yet the understanding of it turns altogether on this point. to call pharisaism or the gospel or the old jewish christianity hellenic is not paradox but confusion.] [footnote 56: the acts of the apostles is in this respect a most instructive book. it as well as the gospel of luke is a document of gentile christianity developing itself to catholicism; cf. overbeck in his commentar z apostelgesch. but the comprehensive judgment of havet in the work above mentioned (iv. p. 395) is correct: "l hellenisme tient assez peu de place dans le n.t. du moins l hellenisme voulu et reflechi. ces livres sont ecrits en grec et leurs auteurs vivaient en pays grec, il y a donc eu chez eux infiltration des idees et des sentiments helleniques, quelquefois même l imagination hellenique y a pénetre comme dans le 3 evangile et dans les actes. dans son ensemble le n.t. garde le caractere d un livre hebraique. le christianisme ne commence avoir une litterature et des doctrines vraiment helleniques qu au milieu du second siecle. mais il y avait un judaisme celui d alexandrie qui avait faite alliance avec l hellenisme avant meme qu il y eut des chretiens."] [footnote 57: the right of distinguishing (b) and (c) may be contested. but if we surrender this we therewith surrender the right to distinguish kernel and husk in the original proclamation of the gospel. the dangers to which the attempt is exposed should not frighten us from it for it has its justification in the fact that the gospel is neither doctrine nor law.] [footnote 58: therewith are, doubtless, heavenly blessings bestowed in the present. historical investigation has, notwithstanding, every reason for closely examining whether, and in how far, we may speak of a present for the kingdom of god, in the sense of jesus. but even if the question had to be answered in the negative, it would make little or no difference for the correct understanding of jesus' preaching. the gospel viewed in its kernel is independent of this question. it deals with the inner constitution and mood of the soul.] [footnote 59: the question whether, and in what degree, a man of himself can earn righteousness before god is one of those theoretic questions to which jesus gave no answer. he fixed his attention on all the gradations of the moral and religious conduct of his countrymen as they were immediately presented to him, and found some prepared for entrance into the kingdom of god, not by a technical mode of outward preparation, but by hungering and thirsting for it, and at the same time unselfishly serving their brethren. humility and love unfeigned were always the decisive marks of these prepared ones. they are to be satisfied with righteousness before god, that is, are to receive the blessed feeling that god is gracious to them as sinners, and accepts them as his children. jesus, however, allows the popular distinction of sinners and righteous to remain, but exhibits its perverseness by calling sinners to him and by describing the opposition of the righteous to his gospel as a mark of their godlessness and hardness of heart.] [footnote 60: the blessings of the kingdom were frequently represented by jesus as a reward for work done. but this popular view is again broken through by reference to the fact that all reward is the gift of god's free grace.] [footnote 61: some critics--most recently havet, le christianisme et ses origines, 1884. t. iv. p. 15 ff.--have called in question the fact that jesus called himself messiah. but this article of the evangelic tradition seems to me to stand the test of the most minute investigation. but, in the case of jesus, the consciousness of being the messiah undoubtedly rested on the certainty of being the son of god, therefore of knowing the father and being constrained to proclaim that knowledge.] [footnote 62: we can gather with certainty from the gospels that jesus did not enter on his work with the announcement: believe in me for i am the messiah. on the contrary, he connected his work with the baptising movement of john, but carried that movement further, and thereby made the baptist his forerunner (mark i. 15: [greek: peplêrôtai ho kairos kai êngiken hê basileia tou theou, metanoeite kai pisteuete en tôi euaggeliôi]). he was in no hurry to urge anything that went beyond that message, but gradually prepared, and cautiously required of his followers an advance beyond it. the goal to which he led them was to believe in him as messiah without putting the usual political construction on the messianic ideal.] [footnote 63: even "son of man" probably means messiah: we do not know whether jesus had any special reason for favouring this designation which springs from dan. vii. the objection to interpreting the word as messiah really resolves itself into this, that the disciples (according to the gospels) did not at once recognise him as messiah. but that is explained by the contrast of his own peculiar idea of messiah with the popular idea. the confession of him as messiah was the keystone of their confidence in him, inasmuch as by that confession they separated themselves from old ideas.] [footnote 64: the distinction between the father and the son stands out just as plainly in the sayings of jesus, as the complete obedient subordination of the son to the father. even according to john's gospel, jesus finishes the work which the father has given him, and is obedient in everything even unto death. he declares matt. xix. 17: [greek: heis estin ho agathos]. special notice should be given to mark xiii. 32, (matt. xxiv. 36). behind the only manifested life of jesus, later speculation has put a life in which he wrought, not in subordination and obedience, but in like independence and dignity with god. that goes beyond the utterances of jesus even in the fourth gospel. but it is no advance beyond these, especially in the religious view and speech of the time, when it is announced that the relation of the father to the son lies beyond time. it is not even improbable that the sayings in the fourth gospel referring to this, have a basis in the preaching of jesus himself.] [footnote 65: paul knew that the designation of god as the father of our lord jesus christ, was the new evangelic confession. origen was the first among the fathers (though before him marcion) to recognise that the decisive advance beyond the old testament stage of religion, was given in the preaching of god as father; see the exposition of the lord's prayer in his treatise _de oratione_. no doubt the old testament, and the later judaism knew the designation of god as father; but it applied it to the jewish nation, it did not attach the evangelic meaning to the name, and it did not allow itself in any way to be guided in its religion by this idea.] [footnote 66: see the farewell discourses in john, the fundamental ideas of which are, in my opinion, genuine, that is, proceed from jesus.] [footnote 67: the historian cannot regard a miracle as a sure given historical event: for in doing so he destroys the mode of consideration on which all historical investigation rests. every individual miracle remains historically quite doubtful, and a summation of things doubtful never leads to certainty. but should the historian, notwithstanding, be convinced that jesus christ did extraordinary things, in the strict sense miraculous things, then, from the unique impression he has obtained of this person, he infers the possession by him of supernatural power. this conclusion itself belongs to the province of religious faith: though there has seldom been a strong faith which would not have drawn it. moreover, the healing miracles of jesus are the only ones that come into consideration in a strict historical examination. these certainly cannot be eliminated from the historical accounts without utterly destroying them. but how unfit are they of themselves, after 1800 years, to secure any special importance to him to whom they are attributed, unless that importance was already established apart from them. that he could do with himself what he would, that he created a new thing without overturning the old, that he won men to himself by announcing the father, that he inspired without fanaticism, set up a kingdom without politics, set men free from the world without asceticism, was a teacher without theology, at a time of fanaticism and politics, asceticism and theology, is the great miracle of his person, and that he who preached the sermon on the mount declared himself in respect of his life and death, to be the redeemer and judge of the world, is the offence and foolishness which mock all reason.] [footnote 68: see mark x. 45.--that jesus at the celebration of the first lord's supper described his death as a sacrifice which he should offer for the forgiveness of sin, is clear from the account of paul. from that account it appears to be certain, that jesus gave expression to the idea of the necessity and saving significance of his death for the forgiveness of sins, in a symbolical ordinance (based on the conclusion of the covenant, exod. xxiv. 3 ff., perhaps, as paul presupposes, on the passover), in order that his disciples by repeating it in accordance with the will of jesus, might be the more deeply impressed by it. certain observations based on john vi., on the supper prayer in the didache, nay, even on the report of mark, and supported at the same time by features of the earliest practice in which it had the character of a real meal, and the earliest theory of the supper, which viewed it as a communication of eternal life and an anticipation of the future existence, have for years made me doubt very much whether the pauline account and the pauline conception of it, were really either the oldest, or the universal and therefore only one. i have been strengthened in this suspicion by the profound and remarkable investigation of spitta (z. gesch. u. litt. d. urchristenthums: die urchristl. traditionen ü. den urspr. u. sinnd. abendmahls, 1893). he sees in the supper as not instituted, but celebrated by jesus, the festival of the messianic meal, the anticipated triumph over death, the expression of the perfection of the messianic work, the symbolic representation of the filling of believers with the powers of the messianic kingdom and life. the reference to the passover and the death of christ was attached to it later, though it is true very soon. how much is thereby explained that was hitherto obscure--critical, historical, and dogmatico-historical questions--cannot at all be stated briefly. and yet i hesitate to give a full recognition to spitta's exposition: the words 1 cor. xi. 23: [greek: egô gar parelabon apo tou kuríou, ho kaì paredoka humin k.t.l.] are too strong for me. cf. besides, weizsäcker's investigation in "the apostolic age." lobstein, la doctrine de la s. cène. 1889. a. harnack i.d. texten u. unters. vii. 2. p. 139 ff. schürer, theol. lit. ztg. 1891, p. 29 ff. jülicher abhandl. f weizsäcker, 1892, p. 215 ff.] [footnote 69: with regard to the eschatology, no one can say in detail what proceeds from jesus, and what from the disciples. what has been said in the text does not claim to be certain, but only probable. the most important, and at the same time the most certain point, is that jesus made the definitive fate of the individual depend on faith, humility and love. there are no passages in the gospel which conflict with the impression that jesus reserved day and hour to god, and wrought in faith and patience as long as for him it was day.] [footnote 70: he did not impose on every one, or desire from every one even the outward following of himself: see mark v. 18-19. the "imitation of jesus", in the strict sense of the word, did not play any noteworthy rôle either in the apostolic or in the old catholic period.] [footnote 71: it is asserted by well-informed investigators, and may be inferred from the gospels (mark xii. 32-34; luke x. 27, 28), perhaps also from the jewish original of the didache, that some representatives of pharisaism, beside the pedantic treatment of the law, attempted to concentrate it on the fundamental moral commandments. consequently, in palestinian and alexandrian judaism at the time of christ, in virtue of the prophetic word and the thora, influenced also, perhaps, by the greek spirit which everywhere gave the stimulus to inwardness, the path was indicated in which the future development of religion was to follow. jesus entered fully into the view of the law thus attempted, which comprehended it as a whole and traced it back to the disposition. but he freed it from the contradiction that adhered to it, (because, in spite of and alongside the tendency to a deeper perception, men still persisted in deducing righteousness from a punctilious observance of numerous particular commandments, because in so doing they became self-satisfied, that is, irreligious, and because in belonging to abraham they thought they had a claim of right on god). for all that, so far as a historical understanding of the activity of jesus is at all possible, it is to be obtained from the soil of pharisaism, as the pharisees were those who cherished and developed the messianic expectations, and because, along with their care for the thora, they sought also to preserve, in their own way, the prophetic inheritance. if everything does not deceive us, there were already contained in the pharisaic theology of the age, speculations which were fitted to modify considerably the narrow view of history, and to prepare for universalism. the very men who tithed mint, anise and cummin, who kept their cups and dishes outwardly clean, who, hedging round the thora, attempted to hedge round the people, spoke also of the sum total of the law. they made room in their theology for new ideas which are partly to be described as advances, and on the other hand, they have already pondered the question even in relation to the law, whether submission to its main contents was not sufficient for being numbered among the people of the covenant (see renan: _paul_). in particular the whole sacrificial system, which jesus also essentially ignored, was therewith thrust into the background. baldensperger (selbstbewusstsein jesu. p. 46) justly says. "there lie before us definite marks that the certainty of the nearness of god in the temple (from the time of the maccabees) begins to waver, and the efficacy of the temple institutions to be called in question. its recent desecration by the romans, appears to the author of the psalms of solomon (ii. 2) as a kind of divine requital for the sons of israel, themselves having been guilty of so grossly profaning the sacrificial gifts. enoch calls the shewbread of the second temple polluted and unclean. there had crept in among the pious a feeling of the insufficiency of their worship, and from this side the essenic schism will certainly represent only the open outbreak of a disease which had already begun to gnaw secretly at the religious life of the nation": see here the excellent explanations of the origin of essenism in lucius (essenism 75 ff. 109 ff.) the spread of judaism in the world, the secularization and apostacy of the priestly caste, the desecration of the temple, the building of the temple at leontopolis, the perception brought about by the spiritualising of religion in the empire of alexander the great, that no blood of beast can be a means of reconciling god--all these circumstances must have been absolutely dangerous and fatal, both to the local centralisation of worship, and to the statutory sacrificial system. the proclamation of jesus (and of stephen) as to the overthrow of the temple, is therefore no absolutely new thing, nor is the fact that judaism fell back upon the law and the messianic hope, a mere result of the destruction of the temple. this change was rather prepared by the inner development. whatever point in the preaching of jesus we may fix on, we shall find, that--apart from the writings of the prophets and the psalms, which originated in the greek maccabean periods--parallels can be found only in pharisaism, but at the same time that the sharpest contrasts must issue from it. talmudic judaism is not in every respect the genuine continuance of pharisaic judaism, but a product of the decay which attests that the rejection of jesus by the spiritual leaders of the people had deprived the nation, and even the virtuosi of religion of their best part (see for this the expositions of kuenen "judaismus und christenthum", in his (hibbert) lectures on national religions and world religions). the ever recurring attempts to deduce the origin of christianity from hellenism, or even from the roman greek culture, are there also rightly, briefly and tersely rejected. also the hypotheses, which either entirely eliminate the person of jesus or make him an essene, or subordinate him to the person of paul, may be regarded as definitively settled. those who think they can ascertain the origin of christian religion from the origin of christian theology will, indeed, always think of hellenism: paul will eclipse the person of jesus with those who believe that a religion for the world must be born with a universalistic doctrine. finally, essenism will continue in authority with those who see in the position of indifference which jesus took to the temple worship, the main thing, and who, besides, create for themselves an "essenism of their own finding." hellenism, and also essenism, can of course indicate to the historian some of the conditions by which the appearance of jesus was prepared and rendered possible; but they explain only the possibility, not the reality of the appearance. but this with its historically not deducible power is the decisive thing. if some one has recently said that "the historical speciality of the person of jesus" is not the main thing in christianity, he has thereby betrayed that he does not know how a religion that is worthy of the name is founded, propagated, and maintained. for the latest attempt to put the gospel in a historical connection with buddhism (seydel, das ev von jesus in seinen verhältnissen zur buddha-sage, 1882: likewise, die buddha-legende und das leben jesu, 1884), see, oldenburg, theol. lit-z'g 1882. col. 415 f. 1884. 185 f. however much necessarily remains obscure to us in the ministry of jesus when we seek to place it in a historical connection,--what is known is sufficient to confirm the judgment that his preaching developed a germ in the religion of israel (see the psalms) which was finally guarded and in many respects developed by the pharisees, but which languished and died under their guardianship. the power of development which jesus imported to it was not a power which he himself had to borrow from without; but doctrine and speculation were as far from him as ecstasy and visions. on the other hand, we must remember we do not know the history of jesus up to his public entrance on his ministry, and that therefore we do not know whether in his native province he had any connection with greeks.] [footnote 72: see the brilliant investigations of weizsäcker (apost. zeitalter. p. 36) as to the earliest significant names, self-designations, of the disciples. the twelve were in the first place "[greek: mathêtai]," (disciples and family-circle of jesus, see also the significance of james and the brethren of jesus), then witnesses of the resurrection and therefore apostles; very soon there appeared beside them, even in jerusalem, prophets and teachers.] [footnote 73: the christian preaching is very pregnantly described in acts xxviii. 31. as [greek: kêrussein tên basileian tou theou, kai didaskein ta peri tou iêsou christou].] [footnote 74: on the spirit of god (of christ) see note, p. 50. the earliest christians felt the influence of the spirit as one coming on them from without.] [footnote 75: it cannot be directly proved that jesus instituted baptism, for matth. xxviii. 19, is not a saying of the lord. the reasons for this assertion are: (1) it is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. paul knows nothing of it. (2) the trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of jesus and has not the authority in the apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from jesus himself. on the other hand, paul knows of no other way of receiving the gentiles into the christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of paul all jewish christians were also baptised. we may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of jesus' recognition of john the baptist and his baptism, even after john himself had been removed. according to john iv. 2, jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples under his superintendence. it is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to jesus a "sacrament of baptism," or an obligation to it _ex necessitate salutis_, though it is credible that tradition is correct here. baptism in the apostolic age was [greek: eis aphesin hamartiôn], and indeed [greek: eis to onoma christou] (1 cor. i. 13; acts xix. 5). we cannot make out when the formula, [greek: eis to onoma tou patros, kai tou huiou, kai tou hagiou pneumatos], emerged. the formula [greek: eis to onoma] expresses that the person baptised is put into a relation of dependence on him into whose name he is baptised. paul has given baptism a relation to the death of christ, or justly inferred it from the [greek: eis aphesin hamartiôn]. the descent of the spirit on the baptised very soon ceased to be regarded as the necessary and immediate result of baptism; yet paul, and probably his contemporaries also, considered the grace of baptism and the communication of the spirit to be inseparably united. see scholten. die taufformel. 1885. holtzman, die taufe im n.t. ztsch. f. wiss. theol. 1879.] [footnote 76: the designation of the christian community as [greek: ekklêsia] originates perhaps with paul, though that is by no means certain; see as to this "name of honour," sohm, kirchenrecht, vol. i. p. 16 ff. the words of the lord, matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17, belong to a later period. according to gal. i. 22, [greek: tais en christo] is added to the [greek: tais ekklêsiais tês ioudaias]. the independence of every individual christian in, and before god is strongly insisted on in the epistles of paul, and in the epistle of peter, and in the christian portions of revelations: [greek: epoiêsen hêmas basileian, hiereis tôi theo kai patri autou].] [footnote 77: jesus is regarded with adoring reverence as messiah and lord, that is, these are regarded as the names which his father has given him. christians are those who call on the name of the lord jesus christ (1 cor. i. 2): every creature must bow before him and confess him as lord (phil. ii. 9): see deissmann on the n.t. formula "in christo jesu."] [footnote 78: the confession of father, son and spirit is therefore the unfolding of the belief that jesus is the christ: but there was no intention of expressing by this confession the essential equality of the three persons, or even the similar relation of the christian to them. on the contrary, the father, in it, is regarded as the god and father over all, the son as revealer, redeemer and lord, the spirit as a possession, principle of the new supernatural life and of holiness. from the epistles of paul we perceive that the formula father, son and spirit could not yet have been customary, especially in baptism. but it was approaching (2 cor. xiii. 13).] [footnote 79: the christological utterances which are found in the new testament writings, so far as they explain and paraphrase the confession of jesus as the christ and the lord, may be almost entirely deduced from one or other of the four points mentioned in the text. but we must at the same time insist that these declarations were meant to be explanations of the confession that "jesus is the lord," which of course included the recognition that jesus by the resurrection became a heavenly being (see weizsäcker in above mentioned work, p. 110) the solemn protestation of paul, 1 cor. xii. 3 [greek: dio gnôrizo humin hoti oudeis en pneumati theou lalôn legei anathema iêsous, kai oudeis dunatai eipein kurios iêsous ei mê en pneumati hagiô] (cf. rom. x. 9), shews that he who acknowledged jesus as the lord, and accordingly believed in the resurrection of jesus, was regarded as a full-born christian. it undoubtedly excludes from the apostolic age the independent authority of any christological dogma besides that confession and the worship of christ connected with it. it is worth notice, however, that those early christian men who recognised christianity as the vanquishing of the old testament religion (paul, the author of the epistle to the hebrews, john) all held that christ was a being who had come down from heaven.] [footnote 80: compare in their fundamental features the common declarations about the saving value of the death of christ in paul, in the johannine writings, in 1st peter, in the epistle to the hebrews, and in the christian portions of the book of revelation: [greek: tô agapônti hêmas kai lusanti hêmas ek tôn hamartiôn en tôi haimati autou, autô hê doxa]: compare the reference to isaiah liii. and the passover lamb: the utterances about the "lamb" generally in the early writings: see westcott, the epistles of john, p. 34 f.: the idea of the blood of christ in the new testament.] [footnote 81: this of course could not take place otherwise than by reflecting on its significance. but a dislocation was already completed as soon as it was isolated and separated from the whole of jesus, or even from his future activity. reflection on the meaning or the causes of particular facts might easily, in virtue of that isolation, issue in entirely new conceptions.] [footnote 82: see the discriminating statements of weizsäcker, "apostolic age", p. 1 f., especially as to the significance of peter as first witness of the resurrection. cf. 1 cor. xv. 5 with luke xxiv. 34: also the fragment of the "gospel of peter" which unfortunately breaks off at the point where one expects the appearance of the lord to peter.] [footnote 83: it is often said that christianity rests on the belief in the resurrection of christ. this may be correct, if it is first declared who this jesus christ is, and what his life signifies. but when it appears as a naked report to which one must above all submit, and when in addition, as often happens, it is supplemented by the assertion that the resurrection of christ is the most certain fact in the history of the world, one does not know whether he should marvel more at its thoughtlessness or its unbelief. we do not need to have faith in a fact, and that which requires religious belief, that is, trust in god, can never be a fact which would hold good apart from that belief. the historical question and the question of faith must therefore be clearly distinguished here. the following points are historically certain: (1) that none of christ's opponents saw him after his death. (2) that the disciples were convinced that they had seen him soon after his death. (3) that the succession and number of those appearances can no longer be ascertained with certainty. (4) that the disciples and paul were conscious of having seen christ not in the crucified earthly body, but in heavenly glory--even the later incredible accounts of the appearances of christ, which strongly emphasise the reality of the body, speak at the same time of such a body as can pass through closed doors, which certainly is not an earthly body. (5) that paul does not compare the manifestation of christ given to him with any of his later visions, but, on the other hand, describes it in the words (gal. i. 15): [greek: hote eudokêsen ho theos apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi], and yet puts it on a level with the appearances which the earlier apostles had seen. but, as even the empty grave on the third day can by no means be regarded as a certain historical fact, because it appears united in the accounts with manifest legendary features, and further because it is directly excluded by the way in which paul has portrayed the resurrection 1 cor. xv. it follows: (1) that every conception which represents the resurrection of christ as a simple reanimation of his mortal body, is far from the original conception, and (2) that the question generally as to whether jesus has risen, can have no existence for any one who looks at it apart from the contents and worth of the person of jesus. for the mere fact that friends and adherents of jesus were convinced that they had seen him, especially when they themselves explain that he appeared to them in heavenly glory, gives, to those who are in earnest about fixing historical facts not the least cause for the assumption that jesus did not continue in the grave. history is therefore at first unable to bring any succour to faith here. however firm may have been the faith of the disciples in the appearances of jesus in their midst, and it was firm, to believe in appearances which others have had is a frivolity which is always revenged by rising doubts. but history is still of service to faith; it limits its scope and therewith shews the province to which it belongs. the question which history leaves to faith is this: was jesus christ swallowed up of death, or did he pass through suffering and the cross to glory, that is, to life, power and honour. the disciples would have been convinced of that in the sense in which jesus meant them to understand it, though they had not seen him in glory (a consciousness of this is found in luke xxiv. 26 [greek: ouchi tauta edei pathein ton christon kai eiselthein eis tên doxan autou], and joh. xx. 29 [greek: hoti eôrakas me pepisteukas, makarioi hoi mê idontes kai pisteusantas]) and we might probably add, that no appearances of the lord could permanently have convinced them of his life, if they had not possessed in their hearts the impression of his person. faith in the eternal life of christ and in our own eternal life is not the condition of becoming a disciple of jesus, but is the final confession of discipleship. faith has by no means to do with the knowledge of the form in which jesus lives, but only with the conviction that he is the living lord. the determination of the form was immediately dependent on the most varied general ideas of the future life, resurrection, restoration, and glorification of the body, which were current at the time. the idea of the rising again of the body of jesus appeared comparatively early, because it was this hope which animated wide circles of pious people for their own future. faith in jesus, the living lord, in spite of the death on the cross, cannot be generated by proofs of reason or authority, but only to-day in the same way as paul has confessed of himself [greek: hote eudokêsen ho theos apokalupssai ton huion autou en emoi]. the conviction of having seen the lord was no doubt of the greatest importance for the disciples and made them evangelists, but what they saw cannot at first help us. it can only then obtain significance for us when we have gained that confidence in the lord which peter has expressed in mark viii. 29. the christian even to-day confesses with paul [greek: ei en tê zôê tautê en christô êlpikotes esmen monon, eleeisteroi pantôn anthropôn esmen]. he believes in a future life for himself with god because he believes that christ lives. that is the peculiarity and paradox of christian faith. but these are not convictions that can be common and matter of course to a deep feeling and earnest thinking being standing amid nature and death, but can only be possessed by those who live with their whole hearts and minds in god, and even they need the prayer, i believe, help thou mine unbelief. to act as if faith in eternal life and in the living christ was the simplest thing in the world, or a dogma to which one has just to submit, is irreligious. the whole question about the resurrection of christ, its mode and its significance, has thereby been so thoroughly confused in later christendom, that we are in the habit of considering eternal life as certain, even apart from christ. that, at any rate, is not christian. it is christian to pray that god would give the spirit to make us strong to overcome the feelings and the doubts of nature and create belief in an eternal life through the experience of dying to live. where this faith obtained in this way exists, it has always been supported by the conviction that the man lives who brought life and immortality to light. to hold fast this faith is the goal of life, for only what we consciously strive for is in this matter our own. what we think we possess is very soon lost.] [footnote 84: weizsäcker (apostolic age, p. 73) says very justly: "the rising of judaism against believers put them on their own feet. they saw themselves for the first time persecuted in the name of the law, and therewith for the first time it must have become clear to them, that in reality the law was no longer the same to them as to the others. their hope is the coming kingdom of heaven, in which it is not the law, but their master from whom they expect salvation. everything connected with salvation is in him. but we should not investigate the conditions of the faith of that early period, as though the question had been laid before the apostles whether they could have part in the kingdom of heaven without circumcision, or whether it could be obtained by faith in jesus, with or without the observance of the law. such questions had no existence for them either practically or as questions of the school. but though they were jews, and the law which even their master had not abolished, was for them a matter of course, that did not exclude a change of inner position towards it, through faith in their master and hope of the kingdom. there is an inner freedom which can grow up alongside of all the constraints of birth, custom, prejudice, and piety. but this only comes into consciousness, when a demand is made on it which wounds it, or when it is assailed on account of an inference drawn not by its own consciousness, but only by its opponents."] [footnote 85: only one of these four tendencies--the pauline, with the epistle to the hebrews and the johannine writings which are related to paulinism--has seen in the gospel the establishment of a new religion. the rest identified it with judaism made perfect, or with the old testament religion rightly understood. but paul, in connecting christianity with the promise given to abraham, passing thus beyond the law, that is, beyond the actual old testament religion, has not only given it a historical foundation, but also claimed for the father of the jewish nation a unique significance for christianity. as to the tendencies named 1 and 2, see book i. chap. 6.] [footnote 86: it is clear from gal. ii. 11 ff. that peter then and for long before occupied in principle the stand-point of paul: see the judicious remarks of weizsäcker in the book mentioned above, p. 75 f.] [footnote 87: these four tendencies were represented in the apostolic age by those who had been born and trained in judaism, and they were collectively transplanted into greek territory. but we cannot be sure that the third of the above tendencies found intelligent and independent representatives in this domain, as there is no certain evidence of it. only one who had really been subject to it, and therefore understood it, could venture on a criticism of the old testament religion. still, it may be noted that the majority of non-jewish converts in the apostolic age, had probably come to know the old testament beforehand--not always the jewish religion, (see havet, le christianisme, t. iv. p. 120: "je ne sais s'il y est entré, du vivant de paul, un seul païen: je veux dire un homme, qui ne connût pas déjà, avant d'y entrer, le judaïsme et la bible"). these indications will shew how mistaken and misleading it is to express the different tendencies in the apostolic age and the period closely following by the designations "jewish christianity-gentile christianity." short watchwords are so little appropriate here that one might even with some justice reverse the usual conception, and maintain that what is usually understood by gentile christianity (criticism of the old testament religion) was possible only within judaism, while that which is frequently called jewish christianity is rather a conception which must have readily suggested itself to born gentiles superficially acquainted with the old testament.] [footnote 88: the first edition of this volume could not appeal to weizsäcker's work, das apostolische zeitalter der christlichen kirche, 1886, (second edition translated in this series). the author is now in the happy position of being able to refer the readers of his imperfect sketch to this excellent presentation, the strength of which lies in the delineation of paulinism in its relation to the early church, and to early christian theology (p. 79-172). the truth of weizsäcker's expositions of the inner relations (p. 85 f.), is but little affected by his assumptions concerning the outer relations, which i cannot everywhere regard as just. the work of weizsäcker as a whole is, in my opinion, the most important work on church history we have received since ritschl's "entstehung der alt-katholischen kirche." (2 aufl. 1857.)] [footnote 89: kabisch, _die eschatologie des paulus_, 1893, has shewn how strongly the eschatology of paul was influenced by the later pharisaic judaism. he has also called attention to the close connection between paul's doctrine of sin and the fall, and that of the rabbis.] [footnote 90: some of the church fathers (see socr. h. e. iii. 16) have attributed to paul an accurate knowledge of greek literature and philosophy: but that cannot be proved. the references of heinrici (2 kor.-brief. p. 537-604) are worthy of our best thanks; but no certain judgment can be formed about the measure of the apostles' greek culture, so long as we do not know how great was the extent of spiritual ideas which were already precipitated in the speech of the time.] [footnote 91: the epistle to the hebrews and the first epistle of peter, as well as the pastoral epistles belong to the pauline circle; they are of the greatest value because they shew that certain fundamental features of pauline theology took effect afterwards in an original way, or received independent parallels, and because they prove that the cosmic christology of paul made the greatest impression and was continued. in christology, the epistle to the ephesians in particular, leads directly from paul to the pneumatic christology of the post-apostolic period. its non-genuineness is by no means certain to me.] [footnote 92: in the ztschr. für theol und kirche, ii. p. 189 ff. i have discussed the relation of the prologue of the fourth gospel to the whole work and endeavoured to prove the following: "the prologue of the gospel is not the key to its comprehension. it begins with a well-known great object, the logos, re-adapts and transforms it--implicitly opposing false christologies--in order to substitute for it jesus christ, the [greek: monogenês theos], or in order to unveil it as this jesus christ. the idea of the logos is allowed to fall from the moment that this takes place." the author continues to narrate of jesus only with the view of establishing the belief that he is the messiah, the son of god. this faith has for its main article the recognition that jesus is descended from god and from heaven; but the author is far from endeavouring to work out this recognition from cosmological, philosophical considerations. according to the evangelist, jesus proves himself to be the messiah, the son of god, in virtue of his self-testimony, and because he has brought a full knowledge of god and of life--purely supernatural divine blessings (cf. besides, and partly in opposition, holtzmann, i.d. ztschr. f. wissensch. theol. 1893). the author's peculiar world of theological ideas, is not, however, so entirely isolated in the early christian literature as appears on the first impression. if, as is probable, the ignatian epistles are independent of the gospel of john, further, the supper prayer in the didache, finally, certain mystic theological phrases in the epistle of barnabas, in the second epistle of clement, and in hermas, a complex of theologoumena may be put together, which reaches back to the primitive period of the church, and may be conceived as the general ground for the theology of john. this complex has on its side a close connection with the final development of the jewish hagiographic literature under greek influence.] [footnote 93: the jewish religion, especially since the (relative) close of the canon, had become more and more a religion of the book.] [footnote 94: examples of both in the new testament are numerous. see, above all, matt. i. 11. even the belief that jesus was born of a virgin sprang from isaiah vii. 14. it cannot, however, be proved to be in the writings of paul (the two genealogies in matt. and luke directly exclude it: according to dillmann, jahrb. f. protest. theol. p. 192 ff. luke i. 34, 35 would be the addition of a redactor); but it must have arisen very early, as the gentile christians of the second century would seem to have unanimously confessed it (see the romish symbol, ignatius, aristides, justin, etc.) for the rest, it was long before theologians recognised in the virgin birth of jesus more than fulfilment of a prophecy, viz., a fact of salvation. the conjecture of usener, that the idea of the birth from a virgin is a heathen myth which was received by the christians, contradicts the entire earliest development of christian tradition which is free from heathen myths, so far as these had not already been received by wide circles of jews, (above all, certain babylonian and persian myths), which in the case of that idea is not demonstrable. besides, it is in point of method not permissible to stray so far when we have near at hand such a complete explanation as isaiah vii. 14. those who suppose that the reality of the virgin birth must be held fast, must assume that a misunderstood prophecy has been here fulfilled (on the true meaning of the passage see dillmann (jesajas, 5 aufl. p. 69): "of the birth by a virgin (i.e., of one who at the birth was still a virgin.) the hebrew text says nothing ... immanuel as beginning and representative of the new generation, from which one should finally take possession of the king's throne"). the application of an unhistorical local method in the exposition of the old testament--haggada and rabbinic allegorism--may be found in many passages of paul (see, e.g., gal. iii. 16, 19; iv. 22-31; 1 cor. ix. 9; x. 4; xi. 10; rom. iv. etc.).] [footnote 95: the proof of this may be found in the quotations in early christian writings from the apocalypses of enoch, ezra, eldad and modad, the assumption of moses and other jewish apocalypses unknown to us. they were regarded as divine revelations beside the old testament; see the proofs of their frequent and long continued use in schürer's "history of the jewish people in the time of our lord." but the christians in receiving these jewish apocalypses did not leave them intact, but adapted them with greater or less christian additions (see ezra, enoch, ascension of isaiah). even the apocalypse of john is, as vischer (texte u. unters. 3 altchristl. lit. gesch. bd. ii. h. 4) has shown, a jewish apocalypse adapted to a christian meaning. but in this activity, and in the production of little apocalyptic prophetic sayings and articles (see in the epistle to the ephesians, and in those of barnabas and clement) the christian labour here in the earliest period seems to have exhausted itself. at least we do not know with certainty of any great apocalyptic writing of an original kind proceeding from christian circles. even the apocalypse of peter which, thanks to the discovery of bouriant, we now know better, is not a completely original work as contrasted with the jewish apocalypses.] [footnote 96: the gospel reliance on the lamb who was slain, very significantly pervades the revelation of john, that is, its christian parts. even the apocalypse of peter shews jesus christ as the comfort of believers and as the revealer of the future. in it (v. 3,) christ says; "then will god come to those who believe on me, those who hunger and thirst and mourn, etc."] [footnote 97: these words were written before the apocalypse of peter was discovered. that apocalypse confirms what is said in the text. moreover, its delineation of paradise and blessedness are not wanting in poetic charm and power. in its delineation of hell, which prepares the way for dante's hell, the author is scared by no terror.] [footnote 98: these ideas, however, encircled the earliest christendom as with a wall of fire, and preserved it from a too early contact with the world.] [footnote 99: an accurate examination of the eschatological sayings of jesus in the synoptists shews that much foreign matter is mixed with them (see weiffenbach, der wiederkunftsgedanke jesu, 1875). that the tradition here was very uncertain because influenced by the jewish apocalyptic, is shewn by the one fact that papias (in iren. v. 33) quotes as words of the lord which had been handed down by the disciples, a group of sayings which we find in the apocalypse of baruch, about the amazing fruitfulness of the earth during the time of the messianic kingdom.] [footnote 100: we may here call attention to an interesting remark of goethe. among his apophthegms (no. 537) is the following: "apocrypha: it would be important to collect what is historically known about these books, and to shew that these very apocryphal writings with which the communities of the first centuries of our era were flooded, were the real cause why christianity at no moment of political or church history could stand forth in all her beauty and purity." a historian would not express himself in this way, but yet there lies at the root of this remark a true historical insight.] [footnote 101: see schürer, history of the jewish people. div. ii. vol. ii. p. 160 f., yet the remarks of the jew trypho in the dialogue of justin shew that the notions of a pre-existent messiah were by no means very widely spread in judaism. (see also orig. c. cels. i. 49: "a jew would not at all admit that any prophet had said, the son of god will come: they avoided this designation and used instead the saying: the anointed of god will come"). the apocalyptists and rabbis attributed pre-existence, that is, a heavenly origin to many sacred things and persons, such as the patriarchs, moses, the tabernacle, the temple vessels, the city of jerusalem. that the true temple and the real jerusalem were with god in heaven and would come down from heaven at the appointed time, must have been a very wide-spread idea, especially at the time of the destruction of jerusalem, and even earlier than that (see gal. iv. 26; rev. xxi. 2; heb. xii. 22). in the assumption of moses (c. 1) moses says of himself: dominus invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum præparatus sum, ut sim arbiter ([greek: mesitês]) testamenti illius ([greek: tês diathêkês autou]). in the midrasch bereschith rabba viii. 2. we read, "r. simeon ben lakisch says, 'the law was in existence 2000 years before the creation of the world.'" in the jewish treatise [greek: proseuchê iôsêph], which origen has several times quoted, jacob says of himself (ap. orig. tom. ii. in joann. c. 25. opp. iv. 84): "[greek: ho gar lalôn pros humas, egô iakôb kai isrêl, angelos theou eimi egô kai pneuma archikon kai abraam kai isaak proektisthêsan pro pantos ergou, egô de iakob ... egô prôtogonos pantos zôos zôoumenou hupo theou]." these examples could easily be increased. the jewish speculations about angels and mediators, which at the time of christ grew very luxuriantly among the scribes and apocalyptists, and endangered the purity and vitality of the old testament idea of god, were also very important for the development of christian dogmatics. but neither these speculations, nor the notions of heavenly archetypes, nor of pre-existence, are to be referred to hellenic influence. this may have co-operated here and there, but the rise of these speculations in judaism is not to be explained by it; they rather exhibit the oriental stamp. but, of course, the stage in the development of the nations had now been reached, in which the creations of oriental fancy and mythology could be fused with the ideal conceptions of hellenic philosophy.] [footnote 102: the conception of heavenly ideals of precious earthly things followed from the first naive method of speculation we have mentioned, that of a pre-existence of persons from the last. if the world was created for the sake of the people of israel, and the apocalyptists expressly taught that, then it follows, that in the thought of god israel was older than the world. the idea of a kind of pre-existence of the people of israel follows from this. we can still see this process of thought very plainly in the shepherd of hermas, who expressly declares that the world was created for the sake of the church. in consequence of this he maintains that the church was very old, and was created before the foundation of the world. see vis. i. 2. 4; ii. 4. 1 [greek: diati oun presbutera] (scil.) [greek: hê ekklêsia: hoti, phêsin, pantôn prôte ektisthê dia touto presbutera, kai dia tautên ho kosmos katêrtisthê]. but in order to estimate aright the bearing of these speculations, we must observe that, according to them, the precious things and persons, so far as they are now really manifested, were never conceived as endowed with a double nature. no hint is given of such an assumption; the sensible appearance was rather conceived as a mere wrapping which was necessary only to its becoming visible, or, conversely, the pre-existence or the archetype was no longer thought of in presence of the historical appearance of the object. that pneumatic form of existence was not set forth in accordance with the analogy of existence verified by sense, but was left in suspense. the idea of "existence" here could run through all the stages which, according to the mythology and meta-physic of the time, lay between what we now call "valid," and the most concrete being. he who nowadays undertakes to justify the notion of pre-existence, will find himself in a very different situation from these earlier times, as he will no longer be able to count on shifting conceptions of existence. see appendix i. at the end of this vol. for a fuller discussion of the idea of pre-existence.] [footnote 103: it must be observed here that palestinian judaism, without any apparent influence from alexandria, though not independently of the greek spirit, had already created a multitude of intermediate beings between god and the world, avowing thereby that the idea of god had become stiff and rigid. "its original aim was simply to help the god of judaism in his need." among these intermediate beings should be specially mentioned the memra of god (see also the shechina and the metatron).] [footnote 104: see justin dial. 48. fin: justin certainly is not favourably disposed towards those who regard christ as a "man among men," but he knows that there are such people.] [footnote 105: the miraculous genesis of christ in the virgin by the holy spirit and the real pre-existence are of course mutually exclusive. at a later period, it is true, it became necessary to unite them in thought.] [footnote 106: there is the less need for treating this more fully here, as no new testament christology has become the direct starting-point of later doctrinal developments. the gentile christians had transmitted to them, as a unanimous doctrine, the message that christ is the lord who is to be worshipped, and that one must think of him as the judge of the living and the dead, that is, [greek: hôs peri theou]. but it certainly could not fail to be of importance for the result that already many of the earliest christian writers, and therefore even paul, perceived in jesus a spiritual being come down from heaven ([greek: pneuma]) who was [greek: en morphê theou], and whose real act of love consisted in his very descent.] [footnote 107: the creation of the new testament canon first paved the way for putting an end, though only in part, to the production of evangelic "facts" within the church. for hermas (sim. ix. 16) can relate that the apostles also descended to the under world and there preached. others report the same of john the baptist. origen in his homily on 1 kings xxvii. says that moses, samuel and all the prophets descended to hades and there preached. a series of facts of evangelic history which have no parallel in the accounts of our synoptists, and are certainly legendary, may be put together from the epistle of barnabas, justin, the second epistle of clement, papias, the gospel to the hebrews, and the gospel to the egyptians. but the synoptic reports themselves, especially in the articles for which we have only a solitary witness, shew an extensive legendary material, and even in the gospel of john, the free production of facts cannot be mistaken. of what a curious nature some of these were, and that they are by no means to be entirely explained from the old testament, as for example, justin's account of the ass on which christ rode into jerusalem, having been bound to a vine, is shewn by the very old fragment in one source of the apostolic constitutions (texte u. unters ii. 5. p. 28 ff.); [greek: hote êtpsen ho didaskalos ton arton kai to potêrion kai êulogêsen auta legôn touto esti to sôma mou kai to haima, ouk epetrepse tautais] (the women) [greek: sustênai hêmin ... martha eipen dia mariam, hoti eiden autên meidiôsan. maria eipen ouketi egelasa]. narratives such as those of christ's descent to hell and ascent to heaven, which arose comparatively late, though still at the close of the first century (see book i. chap 3) sprang out of short formulæ containing an antithesis (death and resurrection, first advent in lowliness, second advent in glory: descensus de coelo, ascensus in c[oe]lum; ascensus in coelum, descensus ad inferna) which appeared to be required by old testament predictions, and were commended by their naturalness. just as it is still, in the same way naively inferred: if christ rose bodily he must also have ascended bodily (visibly?) into heaven.] [footnote 108: the sibylline oracles, composed by jews, from 160 b.c. to 189 a.d. are specially instructive here: see the editions of friedlieb. 1852; alexandre, 1869; rzach, 1891. delaunay, moines et sibylles dans l'antiquité judéo-grecque, 1874. schürer in the work mentioned above. the writings of josephus also yield rich booty, especially his apology for judaism in the two books against apion. but it must be noted that there were jews, enlightened by hellenism, who were still very zealous in their observance of the law. "philo urges most earnestly to the observance of the law in opposition to that party which drew the extreme inferences of the allegoristic method, and put aside the outer legality as something not essential for the spiritual life. philo thinks that by an exact observance of these ceremonies on their material side, one will also come to know better their symbolical meaning" (siegfried, philo, p. 157).] [footnote 109: direct evidence is certainly almost entirely wanting here, but the indirect speaks all the more emphatically: see § 3, supplements 1, 2.] [footnote 110: the jewish propaganda, though by no means effaced, gave way very distinctly to the christian from the middle of the second century. but from this time we find few more traces of an enlightened hellenistic judaism. moreover, the messianic expectation also seems to have somewhat given way to occupation with the law. but the god of abraham, isaac and jacob, as well as other jewish terms certainly played a great rôle in gentile and gnostic magical formulæ of the third century, as may be seen, e.g., from many passages in origen c. celsum.] [footnote 111: the prerogative of israel was for all that clung to; israel remains the chosen people.] [footnote 112: the brilliant investigations of bernays, however, have shewn how many-sided that philosophy of religion was. the proofs of asceticism in this hellenistic judaism are especially of great interest for the history of dogma (see theophrastus' treatise on piety). in the eighth epistle of heraclitus, composed by a hellenistic jew in the first century, it is said (bernays, p. 182). "so long a time before, o hermodorus, saw thee that sibyl, and even then thou wert" [greek: eide se pro posoutou aiônos, ermodôre hê sibulla ekeinê, kai tote êstha]. even here then the notion is expressed that foreknowledge and predestination invest the known and the determined with a kind of existence. of great importance is the fact that even before philo, the idea of the wisdom of god creating the world and passing over to men had been hypostatised in alexandrian judaism (see sirach, baruch, the wisdom of solomon, enoch, nay, even the book of proverbs). but so long as the deutero-canonical old testament, and also the alexandrine and apocalyptic literature continue in the sad condition in which they are at present, we can form no certain judgment and draw no decided conclusions on the subject. when will the scholar appear who will at length throw light on these writings, and therewith on the section of inner jewish history most interesting to the christian theologian? as yet we have only a most thankworthy preliminary study in schürer's great work, and beside it particular or dilettante attempts which hardly shew what the problem really is, far less solve it. what disclosures even the fourth book of the maccabees alone yields for the connection of the old testament with hellenism!] [footnote 113: "so far as the sensible world is a work of the logos, it is called [greek: neôteros huios] (quod deus immut. 6. i.277), or according to prov. viii. 22, an offspring of god and wisdom: [greek: hê de paradexamêne to tou theou sperma telesphorois ôdisi ton monon kai agapêton aisthêton huion apekuêse ton de ton kosmon] (de ebriet 8 i. 361 f). so far as the logos is high priest his relation to the world is symbolically expressed by the garment of the high priest, to which exegesis the play on the word [greek: kosmos], as meaning both ornament and world, lent its aid." this speculation (see siegfried. philo, 235) is of special importance; for it shews how closely the ideas [greek: cosmos] and [greek: logos] were connected.] [footnote 114: of all the greek philosophers of the second century, plutarch of chäronea, died c. 125 a.d., and numenius of apamea, second half of the second century, approach nearest to philo; but the latter of the two was undoubtedly familiar with jewish philosophy, specially with philo, and probably also with christian writings.] [footnote 115: as to the way in which philo (see also 4 maccab. v. 24) learned to connect the stoic ethics with the authority of the torah, as was also done by the palestinian midrash, and represented the torah as the foundation of the world, and therewith as the law of nature: see siegfried, philo, p. 156.] [footnote 116: philo by his exhortations to seek the blessed life, has by no means broken with the intellectualism of the greek philosophy, he has only gone beyond it. the way of knowledge and speculation is to him also the way of religion and morality. but his formal principle is supernatural and leads to a supernatural knowledge which finally passes over into sight.] [footnote 117: but everything was now ready for this synthesis so that it could be, and immediately was, completed by christian philosophers.] [footnote 118: we cannot discover philo's influence in the writings of paul. but here again we must remember that the scripture learning of palestinian teachers developed speculations which appear closely related to the alexandrian, and partly are so, but yet cannot be deduced from them. the element common to them must, for the present at least, be deduced from the harmony of conditions in which the different nations of the east were at that time placed, a harmony which we cannot exactly measure.] [footnote 119: the conception of god's relation to the world as given in the fourth gospel is not philonic. the logos doctrine there is therefore essentially not that of philo (against kuenen and others. see p. 93).] [footnote 120: siegfried (philo. p. 160-197) has presented in detail philo's allegorical interpretation of scripture, his hermeneutic principles and their application. without an exact knowledge of these principles we cannot understand the scripture expositions of the fathers, and therefore also cannot do them justice.] [footnote 121: see siegfried, philo. p. 176. yet, as a rule, the method of isolating and adapting passages of scripture, and the method of unlimited combination were sufficient.] [footnote 122: numerous examples of this may be found in the epistle of barnabas (see c. 4-9), and in the dialogue of justin with trypho (here they are objects of controversy, see cc. 71-73, 120), but also in many other christian writings, (e.g., clem. ad. cor. viii. 3; xvii. 6; xxiii. 3, 4; xxvi. 5; xlvi. 2; 2 clem. xiii. 2). these christian additions were long retained in the latin bible, (see also lactantius and other latins: pseudo-cyprian de aleat. 2 etc.), the most celebrated of them is the addition "a ligno" to "dominus regnavit" in psalm xcvi., see credner, beiträge ii. the treatment of the old testament in the epistle of barnabas is specially instructive, and exhibits the greatest formal agreement with that of philo. we may close here with the words in which siegfried sums up his judgment on philo. "no jewish writer has contributed so much as philo to the breaking up of particularism, and the dissolution of judaism. the history of his people, though he believed in it literally, was in its main points a didactic allegoric poem for enabling him to inculcate the doctrine that man attains the vision of god by mortification of the flesh. the law was regarded by him as the best guide to this, but it had lost its exclusive value, as it was admitted to be possible to reach the goal without it, and it had, besides, its aim outside itself. the god of philo was no longer the old living god of israel, but an imaginary being who, to obtain power over the world, needed a logos by whom the palladium of israel, the unity of god, was taken a prey. so israel lost everything which had hitherto characterised her."] [footnote 123: proofs in friedländer, sittengeschichte, vol. 3.] [footnote 124: see the chapter on belief in immortality in friedländer. sittengesch. roms. bde. 3. among the numerous mysteries known to us, that of mythras deserves special consideration. from the middle of the second century the church fathers saw in it, above all, the caricature of the church. the worship of mithras had its redeemer, its mediator, hierarchy, sacrifice, baptism and sacred meal. the ideas of expiation, immortality, and the redeemer god, were very vividly present in this cult, which of course, in later times, borrowed much from christianity: see the accounts of marquardt, réville, and the essay of sayous, le taurobole in the rev. de l'hist. des religions, 1887, where the earliest literature is also utilised. the worship of mithras in the third century became the most powerful rival of christianity. in connection with this should be specially noted the cult of æsculapius, the god who helps the body and the soul; see my essay "medicinisches aus der ältesten kirchengeschichte," 1892. p. 93 ff.] [footnote 125: hence the wide prevalence of the cult of æsculapius.] [footnote 126: dominus in certain circumstances means more than deus; see tertull. apol. it signifies more than soter: see irenæus i. 1. 3: [greek: ton sôtêra legousin, oude gar kurion onomazein auton thelousin--kurios] and [greek: despotês] are almost synonymous. see philo. quis. rer. div. heres. 6: [greek: sunônuma tauta einai legetai].] [footnote 127: we must give special attention here to the variability and elasticity of the concept [greek: theos], and indeed among the cultured as well as the uncultured (orig. prolegg. in psalm, in pitra, anal. t. ii. p. 437, according to a stoic source; [greek: kat' allon de tropon legesthai theon zôion athanaton logikon opoudaion, hôste pasan asteian psychên theon huparchein, kan periechêtai, allôs de legesthai theon to kath' auto on zôion athanaton hôs ta en anthrôpois periechomenas psychas mê huparchein theous]). they still regarded the gods as passionless, blessed men living for ever. the idea therefore of a [greek: theopoiêsis], and on the other hand, the idea of the appearance of the gods in human form presented no difficulty (see acts xiv. 11; xxviii. 6). but philosophic speculation--the platonic, as well as in yet greater measure the stoic, and in the greatest measure of all the cynic--had led to the recognition of something divine in man's spirit ([greek: pneuma, nous]). marcus aurelius in his meditations frequently speaks of the god who dwells in us. clement of alexandria (strom. vi. 14. 113) says: [greek: houtôs dunamin labousa kuriakên hê psychê meletai einai theos, kakon men ouden allo plên agnoias einai nomizousa.] in bernays' heraclitian epistles, pp. 37 f. 135 f., will be found a valuable exposition of the stoic (heraclitian) thesis and its history, that men are gods. see norden, beiträge zur gesch. d. griech. philos. jahrb. f. klass philol. xix. suppl. bd. p. 373 ff., about the cynic philosopher who, contemplating the life and activity of man ([greek: kataskopos]), becomes its [greek: episkopos], and further [greek: kurios, angelos theou, theos en anthrôpois]. the passages which he adduces are of importance for the history of dogma in a twofold respect. (1) they present remarkable parallels to christology (one even finds the designations, [greek: kurios, angelos, kataskopos, episkopos, theos] associated with the philosophers as with christ, e.g., in justin; nay, the cynics and neoplatonics speak of [greek: episkopoi daimones]); cf. also the remarkable narrative in laertius vi. 102, concerning the cynic menedemus; [greek: houtos, katha phêsin hippobotos, eis tosos ton terateias êlasen, hôste erinuos analabon schêma perieiei, legôn episkopos aphichthai ex haidou tôn hamartomenon, hopôs palin katiôn tasta apangelloi tois ekei, daimosin.] (2) they also explain how the ecclesiastical [greek: episkopoi] came to be so highly prized, inasmuch as these also were from a very early period regarded as mediators between god and man, and considered as [greek: en anthrôpois theoi]. there were not a few who in the first and second centuries, appeared with the claim to be regarded as a god or an organ inspired and chosen by god (simon magus [cf. the manner of his treatment in hippol. philos. vi. 8: see also clem. hom. ii. 27], apollonius of tyana (?), see further tacitus hist. ii. 51: "mariccus.... iamque adsertor galliarum et deus, nomen id sibi indiderat"; here belongs also the gradually developing worship of the emperor: "dominus ac deus noster." cf. augustus, inscription of the year 25; 24 b.c. in egypt [where the ptolemies were for long described as gods] [greek: huper kaisaros autokrattoros theou] (zeitschrift fur aegypt. sprache. xxxi bd. p. 3). domitian: [greek: theos adrianos], kaibel inscr. gr. 829. 1053. [greek: theos seouêros eusebês]. 1061--the antinouscult with its prophets. see also josephus on herod agrippa. antiq. xix 8. 2. (euseb. h. e. ii. 10). the flatterers said to him, [greek: theon prosagoreuontes; ei kai mechri nun hôs anthrôpon ephobêthêmen, alla tounteuthen kreittona se thnêtês tês phuseôs homologoumen.] herod himself, § 7, says to his friends in his sickness: [greek: ho theos humin egô êdê katastrephein epitattomai ton bion ... ho klêtheis athanatos huph' hêmôn êdê thanein apagomai]). on the other hand, we must mention the worship of the founder in some philosophic schools, especially among the epicureans epictetus says (moral. 15), diogenes and heraclitus and those like them are justly called gods. very instructive in this connection are the reproaches of the heathen against the christians, and of christian partisans against one another with regard to the almost divine veneration of their teachers. lucian (peregr. ii) reproaches the christians in syria for having regarded peregrinus as a god and a new socrates. the heathen in smyrna, after the burning of polycarp, feared that the christians would begin to pay him divine honours (euseb. h. e. iv. 15 41). cæcilius in minucius felix speaks of divine honours being paid by christians to priests (octav. ix. 10). the antimontanist (euseb. h. e. v. 18. 6) asserts that the montanists worship their prophet and alexander the confessor as divine. the opponents of the roman adoptians (euseb. h. e. v. 28) reproach them with praying to galen. there are many passages in which the gnostics are reproached with paying divine honours to the heads of their schools, and for many gnostic schools (the carpocratians, for example) the reproach seems to have been just. all this is extremely instructive. the genius, the hero, the founder of a new school who promises to shew the certain way to the _vita beata_, the emperor, the philosopher (numerous stoic passages might be noted here) finally, man, in so far as he is inhabited by [greek: nous]--could all somehow be considered as [greek: theoi], so elastic was this concept. all these instances of apotheosis in no way endangered the monotheism which had been developed from the mixture of gods and from philosophy; for the one supreme godhead can unfold his inexhaustible essence in a variety of existences, which, while his creatures as to their origin, are parts of his essence as to their contents. this monotheism does not yet exactly disclaim its polytheistic origin. the christian, hermas, says to his mistress (vis. i 1. 7) [greek: ou pantote se hôs thean hegêsamên], and the author of the epistle of diognetus writes (x. 6), [greek: tauta tois epideomenois chorêgôn], (i.e., the rich man) [greek: theos ginetai tôn lambanontôn]. that the concept [greek: theos] was again used only of one god, was due to the fact that one now started from the definition "qui vitam æternam habet," and again from the definition "qui est super omnia et originem nescit." from the latter followed the absolute unity of god, from the former a plurality of gods. both could be so harmonised (see tertull. adv. prax. and novat. de trinit.) that one could assume that the god, _qui est super omnia_, might allow his monarchy to be administered by several persons, and might dispense the gift of immortality and with it a relative divinity.] [footnote 128: see the so-called neopythagorean philosophers and the so-called forerunners of neoplatonism (cf. bigg, the platonists of alexandria, p. 250, as to numenius). unfortunately, we have as yet no sufficient investigation of the question what influence, if any, the jewish alexandrian philosophy of religion had on the development of greek philosophy in the second and third centuries. the answering of the question would be of the greatest importance. but at present it cannot even be said whether the jewish philosophy of religion had any influence on the genesis of neoplatonism. on the relation of neoplatonism to christianity and their mutual approximation, see the excellent account in tzschirner, fall des heidenthums, pp. 574-618. cf. also réville, la religion à rome, 1886.] [footnote 129: the christians, that is the christian preachers, were most in agreement with the cynics (see lucian's peregrinus proteus), both on the negative and on the positive side; but for that very reason they were hard on one another (justin and tatian against crescens)--not only because the christians gave a different basis for the right mode of life from the cynics, but above all, because they did not approve of the self-conscious, contemptuous, proud disposition which cynicism produced in many of its adherents. morality frequently underwent change for the worse in the hands of cynics, and became the morality of a "gentleman," such as we have also experience of in modern cynicism.] [footnote 130: the attitude of celsus, the opponent of the christians, is specially instructive here.] [footnote 131: for the knowledge of the spread of the idealistic philosophy the statement of origen (c. celsum vi. 2) that epictetus was admired not only by scholars, but also by ordinary people who felt in themselves the impulse to be raised to something higher, is well worthy of notice.] [footnote 132: this point was of importance for the propaganda of christianity among the cultured. there seemed to be given here a reliable, because revealed, cosmology and history of the world--which already contained the foundation of everything worth knowing. both were needed and both were here set forth in closest union.] [footnote 133: the universalism as reached by the stoics is certainly again threatened by the self-righteous and self-complacent distinction between men of virtue, and men of pleasure, who, properly speaking, are not men. aristotle had already dealt with the virtuous élite in a notable way. he says (polit. 3. 13. p. 1284), that men who are distinguished by perfect virtue should not be put on a level with the ordinary mass, and should not be subjected to the constraints of a law adapted to the average man. "there is no law for these elect, who are a law to themselves."] [footnote 134: notions of pre-existence were readily suggested by the platonic philosophy; yet this whole philosophy rests on the fact that one again posits the thing (after stripping it of certain marks as accidental, or worthless, or ostensibly foreign to it) in order to express its value in this form, and hold fast the permanent in the change of the phenomena.] [footnote 135: see tzschirn. i.d. ztschr. f. k.-gesch. xii. p. 215 ff. "the genesis of the romish church in the second century." what he presents is no doubt partly incomplete, partly overdone and not proved: yet much of what he states is useful.] [footnote 136: what is meant here is the imminent danger of taking the several constituent parts of the canon, even for historical investigation, as constituent parts, that is, of explaining one writing by the standard of another and so creating an artificial unity. the contents of any of paul's epistles, for example, will be presented very differently if it is considered by itself and in the circumstances in which it was written, or if attention is fixed on it as part of a collection whose unity is presupposed.] [footnote 137: see bigg, the christian platonist of alexandria, pp. 53, 283 ff.] [footnote 138: reuter (august. studien, p. 492) has drawn a valuable parallel between marcion and augustine with regard to paul.] [footnote 139: marcion of course wished to raise it to the exclusive basis, but he entirely misunderstood it.] division i. the genesis of the ecclesiastical dogma, or the genesis of the catholic apostolic dogmatic theology, and the first scientific ecclesiastical system of doctrine. book i. the preparation. [greek: ean murious paidagôgous echête en christôi all' ou pollous pateras.] 1 cor iv. 15. eine jede idee tritt als ein fremder gast in die erscheinung, und wie sie sich zu realisiren beginnt, ist sie kaum von phantasie und phantasterei zu unterscheiden. goethe, sprüche in prosa, 566 book i _the preparation_ chapter i historical survey the first century of the existence of gentile christian communities is particularly characterised by the following features: i. the rapid disappearance of jewish christianity.[140] ii. the enthusiastic character of the religious temper; the charismatic teachers and the appeal to the spirit.[141] iii. the strength of the hopes for the future, chiliasm.[142] iv. the rigorous endeavour to fulfil the moral precepts of christ, and truly represent the holy and heavenly community of god in abstinence from everything unclean, and in love to god and the brethren here on earth "in these last days."[143] v. the want of a fixed doctrinal form in relation to the abstract statement of the faith, and the corresponding variety and freedom of christian preaching on the basis of clear formulæ and an increasingly rich tradition. vi. the want of a clearly defined external authority in the communities, sure in its application, and the corresponding independence and freedom of the individual christian in relation to the expression of the ideas, beliefs and hopes of faith.[144] vii. the want of a fixed political union of the several communities with each other--every _ecclesia_ is an image complete in itself, and an embodiment of the whole heavenly church--while the consciousness of the unity of the holy church of christ which has the spirit in its midst, found strong expression.[145] viii. a quite unique literature in which were manufactured facts for the past and for the future, and which did not submit to the usual literary rules and forms, but came forward with the loftiest pretensions.[146] ix. the reproduction of particular sayings and arguments of apostolic teachers with an uncertain understanding of them.[147] x. the rise of tendencies which endeavoured to hasten in every respect the inevitable process of fusing the gospel with the spiritual and religious interests of the time, viz., the hellenic, as well as attempts to separate the gospel from its origins and provide for it quite foreign presuppositions. to the latter belongs, above all, the hellenic idea that knowledge is not a charismatic supplement to the faith, or an outgrowth of faith alongside of others, but that it coincides with the essence of faith itself.[148] the sources for this period are few, as there was not much written, and the following period did not lay itself out for preserving a great part of the literary monuments of that epoch. still we do possess a considerable number of writings and important fragments,[149] and further important inferences here are rendered possible by the monuments of the following period, since the conditions of the first century were not changed in a moment, but were partly, at least, long preserved, especially in certain national churches and in remote communities.[150] _supplement._--the main features of the message concerning christ, of the matter of the evangelic history, were fixed in the first and second generations of believers, and on palestinian soil. but yet, up to the middle of the second century, this matter was in many ways increased in gentile christian regions, revised from new points of view, handed down in very diverse forms, and systematically allegorised by individual teachers. as a whole, the evangelic history certainly appears to have been completed at the beginning of the second century. but in detail, much that was new was produced at a later period--and not only in gnostic circles--and the old tradition was recast or rejected.[151] [footnote 140: this fact must have been apparent as early as the year 100. the first direct evidence of it is in justin (apol. i. 53).] [footnote 141: every individual was, or at least should have been conscious, as a christian, of having received the [greek: pneuma theou], though that does not exclude spiritual grades. a special peculiarity of the enthusiastic nature of the religious temper is that it does not allow reflection as to the authenticity of the faith in which a man lives. as to the charismatic teaching, see my edition of the didache (texte u unters. ii 1. 2 p. 93 ff.).] [footnote 142: the hope of the approaching end of the world and the glorious kingdom of christ still determined men's hearts; though exhortations against theoretical and practical scepticism became more and more necessary. on the other hand, after the epistles to the thessalonians, there were not wanting exhortations to continue sober and diligent.] [footnote 143: there was a strong consciousness that the christian church is, above all, a union for a holy life, as well as a consciousness of the obligation to help one another, and use all the blessings bestowed by god in the service of our neighbours. justin (2 apol. in euseb. h. e. iv. 17. 10) calls christianity [greek: to didaskalion tes theias aretes].] [footnote 144: the existing authorities (old testament, sayings of the lord, words of apostles) did not necessarily require to be taken into account; for the living acting spirit, partly attesting himself also to the senses, gave new revelations. the validity of these authorities therefore held good only in theory, and might in practice be completely set aside (cf. above all, the shepherd of hermas).] [footnote 145: zahn remarks (ignatius, v. a. p. vii.): "i do not believe it to be the business of that province of historical investigation which is dependent on the writings of the so-called apostolic fathers as main sources, to explain the origin of the universal church in any sense of the term; for that church existed before clement and hermas, before ignatius and polycarp. but an explanatory answer is needed for the question, by what means did the consciousness of the 'universal church' so little favoured by outer circumstances, maintain itself unbroken in the post-apostolic communities?" this way of stating it obscures, at least, the problem which here lies before us, for it does not take account of the changes which the idea "universal church" underwent up to the middle of the third century--besides, we do not find the title before ignatius. in so far as the "universal church" is set forth as an earthly power recognisable in a doctrine or in political forms, the question as to the origin of the idea is not only allowable, but must be regarded as one of the most important. on the earliest conception of the "ecclesia" and its realisation, see the fine investigations of sohm "kirchenrecht," i. p. i ff., which, however, suffer from being a little overdriven.] [footnote 146: see the important essay of overbeck: ueber die anfänge d. patrist. litteratur (hist. ztschr. n. f. bd. xii pp. 417-472). early christian literature, as a rule, claims to be inspired writing. one can see, for example, in the history of the resurrection in the recently discovered gospel of peter (fragment) how facts were remodelled or created.] [footnote 147: the writings of men of the apostolic period, and that immediately succeeding, attained in part a wide circulation, and in some portions of them, often of course incorrectly understood, very great influence. how rapidly this literature was diffused, even the letters, may be studied in the history of the epistles of paul, the first epistle of clement, and other writings.] [footnote 148: that which is here mentioned is of the greatest importance; it is not a mere reference to the so-called gnostics. the foundations for the hellenising of the gospel in the church were already laid in the first century (50-150).] [footnote 149: we should not over-estimate the extent of early christian literature. it is very probable that we know, so far as the titles of books are concerned, nearly all that was effective, and the greater part, by very diverse means, has also been preserved to us. we except, of course, the so-called gnostic literature of which we have only a few fragments. only from the time of commodus, as eusebius, h. e. v. 21. 27, has remarked, did the great church preserve an extensive literature.] [footnote 150: it is therefore important to note the locality in which a document originates, and the more so the earlier the document is. in the earliest period, in which the history of the church was more uniform, and the influence from without relatively less, the differences are still in the background. yet the spirit of rome already announces itself in the epistle of clement, that of alexandria in the epistle of barnabas, that of the east in the epistles of ignatius.] [footnote 151: the history of the genesis of the four canonical gospels, or the comparison of them, is instructive on this point. then we must bear in mind the old apocryphal gospels, and the way in which the so-called apostolic fathers and justin attest the evangelic history, and in part reproduce it independently, the gospels of peter, of the egyptians, and of marcion; the diatesseron of tatian; the gnostic gospels and acts of the apostles, etc. the greatest gap in our knowledge consists in the fact, that we know so little about the course of things from about the year 61 to the beginning of the reign of trajan. the consolidating and remodelling process must, for the most part, have taken place in this period. we possess probably not a few writings which belong to that period; but how are we to prove this, how are they to be arranged? here lies the cause of most of the differences, combinations and uncertainties; many scholars, therefore, actually leave these 40 years out of account, and seek to place everything in the first three decennia of the second century.] chapter ii. the element common to all christians and the breach with judaism on account of the great differences among those who, in the first century, reckoned themselves in the church of god, and called themselves by the name of christ,[152] it seems at first sight scarcely possible to set up marks which would hold good for all, or even for nearly all, the groups. yet the great majority had one thing in common, as is proved, among other things, by the gradual expulsion of gnosticism. the conviction that they knew the supreme god, the consciousness of being responsible to him (heaven and hell), reliance on jesus christ, the hope of an eternal life, the vigorous elevation above the world--these are the elements that formed the fundamental mood. the author of the acts of thecla expresses the general view when he (c. 5-7) co-ordinates [greek: ton tou christou logon] with [greek: logos theou peri enkateias, kai anastaseôs]. the following particulars may here be specified.[153] i. the gospel, because it rests on revelation, is the sure manifestation of the supreme god, and its believing acceptance guarantees salvation ([greek: sôteria]). ii. the essential content of this manifestation (besides the revelation and the verification of the oneness and spirituality of god),[154] is, first of all, the message of the resurrection and eternal life ([greek: anastasis zôê aiônios]), then the preaching of moral purity and continence ([greek: enkrateia]), on the basis of repentance toward god ([greek: metanoia]), and of an expiation once assured by baptism, with eye ever fixed on the requital of good and evil.[155] iii. this manifestation is mediated by jesus christ, who is the saviour ([greek: sôtêr]) sent by god "in these last days," and who stands with god himself in a union special and unique, (cf. the ambiguous [greek: pais theou], which was much used in the earliest period). he has brought the true and full knowledge of god, as well as the gift of immortality [greek: gnôsis kai zôê], or [greek: gnôsis tês zôês], as an expression for the sum of the gospel. see the supper prayer in the didache, c. ix. an x.; [greek: eucharistoumen soi, pater hêmôn huper tês zôês kai gnôseôs hês egnôrisas hêmin dia iêsou tou paidos sou], and is for that very reason the redeemer ([greek: sôtêr] and victor over the demons) on whom we are to place believing trust. but he is, further, in word and walk the highest example of all moral virtue, and therefore in his own person the law for the perfect life, and at the same time the god-appointed lawgiver and judge.[156] iv. virtue as continence, embraces as its highest task, renunciation of temporal goods and separation from the common world; for the christian is not a citizen, but a stranger on the earth, and expects its approaching destruction.[157] v. christ has committed to chosen men, the apostles (or to one apostle), the proclamation of the message he received from god; consequently, their preaching represents that of christ himself. but, besides, the spirit of god rules in christians, "the saints." he bestows upon them special gifts, and, above all, continually raises up among them prophets and spiritual teachers who receive revelations and communications for the edification of others, and whose injunctions are to be obeyed. vi. christian worship is a service of god in spirit and in truth (a spiritual sacrifice), and therefore has no legal ceremonial and statutory rules. the value of the sacred acts and consecrations which are connected with the cultus, consists in the communication of spiritual blessings. (didache x., [greek: hêmin de echarisô, despota, pneumatikên trophên kai poton kai zôên aiônion dia tou paidos sou]). vii. everything that jesus christ brought with him, may be summed up in [greek: gnôsis kai zôê], or in the knowledge of immortal life.[158] to possess the perfect knowledge was, in wide circles, an expression for the sum total of the gospel.[159] viii. christians, as such, no longer take into account the distinctions of race, age, rank, nationality and worldly culture, but the christian community must be conceived as a communion resting on a divine election. opinions were divided about the ground of that election. ix. as christianity is the only true religion, and as it is no national religion, but somehow concerns the whole of humanity, or its best part, it follows that it can have nothing in common with the jewish nation and its contemporary cultus. the jewish nation in which jesus christ appeared, has, for the time at least, no special relation to the god whom jesus revealed. whether it had such a relation at an earlier period is doubtful (cf. here, e.g., the attitude of marcion, ptolemæus the disciple of valentinus, the author of the epistle of barnabas, aristides and justin); but certain it is that god has now cast it off, and that all revelations of god, so far as they took place at all before christ, (the majority assumed that there had been such revelations and considered the old testament as a holy record), must have aimed solely at the call of the "new people", and in some way prepared for the revelation of god through his son.[160] [footnote 152: see, as to this, celsus in orig. iii. 10 ff. and v. 59 ff.] [footnote 153: the marks adduced in the text do not certainly hold good for some comparatively unimportant gnostic groups, but they do apply to the great majority of them, and in the main to marcion also.] [footnote 154: most of the gnostic schools know only one god, and put all emphasis on the knowledge of the oneness, supramundaneness, and spirituality of this god. the æons, the demiurgus, the god of matter, do not come near this god though they are called gods. see the testimony of hippolytus c. noet. 11; [greek: kai gar pantes apekleisthêsan eis touto akontes eipein hoti to pan eis hena anatrechei ei oun ta panta eis hena anatrechei kai kata thualentinon kai kata markiôna, kêrinthon te kai pasan tên ekeinôn phluarian, kai akontes eis touto periepesan, hina ton hena homologêsôsin aition tôn pantôn houtôs oun suntrechousin kai autoi mê thelontes tê alêtheia hena theon legein poiêsanta hôs êthelêsen].] [footnote 155: continence was regarded as the condition laid down by god for the resurrection and eternal life. the sure hope of this was for many, if not for the majority, the whole sum of religion, in connection with the idea of the requital of good and evil which was now firmly established. see the testimony of the heathen lucian, in peregrinus proteus.] [footnote 156: even where the judicial attributes were separated from god (christ) as not suitable, christ was still comprehended as the critical appearance by which every man is placed in the condition which belongs to him. the apocalypse of peter expects that god himself will come as judge (see the messianic expectations of judaism, in which it was always uncertain whether god or the messiah would hold the judgment).] [footnote 157: celsus (orig. c. celsum, v. 59) after referring to the many christian parties mutually provoking and fighting with each other, remarks (v. 64) that though they differ much from each other, and quarrel with each other, you can yet hear from them all the protestation, "the world is crucified to me and i to the world." in the earliest gentile christian communities brotherly love for reflective thought falls into the background behind ascetic exercises of virtue, in unquestionable deviation from the sayings of christ, but in fact it was powerful. see the testimony of pliny and lucian, aristides, apol. 15, tertull apol. 39.] [footnote 158: the word "life" comes into consideration in a double sense, viz., as soundness of the soul, and as immortality. neither, of course, is to be separated from the other. but i have attempted to shew in my essay, "medicinisches aus der ältesten kirchengesch" (1892), the extent to which the gospel in the earliest christendom was preached as medicine and jesus as a physician, and how the christian message was really comprehended by the gentiles as a medicinal religion. even the stoic philosophy gave itself out as a soul therapeutic, and æsculapius was worshipped as a saviour-god; but christianity alone was a religion of healing.] [footnote 159: heinrici, in his commentary on the epistles to the corinthians, has dealt very clearly with this matter; see especially (bd. ii. p. 557 ff.) the description of the christianity of the corinthians: on what did the community base its christian character? it believed in one god who had revealed himself to it through christ, without denying the reality of the hosts of gods in the heathen world (1 viii. 6). it hoped in immortality without being clear as to the nature of the christian belief in the resurrection (1 xv.) it had no doubt as to the requital of good and evil (1 iv. 5; 2 v. 10; xi. 15: rom. ii. 4), without understanding the value of self-denial, claiming no merit, for the sake of important ends. it was striving to make use of the gospel as a new doctrine of wisdom about earthly and super-earthly things, which led to the perfect and best established knowledge (1 i. 21: viii. 1). it boasted of special operations of the divine spirit, which in themselves remained obscure and non-transparent, and therefore unfruitful (1 xiv.), while it was prompt to put aside as obscure, the word of the cross as preached by paul (2. iv. 1 f). the hope of the near parousia, however, and the completion of all things, evinced no power to effect a moral transformation of society we herewith obtain the outline of a conviction that was spread over the widest circles of the roman empire "naturam si expellas furca, tamen usque recurret."] [footnote 160: nearly all gentile christian groups that we know, are at one in the detachment of christianity from empiric judaism; the "gnostics," however, included the old testament in judaism, while the greater part of christians did not. that detachment seemed to be demanded by the claims of christianity to be the one, true, absolute and therefore oldest religion, foreseen from the beginning. the different estimates of the old testament in gnostic circles have their exact parallels in the different estimates of judaism among the other christians; cf. for example, in this respect, the conception stated in the epistle of barnabas with the views of marcion, and justin with valentinus. the particulars about the detachment of the gentile christians from the synagogue, which was prepared for by the inner development of judaism itself, and was required by the fundamental fact that the messiah, crucified and rejected by his own people, was recognised as saviour by those who were not jews, cannot be given in the frame-work of a history of dogma; though, see chaps. iii. iv. vi. on the other hand, the turning away from judaism is also the result of the mass of things which were held in common with it, even in gnostic circles. christianity made its appearance in the empire in the jewish propaganda. by the preaching of jesus christ who brought the gift of eternal life, mediated the full knowledge of god, and assembled round him in these last days a community, the imperfect and hybrid creations of the jewish propaganda in the empire were converted into independent formations. these formations were far superior to the synagogue in power of attraction, and from the nature of the case would very soon be directed with the utmost vigour against the synagogue.] chapter iii the common faith and the beginnings of knowledge in gentile christianity as it was being developed into catholicism[162] § 1. _the communities and the church._ the confessors of the gospels, belonging to organised communities who recognised the old testament as the divine record of revelation, and prized the evangelic tradition as a public message for all, to which, in its undiluted form, they wished to adhere truly and sincerely, formed the stem of christendom both as to extent and importance.[163] the communities stood to each other in an outwardly loose, but inwardly firm connection, and every community by the vigour of its faith, the certainty of its hope, the holy character of its life, as well as by unfeigned love, unity and peace, was to be an image of the holy church of god which is in heaven, and whose members are scattered over the earth. they were further, by the purity of their walk and an active brotherly disposition, to prove to those without, that is to the world, the excellence and truth of the christian faith.[164] the hope that the lord would speedily appear to gather into his kingdom the believers who were scattered abroad, punishing the evil and rewarding the good, guided these communities in faith and life. in the recently discovered "teaching of the apostles" we are confronted very distinctly with ideas and aspirations of communities that are not influenced by philosophy. the church, that is the totality of all believers destined to be received into the kingdom of god (didache, 9. 10), is the holy church, (hermas) because it is brought together and preserved by the holy spirit. it is the one church, not because it presents this unity outwardly, on earth the members of the church are rather scattered abroad, but because it will be brought to unity in the kingdom of christ, because it is ruled by the same spirit and inwardly united in a common relation to a common hope and ideal. the church, considered in its origin, is the number of those chosen by god,[165] the true israel,[166] nay, still more, the final purpose of god, for the world was created for its sake.[167] there were in connection with these doctrines in the earliest period, various speculations about the church: it is a heavenly æon, is older than the world, was created by god at the beginning of things as a companion of the heavenly christ;[168] its members form the new nation which is really the oldest nation,[169] it is the [greek: laos ho tou agapêmenou ho philoumenos kai philon auton],[170] the people whom god has prepared "in the beloved,"[171] etc. the creation of god, the church, as it is of an antemundane and heavenly nature, will also attain its true existence only in the æon of the future, the æon of the kingdom of christ. the idea of a heavenly origin, and of a heavenly goal of the church, was therefore an essential one, various and fluctuating as these speculations were. accordingly, the exhortations, so far as they have in view the church, are always dominated by the idea of the contrast of the kingdom of christ with the kingdom of the world. on the other hand, he who communicated knowledge for the present time, prescribed rules of life, endeavoured to remove conflicts, did not appeal to the peculiar character of the church. the mere fact, however, that from nearly the beginning of christendom, there were reflections and speculations not only about god and christ, but also about the church, teaches us how profoundly the christian consciousness was impressed with being a new people, viz., the people of god.[172] these speculations of the earliest gentile christian time about christ and the church, as inseparable correlative ideas, are of the greatest importance, for they have absolutely nothing hellenic in them, but rather have their origin in the apostolic tradition. but for that very reason the combination very soon, comparatively speaking, became obsolete or lost its power to influence. even the apologists made no use of it, though clement of alexandria and other greeks held it fast, and the gnostics by their æon "church" brought it into discredit. augustine was the first to return to it. the importance attached to morality is shewn in _didache_ cc. 1-6, with parallels[173]. but this section and the statements so closely related to it in the pseudo phocylidean poem, which is probably of christian origin, as well as in sibyl, ii. v. 56, 148, which is likewise to be regarded as christian, and in many other gnomic paragraphs, shews at the same time, that in the memorable expression and summary statement of higher moral commandments, the christian propaganda had been preceded by the judaism of the diaspora, and had entered into its labours. these statements are throughout dependent on the old testament wisdom, and have the closest relationship with the genuine greek parts of the alexandrian canon, as well as with philonic exhortations. consequently, these moral rules, the two ways, so aptly compiled and filled with such an elevated spirit, represent the ripest fruit of jewish as well as of greek development. the christian spirit found here a disposition which it could recognise as its own. it was of the utmost importance, however, that this disposition was already expressed in fixed forms suitable for didactic purposes. the young christianity therewith received a gift of first importance. it was spared a labour in a legion, the moral, which experience shews, can only be performed in generations, viz, the creation of simple fixed impressive rules, the labour of the catechist. the sayings of the sermon on the mount were not of themselves sufficient here. those who in the second century attempted to rest in these alone and turned aside from the judaeo-greek inheritance, landed in marcionite or encratite doctrines.[174] we can see, especially from the apologies of aristides (c. 15), justin and tatian (see also lucian), that the earnest men of the græco-roman world were won by the morality and active love of the christians. § 2. _the foundations of the faith._ the foundations of the faith--whose abridged form was, on the one hand, the confession of the one true god, [greek: monos alethinos theos],[175] and of jesus, the lord, the son of god, the saviour[176] and also of the holy spirit, and on the other hand, the confident hope of christ's kingdom and the resurrection--were laid on the old testament interpreted in a christian sense together with the apocalypses,[177] and the progressively enriched traditions about jesus christ ([greek: he parodosis--ho paradotheis logos--ho kanôn tês alêtheías] or [greek: tês paradoseôs--hê pistis--ho kanôn tês pisteôs--ho dotheisa pistis--to kêrygma--ta didagmata tou christou--hê didachê--ta mathêmata], or [greek: to mathêma]).[178] the old testament revelations and oracles were regarded as pointing to christ; the old testament itself, the words of god spoken by the prophets, as the primitive gospel of salvation, having in view the new people, which is, however, the oldest, and belonging to it alone.[179] the exposition of the old testament, which, as a rule, was of course read in the alexandrian canon of the bible, turned it into a christian book. a historical view of it, which no born jew could in some measure fail to take, did not come into fashion, and the freedom that was used in interpreting the old testament,--so far as there was a method, it was the alexandrian jewish--went the length of even correcting the letter and enriching the contents.[180] the traditions concerning christ on which the communities were based, were of a twofold character. first, there were words of the lord, mostly ethical, but also of eschatological content, which were regarded as rules, though their expression was uncertain, ever changing, and only gradually assuming a fixed form. the [greek: didagmata tou christou] are often just the moral commandments.[181] second, the foundation of the faith, that is, the assurance of the blessing of salvation, was formed by a proclamation of the history of jesus concisely expressed, and composed with reference to prophecy.[182] the confession of god the father almighty, of christ as the lord and son of god, and of the holy spirit,[183] was at a very early period in the communities, united with the short proclamation of the history of jesus, and at the same time, in certain cases, referred expressly to the revelation of god (the spirit) through the prophets.[184] the confession thus conceived had not everywhere obtained a fixed definite expression in the first century (c. 50-150). it would rather seem that, in most of the communities, there was no exact formulation beyond a confession of father, son and spirit, accompanied in a free way by the historical proclamation.[185] it is highly probable, however, that a short confession was strictly formulated in the roman community before the middle of the second century,[186] expressing belief in the father, son and spirit, embracing also the most important facts in the history of jesus, and mentioning the holy church, as well as the two great blessings of christianity, the forgiveness of sin, and the resurrection of the dead ([greek: aphesis hamartiôn, sarkos anastasis][187]). but, however the proclamation might be handed down, in a form somehow fixed, or in a free form, the disciples of jesus, the (twelve) apostles, were regarded as the authorities who mediated and guaranteed it. to them was traced back in the same way everything that was narrated of the history of jesus, and everything that was inculcated from his sayings.[188] consequently, it may be said, that beside the old testament, the chief court of appeal in the communities was formed by an aggregate of words and deeds of the lord;--for the history and the suffering of jesus are his deed: [greek: ho iêsous hupemeinen pathein, k.t.l.]--fixed in certain fundamental features, though constantly enriched, and traced back to apostolic testimony.[189] the authority which the apostles in this way enjoyed, did not, in any great measure, rest on the remembrance of direct services which the twelve had rendered to the gentile churches: for, as the want of reliable concrete traditions proves, no such services had been rendered, at least not by the _twelve_. on the contrary, there was a theory operative here regarding the special authority which the twelve enjoyed in the church at jerusalem, a theory which was spread by the early missionaries, including paul, and sprang from the _a priori_ consideration that the tradition about christ, just because it grew up so quickly,[190] must have been entrusted to eye-witnesses who were commissioned to proclaim the gospel to the whole world, and who fulfilled that commission. the _a priori_ character of this assumption is shewn by the fact that--with the exception of reminiscences of an activity of peter and john among the [greek: ethnê], not sufficiently clear to us[191]--the twelve, as a rule, are regarded as a _college_, to which the mission and the tradition are traced back.[192] that such a theory, based on a dogmatic construction of history, could have at all arisen, proves that either the gentile churches never had a living relation to the twelve, or that they had very soon lost it in the rapid disappearance of jewish christianity, while they had been referred to the twelve from the beginning. but even in the communities which paul had founded and for a long time guided, the remembrance of the controversies of the apostolic age must have been very soon effaced, and the vacuum thus produced filled by a theory which directly traced back the _status quo_ of the gentile christian communities to a tradition of the twelve as its foundation. this fact is extremely paradoxical, and is not altogether explained by the assumptions that the pauline-judaistic controversy had not made a great impression on the gentile christians, that the way in which paul, while fully recognising the twelve, had insisted on his own independent importance, had long ceased to be really understood, and that peter and john had also really been missionaries to the gentiles. the guarantee that was needed for the "teaching of the lord" must, finally, be given not by paul, but only by chosen eye-witnesses. the less that was known about them, the easier it was to claim them. the conviction as to the unanimity of the twelve, and as to their activity in founding the gentile churches, appeared in these churches as early as the urgent need of protection against the serious consequences of unfettered religious enthusiasm and unrestrained religious fancy. this urgency cannot be dated too far back. in correspondence therewith, the principle of tradition in the church (christ, the twelve apostles) in the case of those who were intent on the unity and completeness of christendom, is also very old. but one passed logically from the apostles to the disciples of the apostles, "the elders," without at first claiming for them any other significance than that of reliable hearers (apostoli et discentes ipsorum). in coming down to them, one here and there betook oneself again to real historical ground, disciples of paul, of peter, of john.[193] yet even here legends with a tendency speedily got mixed with facts, and because, in consequence of this theory of tradition, the apostle paul must needs fall into the background, his disciples also were more or less forgotten. the attempt which we have in the pastoral epistles remained without effect, as regards those to whom these epistles were addressed. timothy and titus obtained no authority outside these epistles. but so far as the epistles of paul were collected, diffused, and read, there was created a complex of writings which at first stood beside the "teaching of the lord by the twelve apostles", without being connected with it, and only obtained such connection by the creation of the new testament, that is, by the interpolation of the acts of the apostles, between gospels and epistles.[194] § 3. _the main articles of christianity and the conceptions of salvation. eschatology._ 1. the main articles of christianity were (1) belief in god the [greek: despotês], and in the son in virtue of proofs from prophecy, and the teaching of the lord as attested by the apostles; (2) discipline according to the standard of the words of the lord; (3) baptism; (4) the common offering of prayer, culminating in the lord's supper and the holy meal, (5) the sure hope of the nearness of christ's glorious kingdom. in these appears the unity of christendom, that is, of the church which possesses the holy spirit.[195] on the basis of this unity christian knowledge was free and manifold. it was distinguished as [greek: sophia, sunesis, epistême, gnôsis (tôn dikaiômatôn)], from the [greek: logos theou tês pisteôs], the [greek: klêsis tês epangelias] and the [greek: entolai tês didachês] (barn. 16. 9, similarly hermas). perception and knowledge of divine things was a charism possessed only by individuals, but like all charisms it was to be used for the good of the whole. in so far as every actual perception was a perception produced by the spirit, it was regarded as important and indubitable truth, even though some christians were unable to understand it. while attention was given to the firm inculcation and observance of the moral precepts of christ, as well as to the awakening of sure faith in christ, and while all waverings and differences were excluded in respect of these, there was absolutely no current doctrine of faith in the communities, in the sense of a completed theory, and the theological speculations of even closely related christian writers of this epoch, exhibit the greatest differences.[196] the productions of fancy, the terrible or consoling pictures of the future pass for sacred knowledge, just as much as intelligent and sober reflections, and edifying interpretation of old testament sayings. even that which was afterwards separated as dogmatic and ethics was then in no way distinguished.[197] the communities gave expression in the cultus, chiefly in the hymns and prayers, to what they possessed in their god and their christ; here sacred formulæ were fashioned and delivered to the members.[198] the problem of surrendering the world in the hope of a life beyond was regarded as the practical side of the faith, and the unity in temper and disposition resting on faith in the saving revelation of god in christ, permitted the highest degree of freedom in knowledge, the results of which were absolutely without control as soon as the preacher or the writer was recognised as a true teacher, that is, inspired by the spirit of god.[199] there was also in wide circles a conviction that the christian faith, after the night of error, included the full knowledge of everything worth knowing, that precisely in its most important articles it is accessible to men of every degree of culture, and that in it, in the now attained truth, is contained one of the most essential blessings of christianity. when it is said in the epistle of barnabas (ii. 2. 3); [greek: tês písteôs hêmôn eisìn boêthoì phobos kai hupomonê, ta de summachounta hêmìn makrothumía kai enkrateia; toutôn menontôn ta pros kurion hagnôs, suneuphrainontai autois sophia, sunesis, epistêmê, gnôsis], knowledge appears in this classic formula to be an essential element in christianity, conditioned by faith and the practical virtues, and dependent on them. faith takes the lead, knowledge follows it: but of course in concrete cases it could not always be decided what was [greek: logos tês pistêôs], which implicitly contained the highest knowledge, and what the special [greek: gnôsis]; for in the last resort the nature of the two was regarded as identical, both being represented as produced by the spirit of god. 2. the conceptions of christian salvation, or of redemption, were grouped around two ideas, which were themselves but loosely connected with each other, and of which the one influenced more the temper and the imagination, the other the intellectual faculty. on the one hand, salvation, in accordance with the earliest preaching, was regarded as the glorious kingdom which was soon to appear on earth with the visible return of christ, which will bring the present course of the world to an end, and introduce for a definite series of centuries, before the final judgment, a new order of all things to the joy and blessedness of the saints.[200] in connection with this the hope of the resurrection of the body occupied the foreground[201]. on the other hand, salvation appeared to be given in the truth, that is, in the complete and certain knowledge of god, as contrasted with the error of heathendom and the night of sin, and this truth included the certainty of the gift of eternal life, and all conceivable spiritual blessings.[202] of these the community, so far as it is a community of saints, that is, so far as it is ruled by the spirit of god, already possesses forgiveness of sins and righteousness. but, as a rule, neither blessing was understood in a strictly religious sense, that is to say, the effect of their religious sense was narrowed. the moralistic view, in which eternal life is the wages and reward of a perfect moral life wrought out essentially by one's own power, took the place of first importance at a very early period. on this view, according to which the righteousness of god is revealed in punishment and reward alike, the forgiveness of sin only meant a single remission of sin in connection with entrance into the church by baptism,[203] and righteousness became identical with virtue. the idea is indeed still operative, especially in the oldest gentile-christian writings known to us, that sinlessness rests upon a new creation (regeneration) which is effected in baptism;[204] but, so far as dissimilar eschatological hopes do not operate, it is everywhere in danger of being supplanted by the other idea, which maintains that there is no other blessing in the gospel than the perfect truth and eternal life. all else is but a sum of obligations in which the gospel is presented as a new law. the christianising of the old testament supported this conception. there was indeed an opinion that the gospel, even so far as it is a law, comprehends a gift of salvation which is to be grasped by faith [greek: nomos aneu zugou anankês,[205] nomos t. eleutherias],[206] christ himself the law;[207] but this notion, as it is obscure in itself, was also an uncertain one and was gradually lost. further, by the "law" was frequently meant in the first place, not the law of love, but the commandments of ascetic holiness, or an explanation and a turn were given to the law of love, according to which it is to verify itself above all in asceticism.[208] the expression of the contents of the gospel in the concepts [greek: epangelia (zôê aiônios) gnôsis (alêtheia) nomos (enkrateia)], seemed quite as plain as it was exhaustive, and the importance of faith which was regarded as the basis of hope and knowledge and obedience in a holy life, was at the same time in every respect perceived.[209] _supplement_ 1.--the moralistic view of sin, forgiveness of sin, and righteousness, in clement, barnabas, polycarp and ignatius, gives place to pauline formulæ; but the uncertainty with which these are reproduced, shews that the pauline idea has not been clearly seen.[210] in hermas, however, and in the second epistle of clement, the consciousness of being under grace, even after baptism, almost completely disappears behind the demand to fulfil the tasks which baptism imposes.[211] the idea that serious sins, in the case of the baptised, no longer should or can be forgiven, except under special circumstances, appears to have prevailed in wide circles, if not everywhere.[212] it reveals the earnestness of those early christians and their elevated sense of freedom and power; but it might be united either with the highest moral intensity, or with a lax judgment on the little sins of the day. the latter, in point of fact, threatened to become more and more the presupposition and result of that idea--for there exists here a fatal reciprocal action. _supplement_ 2.--the realisation of salvation--as [greek: basileia tou theou] and as [greek: aphtharsia]--being expected from the future, the whole present possession of salvation might be comprehended under the title of vocation ([greek: klêsis]) see, for example, the second epistle of clement. in this sense _gnosis_ itself was regarded as something only preparatory. _supplement_ 3.--in some circles the pauline formula about righteousness and salvation by faith alone, must, it would appear, not infrequently (as already in the apostolic age itself) have been partly misconstrued, and partly taken advantage of as a cloak for laxity. those who resisted such a disposition, and therefore also the formula in the post-apostolic age, shew indeed by their opposition how little they have hit upon or understood the pauline idea of faith: for they not only issued the watchword "faith and works" (though the jewish ceremonial law was not thereby meant), but they admitted, and not only hypothetically, that one might have the true faith even though in his case that faith remained dead or united with immorality. see, above all, the epistle of james and the shepherd of hermas; though the first epistle of john comes also into consideration (iii. 7: "he that doeth righteousness is righteous").[213] _supplement_ 4.--however similar the eschatological expectations of the jewish apocalyptists and the christians may seem, there is yet in one respect an important difference between them. the uncertainty about the final consummation was first set aside by the gospel. it should be noted as highly characteristic of the jewish hopes of the future, even of the most definite, how the beginning of the end, that is, the overthrow of the world-powers and the setting up of the earthly kingdom of god, was much more certainly expressed than the goal and the final end. neither the general judgment, nor what we, according to christian tradition, call heaven and hell, should be described as a sure possession of jewish faith in the primitive christian period. it is only in the gospel of christ, where everything is subordinated to the idea of a higher righteousness and the union of the individual with god, that the general judgment and the final condition after it are the clear, firmly grasped goal of all meditation. no doctrine has been more surely preserved in the convictions and preaching of believers in christ than this. fancy might roam ever so much and, under the direction of the tradition, thrust bright and precious images between the present condition and the final end, the main thing continued to be the great judgment of the world, and the certainty that the saints would go to god in heaven, the wicked to hell. but while the judgment, as a rule, was connected with the person of jesus himself (see the romish symbol: the words [greek: kritês zôntôn kai nekrôn], were very frequently applied to christ in the earliest writings), the moral condition of the individual, and the believing recognition of the person of christ were put in the closest relation. the gentile christians held firmly to this. open the shepherd, or the second epistle of clement, or any other early christian writing, and you will find that the judgment, heaven and hell, are the decisive objects. but that shews that the moral character of christianity as a religion is seen and adhered to. the fearful idea of hell, far from signifying a backward step in the history of the religious spirit, is rather a proof of its having rejected the morally indifferent point of view, and of its having become sovereign in union with the ethical spirit. § 4. _the old testament as source of the knowledge of faith._[214] the sayings of the old testament, the word of god, were believed to furnish inexhaustible material for deeper knowledge. the christian prophets were nurtured on the old testament, the teachers gathered from it the revelation of the past, present and future (barn. 1. 7), and were therefore able as prophets to edify the churches; from it was further drawn the confirmation of the answers to all emergent questions, as one could always find in the old testament what he was in search of. the different writers laid the holy book under contribution in very much the same way; for they were all dominated by the presupposition that this book is a christian book, and contains the explanations that are necessary for the occasion. there were several teachers, e.g., barnabas, who at a very early period boasted of finding in it ideas of special profundity and value--these were always an expression of the difficulties that were being felt. the plain words of the lord as generally known, did not seem sufficient to satisfy the craving for knowledge, or to solve the problems that were emerging;[215] their origin and form also opposed difficulties at first to the attempt to obtain from them new disclosures by re-interpretation. but the old testament sayings and histories were in part unintelligible, or in their literal sense offensive; they were at the same time regarded as fundamental words of god. this furnished the conditions for turning them to account in the way we have stated. the following are the most important points of view under which the old testament was used. (1) the monotheistic cosmology and view of nature were borrowed from it (see, for example, 1 clem.). (2) it was used to prove that the appearance and entire history of jesus had been foretold centuries, nay, thousands of years beforehand, and that the founding of a new people gathered out of all nations had been predicted and prepared for from the very beginning.[216] (3) it was used as a means of verifying all principles and institutions of the christian church,--the spiritual worship of god without images, the abolition of all ceremonial legal precepts, baptism, etc. (4) the old testament was used for purposes of exhortation according to the formula _a minori ad majus_; if god then punished and rewarded this or that in such a way, how much more may we expect, who now stand in the last days, and have received the [greek: klêsis tês epangelías]. (5) it was proved from the old testament that the jewish nation is in error, and either never had a covenant with god or has lost it, that it has a false apprehension of god's revelations, and therefore has, now at least, no longer any claim to their possession. but beyond all this, (6) there were in the old testament books, above all, in the prophets and in the psalms, a great number of sayings--confessions of trust in god and of help received from god, of humility and holy courage, testimonies of a world-overcoming faith and words of comfort, love and communion--which were too exalted for any cavilling, and intelligible to every spiritually awakened mind. out of this treasure which was handed down to the greeks and romans, the church edified herself, and in the perception of its riches was largely rooted the conviction that the holy book must in every line contain the highest truth. the point mentioned under (5) needs, however, further explanation. the self-consciousness of the christian community of being the people of god, must have been, above all, expressed in its position towards judaism, whose mere existence--even apart from actual assaults-threatened that consciousness most seriously. a certain antipathy of the greeks and romans towards judaism co-operated here with a law of self-preservation. on all hands, therefore, judaism as it then existed was abandoned as a sect judged and rejected by god, as a society of hypocrites,[217] as a synagogue of satan,[218] as a people seduced by an evil angel,[219] and the jews were declared to have no further right to the possession of the old testament. opinions differed, however, as to the earlier history of the nation and its relation to the true god. while some denied that there ever had been a covenant of salvation between god and this nation, and in this respect recognised only an intention of god,[220] which was never carried out because of the idolatry of the people, others admitted in a hazy way that a relation did exist; but even they referred all the promises of the old testament to the christian people.[221] while the former saw in the observance of the letter of the law, in the case of circumcision, sabbath, precepts as to food, etc., a proof of the special devilish temptation to which the jewish people succumbed,[222] the latter saw in circumcision a sign[223] given by god, and in virtue of certain considerations acknowledged that the literal observance of the law was for the time god's intention and command, though righteousness never came from such observance. yet even they saw in the spiritual the alone true sense, which the jews had denied, and were of opinion that the burden of ceremonies was a pædagogic necessity with reference to a people stiff-necked and prone to idolatry, i.e., a defence of monotheism, and gave an interpretation to the sign of circumcision which made it no longer a blessing, but rather the mark for the execution of judgment on israel.[224] israel was thus at all times the pseudo-church. the older people does not in reality precede the younger people, the christians, even in point of time; for though the church appeared only in the last days, it was foreseen and created by god from the beginning. the younger people is therefore really the older, and the new law rather the original law.[225] the patriarchs, prophets, and men of god, however, who were favoured with the communication of god's words, have nothing inwardly in common with the jewish people. they are god's elect who were distinguished by a holy walk, and must be regarded as the forerunners and fathers of the christian people.[226] to the question how such holy men appeared exclusively, or almost exclusively, among the jewish people, the documents preserved to us yield no answer. § 5. _the knowledge of god and of the world. estimate of the world._ the knowledge of faith was, above all, the knowledge of god as one, supramundane, spiritual,[227] and almighty ([greek: pantokratôr]); god is creator and governor of the world and therefore the lord.[228] but as he created the world a beautiful ordered whole (monotheistic view of nature)[229] for the sake of man,[230] he is at the same time the god of goodness and redemption ([greek: theos sôtêr]), and the true faith in god and knowledge of him as the father,[231] is made perfect only in the knowledge of the identity of the god of creation and the god of redemption. redemption, however, was necessary, because at the beginning humanity and the world alike fell under the dominion of evil demons,[232] of the evil one. there was no universally accepted theory as to the origin of this dominion; but the sure and universal conviction was that the present condition and course of the world is not of god, but is of the devil. those, however, who believed in god, the almighty creator, and were expecting the transformation of the earth, as well as the visible dominion of christ upon it, could not be seduced into accepting a dualism in principle (god and devil: spirit and matter). belief in god, the creator, and eschatological hopes, preserved the communities from the theoretic dualism that so readily suggested itself, which they slightly touched in many particular opinions, and which threatened to dominate their feelings. the belief that the world is of god and therefore good, remained in force. a distinction was made between the present constitution of the world, which is destined for destruction, and the future order of the world which will be a glorious "restitutio in integrum." the theory of the world as an articulated whole which had already been proclaimed by the stoics, and which was strengthened by christian monotheism, would not, even if it had been known to the uncultured, have been vigorous enough to cope with the impression of the wickedness of the course of this world, and the vulgarity of all things material. but the firm belief in the omnipotence of god, and the hope of the world's transformation grounded on the old testament, conquered the mood of absolute despair of all things visible and sensuous, and did not allow a theoretic conclusion, in the sense of dualism in principle, to be drawn from the practical obligation to renounce the world, or from the deep distrust with regard to the flesh. § 6. _faith in jesus christ._ 1. as surely as redemption was traced back to god himself, so surely was jesus ([greek: ho sôtêr hêmôn]) held to be the mediator of it. faith in jesus was therefore, even for gentile christians, a compendium of christianity. jesus is mostly designated with the same name as god,[233] [greek: ho kurios (hêmôn)], for we must remember the ancient use of this title. all that has taken place or will take place with reference to salvation, is traced back to the "lord." the carelessness of the early christian writers about the bearing of the word in particular cases,[234] shews that in a religious relation, so far as there was reflection on the gift of salvation, jesus could directly take the place of god. the invisible god is the author, jesus the revealer and mediator, of all saving blessings. the final subject is presented in the nearest subject, and there is frequently no occasion for expressly distinguishing them, as the range and contents of the revelation of salvation in jesus coincide with the range and contents of the will of salvation in god himself. yet prayers, as a rule, were addressed to god: at least, there are but few examples of direct prayers to jesus belonging to the first century (apart from the prayers in the act. joh. of the so-called leucius). the usual formula rather reads: [greek: theôi exomologoumetha dia 'i. chr.--theôi doxa dio 'i. chr].[235] 2. as the gentile christians did not understand the significance of the idea that jesus is the christ (messiah), the designation "[greek: christos]" had either to be given up in their communities, or to subside into a mere name.[236] but even where, through the old testament, one was reminded of the meaning of the word, and allowed a value to it, he was far from finding in the statement that jesus is the lord's anointed, a clear expression of the dignity peculiar to him. that dignity had therefore to be expressed by other means. nevertheless the eschatological series of ideas connected the gentile christians very closely with the early christian ideas of faith, and therefore also with the earliest ideas about jesus. in the confession that god chose[237] and prepared[238] jesus, that jesus is the angel[239] and the servant of god,[240] that he will judge the living and the dead,[241] etc., expression is given to ideas about jesus, in the gentile christian communities, which are borrowed from the thought that he is the christ called of god and entrusted with an office.[242] besides, there was a very old designation handed down from the circle of the disciples, and specially intelligible to gentile christians, though not frequent and gradually disappearing, viz., "the master."[243] 3. but the earliest tradition not only spoke of jesus as [greek: kurios, sôtêr], and [greek: didaskalos], but as "[greek: ho huios tou theou]", and this name was firmly adhered to in the gentile christian communities.[244] it followed immediately from this that jesus belongs to the sphere of god, and that, as is said in the earliest preaching known to us,[245] one must think of him "[greek: hôs peri theou]." this formula describes in a classic manner the indirect "theologia christi" which we find unanimously expressed in all witnesses of the earliest epoch.[246] we must think about christ as we think about god, because, on the one hand, god had exalted him, and committed to him as lord, judgment over the living and the dead, and because, on the other hand, he has brought the knowledge of the truth, called sinful men, delivered them from the dominion of demons, and hath led, or will lead them, out of the night of death and corruption to eternal life. jesus christ is "our faith", "our hope", "our life", and in this sense "our god." the religious assurance that he is this, for we find no wavering on this point, is the root of the "theologia christi"; but we must also remember that the formula "[greek: theos]" was inserted beside "[greek: kurios]," that the "dominus ac deus," was very common at that time,[247] and that a saviour [greek: sôtêr] could only be represented somehow as a divine being.[248] yet christ never was, as "[greek: theos]," placed on an equality with the father,[249]--monotheism guarded against that. whether he was intentionally and deliberately identified with him the following paragraph will shew. 4. the common confession did not go beyond the statements that jesus is the lord, the saviour, the son of god, that one must think of him as of god, that dwelling now with god in heaven, he is to be adored as [greek: prostatês kai boêthos tês astheneias], and as [greek: archiereus tôn prosphorôn hêmôn] [as guardian and helper of the weak and as high priest of our oblations], to be feared as the future judge, to be esteemed most highly as the bestower of immortality, that he is our hope and our faith. there are found rather, on the basis of that confession, very diverse conceptions of the person, that is, of the nature of jesus, beside each other,[250] which collectively exhibit a certain analogy with the greek theologies, the naive and the philosophic.[251] there was as yet no such thing here as ecclesiastical "doctrines" in the strict sense of the word, but rather conceptions more or less fluid, which were not seldom fashioned _ad hoc._[252] these may be reduced collectively to two.[253] jesus was either regarded as the man whom god hath chosen, in whom the deity or the spirit of god dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by god and invested with dominion, (adoptian christology);[254] or jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after god) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic christology).[255] these two christologies which are, strictly speaking, mutually exclusive--the man who has become a god, and the divine being who has appeared in human form--yet came very near each other when the spirit of god implanted in the man jesus was conceived as the pre-existent son of god,[256] and when, on the other hand, the title, son of god, for that pneumatic being, was derived only from the miraculous generation in the flesh; yet both these seem to have been the rule.[257] yet, in spite of all transitional forms, the two christologies may be clearly distinguished. characteristic of the one is the development through which jesus is first to become a godlike ruler,[258] and connected therewith, the value put on the miraculous event at the baptism; of the other, a naive docetism.[259] for no one as yet thought of affirming two natures in jesus:[260] the divine dignity appeared rather, either as a gift,[261] or the human nature ([greek: sarx]) as a veil assumed for a time, or as the metamorphosis of the spirit.[262] the formula that jesus was a mere man ([greek: psilos anthrôpos]), was undoubtedly always, and from the first, regarded as offensive.[263] but the converse formulæ, which identified the person of jesus in its essence with the godhead itself, do not seem to have been rejected with the same decision.[264] yet such formulæ may have been very rare, and even objects of suspicion, in the leading ecclesiastical circles, at least until after the middle of the second century we can point to them only in documents which hardly found approbation in wide circles. the assumption of the existence of at least one heavenly and eternal spiritual being beside god, was plainly demanded by the old testament writings, as they were understood; so that even those whose christology did not require them to reflect on that heavenly being were forced to recognise it.[265] the pneumatic christology, accordingly, meets us wherever there is an earnest occupation with the old testament, and wherever faith in christ as the perfect revealer of god, occupies the foreground, therefore not in hermas, but certainly in barnabas, clement, etc. the future belonged to this christology, because the current exposition of the old testament seemed directly to require it, because it alone permitted the close connection between creation and redemption, because it furnished the proof that the world and religion rest upon the same divine basis, because it was represented in the most valuable writings of the early period of christianity, and finally, because it had room for the speculations about the logos. on the other hand, no direct and natural relation to the world and to universal history could be given to the adoptian christology, which was originally determined eschatologically. if such a relation, however, were added to it, there resulted formulæ such as that of two sons of god, one natural and eternal, and one adopted, which corresponded neither to the letter of the holy scriptures, nor to the christian preaching. moreover, the revelations of god in the old testament made by theophanies, must have seemed, because of this their form, much more exalted than the revelations made through a man raised to power and glory, which jesus constantly seemed to be in the adoptian christology. nay, even the mysterious personality of melchisedec, without father or mother, might appear more impressive than the chosen servant, jesus, who was born of mary, to a mode of thought which, in order to make no mistake, desired to verify the divine by outer marks. the adoptian christology, that is, the christology which is most in keeping with the self-witness of jesus (the son as the chosen servant of god), is here shewn to be unable to assure to the gentile christians those conceptions of christianity which they regarded as of highest value. it proved itself insufficient when confronted by any reflection on the relation of religion to the cosmos, to humanity, and to its history. it might, perhaps, still have seemed doubtful about the middle of the second century, as to which of the two opposing formulæ "jesus is a man exalted to a godlike dignity", and "jesus is a divine spiritual being incarnate", would succeed in the church. but one only needs to read the pieces of writing which represent the latter thesis, and to compare them, say, with the shepherd of hermas, in order to see to which view the future must belong. in saying this, however, we are anticipating; for the christological reflections were not yet vigorous enough to overcome enthusiasm and the expectation of the speedy end of all things, and the mighty practical tendency of the new religion to a holy life did not allow any theory to become the central object of attention. but, still, it is necessary to refer here to the controversies which broke out at a later period; for the pneumatic christology forms an essential article, which cannot be dispensed with, in the expositions of barnabas, clement and ignatius, and justin shews that he cannot conceive of a christianity without the belief in a real pre-existence of christ. on the other hand, the liturgical formulæ, the prayers, etc., which have been preserved, scarcely ever take notice of the pre-existence of christ. they either comprise statements which are borrowed from the adoptian christology, or they testify in an unreflective way to the dominion and deity of christ. 5. the ideas of christ's work which were influential in the communities--christ as teacher: creation of knowledge, setting up of the new law; christ as saviour: creation of life, overcoming of the demons, forgiveness of sins committed in the time of error,--were by some, in conformity with apostolic tradition and following the pauline epistles, positively connected with the death and resurrection of christ, while others maintained them without any connection with these events. but one nowhere finds independent thorough reflections on the connection of christ's saving work with the facts proclaimed in the preaching, above all, with the death on the cross and the resurrection as presented by paul. the reason of this undoubtedly is that in the conception of the work of salvation, the procuring of forgiveness fell into the background, as this could only be connected by means of the notion of sacrifice, with a definite act of jesus, viz., with the surrender of his life. consequently, the facts of the destiny of jesus combined in the preaching, formed, only for the religious fancy, not for reflection, the basis of the conception of the work of christ, and were therefore by many writers, hermas, for example, taken no notice of. yet the idea of suffering freely accepted, of the cross and of the blood of christ, operated in wide circles as a holy mystery, in which the deepest wisdom and power of the gospel must somehow lie concealed.[266] the peculiarity and uniqueness of the work of the historical christ seemed, however, to be prejudiced by the assumption that christ, essentially as the same person, was already in the old testament the revealer of god. all emphasis must therefore fall on this--without a technical reflection which cannot be proved--that the divine revelation has now, through the historical christ, become accessible and intelligible to all, and that the life which was promised will shortly be made manifest.[267] as to the facts of the history of jesus, the real and the supposed, the circumstance that they formed the ever repeated proclamation about christ gave them an extraordinary significance. in addition to the birth from the holy spirit and the virgin, the death, the resurrection, the exaltation to the right hand of god, and the coming again, there now appeared more definitely the ascension to heaven, and also, though more uncertainly, the descent into the kingdom of the dead. the belief that jesus ascended into heaven forty days after the resurrection, gradually made way against the older conception, according to which resurrection and ascension really coincided, and against other ideas which maintained a longer period between the two events. that probably is the result of a reflection which sought to distinguish the first from the later manifestations of the exalted christ, and it is of the utmost importance as the beginning of a demarcation of the times. it is also very probable that the acceptance of an actual _ascensus in coelum_, not a mere _assumptio_, was favourable to the idea of an actual descent of christ _de coelo_, therefore to the pneumatic christology and vice versa. but there is also closely connected with the _ascensus in coelum_, the notion of a _descensus ad inferna_, which commended itself on the ground of old testament prediction. in the first century, however, it still remained uncertain, lying on the borders of those productions of religious fancy which were not able at once to acquire a right of citizenship in the communities.[268] one can plainly see that the articles contained in the _kerygma_ were guarded and defended in their reality ([greek: kat' alêtheian]) by the professional teachers of the church, against sweeping attempts at explaining them away, or open attacks on them.[269] but they did not yet possess the value of dogmas, for they were neither put in an indissoluble union with the idea of salvation, nor were they stereotyped in their extent, nor were fixed limits set to the imagination in the concrete delineation and conception of them.[270] § 7. _the worship, the sacred ordinances, and the organisation of the churches._ it is necessary to examine the original forms of the worship and constitution, because of the importance which they acquired in the following period even for the development of doctrine. 1. in accordance with the purely spiritual idea of god, it was a fixed principle that only a spiritual worship is well pleasing to hun, and that all ceremonies are abolished, [greek: hina ho kainos nomos tou kuriou hêmôn iêsou christou mê anthropôpoiêton echêi tên prosphoran].[271] but as the old testament and the apostolic tradition made it equally certain that the worship of god is a sacrifice, the christian worship of god was set forth under the aspect of the spiritual sacrifice. in the most general sense it was conceived as the offering of the heart and of obedience, as well as the consecration of the whole personality, body and soul (rom xiii. 1) to god.[272] here, with a change of the figure, the individual christian and the whole community were described as a temple of god.[273] in a more special sense, prayer as thanksgiving and intercession,[274] was regarded as the sacrifice which was to be accompanied, without constraint or ceremony, by fasts and acts of compassionate love.[275] finally, prayers offered by the worshipper in the public worship of the community, and the gifts brought by them, out of which were taken the elements for the lord's supper, and which were used partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the poor, were regarded as sacrifice in the most special sense ([greek: prosphora, dôra]).[276] for the following period, however, it became of the utmost importance, (1) that the idea of sacrifice ruled the whole worship, (2) that it appeared in a special manner in the celebration of the lord's supper, and consequently invested that ordinance with a new meaning, (3) that the support of the poor, alms, especially such alms as had been gained by prayer and fasting, was placed under the category of sacrifice (heb. xiii. 16), for this furnished the occasion for giving the widest application to the idea of sacrifice, and thereby substituting for the original semitic old testament idea of sacrifice with its spiritual interpretation, the greek idea with its interpretation.[277] it may, however, be maintained that the changes imposed on the christian religion by catholicism, are at no point so obvious and far-reaching, as in that of sacrifice, and especially in the solemn ordinance of the lord's supper, which was placed in such close connection with the idea of sacrifice. 2. when in the "teaching of the apostles," which may be regarded here as a classic document, the discipline of life in accordance with the words of the lord, baptism, the order of fasting and prayer, especially the regular use of the lord's prayer, and the eucharist are reckoned the articles on which the christian community rests, and when the common sunday offering of a sacrifice made pure by a brotherly disposition, and the mutual exercise of discipline are represented as decisive for the stability of the individual community,[278] we perceive that the general idea of a pure spiritual worship of god has nevertheless been realised in definite institutions, and that, above all, it has included the traditional sacred ordinances, and adjusted itself to them as far as that was possible.[279] this could only take effect under the idea of the symbolical, and therefore this idea was most firmly attached to these ordinances. but the symbolical of that time is not to be considered as the opposite of the objectively real, but as the mysterious, the god produced ([greek: mystêrion]) as contrasted with the natural, the profanely clear. as to baptism, which was administered in the name of the father, son and spirit, though cyprian, ep. 73. 16-18, felt compelled to oppose the custom of baptising in the name of jesus, we noted above (chap. iii. p. 161 f.) that it was regarded as the bath of regeneration, and as renewal of life, inasmuch as it was assumed that by it the sins of the past state of blindness were blotted out.[280] but as faith was looked upon as the necessary condition,[281] and as on the other hand, the forgiveness of the sins of the past was in itself deemed worthy of god,[282] the asserted specific result of baptism remained still very uncertain, and the hard tasks which it imposed, might seem more important than the merely retrospective gifts which it proffered.[283] under such circumstances the rite could not fail to lead believers about to be baptized, to attribute value here to the mysterious as such.[284] but that always creates a state of things which not only facilitates, but positively prepares for the introduction of new and strange ideas. for neither fancy nor reflection can long continue in the vacuum of mystery. the names [greek: sphragis] and [greek: phôtismos], which at that period came into fashion for baptism, are instructive, inasmuch as neither of them is a direct designation of the presupposed effect of baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and as besides, both of them evince a hellenic conception. baptism in being called the seal,[285] is regarded as the guarantee of a blessing, not as the blessing itself, at least the relation to it remains obscure; in being called enlightenment,[286] it is placed directly under an aspect that is foreign to it. it would be different if we had to think of [greek: phôtismos] as a gift of the holy spirit, which is given to the baptised as real principle of a new life and miraculous powers. but the idea of a necessary union of baptism with a miraculous communication of the spirit, seems to have been lost very early, or to have become uncertain, the actual state of things being no longer favourable to it;[287] at any rate, it does not explain the designation of baptism as [greek: phôtismos]. as regards the lord's supper, the most important point is that its celebration became more and more the central point, not only for the worship of the church, but for its very life as a church. the form of this celebration, the common meal, made it appear to be a fitting expression of the brotherly unity of the community (on the public confession before the meal, see didache, 14, and my notes on the passage). the prayers which it included presented themselves as vehicles for bringing before god, in thanksgiving and intercession, every thing that affected the community; and the presentation of the elements for the holy ordinance was naturally extended to the offering of gifts for the poor brethren, who in this way received them from the hand of god himself. in all these respects, however, the holy ordinance appeared as a sacrifice of the community, and indeed, as it was also named, [greek: eucharistia], sacrifice of thanksgiving.[288] as an act of sacrifice, _termini technici_ which the old testament applied to sacrifice could be applied to it, and all the wealth of ideas which the old testament connects with sacrifice, could be transferred to it. one cannot say that anything absolutely foreign was therewith introduced into the ordinance, however doubtful it may be whether in the idea of its founder the meal was thought of as a sacrificial meal. but it must have been of the most wide-reaching significance, that a wealth of ideas was in this way connected with the ordinance, which had nothing whatever in common, either with the purpose of the meal as a memorial of christ's death,[289] or with the mysterious symbols of the body and blood of christ. the result was that the one transaction obtained a double value. at one time it appeared as the [greek: prosphora] and [greek: thusia] of the church,[290] as the pure sacrifice which is presented to the great king by christians scattered over the world, as they offer to him their prayers, and place before him again what he has bestowed in order to receive it back with thanks and praise. but there is no reference in this to the mysterious words that the bread and wine are the body of christ broken, and the blood of christ shed for the forgiveness of sin. these words, in and of themselves, must have challenged a special consideration. they called forth the recognition in the sacramental action, or rather in the consecrated elements, of a mysterious communication of god, a gift of salvation, and this is the second aspect. but on a purely spiritual conception of the divine gift of salvation, the blessings mediated through the holy supper could only be thought of as spiritual (faith, knowledge, or eternal life), and the consecrated elements could only be recognised as the mysterious vehicles of these blessings. there was yet no reflection on the distinction between symbol and vehicle; the symbol was rather regarded as the vehicle, and vice versa. we shall search in vain for any special relation of the partaking of the consecrated elements to the forgiveness of sin. that was made impossible by the whole current notions of sin and forgiveness. that on which value was put was the strengthening of faith and knowledge, as well as the guarantee of eternal life, and a meal in which there was appropriated not merely common bread and wine, but a [greek: trophê pneumatikê], seemed to have a bearing upon these. there was as yet little reflection; but there can be no doubt that thought here moved in a region bounded, on the one hand, by the intention of doing justice to the wonderful words of institution which had been handed down, and on the other hand, by the fundamental conviction that spiritual things can only be got by means of the spirit.[291] there was thus attached to the supper the idea of sacrifice, and of a sacred gift guaranteed by god. the two things were held apart, for there is as yet no trace of that conception, according to which the body of christ represented in the bread[292] is the sacrifice offered by the community. but one feels almost called upon here to construe from the premises the later development of the idea, with due regard to the ancient hellenic ideas of sacrifice. 3. the natural distinctions among men, and the differences of position and vocation which these involve, were not to be abolished in the church, notwithstanding the independence and equality of every individual christian, but were to be consecrated: above all, every relation of natural piety was to be respected. therefore the elders also acquired a special authority, and were to receive the utmost deference and due obedience. but, however important the organisation that was based on the distinction between [greek: presbuteroi] and [greek: neoteroi], it ought not to be considered as characteristic of the churches, not even where there appeared at the head of the community a college of chosen elders, as was the case in the greater communities and perhaps soon everywhere. on the contrary, only an organisation founded on the gifts of the spirit [greek: charismata], bestowed on the church by god,[293] corresponded to the original peculiarity of the christian community. the apostolic age therefore transmitted a twofold organisation to the communities. the one was based on the [greek: diakonia tou logou], and was regarded as established directly by god; the other stood in the closest connection with the economy of the church, above all with the offering of gifts, and so with the sacrificial service. in the first were men speaking the word of god, commissioned and endowed by god, and bestowed on christendom, not on a particular community, who as [greek: apostoloi, prophêtai], and [greek: didaskaloi] had to spread the gospel, that is to edify the church of christ. they were regarded as the real [greek: hêgoumenoi] in the communities, whose words given them by the spirit all were to accept in faith. in the second were [greek: episkopoi], and [greek: diakonoi], appointed by the individual congregation and endowed with the charisms of leading and helping, who had to receive and administer the gifts, to perform the sacrificial service (if there were no prophets present), and take charge of the affairs of the community.[294] it lay in the nature of the case that as a rule the [greek: episkopoi], as independent officials, were chosen from among the elders, and might thus coincide with the chosen [greek: presbyteroi]. but a very important development takes place in the second half of our epoch. the prophets and teachers--as the result of causes which followed the naturalising of the churches in the world--fell more and more into the background, and their function, the solemn service of the word, began to pass over to the officials of the community, the bishops, who already played a great rôle in the public worship. at the same time, however, it appeared more and more fitting to entrust one official, as chief leader (superintendent of public worship), with the reception of gifts and their administration, together with the care of the unity of public worship, that is, to appoint one bishop instead of a number of bishops, leaving, however, as before, the college of presbyters, as [greek: proistamenoi tês ekklêsias], a kind of senate of the community.[295] moreover, the idea of the chosen bishops and deacons as the antitypes of the priests and levites, had been formed at an early period in connection with the idea of the new sacrifice. but we find also the idea, which is probably the earlier of the two, that the prophets and teachers, as the commissioned preachers of the word, are the priests. the hesitancy in applying this important allegory must have been brought to an end by the disappearance of the latter view. but it must have been still more important that the bishops, or bishop, in taking over the functions of the old [greek: lalountes ton logon], who were not church officials, took over also the profound veneration with which they were regarded as the special organs of the spirit. but the condition of the organisation in the communities about the year 140, seems to have been a very diverse one. here and there, no doubt, the convenient arrangement of appointing only one bishop was carried out, while his functions had not perhaps been essentially increased, and the prophets and teachers were still the great spokesmen. conversely, there may still have been in other communities a number of bishops, while the prophets and teachers no longer played regularly an important rôle. a fixed organisation was reached, and the apostolic episcopal constitution established, only in consequence of the so-called gnostic crisis, which was epoch-making in every respect. one of its most important presuppositions, and one that has struck very deep into the development of doctrine must, however, be borne in mind here. as the churches traced back all the laws according to which they lived, and all the blessings they held sacred, to the tradition of the twelve apostles, because they regarded them as christian only on that presupposition, they also in like manner, as far as we can discover, traced back their organisation of presbyters, i.e., of bishops and deacons, to apostolic appointment. the notion which followed quite naturally, was that the apostles themselves had appointed the first church officials.[296] that idea may have found support in some actual cases of the kind, but this does not need to be considered here; for these cases would not have led to the setting up of a theory. but the point in question here is a theory, which is nothing else than an integral part of the general theory, that the twelve apostles were in every respect the middle term between jesus and the present churches (see above, p. 158). this conception is earlier than the great gnostic crisis, for the gnostics also shared it. but no special qualities of the officials, but only of the church itself, were derived from it, and it was believed that the independence and sovereignty of the churches were in no way endangered by it, because an institution by apostles was considered equivalent to an institution by the holy spirit, whom they possessed, and whom they followed. the independence of the churches rested precisely on the fact that they had the spirit in their midst. the conception here briefly sketched, was completely transformed in the following period by the addition of another idea--that of apostolic succession,[297] and then became, together with the idea of the specific priesthood of the leader of the church, the most important means of exalting the office above the community.[298] _supplementary._ this review of the common faith and the beginnings of knowledge, worship and organisation, in the earliest gentile christianity, will have shewn that the essential premises for the development of catholicism were already in existence before the middle of the second century, and before the burning conflict with gnosticism. we may see this, whether we look at the peculiar form of the _kerygma_, or at the expression of the idea of tradition, or at the theology with its moral and philosophic attitude. we may therefore conclude that the struggle with gnosticism hastened the development, but did not give it a new direction. for the greek spirit, the element which was most operative in gnosticism, was already concealed in the earliest gentile christianity itself: it was the atmosphere which one breathed; but the elements peculiar to gnosticism were for the most part rejected.[299] we may even go back a step further (see above, pp. 41, 76). the great apostle to the gentiles himself, in his epistle to the romans, and in those to the corinthians, transplanted the gospel into greek modes of thought. he attempted to expound it with greek ideas, and not only called the greeks to the old testament and the gospel, but also introduced the gospel as a leaven into the religious and philosophic world of greek ideas. moreover, in his pneumatico-cosmic christology he gave the greeks an impulse towards a theologoumenon, at whose service they could place their whole philosophy and mysticism. he preached the foolishness of christ crucified, and yet in doing so, proclaimed the wisdom of the nature-vanquishing spirit, the heavenly christ. from this moment was established a development which might indeed assume very different forms, but in which all the forces and ideas of hellenism must gradually pass over to the gospel. but even with this the last word has not been said; on the contrary, we must remember that the gospel itself belonged to the fulness of the times, which is indicated by the inter-action of the old testament and the hellenic religions (see above, pp. 41, 56). the documents which have been preserved from the first century of the gentile church are, in their relation to the history of dogma, very diverse. in the didache we have a catechism for christian life, dependent on a jewish greek catechism, and giving expression to what was specifically christian in the prayers, and in the order of the church. the epistle of barnabas, probably of alexandrian origin, teaches the correct, christian, interpretation of the old testament, rejects the literal interpretation and judaism as of the devil, and in christology essentially follows paul. the romish first epistle of clement, which also contains other pauline reminiscences (reconciliation and justification) represents the same christology, but it set it in a moralistic mode of thought. this is a most typical writing in which the spirit of tradition, order, stability, and the universal ecclesiastical guardianship of rome is already expressed. the moralistic mode of thought is classically represented by the shepherd of hermas, and the second epistle of clement, in which, besides, the eschatological element is very prominent. we have in the shepherd the most important document for the church christianity of the age, reflected in the mirror of a prophet who, however, takes into account the concrete relations. the theology of ignatius is the most advanced, in so far as he, opposing the gnostics, brings the facts of salvation into the foreground, and directs his gnosis not so much to the old testament as to the history of christ. he attempts to make christ [greek: kata pneuma] and [greek: kata sarka] the central point of christianity. in this sense his theology and speech is christocentric, related to that of paul and the fourth evangelist, (specially striking is the relationship with ephesians), and is strongly contrasted with that of his contemporaries. of kindred spirit with him are melito and irenæus, whose forerunner he is. he is related to them as methodius at a later period was related to the classical orthodox theology of the fourth and fifth centuries. this parallel is appropriate, not merely in point of form: it is rather one and the same tendency of mind which passes over from ignatius to melito, irenæus, methodius, athanasius, gregory of nyssa (here, however, mixed with origenic elements), and to cyril of alexandria. its characteristic is that not only does the person of christ as the god-man form the central point and sphere of theology, but also that all the main points of his history are mysteries of the world's redemption. (ephes. 19). but ignatius is also distinguished by the fact that behind all that is enthusiastic, pathetic, abrupt, and again all that pertains to liturgical form, we find in his epistles a true devotion to christ ([greek: ho theos mou]). he is laid hold of by christ: cf. ad. rom. 6: [greek: ekeinon zêtô, ton hyper hêmôn apothanonta, ekeinon thelô ton di' hêmas anastanta]; rom. 7: [greek: ho emos erôs estaurôtai kai ouk estin en emoi pur philoulon]. as a sample of his theological speech and his rule of faith, see ad. smyrn. 1: [greek: enoêsa humas katêrtismenous en akinêtô pistei, hôsper kathêlômenous en tô staurô tou kuriou iêsou christou sarki te kai pneumati kai hêdrasmenous en agapê en tô haimati christou, peplêrophorêmenous eis ton kuriou hêmôn, alêthôs onta ek genous dabid kata sarka, huion theou kata thelêma kai dunamin theou, gegenêmenon alêthôs ek parthenou, bebaptismenon hypo iôannou, hina plêrôthê pasa dikaiosunê hup' autou, alêthôs epi pontiou pilatou kai hêrôdou tetrarchou kathêlômenon huper hêmôn en sarki--aph' hou karpou hêmeis, apo tou theomakaritou autou pathous--hina arê sussêmon eis tous aiônas dia tês anastaseôs eis tous agious kai pistous autou eite en ioudaious eite en ethnesin en heni sômati tês ekklêsias autou]. the epistle of polycarp is characterised by its dependence on earlier christian writings (epistles of paul, 1 peter, 1 john), consequently, by its conservative attitude with regard to the most valuable traditions of the apostolic period. the _kerygma_ of peter exhibits the transition from the early christian literature to the apologetic (christ as [greek: nomos] and as [greek: logos]). it is manifest that the lineage, "ignatius, polycarp, melito, irenæus", is in characteristic contrast with all others, has deep roots in the apostolic age, as in paul and in the johannine writings, and contains in germ important factors of the future formation of dogma, as it appeared in methodius, athanasius, marcellus, cyril of jerusalem. it is very doubtful therefore, whether we are justified in speaking of an asia minor theology. (ignatius does not belong to asia minor.) at any rate, the expression, asia minor-romish theology, has no justification. but it has its truth in the correct observation, that the standards by which christianity and church matters were measured and defined, must have been similar in rome and asia minor during the second century. we lack all knowledge of the closer connections. we can only again refer to the journey of polycarp to rome, to that of irenæus by rome to gaul, to the journey of abercius and others (cf. also the application of the montanist communities in asia minor for recognition by the roman bishop). in all probability, asia minor, along with rome, was the spiritual centre of christendom from about 60-200: but we have but few means for describing how this centre was brought to bear on the circumference. what we do know belongs more to the history of the church than to the special history of dogma. _literature._--the writings of the so-called apostolic fathers. see the edition of v. gebhardt, harnack, zahn, 1876. hilgenfeld, nov. test. extra can. recept. fasc. iv. 2 edit. 1884, has collected further remains of early christian literature. the teaching of the twelve apostles. fragments of the gospel and apocalypse of peter (my edition, 1893). also the writings of justin and other apologists, in so far as they give disclosures about the faith of the communities of his time, as well as statements in celsus [greek: alêthês logos], in irenæus, clement of alexandria, and tertullian. even gnostic fragments may be cautiously turned to profit. ritschl, entstehung der altkath. kirche 2 aufl. 1857. pfleiderer, das urchristenthum, 1887. renan, origins of christianity, vol. v. v. engelhardt, das christenthum justin's, d. m. 1878, p. 375 ff. schenkel, das christusbild der apostel, etc., 1879. zahn, gesch. des n.-tlichen kanons, 2 bde. 1888. behm, das christliche gesetzthum der apostolischen väter (zeitschr. f. kirchl. wissensch. 1886). dorner, history of the doctrine of the person of christ, 1845. schultz, die lehre von der gottheit christi, 1881, p. 22 ff. höfling. die lehre der ältesten kirche vom opfer, 1851. höfling, das sacrament d. taufe, 1848. kahnis, die lehre vom abendmahl, 1851. th. harnack, der christliche gemeindegottedienst im apost. u. altkath. zeitalter, 1854. hatch, organisation of the early church, 1883. my prolegomena to the didache (texte u. unters. ii. bd. h. 1, 2). diestel, gesch. des a.t. in der christi. kirche, 1869. sohm, kirchenrecht, 1892, monographs on the apostolic fathers: on 1 clem.: lipsius, lightfoot (most accurate commentary), wrede; on 2 clem.: a. harnack (ztschr. f. k. gesch. 1887); on barnabas: j. müller; on hermas: zahn, hückstädt, link; on papias: weiffenbach, leimbach, zahn, lightfoot; on ignatius and polycarp: lightfoot (accurate commentary) and zahn; on the gospel and apocalypse of peter: a. harnack: on the kerygma of peter: von dobschütz; on acts of thecla: schlau. [footnote 162: the statements made in this chapter need special forbearance, especially as the selection from the rich and motley material--cf. only the so-called apostolic fathers--the emphasising of this, the throwing into the background of that element, cannot here be vindicated. it is not possible, in the compass of a brief account, to give expression to that elasticity and those oscillations of ideas and thoughts which were peculiar to the christians of the earliest period. there was indeed, as will be shewn, a complex of tradition in many respects fixed, but this complex was still under the dominance of an enthusiastic fancy, so that what at one moment seemed fixed, in the next had disappeared. finally, attention must be given to the fact that when we speak of the beginnings of knowledge, the members of the christian community in their totality are no longer in question, but only individuals who of course were the leaders of the others. if we had no other writings from the times of the apostolic fathers than the first epistle of clement and the epistle of polycarp, it would be comparatively easy to sketch a clear history of the development connecting paulinism with the old-catholic theology as represented by irenæus, and so to justify the traditional ideas. but besides these two epistles which are the classic monuments of the mediating tradition, we have a great number of documents which shew us how manifold and complicated the development was. they also teach us how careful we should be in the interpretation of the post-apostolic documents that immediately followed the pauline epistles, and that we must give special heed to the paragraphs and ideas in them, which distinguish them from paulinism. besides, it is of the greatest importance that those two epistles originated in rome and asia minor, as these are the places where we must seek the embryonic stage of old-catholic doctrine. numerous fine threads, in the form of fundamental ideas and particular views, pass over from the asia minor theology of the post-apostolic period into the old-catholic theology.] [footnote 163: the epistle to the hebrews (x. 25), the epistle of barnabas (iv. 10), the shepherd of hermas (sim. ix. 26, 3), but especially the epistles of ignatius and still later documents, shew that up to the middle of the second century, and even later, there were christians who, for various reasons, stood outside the union of communities, or wished to have only a loose and temporary relation to them. the exhortation: [greek: epi to auto sunerchomenoi sunzêteite peri tou koinê sumpherontos] (see my note on didache, xvi. 2, and cf.) for the expression the interesting state inscription which was found at magnesia on the meander. bull, corresp. hellen 1883, p. 506: [greek: apagoreuo mête sunerchesthai tous artokokous kat' hetairian mête parestêkotas thrasunesthai, peitharchein de pantôs tois huper tou koinê sumpherontos epitattomenois k.t.l.] or the exhortation: [greek: kollasthe tois hagiois, hoti hoi kollômenoi autois hagiasthêsontai] (1 clem. 46. 2, introduced as [greek: graphê]) runs through most of the writings of the post-apostolic and pre-catholic period. new doctrines were imported by wandering christians who, in many cases, may not themselves have belonged to a community, and did not respect the arrangements of those they found in existence, but sought to form conventicles. if we remember how the greeks and romans were wont to get themselves initiated into a mystery cult, and took part for a long time in the religious exercises, and then, when they thought they had got the good of it, for the most part or wholly to give up attending, we shall not wonder that the demand to become a permanent member of a christian community was opposed by many. the statements of hermas are specially instructive here.] [footnote 164: "corpus sumus," says tertullian at a time when this description had already become an anachronism, "de conscientia religionis et disciplinæ unitate et spei foedere." (apol. 39: cf. ep. petri ad jacob. i.: [greek: eis theos, eis nomos, mia elpis]). the description was applicable to the earlier period, when there was no such thing as a federation with political forms, but when the consciousness of belonging to a community and of forming a brotherhood ([greek: adelphotês]) was all the more deeply felt: see, above all, 1 clem ad corinth., the didache (9-15), aristides, apol 15: "and when they have become christians, they call them (the slaves) brethren without hesitation ... for they do not call them brethren according to the flesh, but according to the spirit and in god;" cf. also the statements on brotherhood in tertullian and minucius felix (also lucian). we have in 1 clem. i. 2, the delineation of a perfect christian church. the epistles of ignatius are specially instructive as to the independence of each individual community: 1 clem. and didache, as to the obligation to assist stranger communities by counsel and action, and to support the travelling brethren. as every christian is a [greek: paroikos] so every community is a [greek: paroikousa tên polin] but it is under obligation to give an example to the world, and must watch that "the name be not blasphemed." the importance of the social element in the oldest christian communities, has been very justly brought into prominence in the latest works on the subject (renan, heinrici, hatch). the historian of dogma must also emphasise it, and put the fluid notions of the faith in contrast with the definite consciousness of moral tasks. see 1 clem. 47-50; polyc. ep. 3; didache 1 ff.; ignat. ad eph. 14, on [greek: agapê] as the main requirement love demands that everyone "[greek: zêtei to koinôpheles pasin kai mê to heautou]" (1 clem. 48. 6, with parallels; didache 16. 3; barn. 4. 10; ignatius).] [footnote 165: 1 clem. 59. 2. in the church prayer; [greek: hopôs ton arithmon ton katêrithmênon tôn eklektôn autou en holô tôi kosmô diaphulaxê athrauston ho dêmiourgos tôn hapantôn dia tou êgapêmenou paidos autou iêsou christou].] [footnote 166: see 1 clem., 2 clem., ignatius (on the basis of the pauline view; but see also rev. ii. 9).] [footnote 167: see hermas (the passage is given above, p. 103, note).] [footnote 168: see hermas vis. i-iii. papias. fragm. vi. and vii. of my edition. 2 clem. 14: [greek: poiountes to thelêma tou patros hêmôn esometha ek tês ekklêsias tês prôtês tês pneumatikês, tês pro hêliou kai selênês ektismenes.... ekklêsia zôsa sôma esti christou legei gar hê graphê epoiêsen ho theos ton anthrôpon arsen kai thêlu. to arsen estin ho christos, to thêlu hê ekklêsia].] [footnote 169: see barn. 13 (2 clem. 2).] [footnote 170: see valentinus in clem. strom. vi. 6. 52. "holy church", perhaps also in marcion, if his text (zahn. gesch. des n.t.-lichen kanons, ii. p. 502) in gal. iv. 21, read: [greek: hêtis estin mêtêr humôn, gennôsa eis hên epengeilametha hagian ekklêsian].] [footnote 171: barn. 3. 6.] [footnote 172: we are also reminded here of the "tertium genus." the nickname of the heathen corresponded to the self-consciousness of the christians (see aristides, apol).] [footnote 173: see also the letter of pliny the paragraphs about christian morality, in the first third part of justin's apology and especially the apology of aristides c. 15. aristides portrays christianity by portraying christian morality. the christians know and believe in god the creator of heaven and of earth, the god by whom all things consist, i.e. in him from whom they have received the commandments which they have written in their hearts commandments, which they observe in faith and in the expectation of the world to come. for this reason they do not commit adultery, nor practise unchastity, nor bear false witness, nor covet that with which they are entrusted or what does not belong to them, etc. compare how in the apocalypse of peter definite penalties in hell are portrayed for the several forms of immorality.] [footnote 174: an investigation of the greco jewish christian literature of norms and moral rules commencing with the old testament doctrine of wisdom on the one hand and the stoic collections on the other then passing beyond the alexandrian and evangelic norms up to the didache, the pauline tables of domestic duties, the sibylline sayings, phocylides, the neopythagorean rules and to the norms of the enigmatic sextus, is still an unfulfilled task. the moral rules of the pharisaic rabbis should also be included.] [footnote 175: herm. mand. i. has merely fixed the monotheistic confession [greek: proton pantôn pisteuson, hoti eis estin ho theos, ho ta panta ktisas kai katartisas k.t.l.] see praed petri in clem strom vi. 6, 48, vi. 5, 39. aristides gives in c. 2 of his apology the preaching of jesus christ but where he wishes to give a short expression of christianity he is satisfied with saying that christians are those who have found the one true god. see e.g. c. 15. christians have found the truth. they know and believe in god the creator of heaven and of earth by whom all things consist and from whom all things come who has no other god beside him and from whom they have received commandments which they have written on their hearts, commandments which they observe in faith and in expectation of the world to come. it is interesting to note how origen comm. in joh. xxxii. 9 has brought the christological confession into approximate harmony with that of hermas. first mand. i. is verbally repeated and then it is said [greek: chrê de kai pisteuein, hoti kurios iêsous christos kai pase tê peri autou kata tên theotêta kai tên anthropôteta alêtheia dei de kai eis to hagion pisteuein pneuma, kai hoti autexousioi ontes kolazometha men eph' hois hamartanomen timômetha de eph' hois eu prattomen].] [footnote 176: very instructive here is 2 clem. ad corinth. 20, 5 [greek: to monô theo aorato, patri tês alêtheias, tô exatosteilanti hêmin ton sôtêra kai archêgon tês aphtharsias, di' ou kai ephanerôsen hêmin tên alêtheian kai tên epouranion zôên, autô he doxa]. on the holy spirit see previous note.] [footnote 177: they were quoted as [greek: hê graphê, ta biblia], or with the formula [greek: ho theos (kurios) legei, gegraptai]. also law and prophets. law prophets and psalms. see the original of the first six books of the apostolic constitutions.] [footnote 178: see the collection of passages in patr. app. opp. edit. gebhardt. 1. 2 p. 133, and the formula, diogn. 11: [greek: apostolôn genomenos mathêtês ginomai didaskalos ethnôn, ta paradothenta axiôs hupêretôn ginomenois alêtheias mathêtais]. besides the old testament and the traditions about jesus (gospels), the apocalyptic writings of the jews, which were regarded as writings of the spirit, were also drawn upon. moreover, christian letters and manifestoes proceeding from apostles, prophets, or teachers, were read. the epistles of paul were early collected and obtained wide circulation in the first half of the second century; but they were not holy scripture in the specific sense, and therefore their authority was not unqualified.] [footnote 179: barn. 5. 6, [greek: hoi prophetai, apo tou kuriou echontes tên charin, eis auton eprophêteusan]. ignat. ad magn. 8. 2. cf. also clem. paedag. i. 7. 59: [greek: ho gar autos houtos paidagôgos tote men "phobêthêsê kurion ton theon elegen, hêmin de agapêseis kurion ton theon sou" tarênesen. dia touto kai entelletai hêmin "pausasthe apo tôn ergôn humôn" tôn palaiôn hamartiôn, "mathete kalon poiein, ekklinon apo kakou kai poiêson agathon, êgapêsas dikaiosunên, emisêsas anomian" hautê mou hê nea diathêkê palaìoi kecharagmenê grammati].] [footnote 180: see above § 5, p. 114 f.] [footnote 181: see my edition of the didache. prolegg. p. 32 ff.; rothe, "de disciplina arcani origine," 1841.] [footnote 182: the earliest example is 1 cor. xi. 1 f. it is different in 1 tim. iii. 16, where already the question is about [greek: to tês eusebeias mystêrion]. see patr. app. opp. 1. 2. p. 134.] [footnote 183: father, son, and spirit: paul; matt xxviii. 19; 1 clem. ad. cor. 58. 2 (see 2. 1. f.; 42. 3; 46. 6); didache 7; ignat. eph. 9. 1; magn. 13. 1. 2.; philad. inscr.; mart. polyc. 14. 1. 2; ascens. isai. 8 18:9. 27:10. 4:11. 32ff;, justin _passim_; montan. ap. didym. de trinit. 411; excerpta ex theodot. 80; pseudo clem. de virg. 1 13. yet the omission of the holy spirit is frequent, as in paul, or the holy spirit is identified with the spirit of christ. the latter takes place even with such writers as are familiar with the baptismal formula. ignat. ad magn. 15; [greek: kektêmenoi adiakriton pneuma, hos estin iêsous christos.].] [footnote 184: the formulæ run: "god who has spoken through the prophets," or the "prophetic spirit," etc.] [footnote 185: that should be assumed as certain in the case of the egyptian church, yet caspari thinks he can shew that already clement of alexandria presupposes a symbol.] [footnote 186: also in the communities of asia minor (smyrna); for a combination of polyc. ep. c. 2 with c. 7, proves that in smyrna the [greek: paradotheis logos] must have been something like the roman symbol, see lightfoot on the passage; it cannot be proved that it was identical with it. see, further, how in the case of polycarp the moral element is joined on to the dogmatic. this reminds us of the didache and has its parallel even in the first homily of aphraates.] [footnote 187: see caspari, quellen z. gesch. des taufsymbols, iii. p. 3 ff. and patr. app. opp. 1. 2. p 115-142. the old roman symbol reads: [greek: pisteuô eis theon patera pantokratora, kai eis christon iêsoun (ton) huion autou ton monogenê], (on this word see westcott's excursus in his commentary on 1st john) [greek: ton kurion hêmôn ton gennêthenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai marias tês parthenou, ton epi pontiou pilatou staurôthenta kai taphenta; tê tritê hêmerai anastanta ek nekrôn, anabanta eis tous ouranous, kathêmenon en dexia tou patros, hothen erchetai krinai zôntas kai nekrous. kai eis pneuma hagion, hagian ekklêsian, aphesin hamartiôn sarkos anastasin, amên]. to estimate this very important article aright we must note the following: (1) it is not a formula of doctrine, but of confession. (2) it has a liturgical form which is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession of its several members, and is free from everything of the nature of polemic. (3) it tapers off into the three blessings, holy church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that there is no mention of [greek: gnôsis (alêtheia) kai zôê aiônos], is revealed an early christian untheological attitude. (4) it is worthy of note, on the other hand, that the birth from the virgin occupies the first place, and all reference to the baptism of jesus, also to the davidic sonship, is wanting. (5) it is further worthy of note, that there is no express mention of the death of jesus, and that the ascension already forms a special member (that is also found elsewhere, ascens. isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. dillmann. p. 13. murator. fragment, etc.). finally, we should consider the want of the earthly kingdom of christ and the mission of the twelve apostles, as well as, on the other hand, the purely religious attitude, no notice being taken of the new law. zahn (das apostol. symbolum, 1893) assumes, "that in all essential respects the identical baptismal confession which justin learned in ephesus about 130, and marcion confessed in rome about 145, originated at latest somewhere about 120." in some "unpretending notes" (p. 37 ff.) he traces this confession back to a baptismal confession of the pauline period ("it had already assumed a more or less stereotyped form in the earlier apostolic period"), which, however, was somewhat revised, so far as it contained, for example, "of the house of david", with reference to christ. "the original formula, reminding us of the jewish soil of christianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention of the fundamental features, so that it might appear to answer better to the need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more and more from the gentiles.... this changed formula soon spread on all sides. it lies at the basis of all the later baptismal confessions of the church, even of the east. the first article was slightly changed in rome about 200-220." while up till then, in rome as everywhere else, it had read [greek: pisteuô eis hena theon pantokratora], it was now changed in [greek: pisteuô eis theon patera pantokratora]. this hypothesis, with regard to the early history of the roman symbol, presupposes that the history of the formation of the baptismal confession in the church, in east and west, was originally a uniform one. this cannot be proved; besides, it is refuted by the facts of the following period. it presupposes secondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession outside rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise cannot be proved; (the converse rather is probable, that the fixed formulation proceeded from rome.) moreover, zahn himself retracts everything again by the expression "more or less stereotyped form;" for what is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where the fixed sacred form was produced. zahn here has set up the radical thesis that it can only have taken place in rome between 200 and 220. but neither his negative nor his positive proof for a change of the symbol in rome at so late a period is sufficient. no sure conclusion as to the symbol can be drawn from the wavering _regulæ fidei_ of irenæus and tertullian which contain the "unum"; further, the "unum" is not found in the western provincial symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than the year 200. the romish correction must therefore have been subsequently taken over in the provinces (africa?). finally, the formula [greek: theon patera pantokratora] beside the more frequent [greek: theon pantokratora] is attested by irenæus, i. 10. 1, a decisive passage. with our present means we cannot attain to any direct knowledge of symbol formation before the romish symbol. but the following hypotheses, which i am not able to establish here, appear to me to correspond to the facts of the case and to be fruitful: (1) there were, even in the earliest period, separate _kerygmata_ about god and christ: see the apostolic writings, hermas, ignatius, etc. (2) the _kerygma_ about god was the confession of the one god of creation, the almighty god. (3) the _kerygma_ about christ had essentially the same historical contents everywhere, but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form of the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form [greek: kata sarka, kata pneuma], (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, [greek: katabas-anabas]; these forms were also partly combined. (4) the designations "christ", "son of god" and "lord"; further, the birth from the holy spirit, or [greek: kata pneuma], the sufferings (the practice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising of the formula "crucified under pontius pilate"), the death, the resurrection, the coming again to judgment, formed the stereotyped content of the _kerygma_ about jesus. the mention of the davidic sonship, of the virgin mary, of the baptism by john, of the third day, of the descent into hades, of the _demonstratio veræ carnis post resurrectionem_, of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were additional articles which appeared here and there. the [greek: sarka labon], and the like, were very early developed out of the forms (b) and (d). all this was already in existence at the transition of the first century to the second. (5) the proper contribution of the roman community consisted in this, that it inserted the _kerygma_ about god and that about jesus into the baptismal formula, widened the clause referring to the holy spirit, into one embracing holy church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, excluded theological theories in other respects, undertook a reduction all round, and accurately defined everything up to the last world. (6) the western _regulæ fidei_ do not fall back exclusively on the old roman symbol, but also on the earlier freer _kerygmata_ about god and about jesus which were common to the east and west; not otherwise can the _regulæ fidei_ of irenæus and tertullian, for example, be explained. but the symbol became more and more the support of the _regula_. (7) the eastern confessions (baptismal symbols) do not fall back directly on the roman symbol, but were probably on the model of this symbol, made up from the provincial _kerygmata_, rich in contents and growing ever richer, hardly, however, before the third century. (8) it cannot be proved, and it is not probable, that the roman symbol was in existence before hermas, that is, about 135.] [footnote 188: see the fragment in euseb. h. e. iii. 39, from the work of papias.] [footnote 189: [greek: didachê kurion dia tôn ib' apostolôn] (did. inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2 pet. iii. 2). instead of this might be said simply [greek: ho kurios] (hegesipp.). hegesippus (euseb. h. e. iv. 22. 3; see also steph. gob.) comprehends the ultimate authorities under the formula: [greek: hôs ho nomos kêrussei kai hoi prophêtai kai ho kurios], just as even pseudo clem de virg. i. 2: "sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro jesu christo didicimus." polycarp (6.3) says: [greek: kathôs autos eneteilato kaì hoi euangelisamenoi hêmas apostoloi kai hoi prophêtai hoi prokêruxantes tên eleusin tou kuriou hêmôn]. in the second epistle of clement (14. 2) we read: [greek: ta biblia] (o.t.) [greek: kai hoi apostoloi, to euangelion] may also stand for [greek: ho kurios]; (ignat., didache. 2 clem. etc.). the gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as [greek: ta apomnêmoneumata t. apostolôn] (justin, tatian), or on the other hand, as [greek: hai kuriakai graphai], (dionys. cor. in euseb. h. e. iv. 23. 12: at a later period in tertull. and clem. alex.). the words of the lord, in the same way as the words of god, are called simply [greek: ta logia (kuriaka)]. the declaration of serapion at the beginning of the third century (euseb., h. e. vi. 12. 3): [greek: hêmeis kai petron kai tous allous apostolous apodechometha hôs christon], is an innovation in so far as it puts the words of the apostles fixed in writing and as distinct from the words of the lord, on a level with the latter. that is, while differentiating the one from the other, serapion ascribes to the words of the apostles and those of the lord equal authority. but the development which led to this position, had already begun in the first century. at a very early period there were read in the communities, beside the old testament, gospels, that is collections of words of the lord, which at the same time contained the main facts of the history of jesus. such notes were a necessity (luke 1.4; [greek: hina epignôs peri hôn katêchêthês logôn tên asphaleian]), and though still indefinite and in many ways unlike, they formed the germ for the genesis of the new testament. (see weiss, lehrb. d. einleit in d. n. t. p. 21 ff.). further there were read epistles and manifestoes by apostles, prophets and teachers, but, above all, epistles of paul. the gospels at first stood in no connection with these epistles, however high they might be prized. but there did exist a connection between the gospels and the [greek: ap' archês autoptais kai hupêretais tou logou], so far as these mediated the tradition of the evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the _kerygma_ of the church about the lord as the teacher, the crucified and risen one. here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which will comprehend the lord and the apostles, and will also draw in the pauline epistles. finally, apocalypses were read as holy scriptures.] [footnote 190: read, apart from all others, the canonical gospels, the remains of the so-called apocryphal gospels, and perhaps the shepherd of hermas: see also the statements of papias.] [footnote 191: that peter was in antioch follows from gal. ii.; that he laboured in corinth, perhaps before the composition of the first epistle to the corinthians, is not so improbable as is usually maintained (1 cor.; dionys. of corinth); that he was at rome even is very credible. the sojourn of john in asia minor cannot, i think, be contested.] [footnote 192: see how in the three early "writings of peter" (gospel, apocalypse, _kerygma_) the twelve are embraced in a perfect unity. peter is the head and spokesman for them all.] [footnote 193: see papias and the reliq. presbyter, ap. iren., collecta in patr. opp. i. 2, p. 105: see also zahn, forschungen. iii., p. 156 f.] [footnote 194: the gentile-christian conception of the significance of the twelve--a fact to be specially noted--was all but unanimous (see above chap. ii.): the only one who broke through it was marcion. the writers of asia minor, rome and egypt coincide in this point. beside the acts of the apostles, which is specially instructive, see 1 clem. 42; barn 5. 9, 8. 3: didache inscr.; hermas, vis. iii. 5, 11; sim. ix. 15, 16, 17, 25; petrusev-petrusapok. præd. petr. ap. clem. strom. vi. 6, 48; ignat. ad trall. 3; ad rom 4; ad philad. 5; papias; polyc., aristides; justin _passim_; inferences from the great work of irenæus, the works of tertull. and clem. alex; the valentinians. the inference that follows from the eschatological hope, that the gospel has already been preached to the world, and the growing need of having a tradition mediated by eye-witnesses co-operated here, and out of the twelve who were in great part obscure, but who had once been authoritative in jerusalem and palestine, and highly esteemed in the christian diaspora from the beginning, though unknown, created a court of appeal, which presented itself as not only taking a second rank after the lord himself, but as the medium through which alone the words of the lord became the possession of christendom, as he neither preached to the nations nor left writings. the importance of the twelve in the main body of the church may at any rate be measured by the facts, that the personal activity of jesus was confined to palestine, that he left behind him neither a confession nor a doctrine, and that in this respect the tradition tolerated no more corrections. attempts which were made in this direction, the fiction of a semi-gentile origin of christ, the denial of the davidic sonship, the invention of a correspondence between jesus and abgarus, meetings of jesus with greeks, and much else, belong only in part to the earliest period, and remained as really inoperative as they were uncertain (according to clem. alex., jesus himself is the apostle to the jews; the twelve are the apostles to the gentiles in euseb. h. e. vi. 141). the notion about the twelve apostles evangelising the world in accordance with the commission of jesus, is consequently to be considered as the means by which the gentile christians got rid of the inconvenient fact of the merely local activity of jesus (compare how justin expresses himself about the apostles: their going out into all the world is to him one of the main articles predicted in the old testament, apol. 1. 39; compare also the apology of aristides, c. 2, and the passage of similar tenor in the ascension of isaiah, where the "adventus xii. discipulorum" is regarded as one of the fundamental facts of salvation, c. 3. 13, ed. dillmann, p 13, and a passage such as iren. fragm. xxix. in harvey ii., p. 494, where the parable about the grain of mustard seed is applied to the [greek: logos epouranios] and the twelve apostles; the apostles are the branches [greek: hup' hôn kladôn skepasthentes hoi pantes hôs ornea hupo kalian sunelthonta metelabon tês ex autôn proerchomenês edôdimou kai epouraniou trophês] hippol. de antichr. 61. orig. c. cels. iii. 28). this means, as it was empty of contents, was very soon to prove the most convenient instrument for establishing ever new historical connections, and legitimising the _status quo_ in the communities. finally, the whole catholic idea of tradition was rooted in that statement which was already, at the close of the first century, formulated by clement of rome (c. 42): [greek: hoi apostoloi hêmin euêngelisthêsan apo tou kuriou iêsou christou, iêsous ho christos apo tou theou exepemphthê. ho christos oun apo tou theou, kai hoi apostoloi apo tou christou; egenonto oun amphotera eutaktôs ek thelêmatos theou, k.t.l.] here, as in all similar statements which elevate the apostles into the history of revelation, the unanimity of all the apostles is always presupposed, so that the statement of clem. alex. (strom vii., 17, 108: [greek: mia hê pantôn gegone tôn apostolôn hôsper didaskalia houtôs de kai hê paradosis], see tertull., de præscr. 32: "apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent," iren. alii), contains no innovation, but gives expression to an old idea: that the twelve unitedly proclaimed one and the same message, that they proclaimed it to the world, that they were chosen to this vocation by christ, that the communities possess the witness of the apostles as their rule of conduct (excerp. ex theod. 25 [greek: hosper hupo tôn zôdion hê genesis dioikeitai houtôs hupo tôn apostolôn hê anagennêsis]) are authoritative theses which can be traced back as far as we have any remains of gentile-chnstian literature. it was thereby presupposed that the unanimous _kerygma_ of the twelve apostles which the communities possess as [greek: kanôn tês paradoseôs] (1 clem. 7), was public and accessible to all. yet the idea does not seem to have been everywhere kept at a distance that besides the _kerygma_ a still deeper knowledge was transmitted by the apostles or by certain apostles to particular christians who were specially gifted. of course we have no direct evidence of this, but the connection in which certain gnostic unions stood at the beginning with the communities developing themselves to catholicism and inferences from utterances of later writers (clem. alex. tertull.), make it probable that this conception was present in the communities here and there even in the age of the so-called apostolic fathers. it may be definitely said that the peculiar idea of tradition ([greek: theos--christos--hoi dodeka apostoloi--ekklêsiai]) in the gentile churches is very old but that it was still limited in its significance at the beginning and was threatened (1) by a wider conception of the idea 'apostle' (besides, the fact is important that asia minor and rome were the very places where a stricter idea of apostle made its appearance. see my edition of the didache, p. 117), (2) by free prophets and teachers moved by the spirit, who introduced new conceptions and rules and whose word was regarded as the word of god, (3) by the assumption not always definitely rejected, that besides the public tradition of the _kerygma_ there was a secret tradition. that paul as a rule was not included in this high estimate of the apostles is shewn by this fact among others, that the earlier apocryphal acts of the apostles are much less occupied with his person than with the rest of the apostles. the features of the old legends which make the apostles in their deeds, their fate, nay even in appearance as far as possible, equal to the person of jesus himself deserve special consideration (see, for example the descent of the apostles into hell in herm. sim. ix. 16), for it is just here that the fact above established that the activity of the apostles was to make up for the want of the activity of jesus himself among the nations stands clearly out (see acta johannis ed. zahn p 246 [greek: ho eklexamenos hêmas eis apostolên ethnôn ho ekpempsas hêmas eis tên oikoumenen theos ho deixas heauton dia tôn apostolôn] also the remarkable declaration of origen about the chronicle of phlegon [hadrian], that what holds good of christ, is in that chronicle transferred to peter; finally we may recall to mind the visions in which an apostle suddenly appears as christ). between the judgment of value [greek: hêmeis tous apostolous apodechometha hôs christon] and those creations of fancy in which the apostles appear as gods and demigods there is certainly a great interval but it can be proved that there are stages lying between these extreme points. it is therefore permissible to call to mind here the oldest apocryphal acts of the apostles although they may have originated almost completely in gnostic circles (see also the pistis sophia which brings a metaphysical theory to the establishment of the authority of the apostles, p. 11, 14; see texte u unters vii. 2 p. 61 ff.). gnosticism here as frequently elsewhere is related to common christianity as excess progressing to the invention of a myth with a tendency to a historical theorem determined by the effort to maintain one's own position; cf. the article from the _kerygma_ of peter in clem. strom. vi. 6, 48 [greek: exelexamên humas dôdeka mathêtas, k.t.l.] the introduction to the basal writing of the first 6 books of the apostolic constitutions and the introduction to the egyptian ritual, [greek: kata keleusin tou kuriou humôn k.t.l.] besides it must be admitted that the origin of the idea of tradition and its connection with the twelve is obscure; what is historically reliable here has still to be investigated, even the work of seufert (der urspr. u. d. bedeutung des apostolats in der christl kirche der ersten zwei jahrhunderte, 1887) has not cleared up the dark points. we will perhaps get more light by following the important hint given by weizsäcker (apost. age p. 13 ff.) that peter was the first witness of the resurrection, and was called such in the _kerygma_ of the communities (see 1 cor. xv., 5 luke xxiv. 34). the twelve apostles are also further called [greek: hoi peri ton petron] (mrc. fin. in l ign. ad smyrn. 3, cf. luke viii. 45, acts ii. 14, gal. i. 18 f., 1 cor. xv. 5), and it is a correct historical reminiscence when chrysostom says (hom. in joh. 88), [greek: ho petros ekêritos ên tôn apostolôn kai stoma tôn mathêtôn kai koruphê tou chorou.] now as peter was really in personal relation with important gentile-christian communities, that which held good of him, the recognized head and spokesman of the twelve, was perhaps transferred to these. one has finally to remember that besides the appeal to the twelve there was in the gentile churches an appeal to peter and paul (but not for the evangelic _kerygma_) which has a certain historical justification, cf. gal. ii. 8, 1 cor. i. 12 f., ix. 5, 1 clem. ign. ad rom. 4 and the numerous later passages. paul in claiming equality with peter, though peter was the head and mouth of the twelve and had himself been active in mission work, has perhaps contributed most towards spreading the authority of the twelve. it is notable how rarely we find any special appeal to john in the tradition of the main body of the church. for the middle of the 2nd century the authority of the twelve apostles may be expressed in the following statements: (1) they were missionaries for the world, (2) they ruled the church and established church offices, (3) they guaranteed the true doctrine (a) by the tradition going back to them, (b) by writings, (4) they are the ideals of christian life, (5) they are also directly mediators of salvation--though this point is uncertain.] [footnote 195: see didache c. 1-10, with parallel passages.] [footnote 196: cf., for example, the first epistle of clement to the corinthians with the shepherd of hermas. both documents originated in rome.] [footnote 197: compare how dogmatic and ethical elements are inseparably united in the shepherd, in first and second clement, as well as in polycarp and justin.] [footnote 198: note the hymnal parts of the revelation of john, the great prayer with which the first epistle of clement closes, the "carmen dicere christo quasi deo," reported by pliny, the eucharist prayer in the [greek: didachê], the hymn 1 tim. iii. 16, the fragments from the prayers which justin quotes, and compare with these the declaration of the anonymous writer in euseb. h. e. v. 28. 5, that the belief of the earliest christians in the deity of christ might be proved from the old christian hymns and odes. in the epistles of ignatius the theology frequently consists of an aimless stringing together of articles manifestly originating in hymns and the cultus.] [footnote 199: the prophet and teacher express what the spirit of god suggests to them. their word is therefore god's word, and their writings, in so far as they apply to the whole of christendom, are inspired, holy writings. further, not only does acts xv. 22 f. exhibit the formula [greek: edoxen tôi pneumati tôi hagiôi kai hêmin] (see similar passages in the acts), but the roman writings also appeal to the holy spirit (1 clem. 63. 2): likewise barnabas, ignatius, etc. even in the controversy about the baptism of heretics a bishop gave his vote with the formula: "secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti" (cypr. opp. ed. hartel, i. p. 457).] [footnote 200: the so-called chiliasm--the designation is unsuitable and misleading--is found wherever the gospel is not yet hellenised (see, for example, barn. 4. 15; hermas; 2 clem.; papias [euseb. iii. 39]; [greek: didachê], 10. 16; apoc. petri; justin. dial. 32, 51, 80, 82, 110, 139; cerinthus), and must be regarded as a main element of the christian preaching (see my article "millenium" in the encycl. brit.) in it lay not the least of the power of christianity in the first century, and the means whereby it entered the jewish propaganda in the empire and surpassed it. the hopes springing out of judaism were at first but little modified, that is, only so far as the substitution of the christian communities for the nation of israel made modification necessary. in all else even the details of the jewish hopes of the future were retained, and the extra-canonical jewish apocalypses (esra, enoch, baruch, moses, etc.) were diligently read alongside of daniel. their contents were in part joined on to sayings of jesus and they served as models for similar productions (here therefore an enduring connection with the jewish religion is very plain). in the christian hopes of the future as in the jewish eschatology may be distinguished essential and accidental fixed and fluid elements. to the former belong: (1) the notion of a final fearful conflict with the powers of the world which is just about to break out [greek: to teleion skandalon engiken], (2) belief in the speedy return of christ, (3) the conviction that after conquering the secular power (this was variously conceived as god's ministers as that which restrains--2 thess. ii. 6, as a pure kingdom of satan see the various estimates in justin, melito, irenæus and hippolytus) christ will establish a glorious kingdom on the earth and will raise the saints to share in that kingdom, and (4) that he will finally judge all men. to the fluid elements belong the notions of the antichrist or of the secular power culminating in the antichrist as well as notions about the place, the extent, and the duration of christ's glorious kingdom. but it is worthy of special note that justin regarded the belief that christ will set up his kingdom in jerusalem, and that it will endure for 1000 years, as a necessary element of orthodoxy, though he confesses he knew christians who did not share this belief, while they did not like the pseudo christians reject also the resurrection of the body (the promise of montanus that christ's kingdom would be let down at pepuza and tymion is a thing by itself and answers to the other promises and pretensions of montanus). the resurrection of the body is expressed in the roman symbol while very notably the hope of christ's earthly kingdom is not there mentioned (see above p. 157). the great inheritance which the gentile christian communities received from judaism is the eschatological hopes along with the monotheism assured by revelation and belief in providence. the law as a national law was abolished. the old testament became a new book in the hands of the gentile christians. on the contrary the eschatological hopes in all their details and with all the deep shadows which they threw on the state and public life were at first received and maintained themselves in wide circles pretty much unchanged and only succumbed in some of their details--just as in judaism--to the changes which resulted from the constant change of the political situation. but these hopes were also destined in great measure to pass away after the settlement of christianity on græco-roman soil. we may set aside the fact that they did not occupy the foreground in paul, for we do not know whether this was of importance for the period that followed. but that christ would set up the kingdom in jerusalem, and that it would be an earthly kingdom with sensuous enjoyments--these and other notions contend on the one hand with the vigorous antijudaism of the communities, and on the other with the moralistic spiritualism, in the pure carrying out of which the gentile christians in the east at least increasingly recognised the essence of christianity. only the vigorous world renouncing enthusiasm which did not permit the rise of moralistic spiritualism and mysticism, and the longing for a time of joy and dominion that was born of it, protected for a long time a series of ideas which corresponded to the spiritual disposition of the great multitude of converts only at times of special oppression. moreover the christians in opposition to judaism were, as a rule, instructed to obey magistrates whose establishment directly contradicted the judgment of the state contained in the apocalypses. in such a conflict however that judgment necessarily conquers at last which makes as little change as possible in the existing forms of life. a history of the gradual attenuation and subsidence of eschatologlcal hopes in the ii.-iv. centuries can only be written in fragments. they have rarely--at best by fits and starts--marked out the course. on the contrary if i may say so they only gave the smoke, for the course was pointed out by the abiding elements of the gospel, trust in god and the lord christ, the resolution to a holy life, and a firm bond of brotherhood. the quiet gradual change, in which the eschatologlcal hopes passed away fell into the background or lost important parts, was on the other hand a result of deep reaching changes in the faith and life of christendom. chiliasm as a power was broken up by speculative mysticism and on that account very much later in the west than in the east. but speculative mysticism has its centre in christology. in the earliest period this as a theory belonged more to the defence of religion than to religion itself. ignatius alone was able to reflect on that transference of power from christ which paul had experienced. the disguises in which the apocalyptic eschatologlcal prophecies were set forth belonged in part to the form of this literature (in so far as one could easily be given the lie if he became too plain or in so far as the prophet really saw the future only in large outline) partly it had to be chosen in order not to give political offence. see hippol. comm. in daniel (georgiades, p. 49, 51. [greek: noein opheilomen ta kata kairon sumbainonta kai eidotas siôpan]), but above all constantine orat. ad s. coetum 19, on some verses of virgil which are interpreted in a christian sense but that none of the rulers in the capital might be able to accuse their author of violating the laws of the state with his poetry or of destroying the traditional ideas of the procedure about the gods he concealed the truth under a veil. that holds good also of the apocalyptists and the poets of the christian sibylline sayings.] [footnote 201: the hope of the resurrection of the body (1 clem. 26. 3 [greek: anasteseis ten sarka mou tauten], herm. sim. v. 7. 2 [greek: blepe mêtote anabê epi tên kardian sou tên sarka sou tautên phthartên einai]. barn. 5. 6 f., 21. 1, 2 clem. 9. 1 [greek: kai mê legetô tis humôn oti hautê hê sarx ou krinetai oude anistatai]. polyc. ep. 7. 2, justin dial. 80, etc.) finds its place originally in the hope of a share in the glorious kingdom of christ. it therefore disappears or is modified wherever that hope itself falls into the background. but it finally asserted itself through out and became of independent importance in a new structure of eschatologlcal expectations in which it attained the significance of becoming the specific conviction of christian faith. with the hope of the resurrection of the body was originally connected the hope of a happy life in easy blessedness under green trees in magnificent fields with joyous feeding flocks and flying angels clothed in white. one must read the revelation of peter the shepherd or the acts of perpetua and felicitas in order to see how entirely the fancy of many christians and not merely of those who were uncultured dwelt in a fairyland in which they caught sight now of the ancient of days and now of the youthful shepherd christ. the most fearful delineations of the torments of hell formed the reverse side to this. we now know through the apocalypse of peter, how old these delineations are.] [footnote 202: the perfect knowledge of the truth and eternal life are connected in the closest way (see p. 144, note 1) because the father of truth is also prince of life (see diognet. 12: [greek: oude gar zôê aneu gnôseôs oude gnôsis asphalês aneu zôês alêthous dio plêsion ekateron pephyteutai], see also what follows). the classification is a hellenic one, which has certainly penetrated also into palestinian jewish theology. it may be reckoned among the great intuitions, which in the fulness of the times, united the religious and reflective minds of all nations. the pauline formula, "where there is forgiveness of sin, there also is life and salvation", had for centuries no distinct history. but the formula, "where there is truth, perfect knowledge, there also is eternal life", has had the richest history in christendom from the beginning. quite apart from john, it is older than the theology of the apologists (see, for example, the supper prayer in the didache, 9. 10, where there is no mention of the forgiveness of sin, but thanks are given, [greek: huper tês gnôseôs kai pisteôs kai athanasias hês egnôrisen hêmin ho theos dia iêsou], or [greek: huper tês zôês kai gnôseôs], and 1 clem. 36. 2: [greek: dia touto êthelêsen ho despotes tês athanatou gnôseôs hêmas geusasthai]). it is capable of a very manifold content, and has never made its way in the church without reservations, but so far as it has we may speak of a hellenising of christianity. this is shewn most clearly in the fact that the [greek: athanasia], identical with [greek: aphtharsia] and [greek: zôê aiônios], as is proved by their being often interchanged, gradually supplanted the [greek: basileia tou theou] ([greek: christou]) and thrust it out of the sphere of religious intuition and hope into that of religious speech. it should also be noted, at the same time, that in the hope of eternal life which is bestowed with the knowledge of the truth, the resurrection of the body is by no means with certainty included. it is rather added to it (see above) from another series of ideas. conversely, the words [greek: zôên aiônion] were first added to the words [greek: sarkos anastasin] in the western symbols at a comparatively late period, while in the prayers they are certainly very old.] [footnote 203: even the assumption of such a remission is fundamentally in contradiction with moralism; but that solitary remission of sin was not called in question, was rather regarded as distinctive of the new religion, and was established by an appeal to the omnipotence and special goodness of god, which appears just in the calling of sinners. in this calling, grace as grace is exhausted (barn. 5. 9; 2 clem. 2. 4-7). but this grace itself seems to be annulled, inasmuch as the sins committed before baptism were regarded as having been committed in a state of ignorance (tertull. de bapt. i.: delicta pristinæ cæcitatis), on account of which it seemed worthy of god to forgive them, that is, to accept the repentance which followed on the ground of the new knowledge. so considered, everything, in point of fact, amounts to the gracious gift of knowledge, and the memory of the saying, "jesus receiveth sinners", is completely obscured. but the tradition of this saying and many like it, and above all, the religious instinct, where it was more powerfully stirred, did not permit a consistent development of that moralistic conception. see for this, hermas, sim. v. 7. 3: [greek: perì tôn proterôn agnoêmatôn tôi theôi monôi dunaton iasin dounai; autou gar esti pasa exousia]. præd. petri ap. clem. strom. vi. 6. 48: [greek: hosa en agnoia tis humôn epoiêsen mê eidôs saphôs ton theon, ean epignous metanoêsêi, panta autôi aphethêsetai ta hamartêmata]. aristides, apol. 17: "the christians offer prayers (for the unconverted greeks) that they may be converted from their error. but when one of them is converted he is ashamed before the christians of the works which he has done. and he confesses to god, saying: 'i have done these things in ignorance.' and he cleanses his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he had done them in ignorance, in the earlier period when he mocked and jeered at the true knowledge of the christians." exactly the same in tertull. de pudic. so. init. the statement of this same writer (1. c. fin), "cessatio delicti radix est veniæ, ut venia sit pænitentiæ fructus", is a pregnant expression of the conviction of the earliest gentile christians.] [footnote 204: this idea appears with special prominence in the epistle of barnabas (see 6. 11. 14); the new formation ([greek: anaplassein]) results through the forgiveness of sin. in the moralistic view the forgiveness of sin is the result of the renewal that is spontaneously brought about on the ground of knowledge shewing itself in penitent feeling.] [footnote 205: barn. 2. 6, and my notes on the passage.] [footnote 206: james i. 25.] [footnote 207: hermas. sim. viii. 3. 2; justin dial. ii. 43; præd. petri in clem., strom. i. 29. 182; ii. 15. 68.] [footnote 208: didache, c. 1., and my notes on the passage (prolegg. p. 45 f.).] [footnote 209: the concepts, [greek: epangelia, gnôsis, nomos], form the triad on which the later catholic conception of christianity is based, though it can be proved to have been in existence at an earlier period. that [greek: pistis] must everywhere take the lead was undoubted, though we must not think of the pauline idea of [greek: pistis]. when the apostolic fathers reflect upon faith, which, however, happens only incidentally, they mean a holding for true of a sum of holy traditions, and obedience to them, along with the hope that their consoling contents will yet be fully revealed. but ignatius speaks like a christian who knows what he possesses in faith in christ, that is, in confidence in him. in barn. 1, polyc. ep. 2, we find "faith, hope, love"; in ignatius, "faith and love." tertullian, in an excellent exposition, has shewn how far patience is a temper corresponding to christian faith (see besides the epistle of james).] [footnote 210: see lipsius de clementis r. ep. ad. cor. priore disquis. 1855. it would be in point of method inadmissible to conclude from the fact that in 1 clem. pauline formulæ are relatively most faithfully produced, that gentile christianity generally understood pauline theology at first, but gradually lost this understanding in the course of two generations.] [footnote 211: formally: [greek: têrêsate tên sarka agnên kai tên sphragida aspilon] (2 clem. 8. 6).] [footnote 212: hermas (mand. iv. 3) and justin presuppose it. hermas of course sought and found a way of meeting the results of that idea which were threatening the church with decimation; but he did not question the idea itself. because christendom is a community of saints which has in its midst the sure salvation, all its members--this is the necessary inference--must lead a sinless life.] [footnote 213: the formula, "righteousness by faith alone", was really repressed in the second century; but it could not be entirely destroyed: see my essay, "gesch. d. seligkeit allein durch den glauben in der alten k." ztsch. f. theol. u kirche. i. pp. 82-105.] [footnote 214: the only thorough discussion of the use of the old testament by an apostolic father, and of its authority, that we possess, is wrede's "untersuchungen zum 1 clemensbrief" (1891). excellent preliminary investigations, which, however, are not everywhere quite reliable, may be found in hatch's essays in biblical greek, 1889. hatch has taken up again the hypothesis of earlier scholars, that there were very probably in the first and second centuries systematised extracts from the old testament (see p. 203-214). the hypothesis is not yet quite established (see wrede, above work, p. 65), but yet it is hardly to be rejected. the jewish catechetical and missionary instruction in the diaspora needed such collections, and their existence seem to be proved by the christian apologies and the sybilline books.] [footnote 215: it is an extremely important fact that the words of the lord were quoted and applied in their literal sense (that is chiefly for the statement of christian morality) by ecclesiastical authors, almost without exception, up to and inclusive of justin. it was different with the theologians of the age, that is the gnostics, and the fathers from irenæus.] [footnote 216: justin was not the first to do so, for it had already been done by the so-called barnabas (see especially c. 13) and others. on the proofs from prophecy see my texte und unters. bd. i. 3. pp. 56-74. the passage in the praed. petri (clem. strom. vi. 15. 128) is very complete: [greek: hêmis anaptixantes tas biblous tas eichomen tôn prophêtôn, ha men dia parabolôn ha de dia ainigmatôn, ha de authentikôs kai autolexei ton christon iêsoun onomazontôn, euromen kai tên parousian autou kai ton thanaton kai ton stauron kai tas loipas kolaseis pasas, hosas epoiêsan autô hoi ioudaioi, kai tên egersin kai tên eis ouranous analêpsin pro tou hiersoluma krithênai, kathôs egegrapto tauta panta ha edei auton pathein kai met' auton ha estai; tauta oun epignontes episteusamen tô theô dia tôn gegrammennôn eis auton.] with the help of the old testament the teachers dated back the christian religion to the beginning of the human race, and joined the preparations for the founding of the christian community with the creation of the world. the apologists were not the first to do so, for barnabas and hermas, and before these, paul, the author of the epistle to the hebrews, and others had already done the same. this was undoubtedly to the cultured classes one of the most impressive articles in the missionary preaching. the christian religion in this way got a hold which the others--with the exception of the jewish--lacked. but for that very reason, we must guard against turning it into a formula, that the gentile christians had comprehended the old testament essentially through the scheme of prediction and fulfilment. the old testament is certainly the book of predictions, but for that very reason the complete revelation of god which needs no additions and excludes subsequent changes. the historical fulfilment only proves to the world the truth of those revelations. even the scheme of shadow and reality is yet entirely out of sight. in such circumstances the question necessarily arises, as to what independent meaning and significance christ's appearance could have, apart from that confirmation of the old testament. but, apart from the gnostics, a surprisingly long time passed before this question was raised, that is to say, it was not raised till the time of irenæus.] [footnote 217: see [greek: didachê], 8.] [footnote 218: see the revelation of john ii. 9; iii. 9; but see also the "jews" in the gospels of john and of peter. the latter exonerates pilate almost completely, and makes the jews and herod responsible for the crucifixion.] [footnote 219: see barn. 9. 4. in the second epistle of clement the jews are called: [greek: hoi dokiountes echein theon], cf. præd. petri in clem., strom. vi. 5. 41: [greek: mêde kata ioudaious sebesthe, kai gar ekeinoi monoi oiomenoi ton theon gignôskein ouk epistantai, latreuontes angelois kai archangelois, mênì kai selênê, kaì ean mê selênê phanêi, sabbaton ouk agousi to legomenon prôton, oude neomênian agousin, oude azuma, oude heortên, oude megalên hêmera]. (cf. diognet. 34.) even justin does not judge the jews more favourably than the gentiles, but less favourably; see apol i. 37, 39, 43, 34, 47, 53, 60. on the other hand, aristides (apol. c. 14, especially in the syrian text) is much more friendly disposed to the jews and recognises them more. the words of pionius against and about the jews, in the "acta pionii," c. 4, are very instructive.] [footnote 220: barn. 4. 6. f.; 14. 1 f. the author of præd. petri must have had a similar view of the matter.] [footnote 221: justin in the dialogue with trypho.] [footnote 222: barn. 9 f. it is a thorough misunderstanding of barnabas' position towards the old testament to suppose it possible to pass over his expositions, c. 6-10, as oddities and caprices, and put them aside as indifferent or unmethodical. there is nothing here unmethodical, and therefore nothing arbitrary. barnabas' strictly spiritual idea of god, and the conviction that all (jewish) ceremonies are of the devil, compel his explanations. these are so little ingenious conceits to barnabas that, but for them, he would have been forced to give up the old testament altogether. the account, for example, of abraham having circumcised his slaves would have forced barnabas to annul the whole authority of the old testament if he had not succeeded in giving it a particular interpretation. he does this by combining other passages of genesis with the narrative, and then finding in it no longer circumcision, but a prediction of the crucified christ.] [footnote 223: barn. 9. 6: [greek: all' ereis, kai mên peritetmêtai ho laos eis sphragida].] [footnote 224: see the expositions of justin in the dial. (especially, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40-46); von engelhardt, "christenthum justin's", p. 429, ff. justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) that the ceremonial law was a pædagogic measure of god with reference to a stiff-necked people, prone to idolatry. (2) that it--like circumcision--was to make the people conspicuous for the execution of judgment, according to the divine appointment. (3) that in the ceremonial legal worship of the jews is exhibited the special depravity and wickedness of the nation. but justin conceived the decalogue as the natural law of reason, and therefore definitely distinguished it from the ceremonial law.] [footnote 225: see ztschr fur k.g. i., p. 330 f.] [footnote 226: this is the unanimous opinion of all writers of the post-apostolic age. christians are the true israel; and therefore all israel's predicates of honour belong to them. they are the twelve tribes, and therefore abraham, isaac and jacob, are the fathers of the christians. this idea, about which there was no wavering, cannot everywhere be traced back to the apostle paul. the old testament men of god were in a certain measure christians. see ignat. magn. 8. 2: [greek: hoi prophêtai kata christon iêsoun ezêsan].] [footnote 227: god was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove (e.g., orig. contra melito; see also tertull. de anima). in the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of god may be traced back to stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the old testament literally understood, and the impression of the apocalyptic images.] [footnote 228: see joh. iv. 22, [greek: hêmeis proskunoumen ho oidamen]. 1 clem. 59. 3, 4, herm. mand. i., præd petri in clem., strom. vi. 5. 9 [greek: ginôskete hoti eis theos estin, hos archên pantôn epoiêsen, kai telous exousian echôn]. aristides apol. 15 (syr) "the christians know and believe in god, the creator of heaven and of earth." chap. 16 "christians as men who know god pray to him for things which it becomes him to give and them to receive." similarly justin: "from very many old gentile christian writings we hear it as a cry of joy 'we know god the almighty, the night of blindness is past'" (see, e.g., 2 clem. c. 1). god is [greek: despotês], a designation which is very frequently used (it is rare in the new testament). still more frequently do we find [greek: kurios]. as the lord and creator god is also called the father (of the world) so 1 clem. 19. 2 [greek: ho patêr kai ktistês tou sumpantos kosmou]; 35. 3 [greek: dêmiourgos kai patêr tôn aiônôn]. this use of the name father for the supreme god was as is well known familiar to the greeks, but the christians alone were in earnest with the name. the creation out of nothing was made decidedly prominent by hermas, see vis. i. 1. 6 and my notes on the passage. in the christian apocrypha, in spite of the vividness of the idea of god, the angels play the same rôle as in the jewish, and as in the current jewish speculations. according to hermas, e.g., all god's actions are mediated by special angels, nay the son of god himself is represented by a special angel, viz. michael, and works by him. but outside the apocalypses there seems to have been little interest in the good angels.] [footnote 229: see, for example 1 clem. 20.] [footnote 230: this is frequent in the apologists, see also diogn. 10. 2; but hermas, vis. ii. 4. 1 (see also cels. ap orig. iv. 23) says [greek: dia tên ekklêsian ho kosmos katêrtisthê] (cf. i. 1. 6 and my notes on the passage). aristides (apol. 16) declares it as his conviction that "the beautiful things, that is, the world are maintained only for the sake of christians," see besides the words (i. c.), "i have no doubt that the earth continues to exist (only) on account of the prayers of the christians." even the jewish apocalyptists wavered between the formulæ, that the world was created for the sake of man and for the sake of the jewish nation. the two are not mutually exclusive. the statement in the eucharistic prayer of didache, 9. 3 [greek: ektisas ta panta heneken tou onomatos sou] is singular.] [footnote 231: god is named the father, (1) in relation to the son (very frequent) (2) as father of the world (see above) (3) as the merciful one who has proved his goodness, declared his will and called christians to be his sons (1 clem. 23. 1, 29. 1, 2 clem. 1. 4, 8. 4, 10. 1, 14. 1, see the index to zahn's edition of the ignatian epistles, didache, 1. 5, 9. 2, 3, 10. 2). the latter usage is not very common, it is entirely wanting for example in the epistle of barnabas. moreover god is also called [greek: patêr tês alêtheias] as the source of all truth (2 clem. 3. 1, 20. 5 [greek: theos to alêtheias]). the identity of the almighty god of creation with the merciful god of redemption is the tacit presupposition of all declarations about god in the case of both the cultured and the uncultured. it is also frequently expressed (see above all the pastoral epistles), most frequently by hermas (vis. 1. 3. 4) so far as the declaration about the creation of the world is there united in the closest way with that about the creation of the holy church. as to the designation of god in the roman symbol as the "father almighty," that threefold exposition just given, may perhaps allow it.] [footnote 232: the present dominion of evil demons or of one evil demon, was just as generally presupposed as man's need of redemption, which was regarded as a result of that dominion. the conviction that the world's course (the [greek: politeia en tô kosmô], the latins afterwards used the word sæculum) is determined by the devil, and that the dark one (barnabas) has dominion, comes out most prominently where eschatological hopes obtain expression. but where salvation is thought of as knowledge and immortality, it is ignorance and frailty from which men are to be delivered. we may here also assume with certainty that these, in the last instance, were traced back by the writers to the action of demons. but it makes a very great difference whether the judgment was ruled by fancy which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in consequence of theoretic reflection, it based the impression of universal ignorance and mortality on the assumption of demons who have produced them. here again we must note the two series of ideas which intertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest period, the traditional religious series resting on a fanciful view of history--it is essentially identical with the jewish apocalyptic, see, for example barn 4--and the empiric moralistic, (see 2 clem. 1. 2-7, as a specially valuable discussion, or praed. petri in clem, strom. vi. 5, 39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen into ignorance, weakness and death (2 clem. 1. 6 [greek: ho bios hêmôn holos allo ouden ên ei mê thanatos]). but perhaps, in no other point, with the exception of the [greek: anastasis sarkos] has the religious conception remained so tenacious as in this and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the epoch with which we are now dealing. its tenacity may be explained, among other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that surrounded the communities on every side. even where the national gods were looked upon as dead idols--and that was perhaps the rule, see praed. petri. i. c, 2 clem. 3. 1, didache, 6--one could not help assuming that there were mighty demons operative behind them, as otherwise the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. but on the other hand, even a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to all religious excess must have welcomed the assumption of demons who sought to rule the world and man. for by means of this assumption which was wide-spread even among the greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity for redemption could therefore be justified in its widest range. from the assumption that the need of redemption was altogether due to ignorance and mortality there was but one step, or little more than one step, to the assumption that the need of redemption was grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible, that is, in the flesh. but this step which would have led either to dualism (heretical gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction between natural and moral, was not taken within the main body of the church. the eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that death evil and sin entered into humanity at a definite historical moment when the demons took possession of the world drew a limit which was indeed overstepped at particular points but was in the end respected. we have therefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early christian (jewish) eschatology called forth and maintained a disposition in which the kingdom of god, and that of the world, (kingdom of the devil) were felt to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other hand, it rejected theoretic dualism. redemption through christ, however, was conceived in the eschatological apocalyptic series of ideas as essentially something entirely in the future, for the power of the devil was not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken in believers and increased in unbelievers), by the first advent of christ, and therefore the period between the first and second advent of christ belongs to [greek: houtos ho aiôn] (see barn. 2. 4; herm. sim 1; 2 clem. 6. 3: [greek: estin de houtos ho aiôn kai ho mellôn duo echthroi; houtos legei moicheian kai phthoran kai philargourian kai apatên, ekeinos de toutois apostassetai], ignat. magn. 5. 2). for that very reason, the second coming of christ must, as a matter of course, be at hand, for only through it could the first advent get its full value. the painful impression that nothing had been outwardly changed by christ's first advent (the heathen, moreover, pointed this out in mockery to the suffering christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy coming again. but the first advent had its independent significance in the series of ideas which regarded christ as redeeming man from ignorance and mortality; for the knowledge was already given, and the gift of immortality could only of course be dispensed after this life was ended, but then immediately. the hope of christ's return was therefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because there was still a lively expectation of christ's earthly kingdom.] [footnote 233: no other name adhered to christ so firmly as that of [greek: kurios]; see a specially clear evidence of this, novatian de trinit. 30, who argues against the adoptian and modalistic heretics thus: "et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum controversiam facere præsumunt. scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: 'quoniam unus est dominus.' de christo ergo quid sentiunt? dominum esse, aut illum omnino non esse? sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini." on [greek: kurios--despotês], see above, p. 119, note.] [footnote 234: specially instructive examples of this are found in the epistle of barnabas and the second epistle of clement. clement (ep. 1) speaks only of faith in god.] [footnote 235: see 1 clem. 59-61. [greek: didachê], c. 9. 10. yet novatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, "si homo tantummodo christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad præstandam salutem inefficax judicetur." as the mediator, high priest, etc., christ is of course always and everywhere invoked by the christians, but such invocations are one thing and formal prayer another. the idea of the congruence of god's will of salvation with the revelation of salvation which took place through christ, was further continued in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of salvation with the universal preaching of the twelve chosen apostles (see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the catholic principle of tradition. but the apostles never became "[greek: hoi kurioi]" though the concepts [greek: didachê (logos) kuriou, didachê (kêrugma) tôn apostolôn] were just as interchangeable as [greek: logos theou] and [greek: logos christou]. the full formula would be [greek: logos theou dia iêsou christou dia tôn apostolôn]. but as the subjects introduced by [greek: dia] are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the abbreviation.] [footnote 236: in the epistle of barnabas "jesus christ" and "christ" appear each once, but "jesus" twelve times: in the didache "jesus christ" once, "jesus" three times. only in the second half of the second century, if i am not mistaken, did the designation "jesus christ", or "christ", become the current one, more and more crowding out the simple "jesus." yet the latter designation--and this is not surprising--appears to have continued longest in the regular prayers. it is worthy of note that in the shepherd there is no mention either of the name jesus or of christ. the gospel of peter also says [greek: ho kurios] where the other gospels use these names.] [footnote 237: see 1 clem. 64: [greek: ho theos, ho eklexamenos ton kurion iêsoun christon kai hêmas di' autou eis laon periousion dôê, k.t.l.] (it is instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is expressed, the community is immediately thought of, for in point of fact the election of the messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the community; barn. 3. 6: [greek: ho laos hon hêtoimasen en tô êgapêmenôi autou]). herm. sim. v. 2: [greek: eklexamenos doulon tina piston kai euareston] v. 6. 5. justin, dial. 48: [greek: mê arneisthai hoti houtos estin ho christos, ean phainêtai hôs anthrôpos ex anthrôpon gennêtheis kai eklogê genomenos eis to christon einai apodeiknuêtai].] [footnote 238: see barn. 14. 5: [greek: iêsous eis touto hêtoimasthê, hina ... hêmas lutrôsamenos ek tou skotous diathêtai en hêmin diathêkên logôi]. the same word concerning the church, i. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: [greek: autos eautô ton laon ton kainon etoimazôn] 14 6.] [footnote 239: "angel" is a very old designation for christ (see justin's dial.) which maintained itself up to the nicean controversy, and is expressly claimed for him in novatian's treatise "de trinit." 11. 25 ff. (the word was taken from old testament passages which were applied to christ). as a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a designation of the nature, but of the office of christ as such, though the matter was never very clear. there were christians who used it as a designation of the nature, and from the earliest times we find this idea contradicted (see the apoc. sophoniæ, ed. stern, 1886, iv. fragment, p 10: "he appointed no angel to come to us, nor archangel, nor any power, but he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our deliverance." cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. diagn. 7. 2: ... [greek: ou, kathaper an tis eikaseien anthrôpos, hypêretên tina pempsas ê angelon ê archonta ê tina tôn diepontôn ta epigeia hê tina tôn pepisteumenôn tas en ouranois dioikêseis, all' auton ton technitên kai dêmiourgon tôn holôn. k.t.l.]). yet it never got the length of a great controversy and as the logos doctrine gradually made way, the designation "angel" became harmless and then vanished.] [footnote 240: [greek: pais] (after isaiah): this designation, frequently united with [greek: iêsous] and with the adjectives [greek: hagios] and [greek: êgapêmenos] (see barn. 3, 6; 4, 3; 4, 8; valent. ap. clem. alex., strom. vi. 6. 52, and the ascensio isaiae), seems to have been at the beginning a usual one. it sprang undoubtedly from the messianic circle of ideas, and at its basis lies the idea of election. it is very interesting to observe how it was gradually put into the background and finally abolished. it was kept longest in the liturgical prayers: see 1 clem. 59. 2; barn. 61. 9. 2; acts iii. 13, 26; iv. 27, 30; didache, 9. 2. 3; mart. polyc. 14. 20; act. pauli et theclæ, 17, 24; sibyl. i. v. 324, 331, 364; diogn. 8, 9, 10: [greek: ho hagapêtos pais] 9; also ep. orig. ad afric. init; clem. strom. vii. 1. 4: [greek: ho monogenês pais], and my note on barn 6. 1. in the didache (9. 2) jesus as well as david is in one statement called "servant of god." barnabas, who calls christ the "beloved", uses the same expression for the church (4. 1. 9); see also ignat ad smyrn. inscr.] [footnote 241: see the old roman symbol and acts x. 42; 2 tim. iv. 1; barn. 7. 2; polyc. ep. 2. 1; 2 clem. 2. 1; hegesipp. in euseb. h. e. iii. 20, 6: justin dial. 118] [footnote 242: there could of course be no doubt that christ meant the "anointed" (even aristides apol. 2 fin., if nestle's correction is right, justin's apol. 1. 4 and similar passages do not justify doubt on that point). but the meaning and the effect of this anointing was very obscure. justin says (apol. ii. 6) [greek: christos men kata to kechristhai kai kosmêsai ta panta di autou ton theon legetai] and therefore (see dial. 76 fin.) finds in this designation an expression of the cosmic significance of christ.] [footnote 243: see the apologists: apost. k.o. (texte. v. unters. ii. 5, p. 25) [greek: proorôntas tous logous tou didaskalou hêmôn], ibid, p. 28 [greek: ote êtêsen ho didaskalos ton arton], ibid. p. 30 [greek: proelegen ote edidasken], apost. constit. (original writing) iii. 6 [greek: autos ho didaskalos hêmôn kai kurios], iii. 7 [greek: ho kurios kai didaskalos hêmôn eipen], iii. 19, iii. 20, v. 12, 1 clem. 13. 1 [greek: tôn logôn tou kuriou iêsou hous elalêsen didaskôn], polyc. ep. 2 [greek: mnêmoneuontes hôn eipen ho kurios didaskôn], ptolem. ad floram 5 [greek: hê didaskalia tou sôtêros].] [footnote 244: the baptismal formula which had been naturalised everywhere in the communities at this period preserved it above all. the addition of [greek: idios prôtotokos] is worthy of notice. [greek: monogenês] (= the only begotten and also the beloved) is not common, it is found only in john, in justin, in the symbol of the romish church and in mart. polyc. (diogn. 10. 3).] [footnote 245: the so-called second epistle of clement begins with the words [greek: adelphoi outôs dei hêmas phronein peri iêsou hôs peri theou, hôs peri kritou zôntôn kai nekrôn] (this order in which the judge appears as the higher is also found in barn. 7. 2), [greek: kai ou dei hêmas mikra phronein peri tês sôtêrias hêmôn; en tô gar phronein hêmas mikra peri autou mikra kai elpizomen labein]. this argumentation (see also the following verses up to ii. 7) is very instructive, for it shews the grounds on which the [greek: phronein peri autou ôs peri theou] was based h. schultz (l. v. d. gottheit christi, p. 25 f.) very correctly remarks. in the second epistle of clement and in the shepherd the christological interest of the writer ends in obtaining the assurance, through faith in christ as the world ruling king and judge that the community of christ will receive a glory corresponding to its moral and ascetic works.] [footnote 246: pliny in his celebrated letter (96) speaks of a "carmen dicere christo quasi deo" on the part of the christians. hermas has no doubt that the chosen servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted as god's son, and therefore has been destined from the beginning, [greek: eis exousian megalên kai kuriotêta], sim. v. 6. 1. but that simply means that he is now in a divine sphere and that one must think of him as of god. but there was no unanimity beyond that. the formula says nothing about the nature or constitution of jesus. it might indeed appear from justin's dialogue that the direct designation of jesus as [greek: theos] (not as [greek: o theos]) was common in the communities, but not only are there some passages in justin himself to be urged against this but also the testimony of other writers. [greek: theos], even without the article, was in no case a usual designation for jesus. on the contrary, it was always quite definite occasions which led them to speak of christ as of a god or as god. in the first place there were old testament passages such as ps. xlv. 8, cx. 1 f. etc. which as soon as they were interpreted in relation to christ led to his getting the predicate [greek: theos]. these passages, with many others taken from the old testament, were used in this way by justin. yet it is very well worth noting that the author of the epistle of barnabas avoided this expression in a passage which must have suggested it (12, 10, 11 on ps. cx. 4) the author of the didache calls him "[greek: o theos dabid]" on the basis of the above psalm. it is manifestly therefore in liturgical formulæ of exalted paradox or living utterances of religious feeling that christ is called god. see ignat. ad rom. 6. 3, [greek: epitrepsate moi mimêtên einai tou pathous tou theou mou] (the [greek: mou] here should be observed), ad eph. 1. 1 [greek: anazôpurêsantes en aimati theou], tatian orat. 13 [greek: diakonos tou peponthotos theou]. as to the celebrated passage 1 clem. ad cor. 2. 10 [greek: ta pathêmata autou] (the [greek: autou] refers to [greek: theos]) we may perhaps observe that that [greek: o theos] stands far apart. however, such a consideration is hardly in place. the passages just adduced shew that precisely the union of suffering (blood, death) with the concept "god"--and only this union--must have been in christendom from a very early period, see acts xx. 28 [greek: tên ekklæsian tou theou hên periepoiêsato dia tou haimatos tou idiou], and from a later period melito, fragm (in routh rel sacra i. 122), [greek: ho theos peponthen hupo dexias israêlitidos], anonym ap euseb h. e. v. 28 11, [greek: ho eusplanchnos theos kai kurios hêmôn iêsous christos ouk ebouleto apolesthai martura tôn idiôn pathêmatôn], test xii. patriarch. (levi. 4) [greek: epi tô pathei tou hupsistou]; tertull. de carne 5, "passiones dei," ad uxor. ii. 3: "sanguine dei." tertullian also speaks frequently of the crucifying of god, the flesh of god, the death of god. (see lightfoot, clem. of rome, p. 400, sq.). these formulæ were first subjected to examination in the patripassian controversy. they were rejected by athanasius for example in the fourth century (cf. apollin. ii. 13, 14, opp. i. p. 758) [greek: pôs oun gegraphate hoti theos ho dia sarkos pathôn kai anastas, ... oudamou de haima theou dicha sarkos paradedôkasin hai graphai ê theon dia sarkos pathonta kai anastanta]. they continued in use in the west and became of the utmost significance in the christological controversies of the fifth century. it is not quite certain whether there is a theologia christi in such passages as tit. ii. 13, 2 pet. i. 1 (see the controversies on rom. ix. 5). finally [greek: theos] and christus were often interchanged in religious discourse (see above). in the so called second epistle of clement (c. 1. 4) the dispensing of right knowledge is traced back to christ. it is said of him that like a father, he has called us children, he has delivered us, he has called us into existence out of non-existence and in this god himself is not thought of. indeed he is called (2. 2. 3) the hearer of prayer and the controller of history, but immediately thereon a saying of the lord is introduced as a saying of god (matt. ix. 13). on the contrary isaiah xxix. 13 is quoted (3. 5) as a declaration of jesus, and again (13. 4) a saying of the lord with the formula [greek: legei o theos]. it is christ who pitied us (3. 1, 16. 2), he is described simply as the lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1, 8. 2, 9. 5 etc). not only is there frequent mention of the [greek: entolai] ([greek: entalmata]) of christ, but 6. 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a [greek: poiein to thelêma tou christou]. above all, in the entire first division (up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated as if it were something essentially between the believer and christ. on the other hand, (10. 1), the father is he who calls (see also 16. 1), who brings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as sons (9. 10; 16. 1); he has given us promises (11. 1, 6. 7.); we expect his kingdom, nay, the day of his appearing (12. 1 f.; 6. 9; 9. 6; 11. 7; 12. 1). he will judge the world, etc.; while in 17. 4. we read of the day of christ's appearing, of his kingdom and of his function of judge, etc. where the preacher treats of the relation of the community to god, where he describes the religious situation according to its establishment or its consummation, where he desires to rule the religious and moral conduct, he introduces, without any apparent distinction, now god himself, and now christ. but this religious view, in which acts of god coincide with acts of christ, did not, as will be shewn later on, influence the theological speculations of the preacher. we have also to observe that the interchanging of god and christ is not always an expression of the high dignity of christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the personal significance of christ is misunderstood, and that he is regarded only as the dependent revealer of god. all this shews that there cannot have been many passages in the earliest literature where christ was roundly designated [greek: theos]. it is one thing to speak of the blood (death, suffering) of god, and to describe the gifts of salvation brought by christ as gifts of god, and another thing to set up the proposition that christ is a god (or god). when, from the end of the second century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for passages [greek: en hois theologeitai ho christos], because the matter had become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the old testament, point only to the writings of authors from the time of justin (to apologists and controversialists) as well as to psalms and odes (see the anonym. in euseb. h. e. v. 28. 4-6). in the following passages of the ignatian epistles "[greek: theos]" appears as a designation of christ; he is called [greek: ho theos hæmôn] in ephes. inscript.; rom. inscr. bis 3. 2; polyc. 8. 3; eph. 1. 1, [greek: haima theou]; rom. 6. 3, [greek: to pathos tou theou mou]; eph. 7. 2, [greek: en sarki genomenos theos], in another reading, [greek: en anthrôpô theos], smyrn. i. 1, i. chr. [greek: ho theos ho outôs humas sophisas]. the latter passage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with "[greek: ho theos]", seems to form the transition to the three passages (trall. 7. 1; smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which jesus is called [greek: theos] without addition. but these passages are critically suspicious, see lightfoot _in loco_. in the same way the "deus jesus christus" in polyc. ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of the verse. in the first, all latin codd. have "dei filius," and in the greek codd. of the epistle, christ is nowhere called [greek: theos]. we have a keen polemic against the designation of christ as [greek: theos] in clem. rom. homil. xvi. 15 sq.; [greek: ho petros apekrithæ ho kurios hæmôn oute theous einai ephthenxato para ton ktisanta ta panta oute heauton theon einai anægoreusen, huion de theou tou ta panta diakosmæsantos ton eiponta auton eulogôs emakarisen, kai o simôn apekrinato; ou dokei soi oun ton apo theou theon einai, kai ho petros ephæ: pôs touto einai dunatai, phrason hæmin, touto gar hæmeis eipein soi ou dunametha, hoti mæ hækousamen par' autou.]] [footnote 247: on the further use of the word [greek: theos] in antiquity, see above, § 8, p. 120 f.; the formula "[greek: theos ek theou]" for augustus, even 24 years before christ's birth; on the formula "dominus ac deus", see john xx. 28; the interchange of these concepts in many passages beside one another in the anonymous writer (euseb. h. e. v. 28. 11). domitian first allowed himself to be called "dominus ac deus." tertullian, apol. 10. 11, is very instructive as to the general situation in the second century. here are brought forward the different causes which then moved men, the cultured and the uncultured, to give to this or that personality the predicate of divinity. in the third century the designation of "dominus ac deus noster" for christ, was very common, especially in the west (see cyprian, pseudo-cyprian, novatian; in the latin martyrology a greek [greek: ho kurios] is also frequently so translated). but only at this time had the designation come to be in actual use even for the emperor. it seems at first sight to follow from the statements of celsus (in orig. c. cels. iii. 22-43) that this greek had and required a very strict conception of the godhead; but his whole work shews how little that was really the case. the reference to these facts of the history of the time is not made with the view of discovering the "theologia christi" itself in its ultimate roots--these roots lie elsewhere, in the person of christ and christian experience; but that this experience, before any technical reflection, had so easily and so surely substituted the new formula instead of the idea of messiah, can hardly be explained without reference to the general religious ideas of the time.] [footnote 248: the combination of [greek: theos] and [greek: sôtêr] in the pastoral epistles is very important. the two passages in the new testament in which perhaps a direct "theologia christi" may be recognised, contain likewise the concept [greek: sôtêr]; see tit. ii. 13; [greek: prosdechomenoi tên makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tês doxês tou megalou theou kai sôtêros hêmôn christou iêsou] (cf. abbot, journal of the society of bibl. lit., and exeg. 1881. june. p. 3 sq.): 2 pet. i. 1: [greek: en dikaiosunêi tou theou hêmôn kai sôtêros 'i. chr.]. in both cases the [greek: hêmôn] should be specially noted. besides, [greek: theos sôtêr] is also an ancient formula.] [footnote 249: a very ancient formula ran "[greek: theos kai theos huios]" see cels. ap. orig ii. 30; justin, frequently: alterc. sim. et theoph. 4, etc. the formula is equivalent to [greek: theos monogenês] (see joh. i. 18).] [footnote 250: such conceptions are found side by side in the same writer. see, for example, the second epistle of clement, and even the first.] [footnote 251: see § 6, p. 120. the idea of a [greek: theopoiêsis] was as common as that of the appearances of the gods. in wide circles, however, philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the [greek: logos tou theou]. but now there is no mistaking a new element everywhere. in the case of the christologies which include a kind of [greek: theopoiêsis], it is found in the fact that the deified jesus was to be recognised not as a demigod or hero, but as lord of the world, equal in power and honour to the deity. in the case of those christologies which start with christ as the heavenly spiritual being, it is found in the belief in an actual incarnation. these two articles, as was to be expected, presented difficulties to the gentile christians, and the latter more than the former.] [footnote 252: this is usually overlooked. christological doctrinal conceptions are frequently constructed by a combination of particular passages, the nature of which does not permit of combination. but the fact that there was no universally recognised theory about the nature of jesus till beyond the middle of the second century, should not lead us to suppose that the different theories were anywhere declared to be of equal value, etc., therefore more or less equally valid; on the contrary, everyone, so far as he had a theory at all, included his own in the revealed truth. that they had not yet come into conflict is accounted for, on the one hand, by the fact that the different theories ran up into like formulæ, and could even frequently be directly carried over into one another, and on the other hand, by the fact that their representatives appealed to the same authorities. but we must, above all, remember that conflict could only arise after the enthusiastic element, which also had a share in the formation of christology, had been suppressed, and problems were felt to be such, that is, after the struggle with gnosticism, or even during that struggle.] [footnote 253: both were clearly in existence in the apostolic age.] [footnote 254: only one work has been preserved entire which gives clear expression to the adoptian christology, viz., the shepherd of hermas (see sim. v. and ix. 1. 12). according to it, the holy spirit--it is not certain whether he is identified with the chief archangel--is regarded as the pre-existent son of god, who is older than creation, nay, was god's counsellor at creation. the redeemer is the virtuous man [greek: sarx] chosen by god, with whom that spirit of god was united. as he did not defile the spirit, but kept him constantly as his companion, and carried out the work to which the deity had called him, nay, did more than he was commanded, he was in virtue of a divine decree adopted as a son and exalted to [greek: megalê exousia kai kuriotês]. that this christology is set forth in a book which enjoyed the highest honour and sprang from the romish community, is of great significance. the representatives of this christology, who in the third century were declared to be heretics, expressly maintained that it was at one time the ruling christology at rome and had been handed down by the apostles. (anonym, in euseb. h. e. v. 28. 3, concerning the artemonites: [greek: phasi tous men proterous hapantas kai autous tous apostolous pareilêphenai te kaì dedidachenai tauta, ha nun houtoi legousi, kai tetêrêsthai tên alêtheian tou kêrygmatos mechri tôn chronôn tou biktoros ... apo tou diadochon auto zephurinou parakecharachthai tên alêtheian]). this assertion, though exaggerated, is not incredible after what we find in hermas. it cannot, certainly, be verified by a superficial examination of the literary monuments preserved to us, but a closer investigation shews that the adoptian christology must at one time have been very widespread, that it continued here and there undisturbed up to the middle of the third century (see the christology in the acta archelai. 49, 50), and that it continued to exercise great influence even in the fourth and fifth centuries (see book ii. c. 7). something similar is found even in some gnostics, e.g., valentinus himself (see iren. i. 11. 1: [greek: kai ton christon de ouk apo tôn en tôi plêrômati aiônôn probeblêsthai, alla hupo tês mêtros, éxô de genomenês, kata tên gnômên tôn kreittonôn apokekuêsthai meta skias tinos. kai touton men, hate arrena huparchontaf, apokopsanta huph' heautou tên skian, anadramein eis to plêroma]. the same in the exc. ex theodot §§ 22, 23, 32, 33), and the christology of basilides presupposes that of the adoptians. here also belongs the conception which traces back the genealogy of jesus to joseph. the way in which justin (dialog. 48, 49, 87 ff.) treats the history of the baptism of jesus, against the objection of trypho that a pre-existent christ would not have needed to be filled with the spirit of god, is instructive. it is here evident that justin deals with objections which were raised within the communities themselves to the pre-existence of christ, on the ground of the account of the baptism. in point of fact, this account (it had, according to very old witnesses, see resch, agrapha christi, p. 307, according to justin, for example, dial. 88. 103, the wording: [greek: hama tôi anabênai auton apo tou potamou tou iordanou, tês phônês autou lechtheisês huios mou ei ss, egô sêmeron gegennêka se]; see the cod. d. of luke. clem. alex, etc.) forms the strongest foundation of the adoptian christology, and hence it is exceedingly interesting to see how one compounds with it from the second to the fifth century, an investigation which deserves a special monograph. but, of course, the edge was taken off the report by the assumption of the miraculous birth of jesus from the holy spirit, so that the adoptians in recognising this, already stood with one foot in the camp of their opponents. it is now instructive to see here how the history of the baptism, which originally formed the beginning of the proclamation of jesus' history, is suppressed in the earliest formulæ, and therefore also in the romish symbol, while the birth from the holy spirit is expressly stated. only in ignatius (ad smyrn. i; cf. ad eph. 18. 2) is the baptism taken into account in the confession; but even he has given the event a turn by which it has no longer any significance for jesus himself (just as in the case of justin, who concludes from the _resting_ of the spirit in his fulness upon jesus, that there will be no more prophets among the jews, spiritual gifts being rather communicated to christians; compare also the way in which the baptism of jesus is treated in joh. i.). finally, we must point out that in the adoptian christology, the parallel between jesus and all believers who have the spirit and are sons of god, stands out very clearly (cf. herm. sim. v. with mand. iii. v. 1; x. 2; most important is sim. v. 6. 7). but this was the very thing that endangered the whole view. celsus, i. 57, addressing jesus, asks; "if thou sayest that every man whom divine providence allows to be born (this is of course a formulation for which celsus alone is responsible), is a son of god, what advantage hast thou then over others?" we can see already in the dialogue of justin, the approach of the later great controversy, whether christ is son of god [greek: kata gnômên], or [greek: kata phusin], that is, had a pre-existence: "[greek: kai gar eisi tines], he says, [greek: apo tou humeterou genous homologountes auton christon einai, anthrôpon de ex anthrôpôn genomenon apophainomenoi, hois ou suntithemai]" (c. 48).] [footnote 255: this christology which may be traced back to the pauline, but which can hardly have its point of departure in paul alone, is found also in the epistle to the hebrews and in the writings of john, including the apocalypse, and is represented by barnabas, 1 and 2 clem., ignatius, polycarp, the author of the pastoral epistles, the authors of praed. petri, and the altercatio jasonis et papisci, etc. the classic formulation is in 2 clem. 9. 5: [greek: christos ho kurios ho sôsas hêmas ôn men to prôton pneuma egeneto sarx kai houtôs hêmas ekalesen]. according to barnabas (5. 3), the pre-existent christ is [greek: pantos tou kosmou kurios]: to him god said, [greek: apo katabolês kosmou], "let us make man, etc." he is (5. 6) the subject and goal of all old testament revelation. he is [greek: ouxi huios anthrôpou all: huios tou theou, tupôi de en sarki phanerôtheís] (12. 10); the flesh is merely the veil of the godhead, without which man could not have endured the light (5. 10). according to 1 clement, christ is [greek: to skêptron tês melagosunês tou theou] (16. 2), who if he had wished could have appeared on earth [greek: en kompôi alazoneias], he is exalted far above the angels (32), as he is the son of god ([greek: pathêmata tou theou], 2. 1); he hath spoken through the holy spirit in the old testament (22. 1). it is not certain whether clement understood christ under the [greek: logos megalosunês tou theou] (27. 4). according to 2 clem., christ and the church are heavenly spiritual existences which have appeared in the last times. gen. i. 27 refers to their creation (c. 14; see my note on the passage: we learn from origen that a very old theologoumenon identified jesus with the ideal of adam, the church with that of eve). similar ideas about christ are found in gnostic jewish christians); one must think about christ as about god (i. 1). ignatius writes (eph. 7-2): [greek: eis, iatros estin sarkikos te kai pneumatikos, gennêtos kai agennêtos, en sarki genomenos theos, en thanatôi zôê alêthinê, kai ek marias kai ek theou, prôton pathaetos kai tote apathês iêsous christos ho kurios hêmôn]. as the human predicates stand here first, it might appear as though, according to ignatius, the man jesus first became god ([greek: ho theos hêmôn], cf. eph. inscr.: 18. 2). in point of fact, he regards jesus as son of god only by his birth from the spirit; but on the other hand, jesus is [greek: aph' henos patros proelthôn] (magn. 7. 2), is [greek: lógos theoû] (magn. 8. 2,) and when ignatius so often emphasises the truth of jesus' history against docetism (trall. 9. for example), we must assume that he shares the thesis with the gnostics that jesus is by nature a spiritual being. but it is well worthy of notice that ignatius, as distinguished from barnabas and clement, really gives the central place to the historical jesus christ, the son of god and the son of mary, and his work. the like is found only in irenæus. the pre-existence of christ is presupposed by polycarp. (ep 7. 1); but, like paul, he strongly emphasises a real exaltation of christ (2. 1). the author of præd. petri calls christ the [greek: logos] (clem. strom. i. 29, 182). as ignatius calls him this also, as the same designation is found in the gospel, epistles, and apocalypse of john (the latter a christian adaptation of a jewish writing), in the act. joh. (see zahn, acta joh. p. 220), finally, as celsus (ii. 31) says quite generally, "the christians maintain that the son of god is at the same time his incarnate word", we plainly perceive that this designation for christ was not first started by professional philosophers (see the apologists, for example, tatian, orat. 5, and melito apolog. fragm. in the chron. pasch. p. 483, ed. dindorf: [greek: christos ôn theou logos pro aiônôn]. we do not find in the johannine writings such a logos speculation as in the apologists, but the current expression is taken up in order to shew that it has its truth in the appearing of jesus christ. the ideas about the existence of a divine logos were very widely spread; they were driven out of philosophy into wide circles. the author of the alterc. jas. et papisci conceived the phrase in gen i. 1, [greek: en archê], as equivalent to [greek: en huiôi (christôi)] jerome. quæst. hebr. in gen. p. 3; see tatian orat. 5: [greek: theos ên en archêi tên de archên logou dunamin pareilêphamen]. ignatius (eph. 3) also called christ [greek: hê gnómê tou patros] (eph. 17: [greek: hê gnôsis tou theou]); that is a more fitting expression than [greek: logos]. the subordination of christ as a heavenly being to the godhead, is seldom or never carefully emphasised, though it frequently comes plainly into prominence. yet the author of the second epistle of clement does not hesitate to place the pre-existent christ and the pre-existent church on one level, and to declare of both that god created them (c. 14). the formulæ [greek: phanerousthai en sarki], or, [greek: gignesthai sarx], are characteristic of this christology. it is worthy of special notice that the latter is found in all those new testament writers, who have put christianity in contrast with the old testament religions, and proclaimed the conquest of that religion by the christian, viz., paul, john, and the author of the epistle to the hebrews.] [footnote 256: hermas, for example, does this (therefore link; christologie des hermas, and weizsäcker, gott gel. anz. 1886, p. 830, declare his christology to be directly pneumatic): christ is then identified with this holy spirit (see acta. archel. 50), similarly ignatius (ad. magn. 15): [greek: kektêmenoi adiakriton pneuma, hos estin iêsous christos.] this formed the transition to gnostic conceptions on the one hand, to pneumatic christology on the other. but in hermas the real substantial thing in jesus christ is the [greek: sarx].] [footnote 257: passages may indeed be found in the earliest gentile christian literature, in which jesus is designated son of god, independently of his human birth and before it (so in barnabas, against zahn), but they are not numerous. ignatius very clearly deduces the predicate "son" from the birth in the flesh. zahn, marcellus, p. 216 ff.] [footnote 258: the distinct designation "[greek: theopoiêsis]" is not found, though that may be an accident. hermas has the thing itself quite distinctly (see epiph. c. alog. h. 51. 18: [greek: nomizontes apo marias kai deuro christon auton kaleisthai kai huion theou, kai einai men proteron psilon anthrôpon, kata prokopên de eilêphenai tên tou huiou tou theou prosêgorian]). the stages of the [greek: prokopê] were undoubtedly the birth, baptism and resurrection. even the adherents of the pneumatic christology, could not at first help recognising that jesus, through his exaltation, got more than he originally possessed. yet in their case, this conception was bound to become rudimentary, and it really did so.] [footnote 259: the settlement with gnosticism prepared a still always uncertain end for this naive docetism. apart from barn. 5. 12, where it plainly appears, we have to collect laboriously the evidences of it which have not accidentally either perished or been concealed. in the communities of the second century there was frequently no offence taken at gnostic docetism (see the gospel of peter. clem. alex., adumbrat in joh. ep. i. c. 1, [zahn, forsch. z. gesch. des n. t.-lichen kanons, iii. p. 871]; "fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam johannes ipsum corpus, quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli." also acta joh. p. 219, ed. zahn). in spite of all his polemic against "[greek: dokêsis]" proper, one can still perceive a "moderate docetism" in clem. alex., to which indeed certain narratives in the canonical gospels could not but lead. the so-called apocryphal literature (apocryphal gospels and acts of apostles), lying on the boundary between heretical and common christianity, and preserved only in scanty fragments and extensive alterations, was, it appears, throughout favourable to docetism. but the later recensions attest that it was read in wide circles.] [footnote 260: even such a formulation as we find in paul (e.g., rom. i. 3 f. [greek: kata sarka--kata pneuma]), does not seem to have been often repeated (yet see 1 clem. 32. 21). it is of value to ignatius only, who has before his mind the full gnostic contrast. but even to him we cannot ascribe any doctrine of two natures: for this requires as its presupposition, the perception that the divinity and humanity are equally essential and important for the personality of the redeemer christ. such insight, however, presupposes a measure and a direction of reflection which the earliest period did not possess. the expression "[greek: duo ousiai christou]" first appears in a fragment of melito, whose genuineness is not, however, generally recognised (see my texte u. unters. i. 1. 2. p. 257). even the definite expression for christ [greek: theos ôn homou te kai anthrôpos] was fixed only in consequence of the gnostic controversy.] [footnote 261: hermas (sim. v. 6. 7) describes the exaltation of jesus, thus: [greek: hina kai hê sarx hautê, douleusasa tôi pneumati amemptôs, schaêi topon tina kataskênôseôs, kai mê doxêi ton misthon tês douleias autês apolôlekenai]. the point in question is a reward of grace which consists in a position of rank (see sim. v. 6. 1). the same thing is manifest from the statements of the later adoptians. (cf. the teaching of paul samosata).] [footnote 262: barnabas, e. g., conceives it as a veil (5. 10: [greek: ei gar mê êlthen en sarki, oud' an pôs hoi anthrôpoi esôthêsan blepontes auton, hote ton mellonta mê einai hêlion emblepontes ouk ischusousin eis tas aktinas autou antophthalmêsai]). the formulation of the christian idea in celsus is instructive (c. cels vi. 69): "since god is great and not easily accessible to the view, he put his spirit in a body which is like our own, and sent it down in order that we might be instructed by it." to this conception corresponds the formula: [greek: erchesthai (phanerousthai) en sarki] (barnabas, frequently; polyc. ep. 7. 1). but some kind of transformation must also have been thought of (see 2 clem. 9. 5. and celsus iv. 18: "either god, as these suppose, is really transformed into a mortal body...." apoc. sophon. ed. stern. 4 fragm. p. 10; "he has transformed himself into a man who comes to us to redeem us"). this conception might grow out of the formula [greek: sarx egeneto] (ignat. ad. eph. 7, 2 is of special importance here). one is almost throughout here satisfied with the [greek: sarx] of christ, that is the [greek: alêtheía tês sarkos], against the heretics (so ignatius, who was already anti-gnostic in his attitude). there is very seldom any mention of the humanity of jesus. barnabas (12). the author of the didache (c. 10. 6. see my note on the passage), and tatian questioned the davidic sonship of jesus, which was strongly emphasised by ignatius; nay, barnabas even expressly rejects the designation "son of man" (12. 10; [greek: ide palin iêsous, ouchì huios anthrôpou alla huios tou theou, tupo de en sarki phanerôtheis]). a docetic thought, however, lies in the assertion that the spiritual being christ only assumed human flesh, however much the reality of the flesh may be emphasised. the passage 1 clem. 49. 6, is quite unique: [greek: to haima autou edôken huper hêmôn iêsous christos ... kai tên sarka huper tês sarkos hêmôn kai tên psuchên huper tôn psuchôn humôn]. one would fain believe this an interpolation; the same idea is first found in irenæus. (v. 1. 1).] [footnote 263: even hermas docs not speak of jesus as [greek: anthrôpos] (see link). this designation was used by the representatives of the adoptian christology only after they had expressed their doctrine antithetically and developed it to a theory, and always with a certain reservation. the "[greek: anthrôpos christos iêsous]" in 1 tim. ii. 5 is used in a special sense. the expression [greek: anthrôpos] for christ appears twice in the ignatian epistles (the third passage smyrn. 4. 2: [greek: autou me endunamountos tou teleiou anthrôpou genomenou], apart from the [greek: genoménou], is critically suspicious, as well as the fourth, eph. 7. 2; see above), in both passages, however, in connections which seem to modify the humanity; see eph. 20. 1: [greek: oikonomia eis ton kainon anthrôpon iêsoun christon], eph. 20. 2: [greek: tôi huiôi anthrôpou kai huiôi theou].] [footnote 264: see above p. 185, note; p. 189, note. we have no sure evidence that the later so-called modalism (monarchianism) had representatives before the last third of the second century; yet the polemic of justin, dial. 128, seems to favour the idea, (the passage already presupposes controversies about the personal independence of the pre-existent pneumatic being of christ beside god; but one need not necessarily think of such controversies within the communities; jewish notions might be meant, and this, according to apol. i. 63, is the more probable). the judgment is therefore so difficult, because there were numerous formulæ in practical use which could be so understood, as if christ was to be completely identified with the godhead itself (see ignat. ad eph. 7. 2, besides melito in otto corp. apol. ix. p. 419. and noëtus in the philos. ix. 10, p. 448). these formulæ may, in point of fact, have been so understood, here and there, by the rude and uncultivated. the strongest again is presented in writings whose authority was always doubtful: see the gospel of the egyptians (epiph. h. 62. 2), in which must have stood a statement somewhat to this effect: [greek: ton auton einai patera, ton auton einai huion, ton auton einai hagion pneuma], and the acta joh. (ed. zahn, p. 220 f., 240 f.: [greek: ho agathos hêmôn theos ho eusplanchnos, ho eleêmôn, ho hagios, ho katharos, ho amiantos, ho monos, ho heis, ho ametablêtos, ho eilikrinês, ho adolos, ho mê orgizomenos, ho pasês hêmin legomenês ê nooumenês prosêgorias anôteros kai hupsêloteros hêmôn theos iêsous]). in the act. joh. are found also prayers with the address [greek: thee iêsou christe] (pp. 242. 247). even marcion and a part the montanists--both bear witness to old traditions--put no value on the distinction between god and christ; cf. the apoc. sophon. a witness to a naive modalism is found also in the acta pionii 9: "quem deum colis? respondit: christum polemon (judex): quid ergo? iste alter est? [the co-defendant christians had immediately before confessed god the creator] respondit: non; sed ipse quem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt;" cf. c. 16. yet a reasoned modalism may perhaps be assumed here. see also the martyr acts; e.g., acta petri, andræ, pauli et dionysiæ i (ruinart, p. 205): [greek: hêmeis oi christon ton basilea echomen, hoti alêthinos theos estin kai poiêtês ouranou kai gês kai thalassês]. "oportet me magis deo vivo et vero. regi sæculorum omnium christo, sacrificium offerre." act. nicephor. 3 (p. 285). i take no note of the testament of the twelve patriarchs, out of which one can, of course, beautifully verify the strict modalistic, and even the adoptian christology. but the testamenta are not a primitive or jewish christian writing which gentile christians have revised, but a jewish writing christianised at the end of the second century by a catholic of modalistic views. but he has given us a very imperfect work, the christology of which exhibits many contradictions. it is instructive to find modalism in the theology of the simonians, which was partly formed according to christian ideas; see irenæus i. 23. i. "hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsum esse qui inter judæos quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in samaria autem quasi pater descenderit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi spiritus sanctus adventaverit."] [footnote 265: that is a very important fact which clearly follows from the shepherd. even the later school of the adoptians in rome, and the later adoptians in general, were forced to assume a divine hypostasis beside the godhead, which of course sensibly threatened their christology. the adherents of the pneumatic christology partly made a definite distinction between the pre-existent christ and the holy spirit (see, e.g., 1 clem. 22. 1), and partly made use of formulæ from which one could infer an identity of the two. the conceptions about the holy spirit were still quite fluctuating; whether he is a power of god, or personal, whether he is identical with the pre-existent christ, or is to be distinguished from him, whether he is the servant of christ (tatian orat. 13), whether he is only a gift of god to believers, or the eternal son of god, was quite uncertain. hermas assumed the latter, and even origen (de princip. præf. c. 4) acknowledges that it is not yet decided whether or not the holy spirit is likewise to be regarded as god's son. the baptismal formula prevented the identification of the holy spirit with the pre-existent christ, which so readily suggested itself. but so far as christ was regarded as a [greek: pneuma], his further demarcation from the angel powers was quite uncertain, as the shepherd of hermas proves (though see 1 clem. 36). for even justin, in a passage, no doubt, in which his sole purpose was to shew that the christians were not [greek: atheoi], could venture to thrust in between god, the son and the spirit, the good angels as beings who were worshipped and adored by the christians (apol. 1. 6 [if the text be genuine and not an interpolation]; see also the suppl. of athanagoras). justin, and certainly most of those who accepted a pre-existence of christ, conceived of it as a real pre-existence. justin was quite well acquainted with the controversy about the independent quality of the power which proceeded from god. to him it is not merely, "sensus, motus, affectus dei", but a "personalis substantia" (dial. 128).] [footnote 266: see the remarkable narrative about the cross in the fragment of the gospel of peter, and in justin, apol. 1. 55.] [footnote 267: we must, above all things, be on our guard here against attributing dogmas to the churches, that is to say, to the writers of this period. the difference in the answers to the question, how far and by what means, jesus procured salvation? was very great, and the majority undoubtedly never at all raised the question, being satisfied with recognising jesus as the revealer of god's saving will (didache, 10. 2: [greek: eucharistoi men soi, pater hagie, huper tou agiou onomatos sou, ou kateskênôsas en tais kardiais hêmôn kai huper tês gnôseôs kai pisteôs kai athanasias, hês egnôrisas hêmin dia iêsou tou paidos sou]), without reflecting on the fact that this saving will was already revealed in the old testament. there is nowhere any mention of a saving work of christ in the whole didache, nay, even the _kerygma_ about him is not taken notice of. the extensive writing of hermas shews that this is not an accident. there is absolutely no mention here of the birth, death, resurrection, etc., of jesus, although the author in sim. v had an occasion for mentioning them. he describes the work of jesus as (1) preserving the people whom god had chosen. (2) purifying the people from sin, (3) pointing out the path of life and promulgating the divine law (c. c. 5. 6). this work however, seems to have been performed by the whole life and activity of jesus; even to the purifying of sin the author has only added the words: [greek: (kai autos tas hamartias autôn ekatharise) polla kopiasas kai pollous kopous êntlêkôs] (sim. v. 6. 2). but we must further note that hermas held the proper and obligatory work of jesus to be only the preservation of the chosen people (from demons in the last days, and at the end), while in the other two articles he saw a performance in excess of his duty, and wished undoubtedly to declare therewith, that the purifying from sin and the giving of the law are not, strictly speaking, integral parts of the divine plan of salvation, but are due to the special goodness of jesus (this idea is explained by moralism). now, as hermas, and others, saw the saving activity of jesus in his whole labours, others saw salvation given and assured in the moment of jesus' entrance into the world, and in his personality as a spiritual being become flesh. this mystic conception, which attained such wide-spread recognition later on, has a representative in ignatius, if one can at all attribute clearly conceived doctrines to this emotional confessor. that something can be declared of jesus, [greek: kata pneuma] and [greek: kata sarka]--this is the mystery on which the significance of jesus seems to ignatius essentially to rest, but how far is not made clear. but the [greek: pathos (haima, stauros)] and [greek: anastasis] of jesus are to the same writer of great significance, and by forming paradoxical formulæ of worship, and turning to account reminiscences of apostolic sayings, he seems to wish to base the whole salvation brought by christ on his suffering and resurrection (see lightfoot on eph. inscr. vol. ii. p. 25). in this connection also, he here and there regards all articles of the _kerygma_ as of fundamental significance. at all events, we have in the ignatian epistles the first attempt in the post-apostolic literature, to connect all the theses of the _kerygma_ about jesus as closely as possible with the benefits which he brought. but only the will of the writer is plain here, all else is confused, and what is mainly felt is that the attempt to conceive the blessings of salvation as the fruit of the sufferings and resurrection, has deprived them of their definiteness and clearness. in proof we may adduce the following: if we leave out of account the passages in which ignatius speaks of the necessity of repentance for the heretics, or the heathen, and the possibility that their sins may be forgiven (philad. 3. 2:8. 1; smyrn. 4. 1: 5-3; eph. 10. 1), there remains only one passage in which the forgiveness of sin is mentioned, and that only contains a traditional formula (smyrn 7. 1: [greek: sarx iêsou christou, hê huper tôn hamartiôn hêmôn pathousa]). the same writer, who is constantly speaking of the [greek: pathos] and [greek: anastasis] of christ, has nothing to say, to the communities to which he writes, about the forgiveness of sin. even the concept "sin", apart from the passages just quoted, appears only once, viz., eph 14. 2: [greek: oudeis pistin epangellomenos hamartanei]. ignatius has only once spoken to a community about repentance (smyrn. 9. 1). it is characteristic that the summons to repentance runs exactly as in hermas and 2 clem., the conclusion only being peculiarly ignatian. it is different with barnabas, clement and polycarp. they (see 1 clem. 7. 4:12, 7:21, 6:49 6; barn. 5. 1 ff.) place the forgiveness of sin procured by jesus in the foreground, connect it most definitely with the death of christ, and in some passages seem to have a conception of that connection, which reminds us of paul. but this just shews that they are dependent here on paul (or on 1st peter), and on a closer examination we perceive that they very imperfectly understand paul, and have no independent insight into the series of ideas which they reproduce. that is specially plain in clement. for in the first place, he everywhere passes over the resurrection (he mentions it only twice, once as a guarantee of our own resurrection, along with the phoenix and other guarantees, 24. 1, and then as a means whereby the apostles were convinced that the kingdom of god will come, 42. 3). in the second place, he in one passage declares that the [greek: charis metanoias] was communicated to the world through the shedding of christ's blood (7. 4.) but this transformation of the [greek: aphesis hamartiôn] into [greek: charis metanoias] plainly shews that clement had merely taken over from tradition the special estimate of the death of christ as procuring salvation; for it is meaningless to deduce the [greek: charis metanoias] from the blood of christ. barnabas testifies more plainly that christ behoved to offer the vessel of his spirit as a sacrifice for our sins (4. 3; 5. 1), nay, the chief aim of his letter is to harmonise the correct understanding of the cross, the blood, and death of christ in connection with baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification (application of the idea of sacrifice). he also unites the death and resurrection of jesus (5. 6: [greek: autos de hina kataergêsêi ton thanaton kai tên ek nekrôn anastasin deixêi, hoti en sarki edei auton phanerôthênai, hupemeinen, hina kai tois patrasin tên epangellian apodôi kai autos heautôi ton laon ton kainon hetoimazôn epideixêi, epi tês gês ôn. hoti tên anastasin autos poiêsas krinei]): but the significance of the death of christ is for him at bottom, the fact that it is the fulfilment of prophecy. but the prophecy is related, above all, to the significance of the tree, and so barnabas on one occasion says with admirable clearness (5. 13); [greek: autos de êthelêsen houtô pathein; edei gar hina epi xulou pathêi]. the notion which barnabas entertains of the [greek: sarx] of christ suggests the supposition that he could have given up all reference to the death of christ, if it had not been transmitted as a fact and predicted in the old testament. justin shews still less certainty. to him also, as to ignatius, the cross (the death) of christ is a great, nay, the greatest mystery, and he sees all things possible in it (see apol. 1. 35, 55). he knows, further, as a man acquainted with the old testament, how to borrow from it very many points of view for the significance of christ's death, (christ the sacrifice, the paschal lamb; the death of christ the means of redeeming men; death as the enduring of the curse for us; death as the victory over the devil; see dial 44. 90, 91, 111, 134). but in the discussions which set forth in a more intelligible way the significance of christ, definite facts from the history have no place at all, and justin nowhere gives any indication of seeing in the death of christ more than the mystery of the old testament, and the confirmation of its trustworthiness. on the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that the idea of an individual righteous man being able effectively to sacrifice himself for the whole, in order through his voluntary death to deliver them from evil, was not unknown to antiquity. origen (c. celsum 1. 31) has expressed himself on this point in a very instructive way. the purity and voluntariness of him who sacrifices himself are here the main things. finally, we must be on our guard against supposing that the expressions [greek: sôrtia, apolutrôsis] and the like, were as a rule related to the deliverance from sin. in the superscription of the epistle from lyons, for example, (euseb. h. e v. 1. 3: [greek: hoi autên tês apolutrôseôs hêmin pistin kai elpida echontes]) the future redemption is manifestly to be understood by [greek: apolutrôsis].] [footnote 268: on the ascension, see my edition of the apost. fathers i. 2, p. 138. paul knows nothing of an ascension, nor is it mentioned by clement, ignatius, hermas, or polycarp. in no case did it belong to the earliest preaching. resurrection and sitting at the right hand of god are frequently united in the formulæ (eph. i. 20; acts. ii. 32 ff.) according to luke xxiv. 51, and barn. 15. 9, the ascension into heaven took place on the day of the resurrection (probably also according to joh. xx. 17; see also the fragment of the gosp. of peter), and is hardly to be thought of as happening but once (joh. iii. 13; vi 62; see also rom. x. 6 f.; eph. iv. 9 f; 1 pet. iii. 19 f.; very instructive for the origin of the notion). according to the valentinians and ophites, christ ascended into heaven 18 months after the resurrection (iren. i. 3. 2; 30. 14); according to the ascension of isaiah, 545 days (ed. dillmann, pp. 43. 57 etc.); according to pistis sophia 11 years after the resurrection. the statement that the ascension took place 40 days after the resurrection is first found in the acts of the apostles. the position of the [greek: anelêmphthê en doxêi], in the fragment of an old hymn, 1 tim. iii. 16, is worthy of note, in so far as it follows the [greek: ôphthê angelois, ekêruchthê en ethnesin, episteuthê en kosmôi]. justin speaks very frequently of the ascension into heaven (see also aristides). it is to him a necessary part of the preaching about christ. on the descent into hell, see the collection of passages in my edition of the apost. fathers, iii. p. 232. it is important to note that it is found already in the gospel of peter ([greek: ekêruxas tois koimômenois, nai]), and that even marcion recognised it (in iren. i. 27. 31), as well as the presbyter of irenæus (iv. 27. 2), and ignatius (ad magn. 9. 3), see also celsus in orig. ii. 43. the witnesses to it are very numerous, see huidekoper, "the belief of the first three centuries concerning christ's mission to the under-world." new york, 1876.] [footnote 269: see the pastoral epistles, and the epistles of ignatius and polycarp.] [footnote 270: the "facts" of the history of jesus were handed down to the following period as mysteries predicted in the old testament, but the idea of sacrifice was specially attached to the death of christ, certainly without any closer definition. it is very noteworthy that in the romish baptismal confession, the davidic sonship of jesus, the baptism, the descent into the under-world, and the setting up of a glorious kingdom on the earth, are not mentioned. these articles do not appear even in the parallel confessions which began to be formed. the hesitancy that yet prevailed here with regard to details, is manifest from the fact, for example, that instead of the formula, "jesus was born of ([greek: ek]) mary," is found the other, "he was born through ([greek: dia]) mary" (see justin, apol. i. 22. 31-33, 54, 63; dial. 23. 43, 45. 48, 57. 54, 63, 66, 75, 85, 87, 100, 105, 120, 127), iren. (i. 7. 2) and tertull. (de carne 20) first contested the [greek: dia] against the valentinians.] [footnote 271: this was strongly emphasised see my remarks on barn. 2. 3. the jewish cultus is often brought very close to the heathen by gentile christian writers: praed. petri (clem. strom. vi. 5. 41) [greek: kainôs ton theon dia tou christou sebometha]. the statement in joh. iv. 24, [greek: pneuma ho theos kai tous proskunountas auton en pneumati kai alêtheias dei proskunein], was for long the guiding principle for the christian worship of god.] [footnote 272: ps. li. 19 is thus opposed to the ceremonial system (barn. 2. 10). polycarp consumed by fire is (mart. 14. 1) compared to a [greek: krios episêmos ek megalou poimniou eis prosphoran olokautôma dekton tôi theôi hêtoimasmenon].] [footnote 273: see barn. 6. 15, 16, 7-9, tatian orat. 15, ignat. ad. eph. 9. 15, herm mand. v. etc. the designation of christians as priests is not often found.] [footnote 274: justin, apol. i. 9. dial. 117 [greek: hoti men oun kai euchai ka eucharistiai, hupo tôn axiôn ginomenai teleiai monai kai euarestoi eisi tôi theôi thusiai kai autos phêmi], see also still the later fathers: clem. strom. vii. 6. 31: [greek: hêmeis di euchês timômen ton theon kai tautên tên thusian aristên kai hagiôtatên meta dikaiosunês anapempomen tôi dikaiôi logôi], iren. iii. 18. 3, ptolem ad. floram. 3: [greek: prosphoras prospherein prosetaxen hêmin ho sôtêr alla ouchi tas di alogôn zôôn hê toutôn tôn dômiamatôn alla dia pneumatikôn ainôn kai doxôn kai eucharistias kaì dia tês eis tous plêsion koinônias kai eupoiias].] [footnote 275: the jewish regulations about fastings together with the jewish system of sacrifice were rejected, but on the other hand, in virtue of words of the lord, fasts were looked upon as a necessary accompaniment of prayer and definite arrangements were already made for them (see barn. 3, didache 8, herm. sim. v. 1. ff). the fast is to have a special value from the fact that whatever one saved by means of it is to be given to the poor (see hermas and aristides, apol. 15, "and if any one among the christians is poor and in want, and they have not overmuch of the means of life, they fast two or three days in order that they may provide those in need with the food they require"). the statement of james i. 27 [greek: thrêskeia kathara kai amiantos para tô theô kai patri hautê estin episkeptesthai orphanous kai chêras en tê thlipsei autôn], was again and again inculcated in diverse phraseology (polycarp ep. 4, called the widows [greek: thusiastêrion] of the community). where moralistic views preponderated as in hermas and 2 clement good works were already valued in detail, prayers, fasts, alms appeared separately, and there was already introduced especially under the influence of the so-called deutero-canonical writings of the old testament the idea of a special meritoriousness of certain performances in fasts and alms (see 2 clem. 16. 4). still the idea of the christian moral life as a whole occupied the foreground (see didache cc. 1-5) and the exhortations to love god and one's neighbour, which as exhortations to a moral life were brought forward in every conceivable relation, supplemented the general summons to renounce the world just as the official diaconate of the churches originating in the cultus, prevented the decomposition of them into a society of ascetics.] [footnote 276: for details, see below in the case of the lord's supper. it is specially important that even charity, through its union with the cultus, appeared as sacrificial worship (see e.g. polyc. ep. 4. 3).] [footnote 277: the idea of sacrifice adopted by the gentile christian communities, was that which was expressed in individual prophetic sayings and in the psalms, a spiritualising of the semitic jewish sacrificial ritual which, however, had not altogether lost its original features. the entrance of greek ideas of sacrifice cannot be traced before justin. neither was there as yet any reflection as to the connection of the sacrifice of the church with the sacrifice of christ upon the cross.] [footnote 278: see my texte und unters. z gesch. d. altchristl. lit. ii. 1. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 137 ff.] [footnote 279: there neither was a "doctrine" of baptism and the lord's supper, nor was there any inner connection presupposed between these holy actions. they were here and there placed together as actions by the lord.] [footnote 280: melito, fragm. xii. (otto. corp. apol. ix. p. 418). [greek: duo sunestê ta aphesin hamartêmatôn parechomena, pathos dia xriston kai baptisma].] [footnote 281: there is no sure trace of infant baptism in this epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition (see hermas, vis. iii. 7. 3; justin, apol. 1. 61). "prius est prædicare posterius tinguere" (tertull. "de bapt." 14).] [footnote 282: on the basis of repentance. see praed. petri in clem. strom. vi. 5. 43, 48.] [footnote 283: see especially the second epistle of clement; tertull. "de bapt." 15: "felix aqua quæ semel abluit, quas ludibrio peccatoribus non est."] [footnote 284: the sinking and rising in baptism, and the immersion, were regarded as significant, but not indispensable symbols (see didache. 7). the most important passages for baptism are didache 7; barn. 6. 11; 11. 1. 11 (the connection in which the cross of christ is here placed to the water is important; the tertium comp. is that forgiveness of sin is the result of both); herm. vis. iii. 3, sim. ix 16. mand. iv. 3 ([greek: hetera metanoia ouk estin ei mê ekeinê, hote eis hudôr katebêmen kai elabomen aphesin hamartiôn hêmôn tôn proteron]); 2 clem. 6. 9; 7. 6; 8. 6. peculiar is ignat. ad. polyc. 6. 2: [greek: to baptisma humôn menetô hôs hopla]. specially important is justin, apol. i. 61. 65. to this also belong many passages from tertullian's treatise "de bapt."; a gnostic baptismal hymn in the third pseudo-solomonic ode in the pistis sophia, p. 131, ed. schwartze; marcion's baptismal formula in irenæus 1. 21. 3. it clearly follows from the seventh chapter of the didache, that its author held that the pronouncing of the sacred names over the baptised, and over the water, was essential, but that immersion was not; see the thorough examination of this passage by schaff, "the oldest church manual called the teaching of the twelve apostles" pp. 29-57. the controversy about the nature of john's baptism in its relation to christian baptism, is very old in christendom; see also tertull. "de bapt." 10. tertullian sees in john's baptism only a baptism to repentance, not to forgiveness.] [footnote 285: in hermas and 2 clement. the expression probably arose from the language of the mysteries: see appuleius, "de magia", 55: "sacrorum pleraque initia in græcia participavi. eorum quædam signa et monumenta tradita mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo." ever since the gentile christians conceived baptism (and the lord's supper) according to the mysteries, they were of course always surprised by the parallel with the mysteries themselves. that begins with justin. tertullian, "de bapt." 5, says: "sed enim nationes extraneæ, ab omni intellectu spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant. sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, isidis alicujus aut mithræ; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt. ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlatæ aquæ; expiant passim. certe ludis apollinaribus et eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere præsumunt. item penes veteres, quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat." de praescr. 40: "diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis æmulatur. tingit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit. et si adhuc memini, mithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit ... summum pontificem in unius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes." the ancient notion that matter has a mysterious influence on spirit, came very early into vogue in connection with baptism. we see that from tertullian's treatise on baptism and his speculations about the power of the water (c. 1 ff.). the water must, of course, have been first consecrated for this purpose (that is, the demons must be driven out of it). but then it is holy water with which the holy spirit is united, and which is able really to cleanse the soul. see hatch, "the influence of greek ideas, etc.," p. 19. the consecration of the water is certainly very old: though we have no definite witnesses from the earliest period. even for the exorcism of the baptised before baptism i know of no earlier witness than the sentent. lxxxvii. episcoporum (hartel. opp. cypr. i. p. 450, no. 37: "primo per manus impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem").] [footnote 286: justin is the first who does so (i. 61). the word comes from the greek mysteries. on justin's theory of baptism, see also i. 62. and von engelhardt, "christenthum justin's," p. 102 f.] [footnote 287: paul unites baptism and the communication of the spirit; but they were very soon represented apart, see the accounts in the acts of the apostles, which are certainly very obscure, because the author has evidently never himself observed the descent of the spirit, or anything like it. the ceasing of special manifestations of the spirit in and after baptism, and the enforced renunciation of seeing baptism accompanied by special shocks, must be regarded as the first stage in the sobering of the churches.] [footnote 288: the idea of the whole transaction of the supper as a sacrifice, is plainly found in the didache, (c. 14), in ignatius, and, above all, in justin (i. 65 f.) but even clement of rome presupposes it, when in (cc. 40-44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the priests and levites of the old testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44. 4) [greek: prospherein ta dôra]. this is not the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of justin, had been created by the churches. various reasons tended towards seeing in the supper a sacrifice. in the first place, malachi i. 11, demanded a solemn christian sacrifice: see my notes on didache, 14. 3. in the second place, all prayers were regarded as sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers at the supper must be specially considered as such. in the third place, the words of institution [greek: touto poieite], contained a command with regard to a definite religious action. such an action, however, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more that the gentile christians might suppose that they had to understand [greek: poiein] in the sense of [greek: thuein]. in the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the "agapæ" connected with the supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the holy celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship be regarded than as [greek: prosphorai] for the purpose of a sacrifice? yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the [greek: thusia] proper, even in the case of justin (dial. 117). the elements are only [greek: dôra, prosphorai] which obtain their value from the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the community into the kingdom of god (see didache, 9. 10). therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called [greek: eucharistia] (justin, apol. i. 66: [greek: hê trophê hautê chaleitai par' hêmin eucharistia]). didache, 9. 1; ignat., because it is [greek: trophê eucharistêtheisa]. it is a mistake to suppose that justin already understood the body of christ to be the object of [greek: poiein], and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (i. 66). the real sacrificial act in the supper consists rather, according to justin, only in the [greek: eucharistian poiein], whereby the [greek: koinos artos] becomes the [greek: artos tês eucharistias]. the sacrifice of the supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice of the church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer (see apol. i. 13, 65-67; dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116-118).] [footnote 289: justin lays special stress on this purpose. on the other hand, it is wanting in the supper prayers of the didache, unless c. 9. 2 be regarded as an allusion to it.] [footnote 290: the designation [greek: thusia] is first found in the didache, c. 14.] [footnote 291: the supper was regarded as a "sacrament" in so far as a blessing was represented in its holy food. the conception of the nature of this blessing as set forth in john vi. 27-58, appears to have been the most common. it may be traced back to ignatius, ad eph. 20.2: [greek: hena arton klôntes hos estin pharmakon athanasias, antidotos tou mê apothanein alla zên en iêsou christou dia pantos]. cf didache, 10.3: [greek: hêmin echarisô pneumatikên trophên kai poton kai zôên aiônion], also 10.21: [greek: eucharistoumen soi huper tês gnôseôs kai pisteos kai athanasias]. justin apol. 1. 66: [greek: ek tês trophês tautês haima kai sarkes kata metabolên trephontai hêmôn kata metabolên] that is, the holy food, like all nourishment, is completely transformed into our flesh; but what justin has in view here is most probably the body of the resurrection. the expression, as the context shews, is chosen for the sake of the parallel to the incarnation). iren. iv. 18. 5; v. 2. 2 f. as to how the elements are related to the body and blood of christ, ignatius seems to have expressed himself in a strictly realistic way in several passages, especially ad. smyr. 7-1: [greek: eucharistias kai proseuchês apechontai dia to mê homologein, tên eucharistian sarka einai tou sôtêros hêmôn iêsou christou, tên huper tôn hamartion hêmôn pathousan]. but many passages shew that ignatius was far from such a conception, and rather thought as john did. in trall. 8, faith is described as the flesh, and love as the blood of christ; in rom. 7, in one breath the flesh of christ is called the bread of god, and the blood [greek: agapê aphthartos]. in philad. 1, we read: [greek: haima i. chr. hêtis estin chara aiônios kai paramonos]. in philad. 5, the gospel is called the flesh of christ, etc. höfling is therefore right in saying (lehre v. opfer, p. 39): "the eucharist is to ignatius [greek: sarx] of christ, as a visible gospel, a kind of divine institution attesting the content of [greek: pistis], viz., belief in the [greek: sarx pathousa], an institution which is at the same time, to the community, a means of representing and preserving its unity in this belief." on the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that justin (apol. i. 66) presupposed the identity, miraculously produced by the logos, of the consecrated bread and the body he had assumed. in this we have probably to recognise an influence on the conception of the supper, of the miracle represented in the greek mysteries: [greek: ouch hôs koinon arton oude koinon poma tauta lambanomen, all' hon tropon dia logou theou sarkopoiêtheis iêsous christos ho sôtêr hêmôn kai sarka kaì haima huper sôtêrias hêmôn eschen, houtôs kai tên di' euchês logou tou par' autou eucharistêtheisan trophên, ex ês haima ka sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemôn, ekeinou tou sarkopoiethentos iêsou kai sarka kai haima edidachthêmen einai] (see von otto on the passage). in the texte u. unters. vii. 2. p. 117 ff., i have shewn that in the different christian circles of the second century, water and only water was often used in the supper instead of wine, and that in many regions this custom was maintained up to the middle of the third century (see cypr. ep. 63). i have endeavoured to make it further probable, that even justin in his apology describes a celebration of the lord's supper with bread and water. the latter has been contested by zahn, "bread and wine in the lord's supper, in the early church," 1892, and jülicher, zur gesch. der abendmahlsfeier in der aeltesten kirche (abhandl. f weiszacker, 1892, p. 217 ff.] [footnote 292: ignatius calls the thank-offering the flesh of christ, but the concept "flesh of christ" is for him itself a spiritual one. on the contrary, justin sees in the bread the actual flesh of christ, but does not connect it with the idea of sacrifice. they are thus both as yet far from the later conception. the numerous allegories which are already attached to the supper (one bread equivalent to one community; many scattered grains bound up in the one bread, equivalent to the christians scattered abroad in the world, who are to be gathered together into the kingdom of god; one altar, equivalent to one assembly of the community, excluding private worship, etc.), cannot as a group be adduced here.] [footnote 293: cf. for the following my arguments in the larger edition of the "teaching of the apostles" chap 5, (texte u. unters ii. 1. 2). the numerous recent enquiries (loening, loofs, réville etc.) will be found referred to in sohm's kirchenrecht. vol. i. 1892, where the most exhaustive discussions are given.] [footnote 294: that the bishops and deacons were, primarily, officials connected with the cultus, is most clearly seen from 1 clem. 40-44, but also from the connection in which the 14th chap. of the didache stands with the 15th (see the [greek: oun], 15. 1) to which hatch in conversation called my attention. the [greek: philoxenia], and the intercourse with other communities (the fostering of the "unitas") belonged, above all, to the affairs of the church. here, undoubtedly, from the beginning lay an important part of the bishop's duties. ramsay ("the church in the roman empire," p. 361 ff.) has emphasised this point exclusively, and therefore one-sidedly. according to him, the monarchical episcopate sprang from the officials who were appointed _ad hoc_ and for a time, for the purpose of promoting intercourse with other churches.] [footnote 295: sohm (in the work mentioned above) seeks to prove that the monarchical episcopate originated in rome and is already presupposed by hermas. i hold that the proof for this has not been adduced, and i must also in great part reject the bold statements which are fastened on to the first epistle of clement. they may be comprehended in the proposition which sohm, p. 158, has placed at the head of his discussion of the epistle. "the first epistle of clement makes an epoch in the history of the organisation of the church. it was destined to put an end to the early christian constitution of the church." according to sohm (p. 165), another immediate result of the epistle was a change of constitution in the romish church, the introduction of the monarchical episcopate. that, however, can only be asserted, not proved; for the proof which sohm has endeavoured to bring from ignatius' epistle to the romans and the shepherd of hermas, is not convincing.] [footnote 296: see, above all, 1 clem. 42, 44, acts of the apostles, pastoral epistles, etc.] [footnote 297: this idea is romish. see book ii. chap, 11 c.] [footnote 298: we must remember here, that besides the teachers, elders, and deacons, the ascetics (virgins, widows, celibates, abstinentes) and the martyrs (confessors) enjoyed a special respect in the churches, and frequently laid hold of the government and leading of them. hermas enjoins plainly enough the duty of esteeming the confessors higher than the presbyters (vis. iii. 1. 2). the widows were soon entrusted with diaconal tasks connected with the worship, and received a corresponding respect. as to the limits of this there was, as we can gather from different passages, much disagreement. one statement in tertullian shews that the confessors had special claims to be considered in the choice of a bishop (adv. valent. 4: "speraverat episcopatum valentinus, quia et ingenio poterat et eloquio. sed alium ex martyrii praerogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authenticae regulæ abrupit"). this statement is strengthened by other passages; see tertull. de fuga; 11. "hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minoris loci, ut maioris fieri possit, si quem gradum in persecutionis tolerantia ascenderit"; see hippol in the arab. canons, and also achelis, texte u. unters vi. 4. pp. 67, 220; cypr. epp. 38. 39. the way in which confessors and ascetics, from the end of the second century, attempted to have their say in the leading of the churches, and the respectful way in which it was sought to set their claims aside, shew that a special relation to the lord, and therefore a special right with regard to the community, was early acknowledged to these people, on account of their achievements. on the transition of the old prophets and teachers into wandering ascetics, later into monks, see the syriac pseudo-clementine epistles, "de virginitate," and my abhandl i d. sitzungsberichten d. k. pr. akad. d. wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff.] [footnote 299: see weizsäcker, gött gel. anz. 1886, no. 21, whose statements i can almost entirely make my own.] chapter iv the attempts of the gnostics to create an apostolic dogmatic, and a christian theology; or, the acute secularising of christianity. § 1. _the conditions for the rise of gnosticism._ the christian communities were originally unions for a holy life, on the ground of a common hope, which rested on the belief that the god who has spoken by the prophets has sent his son jesus christ, and through him revealed eternal life, and will shortly make it manifest. christianity had its roots in certain facts and utterances, and the foundation of the christian union was the common hope, the holy life in the spirit according to the law of god, and the holding fast to those facts and utterances. there was, as the foregoing chapter will have shewn, no fixed didache beyond that.[300] there was abundance of fancies, ideas, and knowledge, but these had not yet the value of being the religion itself. yet the belief that christianity guarantees the perfect knowledge, and leads from one degree of clearness to another, was in operation from the very beginning. this conviction had to be immediately tested by the old testament, that is, the task was imposed on the majority of thinking christians, by the circumstances in which the gospel had been proclaimed to them, of making the old testament intelligible to themselves, in other words, of using this book as a christian book, and of finding the means by which they might be able to repel the jewish claim to it, and refute the jewish interpretation of it. this task would not have been imposed, far less solved, if the christian communities in the empire had not entered into the inheritance of the jewish propaganda, which had already been greatly influenced by foreign religions (babylonian and persian, see the jewish apocalypses), and in which an extensive spiritualising of the old testament religion had already taken place. this spiritualising was the result of a philosophic view of religion, and this philosophic view was the outcome of a lasting influence of greek philosophy and of the greek spirit generally on judaism. in consequence of this view, all facts and sayings of the old testament in which one could not find his way, were allegorised. "nothing was what it seemed, but was only the symbol of something invisible. the history of the old testament was here sublimated to a history of the emancipation of reason from passion." it describes, however, the beginning of the historical development of christianity, that as soon as it wished to give account of itself, or to turn to advantage the documents of revelation which were in its possession, it had to adopt the methods of that fantastic syncretism. we have seen above that those writers who made a diligent use of the old testament, had no hesitation in making use of the allegorical method. that was required not only by the inability to understand the verbal sense of the old testament, presenting diverging moral and religious opinions, but, above all, by the conviction, that on every page of that book christ and the christian church must be found. how could this conviction have been maintained, unless the definite concrete meaning of the documents had been already obliterated by the jewish philosophic view of the old testament? this necessary allegorical interpretation, however, brought into the communities an intellectual philosophic element, a _gnosis_, which was perfectly distinct from the apocalyptic dreams, in which were beheld angel hosts on white horses, christ with eyes as a flame of fire, hellish beasts, conflict and victory.[301] in this [greek: gnôsis], which attached itself to the old testament, many began to see the specific blessing which was promised to mature faith, and through which it was to attain perfection. what a wealth of relations, hints, and intuitions seemed to disclose itself, as soon as the old testament was considered allegorically, and to what extent had the way been prepared here by the jewish philosophic teachers! from the simple narratives of the old testament had already been developed a theosophy, in which the most abstract ideas had acquired reality, and from which sounded forth the hellenic canticle of the power of the spirit over matter and sensuality, and of the true home of the soul. whatever in this great adaptation still remained obscure and unnoticed, was now lighted up by the history of jesus, his birth, his life, his sufferings and triumph. the view of the old testament as a document of the deepest wisdom, transmitted to those who knew how to read it as such, unfettered the intellectual interest which would not rest until it had entirely transferred the new religion from the world of feelings, actions and hopes, into the world of hellenic conceptions, and transformed it into a metaphysic. in that exposition of the old testament which we find, for example, in the so-called barnabas, there is already concealed an important philosophic, hellenic element, and in that sermon which bears the name of clement (the so-called second epistle of clement), conceptions such as that of the church, have already assumed a bodily form and been joined in marvellous connections, while, on the contrary, things concrete have been transformed into things invisible. but once the intellectual interest was unfettered, and the new religion had approximated to the hellenic spirit by means of a philosophic view of the old testament, how could that spirit be prevented from taking complete and immediate possession of it, and where, in the first instance, could the power be found that was able to decide whether this or that opinion was incompatible with christianity? this christianity, as it was, unequivocally excluded all polytheism, and all national religions existing in the empire. it opposed to them the one god, the saviour jesus, and a spiritual worship of god. but, at the same time, it summoned all thoughtful men to knowledge, by declaring itself to be the only true religion, while it appeared to be only a variety of judaism. it seemed to put no limits to the character and extent of the knowledge, least of all to such knowledge as was able to allow all that was transmitted to remain, and at the same time, abolish it by transforming it into mysterious symbols. that really was the method which every one must and did apply who wished to get from christianity more than practical motives and super-earthly hopes. but where was the limit of the application? was not the next step to see in the evangelic records also new material for spiritual interpretations, and to illustrate from the narratives there, as from the old testament, the conflict of the spirit with matter, of reason with sensuality? was not the conception that the traditional deeds of christ were really the last act in the struggle of those mighty spiritual powers whose conflict is delineated in the old testament, at least as evident as the other, that those deeds were the fulfilment of mysterious promises? was it not in keeping with the consciousness possessed by the new religion of being the universal religion, that one should not be satisfied with mere beginnings of a new knowledge, or with fragments of it, but should seek to set up such knowledge in a complete and systematic form, and so to exhibit the best and universal system of life as also the best and universal system of knowledge of the world? finally, did not the free and yet so rigid forms in which the christian communities were organised, the union of the mysterious with a wonderful publicity, of the spiritual with significant rites (baptism and the lord's supper), invite men to find here the realisation of the ideal which the hellenic religious spirit was at that time seeking, viz., a communion which in virtue of a divine revelation, is in possession of the highest knowledge, and therefore leads the holiest life, a communion which does not communicate this knowledge by discourse, but by mysterious efficacious consecrations, and by revealed dogmas? these questions are thrown out here in accordance with the direction which the historical progress of christianity took. the phenomenon called gnosticism gives the answer to them.[302] § 2. _the nature of gnosticism._ the catholic church afterwards claimed as her own those writers of the first century (60-160) who were content with turning speculation to account only as a means of spiritualising the old testament, without, however, attempting a systematic reconstruction of tradition. but all those who in the first century undertook to furnish christian practice with the foundation of a complete systematic knowledge, she declared false christians, christians only in name. historical enquiry cannot accept this judgment. on the contrary, it sees in gnosticism a series of undertakings, which in a certain way is analogous to the catholic embodiment of christianity, in doctrine, morals, and worship. the great distinction here consists essentially in the fact that the gnostic systems represent the acute secularising or hellenising of christianity, with the rejection of the old testament,[303] while the catholic system, on the other hand, represents a gradual process of the same kind with the conservation of the old testament. the traditional religion on being, as it were, suddenly required to recognise itself in a picture foreign to it, was yet vigorous enough to reject that picture; but to the gradual, and one might say indulgent remodelling to which it was subjected, it offered but little resistance, nay, as a rule, it was never conscious of it. it is therefore no paradox to say that gnosticism, which is just hellenism, has in catholicism obtained half a victory. we have, at least, the same justification for that assertion--the parallel may be permitted--as we have for recognising a triumph of 18th century ideas in the first empire, and a continuance, though with reservations, of the old regime. from this point of view the position to be assigned to the gnostics in the history of dogma, which has hitherto been always misunderstood, is obvious. _they were, in short, the theologians of the first century._[304] they were the first to transform christianity into a system of doctrines (dogmas). they were the first to work up tradition systematically. they undertook to present christianity as the absolute religion, and therefore placed it in definite opposition to the other religions, even to judaism. but to them the absolute religion, viewed in its contents, was identical with the result of the philosophy of religion for which the support of a revelation was to be sought. they are therefore those christians who, in a swift advance, attempted to capture christianity for hellenic culture, and hellenic culture for christianity, and who gave up the old testament in order to facilitate the conclusion of the covenant between the two powers, and make it possible to assert the absoluteness of christianity.--but the significance of the old testament in the religious history of the world, lies just in this, that, in order to be maintained at all, it required the application of the allegoric method, that is, a definite proportion of greek ideas, and that, on the other hand, it opposed the strongest barrier to the complete hellenising of christianity. neither the sayings of jesus, nor christian hopes, were at first capable of forming such a barrier. if, now, the majority of gnostics could make the attempt to disregard the old testament, that is a proof that, in wide circles of christendom, people were at first satisfied with an abbreviated form of the gospel, containing the preaching of the one god, of the resurrection and of continence, a law and an ideal of practical life.[305] in this form, as it was realised in life, the christianity which dispensed with "doctrines" seemed capable of union with every form of thoughtful and earnest philosophy, because the jewish foundation did not make its appearance here at all. but the majority of gnostic undertakings may also be viewed as attempts to transform christianity into a theosophy, that is, into a revealed metaphysic and philosophy of history, with a complete disregard of the jewish old testament soil on which it originated, through the use of pauline ideas,[306] and under the influence of the platonic spirit. moreover, comparison is possible between writers such as barnabas and ignatius, and the so-called gnostics, to the effect of making the latter appear in possession of a completed theory, to which fragmentary ideas in the former exhibit a striking affinity. we have hitherto tacitly presupposed that in gnosticism the hellenic spirit desired to make itself master of christianity, or more correctly of the christian communities. this conception may be, and really is still contested. for according to the accounts of later opponents, and on these we are almost exclusively dependent here, the main thing with the gnostics seems to have been the reproduction of asiatic mythologoumena of all kinds, so that we should rather have to see in gnosticism a union of christianity with the most remote oriental cults and their wisdom. but with regard to the most important gnostic systems the words hold true, "the hands are the hands of esau, but the voice is the voice of jacob." there can be no doubt of the fact, that the gnosticism which has become a factor in the movement of the history of dogma, was ruled in the main by the greek spirit, and determined by the interests and doctrines of the greek philosophy of religion,[307] which doubtless had already assumed a syncretistic character. this fact is certainly concealed by the circumstance that the material of the speculations was taken now from this, and now from that oriental religious philosophy, from astrology and the semitic cosmologies. but that is only in keeping with the stage which the religious development had reached among the greeks and romans of that time.[308] the cultured, and these primarily come into consideration here, no longer had a religion in the sense of a national religion, but a philosophy of religion. they were, however, in search of a religion, that is, a firm basis for the results of their speculations, and they hoped to obtain it by turning themselves towards the very old oriental cults, and seeking to fill them with the religious and moral knowledge which had been gained by the schools of plato and of zeno. the union of the traditions and rites of the oriental religions, viewed as mysteries, with the spirit of greek philosophy is the characteristic of the epoch. the needs, which asserted themselves with equal strength, of a complete knowledge of the all, of a spiritual god, a sure, and therefore very old revelation, atonement and immortality, were thus to be satisfied at one and the same time. the most sublimated spiritualism enters here into the strangest union with a crass superstition based on oriental cults. this superstition was supposed to insure and communicate the spiritual blessings. these complicated tendencies now entered into christianity. we have accordingly to ascertain and distinguish in the prominent gnostic schools, which, in the second century on greek soil, became an important factor in the history of the church, the semitic-cosmological foundations, the hellenic philosophic mode of thought, and the recognition of the redemption of the world by jesus christ. further, we have to take note of the three elements of gnosticism, viz., the speculative and philosophical, the mystic element connection with worship, and the practical, ascetic. the close connection in which these three elements appear,[309] the total transformation of all ethical into cosmological problems, the upbuilding of a philosophy of god and the world on the basis of a combination of popular mythologies, physical observations belonging to the oriental (babylonian) religious philosophy, and historical events, as well as the idea that the history of religion is the last act in the drama-like history of the cosmos--all this is not peculiar to gnosticism, but rather corresponds to a definite stage of the general development. it may, however, be asserted that gnosticism anticipated the general development, and that not only with regard to catholicism, but also with regard to neo-platonism, which represents the last stage in the inner history of hellenism.[310] the valentinians have already got as far as jamblichus. the name gnosis, gnostics, describes excellently the aims of gnosticism, in so far as its adherents boasted of the absolute knowledge, and faith in the gospel was transformed into a knowledge of god, nature and history. this knowledge, however, was not regarded as natural, but in the view of the gnostics was based on revelation, was communicated and guaranteed by holy consecrations, and was accordingly cultivated by reflection supported by fancy. a mythology of ideas was created out of the sensuous mythology of any oriental religion, by the conversion of concrete forms into speculative and moral ideas, such as "abyss," "silence," "logos," "wisdom," "life," while the mutual relation and number of these abstract ideas were determined by the data supplied by the corresponding concretes. thus arose a philosophic dramatic poem, similar to the platonic, but much more complicated, and therefore more fantastic, in which mighty powers, the spiritual and good, appear in an unholy union with the material and wicked, but from which the spiritual is finally delivered by the aid of those kindred powers which are too exalted to be ever drawn down into the common. the good and heavenly which has been drawn down into the material, and therefore really non-existing, is the human spirit, and the exalted power who delivers it is christ. the evangelic history as handed down is not the history of christ, but a collection of allegoric representations of the great history of god and the world. christ has really no history. his appearance in this world of mixture and confusion is his deed, and the enlightenment of the spirit about itself is the result which springs out of that deed. this enlightenment itself is life. but the enlightenment is dependent on revelation, asceticism and surrender to those mysteries which christ founded, in which one enters into communion with a _præsens numen_, and which in mysterious ways promote the process of raising the spirit above the sensual. this rising above the sensual is, however, to be actively practised. abstinence therefore, as a rule, is the watchword. christianity thus appears here as a speculative philosophy which redeems the spirit by enlightening it, consecrating it, and instructing it in the right conduct of life. the gnosis is free from the rationalistic interest in the sense of natural religion. because the riddles about the world which it desires to solve are not properly intellectual, but practical, because it desires to be in the end [greek: gnôsis sôtêrías], it removes into the region of the suprarational the powers which are supposed to confer vigour and life on the human spirit. only a [greek: mathêsis], however, united with [greek: mystagogía], resting on revelation, leads thither, not an exact philosophy. gnosis starts from the great problem of this world, but occupies itself with a higher world, and does not wish to be an exact philosophy, but a philosophy of religion. its fundamental philosophic doctrines are the following: (1) the indefinable, infinite nature of the divine primeval being exalted above all thought. (2) matter as opposed to the divine being, and therefore having no real being, the ground of evil. (3) the fulness of divine potencies, æons, which are thought of partly as powers, partly as real ideas, partly as relatively independent beings, presenting in gradation the unfolding and revelation of the godhead, but at the same time rendering possible the transition of the higher to the lower. (4) the cosmos as a mixture of matter with divine sparks, which has arisen from a descent of the latter into the former, or, as some say, from the perverse, or, at least, merely permitted undertaking of a subordinate spirit. the demiurge, therefore, is an evil, intermediate, or weak, but penitent being; the best thing therefore in the world is aspiration. (5) the deliverance of the spiritual element from its union with matter, or the separation of the good from the world of sensuality by the spirit of christ which operates through knowledge, asceticism, and holy consecration: thus originates the perfect gnostic, the man who is free from the world, and master of himself, who lives in god and prepares himself for eternity. all these are ideas for which we find the way prepared in the philosophy of the time, anticipated by philo, and represented in neoplatonism as the great final result of greek philosophy. it lies in the nature of the case that only some men are able to appropriate the christianity that is comprehended in these ideas, viz., just as many as are capable of entering into this kind of christianity, those who are spiritual. the others must be considered as non-partakers of the spirit from the beginning, and therefore excluded from knowledge as the _profanum vulgus_. yet some, the valentinians, for example, made a distinction in this _vulgus_, which can only be discussed later on, because it is connected with the position of the gnostics towards jewish christian tradition. the later opponents of gnosticism preferred to bring out the fantastic details of the gnostic systems, and thereby created the prejudice that the essence of the matter lay in these. they have thus occasioned modern expounders to speculate about the gnostic speculations in a manner that is marked by still greater strangeness. four observations shew how unhistorical and unjust such a view is, at least with regard to the chief systems. (1) the great gnostic schools, wherever they could, sought to spread their opinions. but it is simply incredible that they should have expected of all their disciples, male and female, an accurate knowledge of the details of their system. on the contrary, it may be shewn that they often contented themselves with imparting consecration, with regulating the practical life of their adherents, and instructing them in the general features of their system.[311] (2) we see how in one and the same school, for example, the valentinian, the details of the religious metaphysic were very various and changing. (3) we hear but little of conflicts between the various schools. on the contrary, we learn that the books of doctrine and edification passed from one school to another.[312] (4) the fragments of gnostic writings which have been preserved, and this is the most important consideration of the four, shew that the gnostics devoted their main strength to the working out of those religious, moral, philosophical and historical problems, which must engage the thoughtful of all times.[313] we only need to read some actual gnostic document, such as the epistle of ptolemæus to flora, or certain paragraphs of the pistis sophia, in order to see that the fantastic details of the philosophic poem can only, in the case of the gnostics themselves, have had the value of liturgical apparatus, the construction of which was not of course a matter of indifference, but hardly formed the principal interest. the things to be proved, and to be confirmed by the aid of this or that very old religious philosophy, were certain religious and moral fundamental convictions, and a correct conception of god, of the sensible, of the creator of the world, of christ, of the old testament, and the evangelic tradition. here were actual dogmas. but how the grand fantastic union of all the factors was to be brought about, was, as the valentinian school shews, a problem whose solution was ever and again subjected to new attempts.[314] no one to-day can in all respects distinguish what to those thinkers was image and what reality, or in what degree they were at all able to distinguish image from reality, and in how far the magic formulæ of their mysteries were really objects of their meditation. but the final aim of their endeavours, the faith and knowledge of their own hearts which they instilled into their disciples, the practical rules which they wished to give them, and the view of christ which they wished to confirm them in, stand out with perfect clearness. like plato, they made their explanation of the world start from the contradiction between sense and reason, which the thoughtful man observes in himself. the cheerful asceticism, the powers of the spiritual and the good which were seen in the christian communities, attracted them and seemed to require the addition of theory to practice. theory without being followed by practice had long been in existence, but here was the as yet rare phenomenon of a moral practice which seemed to dispense with that which was regarded as indispensable, viz., theory. the philosophic life was already there; how could the philosophic doctrine be wanting, and after what other model could the latent doctrine be reproduced than that of the greek religious philosophy?[315] that the hellenic spirit in gnosticism turned with such eagerness to the christian communities and was ready even to believe in christ in order to appropriate the moral powers which it saw operative in them, is a convincing proof of the extraordinary impression which these communities made. for what other peculiarities and attractions had they to offer to that spirit than the certainty of their conviction (of eternal life), and the purity of their life? we hear of no similar edifice being erected in the second century on the basis of any other oriental cult--even the mithras cult is scarcely to be mentioned here--as the gnostic was on the foundation of the christian.[316] the christian communities, however, together with their worship of christ, formed the real solid basis of the greater number and the most important of the gnostic systems, and in this fact we have, on the very threshold of the great conflict, a triumph of christianity over hellenism. the triumph lay in the recognition of what christianity had already performed as a moral and social power. this recognition found expression in bringing the highest that one possessed as a gift to be consecrated by the new religion, a philosophy of religion whose end was plain and simple, but whose means were mysterious and complicated. § 3. _history of gnosticism and the forms in which it appeared._ in the previous section we have been contemplating gnosticism as it reached its prime in the great schools of basilides and valentinus, and those related to them,[317] at the close of the period we are now considering, and became an important factor in the history of dogma. but this gnosticism had (1) preliminary stages, and (2) was always accompanied by a great number of sects, schools and undertakings which were only in part related to it, and yet, reasonably enough, were grouped together with it. to begin with the second point, the great gnostic schools were flanked on the right and left by a motley series of groups which at their extremities can hardly be distinguished from popular christianity on the one hand, and from the hellenic and the common world on the other.[318] on the right were communities such as the encratites, which put all stress on a strict asceticism, in support of which they urged the example of christ, but which here and there fell into dualistic ideas.[319] there were further, whole communities which, for decennia, drew their views of christ from books which represented him as a heavenly spirit who had merely assumed an apparent body.[320] there were also individual teachers who brought forward peculiar opinions without thereby causing any immediate stir in the churches.[321] on the left there were schools such as the carpocratians, in which the philosophy and communism of plato were taught, the son of the founder and second teacher epiphanes honoured as a god (at cephallenia), as epicurus was in his school, and the image of jesus crowned along with those of pythagoras, plato and aristotle.[322] on this left flank are, further, swindlers who take their own way, like alexander of abonoteichus, magicians, soothsayers, sharpers and jugglers, under the sign-board of christianity, deceivers and hypocrites who appear using mighty words with a host of unintelligible formulæ, and take up with scandalous ceremonies, in order to rob men of their money and women of their honour.[323] all this was afterwards called "heresy" and "gnosticism," and is still so called.[324] and these names may be retained, if we will understand by them nothing else than the world taken into christianity, all the manifold formations which resulted from the first contact of the new religion with the society into which it entered. to prove the existence of that left wing of gnosticism is of the greatest interest for the history of dogma, but the details are of no consequence. on the other hand, in the aims and undertakings of the gnostic right, it is just the details that are of greatest significance, because they shew that there was no fixed boundary between what one may call common christian and gnostic christian. but as gnosticism, in its contents, extended itself from the encratites and the philosophic interpretation of certain articles of the christian proclamation, as brought forward without offence by individual teachers in the communities, to the complete dissolution of the christian element by philosophy, or the religious charlatanry of the age, so it exhibits itself formally also in a long series of groups which comprised all imaginable forms of unions. there were churches, ascetic associations, mystery cults, strictly private philosophic schools,[325] free unions for edification, entertainments by christian charlatans and deceived deceivers, who appeared as magicians and prophets, attempts at founding new religions after the model and under the influence of the christian, etc. but, finally, the thesis that gnosticism is identical with an acute secularising of christianity, in the widest sense of the word, is confirmed by the study of its own literature. the early christian production of gospel and apocalypses was indeed continued in gnosticism yet so that the class of "acts of the apostles" was added to them, and that didactic, biographic and "belles lettres," elements were received into them, and claimed a very important place. if this makes the gnostic literature approximate to the profane, that is much more the case with the scientific theological literature which gnosticism first produced. dogmatico-philosophic tracts, theologico-critical treatises, historical investigations and scientific commentaries on the sacred books, were, for the first time in christendom, composed by the gnostics, who in part occupied the foremost place in the scientific knowledge, religious earnestness and ardour of the age. they form, in every respect, the counterpart to the scientific works which proceeded from the contemporary philosophic schools. moreover, we possess sufficient knowledge of gnostic hymns and odes, songs for public worship, didactic poems, magic formulæ, magic books, etc., to assure us that christian gnosticism took possession of a whole region of the secular life in its full breadth, and thereby often transformed the original forms of christian literature into secular.[326] if, however, we bear in mind how all this at a later period was gradually legitimised in the catholic church, philosophy, the science of the sacred books, criticism and exegesis, the ascetic associations, the theological schools, the mysteries, the sacred formulæ, the superstition, the charlatanism, all kinds of profane literature, etc., it seems to prove the thesis that the victorious epoch of the gradual hellenising of christianity followed the abortive attempts at an acute hellenising. the traditional question as to the origin and development of gnosticism, as well as that about the classification of the gnostic systems, will have to be modified in accordance with the foregoing discussion. as the different gnostic systems might be contemporary, and in part were undoubtedly contemporary, and as a graduated relation holds good only between some few groups, we must, in the classification, limit ourselves essentially to the features which have been specified in the foregoing paragraph, and which coincide with the position of the different groups to the early christian tradition in its connection with the old testament religion, both as a rule of practical life, and of the common cultus.[327] as to the origin of gnosticism, we see how, even in the earliest period, all possible ideas and principles foreign to christianity force their way into it, that is, are brought in under christian rules, and find entrance, especially in the consideration of the old testament.[328] we might be satisfied with the observation that the manifold gnostic systems were produced by the increase of this tendency. in point of fact we must admit that in the present state of our sources, we can reach no sure knowledge beyond that. these sources, however, give certain indications which should not be left unnoticed. if we leave out of account the two assertions of opponents, that gnosticism was produced by demons[329] and--this, however, was said at a comparatively late period--that it originated in ambition and resistance to the ecclesiastical office, the episcopate, we find in hegesippus, one of the earliest writers on the subject, the statement that the whole of the heretical schools sprang out of judaism or the jewish sects; in the later writers, irenæus, tertullian and hippolytus, that these schools owe most to the doctrines of pythagoras, plato, aristotle, zeno, etc.[330] but they all agree in this, that a definite personality, viz., simon the magician, must be regarded as the original source of the heresy. if we try it by these statements of the church fathers, we must see at once that the problem in this case is limited--certainly in a proper way. for after gnosticism is seen to be the acute secularising of christianity the only question that remains is, how are we to account for the origin of the great gnostic schools, that is, whether it is possible to indicate their preliminary stages. the following may be asserted here with some confidence: long before the appearance of christianity, combinations of religion had taken place in syria and palestine,[331] especially in samaria, in so far, on the one hand, as the assyrian and babylonian religious philosophy, together with its myths, as well as the greek popular religion, with its manifold interpretations, had penetrated as far as the eastern shore of the mediterranean, and been accepted even by the jews, and, on the other hand, the jewish messianic idea had spread and called forth various movements.[332] the result of every mixing of national religions, however, is to break through the traditional, legal and particular forms.[333] for the jewish religion syncretism signified the shaking of the authority of the old testament by a qualitative distinction of its different parts, as also doubt as to the identity of the supreme god with the national god. these ferments were once more set in motion by christianity. we know that in the apostolic age there were attempts in samaria to found new religions, which were in all probability influenced by the tradition and preaching concerning jesus. dositheus, simon magus, cleobius, and menander appeared as messiahs or bearers of the godhead, and proclaimed a doctrine in which the jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely mixed with babylonian myths, together with some greek additions. the mysterious worship, the breaking up of jewish particularism, the criticism of the old testament, which for long had had great difficulty in retaining its authority in many circles, in consequence of the widened horizon and the deepening of religious feeling, finally, the wild syncretism, whose aim, however, was a universal religion, all contributed to gain adherents for simon.[334] his enterprise appeared to the christians as a diabolical caricature of their own religion, and the impression made by the success which simonianism gained by a vigorous propaganda even beyond palestine into the west, supported this idea.[335] we can therefore understand how, afterwards, all heresies were traced back to simon. to this must be added that we can actually trace in many gnostic systems the same elements which were prominent in the religion proclaimed by simon (the babylonian and syrian), and that the new religion of the simonians, just like christianity, had afterwards to submit to be transformed into a philosophic, scholastic doctrine.[336] the formal parallel to the gnostic doctrines was therewith established. but even apart from these attempts at founding new religions, christianity in syria, under the influence of foreign religions and speculation on the philosophy of religion, gave a powerful impulse to the criticism of the law and the prophets which had already been awakened. in consequence of this, there appeared, about the transition of the first century to the second, a series of teachers, who, under the impression of the gospel, sought to make the old testament capable of furthering the tendency to a universal religion, not by allegorical interpretation, but by a sifting criticism. these attempts were of very different kinds. teachers such as cerinthus, clung to the notion that the universal religion revealed by christ was identical with undefined mosaism, and therefore maintained even such articles as circumcision and the sabbath commandment, as well as the earthly kingdom of the future. but they rejected certain parts of the law, especially, as a rule, the sacrificial precepts, which were no longer in keeping with the spiritual conception of religion. they conceived the creator of the world as a subordinate being distinct from the supreme god, which is always the mark of a syncretism with a dualistic tendency; introduced speculations about æons and angelic powers, among whom they placed christ, and recommended a strict asceticism. when, in their christology, they denied the miraculous birth, and saw in jesus a chosen man on whom the christ, that is, the holy spirit, descended at the baptism, they were not creating any innovation, but only following the earliest palestinian tradition. their rejection of the authority of paul is explained by their efforts to secure the old testament as far as possible for the universal religion.[337] there were others who rejected all ceremonial commandments as proceeding from the devil, or from some intermediate being, but yet always held firmly that the god of the jews was the supreme god. but alongside of these stood also decidedly anti-jewish groups, who seem to have been influenced in part by the preaching of paul. they advanced much further in the criticism of the old testament and perceived the impossibility of saving it for the christian universal religion. they rather connected this religion with the cultus-wisdom of babylon and syria, which seemed more adapted for allegorical interpretations, and opposed this formation to the old testament religion. the god of the old testament appears here at best as a subordinate angel of limited power, wisdom and goodness. in so far as he was identified with the creator of the world, and the creation of the world itself was regarded as an imperfect or an abortive undertaking, expression was given both to the anti-judaism and to that religious temper of the time, which could only value spiritual blessing in contrast with the world and the sensuous. these systems appeared more or less strictly dualistic, in proportion as they did or did not accept a slight co-operation of the supreme god in the creation of man; and the way in which the character and power of the world-creating god of the jews was conceived, serves as a measure of how far the several schools were from the jewish religion and the monism that ruled it. all possible conceptions of the god of the jews, from the assumption that he is a being supported in his undertakings by the supreme god, to his identification with satan, seem to have been exhausted in these schools. accordingly, in the former case, the old testament was regarded as the revelation of a subordinate god, in the latter as the manifestation of satan, and therefore the ethic--with occasional use of pauline formula--always assumed an antinomian form, compared with the jewish law, in some cases antinomian even in the sense of libertinism. correspondingly, the anthropology exhibits man as bipartite, or even tripartite, and the christology is strictly docetic and anti-jewish. the redemption by christ is always, as a matter of course, related only to that element in humanity which has an affinity with the godhead.[338] it is uncertain whether we should think of the spread of these doctrines in syria in the form of a school, or of a cultus; probably it was both. from the great gnostic systems as formed by basilides and valentinus they are distinguished by the fact, that they lack the peculiar philosophic, that is hellenic element, the speculative conversion of angels and æons into real ideas, etc. we have almost no knowledge of their effect. this gnosticism has never directly been a historical factor of striking importance, and the great question is whether it was so indirectly.[339] that is to say, we do not know whether this syrian gnosticism was, in the strict sense, the preparatory stage of the great gnostic schools, so that these schools should be regarded as an actual reconstruction of it. but there can be no doubt that the appearance of the great gnostic schools in the empire, from egypt to gaul, is contemporaneous with the vigorous projection of syrian cults westwards, and therefore the assumption is suggested, that the syrian christian syncretism was also spread in connection with that projection, and underwent a change corresponding to the new conditions. we know definitely that the syrian gnostic, cerdo, came to rome, wrought there, and exercised an influence on marcion. but no less probable is the assumption that the great hellenic gnostic schools arose spontaneously, in the sense of having been independently developed out of the elements to which undoubtedly the asiatic cults also belonged, without being influenced in any way by syrian syncretistic efforts. the conditions for the growth of such formations were nearly the same in all parts of the empire. the great advance lies in the fact that the religious material as contained in the gospel, the old testament, and the wisdom connected with the old cults, was philosophically, that is, scientifically, manipulated by means of allegory, and the aggregate of mythological powers translated into an aggregate of ideas. the pythagorean and platonic, more rarely the stoic philosophy, were compelled to do service here. great gnostic schools, which were at the same time unions for worship, first enter into the clear light of history in this form, (see previous section), and on the conflict with these, surrounded as they were by a multitude of dissimilar and related formations, depends the progress of the development.[340] we are no longer able to form a perfectly clear picture of how these schools came into being, or how they were related to the churches. it lay in the nature of the case that the heads of the schools, like the early itinerant heretical teachers, devoted attention chiefly, if not exclusively, to those who were already christian, that is, to the christian communities.[341] from the ignatian epistles, the shepherd of hermas (vis. iii. 7. 1; sim. viii. 6. 5; ix. 19. and especially 22) and the didache (xi. 1. 2) we see that those teachers who boasted of a special knowledge, and sought to introduce "strange" doctrines, aimed at gaining the entire churches. the beginning, as a rule, was necessarily the formation of conventicles. in the first period therefore, when there was no really fixed standard for warding off the foreign doctrines--hermas is unable even to characterise the false doctrines--the warnings were commonly exhausted in the exhortation: [greek: kollasthe tois hagiois, hoti hoi kollômenoi autois hagiasthêsontai] ["connect yourselves with the saints, because those who are connected with them shall be sanctified"]. as a rule, the doctrines may really have crept in unobserved, and those gained over to them may for long have taken part in a two-fold worship, the public worship of the churches, and the new consecration. those teachers must of course have assumed a more aggressive attitude who rejected the old testament. the attitude of the church, when it enjoyed competent guidance, was one of decided opposition towards unmasked or recognised false teachers. yet irenæus' account of cerdo in rome shews us how difficult it was at the beginning to get rid of a false teacher.[342] for justin, about the year 150, the marcionites, valentinians, basilideans and saturninians, are groups outside the communities, and undeserving of the name "christians."[343] there must therefore have been at that time, in rome and asia minor at least, a really perfect separation of those schools from the churches (it was different in alexandria). notwithstanding, this continued to be the region from which those schools obtained their adherents. for the valentinians recognised that the common christians were much better than the heathen, that they occupied a middle position between the "pneumatic" and the "hylic", and might look forward to a kind of salvation. this admission, as well as their conforming to the common christian tradition, enabled them to spread their views in a remarkable way, and they may not have had any objection in many cases, to their converts remaining in the great church. but can this community have perceived everywhere and at once, that the valentinian distinction of "psychic" and "pneumatic" is not identical with the scriptural distinction of children and men in understanding? where the organisation of the school (the union for worship) required a long time of probation, where degrees of connection with it were distinguished, and a strict asceticism demanded of the perfect, it followed of course that those on the lower stage should not be urged to a speedy break with the church.[344] but after the creation of the catholic confederation of churches, existence was made more and more difficult for these schools. some of them lived on somewhat like our freemason-unions, some, as in the east, became actual sects (confessions), in which the wise and the simple now found a place, as they were propagated by families. in both cases they ceased to be what they had been at the beginning. from about 210, they ceased to be a factor of the historical development, though the church of constantine and theodosius was alone really able to suppress them. 4. _the most important gnostic doctrines._ we have still to measure and compare with the earliest tradition those gnostic doctrines which, partly at once and partly in the following period, became important. once more, however, we must expressly refer to the fact, that the epoch-making significance of gnosticism for the history of dogma, must not be sought chiefly in the particular doctrines, but rather in the whole way in which christianity is here conceived and transformed. the decisive thing is the conversion of the gospel into a doctrine, into an absolute philosophy of religion, the transforming of the _disciplina evangelii_ into an asceticism based on a dualistic conception, and into a practice of mysteries.[345] we have now briefly to shew, with due regard to the earliest tradition, how far this transformation was of positive or negative significance for the following period, that is, in what respects the following development was anticipated by gnosticism, and in what respects gnosticism was disavowed by this development.[346] (1) christianity, which is the only true and absolute religion, embraces a revealed system of doctrine (positive). (2) this doctrine contains mysterious powers, which are communicated to men by initiation (mysteries). (3) the revealer is christ (positive), but christ alone, and only in his historical appearance--no old testament christ (negative); this appearance is itself redemption: the doctrine is the announcement of it and of its presuppositions (positive).[347] (4) christian doctrine is to be drawn from the apostolic tradition, critically examined. this tradition lies before us in a series of apostolic writings, and in a secret doctrine derived from the apostles, (positive).[348] as exoteric it is comprehended in the _regula fidei_ (positive),[349] as esoteric it is propagated by chosen teachers.[350] (5) the documents of revelation (apostolic writings), just because they are such, must be interpreted by means of allegory, that is, their deeper meaning must be extracted in this way (positive).[351] (6) the following may be noted as the main points in the gnostic conception of the several parts of the _regula fidei_. (a) the difference between the supreme god and the creator of the world, and therewith the opposing of redemption and creation, and therefore the separation of the mediator of revelation from the mediator of creation.[352] (b) the separation of the supreme god from the god of the old testament, and therewith the rejection of the old testament, or the assertion that the old testament contains no revelations of the supreme god, or at least only in certain parts.[353] (c) the doctrine of the independence and eternity of matter. (d) the assertion that the present world sprang from a fall of man, or from an undertaking hostile to god, and is therefore the product of an evil or intermediate being.[354] (e) the doctrine, that evil is inherent in matter, and therefore is a physical potence.[355] (f) the assumption of æons, that is, real powers and heavenly persons in whom is unfolded the absoluteness of the godhead.[356] (g) the assertion that christ revealed a god hitherto unknown. (h) the doctrine that in the person of jesus christ--the gnostics saw in it redemption, but they reduced the person to the physical nature--the heavenly æon, christ, and the human appearance of that æon must be clearly distinguished, and a "distincte agere" ascribed to each. accordingly, there were some, such as basilides, who acknowledged no real union between christ and the man jesus, whom, besides, they regarded as an earthly man. others, e.g., part of the valentinians, among whom the greatest differences prevailed--see tertull. adv. valent. 39--taught that the body of jesus was a heavenly psychical formation, and sprang from the womb of mary only in appearance. finally, a third party, such as saturninus, declared that the whole visible appearance of christ was a phantom, and therefore denied the birth of christ.[357] christ separates that which is unnaturally united, and thus leads everything back again to himself; in this redemption consists (full contrast to the notion of the [greek: anakephalaiôsis]). (i) the conversion of the [greek: ekklêsia] (it was no innovation to regard the heavenly church as an æon) into the college of the pneumatic, who alone, in virtue of their psychological endowment, are capable of gnosis and the divine life, while the others, likewise in virtue of their constitution, as hylic perish. the valentinians, and probably many other gnostics also, distinguished between pneumatic, psychic and hylic. they regarded the psychic as capable of a certain blessedness, and of a corresponding certain knowledge of the supersensible, the latter being obtained through pistis, that is, through christian faith.[358] (k) the rejection of the entire early christian eschatology, especially the second coming of christ, the resurrection of the body, and christ's kingdom of glory on the earth, and, in connection with this, the assertion that the deliverance of the spirit from the sensuous can be expected only from the future, while the spirit enlightened about itself already possesses immortality, and only awaits its introduction into the pneumatic pleroma.[359] in addition to what has been mentioned here, we must finally fix our attention on the ethics of gnosticism. like the ethics of all systems which are based on the contrast between the sensuous and spiritual elements of human nature, that of the gnostics took a twofold direction. on the one hand, it sought to suppress and uproot the sensuous, and thus became strictly ascetic (imitation of christ as motive of asceticism;[360] christ and the apostles represented as ascetics);[361] on the other hand, it treated the sensuous element as indifferent, and so became libertine, that is, conformed to the world. the former was undoubtedly the more common, though there are credible witnesses to the latter; the _frequentissimum collegium_ in particular, the valentinians, in the days of irenæus and tertullian, did not vigorously enough prohibit a lax and world-conforming morality;[362] and among the syrian and egyptian gnostics there were associations which celebrated the most revolting orgies.[363] as the early christian tradition summoned to a strict renunciation of the world and to self-control, the gnostic asceticism could not but make an impression at the first; but the dualistic basis on which it rested could not fail to excite suspicion as soon as one was capable of examining it.[364] _literature._--the writings of justin (his syntagma against heresies has not been preserved), irenæus, tertullian, hippolytus, clement of alexandria, origen, epiphanius, philastrius and theodoret; cf. volkmar, die quellen der ketzergeschichte, 1885. lipsius, zur quellenkritik des epiphanios, 1875; also die quellen der ältesten ketzergeschichte, 1875. harnack, zur quellenkritik d. gesch. d. gnostic, 1873 (continued i. d. ztschr. f. d. hist. theol. 1874, and in der schrift de apellis gnosi monarch. 1874). of gnostic writings we possess the book pistis sophia, the writings contained in the coptic cod. brucianus, and the epistle of ptolemy to flora; also numerous fragments, in connection with which hilgenfeld especially deserves thanks, but which still require a more complete selecting and a more thorough discussion (see grabe, spicilegium t. i. ii. 1700. heinrici, die valentin. gnosis, u. d. h. schrift, 1871). on the (gnostic) apocryphal acts of the apostles, see zahn, acta joh. 1880, and the great work of lipsius, die apokryphen apostelgeschichten, i. vol., 1883; ii. vol., 1887. (see also lipsius, quellen d. röm. petrussage, 1872). neander, genet. entw. d. vornehmsten gnostischen systeme, 1818. matter, hist. crit. du gnosticisme, 2 vols., 1828. baur, die christl. gnosis, 1835. lipsius, der gnosticismus, in ersch. und gruber's allg. encykl. 71 bd. 1860. moeller, geschichte d. kosmologie i. d. griech. k. his auf origenes. 1860. king, the gnostics and their remains, 1873. mansel, the gnostic heresies, 1875. jacobi, art. "gnosis" in herzog's real encykl. 2nd edit. hilgenfeld, die ketzergeschichte des urchristenthums, 1884, where the more recent, special literature concerning individual gnostics is quoted. lipsius, art. "valentinus" in smith's dictionary of christian biography. harnack, art. "valentinus" in the encycl. brit. harnack, pistis sophia in the texte und unters. vii. 2. carl schmidt, gnostische schriften in koptischer sprache aus dem codex brucianus (texte und unters. viii. 1. 2). joël, blicke in die religionsgeschichte zu anfang des 2 christl. jahrhunderts, 2 parts, 1880, 1883. renan, history of the origins of christianity. vols. v. vi. vii. [footnote 300: we may consider here once more the articles which are embraced in the first ten chapters of the recently discovered [greek: didachê tôn apostolôn], after enumerating and describing which, the author continues (ii. 1): [greek: hos an oun elthôn didachêi umas tauta panta ta proeirêmena, dexasthe auton].] [footnote 301: it is a good tradition, which designates the so-called gnosticism, simply as gnosis, and yet uses this word also for the speculations of non-gnostic teachers of antiquity (e.g., of barnabas). but the inferences which follow have not been drawn. origen says truly (c. celsus iii. 12) "as men, not only the labouring and serving classes, but also many from the cultured classes of greece, came to see something honourable in christianity, sects could not fail to arise, not simply from the desire for controversy and contradiction, but because several scholars endeavoured to penetrate deeper into the truth of christianity. in this way sects arose, which received their names from men who indeed admired christianity in its essence, but from many different causes had arrived at different conceptions of it."] [footnote 302: the majority of christians in the second century belonged no doubt to the uncultured classes, and did not seek abstract knowledge, nay, were distrustful of it; see the [greek: logos alêthês] of celsus, especially iii. 44, and the writings of the apologists. yet we may infer from the treatise of origen against celsus that the number of "christiani rudes" who cut themselves off from theological and philosophic knowledge, was about the year 240 a very large one; and tertullian says (adv. prax. 3): "simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est," cf. de jejun. 11: "major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam multitudinem psychicorum."] [footnote 303: overbeck (stud. z. gesch. d. alten kirche. p. 184) has the merit of having first given convincing expression to this view of gnosticism.] [footnote 304: the ability of the prominent gnostic teachers has been recognised by the church fathers: see hieron. comm in osee. ii. 10, opp. vi. i: "nullus potest haeresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona naturæ quæ a deo artifice sunt creata: talis fuit valentinus, tails marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis bardesanes, cujus etiam philosophi admirantur ingenium." it is still more important to see how the alexandrian theologians (clement and origen) estimated the exegetic labours of the gnostics, and took account of them. origen undoubtedly recognised herakleon as a prominent exegete, and treats him most respectfully even where he feels compelled to differ from him. all gnostics cannot, of course, be regarded as theologians. in their totality they form the greek society with a christian name.] [footnote 305: otherwise the rise of gnosticism cannot at all be explained.] [footnote 306: cf. bigg, "the christian platonists of alexandria," p. 83: "gnosticism was in one respect distorted paulinism."] [footnote 307: joel, "blick in die religionsgesch." vol. i. pp. 101-170, has justly emphasised the greek character of gnosis, and insisted on the significance of platonism for it. "the oriental element did not always in the case of the gnostics, originate at first hand, but had already passed through a greek channel."] [footnote 308: the age of the antonines was the flourishing period of gnosticism. marquardt (römische staatsverwaltung vol. 3, p. 81) says of this age: "with the antonines begins the last period of the roman religious development in which two new elements enter into it. these are the syrian and persian deities, whose worship at this time was prevalent not only in the city of rome, but in the whole empire, and, at the same time, christianity, which entered into conflict with all ancient tradition, and in this conflict exercised a certain influence even on the oriental forms of worship."] [footnote 309: it is a special merit of weingarten (histor. ztschr. bd 45. 1881. p. 441 f.) and koffmane (die gnosis nach ihrer tendenz und organisation, 1881) to have strongly emphasised the mystery character of gnosis, and in connection with that, its practical aims. koffmane, especially, has collected abundant material for proving that the tendency of the gnostics was the same as that of the ancient mysteries, and that they thence borrowed their organisation and discipline. this fact proves the proposition that gnosticism was an acute hellenising of christianity. koffmane has, however, undervalued the union of the practical and speculative tendency in the gnostics, and, in the effort to obtain recognition for the mystery character of the gnostic communities, has overlooked the fact that they were also schools. the union of mystery-cultus and school is just, however, their characteristic. in this also they prove themselves the forerunners of neoplatonism and the catholic church. moehler in his programme of 1831 (urspr. d. gnosticismus tubingen), vigorously emphasised the practical tendency of gnosticism, though not in a convincing way. hackenschmidt (anfange des katholischen kirchenbegriffs, p. 83 f.) has judged correctly.] [footnote 310: we have also evidence of the methods by which ecstatic visions were obtained among the gnostics, see the pistis sophia, and the important rôle which prophets and apocalypses played in several important gnostic communities (barcoph and barcabbas, prophets of the basilideans; martiades and marsanes among the ophites; philumene in the case of apelles; valentinian prophecies, apocalypses of zostrian, zoroaster, etc.) apocalypses were also used by some under the names of old testament men of god and apostles.] [footnote 311: see koftmane, before-mentioned work, p. 5 f.] [footnote 312: see fragm. murat. v. 81 f.; clem. strom. vii. 17. 108; orig. hom. 34. the marcionite antitheses were probably spread among other gnostic sects. the fathers frequently emphasise the fact that the gnostics were united against the church: tertullian de præscr 42: "et hoc est, quod schismata apud hæreticos fere non sunt, quia cum sint, non parent. schisma est enim unitas ipsa." they certainly also delight in emphasising the contradictions of the different schools; but they cannot point to any earnest conflict of these schools with each other. we know definitely that bardasanes argued against the earlier gnostics, and ptolemæus against marcion.] [footnote 313: see the collection, certainly not complete, of gnostic fragments by grabe (spicileg.) and hilgenfeld (ketzergeschichte). our books on the history of gnosticism take far too little notice of these fragments as presented to us, above all, by clement and origen, and prefer to keep to the doleful accounts of the fathers about the "systems", (better in heinrici: valent. gnosis, 1871). the vigorous efforts of the gnostics to understand the pauline and johannine ideas, and their in part surprisingly rational and ingenious solutions of intellectual problems, have never yet been systematically estimated. who would guess, for example, from what is currently known of the system of basilides, that, according to clement, the following proceeds from him, (strom. iv. 12. 18): [greek: hôs autos phêsin ho basileidês, en meros ek tou legomenou thelêmatos tou theou hupeilêphamen, to êgapêkenai hapanta. hoti logon aposôzousi pros to pan hapanta; heteron de to mêdenos epithumein, kai to triton misein mêde hen], and where do we find, in the period before clement of alexandria, faith in christ united with such spiritual maturity and inner freedom as in valentinians, ptolemæus and heracleon?] [footnote 314: testament of tertullian (adv. valent. 4) shews the difference between the solution of valentinus, for example, and his disciple ptolemæus. "ptolemæus nomina et numeros æonum distinxit in personales substantias, sed extra deum determinatas, quas valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat." it is, moreover, important that tertullian himself should distinguish this so clearly.] [footnote 315: there is nothing here more instructive than to hear the judgments of the cultured greeks and romans about christianity, as soon as they have given up the current gross prejudices. they shew with admirable clearness, the way in which gnosticism originated. galen says (quoted by gieseler, church hist. 1. 1. 41): "hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare indigent, ut instituantur parabolis. veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui christian! vocantur, fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. hi tamen interdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur. nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem omnes ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearum abhorrent. sunt enim inter eos feminæ et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui in animis regendis coërcendisque et in accerrimo honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus." christians, therefore, are philosophers without philosophy. what a challenge for them to produce such, that is to seek out the latent philosophy! even celsus could not but admit a certain relationship between christians and philosophers. but as he was convinced that the miserable religion of the christians could neither include nor endure a philosophy, he declared that the moral doctrines of the christians were borrowed from the philosophers (i. 4). in course of his presentation (v. 65; vi. 12. 15-19, 42; vii. 27-35) he deduces the most decided marks of christianity, as well as the most important sayings of jesus from (misunderstood) statements of plato and other greek philosophers. this is not the place to shew the contradictions in which celsus was involved by this. but it is of the greatest significance that even this intelligent man could only see philosophy where he saw something precious. the whole of christianity from its very origin appeared to celsus (in one respect) precisely as the gnostic systems appear to us, that is, these really are what christianity as such seemed to celsus to be. besides, it was constantly asserted up to the fifth century that christ had drawn from plato's writings. against those who made this assertion, ambrosius (according to augustine, ep. 31. c. 8) wrote a treatise which unfortunately is no longer in existence.] [footnote 316: the simonian system at most might be named, on the basis of the syncretistic religion founded by simon magus. but we know little about it, and that little is uncertain. parallel attempts are demonstrable in the third century on the basis of various "revealed" fundamental ideas ([greek: hê ek logíôn philosophia]).] [footnote 317: among these i reckon those gnostics whom irenæus (i. 29-31) has portrayed, as well as part of the so-called ophites, peratæ, sethites and the school of the gnostic justin (hippol. philosoph. v. 6-28). there is no reason for regarding them as earlier or more oriental than the valentinians, as is done by hilgenfeld against baur, möller, and gruber (the ophites, 1864). see also lipsius, "ophit. systeme", i. d. ztschr. f. wiss. theol. 1863. iv, 1864, i. these schools claimed for themselves the name gnostic (hippol. philosoph. v. 6). a part of them, as is specially apparent from orig. c. celsum. vi., is not to be reckoned christian. this motley group is but badly known to us through epiphanius, much better through the original gnostic writings preserved in the coptic language. (pistis sophia and the works published by carl schmidt texte u. unters. bd. viii.). yet these original writings belong, for the most part, to the second half of the third century (see also the important statements of porphyry in the vita plotini, c. 16), and shew a gnosticism burdened with an abundance of wild speculations, formulæ, mysteries, and ceremonial. however, from these very monuments it becomes plain that gnosticism anticipated catholicism as a ritual system (see below).] [footnote 318: on marcion, see the following chapter.] [footnote 319: we know that from the earliest period (perhaps we might refer even to the epistle to the romans) there were circles of ascetics in the christian communities who required of all, as an inviolable law, under the name of christian perfection, complete abstinence from marriage, renunciation of possessions, and a vegetarian diet. (clem. strom. iii. 6. 49: [greek: hupo diabolou tautên paradidosthai dogmatizousi, mimeisthai d' autous hoi megalanchoi phasi ton kurion mête gêmanta, mête ti en tôi kosmôi ktêsamenon, mallon para allous nenoêkenai to euangelion kauchomenoi].--here then, already, imitation of the poor life of jesus, the "evangelic" life, was the watchword. tatian wrote a book, [greek: peri tou kata ton sôtêra katartismou], that is, on perfection according to the redeemer: in which he set forth the irreconcilability of the worldly life with the gospel). no doubt now existed in the churches that abstinence from marriage, from wine and flesh, and from possessions, was the perfect fulfilling of the law of christ ([greek: bastazein holon ton zugon tou kuriou]). but in wide circles strict abstinence was deduced from a special charism, all boastfulness was forbidden, and the watchword given out: [greek: hoson dunasai hagneuseis], which may be understood as a compromise with the worldly life as well as a reminiscence of a freer morality (see my notes on didache, c. 6; 11, 11 and prolegg. p. 42 ff.). still, the position towards asceticism yielded a hard problem, the solution of which was more and more found in distinguishing a higher and a lower though sufficient morality, yet repudiating the higher morality as soon as it claimed to be the alone authoritative one. on the other hand, there were societies of christian ascetics who persisted in applying literally to all christians the highest demands of christ, and thus arose, by secession, the communities of the encratites and severians. but in the circumstances of the time even they could not but be touched by the hellenic mode of thought, to the effect of associating a speculative theory with asceticism, and thus approximating to gnosticism. this is specially plain in tatian, who connected himself with the encratites, and in consequence of the severe asceticism which he prescribed, could no longer maintain the identity of the supreme god and the creator of the world (see the fragments of his later writings in the corp. apol. ed otto. t. vi.). as the pauline epistles could furnish arguments to either side, we see some gnostics such as tatian himself, making diligent use of them, while others such as the severians, rejected them. (euseb. h. e. iv. 29. 5, and orig. c. cels. v. 65). the encratite controversy was, on the one hand, swallowed up by the gnostic, and on the other hand, replaced by the montanistic. the treatise written in the days of marcus aurelius by a certain musanus (where?) which contains warnings against joining the encratites (euseb. h. e. iv. 28) we unfortunately no longer possess.] [footnote 320: see eusebius, h. e. vi. 12. docetic elements are apparent even in the fragment of the gospel of peter recently discovered.] [footnote 321: here, above all, we have to remember tatian, who in his highly praised apology, had already rejected altogether the eating of flesh (c. 23) and set up very peculiar doctrines about the spirit, matter, and the nature of man (c. 12 ff.). the fragments of the hypotyposes of clem. of alex. show how much one had to bear in some rural churches at the end of the second century.] [footnote 322: see clem. strom iii. 2. 5; [greek: epiphanês, huios karpokratous, ezêse ta panta etê heptakaideka kai theos en samêi tês kephallênias tetimêtai, entha autôi hieron rutôn lithôn, bômoi, temenê, mouseion, ôikodomêtai te kai kathierôtai, kai suniontes eis to hieron hoi kaphallênes kata noumênian genethlion apotheôsin thuousin epiphanei, spendousi te kai euôchountai kai humnoi legontai]. clement's quotations from the writings of epiphanes shew him to be a pure platonist: the proposition that property is theft is found in him. epiphanes and his father, carpocrates, were the first who attempted to amalgamate plato's state with the christian ideal of the union of men with each other. christ was to them, therefore, a philosophic genius like plato, see irenæus i. 25. 5: "gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent..... et has coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine pythagoræ et platonis et aristotelis et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt."] [footnote 323: see the "gnostics" of hermas, especially the false prophet whom he portrays, mand. xi., lucian's peregrinus, and the marcus, of whose doings irenæus (i. 13. ff.) gives such an abominable picture. to understand how such people were able to obtain a following so quickly in the churches, we must remember the respect in which the "prophets" were held (see didache xi.). if one had once given the impression that he had the spirit, he could win belief for the strangest things, and could allow himself all things possible (see the delineations of celsus in orig. c. cels. vii. 9. 11). we hear frequently of gnostic prophets and prophetesses, see my notes on herm. mand. xi. 1 and didache xi. 7. if an early christian element is here preserved by the gnostic schools, it has undoubtedly been hellenised and secularised as the reports shew. but that the prophets altogether were in danger of being secularised is shewn in didache xi. in the case of the gnostics the process is again only hastened.] [footnote 324: the name gnostic originally attached to schools which had so named themselves. to these belonged, above all, the so-called ophites, but not the valentinians or basilideans.] [footnote 325: special attention should be given to this form, as it became in later times of the very greatest importance for the general development of doctrine in the church. the sect of carpocrates was a school. of tatian irenæus says (i. 28. 1): [greek: tatianos ioustinou acroatês gegonais ... meta de tên ekeinou marturian apostas tês ekklêsias, oiêmati didaskalon epartheis ... idion charaktêr didaskaleiou sunestêsato]. rhodon (in euseb. h. e. v. 13. 4) speaks of a marcionite [greek: didaskaleion]. other names were, "collegium" (tertull. ad valen 1), "secta", the word had not always a bad meaning, [greek: hairesis, ekklêsia] (clem. strom. vii. 16. 98, on the other hand, vii. 15. 92: tertull. de præscr. 42: plerique nec ecclesias habent), [greek: thiasos] (iren. i. 13. 4, for the marcosians). [greek: sunagôgê, sustêma, diatribê, hai athrôpinai sunêluseis], factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum, conventiculum. the mystery-organisation most clearly appears in the naassenes of hippolytus, the marcosians of irenæus, and the elkasites of hippolytus, as well as in the coptic-gnostic documents that have been preserved. (see koffmane, above work, pp. 6-22).] [footnote 326: the particulars here belong to church history. overbeck ("ueber die anfänge der patristischen litteratur" in d. hist. ztschr. n. f. bd. xii. p. 417 ff.) has the merit of being the first to point out the importance, for the history of the church, of the forms of literature as they were gradually received in christendom. scientific, theological literature has undoubtedly its origin in gnosticism. the old testament was here, for the first time, systematically and also in part, historically criticised; a selection was here made from the primitive christian literature; scientific commentaries were here written on the sacred books (basilides and especially the valentinians, see heracleon's comm. on the gospel of john [in origen]); the pauline epistles were also technically expounded; tracts were here composed on dogmatico-philosophic problems (for example, [greek: peri dikaiosunês--peri prosphuous psuchês--êthika--peri enkrateias hê peri eunouchias]), and systematic doctrinal systems already constructed (as the basilidean and valentinian); the original form of the gospel was here first transmuted into the greek form of sacred novel and biography (see, above all, the gospel of thomas, which was used by the marcosians and naassenes, and which contained miraculous stories from the childhood of jesus); here, finally, psalms, odes and hymns were first composed (see the acts of lucius, the psalms of valentinus, the psalms of alexander the disciple of valentinus, the poems of bardesanes). irenæus, tertullian and hippolytus have indeed noted, that the scientific method of interpretation followed by the gnostics, was the same as that of the philosophers (e.g., of philo). valentinus, as is recognised even by the church fathers, stands out prominent for his mental vigour and religious imagination, heracleon for his exegetic theological ability, ptolemy for his ingenious criticism of the old testament and his keen perception of the stages of religious development (see his epistle to flora in epiphanius, hær. 33. c. 7). as a specimen of the language of valentinus one extract from a homily may suffice (in clem. strom. iv. 13. 89). [greek: ap archês athanatoi este kai tekna zôês este aiônias, kai ton thanaton êthelete merisasthai eis heautous, hina dapanêsête auton kai analôsête, kai apothanê ho thanatos en humin kai di' humôn, hotan gar ton men kosmon luête, autoi de mê kataluêsthe, kurieuete tês kriseôs kai tês phthoras apasês.] basilides falls into the background behind valentinus and his school. yet the church fathers, when they wish to summarise the most important gnostics, usually mention simon magus, basilides, valentinus, marcion (even apelles). on the relation of the gnostics to the new testament writings, and to the new testament, see zahn, gesch. des n. t-lichen kanons i. 2, p. 718.] [footnote 327: baur's classification of the gnostic systems, which rests on the observation of how they severally realised the idea of christianity as the absolute religion, in contrast to judaism and heathenism, is very ingenious, and contains a great element of truth. but it is insufficient with reference to the whole phenomenon of gnosticism, and it has been carried out by baur by violent abstractions.] [footnote 328: the question, therefore, as to the time of the origin of gnosticism, as a complete phenomenon, cannot be answered. the remarks of hegesippus (euseb. h. e. iv. 22) refer to the jerusalem church, and have not even for that the value of a fixed datum. the only important question here is the point of time at which the expulsion or secession of the schools and unions took place in the different national churches.] [footnote 329: justin apol. 1. 26.] [footnote 330: hegesippus in euseb. h. e. iv. 22, iren. ii. 14. 1 f., tertull. de præscr. 7, hippol. philosoph. the church fathers have also noted the likeness of the cultus of mithras and other deities.] [footnote 331: we must leave the essenes entirely out of account here, as their teaching, in all probability, is not to be considered syncretistic in the strict sense of the word, (see lucius, "der essenismus", 1881), and as we know absolutely nothing of a greater diffusion of it. but we need no names here, as a syncretistic, ascetic judaism could and did arise everywhere in palestine and the diaspora.] [footnote 332: freudenthal's "hellenistische studien" informs us as to the samaritan syncretism; see also hilgenfeld's "ketzergeschichte", p. 149 ff. as to the babylonian mythology in gnosticism, see the statements in the elaborate article, "manichaismus", by kessler (real-encycl. für protest. theol., 2 aufl.).] [footnote 333: wherever traditional religions are united under the badge of philosophy a conservative syncretism is the result, because the allegoric method, that is, the criticism of all religion, veiled and unconscious of itself, is able to blast rocks and bridge over abysses. all forms may remain here, under certain circumstances, but a new spirit enters into them. on the other hand, where philosophy is still weak, and the traditional religion is already shaken by another, there arises the critical syncretism in which either the gods of one religion are subordinated to those of another, or the elements of the traditional religion are partly eliminated and replaced by others. here, also, the soil is prepared for new religious formations, for the appearance of religious founders.] [footnote 334: it was a serious mistake of the critics to regard simon magus as a fiction, which, moreover, has been given up by hilgenfeld (ketzergeschichte, p. 163 ff.). and lipsius (apocr apostelgesch 11. 1),--the latter, however, not decidedly. the whole figure, as well as the doctrines attributed to simon (see acts of the apostles, justin, irenæus, hippolytus), not only have nothing improbable in them, but suit very well the religious circumstances which we must assume for samaria. the main point in simon is his endeavour to create a universal religion of the supreme god. this explains his success among the samaritans and greeks. he is really a counterpart to jesus, whose activity can just as little have been unknown to him as that of paul. at the same time, it cannot be denied, that the later tradition about simon was the most confused and biassed imaginable, or that certain jewish christians at a later period may have attempted to endow the magician with the features of paul in order to discredit the personality and teaching of the apostle. but this last assumption requires a fresh investigation.] [footnote 335: justin, apol. i. 26: [greek: kai schedon pantes men samareis, oligoi de kai en allois ethnesin, hôs ton prôton theon simôna homologountes, ekeinon kai proskunousin] (besides the account in the philos and orig. c. cels i. 57; vi. 11). the positive statement of justin that simon came even to rome (under claudius) can hardly be refuted from the account of the apologist himself, and therefore not at all (see renan, "antichrist").] [footnote 336: we have it as such in the [greek: megalê apophasis] which hippolytus (philosoph. vi. 19. 20) made use of. this simonianism may perhaps have been related to the original, as the doctrines of the christian gnostics to the apostolic preaching.] [footnote 337: the heretics opposed in the epistle to the colossians may belong to these. on cerinthus, see polycarp, in iren. iii. 3. 2, irenæus (i. 26. i.; iii. 11. 1), hippolytus and the redactions of the syntagma, cajus in euseb. iii. 28. 2, hilgenfeld, ketzergeschichte, p. 411 ff. to this category belong also the ebionites and elkasites of epiphanius (see chap. 6).] [footnote 338: the two syrian teachers, saturninus and cerdo, must in particular be mentioned here. the first (see iren i. 24. 1. 2, hippolyt. and the redactions of the syntagma) was not strictly speaking a dualist, and therefore allowed the god of the old testament to be regarded as an angel of the supreme god, while at the same time he distinguished him from satan. accordingly, he assumed that the supreme god co-operated in the creation of man by angel powers--sending a ray of light, an image of light, that should be imitated as an example and enjoined as an ideal. but all men have not received the ray of light. consequently, two classes of men stand in abrupt contrast with each other. history is the conflict of the two. satan stands at the head of the one, the god of the jews at the head of the other. the old testament is a collection of prophecies out of both camps. the truly good first appears in the æon christ, who assumed nothing cosmic, did not even submit to birth. he destroys the works of satan (generation, eating of flesh), and delivers the men who have within them a spark of light the gnosis of cerdo was much coarser. (iren. i. 27. 1, hippolyt. and the redactions). he contrasted the good god and the god of the old testament as two primary beings. the latter he identified with the creator of the world. consequently, he completely rejected the old testament and everything cosmic and taught that the good god was first revealed in christ. like saturninus he preached a strict docetism; christ had no body, was not born, and suffered in an unreal body. all else that the fathers report of cerdo's teaching has probably been transferred to him from marcion, and is therefore very doubtful.] [footnote 339: this question might perhaps be answered if we had the justinian syntagma against all heresies; but, in the present condition of our sources, it remains wrapped in obscurity. what may be gathered from the fragments of hegesippus, the epistles of ignatius, the pastoral epistles and other documents, such as, for example, the epistle of jude, is in itself so obscure, so detached, and so ambiguous, that it is of no value for historical construction.] [footnote 340: there are, above all, the schools of the basilideans, valentinians and ophites. to describe the systems in their full development lies, in my opinion, outside the business of the history of dogma and might easily lead to the mistake that the systems as such were controverted, and that their construction was peculiar to christian gnosticism. the construction, as remarked above, is rather that of the later greek philosophy, though it cannot be mistaken that, for us, the full parallel to the gnostic systems first appears in those of the neoplatonists. but only particular doctrines and principles of the gnostics were really called in question, their critique of the world, of providence, of the resurrection, etc.; these therefore are to be adduced in the next section. the fundamental features of an inner development can only be exhibited in the case of the most important, viz., the valentinian school. but even here, we must distinguish an eastern and a western branch. (tertull. adv. valent. i.: "valentiniani frequentissimum plane collegium inter hæreticos." iren. i. 1.; hippol. philos. vi. 35; orig. hom. ii. 5 in ezech. lomm. xiv. p. 40: "valentini robustissima secta").] [footnote 341: tertull. de præscr. 42: "de verbi autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi? hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non si jacentibus elevationem operentur. quoniam et ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio ædificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua ædificent. adime illis legem moysis et prophetas et creatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent." (see adv. valent. i init.). this is hardly a malevolent accusation. the philosophic interpretation of a religion will always impress those only on whom the religion itself has already made an impression.] [footnote 342: iren. iii. 4. 2: [greek: kerdôn eis tên ekklêsian elthôn kai exomologoumenos, houtôs dietelete, pote men lathrodidaskalôn pote de palin exomologoumenos, pote de eleggomenos eph hois edidaske kakôs, kai aphistamenos tês tôn adelphôn sunodias], see, besides, the valuable account of tertull. de præscr. 30. the account of irenæus (i. 13) is very instructive as to the kind of propaganda of marcus, and the relation of the women he deluded to the church. against actually recognised false teachers the fixed rule was to renounce all intercourse with them (2 joh. 10. 11, iren. ep. ad. florin on polycarp's procedure, in euseb. h. e. v. 20. 7; iren. iii. 3. 4) but how were the heretics to be surely known?] [footnote 343: among those who justly bore this name he distinguishes those [greek: hoi orthognômenes kata panta christanoi eisin] (dial. 80).] [footnote 344: very important is the description which irenæus (iii. 15. 2) and tertullian have given of the conduct of the valentinians as observed by themselves (adv. valent. 1). "valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod prædicant; si tamen prædicant qui occultant. custodiæ officium conscientiæ officium est (a comparison with the eleusinian mysteries follows.) si bona fide quæras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, altum est, aiunt. si subtiliter temptes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant. si scire te subostendas negant quidquid agnoscunt. si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua cæde dispergunt. ne discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. habent artificium quo prius persuadeant quam edoceant." at a later period dionysius of alex, (in euseb. h. e. vii. 7) speaks of christians who maintain an apparent communion with the brethren, but resort to one of the false teachers (cf. as to this euseb. h. e. vi. 2. 13). the teaching of bardesanes influenced by valentinus, who, moreover, was hostile to marcionitism, was tolerated for a long time in edessa (by the christian kings), nay, was recognised. the bardesanites and the "palutians" (catholics) were differentiated only after the beginning of the third century.] [footnote 345: there can be no doubt that the gnostic propaganda was seriously hindered by the inability to organise and discipline churches, which is characteristic of all philosophic systems of religion. the gnostic organisation of schools and mysteries was not able to contend with the episcopal organisation of the churches; see ignat. ad smyr. 6. 2; tertull de præscr. 41. attempts at actual formations of churches were not altogether wanting in the earliest period; at a later period they were forced on some schools. we have only to read iren. iii. 15. 2 in order to see that these associations could only exist by finding support in a church. irenæus expressly remarks that the valentinians designated the common christians [greek: katholikoi] (communes) [greek: kai ekklêsiastikoi], but that they, on the other hand, complained that "we kept away from their fellowship without cause, as they thought like ourselves."] [footnote 346: the differences between the gnostic christianity and that of the church, that is, the later ecclesiastical theology, were fluid, if we observe the following points. (1) that even in the main body of the church, the element of knowledge was increasingly emphasised, and the gospel began to be converted into a perfect knowledge of the world (increasing reception of greek philosophy, development of [greek: pístis] to [greek: gnôsis]). (2) that the dramatic eschatology began to fade away. (3) that room was made for docetic views, and value put upon a strict asceticism. on the other hand, we must note: (1) that all this existed only in germ or fragments within the great church during the flourishing period of gnosticism. (2) that the great church held fast to the facts fixed in the baptismal formula (in the _kerygma_), and to the eschatological expectations, further, to the creator of the world as the supreme god, to the unity of jesus christ, and to the old testament, and therefore rejected dualism. (3) that the great church defended the unity and equality of the human race, and therefore the uniformity and universal aim of the christian salvation. (4) that it rejected every introduction of new, especially of oriental mythologies, guided in this by the early christian consciousness and a sure intelligence. a deeper, more thorough distinction between the church and the gnostic parties hardly dawned on the consciousness of either. the church developed herself instinctively into an imperial church, in which office was to play the chief rôle. the gnostics sought to establish or conserve associations in which the genius should rule, the genius in the way of the old prophets or in the sense of plato, or in the sense of a union of prophecy and philosophy. in the gnostic conflict, at least at its close, the judicial priest fought with the virtuoso and overcame him.] [footnote 347: the absolute significance of the person of christ was very plainly expressed in gnosticism (christ is not only the teacher of the truth, but the manifestation of the truth), more plainly than where he was regarded as the subject of old testament revelation. the pre-existent christ has significance in some gnostic schools, but always a comparatively subordinate one. the isolating of the person of christ, and quite as much the explaining away of his humanity, is manifestly out of harmony with the earliest tradition. but, on the other hand, it must not be denied that the gnostics recognised redemption in the historical christ: christ personally procured it (see under 6. h.).] [footnote 348: in this thesis, which may be directly corroborated by the most important gnostic teachers, gnosticism shews that it desires _in thesi_ (in a way similar to philo) to continue on the soil of christianity as a positive religion. conscious of being bound to tradition, it first definitely raised the question, what is christianity? and criticised and sifted the sources for an answer to the question. the rejection of the old testament led it to that question and to this sifting. it may be maintained with the greatest probability, that the idea of a canonical collection of christian writings first emerged among the gnostics (see also marcion). they really needed such a collection, while all those who recognised the old testament as a document of revelation, and gave it a christian interpretation, did not at first need a new document, but simply joined on the new to the old, the gospel to the old testament. from the numerous fragments of gnostic commentaries on new testament writings which have been preserved, we see that these writings there enjoyed canonical authority, while at the same period, we hear nothing of such authority, nor of commentaries in the main body of christendom (see heinrici, "die valentinianische gnosis", u. d. h. schrift, 1871). undoubtedly, sacred writings were selected according to the principle of apostolic origin. this is proved by the inclusion of the pauline epistles in the collections of books. there is evidence of such having been made by the naassenes, peratæ, valentinians, marcion, tatian, and the gnostic justin. the collection of the valentinians, and the canon of tatian must have really coincided with the main parts of the later ecclesiastical canon. the later valentinians accommodated themselves to this canon, that is, recognised the books that had been added (tertull. de præscr. 38). the question as to who first conceived and realised the idea of a canon of christian writings, basilides or valentinus or marcion or whether this was done by several at the same time, will always remain obscure, though many things favour marcion. if it should even be proved that basilides (see euseb. h. e. iv. 7. 7) and valentinus himself, regarded the gospels only as authoritative yet the full idea of the canon lies already in the fact of their making these the foundation and interpreting them allegorically. the question as to the extent of the canon afterwards became the subject of an important controversy between the gnostics and the catholic church. the catholics throughout took up the position that their canon was the earlier, and the gnostic collection the corrupt revision of it (they were unable to adduce proof, as is attested by tertullian's de præscr.) but the aim of the gnostics to establish themselves on the uncorrupted apostolic tradition gathered from writings was crossed by three tendencies, which, moreover, were all jointly operative in the christian communities and are therefore not peculiar to gnosticism. (1) by faith in the continuance of prophecy, in which new things are always revealed by the holy spirit (the basilidean and marcionite prophets). (2) by the assumption of an esoteric secret tradition of the apostles (see clem. strom. vii. 17. 106, 108, hipp. philos. vii. 20, iren. i. 25. 5, iii. 2. 1, tertull. de præscr. 25. cf. the gnostic book [greek: pistis sophia], which in great part is based on doctrines said to be imparted by jesus to his disciples after his resurrection). (3) by the inability to oppose the continuous production of evangelic writings in other words by the continuance of this kind of literature and the addition of acts of the apostles (gospel of the egyptians (?), other gospels, acts of john, thomas, philip etc. we know absolutely nothing about the conditions under which these writings originated the measure of authority which they enjoyed or the way in which they gained that authority). in all these points which in gnosticism hindered the development of christianity to the religion of a new book the gnostic schools shew that they stood precisely under the same conditions as the christian communities in general (see above chap. 3 § 2). if all things do not deceive us, the same inner development may be observed even in the valentinian school, as in the great church viz. the production of sacred evangelic and apostolic writings, prophecy and secret gnosis, falling more and more into the background, and the completed canon becoming the most important basis of the doctrine of religion. the later valentinians (see tertull. de præscr. and adv. valent.) seem to have appealed chiefly to this canon, and tatian no less (about whose canon see my texte u unters i. 1. 2. pp. 213-218). but finally we must refer to the fact that it was the highest concern of the gnostics to furnish the historical proof of the apostolic origin of their doctrine by an exact reference to the links of the tradition (see ritschl entstehung der altkath kirche 2nd ed. p. 338 f.). here again it appears that gnosticism shared with christendom the universal presupposition that the valuable thing is the apostolic origin (see above p. 160 f.), but that it first created artificial chains of tradition, and that this is the first point in which it was followed by the church (see the appeals to the apostle matthew, to peter and paul, through the mediation of "glaukias," and "theodas," to james and the favourite disciples of the lord, in the case of the naassenes, ophites, basilideans and valentinians, etc., see, further, the close of the epistle of ptolemy to flora in epiphan h. 33. 7 [greek: mathaesae exês kai tên toutou archên te ka kennêsin, axioumenê tês apostolikês paradoseos. hê ek diadochês kai hêmeis pareilêphamen meta kairou] [sic] [greek: kanonisai pantas tous logous têi tou sôtêros didaskalia], as well as the passages adduced above under (2)). from this it further follows that the gnostics may have compiled their canon solely according to the principle of apostolic origin. upon the whole we may see here how foolish it is to seek to dispose of gnosticism with the phrase lawless fancies. on the contrary, the gnostics purposely took their stand on the tradition, nay they were the first in christendom who determined the range, contents and manner of propagating the tradition. they are thus the first christian theologians.] [footnote 349: here also we have a point of unusual historical importance. as we first find a new canon among the gnostics so also among them (and in marcion) we first meet with the traditional complex of the christian _kerygma_ as a doctrinal confession (_regula fidei_), that is, as a confession which, because it is fundamental, needs a speculative exposition, but is set forth by this exposition as the summary of all wisdom. the hesitancy about the details of the _kerygma_, only shews the general uncertainty which at that time prevailed. but again, we see that the later valentinians completely accommodated themselves to the later development in the church (tertull. adv. valent. i: communem fidem adfirmant) that is attached themselves, probably even from the first, to the existing forms, while in the marcionite church a peculiar _regula_ was set up by a criticism of the tradition. the _regula_ as a matter of course, was regarded as apostolic. on gnostic _regulæ_ see iren. i. 21. 5, 31. 3, ii. præf. ii. 19. 8, iii. ii. 3, iii. 16. 1, 5, ptolem. ap epiph. h. 33. 7, tertull. adv valent. i. 4, de præscr. 42, adv marc. i. 1, iv. 5, 17, ep. petri ad jacob in clem. hom. c. 1. we still possess in great part verbatim the _regula_ of apelles, in epiphan ii. 44, 2 irenæus (i. 7. 2) and tertull (de carne. 20) state that the valentinian _regula_ contained the formula, '[greek: gennêthenta dia marias]', see on this p. 203. in noting that the two points so decisive for catholicism the canon of the new testament and the apostolic _regula_ were first, in the strict sense, set up by the gnostics on the basis of a definite fixing and systematising of the oldest tradition we may see that the weakness of gnosticism here consisted in its inability to exhibit the publicity of tradition and to place its propagation in close connection with the organisation of the churches.] [footnote 350: we do not know the relation in which the valentinians placed the public apostolic _regula fidei_ to the secret doctrine derived from one apostle. the church in opposition to the gnostics strongly emphasised the publicity of all tradition. yet afterwards though with reservations, she gave a wide scope to the assumption of a secret tradition.] [footnote 351: the gnostics transferred to the evangelic writings, and demanded as simply necessary, the methods which barnabas and others used in expounding the old testament (see the samples of their exposition in irenæus and clement. heinrici, l. c.). in this way, of course, all the specialties of the systems may be found in the documents. the church at first condemned this method (tertull. de præscr. 17-19. 39; iren. i. 8. 9), but applied it herself from the moment in which she had adopted a new testament canon of equal authority with that of the old testament. however, the distinction always remained, that in the confrontation of the two testaments with the views of getting proofs from prophecy, the history of jesus described in the gospels was not at first allegorised. yet afterwards, the christological dogmas of the third and following centuries demanded a docetic explanation of many points in that history.] [footnote 352: in the valentinian, as well as in all systems not coarsely dualistic, the redeemer christ has no doubt a certain share in the constitution of the highest class of men, but only through complicated mediations. the significance which is attributed to christ in many systems for the production or organisation of the upper world, may be mentioned. in the valentinian system there are several mediators. it may be noted that the abstract conception of the divine primitive being seldom called forth a real controversy. as a rule, offence was taken only at the expression.] [footnote 353: the epistle of ptolemy to flora is very instructive here. if we leave out of account the peculiar gnostic conception, we have represented in ptolemy's criticism the later catholic view of the old testament, as well as also the beginning of a historical conception of it. the gnostics were the first critics of the old testament in christendom. their allegorical exposition of the evangelic writings should be taken along with their attempts at interpreting the old testament literally and historically. it may be noted, for example, that the gnostics were the first to call attention to the significance of the change of name for god in the old testament; see iren. ii. 35.. 3. the early christian tradition led to a procedure directly the opposite. apelles, in particular, the disciple of marcion, exercised an intelligent criticism on the old testament, see my treatise, "de apellis gnosi." p. 71 sq., and also texte u. unters vi. 3. p. 111 ff. marcion himself recognised the historical contents of the old testament as reliable, and the criticism of most gnostics only called in question its religious value.] [footnote 354: ecclesiastical opponents rightly put no value on the fact, that some gnostics advanced to pan-satanism with regard to the conception of the world, while others beheld a certain _justitia civilis_ ruling in the world. for the standpoint which the christian tradition had marked out, this distinction is just as much a matter of indifference, as the other, whether the old testament proceeded from an evil, or from an intermediate being. the gnostics attempted to correct the judgment of faith about the world and its relation to god, by an empiric view of the world. here again they are by no means "visionaries", however fantastic the means by which they have expressed their judgment about the condition of the world, and attempted to explain that condition. those, rather are "visionaries" who give themselves up to the belief that the world is the work of a good and omnipotent deity, however apparently reasonable the arguments they adduce. the gnostic (hellenistic) philosophy of religion, at this point, comes into the sharpest opposition to the central point of the old testament christian belief, and all else really depends on this. gnosticism is antichristian so far as it takes away from christianity its old testament foundation, and belief in the identity of the creator of the world with the supreme god. that was immediately felt and noted by its opponents.] [footnote 355: the ecclesiastical opposition was long uncertain on this point. it is interesting to note that basilides portrayed the sin inherent in the child from birth, in a way that makes one feel as though he were listening to augustine (see the fragment from the 23rd book of the [greek: exêgêtika] in clem., strom. vi. 12. 83). but it is of great importance to note how even very special later terminologies, dogmas, etc., of the church, were in a certain way anticipated by the gnostics. some samples will be given below; but meanwhile we may here refer to a fragment from apelles' syllogisms in ambrosius (de parad. v. 28): "si hominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque autcm per industriam propriam perfectionem sibi virtutis adsciscit: nonne videtur plus sibi homo adquirere, quam ei deus contulit?" one seems here to be transferred into the fifth century.] [footnote 356: the gnostic teaching did not meet with a vigorous resistance even on this point, and could also appeal to the oldest tradition. the arbitrariness in the number, derivation and designation of the æons was contested. the aversion to barbarism also co-operated here, in so far as gnosticism delighted in mysterious words borrowed from the semites. but the semitic element attracted as well as repelled the greeks and romans of the second century. the gnostic terminologies within the æon speculations were partly reproduced among the catholic theologians of the third century; most important is it that the gnostics have already made use of the concept "[greek: homoousios]"; see iren., i. 5. 1: [greek: alla to men pneumatikon mê dedunêsthai autên morphôsai, epeidê homoousion hupêrchen autêi] (said of the sophia): l. 5. 4, [greek: kaì touton einai ton kat' eikona kai homoiôsin gegonota; kat' eikona men ton hulikon huparchein, paraplêsion men, all' ouch homoousion tôi theôi kath' homoiôsin de ton psuchikon.] i. 5. 5: [greek: to de kuêma tês mêtros tês "achamôth", homoousion huparchon têi mêtri.] in all these cases the word means "of one substance." it is found in the same sense in clem., hom. 20. 7: see also philos. vii. 22; clem., exc. theod. 42. other terms also which have acquired great significance in the church since the days of origen, (e.g., [greek: agennêtos]), are found among the gnostics, see ep. ptol. ad floram, 5; and bigg. (1. c. p. 58, note 3) calls attention to the appearance [greek: trias] in excerpt. ex. theod. § 80, perhaps the earliest passage.] [footnote 357: the characteristic of the gnostic christology is not docetism, in the strict sense, but the doctrine of the two natures, that is, the distinction between jesus and christ, or the doctrine that the redeemer as redeemer was not a man. the gnostics based this view on the inherent sinfulness of human nature, and it was shared by many teachers of the age without being based on any principle (see above, p. 195 f.). the most popular of the three christologies briefly characterised above was undoubtedly that of the valentinians. it is found, with great variety of details, in most of the nameless fragments of gnostic literature that have been preserved, as well as in apelles. this christology might be accommodated to the accounts of the gospels and the baptismal confession (how far is shewn by the _regula_ of apelles, and that of the valentinians may have run in similar terms). it was taught here that christ had passed through mary as a channel; from this doctrine followed very easily the notion of the virginity of mary, uninjured even after the birth--it was already known to clem. alex. (strom. vii. 16. 93). the church also, later on, accepted this view. it is very difficult to get a clear idea of the christology of basilides, as very diverse doctrines were afterwards set up in his school as is shewn by the accounts. among them is the doctrine, likewise held by others, that christ in descending from the highest heaven took to himself something from every sphere through which he passed. something similar is found among the valentinians, some of whose prominent leaders made a very complicated phenomenon of christ, and gave him also a direct relation to the demiurge. there is further found here the doctrine of the heavenly humanity, which was afterwards accepted by ecclesiastical theologians. along with the fragments of basilides the account of clem. alex. seems to me the most reliable. according to this, basilides taught that christ descended on the man jesus at the baptism. some of the valentinians taught something similar: the christology of ptolemy is characterised by the union of all conceivable christology theories. the different early christian conceptions may be found in him. basilides did not admit a real union between christ and jesus; but it is interesting to see how the pauline epistles caused the theologians to view the sufferings of christ as necessarily based on the assumption of sinful flesh, that is, to deduce from the sufferings that christ has assumed sinful flesh. the basilidean christology will prove to be a peculiar preliminary stage of the later ecclesiastical christology. the anniversary of the baptism of christ was to the basilideans, as the day of the [greek: epiphaneia], a high festival day (see clem., strom. i. 21. 146): they fixed it for the 6th (2nd) january. and in this also the catholic church has followed the gnosis. the real docetic christology as represented by saturninus (and marcion) was radically opposed to the tradition, and struck out the birth of jesus, as well as the first 30 years of his life. an accurate exposition of the gnostic christologies, which would carry us too far here, (see especially tertull., de carne christi), would shew, that a great part of the questions which occupy church theologians till the present day, were already raised by the gnostics; for example, what happened to the body of christ after the resurrection? (see the doctrines of apelles and hermogenes); what significance the appearance of christ had for the heavenly and satanic powers? what meaning belongs to his sufferings, although there was no real suffering for the heavenly christ, but only for jesus? etc. in no other point do the anticipations in the gnostic dogmatic stand out so plainly (see the system of origen; many passages bearing on the subject will be found in the third and fourth volumes of this work, to which readers are referred). the catholic church has learned but little from the gnostics, that is, from the earliest theologians in christendom, in the doctrine of god and the world, but very much in christology, and who can maintain that she has ever completely overcome the gnostic doctrine of the two natures, nay, even docetism? redemption viewed in the historical person of jesus, that is, in the appearance of a divine being on the earth, but the person divided and the real history of jesus explained away and made inoperative, is the signature of the gnostic christology--this, however, is also the danger of the system of origen and those systems that are dependent on him (docetism) as well as, in another way, the danger of the view of tertullian and the westerns (doctrine of two natures). finally, it should be noted that the gnosis always made a distinction between the supreme god and christ, but that, from the religious position, it had no reason for emphasising that distinction. for to many gnostics, christ was in a certain way the manifestation of the supreme god himself, and therefore in the more popular writings of the gnostics (see the acta johannis) expressions are applied to christ which seem to identify him with god. the same thing is true of marcion and also of valentinus (see his epistle in clem., strom. ii. 20. 114: [greek: eis de estin agathos. ou parousia hê dia tou huiou phanerôsis]). this gnostic estimate of christ has undoubtedly had a mighty influence on the later church development of christology. we might say without hesitation that to most gnostics christ was a [greek: pneuma homoousion tôi patri]. the details of the life, sufferings and resurrection of jesus are found in many gnostics, transformed, complemented and arranged in the way in which celsus (orig., c. cels. i. ii.) required for an impressive and credible history. celsus indicates how everything must have taken place if christ had been a god in human form. the gnostics in part actually narrate it so. what an instructive coincidence! how strongly the docetic view itself was expressed in the case of valentinus, and how the exaltation of jesus above the earthly was thereby to be traced back to his moral struggle, is shewn in the remarkable fragment of a letter (in clem., strom. iii. 7. 59): [greek: panta hupomeinas êgkratês tên theotêta iêsous eirgazeto. êsthien gar kai apien idiôs ouk apodidous ta brômata, tosautê ên autôi tês egkrateias dunamis, hôste kai mê phtharênai tên trophên en autôi epei to phtheresthai autos ouk eichen]. in this notion, however, there is more sense and historical meaning than in that of the later ecclesiastical aphtharto-docetism.] [footnote 358: the gnostic distinction of classes of men was connected with the old distinction of stages in spiritual understanding, but has its basis in a law of nature. there were again empirical and psychological views--they must have been regarded as very important, had not the gnostics taken them from the traditions of the philosophic schools--which made the universalism of the christian preaching of salvation, appear unacceptable to the gnostics. moreover, the transformation of religion into a doctrine of the school, or into a mystery cult, always resulted in the distinction of the knowing from the _profanum vulgus_. but in the valentinian assumption that the common christians as psychical occupy an intermediate stage, and that they are saved by faith, we have a compromise which completely lowered the gnosis to a scholastic doctrine within christendom. whether and in what way the catholic church maintained the significance of pistis as contrasted with gnosis, and in what way the distinction between the knowing (priests) and the laity was there reached, will be examined in its proper place. it should be noted, however, that the valentinian, ptolemy, ascribes freedom of will to the psychic (which the pneumatic and hylic lack), and therefore has sketched by way of by-work a theology for the psychical beside that for the pneumatic, which exhibits striking harmonies with the exoteric system of origen. the denial by gnosticism of free will, and therewith of moral responsibility, called forth very decided contradiction. gnosticism, that is, the acute hellenising of christianity, was wrecked in the church on free will, the old testament and eschatology.] [footnote 359: the greatest deviation of gnosticism from tradition appears in eschatology, along with the rejection of the old testament and the separation of the creator of the world from the supreme god. upon the whole our sources say very little about the gnostic eschatology. this, however, is not astonishing; for the gnostics had not much to say on the matter, or what they had to say found expression in their doctrine of the genesis of the world, and that of redemption through christ. we learn that the _regula_ of apelles closed with the words: [greek: aneptê eis ouranon hothen kai hêke], instead of [greek: hothen erchetai krinai zôntas kai nekrous]. we know that marcion, who may already be mentioned here, referred the whole eschatological expectations of early christian times to the province of the god of the jews, and we hear that gnostics (valentinians) retained the words [greek: sarkos anastasin], but interpreted them to mean that one must rise in this life, that is perceive the truth (thus the "resurrectio a mortuis", that is, exaltation above the earthly, took the place of the "resurrectio mortuorum"; see iren. ii. 31. 2: tertull., de resurr. carnis, 19). while the christian tradition placed a great drama at the close of history, the gnostics regard the history itself as the drama, which virtually closes with the (first) appearing of christ. it may not have been the opinion of all gnostics that the resurrection has already taken place, yet for most of them the expectations of the future seem to have been quite faint, and above all without significance. the life is so much included in knowledge, that we nowhere in our sources find a strong expression of hope in a life beyond (it is different in the earliest gnostic documents preserved in the coptic language), and the introduction of the spirits into the pleroma appears very vague and uncertain. but it is of great significance that those gnostics who, according to their premises, required a real redemption from the world as the highest good, remained finally in the same uncertainty and religious despondency with regard to this redemption, as characterised the greek philosophers. a religion which is a philosophy of religion remains at all times fixed to this life, however strongly it may emphasise the contrast between the spirit and its surroundings, and however ardently it may desire redemption. the desire for redemption is unconsciously replaced by the thinker's joy in his knowledge, which allays the desire (iren. iii. 15. 2: "inflatus est iste [scil. the valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in coelo, neque in terra putat se esse, sed intra pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum institorio et supercilio incedit gallinacei elationem habens.... plurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos spiritales vocant, et se nosse jam dicunt eum qui sit intra pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum"). as in every philosophy of religion, an element of free thinking appears very plainly here also. the eschatological hopes can only have been maintained in vigour by the conviction that the world is of god. but we must finally refer to the fact, that even in eschatology, gnosticism only drew the inferences from views which were pressing into christendom from all sides, and were in an increasing measure endangering its hopes of the future. besides, in some valentinian circles, the future life was viewed as a condition of education, as a progress through the series of the (seven) heavens; i.e., purgatorial experiences in the future were postulated. both afterwards, from the time of origen, forced their way into the doctrine of the church (purgatory, different ranks in heaven), clement and origen being throughout strongly influenced by the valentinian eschatology.] [footnote 360: see the passage clem. strom. iii. 6, 49, which is given above, p. 238.] [footnote 361: cf. the apocryphal acts of apostles and diverse legends of apostles (e.g., in clem. alex.).] [footnote 362: more can hardly be said: the heads of schools were themselves earnest men. no doubt statements such as that of heracleon seem to have led to laxity in the lower sections of the collegium: [greek: homologian einai tên men en têi pistei kai politeiai. tên de en phônêi; hê mên oun en phônêi homologia kai epi tôn exousiôn ginetai, hên monên homologian hêgountai einai hoi polloi, ouch hugiôs dunantai de tautên tên homologian kai hoi hupokritai homologein.]] [footnote 363: see epiph. h. 26, and the statements in the coptic gnostic works. (schmidt, texte u unters. viii. 1. 2, p. 566 ff.).] [footnote 364: there arose in this way an extremely difficult theoretical problem, but practically a convenient occasion for throwing asceticism altogether overboard, with the gnostic asceticism, or restricting it to easy exercises. this is not the place for entering into the details. shibboleths, such as [greek: pheugete ou tas phuseis alla tas gnômas tôn kakôn], may have soon appeared. it may be noted here, that the asceticism which gained the victory in monasticism, was not really that which sprang from early christian, but from greek impulses, without, of course, being based on the same principle. gnosticism anticipated the future even here. that could be much more clearly proved in the history of the worship. a few points which are of importance for the history of dogma may be mentioned here: (1) the gnostics viewed the traditional sacred actions (baptism and the lord's supper) entirely as mysteries, and applied to them the terminology of the mysteries (some gnostics set them aside as psychic); but in doing so they were only drawing the inferences from changes which were then in process throughout christendom. to what extent the later gnosticism in particular was interested in sacraments, may be studied especially in the pistis sophia and the other coptic works of the gnostics, which carl schmidt has edited; see, for example, pistis sophia, p. 233. "dixit jesus ad suos [greek: mathêtas; amên] dixi vobis, haud adduxi quidquam in [greek: kosmon] veniens nisi hunc ignem et hanc aquam et hoc vinum et hunc sanguinem." (2) they increased the holy actions by the addition of new ones, repeated baptisms (expiations), anointing with oil, sacrament of confirmation [greek: apolutrôsis]; see, on gnostic sacraments, iren. i. 20, and lipsius, apokr. apostelgesch. i. pp. 336-343, and cf. the [greek: puknôs metanosusi] in the delineation of the shepherd of hermas. mand. xi. (3) marcus represented the wine in the lord's supper as actual blood in consequence of the act of blessing: see iren., i. 13.2: [greek: potêria oinô kekramena prospoioumenos eucharistein kai epi pleon ekteinôn ton logon tês epiklêseôs, porphurea kai eruthra anaphainesthai poiei, hôs dokein tên apo tôn huper ta hola charin to haima to heautês stazein en ekeinô tô potêriô dia tês epiklêseôs autou, kai huperimeiresthai tous parontas ex ekeinou geusasthai tou pomatos, hina kai eis autous epombrêsê hê dia tou magou toutou klêizomenê charis.] marcus was indeed a charlatan; but religious charlatanry afterwards became very earnest, and was certainly taken earnestly by many adherents of marcus. the transubstantiation idea, in reference to the elements in the mysteries, is also plainly expressed in the excerpt. ex. theodot. § 82: [greek: kai ho artos kai to elaion agiazetai tê dunamei tou onomatos ou ta auta onta kata to phainomenon dia elêphthê, alla du amei eis dunamin pneumatikên metabeblêtai] (that is, not into a new super-terrestrial material, not into the real body of christ, but into a spiritual power) [greek: outôs kai to hudôr kai to exorkizomenon kai to baptisma ginomenon ou monon chôrei to cheiron, alla kai agiasmon proslambanei]. irenæus possessed a liturgical handbook of the marcionites, and communicates many sacramental formula from it (i. c. 13 sq). in my treatise on the pistis sophia (texte u. unters. vii. 2. pp. 59-94) i think i have shewn ("the common christian and the catholic elements of the pistis sophia") to what extent gnosticism anticipated catholicism as a system of doctrine and an institute of worship. these results have been strengthened by carl schmidt (texte u. unters. viii. 1. 2). even purgatory, prayers for the dead, and many other things, raised in speculative questions and definitely answered, are found in those coptic gnostic writings, and are then met with again in catholicism. one general remark may be permitted in conclusion. the gnostics were not interested in apologetics, and that is a very significant fact. the [greek: pneuma] in man was regarded by them as a supernatural principle, and on that account they are free from all rationalism and moralistic dogmatism. for that very reason they are in earnest with the idea of revelation, and do not attempt to prove it or convert its contents into natural truths. they did endeavour to prove that their doctrines were christian, but renounced all proof that revelation is the truth (proofs from antiquity). one will not easily find in the case of the gnostics themselves, the revealed truth described as philosophy, or morality as the philosophic life. if we compare therefore, the first and fundamental system of catholic doctrine, that of origen, with the system of the gnostics, we shall find that origen, like basilides and valentinus, was a philosopher of revelation, but that he had besides a second element which had its origin in apologetics.] chapter v marcion's attempt to set aside the old testament foundation of christianity, to purify tradition and to reform christendom on the basis of the pauline gospel marcion cannot be numbered among the gnostics in the strict sense of the word.[365] for (1) he was not guided by any speculatively scientific, or even by an apologetic, but by a soteriological interest.[366] (2) he therefore put all emphasis on faith, not on gnosis.[367] (3) in the exposition of his ideas he neither applied the elements of any semitic religious wisdom, nor the methods of the greek philosophy of religion.[368] (4) he never made the distinction between an esoteric and an exoteric form of religion. he rather clung to the publicity of the preaching, and endeavoured to reform christendom, in opposition to the attempts at founding schools for those who knew and mystery cults for such as were in quest of initiation. it was only after the failure of his attempts at reform that he founded churches of his own, in which brotherly equality, freedom from all ceremonies, and strict evangelical discipline were to rule.[369] completely carried away with the novelty, uniqueness and grandeur of the pauline gospel of the grace of god in christ, marcion felt that all other conceptions of the gospel, and especially its union with the old testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from the truth.[370] he accordingly supposed that it was necessary to make the sharp antitheses of paul, law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, that is the pauline criticism of the old testament religion, the foundation of his religious views, and to refer them to two principles, the righteous and wrathful god of the old testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and the god of the gospel, quite unknown before christ, who is only love and mercy.[371] this paulinism in its religious strength, but without dialectic, without the jewish christian view of history, and detached from the soil of the old testament, was to him the true christianity. marcion, like paul, felt that the religious value of a statutory law with commandments and ceremonies, was very different from that of a uniform law of love.[372] accordingly, he had a capacity for appreciating the pauline idea of faith; it is to him reliance on the unmerited grace of god which is revealed in christ. but marcion shewed himself to be a greek, influenced by the religious spirit of the time, by changing the ethical contrast of the good and legal into the contrast between the infinitely exalted spiritual and the sensible which is subject to the law of nature, by despairing of the triumph of good in the world and, consequently, correcting the traditional faith that the world and history belong to god, by an empirical view of the world and the course of events in it,[373] a view to which he was no doubt also led by the severity of the early christian estimate of the world. yet to him systematic speculation about the final causes of the contrast actually observed, was by no means the main thing. so far as he himself ventured on such a speculation he seems to have been influenced by the syrian cerdo. the numerous contradictions which arise as soon as one attempts to reduce marcion's propositions to a system, and the fact that his disciples tried all possible conceptions of the doctrine of principles, and defined the relation of the two gods very differently, are the clearest proof that marcion was a religious character, that he had in general nothing to do with principles, but with living beings whose power he felt, and that what he ultimately saw in the gospel was not an explanation of the world, but redemption from the world,[374]--redemption from a world, which even in the best that it can offer, has nothing that can reach the height of the blessing bestowed in christ.[375] special attention may be called to the following particulars. 1. marcion explained the old testament in its literal sense and rejected every allegorical interpretation. he recognised it as the revelation of the creator of the world and the god of the jews, but placed it, just on that account, in sharpest contrast to the gospel. he demonstrated the contradictions between the old testament and the gospel in a voluminous work (the [greek: antitheseis]).[376] in the god of the former book he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger; contentiousness and unmercifulness. the law which rules nature and man appeared to him to accord with the characteristics of this god and the kind of law revealed by him, and therefore it seemed credible to him that this god is the creator and lord of the world ([greek: kosmokratôr]). as the law which governs the world is inflexible, and yet, on the other hand, full of contradictions, just and again brutal, and as the law of the old testament exhibits the same features, so the god of creation was to marcion a being who united in himself the whole gradations of attributes from justice to malevolence, from obstinacy to inconsistency.[377] into this conception of the creator of the world, the characteristic of which is that it cannot be systematised, could easily be fitted the syrian gnostic theory which regards him as an evil being, because he belongs to this world and to matter. marcion did not accept it in principle,[378] but touched it lightly and adopted certain inferences.[379] on the basis of the old testament and of empirical observation, marcion divided men into two classes, good and evil, though he regarded them all, body and soul, as creatures of the demiurge. the good are those who strive to fulfil the law of the demiurge. these are outwardly better than those who refuse him obedience. but the distinction found here is not the decisive one. to yield to the promptings of divine grace is the only decisive distinction, and those just men will shew themselves less susceptible to the manifestation of the truly good than sinners. as marcion held the old testament to be a book worthy of belief, though his disciple, apelles, thought otherwise, he referred all its predictions to a messiah whom the creator of the world is yet to send, and who, as a warlike hero, is to set up the earthly kingdom of the "just" god.[380] 2. marcion placed the good god of love in opposition to the creator of the world.[381] this god has only been revealed in christ. he was absolutely unknown before christ,[382] and men were in every respect strange to him.[383] out of pure goodness and mercy, for these are the essential attributes of this god who judges not and is not wrathful, he espoused the cause of those beings who were foreign to him, as he could not bear to have them any longer tormented by their just and yet malevolent lord.[384] the god of love appeared in christ and proclaimed a new kingdom (tertull., adv. marc. iii. 24. fin.). christ called to himself the weary and heavy laden,[385] and proclaimed to them that he would deliver them from the fetters of their lord and from the world. he shewed mercy to all while he sojourned on the earth, and did in every respect the opposite of what the creator of the world had done to men. they who believed in the creator of the world nailed him to the cross. but in doing so they were unconsciously serving his purpose, for his death was the price by which the god of love purchased men from the creator of the world.[386] he who places his hope in the crucified can now be sure of escaping from the power of the creator of the world, and of being translated into the kingdom of the good god. but experience shews that, like the jews, men who are virtuous according to the law of the creator of the world, do not allow themselves to be converted by christ; it is rather sinners who accept his message of redemption. christ, therefore, rescued from the under-world, not the righteous men of the old testament (iren. i. 27. 3), but the sinners who were disobedient to the creator of the world. if the determining thought of marcion's view of christianity is here again very clearly shewn, the gnostic woof cannot fail to be seen in the proposition that the good god delivers only the souls, not the bodies of believers. the antithesis of spirit and matter, appears here as the decisive one, and the good god of love becomes the god of the spirit, the old testament god the god of the flesh. in point of fact, marcion seems to have given such a turn to the good god's attributes of love, and incapability of wrath, as to make him the apathetic, infinitely exalted being, free from all affections. the contradiction in which marcion is here involved is evident, because he taught expressly that the spirit of man is in itself just as foreign to the good god as his body. but the strict asceticism which marcion demanded as a christian, could have had no motive, without the greek assumption of a metaphysical contrast of flesh and spirit, which in fact was also apparently the doctrine of paul. 3. the relation in which marcion placed the two gods, appears at first sight to be one of equal rank.[387] marcion himself, according to the most reliable witnesses, expressly asserted that both were uncreated, eternal, etc. but if we look more closely we shall see that in marcion's mind there can be no thought of equality. not only did he himself expressly declare that the creator of the world is a self-contradictory being of limited knowledge and power, but the whole doctrine of redemption shews that he is a power subordinate to the good god. we need not stop to enquire about the details, but it is certain that the creator of the world formerly knew nothing of the existence of the good god, that he is in the end completely powerless against him, that he is overcome by him, and that history in its issue with regard to man, is determined solely by its relation to the good god. the just god appears at the end of history, not as an independent being, hostile to the good god, but as one subordinate to him,[388] so that some scholars, such as neander, have attempted to claim for marcion a doctrine of one principle, and to deny that he ever held the complete independence of the creator of the world, the creator of the world being simply an angel of the good god. this inference may certainly be drawn with little trouble, as the result of various considerations, but it is forbidden by reliable testimony. the characteristic of marcion's teaching is just this, that as soon as we seek to raise his ideas from the sphere of practical considerations to that of a consistent theory, we come upon a tangled knot of contradictions. the theoretic contradictions are explained by the different interests which here cross each other in marcion. in the first place, he was consciously dependent on the pauline theology, and was resolved to defend everything which he held to be pauline. secondly, he was influenced by the contrast in which he saw the ethical powers involved. this contrast seemed to demand a metaphysical basis, and its actual solution seemed to forbid such a foundation. finally, the theories of gnosticism, the paradoxes of paul, the recognition of the duty of strictly mortifying the flesh, suggested to marcion the idea that the good god was the exalted god of the spirit, and the just god the god of the sensuous, of the flesh. this view, which involved the principle of a metaphysical dualism, had something very specious about it, and to its influence we must probably ascribe the fact that marcion no longer attempted to derive the creator of the world from the good god. his disciples who had theoretical interests in the matter, no doubt noted the contradictions. in order to remove them, some of these disciples advanced to a doctrine of three principles, the good god, the just creator of the world, the evil god, by conceiving the creator of the world sometimes as an independent being, sometimes as one dependent on the good god. others reverted to the common dualism, god of the spirit and god of matter. but apelles, the most important of marcion's disciples, returned to the creed of the one god ([greek: mia archê]), and conceived the creator of the world and satan as his angels, without departing from the fundamental thought of the master, but rather following suggestions which he himself had given.[389] apart from apelles, who founded a church of his own, we hear nothing of the controversies of disciples breaking up the marcionite church. all those who lived in the faith for which the master had worked--viz., that the laws ruling in nature and history, as well as the course of common legality and righteousness, are the antitheses of the act of divine mercy in christ, and that cordial love and believing confidence have their proper contrasts in self-righteous pride and the natural religion of the heart,--those who rejected the old testament and clung solely to the gospel proclaimed by paul, and finally, those who considered that a strict mortification of the flesh and an earnest renunciation of the world were demanded in the name of the gospel, felt themselves members of the same community, and to all appearance allowed perfect liberty to speculations about final causes. 4. marcion had no interest in specially emphasising the distinction between the good god and christ, which according to the pauline epistles, could not be denied. to him christ is the manifestation of the good god himself.[390] but marcion taught that christ assumed absolutely nothing from the creation of the demiurge, but came down from heaven in the 15th year of the emperor tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began his preaching in the synagogue of capernaum.[391] this pronounced docetism which denies that jesus was born, or subjected to any human process of development,[392] is the strongest expression of marcion's abhorrence of the world. this aversion may have sprung from the severe attitude of the early christians toward the world, but the inference which marcion here draws, shews, that this feeling was, in his case, united with the greek estimate of spirit and matter. but marcion's docetism is all the more remarkable that, under paul's guidance, he put a high value on the fact of christ's death upon the cross. here also is a glaring contradiction which his later disciples laboured to remove. this much, however, is unmistakable, that marcion succeeded in placing the greatness and uniqueness of redemption through christ in the clearest light and in beholding this redemption in the person of christ, but chiefly in his death upon the cross. 5. marcion's eschatology is also quite rudimentary. yet be assumed with paul that violent attacks were yet in store for the church of the good god on the part of the jewish christ of the future, the antichrist. he does not seem to have taught a visible return of christ, but, in spite of the omnipotence and goodness of god, he did teach a twofold issue of history. the idea of a deliverance of all men, which seems to follow from his doctrine of boundless grace, was quite foreign to him. for this very reason, he could not help actually making the good god the judge, though in theory he rejected the idea, in order not to measure the will and acts of god by a human standard. along with the fundamental proposition of marcion, that god should be conceived only as goodness and grace, we must take into account the strict asceticism which he prescribed for the christian communities, in order to see that that idea of god was not obtained from antinomianism. we know of no christian community in the second century which insisted so strictly on renunciation of the world as the marcionites. no union of the sexes was permitted. those who were married had to separate ere they could be received by baptism into the community. the sternest precepts were laid down in the matter of food and drink. martyrdom was enjoined; and from the fact that they were [greek: talaipôroi kai misoumenoi] in the world, the members were to know that they were disciples of christ.[393] with all that, the early christian enthusiasm was wanting. 6. marcion defined his position in theory and practice towards the prevailing form of christianity, which, on the one hand, shewed throughout its connection with the old testament, and, on the other, left room for a secular ethical code, by assuming that it had been corrupted by judaism, and therefore needed a reformation.[394] but he could not fail to note that this corruption was not of recent date, but belonged to the oldest tradition itself. the consciousness of this moved him to a historical criticism of the whole christian tradition.[395] marcion was the first christian who undertook such a task. those writings to which he owed his religious convictions, viz., the pauline epistles, furnished the basis for it. he found nothing in the rest of christian literature that harmonised with the gospel of paul. but he found in the pauline epistles hints which explained to him this result of his observations. the twelve apostles whom christ chose did not understand him, but regarded him as the messiah of the god of creation.[396] and therefore christ inspired paul by a special revelation, lest the gospel of the grace of god should be lost through falsifications.[397] but even paul had been understood only by few (by none?). his gospel had also been misunderstood, nay, his epistles had been falsified in many passages,[398] in order to make them teach the identity of the god of creation and the god of redemption. a new reformation was therefore necessary. marcion felt himself entrusted with this commission, and the church which he gathered recognised this vocation of his to be the reformer.[399] he did not appeal to a new revelation such as he presupposed for paul. as the pauline epistles and an authentic [greek: euangelion kuriou] were in existence, it was only necessary to purify these from interpolations, and restore the genuine paulinism which was just the gospel itself. but it was also necessary to secure and preserve this true christianity for the future. marcion, in all probability, was the first to conceive and, in great measure, to realise the idea of placing christendom on the firm foundation of a definite theory of what is christian--but not of basing it on a theological doctrine--and of establishing this theory by a fixed collection of christian writings with canonical authority.[400] he was not a systematic thinker; but he was more, for he was not only a religious character, but at the same time a man with an organising talent, such as has no peer in the early church. if we think of the lofty demands he made on christians, and, on the other hand, ponder the results that accompanied his activity, we cannot fail to wonder. wherever christians were numerous about the year 160, there must have been marcionite communities with the same fixed but free organisation, with the same canon and the same conception of the essence of christianity, pre-eminent for the strictness of their morals and their joy in martyrdom.[401] the catholic church was then only in process of growth, and it was long ere it reached the solidity won by the marcionite church through the activity of one man, who was animated by a faith so strong that he was able to oppose his conception of christianity to all others as the only right one, and who did not shrink from making selections from tradition instead of explaining it away. he was the first who laid the firm foundation for establishing what is christian, because, in view of the absoluteness of his faith,[402] he had no desire to appeal either to a secret evangelic tradition, or to prophecy, or to natural religion. _remarks._--the innovations of marcion are unmistakable. the way in which he attempted to sever christianity from the old testament was a bold stroke which demanded the sacrifice of the dearest possession of christianity as a religion, viz., the belief that the god of creation is also the god of redemption. and yet this innovation was partly caused by a religious conviction, the origin of which must be sought not in heathenism, but on old testament and christian soil. for the bold anti-judaist was the disciple of a jewish thinker, paul, and the origin of marcion's antinomianism may be ultimately found in the prophets. it will always be the glory of marcion in the early history of the church that he, the born heathen, could appreciate the religious criticism of the old testament religion as formerly exercised by paul. the antinomianism of marcion was ultimately based on the strength of his religious feeling, on his personal religion as contrasted with all statutory religion. that was also its basis in the case of the prophets and of paul, only the statutory religion which was felt to be a burden and a fetter was different in each case. as regards the prophets, it was the outer sacrificial worship, and the deliverance was the idea of jehovah's righteousness. in the case of paul, it was the pharisaic treatment of the law, and the deliverance was righteousness by faith. to marcion it was the sum of all that the past had described as a revelation of god: only what christ had given him was of real value to him. in this conviction he founded a church. before him there was no such thing in the sense of a community, firmly united by a fixed conviction, harmoniously organised, and spread over the whole world. such a church the apostle paul had in his mind's eye, but he was not able to realise it. that in the century of the great mixture of religion the greatest apparent paradox was actually realised: namely, a paulinism with two gods and without the old testament; and that this form of christianity first resulted in a church which was based not only on intelligible words, but on a definite conception of the essence of christianity as a religion, seems to be the greatest riddle which the earliest history of christianity presents. but it only seems so. the greek, whose mind was filled with certain fundamental features of the pauline gospel (law and grace), who was therefore convinced that in all respects the truth was there, and who on that account took pains to comprehend the real sense of paul's statements, could hardly reach any other results than those of marcion. the history of pauline theology in the church, a history first of silence, then of artificial interpretation, speaks loudly enough. and had not paul really separated christianity as religion from judaism and the old testament? must it not have seemed an inconceivable inconsistency, if he had clung to the special national relation of christianity to the jewish people, and if he had taught a view of history in which for pædagogic reasons indeed, the father of mercies and god of all comfort had appeared as one so entirely different? he who was not capable of translating himself into the consciousness of a jew, and had not yet learned the method of special interpretation, had only the alternative, if he was convinced of the truth of the gospel of christ as paul had proclaimed it, of either giving up this gospel against the dictates of his conscience, or striking out of the epistles whatever seemed jewish. but in this case the god of creation also disappeared, and the fact that marcion could make this sacrifice proves that this religious spirit, with all his energy, was not able to rise to the height of the religious faith which we find in the preaching of jesus. in basing his own position and that of his church on paulism, as he conceived and remodelled it, marcion connected himself with that part of the earliest tradition of christianity which is best known to us, and has enabled us to understand his undertaking historically as we do no other. here we have the means of accurately indicating what part of this structure of the second century has come down from the apostolic age and is really based on tradition, and what does not. where else could we do that? but marcion has taught us far more. he does not impart a correct understanding of early christianity, as was once supposed, for his explanation of that is undoubtedly incorrect, but a correct estimate of the reliability of the traditions that were current in his day alongside of the pauline. there can be no doubt that marcion criticised tradition from a dogmatic stand-point. but would his undertaking have been at all possible, if at that time a reliable tradition of the twelve apostles and their teaching had existed and been operative in wide circles? we may venture to say no. consequently, marcion gives important testimony against the historical reliability of the notion that the common christianity was really based on the tradition of the twelve apostles. it is not surprising that the first man who clearly put and answered the question, "what is christian?" adhered exclusively to the pauline epistles, and therefore found a very imperfect solution. when more than 1600 years later the same question emerged for the first time in scientific form, its solution had likewise to be first attempted from the pauline epistles, and therefore led at the outset to a one-sidedness similar to that of marcion. the situation of christendom in the middle of the second century was not really more favourable to a historical knowledge of early christianity, than that of the 18th century, but in many respects more unfavourable. even at that time, as attested by the enterprise of marcion, its results, and the character of the polemic against him, there were besides the pauline epistles, no reliable documents from which the teaching of the twelve apostles could have been gathered. the position which the pauline epistles occupy in the history of the world is, however, described by the fact that every tendency in the church which was unwilling to introduce into christianity the power of greek mysticism, and was yet no longer influenced by the early christian eschatology, learned from the pauline epistles a christianity which, as a religion, was peculiarly vigorous. but that position is further described by the fact that every tendency which courageously disregards spurious traditions, is compelled to turn to the pauline epistles, which, on the one hand, present such a profound type of christianity, and on the other, darken and narrow the judgment about the preaching of christ himself, by their complicated theology. marcion was the first, and for a long time the only gentile christian who took his stand on paul. he was no moralist, no greek mystic, no apocalyptic enthusiast, but a religious character, nay, one of the few pronouncedly typical religious characters whom we know in the early church before augustine. but his attempt to resuscitate paulinism is the first great proof that the conditions under which this christianity originated do not repeat themselves, and that therefore paulinism itself must receive a new construction if one desires to make it the basis of a church. his attempt is a further proof of the unique value of the old testament to early christendom, as the only means at that time of defending christian monotheism. finally, his attempt confirms the experience that a religious community can only be founded by a religious spirit who expects nothing from the world. nearly all ecclesiastical writers, from justin to origen, opposed marcion. he appeared already to justin as the most wicked enemy. we can understand this, and we can quite as well understand how the church fathers put him on a level with basilides and valentinus, and could not see the difference between them. because marcion elevated a better god above the god of creation, and consequently robbed the christian god of his honour, he appeared to be worse than a heathen (sentent. episc. lxxxvii., in hartel's edition of cyprian, i. p. 454; "gentiles quamvis idola colant, tamen summum deum patrem creatorem cognoscunt et confitentur [!]; in hunc marcion blasphemat, etc."), as a blaspheming emissary of demons, as the first-born of satan (polyc., justin, irenæus). because he rejected the allegoric interpretation of the old testament, and explained its predictions as referring to a messiah of the jews who was yet to come, he seemed to be a jew (tertull., adv. marc. iii.). because he deprived christianity of the apologetic proof (the proof from antiquity) he seemed to be a heathen and a jew at the same time (see my texte u. unters. i. 3, p. 68; the antitheses of marcion became very important for the heathen and manichæan assaults on christianity). because he represented the twelve apostles as unreliable witnesses, he appeared to be the most wicked and shameless of all heretics. finally, because he gained so many adherents, and actually founded a church, he appeared to be the ravening wolf (justin, rhodon), and his church as the spurious church. (tertull., adv. marc. iv. 5). in marcion the church fathers chiefly attacked what they attacked in all gnostic heretics, but here error shewed itself in its worst form. they learned much in opposing marcion (see bk. ii.). for instance, their interpretation of the _regula fidei_ and of the new testament received a directly antimarcionite expression in the church. one thing, however, they could not learn from him, and that was how to make christianity into a philosophic system. he formed no such system, but he has given a clearly outlined conception, based on historic documents, of christianity as the religion which redeems the world. _literature._--all anti-heretical writings of the early church, but especially justin, apol. i. 26, 58; iren. i. 27; tertull., adv. marc. i-v.; de præscr.; hippol., philos.; adamant., de recta in deum fidei; epiph. h. 42; ephr. syr.; esnik. the older attempts to restore the marcionite gospel and apostolicum have been antiquated by zahn's kanonsgeschichte, l. c. hahn (regimonti, 1823) has attempted to restore the antitheses. we are still in want of a german monograph on marcion (see the whole presentation of gnosticism by zahn, with his excursus, l. c.). hilgenfeld, ketzergesch. p. 316 f. 522 f.; cf. my works, zur quellenkritik des gnosticismus, 1873; de apelles gnosis monarchia, 1874; beiträge z. gesch. der marcionitischen kirchen (ztschr. f. wiss. theol. 1876). marcion's commentar zum evangelium (ztschr. f. k. g. bd. iv. 4). apelles syllogismen in the texte u. unters. vi. h. 3. zahn, die dialoge des adamantius in the ztschr. f. k.-gesch. ix. p. 193 ff. meyboom, marcion en de marcionieten, leiden, 1888. [footnote 365: he belonged to pontus and was a rich shipowner: about 139 he came to rome already a christian, and for a short time belonged to the church there. as he could not succeed in his attempt to reform it, he broke away from it about 144. he founded a church of his own and developed a very great activity. he spread his views by numerous journeys and communities bearing his name very soon arose in every province of the empire (adamantius, de recta in deum fide, origen opp. ed delarue 1. p. 809, epiph. h. 42. p. 668, ed. oehler). they were ecclesiastically organised (tertull., de præscr. 41. and adv. marc. iv. 5) and possessed bishops, presbyters, etc. (euseb. h. e. iv. 15. 46: de mart. palæst. x. 2; les bas and waddington inscript, grecq. et latines rec. en grêce et en asie min. vol. iii. no. 2558). justin (apol. 1. 26) about 150 tells us that marcion's preaching had spread [greek: kata pan genos anthrôpôn] and by the year 155, the marcionites were already numerous in rome (iren. iii. 34). up to his death however marcion did not give up the purpose of winning the whole of christendom and therefore again and again sought connection with it (iren. i. c.; tertull., de præscr. 30), likewise his disciples (see the conversation of apelles with rhodon in euseb. h. e. v. 13. 5. and the dialogue of the marcionites with adamantius). it is very probable that marcion had fixed the ground features of his doctrine and had laboured for its propagation even before he came to rome. in rome the syrian gnostic cerdo had a great influence on him, so that we can even yet perceive, and clearly distinguish the gnostic element in the form of the marcionite doctrine transmitted to us.] [footnote 366: "sufficit," said the marcionites, "unicum opsus deo nostro quod hominem liberavit summa et præcipua bonitate sua" (tertull. adv. marc. i. 17).] [footnote 367: apelles, the disciple of marcion, declared (euseb. h. e. v. 13. 5) [greek: sôthêsesthai tous epi ton estaurômenon êlpikotas, monon ean en ergois agathois euriskôntai.]] [footnote 368: this is an extremely important point. marcion rejected all allegories (see tertull. adv. marc. ii. 19. 21, 22, iii. 5. 6, 14, 19, iv. 15. 20, v. 1, orig. comment. in matth. t. xv. 3, opp. iii. p. 655, in ep. ad. rom. opp. iv. p. 494 sq., adamant. sect. i., orig. opp. i. pp. 808, 817, ephr. syrus. hymn. 36., edit. benedict p. 520 sq.) and describes this method as an arbitrary one. but that simply means that he perceived and avoided the transformation of the gospel into hellenic philosophy. no philosophic formulæ are found in any of his statements that have been handed down to us. but what is still more important, none of his early opponents have attributed to marcion a system as they did to basilides and valentinus. there can be no doubt that marcion did not set up any system (the armenian esnik first gives a marcionite system but that is a late production, see my essay in the ztschr. f. wiss. theol. 1896, p. 80 f.). he was just as far from having any apologetic or rationalistic interest; justin (apol. i. 58) says of the marcionites [greek: apodeixin mêdemian peri hôn legousin echousin alla alogôs hôs hupo lukou arnes sunêrpasmenoi k.t.l.]. tertullian again and again casts in the teeth of marcion that he has adduced no proof. see i. 11 sq., iii. 2. 3, 4, iv. 11: "subito christus subito et johannes sic sunt omnia apud marcionem quæ suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem." rhodon (euseb. h. e. v. 13. 4) says of two prominent genuine disciples of marcion [greek: mê euriskontes tên diairesin tôn pragmatôn hôs oude ekeinos duo archas apephênanto psilôs ka anapodeiktôs]. of apelles the most important of marcion's disciples, who laid aside the gnostic borrows of his master, we have the words (1. c) [greek: mê dein holôs exetazein ton logon all' hekaston hôs pepisteuke diamenein sôthêsesthai var tous eti ton estarômenon êlpikotas apephaineto monon ean en ergois agathois heuriskôntai. to de pôs esti mia archê mê ginôskein elegen houtô de kineisthai monon. mê epistasthai pôs eîs estin agennêtos theos touto de pisteuein]. it was marcion's purpose therefore to give all value to faith alone to make it dependent on its own convincing power and avoid all philosophic paraphrase and argument. the contrast in which he placed the christian blessing of salvation has in principle nothing in common with the contract in which greek philosophy viewed the _summum bonum_. finally it may be pointed out that marcion introduced no new elements (æons, matter, etc.) into his evangelic views and leant on no oriental religious science. the later marcionite speculations about matter (see the account of esnik) should not be charged upon the master himself as is manifest from the second book of tertullian against marcion. the assumption that the creator of the world created it out of a _materia subjacens_ is certainly found in marcion (see tertull. 1. 15, hippol. philos. x. 19) but he speculated no further about it and that assumption itself was not rejected, for example, by clem. alex. (strom. ii. 16. 74, photius on clement's hypotyposes). marcion did not really speculate even about the good god, yet see tertull. adv. marc. i. 14. 15, iv. 7: "mundus ille superior--coelum tertium."] [footnote 369: tertull., de præscr. 41. sq.; the delineation refers chiefly to the marcionites (see epiph. h. 42. c. 3. 4, and esnik's account), on the church system of marcion, see also tertull., adv. marc. i. 14, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29: iii. 1, 22: iv. 5, 34: v. 7, 10, 15, 18.] [footnote 370: marcion himself originally belonged to the main body of the church, as is expressly declared by tertullian and epiphanius, and attested by one of his own letters.] [footnote 371: tertull., adv. marc. i. 2, 19: "separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est marcionis ... ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur deorum." ii. 28, 29: iv. 1. i. 6: "dispares deos, alterum, judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum et tantummodo bonum atque optimum." iren. i. 27. 2.] [footnote 372: marcion maintained that the good god is not to be feared. tertull., adv. marc. i. 27: "atque adeo præ se ferunt marcionitæ quod deum suum omnino non timeant. malus autem, inquiunt, timebitur; bonus autem diligitur." to the question why they did not sin if they did not fear their god, the marcionites answered in the words of rom. vi. 1. 2. (l. c).] [footnote 373: tertull., adv. marc. i. 2; ii. 5.] [footnote 374: see the passage adduced, p. 266, note 2, and tertull, i. 19: "immo inquiunt marcionitæ, deus noster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed per semetipsum revelatus est in christi jesu." the very fact that different theological tendencies (schools) appeared within marcionite christianity and were mutually tolerant, proves that the marcionite church itself was not based on a formulated system of faith. apelles expressly conceded different forms of doctrine in christendom, on the basis of faith in the crucified and a common holy ideal of life (see p. 267).] [footnote 375: tertull., i, 13. "narem contrahentes impudentissimi marcionitæ convertuntur ad destructionem operum creatoris. nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus?" the marcionites (iren., iv. 34. 1) put the question to their ecclesiastical opponents, "quid novi attulit dominus veniens?" and therewith caused them no small embarrassment.] [footnote 376: on these see tertull. i. 19; ii. 28. 29; iv. 1, 4, 6; epiph. hippol., philos. vii. 30; the book was used by other gnostics also (it is very probable that 1 tim. vi. 20, an addition to the epistle--refers to marcion's antitheses). apelles, marcion's disciple, composed a similar work under the title of "syllogismi." marcion's antitheses, which may still in part be reconstructed from tertullian, epiphanius, adamantius, ephraem, etc., possessed canonical authority in the marcionite church, and therefore took the place of the old testament. that is quite clear from tertull., i. 19 (cf. iv. 1): separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est marcionis, nee poterunt negare discipuli ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur et indurantur in hanc hæresim.] [footnote 377: tertullian has frequently pointed to the contradictions in the marcionite conception of the god of creation. these contradictions, however, vanish as soon as we regard marcion's god from the point of view that he is like his revelation in the old testament.] [footnote 378: the creator of the world is indeed to marcion "malignus", but not "malus."] [footnote 379: marcion touched on it when he taught that the "visibilia" belonged to the god of creation, but the "invisibilia" to the good god (i. 16). he adopted the consequences, inasmuch as he taught docetically about christ, and only assumed a deliverance of the human soul.] [footnote 380: see especially the third book of tertull., adv. marcion.] [footnote 381: "solius bonitatis", "deus melior", were marcion's standing expressions for him.] [footnote 382: "deus incognitus" was likewise a standing expression. they maintained against all attacks the religious position that, from the nature of the case, believers only can know god, and that this is quite sufficient (tertull., 1. 11).] [footnote 383: marcion firmly emphasised this and appealed to passages in paul; see tertull., i. 11, 19, 23: "scio dicturos, atquin hanc esse principalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito familiaritatis in extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos quoque nostros et hoc nomine jam extraneos deligere jubeamur." the church fathers therefore declared that marcion's good god was a thief and a robber. see also celsus, in orig. vi. 53.] [footnote 384: see esnik's account, which, however, is to be used cautiously.] [footnote 385: marcion has strongly emphasised the respective passages in luke's gospel: see his antitheses, and his comments on the gospel, as presented by tertullian (l. iv).] [footnote 386: that can be plainly read in esnik, and must have been thought by marcion himself, as he followed paul (see tertull., l. v. and i. 11). apelles also emphasised the death upon the cross. marcion's conception of the purchase can indeed no longer be ascertained in its details. but see adamant., de recta in deum fide, sect. i. it is one of his theoretic contradictions that the good god who is exalted above righteousness should yet purchase men.] [footnote 387: tertull. i. 6: "marcion non negat creatorem deum esse."] [footnote 388: here tertull., i. 27, 28, is of special importance; see also ii. 28: iv. 29 (on luke xii. 41-46): iv. 30. marcion's idea was this. the good god does not judge or punish; but he judges in so far as he keeps evil at a distance from him: it remains foreign to him. "marcionitæ interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abici illum quasi ab oculis." "tranquilitas est et mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus ponere." but what is the end of him who is thus rejected? "ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris deprehendetur." we might think with tertullian that the creator of the world would receive sinners with joy: but this is the god of the law who punishes sinners. the issue is twofold: the heaven of the good god, and the hell of the creator of the world. either marcion assumed with paul that no one can keep the law, or he was silent about the end of the "righteous" because he had no interest in it. at any rate, the teaching of marcion closes with an outlook in which the creator of the world can no longer be regarded as an independent god. marcion's disciples (see esnik) here developed a consistent theory: the creator of the world violated his own law by killing the righteous christ, and was therefore deprived of all his power by christ.] [footnote 389: schools soon arose in the marcionite church, just as they did later on in the main body of christendom (see rhodon in euseb, h. e. v. 13. 2-4). the different doctrines of principles which were here developed (two, three, four principles; the marcionite marcus's doctrine of two principles in which the creator of the world is an evil being, diverges furthest from the master), explain the different accounts of the church fathers about marcion's teaching. the only one of the disciples who really seceded from the master, was apelles (tertull., de præscr. 30). his teaching is therefore the more important, as it shews that it was possible to retain the fundamental ideas of marcion without embracing dualism. the attitude of apelles to the old testament is that of marcion, in so far as he rejects the book. but perhaps he somewhat modified the strictness of the master. on the other hand, he certainly designated much in it as untrue and fabulous. it is remarkable that we meet with a highly honoured prophetess in the environment of apelles: in marcion's church we hear nothing of such, nay, it is extremely important as regards marcion, that he has never appealed to the spirit and to prophets. the "sanctiores feminæ" tertull. v. 8, are not of this nature, nor can we appeal even to v. 15. moreover, it is hardly likely that jerome ad eph. iii. 5, refers to marcionites. in this complete disregard of early christian prophecy, and in his exclusive reliance on literary documents, we see in marcion a process of despiritualising, that is, a form of secularisation peculiar to himself. marcion no longer possessed the early christian enthusiasm as, for example, hermas did.] [footnote 390: marcion was fond of calling christ "spiritus salutaris." from the treatise of tertullian we can prove both that marcion distinguished christ from god, and that he made no distinction (see, for example, i. 11, 14; ii. 27; iii. 8, 9, 11; iv. 7). here again marcion did not think theologically. what he regarded as specially important was that god has revealed himself in christ, "per semetipsum." later marcionites expressly taught patripassianism, and have on that account been often grouped with the sabellians. but other christologies also arose in marcion's church, which is again a proof that it was not dependent on scholastic teaching, and therefore could take part in the later development of doctrines.] [footnote 391: see the beginning of the marcionite gospel.] [footnote 392: tertullian informs us sufficiently about this. the body of christ was regarded by marcion merely as an "umbra", a "phantasma." his disciples adhered to this, but apelles first constructed a "doctrine" of the body of christ.] [footnote 393: the strict asceticism of marcion and the marcionites is reluctantly acknowledged by the church fathers; see tertull., de præscr. 30: "sanctissimus magister"; i. 28, "carni imponit sanctitem." the strict prohibition of marriage: i. 29: iv. 11, 17, 29, 34, 38: v. 7, 8, 15. 18; prohibition of food: i. 14; cynical life: hippol., philos. vii. 29; numerous martyrs: euseb. h. e. v. 16, 21. and frequently elsewhere. marcion named his adherents (tertull. iv. 9 36) "[greek: suntalaipôroi kai summisoumenoi]." it is questionable whether marcion himself allowed the repetition of baptism; it arose in his church. but this repetition is a proof that the prevailing conception of baptism was not sufficient for a vigorous religious temper.] [footnote 394: tertull. i. 20. "aiunt, marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro adulteratam recurasse." see the account of epiphanius, taken from hippolytus, about the appearance of marcion in rome (h. 42. 1, 2).] [footnote 395: here again we must remember that marcion appealed neither to a secret tradition, nor to the "spirit," in order to appreciate the epoch-making nature of his undertaking.] [footnote 396: in his estimate of the twelve apostles marcion took as his standpoint gal. ii. see tertull. i. 20: iv. 3 (generally iv. 1-6), v. 3; de præscr. 22. 23. he endeavoured to prove from this chapter that from a misunderstanding of the words of christ, the twelve apostles had proclaimed a different gospel than that of paul; they had wrongly taken the father of jesus christ for the god of creation. it is not quite clear how marcion conceived the inward condition of the apostles during the lifetime of jesus (see tertull. iii. 22: iv. 3. 39). he assumed that they were persecuted by the jews as the preachers of a new god. it is probable, therefore, that he thought of a gradual obscuring of the preaching of jesus in the case of the primitive apostles. they fell back into judaism; see iren. iii. 2. 2. "apostolos admiscuisse ea quæ sunt legalia salvatoris verbis"; iii. 12. 12: "apostoli quæ sunt judæorum sentientes scripserunt" etc.; tertull. v. 3: "apostolos vultis judaismi magis adfines subintelligi." the expositions of marcion in tertull. iv. 9, 11, 13, 21, 24, 39: v. 13. shew that he regarded the primitive apostles as out and out real apostles of christ.] [footnote 397: the call of paul was viewed by marcion as a manifestation of christ, of equal value with his first appearance and ministry; see the account of esnik. "then for the second time jesus came down to the lord of the creatures in the form of his godhead, and entered into judgment with him on account of his death.... and jesus said to him: 'judgment is between me and thee, let no one be judge but thine own laws.... hast thou not written in this thy law, that he who killeth shall die?' and he answered, 'i have so written' ... jesus said to him, 'deliver thyself therefore into my hands' ... the creator of the world said, 'because i have slain thee i give thee a compensation, all those who shall believe on thee, that thou mayest do with them what thou pleasest.' then jesus left him and carried away paul, and shewed him the price, and sent him to preach that we are bought with this price, and that all who believe in jesus are sold by this just god to the good one." this is a most instructive account; for it shews that in the marcionite schools the pauline doctrine of reconciliation was transformed into a drama, and placed between the death of christ and the call of paul, and that the pauline gospel was based, not directly on the death of christ upon the cross, but on a theory of it converted into history. on paul as the one apostle of the truth; see tertull. i. 20: iii. 5, 14: iv. 2 sq.: iv. 34: v. 1. as to a marcionite theory that the promise to send the spirit was fulfilled in the mission of paul, an indication of the want of enthusiasm among the marcionites, see the following page, note 2.] [footnote 398: marcion must have spoken _ex professo_ in his antitheses about the judaistic corruptions of paul's epistles and the gospel. he must also have known evangelic writings bearing the names of the original apostles, and have expressed himself about them (tertull. iv. 1-6).] [footnote 399: marcion's self-consciousness of being a reformer, and the recognition of this in his church is still not understood, although his undertaking itself and the facts speak loud enough. (1) the great marcionite church called itself after marcion (adamant., de recta in deum fide. i. 809; epiph. h. 42, p. 668, ed. oehler: [greek: markiôn sou to onoma epikeklêntai hoi upo sou êpatêmenoi, hôs seauton kêruxantos kai ouchi christon]. we possess a marcionite inscription which begins: [greek: sunagôgê markiônistôn]). as the marcionites did not form a school, but a church, it is of the greatest value for shewing the estimate of the master in this church, that its members called themselves by his name. (2) the antitheses of marcion had a place in the marcionite canon (see above, p. 270). this canon therefore embraced a book of christ, epistles of paul, and a book of marcion, and for that reason the antitheses were always circulated with the canon of marcion. (3) origen (in luc. hom. 25. t. iii. p. 962) reports as follows: "denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova quædam et inaudita super paulo monstra confingerent. alli enim aiunt, hoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris salvatoris et sinistris, de paulo et de marcione dici, quod paulus sedet a dextris, marcion sedet a sinistris. porro alii legentes: mittam vobis advocatum spiritum veritatis, nolunt intelligere tertiam personam a patre et filio, sed apostolum paulum." the estimate of marcion which appears here is exceedingly instructive. (4) an arabian writer, who, it is true, belongs to a later period, reports that marcionites called their founder "apostolorum principem." (5) justin, the first opponent of marcion, classed him with simon magus and menander, that is, with demonic founders of religion. these testimonies may suffice.] [footnote 400: on marcion's gospel see the introductions to the new testament and zahn's kanonsgeschichte, bd. i., p. 585 ff. and ii., p. 409. marcion attached no name to his gospel, which, according to his own testimony, he produced from the third one of our canon (tertull, adv. marc. iv. 2, 3, 4). he called it simply [greek: euangelion (kuriou)], but held that it was the gospel which paul had in his mind when he spoke of his gospel. the later marcionites ascribed the authorship of the gospel partly to paul, partly to christ himself, and made further changes in it. that marcion chose the gospel called after luke should be regarded as a makeshift; for this gospel, which is undoubtedly the most hellenistic of the four canonical gospels, and therefore comes nearest to the catholic conception of christianity, accommodated itself in its traditional form but little better than the other three to marcionite christianity. whether marcion took it for a basis because in his time it had already been connected with paul (or really had a connection with paul), or whether the numerous narratives about jesus as the saviour of sinners, led him to recognise in this gospel alone a genuine kernel, we do not know.] [footnote 401: the associations of the encratites and the community founded by apelles stood between the main body of christendom and the marcionite church. the description of celsus (especially v. 61-64 in orig.) shews the motley appearance which christendom presented soon after the middle of the second century. he there mentions the marcionites, and a little before (v. 59), the "great church." it is very important that celsus makes the main distinction consist in this, that some regarded their god as identical with the god of the jews, whilst others again declared that "theirs was a different deity who is hostile to that of the jews, and that it was he who had sent the son." (v. 61).] [footnote 402: one might be tempted to comprise the character of marcion's religion in the words, "the god who dwells in my breast can profoundly excite my inmost being. he who is throned above all my powers can move nothing outwardly." but marcion had the firm assurance that god has done something much greater than move the world: he has redeemed men from the world, and given them the assurance of this redemption, in the midst of all oppression and enmity which do not cease.] chapter vi. appendix: the christianity of the jewish christians 1. original christianity was in appearance christian judaism, the creation of a universal religion on old testament soil. it retained therefore, so far as it was not hellenised, which never altogether took place, its original jewish features. the god of abraham, isaac and jacob was regarded as the father of jesus christ, the old testament was the authoritative source of revelation, and the hopes of the future were based on the jewish ones. the heritage which christianity took over from judaism, shews itself on gentile christian soil, in fainter or distincter form, in proportion as the philosophic mode of thought already prevails, or recedes into the background.[403] to describe the appearance of the jewish, old testament, heritage in the christian faith, so far as it is a religious one, by the name jewish christianity, beginning at a certain point quite arbitrarily chosen, and changeable at will, must therefore necessarily lead to error, and it has done so to a very great extent. for this designation makes it appear as though the jewish element in the christian religion were something accidental, while it is rather the case that all christianity, in so far as something alien is not foisted into it, appears as the religion of israel perfected and spiritualised. we are therefore not justified in speaking of jewish christianity, where a christian community, even one of gentile birth, calls itself the true israel, the people of the twelve tribes, the posterity of abraham; for this transfer is based on the original claim of christianity and can only be forbidden by a view that is alien to it. just as little may we designate jewish christian the mighty and realistic hopes of the future which were gradually repressed in the second and third centuries. they may be described as jewish, or as christian; but the designation jewish christian must be rejected; for it gives a wrong impression as to the historic right of these hopes in christianity. the eschatological ideas of papias were not jewish christian, but christian; while, on the other hand, the eschatological speculations of origen were not gentile christian, but essentially greek. those christians who saw in jesus the man chosen by god and endowed with the spirit, thought about the redeemer not in a jewish christian, but in a christian manner. those of asia minor who held strictly to the 14th of nisan as the term of the easter festival, were not influenced by jewish christian, but by christian or old testament, considerations. the author of the "teaching of the apostles," who has transferred the rights of the old testament priests with respect to the first fruits, to the christian prophets, shews himself by such transference not as a jewish christian, but as a christian. there is no boundary here; for christianity took possession of the whole of judaism as religion, and it is therefore a most arbitrary view of history which looks upon the christian appropriation of the old testament religion, after any point, as no longer christian, but only jewish christian. wherever the universalism of christianity is not violated in favour of the jewish nation, we have to recognise every appropriation of the old testament as christian. hence this proceeding could be spontaneously undertaken in christianity, as was in fact done. 2. but the jewish religion is a national religion, and christianity burst the bonds of nationality, though not for all who recognised jesus as messiah. this gives the point at which the introduction of the term "jewish christianity" is appropriate.[404] it should be applied exclusively to those christians who really maintained in their whole extent, or in some measure, even if it were to a minimum degree, the national and political forms of judaism and the observance of the mosaic law in its literal sense, as essential to christianity, at least to the christianity of born jews, or who, though rejecting these forms, nevertheless assumed a prerogative of the jewish people even in christianity (clem., homil. xi. 26: [greek: ean ho allophulos ton nomon praxêi, ioudaios estin, mê praxas de hellên]; "if the foreigner observe the law he is a jew, but if not he is a greek.")[405] to this jewish christianity is opposed, not gentile christianity, but the christian religion, in so far as it is conceived as universalistic and anti-national in the strict sense of the term (presupp. § 3), that is, the main body of christendom in so far as it has freed itself from judaism as a nation.[406] it is not strange that this jewish christianity was subject to all the conditions which arose from the internal and external position of the judaism of the time; that is, different tendencies were necessarily developed in it, according to the measure of the tendencies (or the disintegrations) which asserted themselves in the judaism of that time. it lies also in the nature of the case that, with one exception, that of pharisaic jewish christianity, all other tendencies were accurately parallelled in the systems which appeared in the great, that is, anti-jewish christendom. they were distinguished from these, simply by a social and political, that is, a national element. moreover, they were exposed to the same influences from without as the synagogue, and as the larger christendom, till the isolation to which judaism as a nation, after severe reverses condemned itself, became fatal to them also. consequently, there were besides pharisaic jewish christians, ascetics of all kinds who were joined by all those over whom oriental religious wisdom and greek philosophy had won a commanding influence (see above, p. 242 f.) in the first century these jewish christians formed the majority in palestine, and perhaps also in some neighbouring provinces. but they were also found here and there in the west. now the great question is, whether this jewish christianity as a whole, or in certain of its tendencies, was a factor in the development of christianity to catholicism. this question is to be answered in the negative, and quite as much with regard to the history of dogma as with regard to the political history of the church. from the stand-point of the universal history of christianity, these jewish christian communities appear as rudimentary structures which now and again, as objects of curiosity, engaged the attention of the main body of christendom in the east, but could not exert any important influence on it, just because they contained a national element. the jewish christians took no considerable part in the gnostic controversy, the epoch-making conflict which was raised within the pale of the larger christendom about the decisive question, whether, and to what extent, the old testament should remain a basis of christianity, although they themselves were no less occupied with the question.[407] the issue of this conflict in favour of that party which recognised the old testament in its full extent as a revelation of the christian god, and asserted the closest connection between christianity and the old testament religion, was so little the result of any influence of jewish christianity, that the existence of the latter would only have rendered that victory more difficult, unless it had already fallen into the background, as a phenomenon of no importance.[408] how completely insignificant it was is shewn not only by the limited polemics of the church fathers, but perhaps still more by their silence, and the new import which the reproach of judaising obtained in christendom after the middle of the second century. in proportion as the old testament, in opposition to gnosticism, became a more conscious and accredited possession in the church, and at the same time, in consequence of the naturalising of christianity in the world, the need of regulations, fixed rules, statutory enactments etc., appeared as indispensable, it must have been natural to use the old testament as a holy code of such enactments. this procedure was no falling away from the original anti-judaic attitude, provided nothing national was taken from the book, and some kind of spiritual interpretation given to what had been borrowed. the "apostasy" rather lay simply in the changed needs. but one now sees how those parties in the church, to which for any reason this progressive legislation was distasteful, raised the reproach of "judaising,"[409] and further, how conversely the same reproach was hurled at those christians who resisted the advancing hellenising of christianity, with regard, for example, to the doctrine of god, eschatology, christology, etc.[410] but while this reproach is raised, there is nowhere shewn any connection between those described as judaising christians and the ebionites. that they were identified off-hand is only a proof that "ebionitism" was no longer known. that "judaising" within catholicism which appears, on the one hand, in the setting up of a catholic ceremonial law (worship, constitution, etc.), and on the other, in a tenacious clinging to less hellenised forms of faith and hopes of faith, has nothing in common with jewish christianity, which desired somehow to confine christianity to the jewish nation.[411] speculations that take no account of history may make out that catholicism became more and more jewish christian. but historical observation, which reckons only with concrete quantities, can discover in catholicism, besides christianity, no element which it would have to describe as jewish christian. it observes only a progressive hellenising, and in consequence of this, a progressive spiritual legislation which utilizes the old testament, a process which went on for centuries according to the same methods which had been employed in the larger christendom from the beginning.[412] baur's brilliant attempt to explain catholicism as a product of the mutual conflict and neutralising of jewish and gentile christianity, (the latter according to baur being equivalent to paulinism) reckons with two factors, of which, the one had no significance at all, and the other only an indirect effect, as regards the formation of the catholic church. the influence of paul in this direction is exhausted in working out the universalism of the christian religion, for a greater than he had laid the foundation for this movement, and paul did not realise it by himself alone. placed on this height catholicism was certainly developed by means of conflicts and compromises, not, however, by conflicts with ebionitism, which was to all intents and purposes discarded as early as the first century, but as the result of the conflict of christianity with the united powers of the world in which it existed, on behalf of its own peculiar nature as the universal religion based on the old testament. here were fought triumphant battles, but here also compromises were made which characterise the essence of catholicism as church and as doctrine.[413] a history of jewish christianity and its doctrines does not therefore, strictly speaking, belong to the history of dogma, especially as the original distinction between jewish christianity and the main body of the church lay, as regards its principle, not in doctrine, but in policy. but seeing that the opinions of the teachers in this church regarding jewish christianity, throw light upon their own stand-point, also that up till about the middle of the second century jewish christians were still numerous and undoubtedly formed the great majority of believers in palestine,[414] and finally, that attempts--unsuccessful ones indeed--on the part of jewish christianity to bring gentile christians under its sway, did not cease till about the middle of the third century, a short sketch may be appropriate here.[415] justin vouches for the existence of jewish christians, and distinguishes between those who would force the law even on gentile-christians, and would have no fellowship with such as did not observe it, and those who considered that the law was binding only on people of jewish birth, and did not shrink from fellowship with gentile christians who were living without the law. how the latter could observe the law and yet enter into intercourse with those who were not jews, is involved in obscurity, but these he recognises as partakers of the christian salvation and therefore as christian brethren, though he declares that there are christians who do not possess this large heartedness. he also speaks of gentile christians who allowed themselves to be persuaded by jewish christians into the observance of the mosaic law, and confesses that he is not quite sure of the salvation of these. this is all we learn from justin,[416] but it is instructive enough. in the first place, we can see that the question is no longer a burning one: "justin here represents only the interests of a gentile christianity whose stability has been secured." this has all the more meaning that in the dialogue justin has not in view an individual christian community, or the communities of a province, but speaks as one who surveys the whole situation of christendom.[417] the very fact that justin has devoted to the whole question only one chapter of a work containing 142, and the magnanimous way in which he speaks, shew that the phenomena in question have no longer any importance for the main body of christendom. secondly, it is worthy of notice that justin distinguishes two tendencies in jewish christianity. we observe these two tendencies in the apostolic age (presupp. § 3); they had therefore maintained themselves to his time. finally, we must not overlook the circumstance that he adduces only the [greek: ennomos politeia], "legal polity," as characteristic of this jewish christianity. he speaks only incidentally of a difference in doctrine, nay, he manifestly presupposes that the [greek: didagmata christou], "teachings of christ," are essentially found among them just as among the gentile christians; for he regards the more liberal among them as friends and brethren.[418] the fact that, even then, there were jewish christians here and there who sought to spread the [greek: ennomos politeia] among gentile christians, has been attested by justin and also by other contemporary writers.[419] but there is no evidence of this propaganda having acquired any great importance. celsus also knows christians who desire to live as jews according to the mosaic law (v. 61), but he mentions them only once, and otherwise takes no notice of them in his delineation of, and attack on, christianity. we may perhaps infer that he knew of them only from hearsay, for he simply enumerates them along with the numerous gnostic sects. had this keen observer really known them he would hardly have passed them over, even though he had met with only a small number of them.[420] irenæus placed the ebionites among the heretical schools,[421] but we can see from his work that in his day they must have been all but forgotten in the west.[422] this was not yet the case in the east. origen knows of them. he knows also of some who recognise the birth from the virgin. he is sufficiently intelligent and acquainted with history to judge that the ebionites are no school, but as believing jews are the descendants of the earliest christians, in fact he seems to suppose that all converted jews have at all times observed the law of their fathers. but he is far from judging of them favourably. he regards them as little better than the jews ([greek: ioudaioi kai hoi oligô diapherontes autôn ebiônaioi], "jews and ebionites who differ little from them"). their rejection of paul destroys the value of their recognition of jesus as messiah. they appear only to have assumed christ's name, and their literal exposition of the scripture is meagre and full of error. it is possible that such jewish christians may have existed in alexandria, but it is not certain. origen knows nothing of an inner development in this jewish christianity.[423] even in palestine, origen seems to have occupied himself personally with these jewish christians, just as little as eusebius.[424] they lived apart by themselves and were not aggressive. jerome is the last who gives us a clear and certain account of them.[425] he, who associated with them, assures us that their attitude was the same as in the second century, only they seem to have made progress in the recognition of the birth from the virgin and in their more friendly position towards the church.[426] jerome at one time calls them ebionites and at another nazarenes, thereby proving that these names were used synonymously.[427] there is not the least ground for distinguishing two clearly marked groups of jewish christians, or even for reckoning the distinction of origen and the church fathers to the account of jewish christians themselves, so as to describe as nazarenes those who recognised the birth from the virgin, and who had no wish to compel the gentile christians to observe the law, and the others as ebionites. apart from syncretistic or gnostic jewish christianity, there is but one group of jewish christians holding various shades of opinion, and these from the beginning called themselves nazarenes as well as ebionites. from the beginning, likewise, one portion of them was influenced by the existence of a great gentile church which did not observe the law. they acknowledged the work of paul and experienced in a slight degree influences emanating from the great church.[428] but the gulf which separated them from that church did not thereby become narrower. that gulf was caused by the social and political separation of these jewish christians, whatever mental attitude, hostile or friendly, they might take up to the great church. this church stalked over hem with iron feet, as over a structure which in her opinion was full of contradictions throughout ("semi-christiani"), and was disconcerted neither by the gospel of these jewish christians nor by anything else about them.[429] but as the synagogue also vigorously condemned them, their position up to their extinction was a most tragic one. these jewish christians, more than any other christian party, bore the reproach of christ. the gospel, at the time when it was proclaimed among the jews, was not only law, but theology, and indeed syncretistic theology. on the other hand, the temple service and the sacrificial system had begun to lose their hold in certain influential circles.[430] we have pointed out above (presupp. §§. 1. 2. 5) how great were the diversities of jewish sects, and that there was in the diaspora, as well as in palestine itself, a judaism which, on the one hand, followed ascetic impulses, and on the other, advanced to a criticism of the religious tradition without giving up the national claims. it may even be said that in theology the boundaries between the orthodox judaism of the pharisees and a syncretistic judaism were of an elastic kind. although religion, in those circles, seemed to be fixed in its legal aspect, yet on its theological side it was ready to admit very diverse speculations, in which angelic powers especially played a great rôle.[431] that introduced into jewish monotheism an element of differentiation, the results of which were far-reaching. the field was prepared for the formation of syncretistic sects. they present themselves to us on the soil of the earliest christianity, in the speculations of those jewish christian teachers who are opposed in the epistle to the colossians, and in the gnosis of cerinthus (see above, p. 246). here cosmological ideas and myths were turned to profit. the idea of god was sublimated by both. in consequence of this, the old testament records were subjected to criticism, because they could not in all respects be reconciled with the universal religion which hovered before men's minds. this criticism was opposed to the pauline in so far as it maintained, with the common jewish christians, and christendom as a whole, that the genuine old testament religion was essentially identical with the christian. but while those common jewish christians drew from this the inference that the whole of the old testament must be adhered to in its traditional sense and in all its ordinances, and while the larger christendom secured for itself the whole of the old testament by deviating from the ordinary interpretation, those syncretistic jewish christians separated from the old testament, as interpolations, whatever did not agree with their purer moral conceptions and borrowed speculations. thus, in particular, they got rid of the sacrificial ritual, and all that was connected with it, by putting ablutions in their place. first the profanation, and afterwards, the abolition of the temple worship, after the destruction of jerusalem, may have given another new and welcome impulse to this by coming to be regarded as its divine confirmation (presupp. § 2). christianity now appeared as purified mosaism. in these jewish christian undertakings we have undoubtedly before us a series of peculiar attempts to elevate the old testament religion into the universal one, under the impression of the person of jesus; attempts, however, in which the jewish religion, and not the jewish people, was to bear the costs by curtailment of its distinctive features. the great inner affinity of these attempts with the gentile christian gnostics has already been set forth. the firm partition wall between them, however, lies in the claim of these jewish christians to set forth the pure old testament religion, as well as in the national jewish colouring which the constructed universal religion was always to preserve. this national colouring is shewn in the insistence upon a definite measure of jewish national ceremonies as necessary to salvation, and in the opposition to the apostle paul, which united the gnostic judæo-christians with the common type, those of the strict observance. how the latter were related to the former, we do not know, for the inner relations here are almost completely unknown to us.[432] apart from the false doctrines opposed in the epistle to the colossians, and from cerinthus, this syncretistic jewish christianity which aimed at making itself a universal religion, meets us in tangible form only in three phenomena:[433] in the elkesaites of hippolytus and origen, in the ebionites with their associates of epiphanius, sects very closely connected, in fact to be viewed as one party of manifold shades,[434] and in the activity of symmachus.[435] we observe here a form of religion as far removed from that of the old testament as from the gospel, subject to strong heathen influences, not greek, but asiatic, and scarcely deserving the name "christian," because it appeals to a new revelation of god which is to complete that given in christ. we should take particular note of this in judging of the whole remarkable phenomenon. the question in this jewish christianity is not the formation of a philosophic school, but to some extent the establishment of a kind of new religion, that is, the completion of that founded by christ, undertaken by a particular person basing his claims on a revealed book which was delivered to him from heaven. this book which was to form the complement of the gospel, possessed, from the third century, importance for all sections of jewish christians so far as they, in the phraseology of epiphanius, were not nazarenes.[436] the whole system reminds one of samaritan christian syncretism;[437] but we must be on our guard against identifying the two phenomena, or even regarding them as similar. these elkesaite jewish christians held fast by the belief that jesus was the son of god, and saw in the "book" a revelation which proceeded from him. they did not offer any worship to their founder,[438] that is, to the receiver of the "book," and they were, as will be shewn, the most ardent opponents of simonianism.[439] alcibiades of apamea, one of their disciples, came from the east to rome about 220-230, and endeavoured to spread the doctrines of the sect in the roman church. he found the soil prepared, inasmuch as he could announce from the "book" forgiveness of sins to all sinful christians, even the grossest transgressors, and such forgiveness was very much needed. hippolytus opposed him, and had an opportunity of seeing the book and becoming acquainted with its contents. from his account and that of origen we gather the following: (1) the sect is a jewish christian one, for it requires the [greek: nomou politeia] (circumcision and the keeping of the sabbath), and repudiates the apostle paul; but it criticises the old testament and rejects a part of it. (2) the objects of its faith are the "great and most high god", the son of god (the "great king"), and the holy spirit (thought of as female); son and spirit appear as angelic powers. considered outwardly, and according to his birth, christ is a mere man, but with this peculiarity, that he has already been frequently born and manifested ([greek: pollakis gennêthenta kai gennômenon pephênenai kai phuesthai, allassonta geneseis kai metensômatoumenon], cf. the testimony of victorinus as to symmachus). from the statements of hippolytus we cannot be sure whether he was identified with the son of god,[440] at any rate the assumption of repeated births of christ shews how completely christianity was meant to be identified with what was supposed to be the pure old testament religion. (3) the "book" proclaimed a new forgiveness of sin, which, on condition of faith in the "book" and a real change of mind, was to be bestowed on every one, through the medium of washings, accompanied by definite prayers which are strictly prescribed. in these prayers appear peculiar semitic speculations about nature ("the seven witnesses: heaven, water, the holy spirits, the angels of prayer, oil, salt, earth"). the old jewish way of thinking appears in the assumption that all kinds of sickness and misfortune are punishments for sin, and that these penalties must therefore be removed by atonement. the book contains also astrological and geometrical speculations in a religious garb. the main thing, however, was the possibility of a forgiveness of sin, ever requiring to be repeated, though hippolytus himself was unable to point to any gross laxity. still, the appearance of this sect represents the attempt to make the religion of christian judaism palatable to the world. the possibility of repeated forgiveness of sin, the speculations about numbers, elements, and stars, the halo of mystery, the adaptation to the forms of worship employed in the "mysteries", are worldly means of attraction which shew that this jewish christianity was subject to the process of acute secularization. the jewish mode of life was to be adopted in return for these concessions. yet its success in the west was of small extent and short-lived. epiphanius confirms all these features, and adds a series of new ones. in his description, the new forgiveness of sin is not so prominent as in that of hippolytus, but it is there. from the account of epiphanius we can see that these syncretistic judæo-christian sects were at first strictly ascetic and rejected marriage as well as the eating of flesh, but that they gradually became more lax. we learn here that the whole sacrificial service was removed from the old testament by the elkesaites and declared to be non-divine, that is non-mosaic, and that fire was consequently regarded as the impure and dangerous element, and water as the good one.[441] we learn further, that these sects acknowledged no prophets and men of god between aaron and christ, and that they completely adapted the hebrew gospel of matthew to their own views.[442] in addition to this book, however, (the gospel of the 12 apostles), other writings, such as [greek: periodoi petrou dia klêmentos, anabathmoi iakôbou] and similar histories of apostles, were held in esteem by them. in these writings the apostles were represented as zealous ascetics, and, above all, as vegetarians, while the apostle paul was most bitterly opposed. they called him a tarsene, said he was a greek, and heaped on him gross abuse. epiphanius also dwells strongly upon their jewish mode of life (circumcision, sabbath), as well as their daily washings,[443] and gives some information about the constitution and form of worship of these sects (use of baptism: lord's supper with bread and water). finally, epiphanius gives particulars about their christology. on this point there were differences of opinion, and these differences prove that there was no christological dogma. as among the common jewish christians, the birth of jesus from the virgin was a matter of dispute. further, some identified christ with adam, others saw in him a heavenly being ([greek: anôthen on]), a spiritual being, who was created before all, who was higher than all angels and lord of all things, but who chose for himself the upper world; yet this christ from above came down to this lower world as often as he pleased. he came in adam, he appeared in human form to the patriarchs, and at last appeared on earth as a man with the body of adam, suffered, etc. others again, as it appears, would have nothing to do with these speculations, but stood by the belief that jesus was the man chosen by god, on whom, on account of his virtue, the holy spirit--[greek: hoper estin ho christos]-descended at the baptism.[444] (epiph. h. 30. 3, 14, 16). the account which epiphanius gives of the doctrine held by these jewish christians regarding the devil, is specially instructive (h. 30. 16): [greek: duo de tinas sunistôsin ek theou tetagmenous, ena men ton christon, ena de ton diabolon. kai ton men christon legousi tou mellontos aiônos eilêphenai ton klêron, ton de diabolon touton pepisteusthai on aiôna, ek prostagês dêthen tou pantokratopos kata aitêsin ekaterôn autôn]. here we have a very old semitico-hebraic idea preserved in a very striking way, and therefore we may probably assume that in other respects also, these gnostic ebionites preserved that which was ancient. whether they did so in their criticism of the old testament, is a point on which we must not pronounce judgment. we might conclude by referring to the fact that this syncretistic jewish christianity, apart from a well-known missionary effort at rome, was confined to palestine and the neighbouring countries, and might consider it proved that this movement had no effect on the history and development of catholicism,[445] were it not for two voluminous writings which still continue to be regarded as monuments of the earliest epoch of syncretistic jewish christianity. not only did baur suppose that he could prove his hypothesis about the origin of catholicism by the help of these writings, but the attempt has recently been made on the basis of _the pseudo-clementine recognitions and homilies_, for these are the writings in question, to go still further and claim for jewish christianity the glory of having developed by itself the whole doctrine, worship and constitution of catholicism, and of having transmitted it to gentile christianity as a finished product which only required to be divested of a few jewish husks.[446] it is therefore necessary to subject these writings to a brief examination. everything depends on the time of their origin, and the tendencies they follow. but these are just the two questions that are still unanswered. without depreciating those worthy men who have earnestly occupied themselves with the pseudo-clementines,[447] it may be asserted, that in this region everything is as yet in darkness, especially as no agreement has been reached even in the question of their composition. no doubt such a result appears to have been pretty nearly arrived at as far as the time of composition is concerned, but that estimate (150-170, or the latter half of the second century) not only awakens the greatest suspicion, but can be proved to be wrong. the importance of the question for the history of dogma does not permit the historian to set it aside, while, on the other hand, the compass of a manual does not allow us to enter into an exhaustive investigation. the only course open in such circumstances is briefly to define one's own position. 1. the recognitions and homilies, in the form in which we have them, do not belong to the second century, but at the very earliest to the first half of the third. there is nothing, however, to prevent our putting them a few decades later.[448] 2. they were not composed in their present form by heretical christians, but most probably by catholics. nor do they aim at forming a theological system,[449] or spreading the views of a sect. their primary object is to oppose greek polytheism, immoral mythology, and false philosophy, and thus to promote edification.[450] 3. in describing the authors as catholic, we do not mean that they were adherents of the theology of irenæus or origen. the instructive point here rather, is that they had as yet no fixed theology, and therefore could without hesitation regard and use all possible material as means of edification. in like manner, they had no fixed conception of the apostolic age, and could therefore appropriate motley and dangerous material. such christians, highly educated and correctly trained too, were still to be found, not only in the third century, but even later. but the authors do not seem to have been free from a bias, inasmuch as they did not favour the catholic, that is, the alexandrian apologetic theology which was in process of formation. 4. the description of the pseudo-clementine writings, naturally derived from their very form, as "edifying, didactic romances for the refutation of paganism", is not inconsistent with the idea, that the authors, at the same time, did their utmost to oppose heretical phenomena, especially the marcionite church and apelles, together with heresy and heathenism in general, as represented by simon magus. 5. the objectionable materials which the authors made use of were edifying for them, because of the position assigned therein to peter, because of the ascetic and mysterious elements they contained, and the opposition offered to simon, etc. the offensive features, so far as they were still contained in these sources, had already become unintelligible and harmless. they were partly conserved as such and partly removed. 6. the authors are to be sought for perhaps in rome, perhaps in syria, perhaps in both places, certainly not in alexandria. 7. the main ideas are: (1) the monarchy of god. (2) the syzygies (weak and strong). (3) prophecy (the true prophet). (4) stoical rationalism, belief in providence, good works. [greek: philanthrôpia], etc.--mosaism. the homilies are completely saturated with stoicism, both in their ethical and metaphysical systems, and are opposed to platonism, though plato is quoted in hom. xv. 8, as [greek: hellênôn sophistia] (a wise man of the greeks). in addition to these ideas we have also a strong hierarchical tendency. the material which the authors made use of was in great part derived from syncretistic jewish christian tradition, in other words, those histories of the apostles were here utilised which epiphanius reports to have been used by the ebionites (see above). it is not probable, however, that these writings in their original form were in the hands of the narrators; the likelihood is that they made use of them in revised forms. 8. it must be reserved for an accurate investigation to ascertain whether those modified versions which betray clear marks of hellenic origin, were made within syncretistic judaism itself, or whether they are to be traced back to catholic writers. in either case, they should not be placed earlier than about the beginning of the third century, but in all probability one or two generations later still. 9. if we adopt the first assumption, it is most natural to think of that propaganda which, according to the testimony of hippolytus and origen, jewish christianity attempted in rome in the age of caracalla and heliogabalus, through the medium of the syrian, alcibiades. this coincides with the last great advance of syrian cults into the west, and is, at the same time, the only one known to us historically. but it is further pretty generally admitted that the immediate sources of the pseudo-clementines already presuppose the existence of elkesaite christianity. we should accordingly have to assume that in the west, this christianity made greater concessions to the prevailing type, that it gave up circumcision and accommodated itself to the church system of gentile christianity, at the same time withdrawing its polemic against paul. 10. meanwhile the existence of such a jewish christianity is not as yet proved, and therefore we must reckon with the possibility that the remodelled form of the jewish christian sources, already found in existence by the revisers of the pseudo-clementine romances, was solely a catholic literary product. in this assumption, which commends itself both as regards the aim of the composition and its presupposed conditions, we must remember that, from the third century onwards, catholic writers systematically corrected, and to a great extent reconstructed, the heretical histories which were in circulation in the churches as interesting reading, and that the extent and degree of this reconstruction varied exceedingly, according to the theological and historical insight of the writer. the identifying of pure mosaism with christianity was in itself by no means offensive when there was no further question of circumcision. the clear distinction between the ceremonial and moral parts of the old testament, could no longer prove an offence after the great struggle with gnosticism.[451] the strong insistence upon the unity of god, and the rejection of the doctrine of the logos, were by no means uncommon in the beginning of the third century; and in the speculations about adam and christ, in the views about god and the world and such, like, as set before us in the immediate sources of the romances, the correct and edifying elements must have seemed to outweigh the objectionable. at any rate, the historian who, until further advised, denies the existence of a jewish christianity composed of the most contradictory elements, lacking circumcision and national hopes, and bearing marks of catholic and therefore of hellenic influence, judges more prudently than he who asserts, solely on the basis of romances which are accompanied by no tradition and have never been the objects of assault, the existence of a jewish christianity accommodating itself to catholicism which is entirely unattested. 11. be that as it may, it may at least be regarded as certain that the pseudo-clementines contribute absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the origin of the catholic church and doctrine, as they shew at best in their immediate sources a jewish christianity strongly influenced by catholicism and hellenism. 12. they must be used with great caution even in seeking to determine the tendencies and inner history of syncretistic jewish christianity. it cannot be made out with certainty, how far back the first sources of the pseudo-clementines date, or what their original form and tendency were. as to the first point, it has indeed been said that justin, nay, even the author of the acts of the apostles, presupposes them, and that the catholic tradition of peter, in rome, and of simon magus, are dependent on them (as is still held by lipsius); but there is so little proof of this adduced, that in christian literature up to the end of the second century (hegesippus?) we can only discover very uncertain traces of acquaintance with jewish christian historical narrative. such indications can only be found, to any considerable extent, in the third century, and i do not mean to deny that the contents of the jewish christian histories of the apostles contributed materially to the formation of the ecclesiastical legends about peter. as is shewn in the pseudo-clementines, these histories of the apostles especially opposed simon magus and his adherents (the new samaritan attempt at a universal religion), and placed the authority of the apostle peter against them. but they also opposed the apostle paul, and seem to have transferred simonian features to paul, and pauline features to simon. yet it is also possible that the pauline traits found in the magician were the outcome of the redaction, in so far as the whole polemic against paul is here struck out, though certain parts of it have been woven into the polemic against simon. but probably the pauline features of the magician are merely an appearance. the pseudo-clementines may, to some extent, be used, though with caution, in determining the doctrines of syncretistic jewish christianity. in connection with this we must take what epiphanius says as our standard. the pantheistic and stoic elements which are found here and there must of course be eliminated. but the theory of the genesis of the world from a change in god himself (that is from a [greek: probolê]), the assumption that all things emanated from god in antitheses (son of god--devil; heaven--earth; male--female; male and female prophecy), nay, that these antitheses are found in god himself (goodness, to which corresponds the son of god--punitive justice, to which corresponds the devil), the speculations about the elements which have proceeded from the one substance, the ignoring of freedom in the question about the origin of evil, the strict adherence to the unity and absolute causality of god, in spite of the dualism, and in spite of the lofty predicates applied to the son of god--all this plainly bears the semitic-jewish stamp. we must here content ourselves with these indications. they were meant to set forth briefly the reasons which forbid our assigning to syncretistic jewish christianity, on the basis of the pseudoclementines, a place in the history of the genesis of the catholic church and its doctrine. bigg, the clementine homilies (studia biblica et eccles. ii. p. 157 ff.), has propounded the hypothesis that the homilies are an ebionitic revision of an older catholic original (see p. 1841: "the homilies as we have it, is a recast of an orthodox work by a highly unorthodox editor." p. 175: "the homilies are surely the work of a catholic convert to ebionitism, who thought he saw in the doctrine of the two powers the only tenable answer to gnosticism. we can separate his catholicism from his ebionitism, just as surely as his stoicism"). this is the opposite of the view expressed by me in the text. i consider bigg's hypothesis well worth examining, and at first sight not improbable; but i am not able to enter into it here. [footnote 403: the attitude of the recently discovered "teaching of the twelve apostles" is strictly universalistic, and hostile to judaism as a nation, but shews us a christianity still essentially uninfluenced by philosophic elements. the impression made by this fact has caused some scholars to describe the treatise as a document of jewish christianity. but the attitude of the didache is rather the ordinary one of universalistic early christianity on the soil of the græco-roman world. if we describe this as jewish christian, then from the meaning which we must give to the words "christian" and "gentile christian", we tacitly legitimise an undefined and undefinable aggregate of greek ideas, along with a specifically pauline element, as primitive christianity, and this is perhaps not the intended, but yet desired, result of the false terminology. now, if we describe even such writings as the epistle of james and the shepherd of hermas as jewish christian, we therewith reduce the entire early christianity, which is the creation of a universal religion on the soil of judaism, to the special case of an indefinable religion. the same now appears as one of the particular values of a completely indeterminate magnitude. hilgenfeld (judenthum und juden-christenthum, 1886; cf. also ztschr f. wiss. theol. 1886, ii. 4) advocates another conception of jewish christianity in opposition to the following account. zahn, gesch. des n.t-lich. kanons, ii. p. 668 ff. has a different view still.] [footnote 404: or even ebionitism; the designations are to be used as synonymous.] [footnote 405: the more rarely the right standard has been set up in the literature of church history, for the distinction of jewish christianity, the more valuable are those writings in which it is found. we must refer, above all, to diestel, geschichte des a. t. in der christl. kirche, p. 44, note 7.] [footnote 406: see theol. lit. ztg. 1883. col. 409 f. as to the attempt of joël to make out that the whole of christendom up to the end of the first century was strictly jewish christian, and to exhibit the complete friendship of jews and christians in that period ("blicke in die religionsgesch." 2 abth. 1883). it is not improbable that christians like james, living in strict accordance with the law, were for the time being respected even by the pharisees in the period preceding the destruction of jerusalem. but that can in no case have been the rule. we see from, epiph., h. 29. 9. and from the talmud, what was the custom at a later period.] [footnote 407: there were jewish christians who represented the position of the great church with reference to the old testament religion, and there were some who criticised the old testament like the gnostics. their contention may have remained as much an internal one, as that between the church fathers and gnostics (marcion) did, so far as jewish christianity is concerned. there may have been relations between gnostic jewish christians and gnostics, not of a national jewish type, in syria and asia minor, though we are completely in the dark on the matter.] [footnote 408: from the mere existence of jewish christians, those christians who rejected the old testament might have argued against the main body of christendom and put before it the dilemma: either jewish christian or marcionite. still more logical indeed was the dilemma: either jewish, or marcionite christian.] [footnote 409: so did the montanists and antimontanists mutually reproach each other with judaising (see the montanist writings of tertullian). just in the same way the arrangements as to worship and organisation, which were ever being more richly developed, were described by the freer parties as judaising, because they made appeal to the old testament, though, as regards their contents, they had little in common with judaism. but is not the method of claiming old testament authority for the regulations rendered necessary by circumstances nearly as old as christianity itself? against whom the lost treatise of clement of alexandria "[greek: kanôn ekklêsiastikos hê pros tous ioudaizontas]" (euseb., h. e. vi. 13. 3) was directed, we cannot tell. but as we read, strom., vi. 15, 125, that the holy scriptures are to be expounded according to the [greek: ekklêsiastikos kanôn], and then find the following definition of the canon: [greek: kanôn de ekklêsiastikos hê sunôdia kai sumphônia nomon te kai prophêtôn tê kata tên tou kuriou parousian paradidomenêi diathêkêi], we may conjecture that the judaisers were those christians, who, in principle, or to some extent, objected to the allegorical interpretation of the old testament. we have then to think either of marcionite christians or of "chiliasts," that is, the old christians who were still numerous in egypt about the middle of the third century (see dionys. alex, in euseb., h. e. vii. 24). in the first case, the title of the treatise would be paradoxical. but perhaps the treatise refers to the quarto-decimans, although the expression [greek: kanôn ekklêsiastikos] seems too ponderous for them (see, however, orig., comm. in matth. n. 76, ed. delarue iii. p. 895) clement may possibly have had jewish christians before him. see zahn, forschungen, vol. iii. p. 37 f.] [footnote 410: cases of this kind are everywhere, up to the fifth century, so numerous that they need not be cited. we may only remind the reader that the nestorian christology was described by its earliest and its latest opponents as ebionitic.] [footnote 411: or were those western christians ebionitic who, in the fourth century still clung to very realistic chiliastic hopes, who, in fact, regarded their christianity as consisting in these?] [footnote 412: the hellenising of christianity went hand in hand with a more extensive use of the old testament; for, according to the principles of catholicism, every new article of the church system must be able to legitimise itself as springing from revelation. but, as a rule, the attestation could only be gathered from the old testament, since religion here appears in the fixed form of a secular community. now the needs of a secular community for outward regulations gradually became so strong in the church as to require palpable ceremonial rules. but it cannot be denied, that from a certain point of time, first by means of the fiction of apostolic constitutions (see my edition of the didache, prolegg. p. 239 ff.), and then without this fiction, not, however, as a rule, without reservations, ceremonial regulations were simply taken over from the old testament. but this transference (see bk. ii.) takes place at a time when there can be absolutely no question of an influence of jewish christianity. moreover, it always proves itself to be catholic by the fact that it did not in the least soften the traditional anti-judaism. on the contrary, it attained its full growth in the age of constantine. finally, it should not be overlooked that at all times in antiquity, certain provincial churches were exposed to jewish influences, especially in the east and in arabia, that they were therefore threatened with being judaised, or with apostasy to judaism, and that even at the present day, certain oriental churches shew tokens of having once been subject to jewish influences (see serapion in euseb, h. e. vi. 12. 1, martyr. pion., epiph. de mens. et pond. 15. 18; my texte u. unters. i. 3. p. 73 f., and wellhausen, skizzen und vorarbeiten, part. 3. p. 197 ff.; actual disputations with jews do not seem to have been common, though see tertull. adv. jud. and orig. c. cels. i. 45, 49, 55: ii. 31. clement also keeps in view jewish objections.) this jewish christianity, if we like to call it so, which in some regions of the east was developed through an immediate influence of judaism on catholicism, should not, however, be confounded with the jewish christianity which is the most original form in which christianity realised itself. this was no longer able to influence the christianity which had shaken itself free from the jewish nation (as to futile attempts, see below), any more than the protecting covering stripped from the new shoot, can ever again acquire significance for the latter.] [footnote 413: what is called the ever-increasing legal feature of gentile christianity and the catholic church is conditioned by its origin, in so far as its theory is rooted in that of judaism spiritualised and influenced by hellenism. as the pauline conception of the law never took effect and a criticism of the old testament religion which is just law neither understood nor ventured upon in the larger christendom--the forms were not criticised, but the contents spiritualised--so the theory that christianity is promise and spiritual law is to be regarded as the primitive one. between the spiritual law and the national law there stand indeed ceremonial laws, which, without being spiritually interpreted, could yet be freed from the national application. it cannot be denied that the gentile christian communities and the incipient catholic church were very careful and reserved in their adoption of such laws from the old testament, and that the later church no longer observed this caution. but still it is only a question of degree for there are many examples of that adoption in the earliest period of christendom. the latter had no cause for hurry in utilizing the old testament so long as there was no external or internal policy or so long as it was still in embryo. the decisive factor lies here again in enthusiasm and not in changing theories. the basis for these was supplied from the beginning. but a community of individuals under spiritual excitement builds on this foundation something different from an association which wishes to organise and assert itself as such on earth. (the history of sunday is specially instructive here, see zahn, gesch. des sonntags, 1878, as well as the history of the discipline of fasting, see linsenmayr, entwickelung der kirchl fastendisciplin, 1877, and die abgabe des zehnten. in general, cf. ritschl entstehung der altkath kirche 2 edit. pp. 312 ff., 331 ff., 1 cor. ix. 9, may be noted).] [footnote 414: justin. apol. i. 53, dial. 47, euseb. h. e. iv. 5, sulpic sev. hist. sacr. ii. 31, cyrill. catech. xiv. 15. important testimonies in origen, eusebius, epiphanius and jerome.] [footnote 415: no jewish christian writings have been transmitted to us even from the earliest period, for the apocalypse of john, which describes the jews as a synagogue of satan, is not a jewish christian book (iii. 9 especially shews that the author knows of only one covenant of god, viz. that with the christians). jewish christian sources lie at the basis of our synoptic gospels, but none of them in their present form is a jewish christian writing. the acts of the apostles is so little jewish christian, its author seemingly so ignorant of jewish christianity, at least so unconcerned with regard to it that to him the spiritualised jewish law, or judaism as a religion which he connects as closely as possible with christianity, is a factor already completely detached from the jewish people (see overbeck's commentar z apostelgesch and his discussion in the ztschr f wiss. theol. 1872 p. 305 ff.) measured by the pauline theology we may indeed, with overbeck, say of the gentile christianity, as represented by the author of the acts of the apostles, that it already has germs of judaism, and represents a falling off from paulinism; but these expressions are not correct, because they have at least the appearance of making paulinism the original form of gentile christianity. but as this can neither be proved nor believed, the religious attitude of the author of the acts of the apostles must have been a very old one in christendom. the judaistic element was not first introduced into gentile christianity by the opponents of paul, who indeed wrought in the national sense, and there is even nothing to lead to the hypothesis that the common gentile christian view of the old testament and of the law should be conceived as resulting from the efforts of paul and his opponents, for the consequent effect here would either have been null, or a strengthening of the jewish christian thesis. the jewish element, that is the total acceptance of the jewish religion _sub specie aeternitatis et christi_, is simply the original christianity of the gentile christians itself considered as theory. contrary to his own intention, paul was compelled to lead his converts to this christianity, for only for such christianity was "the time fulfilled" within the empire of the world. the acts of the apostles gives eloquent testimony to the pressing difficulties which under such circumstances stand in the way of a historical understanding of the gentile christians in view of the work and the theology of paul. even the epistle to the hebrews is not a jewish christian writing, but there is certainly a peculiar state of things connected with this document. for, on the one hand, the author and his readers are free from the law; a spiritual interpretation is given to the old testament religion, which makes it appear to be glorified and fulfilled in the work of christ; and there is no mention of any prerogative of the people of israel. but, on the other hand, because the spiritual interpretation, as in paul, is here teleological, the author allows a temporary significance to the cultus as literally understood, and therefore, by his criticism he conserves the old testament religion for the past, while declaring that it was set aside, as regards the present, by the fulfilment of christ. the teleology of the author, however, looks at everything only from the point of view of shadow and reality, an antithesis which is at the service of paul also, but which in his case vanishes behind the antithesis of law and grace. this scheme of thought, which is to be traced back to a way of looking at things which arose in christian judaism, seeing that it really distinguishes between old and new, stands midway between the conception of the old testament religion entertained by paul, and that of the common gentile christian as it is represented by barnabas. the author of the epistle to the hebrews undoubtedly knows of a twofold covenant of god. but the two are represented as stages, so that the second is completely based on the first. this view was more likely to be understood by the gentile christians than the pauline, that is, with some seemingly slight changes, to be recognised as their own. but even it at first fell to the ground, and it was only in the conflict with the marcionites that some church fathers advanced to views which seem to be related to those of the epistle to the hebrews. whether the author of this epistle was a born jew or a gentile--in the former case he would far surpass the apostle paul in his freedom from the national claims--we cannot, at any rate, recognise in it a document containing a conception which still prizes the jewish nationality in christianity, nay, not even a document to prove that such a conception was still dangerous. consequently, we have no jewish christian memorial in the new testament at all, unless it be in the pauline epistles. but as concerns the early christian literature outside the canon, the fragments of the great work of hegesippus are even yet by some investigators claimed for jewish christianity. weizsäcker (art "hegesippus" in herzog's r. e. 2 edit) has shewn how groundless this assumption is. that hegesippus occupied the common gentile christian position is certain from unequivocal testimony of his own. if, as is very improbable, we were obliged to ascribe to him a rejection of paul, we should have to refer to eusebius, h. e. iv. 29. 5. ([greek: seuêrianoi blasphêmountes paulon ton apostolon athetousin autou tas epistolas mêde tas praxeis tôn apostolôn katadechomenoi], but probably the gospels; these severians therefore, like marcion, recognised the gospel of luke, but rejected the acts of the apostles), and orig. c. cels. v. 65: ([greek: eisi gar tines haireseis tas paulou epistolas tou apostolou mê prosiemenai hôsper ebiônaioi amphoteroi kai hoi kaloumenoi enkratêtai]). consequently, our only sources of knowledge of jewish christianity in the post-pauline period are merely the accounts of the church fathers, and some additional fragments (see the collection of fragments of the ebionite gospel and that to the hebrews in hilgenfeld, nov. test, extra can. rec. fasc. iv. ed 2, and in zahn, l. c. ii. p 642 ff.). we know better, but still very imperfectly, certain forms of the syncretistic jewish christianity, from the philosoph. of hippolytus and the accounts of epiphanius, who is certainly nowhere more incoherent than in the delineation of the jewish christians, because he could not copy original documents here, but was forced to piece together confused traditions with his own observations. see below on the extensive documents which are even yet as they stand, treated as records of jewish christianity, viz., the pseudo-clementines. of the pieces of writing whose jewish christian origin is controverted, in so far as they may be simply jewish, i say nothing.] [footnote 416: as to the chief localities where jewish christians were found, see zahn, kanonsgesch. ii. p. 648 ff.] [footnote 417: dialogue 47.] [footnote 418: yet it should be noted that the christians who, according to dial. 48, denied the pre-existence of christ and held him to be a man, are described as jewish christians. we should read in the passage in question, as my recent comparison of the parisian codex shews, [greek: apo tou umeterou genous]. yet justin did not make this a controversial point of great moment.] [footnote 419: the so-called barnabas is considerably older than justin. in his epistle (4. 6) he has in view gentile christians who have been converted by jewish christians, when he utters a warning against those who say [greek: hoti a diathêkê ekeinon] (the jews) [greek: kai hêmôn (estin)]. but how great the actual danger was cannot be gathered from the epistle. ignatius in two epistles (ad magn. 8-10, ad philad. 6. 9) opposes jewish christian intrigues, and characterises them solely from the point of view that they mean to introduce the jewish observance of the law. he opposes them with a pauline idea (magn. 8 1: [greek: ei gar mechri nun kata nomon. ioudaismon zômen homologoumen charin mê eilêphenai]), as well as with the common gentile christian assumption that the prophets themselves had already lived [greek: kata christon]. these judaists must be strictly distinguished from the gnostics whom ignatius elsewhere opposes (against zahn, ignat. v. ant. p. 356 f.). the dangers from this jewish christianity cannot have been very serious, even if we take magn. 11. 1, as a phrase. there was an active jewish community in philadelphia (rev. iii. 9), and so jewish christian plots may have continued longer there. at the first look it seems very promising that in the old dialogue of aristo of pella, a hebrew christian, jason, is put in opposition to the alexandrian jew, papiscus. but as the history of the little book proves, this jason must have essentially represented the common christian and not the ebionite conception of the old testament and its relation to the gospel, etc; see my texte u. unters. i. 1 2. p. 115 ff.; i. 3 p. 115-130. testimony as to an apostasy to judaism is occasionally though rarely given; see serapion in euseb., h. e. vi. 12, who addresses a book to one domninus, [greek: ekpeptôkota para ton tou diôgmou kairon apo tês eis christon pisteôs epi tên ioudaikên ethelothrêskeian]; see also acta pionii, 13. 14. according to epiphanius, de mens. et pond. 14, 15, acquila, the translator of the bible, was first a christian and then a jew. this account is perhaps derived from origen, and is probably reliable. likewise according to epiphanius (l. c. 17. 18), theodotion was first a marcionite and then a jew. the transition from marcionitism to judaism (for extremes meet) is not in itself incredible.] [footnote 420: it follows from c. cels ii. 1-3, that celsus could hardly have known jewish christians.] [footnote 421: iren. i. 26. 2; iii 11. 7; iii. 15. 1, 21. 1; iv. 33. 4; v. 1. 3. we first find the name ebionæi, the poor, in irenæus. we are probably entitled to assume that this name was given to the christians in jerusalem as early as the apostolic age, that is, they applied it to themselves (poor in the sense of the prophets and of christ, fit to be received into the messianic kingdom). it is very questionable whether we should put any value on epiph. h. 30. 17.] [footnote 422: when irenæus adduces as the points of distinction between the church and the ebionites, that besides observing the law and repudiating the apostle paul, the latter deny the divinity of christ and his birth from the virgin, and reject the new testament canon (except the gospel of matthew), that only proves that the formation of dogma has made progress in the church. the less was known of the ebionites from personal observation, the more confidently they were made out to be heretics who denied the divinity of christ and rejected the canon. the denial of the divinity of christ and the birth from the virgin was, from the end of the second century, regarded as the ebionite heresy _par excellence_, and the ebionites themselves appeared to the western christians, who obtained their information solely from the east, to be a school like those of the gnostics, founded by a scoundrel named ebion for the purpose of dragging down the person of jesus to the common level. it is also mentioned incidentally, that this ebion had commanded the observance of circumcision and the sabbath; but that is no longer the main thing (see tertull, de carne 14, 18, 24: de virg. vel. 6: de præscr. 10. 33; hippol, syntagma, (pseudo-tertull, 11; philastr. 37; epiph. h. 30); hippol, philos. vii. 34. the latter passage contains the instructive statement that jesus by his perfect keeping of the law became the christ). this attitude of the western christians proves that they no longer knew jewish christian communities. hence it is all the more strange that hilgenfeld (ketzergesch. p. 422 ff.) has in all earnestness endeavoured to revive the ebion of the western church fathers.] [footnote 423: see orig. c. cels ii. 1; v. 61, 65; de princip. iv. 22; hom. in genes. iii. 15 (opp. ii. p. 65); hom. in jerem xvii. 12 (iii. p. 254); in matth. t. xvi. 12 (iii. p. 494), t. xvii. 12 (iii. p. 733); cf. opp. iii. p. 895; hom in xvii. (iii. p. 952). that a portion of the ebionites recognised the birth from the virgin was according to origen frequently attested. that was partly reckoned to them for righteousness and partly not, because they would not admit the pre-existence of christ. the name "ebionites" is interpreted as a nickname given them by the church ("beggarly" in the knowledge of scripture, and particularly of christology).] [footnote 424: eusebius knows no more than origen (h. e. iii. 27), unless we specially credit him with the information that the ebionites keep along with the sabbath also the sunday. what he says of symmachus, the translator of the bible, and an ebionite, is derived from origen (h. e. vi. 17). the report is interesting, because it declares that symmachus _wrote_ against catholic christianity, especially against the catholic gospel of matthew (about the year 200). but symmachus is to be classed with the gnostics, and not with the common type of jewish christianity (see below). we have also to thank eusebius (h. e. iii. 5. 3) for the information that the christians of jerusalem fled to pella, in peræa, before the destruction of that city. in the following period the most important settlements of the ebionites must have been in the countries east of the jordan, and in the heart of syria (see jul. afric. in euseb. h. e. i. 7. 14; euseb. de loc. hebr. in lagarde, onomast p. 301; epiph., h. 29. 7; h. 30. 2). this fact explains how the bishops in jerusalem and the coast towns of palestine came to see very little of them. there was a jewish christian community in beroea with which jerome had relations (jerom., de vir inl 3).] [footnote 425: jerome correctly declares (ep. ad. august. 122 c. 13, opp. i. p. 746), "(ebionitæ) credentes in christo propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cæremonias christi evangelio miscuerunt, et sic nova confessi sunt, ut vetera non omitterent."] [footnote 426: ep. ad august. l. c.: "quid dicam de hebionitis, qui christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis synagogas inter judæos(!) hæresis est, que dicitur minæorum et a pharisæis nunc usque damnatur, quos vulgo nazaræos nuncupant, qui credunt in christum filium dei natum de virgine maria et eum dicunt esse, qui sub pontio pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus; sed dum volunt et judæi esse et christiani, nec judæi sunt nec christiani." the approximation of the jewish christian conception to that of the catholics shews itself also in their exposition of isaiah ix. 1. f. (see jerome on the passage). but we must not forget that there were such jewish christians from the earliest times. it is worthy of note that the name nazarenes, as applied to jewish christians, is found in the acts of the apostles xxiv. 5, in the dialogue of jason and papiscus, and then first again in jerome.] [footnote 427: zahn, l. c. p. 648 ff. 668 ff. has not convinced me of the contrary, but i confess that jerome's style of expression is not everywhere clear.] [footnote 428: zahn, (l. c.) makes a sharp distinction between the nazarenes, on the one side, who used the gospel of the hebrews, acknowledged the birth from the virgin, and in fact the higher christology to some extent, did not repudiate paul, etc., and the ebionites on the other, whom he simply identifies with the gnostic jewish christians, if i am not mistaken. in opposition to this, i think i must adhere to the distinction as given above in the text and in the following: (1) non-gnostic, jewish christians (nazarenes, ebionites) who appeared in various shades, according to their doctrine and attitude to the gentile church, and whom, with the church fathers, we may appropriately classify as strict or tolerant (exclusive or liberal). (2) gnostic or syncretistic judæo-christians who are also termed ebionites.] [footnote 429: this gospel no doubt greatly interested the scholars of the catholic church from clement of alexandria onwards. but they have almost all contrived to evade the hard problem which it presented. it may be noted, incidentally, that the gospel of the hebrews, to judge from the remains preserved to us, can neither have been the model nor the translation of our matthew, but a work independent of this, though drawing from the same sources, representing perhaps to some extent an earlier stage of the tradition. jerome also knew very well that the gospel of the hebrews was not the original of the canonical matthew, but he took care not to correct the old prejudice. ebionitic conceptions, such as that of the female nature of the holy spirit, were of course least likely to convince the church fathers. moreover, the common jewish christians hardly possessed a church theology, because for them christianity was something entirely different from the doctrine of a school. on the gospel of the hebrews, see handmann (texte u. unters v. 3), resch, agrapha (i. c. v. 4), and zahn, 1. c. p. 642 ff.] [footnote 430: we have as yet no history of the sacrificial system, and the views as to sacrifice in the græco-roman epoch, of the jewish nation. it is urgently needed.] [footnote 431: we may remind readers of the assumptions, that the world was created by angels, that the law was given by angels, and similar ones which are found in the theology of the pharisees celsus (in orig. i. 26; v. 6) asserts generally that the jews worshipped angels, so does the author of the prædicatio petri, as well as the apologist aristides. cf joel, blicke in die religionsgesch i. abth, a book which is certainly to be used with caution (see theol. lit. ztg. 1881. coll. 184 ff.).] [footnote 432: no reliance can be placed on jewish sources, or on jewish scholars, as a rule. what we find in joël, l. c. i. abth. p. 101 ff. is instructive. we may mention grätz, gnosticismus und judenthum (krotoschin, 1846), who has called attention to the gnostic elements in the talmud, and dealt with several jewish gnostics and antignostics, as well as with the book of jezira. grätz assumes that the four main dogmatic points in the book jezira, viz., the strict unity of the deity, and, at the same time, the negation of the demiurgic dualism, the creation out of nothing with the negation of matter, the systematic unity of the world and the balancing of opposites, were directed against prevailing gnostic ideas.] [footnote 433: we may pass over the false teachers of the pastoral epistles, as they cannot be with certainty determined, and the possibility is not excluded that we have here to do with an arbitrary construction; see holtzman, pastoralbriefe, p. 150 f.] [footnote 434: orig. in euseb. vi. 38; hippol., philos. ix. 13 ff., x. 29; epiph., h. 30, also h. 19, 53; method, conviv. viii. 10. from the confused account of epiphanius who called the common jewish christians nazarenes, the gnostic type ebionites and sampsæi, and their jewish forerunners osseni, we may conclude, that in many regions where there were jewish christians they yielded to the propaganda of the elkesaite doctrines, and that in the fourth century there was no other syncretistic jewish christianity besides the various shades of elkesaites.] [footnote 435: i formerly reckoned symmachus, the translator of the bible, among the common jewish christians; but the statements of victorinus rhetor on gal. i. 19. ii. 26 (migne t. viii. col. 1155, 1162) shew that he has a close affinity with the pseudo-clementines, and is also to be classed with the elkesaite alcibiades. "nam jacobum apostolum symmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui ad dominum nostrum jesum christum adjungunt judaismi observationem, quamquam etiam jesum christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum adam esse et esse animam generalem, et aliæ hujusmodi blasphemiæ." the account given by eusebius, h. e. vi. 17 (probably on the authority of origen, see also demonstr. vii. i) is important: [greek: tôn ge men hermêneutôn autôn dê toutôn histeon, ebiônaion ton summachon gegonenai ... kai hupomnêmata de tou summachou eiseti nun pheretai, hen ois dokei pros to kata matuaion apoteinomenos euaggelion tên dedêlômenên airesin kratunein.] symmachus therefore adopted an aggressive attitude towards the great church, and hence we may probably class him with alcibiades who lived a little later. common jewish christianity was no longer aggressive in the second century.] [footnote 436: wellhausen (l. c. part iii. p. 206) supposes that elkesai is equivalent to alexius. that the receiver of the "book" was a historical person is manifest from epiphanius' account of his descendants (h. 19. 2; 53. 1). from hipp, philosoph. ix. 16, p. 468, it is certainly probable, though not certain, that the book was produced by the unknown author as early as the time of trajan. on the other hand, the existence of the sect itself can be proved only at the beginning of the third century, and therefore we have the possibility of an ante-dating of the "book." this seems to have been origen's opinion.] [footnote 437: epiph. (h. 53. 1) says of the elkesaites: [greek: oute christianoi huparchontes oute ioudaioi oute ellênes, alla meson aplôs uparchontes.] he pronounces a similar judgment as to the samaritan sects (simonians), and expressly (h. 30. 1) connects the elkesaites with them.] [footnote 438: the worship paid to the descendants of this elkesai, spoken of by epiphanius, does not, if we allow for exaggerations, go beyond the measure of honour which was regularly paid to the descendants of prophets and men of god in the east. cf. the respect enjoyed by the blood relations of jesus and mohammed.] [footnote 439: if the "book" really originated in the time of trajan, then its production keeps within the frame-work of common christianity, for at that time there were appearing everywhere in christendom revealed books which contained new instructions and communications of grace. the reader may be reminded, for example, of the shepherd of hermas. when the sect declared that the "book" was delivered to elkesai by a male and a female angel, each as large as a mountain, that these angels were the son of god and the holy spirit, etc., we have, apart from the fantastic colouring, nothing extraordinary.] [footnote 440: it may be assumed from philos. x. 29, that, in the opinion of hippolytus, the elkesaites identified the christ from above with the son of god, and assumed that this christ appeared on earth in changing and purely human forms, and will appear again ([greek: auton metangizomenon en sômasi pollois pollakis, kai nun de en tô iêsou, homoiôs pote men ek tou theou gegenêsthai, pote de pneuma gegonenai, pote de ek parthenou, pote de ou kai toutou de metepeita aei en sômati metangizesthai kai en pollois kata kairous deiknusthai]). as the elkesaites (see the account by epiphanius) traced back the incarnations of christ to adam, and not merely to abraham, we may see in this view of history the attempt to transform mosaism into the universal religion. but the pharisitic theology had already begun with these adam-speculations, which are always a sign that the religion in judaism is feeling its limits too narrow. the jews in alexandria were also acquainted with these speculations.] [footnote 441: in the gospel of these jewish christians jesus is made to say (epiph. h. 30. 16) [greek: êlthon katalusai tas thusias, kai ean mê pausêsthe tou thuein, ou pausetai aph' humôn hê orgê]. we see the essential progress of this jewish christianity within judaism, in the opposition in principle to the whole sacrificial service (vid. also epiph., h. 19. 3).] [footnote 442: on this new gospel see zahn, kanongesch ii. p. 724 ff.] [footnote 443: it is incorrect to suppose that the lustrations were meant to take the place of baptism, or were conceived by these jewish christians as repeated baptisms. their effect was certainly equal to that of baptism. but it is nowhere hinted in our authorities that they were on that account made equivalent to the regular baptism.] [footnote 444: the characteristic here, as in the gentile christian gnosis, is the division of the person of jesus into a more or less indifferent medium, and into the christ. here the factor constituting his personality could sometimes be placed in that medium, and sometimes in the christ spirit, and thus contradictory formulæ could not but arise. it is therefore easy to conceive how epiphanius reproaches these jewish christians with a denial, sometimes of the divinity, and sometimes of the humanity of christ (see h. 30. 14).] [footnote 445: this syncretistic judaism had indeed a significance for the history of the world, not, however, in the history of christianity, but for the origin of islam. islam, as a religious system, is based partly on syncretistic judaism (including the zabians, so enigmatic in their origin), and, without questioning mohammed's originality, can only be historically understood by taking this into account. i have endeavoured to establish this hypothesis in a lecture printed in ms form, 1877. cf. now the conclusive proofs in wellhausen, l. c. part iii. p. 197-212. on the mandeans, see brandt, die mandäische religion, 1889; (also wellhausen in d. deutschen lit. ztg., 1890 no. 1. lagarde i. d. gött. gel. anz., 1890, no. 10).] [footnote 446: see bestmann, gesch. der christl. sitte bd. ii. 1 part: die juden-christliche sitte, 1883; also, theol. lit. ztg. 1883. col. 269 ff. the same author, der ursprung des katholischen christenthums und des islams, 1884; also theol. lit. ztg. 1884, col. 291 ff.] [footnote 447: see schliemann, die clementinen etc. 1844; hilgenfeld, die clementinischen recogn. u. homil, 1848; ritschl, in d allg monatschrift f. wissensch. u. litt., 1852. uhlhorn, die homil. u. recogn., 1854; lehmann, die clement. schriften, 1869; lipsius, in d. protest. k. ztg., 1869, p. 477 ff.; quellen der römische petrussage, 1872. uhlhorn, in herzog's r. encykl. (clementinen) 2 edit. iii. p. 286, admits: "there can be no doubt that the clementine question still requires further discussion. it can hardly make any progress worth mentioning until we have collected better the material, and especially till we have got a corrected edition with an exhaustive commentary." the theory of the genesis, contents and aim of the pseudo-clementine writings, unfolded by renan (orig. t. vii. p. 74-101) is essentially identical with that of german scholars. langen (die clemensromane, 1890) has set up very bold hypotheses, which are also based on the assumption that jewish christianity was an important church factor in the second century, and that the pseudo-clementines are comparatively old writings.] [footnote 448: there is no external evidence for placing the pseudo-clementine writings in the second century. the oldest witness is origen (iv. p. 401, lommatzsch); but the quotation: "quoniam opera bona, quæ fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sæculo iis prosunt," etc., is not found in our clementines, so that origen appears to have used a still older version. the internal evidence all points to the third century (canon, composition, theological attitude, etc.) moreover, zahn (gött. gel. anz. 1876. no. 45) and lagarde have declared themselves in favour of this date; while lipsius (apokr. apostelgesch ii. 1) and weingarten (zeittafeln, 3 edit. p. 23) have recently expressed the same opinion. the homilies presuppose (1) marcion's antitheses, (2) apelles' syllogisms, (3) perhaps callistus' edict about penance (see iii. 70), and writings of hippolytus (see also the expression [greek: episkopos episkopôn], clem. ep. ad jacob i, which is first found in tertull, de pudic i.) (4) the most highly developed form of polemic against heathen mythology. (5) the complete development of church apologetics, as well as the conviction that christianity is identical with correct and absolute knowledge. they further presuppose a time when there was a lull in the persecution of christians, for the emperor, though pretty often referred to, is never spoken of as a persecutor, and when the cultured heathen world was entirely disposed in favour of an eclectic monotheism. moreover, the remarkable christological statement in hom. xvi. 15, 16. points to the third century, in fact probably even presupposes the theology of origen; cf. the sentence: [greek: tou patros to mê gegennêsthai estin, huiou de to gegennêsthai gennêton de agennêtô ê kai autogennêtô ou sunkrinetai.] finally, the decided repudiation of the awakening of christian faith by visions and dreams, and the polemic against these is also no doubt of importance for determining the date; see xvii. 14-19. peter says, § 18: [greek: to adidaktôs aneu optasias kai oneirôn mathein apokalupsis estin], he had already learned that at his confession (matt. xvi.). the question, [greek: ei tis di optasian pros didaskalian sophisthênai dunatai], is answered in the negative, § 19.] [footnote 449: this is also acknowledged in koffmane. die gnosis, etc, p. 33]. [footnote 450: the homilies, as we have them, are mainly composed of the speeches of peter and others. these speeches oppose polytheism, mythology and the doctrine of demons, and advocate monotheism, ascetic morality and rationalism. the polemic against simon magus almost appears as a mere accessory.] [footnote 451: this distinction can also be shewn elsewhere in the church of the third century. but i confess i do not know how catholic circles got over the fact that, for example, in the third book of the homilies many passages of the old testament are simply characterised as untrue, immoral and lying. here the homilies remind one strongly of the syllogisms of apelles, the author of which, in other respects, opposed them in the interest of his doctrine of creating angels. in some passages the christianity of the homilies really looks like a syncretism composed of the common christianity, the jewish christianity, gnosticism, and the criticism of apelles. hom. viii. 6-8 is also highly objectionable.] appendix i. _on the conception of pre-existence._ on account of the importance of the question we may be here permitted to amplify a few hints given in chap. ii., § 4, and elsewhere, and to draw a clearer distinction between the jewish and hellenic conceptions of pre-existence. according to the theory held by the ancient jews and by the whole of the semitic nations, everything of real value, that from time to time appears on earth has its existence in heaven. in other words it exists with god, that is, god possesses a knowledge of it; and for that reason it has a real being. but it exists beforehand with god in the same way as it appears on earth, that is with all the material attributes belonging to its essence. its manifestation on earth is merely a transition from concealment to publicity ([greek: phanerousthai]). in becoming visible to the senses, the object in question assumes no attribute that it did not already possess with god. hence its material nature is by no means an inadequate expression of it, nor is it a second nature added to the first. the truth rather is that what was in heaven before is now revealing itself upon earth, without any sort of alteration taking place in the process. there is no _assumptio naturæ novæ_, and no change or mixture. the old jewish theory of pre-existence is founded on the religious idea of the omniscience and omnipotence of god, that god to whom the events of history do not come as a surprise, but who guides their course. as the whole history of the world and the destiny of each individual are recorded on his tablets or books, so also each thing is ever present before him. the decisive contrast is between god and the creature. in designating the latter as "foreknown" by god, the primary idea is not to ennoble the creature, but rather to bring to light the wisdom and power of god. the ennobling of created things by attributing to them a pre-existence is a secondary result (see below). according to the hellenic conception, which has become associated with platonism, the idea of pre-existence is independent of the idea of god; it is based on the conception of the contrast between spirit and matter, between the infinite and finite, found in the cosmos itself. in the case of all spiritual beings, life in the body or flesh is at bottom an inadequate and unsuitable condition, for the spirit is eternal, the flesh perishable. but the pre-temporal existence, which was only a doubtful assumption as regards ordinary spirits, was a matter of certainty in the case of the higher and purer ones. they lived in an upper world long before this earth was created, and they lived there as spirits without the "polluted garment of the flesh." now if they resolved for some reason or other to appear in this finite world, they cannot simply become visible, for they have no "visible form." they must rather "assume flesh", whether they throw it about them as a covering, or really make it their own by a process of transformation or mixture. in all cases--and here the speculation gave rise to the most exciting problems--the body is to them something inadequate which they cannot appropriate without adopting certain measures of precaution, but this process may indeed pass through all stages, from a mere seeming appropriation to complete union. the characteristics of the greek ideas of pre-existence may consequently be thus expressed. first, the objects in question to which pre-existence is ascribed are meant to be ennobled by this attribute. secondly, these ideas have no relation to god. thirdly, the material appearance is regarded as something inadequate. fourthly, speculations about _phantasma_, _assumptio naturæ humanæ_, _transmutatio_, _mixtura_, _duæ naturæ_, etc., were necessarily associated with these notions. we see that these two conceptions are as wide apart as the poles. the first has a religious origin, the second a cosmological and psychological, the first glorifies god, the second the created spirit. however, not only does a certain relationship in point of form exist between these speculations, but the jewish conception is also found in a shape which seems to approximate still more to the greek one. earthly occurrences and objects are not only regarded as "foreknown" by god before being seen in this world, but the latter manifestation is frequently considered as the copy of the existence and nature which they possess in heaven, and which remains unalterably the same, whether they appear upon earth or not. that which is before god experiences no change. as the destinies of the world are recorded in the books, and god reads them there, it being at the same time a matter of indifference, as regards this knowledge of his, when and how they are accomplished upon earth, so the tabernacle and its furniture, the temple, jerusalem, etc., are before god, and continue to exist before him in heaven, even during their appearance on earth and after it. this conception seems really to have been the oldest one. moses is to fashion the temple and its furniture according to the pattern he saw on the mount (exod. xxv. 9. 40; xxvi. 30; xxvii. 8; num. viii. 4). the temple and jerusalem exist in heaven, and they are to be distinguished from the earthly temple and the earthly jerusalem; yet the ideas of a [greek: phanerousthai] of the thing which is in heaven and of its copy appearing on earth, shade into one another and are not always clearly separated. the classing of things as original and copy was at first no more meant to glorify them than was the conception of a pre-existence they possessed within the knowledge of god. but since the view which in theory was true of everything earthly, was, as is naturally to be expected, applied in practice to nothing but valuable objects--for things common and ever recurring give no impulse to such speculations--the objects thus contemplated were ennobled, because they were raised above the multitude of the commonplace. at the same time the theory of original and copy could not fail to become a starting-point for new speculations, as soon as the contrast between the spiritual and material began to assume importance among the jewish people. that took place under the influence of the greek spirit; and was perhaps also the simultaneous result of an intellectual or moral development which arose independently of that spirit. accordingly, a highly important advance in the old ideas of pre-existence appeared in the jewish theological literature belonging to the time of the maccabees and the following decades. to begin with, these conceptions are now applied to persons, which, so far as i know, was not the case before this (individualism). secondly, the old distinction of original and copy is now interpreted to mean that the copy is the inferior and more imperfect, that in the present æon of the transient it cannot be equivalent to the original, and that we must therefore look forward to the time when the original itself will make its appearance, (contrast of the material and finite and the spiritual). with regard to the first point, we have not only to consider passages in apocalypses and other writings in which pre-existence is attributed to moses, the patriarchs, etc., (see above, p. 102), but we must, above all, bear in mind utterances like ps. cxxxix. 15, 16. the individual saint soars upward to the thought that the days of his life are in the book of god, and that he himself was before god, whilst he was still un-perfect. but, and this must not be overlooked, it was not merely his spiritual part that was before god, for there is not the remotest idea of such a distinction, but the whole man, although he is [hebrew: bashar] (flesh). as regards the second point, the distinction between a heavenly and an earthly jerusalem, a heavenly and an earthly temple, etc., is sufficiently known from the apocalypses and the new testament. but the important consideration is that the sacred things of earth were regarded as objects of less value, instalments, as it were, pending the fulfilment of the whole promise. the desecration and subsequent destruction of sacred things must have greatly strengthened this idea. the hope of the heavenly jerusalem comforted men for the desecration or loss of the earthly one. but this gave at the same time the most powerful impulse to reflect whether it was not an essential feature of this temporal state, that everything high and holy in it could only appear in a meagre and inadequate form. thus the transition to greek ideas was brought about. the fulness of the time had come when the old jewish ideas, with a slightly mythological colouring, could amalgamate with the ideal creations of hellenic philosophers. these, however, are also the general conditions which gave rise to the earliest jewish speculations about a personal messiah, except that, in the case of the messianic ideas within judaism itself, the adoption of specifically greek thoughts, so far as i am able to see, cannot be made out. most jews, as trypho testifies in justin's dialogue, 49, conceived the messiah as a man. we may indeed go a step further and say that no jew at bottom imagined him otherwise; for even those who attached ideas of pre-existence to him, and gave the messiah a supernatural background, never advanced to speculations about assumption of the flesh, incarnation, two natures and the like. they only transferred in specific manner to the messiah the old idea of pre-terrestrial existence with god, universally current among the jews. before the creation of the world the messiah was hidden with god, and, when the time is fulfilled, he makes his appearance. this is neither an incarnation nor a humiliation, but he appears on earth as he exists before god, viz., as a mighty and just king, equipped with all gifts. the writings in which this thought appears most clearly are the apocalypse of enoch (book of similitudes, chap. 46-49) and the apocalypse of esra (chap. 12-14). support to this idea, if anything more of the kind had been required, was lent by passages like daniel vii. 13 f. and micah, v. 1. nowhere do we find in jewish writings a conception which advances beyond the notion that the messiah is the man who is with god in heaven; and who will make his appearance at his own time. we are merely entitled to say that, as the same idea was not applied to all persons with the same certainty, it was almost unavoidable that men's minds should have been led to designate the messiah as the man from heaven. this thought was adopted by paul (see below), but i know of no _jewish_ writing which gave clear expression to it. jesus christ designated himself as the messiah, and the first of his disciples who recognised him as such were native jews. the jewish conceptions of the messiah consequently passed over into the christian community. but they received an impulse to important modifications from the living impression conveyed by the person and destiny of jesus. three facts were here of pre-eminent importance. first, jesus appeared in lowliness, and even suffered death. secondly, he was believed to be exalted through the resurrection to the right hand of god, and his return in glory was awaited with certainty. thirdly, the strength of a new life and of an indissoluble union with god was felt issuing from him, and therefore his people were connected with him in the closest way. in some old christian writings found in the new testament and emanating from the pen of native jews, there are no speculations at all about the pre-temporal existence of jesus as the messiah, or they are found expressed in a manner which simply embodies the old jewish theory and is merely distinguished from it by the emphasis laid on the exaltation of jesus after death through the resurrection. 1. pet. i. 18 ff. is a classic passage: [greek: elutrôthête timiô haimati hôs amnou amômou kai aspilou christou, proegnôsmenou men pro katabolês kosmou, phanerôthentos de ep' eschatou tôn chronôn di' humas tous di autou pistous eis theon ton egeiranta autou ek nekrôn kai doxan autô donta, hôste tên pistin humôn kai elpida einai eis theon]. here we find a conception of the pre-existence of christ which is not yet affected by cosmological or psychological speculation, which does not overstep the boundaries of a purely religious contemplation, and which arose from the old testament way of thinking, and the living impression derived from the person of jesus. he is "foreknown (by god) before the creation of the world", not as a spiritual being without a body, but as a lamb without blemish and without spot; in other words, his whole personality together with the work which it was to carry out, was within god's eternal knowledge. he "was manifested in these last days for our sake", that is, he is now visibly what he already was before god. what is meant here is not an incarnation, but a _revelatio_. finally, he appeared in order that our faith and hope should now be firmly directed to the living god, _that_ god who raised him from the dead and gave him honour. in the last clause expression is given to the specifically christian thought, that the messiah jesus was _exalted_ after crucifixion and death: from this, however, no further conclusions are drawn. but it was impossible that men should everywhere rest satisfied with these utterances, for the age was a theological one. hence the paradox of the suffering messiah, the certainty of his glorification through the resurrection, the conviction of his specific relationship to god, and the belief in the real union of his church with him did not seem adequately expressed by the simple formulæ [greek: proegnôsmenos, phanerôtheis]. in reference to all these points, we see even in the oldest christian writings, the appearance of formulæ which fix more precisely the nature of his pre-existence, or in other words his heavenly existence. with regard to the first and second points there arose the view of humiliation and exaltation, such as we find in paul and in numerous writings after him. in connection with the third point the concept "son of god" was thrust into the foreground, and gave rise to the idea of the image of god (2 cor. iv. 4; col. i. 15; heb. i. 2; phil. ii. 6). the fourth point gave occasion to the formation of theses, such as we find in rom. viii. 29: [greek: prôtotokos en pollois adelphois], col. i. 18: [greek: prôtotokos ek tôn nekrôn] (rev. i. 5), eph. ii. 6 [greek: sunêgeiren kai sunekathisen en tois epouraniois hêmas en christô iêsou], i. 4: [greek: ho theos exelexato hêmas en christô pro katabolês kosmou], i. 22: [greek: ho theos edôken ton christon kephalên huper panta tê ekklêsia hêtis estin to sôma autou] etc. this purely religious view of the church, according to which all that is predicated of christ is also applied to his followers, continued a considerable time. hermas declares that the church is older than the world, and that the world was created for its sake (see above, p. 103), and the author of the so-called 2nd epistle of clement declares (chap. 14) [greek: ... esometha ek tês ekklêsias tês prôtês tês pneumatikês, tês pro hêliou kai selênês hektismenês ... ouk oiomai de humas agnoein, hoti ekklêsia zôsa sôma esti christou. legei gar hêgraphê. epoiêsen ho theos ton anthrôpon arsen kai thêlu. to arsen estin ho christos to thêlu hê ekklêsia.] thus christ and his church are inseparably connected. the latter is to be conceived as pre-existent quite as much as the former; the church was also created before the sun and the moon, for the world was created for its sake. this conception of the church illustrates a final group of utterances about the pre-existent christ, the origin of which might easily be misinterpreted unless we bear in mind their reference to the church. in so far as he is [greek: proegnôsmenos pro katabolês kosmou], he is the [greek: archê tês ktiseôs tou theou] (rev. iii. 14), the [greek: prôtotokos pasês ktiseôs] etc. according to the current conception of the time, these expressions mean exactly the same as the simple [greek: proegnôsmenos pro katabolês kosmou], as is proved by the parallel formulæ referring to the church. nay, even the further advance to the idea that the world was created by him (cor. col. eph. heb.) need not yet necessarily be a [greek: metabasis eis allo genos]; for the beginning of things [greek: archê] and their purpose form the real force to which their origin is due (principle [greek: archê]). hermas indeed calls the church older than the world simply because "the world was created for its sake." all these further theories which we have quoted up to this time need in no sense alter the original conception, so long as they appear in an isolated form and do not form the basis of fresh speculations. they may be regarded as the working out of the original conception attaching to jesus christ, [greek: proegnôsmenos pro katabolês kosmou, phanerôtheis k.t.l.]; and do not really modify this religious view of the matter. above all, we find in them as yet no certain transition to the greek view which splits up his personality into a heavenly and an earthly portion; it still continues to be the complete christ to whom all the utterances apply. but, beyond doubt, they already reveal the strong impulse to conceive the christ that had appeared as a divine being. he had not been a transitory phenomenon, but has ascended into heaven and still continues to live. this post-existence of his gave to the ideas of his pre-existence a support and a concrete complexion which the earlier jewish theories lacked. we find the transition to a new conception in the writings of paul. but it is important to begin by determining the relationship between his christology and the views we have been hitherto considering. in the apostle's clearest trains of thought everything that he has to say of christ hinges on his death and resurrection. for this we need no proofs, but see, more especially rom. i. 3 f.: [greek: peri tou huiou autou, tou genomenou ek spermatos daueid kata sarka, tou horisthentos huiou theou en dunamei kata pneuma agiôsunês ek anastaseôs nekrôn, iêsou christou tou kuriou hêmôn]. what christ became and his significance for us now are due to his death on the cross and his resurrection. he condemned sin in the flesh and was obedient unto death. therefore he now shares in the [greek: doxa] of god. the exposition in 1 cor. xv. 45, also ([greek: ho eschatos adam eis pneuma zôopoioun, all' ou prôton to pneumatikon alla to psuchikon, epeita to pneumatikon. ho prôtos anthrôpos ek gês choikos ho deuteros anthrôpos ex ouranou]) is still capable of being understood, as to its fundamental features, in a sense which agrees with the conception of the messiah, as [greek: kat' exochên,] the man from heaven who was hidden with god. there can be no doubt, however, that this conception as already shewn by the formulæ in the passage just quoted, formed to paul the starting-point of a speculation, in which the original theory assumed a completely new shape. the decisive factors in this transformation were the apostle's doctrine of "spirit and flesh", and the corresponding conviction that the christ who is not be known "after the flesh", is a spirit, namely, the mighty spiritual being [greek: pneuma zôopoioun], who has condemned sin in the flesh, and thereby enabled man to walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. according to one of the apostle's ways of regarding the matter, christ, after the accomplishment of his work, became the [greek: pneuma zôopoioun] through the resurrection. but the belief that jesus always stood before god as the heavenly man, suggested to paul the other view, that christ was always a "spirit", that he was sent down by god, that the flesh is consequently something inadequate and indeed hostile to him, that he nevertheless assumed it in order to extirpate the sin dwelling in the flesh, that he therefore humbled himself by appearing, and that this humiliation was the deed he performed. this view is found in 2 cor. viii. 9: [greek: iêsous christos di' humas eptôcheusen plousios ôn]; in rom. viii. 3: [greek: ho theos ton heautou huion pempsas en homoiômati sarkos hamartias kai peri hamartias katekrine tên hamartian en tê sarki]; and in phil. ii. 5 f.: [greek: christos iêsous en morphê theou huparchôn ... heauton ekenôsen morphên doulon labôn, en homoiômati anthrôpôn genomenos, kai schêmati heuretheis hôs anthrôpos etapeinôsen heauton k.t.l.] in both forms of thought paul presupposes a real exaltation of christ. christ receives after the resurrection more than he ever possessed ([greek: to onoma to huper pan onoma]). in this view paul retains a historical interpretation of christ, even in the conception of the [greek: pneuma christos]. but whilst many passages seem to imply that the work of christ began with suffering and death, paul shews in the verses cited, that he already conceives the appearance of christ on earth as his moral act, as a humiliation, purposely brought about by god and christ himself, which reaches its culminating point in the death on the cross. christ, the divine spiritual being, is sent by the father from heaven to earth, and of his own free will he obediently takes this mission upon himself. he appears in the [greek: homoiôma sarkos amartias], dies the death of the cross, and then, raised by the father, ascends again into heaven in order henceforth to act as the [greek: kurios zôntôn] and [greek: nekrôn] and to become to his own people the principle of a new life in the spirit. whatever we may think about the admissibility and justification of this view, to whatever source we may trace its origin and however strongly we may emphasise its divergencies from the contemporaneous hellenic ideas, it is certain that it approaches very closely to the latter; for the distinction of spirit and flesh is here introduced into the concept of pre-existence, and this combination is not found in the jewish notions of the messiah. paul was the first who limited the idea of pre-existence by referring it solely to the spiritual part of jesus christ, but at the same time gave life to it by making the pre-existing christ (the spirit) a being who, even during his pre-existence, stands independently side by side with god. he was also the first to designate christ's [greek: sarx] as "assumpta", and to recognise its assumption as in itself a humiliation. to him the appearance of christ was no mere [greek: phanerousthai], but a [greek: kenousthai, tapeinousthai] and [greek: ptôcheuein]. these outstanding features of the pauline christology must have been intelligible to the greeks, but, whilst embracing these, they put everything else in the system aside. [greek: christos ho kurios ho sôsas hêmas, hôn men to prôton pneuma, egeneto sarx kai houtôs hêmas ekalesen], says 2 clem. (9. 5), and that is also the christology of 1 clement, barnabas and many other greeks. from the sum total of judæo-christian speculations they only borrowed, in addition, the one which has been already mentioned: the messiah as [greek: proegnôsmenos pro katabolês kosmou] is for that very reason also [greek: hê archê tês ktiseôs tou theou], that is the beginning, purpose and principle of the creation. the greeks, as the result of their cosmological interest, embraced this thought as a fundamental proposition. the complete greek christology then is expressed as follows: [greek: christos, ho sôsas hêmas, hôn men to prôton pneuma kai pasês ktiseôs archê, egeneto sarx kai houtôs hêmas ekalesen]. _that is the fundamental theological and philosophical creed on which the whole trinitarian and christological speculations of the church of the succeeding centuries are built, and it is thus the root of the orthodox system of dogmatics_; for the notion that christ was the [greek: archê pasês ktiseôs] necessarily led in some measure to the conception of christ as the logos. for the logos had long been regarded by cultured men as the beginning and principle of the creation.[452] with this transition the theories concerning christ are removed from jewish and old testament soil, and also that of religion (in the strict sense of the word), and transplanted to the greek one. even in his pre-existent state christ is an independent power existing side by side with god. the pre-existence does not refer to his whole appearance, but only to a part of his essence; it does not primarily serve to glorify the wisdom and power of the god who guides history, but only glorifies christ, and thereby threatens the monarchy of god.[453] the appearance of christ is now an "assumption of flesh", and immediately the intricate questions about the connection of the heavenly and spiritual being with the flesh simultaneously arise and are at first settled by the theories of a naive docetism. but the flesh, that is the human nature created by god, appears depreciated, because it was reckoned as something unsuitable for christ, and foreign to him as a spiritual being. thus the christian religion was mixed up with the refined asceticism of a perishing civilization, and a foreign substructure given to its system of morality, so earnest in its simplicity.[454] but the most questionable result was the following. since the predicate "logos", which at first, and for a long time, coincided with the idea of the reason ruling in the cosmos, was considered as the highest that could be given to christ, the holy and divine element, namely, the power of a new life, a power to be viewed and laid hold of in christ, was transformed into a cosmic force and thereby secularised. in the present work i have endeavoured to explain fully how the doctrine of the church developed from these premises into the doctrine of the trinity and of the two natures. i have also shewn that the imperfect beginnings of church doctrine, especially as they appear in the logos theory derived from cosmology, were subjected to wholesome corrections--by the monarchians, by athanasius, and by the influence of biblical passages which pointed in another direction. finally, the logos doctrine received a form in which the idea was deprived of nearly all cosmical content. nor could the hellenic contrast of "spirit" and "flesh" become completely developed in christianity, because the belief in the bodily resurrection of christ, and in the admission of the flesh into heaven, opposed to the principle of dualism a barrier which paul as yet neither knew nor felt to be necessary. the conviction as to the resurrection of the flesh proved the hard rock which shattered the energetic attempts to give a completely hellenic complexion to the christian religion. the history of the development of the ideas of pre-existence is at the same time the criticism of them, so that we need not have recourse to our present theory of knowledge which no longer allows such speculations. the problem of determining the significance of christ through a speculation concerning his natures, and of associating with these the concrete features of the historical christ, was originated by hellenism. but even the new testament writers, who appear in this respect to be influenced in some way by hellenism, did not really speculate concerning the different natures, but, taking christ's spiritual nature for granted, determined his religious significance by his moral qualities--paul by the moral act of humiliation and obedience unto death, john by the complete dependence of christ upon god and hence also by his obedience, as well as the unity of the love of father and son. there is only one idea of pre-existence which no empiric contemplation of history and no reason can uproot. this is identical with the most ancient idea found in the old testament, as well as that prevalent among the early christians, and consists in the religious thought that god the lord directs history. in its application to jesus christ, it is contained in the words we read in 1 pet. i. 20: [greek: proegnôsmenos men pro katabolês kosmou, phanerôtheis de di' humas tous di' autou pistous eis theon ton egeiranta auton ek nekrôn kai doxan autôi donta, hôste tên pistin humôn kai elpida einai eis theon]. [footnote 452: these hints will have shewn that paul's theory occupies a middle position between the jewish and greek ideas of pre-existence. in the canon, however, we have another group of writings which likewise gives evidence of a middle position with regard to the matter, i mean the johannine writings. if we only possessed the prologue to the gospel of john with its "[greek: en archê ên ho logos]," the "[greek: panta di' autou egeneto]" and the "[greek: ho logos sarx egeneto]" we could indeed point to nothing but hellenic ideas. but the gospel itself, as is well known, contains very much that must have astonished a greek, and is opposed to the philosophical idea of the logos. this occurs even in the thought, "[greek: ho logos sarx egeneto]," which in itself is foreign to the logos conception. just fancy a proposition like the one in vi. 44, [greek: oudeis dunatai elthein pros me, ean mê ho patêr ho pempsas me elkusê auton], or in v. 17. 21, engrafted on philo's system, and consider the revolution it would have caused there. no doubt the prologue to some extent contains the themes set forth in the presentation that follows, but they are worded in such a way that one cannot help thinking the author wished to prepare greek readers for the paradox he had to communicate to them, by adapting his prologue to their mode of thought. under the altered conditions of thought which now prevail, the prologue appears to us the mysterious part, and the narrative that follows seems the portion that is relatively more intelligible. but to the original readers, if they were educated greeks, the prologue must have been the part most easily understood. as nowadays a section on the nature of the christian religion is usually prefixed to a treatise on dogmatics, in order to prepare and introduce the reader, so also the johannine prologue seems to be intended as an introduction of this kind. it brings in conceptions which were familiar to the greeks, in fact it enters into these more deeply than is justified by the presentation which follows; for the notion of the incarnate logos is by no means the dominant one here. though faint echoes of this idea may possibly be met with here and there in the gospel--i confess i do not notice them--the predominating thought is essentially the conception of christ as the son of god, who obediently executes what the father has shewn and appointed him. the works which he does are allotted to him, and he performs them in the strength of the father. the whole of christ's farewell discourses and the intercessory prayer evince no hellenic influence and no cosmological speculation whatever, but shew the inner life of a man who knows himself to be one with god to a greater extent than any before him, and who feels the leading of men to god to be the task he had received and accomplished. in this consciousness he speaks of the glory he had with the father before the world was (xvii. 4 f.; [greek: egô se edoxasa epi tês gês, to ergon teleiôsas ho dedôkas moi hina poiêsô; kai nun doxason me su, pater, para seautô tê doxê hê eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai, para soi]). with this we must compare verses like iii. 13: [greek: oudeis anabebêken eis ton ouranon ei mê ho ek tou ouranou katabas, ho huios tou anthrôpou], and iii. 31: [greek: ho anôthen erchomenos epanô pantôn estin. ho ôn ek tês gês ek tês gês estin kai ek tês gês lalei ho ek tou ouranou erchomenos epanô pantôn estin] (see also i. 30: vi. 33, 38, 41 f. 50 f. 58, 62: viii. 14, 58; xvii. 24). but though the pre-existence is strongly expressed in these passages, a separation of [greek: pneuma (logos)] and [greek: sarx] in christ is nowhere assumed in the gospel except in the prologue. it is always christ's whole personality to which every sublime attribute is ascribed. the same one who "can do nothing of himself", is also the one who was once glorious and will yet be glorified. this idea, however, can still be referred to the [greek: proegnosmenos pro katabolês kosmon], although it gives a peculiar [greek: doxa] with god to him who was foreknown of god, and the oldest conception is yet to be traced in many expressions, as, for example, i. 31: [greek: kagô ouk êdein auton, all' hina phanerôthæ tô israêl dia touto êlthon], v. 19: [greek: ou duvatai ho uios poiein aph' eautou ouden an mê ti blepê ton patera poiountai], v. 36: viii. 38: [greek: ha egô heôraka para tô patri lalô], viii. 40: [greek: tên alêtheian humin lelalêka hên êkousa para tou theou], xii. 49: xv. 15: [greek: panta ha êxousa para tou patros mou egnôrisa humin.]] [footnote 453: this is indeed counterbalanced in the fourth gospel by the thought of the complete community of love between the father and the son, and the pre-existence and descent of the latter here also tend to the glory of god. in the sentence "god so loved the world" etc., that which paul describes in phil. ii. becomes at the same time an act of god, in fact the act of god. the sentence "god is love" sums up again all individual speculations, and raises them into a new and most exalted sphere.] [footnote 454: if it had been possible for speculation to maintain the level of the fourth gospel, nothing of that would have happened; but where were there theologians capable of this?] appendix ii. _liturgy and the origin of dogma._ the reader has perhaps wondered why i have made so little reference to liturgy in my description of the origin of dogma. for according to the most modern ideas about the history of religion and the origin of theology, the development of both may be traced in the ritual. without any desire to criticise these notions, i think i am justified in asserting that this is another instance of the exceptional nature of christianity. for a considerable period it possessed no ritual at all, and the process of development in this direction had been going on, or been completed, a long time before ritual came to furnish material for dogmatic discussion. the worship in christian churches grew out of that in the synagogues, whereas there is no trace of its being influenced by the jewish temple service (duchesne, origines du culte chrétien, p. 45 ff.). its oldest constituents are accordingly prayer, reading of the scriptures, application of scripture texts, and sacred song. in addition to these we have, as specifically christian elements, the celebration of the lord's supper, and the utterances of persons inspired by the spirit. the latter manifestations, however, ceased in the course of the second century, and to some extent as early as its first half. the religious services in which a ritual became developed were prayer, the lord's supper and sacred song. the didache had already prescribed stated formulæ for prayer. the ritual of the lord's supper was determined in its main features by the memory of its institution. the sphere of sacred song remained the most unfettered, though here also, even at an early period--no later in fact than the end of the first and beginning of the second century--a fixed and a variable element were distinguished; for responsory hymns, as is testified by the epistle of pliny and the still earlier book of revelation, require to follow a definite arrangement. but the whole, though perhaps already fixed during the course of the second century, still bore the stamp of spirituality and freedom. it was really worship in spirit and in truth, and this and no other was the light in which the apologists, for instance, regarded it. ritualism did not begin to be a power in the church till the end of the second century; though it had been cultivated by the "gnostics" long before, and traces of it are found at an earlier period in some of the older fathers, such as ignatius. among the liturgical fragments still preserved to us from the first three centuries two strata may be distinguished. apart from the responsory hymns in the book of revelation, which can hardly represent fixed liturgical pieces, the only portions of the older stratum in our possession are the lord's prayer, originating with jesus himself and used as a liturgy, together with the sacramental prayers of the didache. these prayers exhibit a style unlike any of the liturgical formulæ of later times; the prayer is exclusively addressed to god, it returns thanks for knowledge and life; it speaks of jesus the [greek: pais theou] (son of god) as the mediator; the intercession refers exclusively to the church, and the supplication is for the gathering together of the church, the hastening of the coming of the kingdom and the destruction of the world. no direct mention is made of the death and resurrection of christ. these prayers are the peculiar property of the christian church. it cannot, however, be said that they exercised any important influence on the history of dogma. the thoughts contained in them perished in their specific shape; the measure of permanent importance they attained in a more general form, was not preserved to them through these prayers. the second stratum of liturgical pieces dates back to the great prayer with which the first epistle of clement ends, for in many respects this prayer, though some expressions in it remind us of the older type ([greek: dia tou êgapêmenou paidos sou iêsoun christou], "through thy beloved son jesus christ "), already exhibits the characteristics of the later liturgy, as is shewn, for example, by a comparison of the liturgical prayer in the constitutions of the apostles (see lightfoot's edition and my own). but this piece shews at the same time that the liturgical prayers, and consequently the liturgy also, sprang from those in the synagogue, for the similarity is striking. here we find a connection resembling that which exists between the jewish "two ways" and the christian instruction of catechumens. if this observation is correct, it clearly explains the cautious use of historical and dogmatic material in the oldest liturgies--a precaution not to their disadvantage. as in the prayers of the synagogue, so also in christian churches, all sorts of matters were not submitted to god or laid bare before him, but the prayers serve as a religious ceremony, that is, as adoration, petition and intercession. [greek: su ei ho theos monos kai iêsous christos ho pais sou kai hêmeis laos sou kai probata tês nomês sou], (thou art god alone and jesus christ is thy son, and we are thy people and the sheep of thy pasture). in this confession, an expressive christian modification of that of the synagogue, the whole liturgical ceremony is epitomised. so far as we can assume and conjecture from the scanty remains of ante-nicene liturgy, the character of the ceremony was not essentially altered in this respect. nothing containing a specific dogma or theological speculation was admitted. the number of sacred ceremonies, already considerable in the second century (how did they arise?), was still further increased in the third; but the accompanying words, so far as we know, expressed nothing but adoration, gratitude, supplication, and intercession. the relations expressed in the liturgy became more comprehensive, copious and detailed; but its fundamental character was not changed. the history of dogma in the first three centuries is not reflected in their liturgy. appendix iii. neoplatonism. _the historical significance and position of neoplatonism._ the political history of the ancient world ends with the empire of diocletian and constantine, which has not only roman and greek, but also oriental features. the history of ancient philosophy ends with the universal philosophy of neoplatonism, which assimilated the elements of most of the previous systems, and embodied the result of the history of religion and civilisation in east and west. but as the roman byzantine empire is at one and the same time a product of the final effort and the exhaustion of the ancient world, so also neoplatonism is, on one side, the completion of ancient philosophy, and, on another, its abolition. never before in the greek and roman theory of the world did the conviction of the dignity of man and his elevation above nature, attain so certain an expression as in neoplatonism; and never before in the history of civilisation did its highest exponents, notwithstanding all their progress in inner observation, so much undervalue the sovereign significance of real science and pure knowledge as the later neoplatonists did. judged from the stand-point of pure science, of empirical knowledge of the world, the philosophy of plato and aristotle marks a momentous turning-point, the post-aristotelian a retrogression, the neoplatonic a complete declension. but judging from the stand-point of religion and morality, it must be admitted that the ethical temper which neoplatonism sought to beget and confirm, was the highest and purest which the culture of the ancient world produced. this necessarily took place at the expense of science: for on the soil of polytheistic natural religions, the knowledge of nature must either fetter and finally abolish religion, or be fettered and abolished by religion. religion and ethic, however, proved the stronger powers. placed between these and the knowledge of nature, philosophy, after a period of fluctuation, finally follows the stronger force. since the ethical itself, in the sphere of natural religions, is unhesitatingly conceived as a higher kind of "nature", conflict with the empirical knowledge of the world is unavoidable. the higher "physics", for that is what religious ethics is here, must displace the lower or be itself displaced. philosophy must renounce its scientific aspect, in order that man's claim to a supernatural value of his person and life may be legitimised. it is an evidence of the vigour of man's moral endowments that the only epoch of culture which we are able to survey in its beginnings, its progress, and its close, ended not with materialism, but with the most decided idealism. it is true that in its way this idealism also denotes a bankruptcy; as the contempt for reason and science, and these are contemned when relegated to the second place, finally leads to barbarism, because it results in the crassest superstition, and is exposed to all manner of imposture. and, as a matter of fact, barbarism succeeded the flourishing period of neoplatonism. philosophers themselves no doubt found their mental food in the knowledge which they thought themselves able to surpass; but the masses grew up in superstition, and the christian church, which entered on the inheritance of neoplatonism, was compelled to reckon with that and come to terms with it. just when the bankruptcy of the ancient civilisation and its lapse into barbarism could not have failed to reveal themselves, a kindly destiny placed on the stage of history barbarian nations, for whom the work of a thousand years had as yet no existence. thus the fact is concealed, which, however, does not escape the eye of one who looks below the surface, that the inner history of the ancient world must necessarily have degenerated into barbarism of its own accord, because it ended with the renunciation of this world. there is no desire either to enjoy it, to master it, or to know it as it really is. a new world is disclosed for which everything is given up, and men are ready to sacrifice insight and understanding, in order to possess this world with certainty; and, in the light which radiates from the world to come, that which in this world appears absurd becomes wisdom, and wisdom becomes folly. such is neoplatonism. the pre-socratic philosophers, declared by the followers of socrates to be childish, had freed themselves from theology, that is, the mythology of the poets, and constructed a philosophy from the observation of nature, without troubling themselves about ethics and religion. in the systems of plato and aristotle physics and ethics were to attain to their rights, though the latter no doubt already occupied the first place; theology, that is popular religion, continues to be thrust aside. the post-aristotelian philosophers of all parties were already beginning to withdraw from the objective world. stoicism indeed seems to fall back into the materialism that i prevailed before plato and aristotle; but the ethical dualism which dominated the mood of the stoic philosophers, did not in the long run tolerate the materialistic physics; it sought and found help in the metaphysical dualism of the platonists, and at the same time reconciled itself to the popular religion by means of allegorism, that is, it formed a new theology. but it did not result in permanent philosophic creations. a one-sided development of platonism produced the various forms of scepticism which sought to abolish confidence in empirical knowledge. neoplatonism, which came last, learned from all schools. in the first place, it belongs to the series of post-aristotelian systems and, as the philosophy of the subjective, it is the logical completion of them. in the second place, it rests on scepticism; for it also, though not at the very beginning, gave up both confidence and pure interest in empirical knowledge. thirdly, it can boast of the name and authority of plato; for in metaphysics it consciously went back to him and expressly opposed the metaphysics of the stoics. yet on this very point it also learned something from the stoics; for the neoplatonic conception of the action of god on the world, and of the nature and origin of matter, can only be explained by reference to the dynamic pantheism of the stoics. in other respects, especially in psychology, it is diametrically opposed to the stoa, though superior. fourthly, the study of aristotle also had an influence on neoplatonism. that is shewn not only in the philosophic methods of the neoplatonists, but also, though in a subordinate way, in their metaphysics. fifthly, the ethic of the stoics was adopted by neoplatonism, but this ethic necessarily gave way to a still higher view of the conditions of the spirit. sixthly and finally, christianity also, which neoplatonism opposed in every form (especially in that of the gnostic philosophy of religion), seems not to have been entirely without influence. on this point we have as yet no details, and these can only be ascertained by a thorough examination of the polemic of plotinus against the gnostics. hence, with the exception of epicureanism, which neoplatonism dreaded as its mortal enemy, every important system of former times was drawn upon by the new philosophy. but we should not on that account call neoplatonism an eclectic system in the usual sense of the word. for in the first place, it had one pervading and all predominating interest, the religious; and in the second place, it introduced into philosophy a new supreme principle, the super-rational, or the super-essential. this principle should not be identified with the "ideas" of plato or the "form" of aristotle. for as zeller rightly says: "in plato and aristotle the distinction of the sensuous and the intelligible is the strongest expression for belief in the truth of thought; it is only sensuous perception and sensuous existence whose relative falsehood they presuppose; but of a higher stage of spiritual life lying beyond idea and thought, there is no mention. in neoplatonism, on the other hand, it is just this super-rational element which is regarded as the final goal of all effort, and the highest ground of all existence; the knowledge gained by thought is only an intermediate stage between sensuous perception and the super-rational intuition; the intelligible forms are not that which is highest and last, but only the media by which the influences of the formless original essence are communicated to the world. this view therefore presupposes not merely doubt of the reality of sensuous existence and sensuous notions, but absolute doubt, aspiration beyond all reality. the highest intelligible is not that which constitutes the real content of thought, but only that which is presupposed and earnestly desired by man as the unknowable ground of his thought." neoplatonism recognised that a religious ethic can be built neither on sense-perception nor on knowledge gained by the understanding, and that it cannot be justified by these; it therefore broke both with intellectual ethics and with utilitarian morality. but for that very reason, having as it were parted with perception and understanding in relation to the ascertaining of the highest truth, it was compelled to seek for a new world and a new function in the human spirit, in order to ascertain the existence of what it desired, and to comprehend and describe that of which it had ascertained the existence. but man cannot transcend his psychological endowment. an iron ring incloses him. he who does not allow his thought to be determined by experience falls a prey to fancy, that is, thought, which cannot be suppressed, assumes a mythological aspect: superstition takes the place of reason, dull gazing at something incomprehensible is regarded as the highest goal of the spirit's efforts, and every conscious activity of the spirit is subordinated to visionary conditions artificially brought about. but that every conceit may not be allowed to assert itself, the gradual exploration of every region of knowledge according to every method of acquiring it, is demanded as a preliminary--the neoplatonists did not make matters easy for themselves,--and a new and mighty principle is set up which is to bridle fancy, viz., _the authority of a sure tradition_. this authority must be superhuman, otherwise it would not come under consideration; it must therefore be divine. on divine disclosures, that is revelations, must rest both the highest super-rational region of knowledge and the possibility of knowledge itself. in a word, the philosophy which neoplatonism represents, whose final interest is the religious, and whose highest object is the super-rational, must be a _philosophy of revelation_. in the case of plotinus himself and his immediate disciples, this does not yet appear plainly. they still shew confidence in the objective presuppositions of their philosophy, and have, especially in psychology, done great work and created something new. but this confidence vanishes in the later neoplatonists. porphyry, before he became a disciple of plotinus, wrote a book [greek: peri tês eklogiôn philosophia]; as a philosopher he no longer required the "[greek: logia]." but the later representatives of the system sought for their philosophy revelations of the godhead. they found them in the religious traditions and cults of all nations. neoplatonism learned from the stoics to rise above the political limits of nations and states, and to widen the hellenic consciousness to a universally human one. the spirit of god has breathed throughout the whole history of the nations, and the traces of divine revelation are to be found everywhere. the older a religious tradition or cultus is, the more worthy of honour, the more rich in thoughts of god it is. therefore the old oriental religions are of special value to the neoplatonists. the allegorical method of interpreting myths, which was practised by the stoics in particular, was accepted by neoplatonism also. but the myths, spiritually explained, have for this system an entirely different value from what they had for the stoic philosophers. the latter adjusted themselves to the myths by the aid of allegorical explanation; the later neoplatonists, on the other hand, (after a selection in which the immoral myths were sacrificed, see, e.g. julian) regarded them as _the proper material and sure foundation of philosophy_. neoplatonism claims to be not only the absolute _philosophy_, completing all systems, but, at the same time, the absolute _religion_, confirming and explaining all earlier religions. a rehabilitation of all ancient religions is aimed at (see the philosophic teachers of julian and compare his great religious experiment); each was to continue in its traditional form, but, at the same time, each was to communicate the religious temper and the religious knowledge which neoplatonism had attained, and each cultus is to lead to the high morality which it behoves man to maintain. in neoplatonism the psychological fact of the longing of man for something higher, is exalted to the all-predominating principle which explains the world. therefore the religions, though they are to be purified and spiritualised, become the foundation of philosophy. the neoplatonic philosophy therefore presupposes the religious syncretism of the third century, and cannot be understood without it. the great forces which were half unconsciously at work in this syncretism, were reflectively grasped by neoplatonism. it is the final fruit of the developments resulting from the political, national and religious syncretism which arose from the undertakings of alexander the great, and the romans. neoplatonism is consequently a stage in the history of religion; nay, its significance in the history of the world lies in the fact that it is so. in the history of science and enlightenment it has a position of significance only in so far as it was the necessary transition stage through which humanity had to pass, in order to free itself from the religion of nature and the depreciation of the spiritual life, which oppose an insurmountable barrier to the highest advance of human knowledge. but as neoplatonism in its philosophical aspect means the abolition of ancient philosophy, which, however, it desired to complete, so also in its religious aspect it means the abolition of the ancient religions which it aimed at restoring. for in requiring these religions to mediate a definite religious knowledge, and to lead to the highest moral disposition, it burdened them with tasks to which they were not equal, and under which they could not but break down. and in requiring them to loosen, if not completely destroy, the bond which was their only stay, namely, the political bond, it took from them the foundation on which they were built. but could it not place them on a greater and firmer foundation? was not the roman empire in existence, and could the new religion not become dependent on this in the same way as the earlier religions had been dependent on the lesser states and nations? it might be thought so, but it was no longer possible. no doubt the political history of the nations round the mediterranean, in their development into the universal roman monarchy, was parallel to the spiritual history of these nations in their development into monotheism and a universal system of morals; but the spiritual development in the end far outstripped the political: even the stoics attained to a height which the political development could only partially reach. neoplatonism did indeed attempt to gain a connection with the byzantine roman empire: one noble monarch, julian, actually perished as a result of this endeavour: but even before this the profounder neoplatonists discerned that their lofty religious philosophy would not bear contact with the despotic empire, because it would not bear any contact with the "world" (plan of the founding of platonopolis). political affairs are at bottom as much a matter of indifference to neoplatonism as material things in general. the idealism of the new philosophy was too high to admit of its being naturalised in the despiritualised, tyrannical and barren creation of the byzantine empire, and this empire itself needed unscrupulous and despotic police officials, not noble philosophers. important and instructive, therefore, as the experiments are, which were made from time to time by the state and by individual philosophers, to unite the monarchy of the world with neoplatonism, they could not but be ineffectual. but, and this is the last question which one is justified in raising here, why did not neoplatonism create an independent religious community? since it had already changed the ancient religions so fundamentally, in its purpose to restore them, since it had attempted to fill the old naive cults with profound philosophic ideas, and to make them exponents of a high morality, why did it not take the further step and create a religious fellowship of its own? why did it not complete and confirm the union of gods by the founding of a church which was destined to embrace the whole of humanity, and in which, beside the one ineffable godhead, the gods of all nations could have been worshipped? why not? the answer to this question is at the same time the reply to another, viz., why did the christian church supplant neoplatonism? neoplatonism lacked three elements to give it the significance of a new and permanent religious system. augustine in his confessions (bk. vii. 18-21) has excellently described these three elements. first and above all, it lacked a religious founder; secondly, it was unable to give any answer to the question, how one could permanently maintain the mood of blessedness and peace: thirdly, it lacked the means of winning those who could not speculate. the "people" could not learn the philosophic exercises which it recommended as the condition of attaining the enjoyment of the highest good; and the way on which even the "people" can attain to the highest good was hidden from it. hence these "wise and prudent" remained a school. when julian attempted to interest the common uncultured man in the doctrines and worship of this school, his reward was mockery and scorn. not as philosophy and not as a new religion did neoplatonism become a decisive factor in history, but, if i may say so, as a frame of mind.[455] the feeling that there is an eternal highest good which lies beyond all outer experience and is not even the intelligible, this feeling, with which was united the conviction of the entire worthlessness of everything earthly, was produced and fostered by neoplatonism. but it was unable to describe the contents of that highest being and highest good, and therefore it was here compelled to give itself entirely up to fancy and aesthetic feeling. therefore it was forced to trace out "mysterious ways to that which is within", which, however, led nowhere. it transformed thought into a dream of feeling; it immersed itself in the sea of emotions; it viewed the old fabled world of the nations as the reflection of a higher reality, and transformed reality into poetry; but in spite of all these efforts it was only able, to use the words of augustine, to see from afar the land which it desired. it broke this world into fragments; but nothing remained to it, save a ray from a world beyond, which was only an indescribable "something." and yet the significance of neoplatonism in the history of our moral culture has been, and still is, immeasurable. not only because it refined and strengthened man's life of feeling and sensation, not only because it, more than anything else, wove the delicate veil which even to-day, whether we be religious or irreligious, we ever and again cast over the offensive impression of the brutal reality, but, above all, because it begat the consciousness that the blessedness which alone can satisfy man, is to be found somewhere else than in the sphere of knowledge. that man does not live by bread alone, is a truth that was known before neoplatonism; but it proclaimed the profounder truth, which the earlier philosophy had failed to recognise, that man does not live by knowledge alone. neoplatonism not only had a propadeutic significance in the past, but continues to be, even now, the source of all the moods which deny the world and strive after an ideal, but have not power to raise themselves above æsthetic feeling, and see no means of getting a clear notion of the impulse of their own heart and the land of their desire. * * * * * _historical origin of neoplatonism._ the forerunners of neoplatonism were, on the one hand, those stoics who recognise the platonic distinction of the sensible and supersensible world, and on the other, the so-called neopythagoreans and religious philosophers, such as posidonius, plutarch of chæronea, and especially numenius of apamea.[456] nevertheless, these cannot be regarded as the actual fathers of neoplatonism; for the philosophic method was still very imperfect in comparison with the neoplatonic, their principles were uncertain, and the authority of plato was not yet regarded as placed on an unapproachable height. the jewish and christian philosophers of the first and second centuries stand very much nearer the later neoplatonism than numenius. we would probably see this more clearly if we knew the development of christianity in alexandria in the second century. but, unfortunately, we have only very meagre fragments to tell us of this. first and above all, we must mention philo. this philosopher, who interpreted the old testament religion in terms of hellenism, had, in accordance with his idea of revelation, already maintained that the divine original essence is supra-rational, that only ecstasy leads to him, and that the materials for religious and moral knowledge are contained in the oracles of the deity. the religious ethic of philo, a combination of stoic, platonic, neopythagorean and old testament gnomic wisdom, already bears the marks which we recognise in neoplatonism. the acknowledgment that god was exalted above all thought, was a sort of tribute which greek philosophy was compelled to pay to the national religion of israel, in return for the supremacy which was here granted to the former. the claim of positive religion to be something more than an intellectual conception of the universal reason, was thereby justified. even religious syncretism is already found in philo; but it is something essentially different from the later neoplatonic, since philo regarded the jewish cult as the only valuable one, and traced back all elements of truth in the greeks and romans to borrowings from the books of moses. the earliest christian philosophers, especially justin and athenagoras, likewise prepared the way for the speculations of the later neoplatonists by their attempts, on the one hand, to connect christianity with stoicism and platonism, and on the other, to exhibit it as supra-platonic. the method by which justin, in the introduction to the dialogue with trypho, attempts to establish the christian knowledge of god, that is, the knowledge of the truth, on platonism, scepticism and "revelation", strikingly reminds us of the later methods of the neoplatonists. still more is one reminded of neoplatonism by the speculations of the alexandrian christian gnostics, especially of valentinus and the followers of basilides. the doctrines of the basilidians(?) communicated by hippolytus (philosoph. vii. c. 20 sq.), read like fragments from the didactic writings of the neoplatonists: [greek: epei ouden ên ouch hulê, ouk ousia, ouk anousion, ouch haploun, ou suntheton, ouk anoêton, ouk anaisthêton, ouk anthrôpos ... ouk ôn theos anoêtôs, anaisthêtôs aboulôs aproairetôs, apathôs, anepithumêtios kosmon êthelêse poiêsai ... houtôs ouk ôn theos epoiêse kosmon ouk onta ex ouk ontôn, katabalomenos kai hupostêsas sperma ti en echon pasan en heautô tês tou kosmou panspermian.] like the neoplatonists, these basilidians did not teach an emanation from the godhead, but a dynamic mode of action of the supreme being. the same can be asserted of valentinus who also places an unnamable being above all, and views matter not as a second principle, but as a derived product. the dependence of basilides and valentinus on zeno and plato is, besides, undoubted. but the method of these gnostics in constructing their mental picture of the world and its history, was still an uncertain one. crude primitive myths are here received, and naively realistic elements alternate with bold attempts at spiritualising. while therefore, philosophically considered, the gnostic systems are very unlike the finished neoplatonic ones, it is certain that they contained almost all the elements of the religious view of the world, which we find in neoplatonism. but were the earliest neoplatonists really acquainted with the speculations of men like philo, justin, valentinus and basilides? were they familiar with the oriental religions, especially with the jewish and the christian? and, if we must answer these questions in the affirmative, did they really learn from these sources? unfortunately, we cannot at present give certain, and still less detailed answers to these questions. but, as neoplatonism originated in alexandria, as oriental cults confronted every one there, as the jewish philosophy was prominent in the literary market of alexandria, and that was the very place where scientific christianity had its headquarters, there can, generally speaking, be no doubt that the earliest neoplatonists had some acquaintance with judaism and christianity. in addition to that, we have the certain fact that the earliest neoplatonists had discussions with (roman) gnostics (see carl schmidt, gnostische schriften in koptischer sprache, pp. 603-665), and that porphyry entered into elaborate controversy with christianity. in comparison with the neoplatonic philosophy, the system of philo and the gnostics appears in many respects an anticipation, which had a certain influence on the former, the precise nature of which has still to be ascertained. but the anticipation is not wonderful, for the religious and philosophic temper which was only gradually produced on greek soil, existed from the first in such philosophers as took their stand on the ground of a revealed religion of redemption. iamblichus and his followers first answer completely to the christian gnostic schools of the second century; that is to say, greek philosophy, in its immanent development, did not attain till the fourth century the position which some greek philosophers, who had accepted christianity, had already reached in the second. the influence of christianity--both gnostic and catholic--on neoplatonism was perhaps very little at any time, though individual neoplatonists since the time of amelius employed christian sayings as oracles, and testified their high esteem for christ. _sketch of the history and doctrines of neoplatonism._ ammonius saccas (died about 245), who is said to have been born a christian, but to have lapsed into heathenism, is regarded as the founder of the neoplatonic school in alexandria. as he has left no writings, no judgment can be formed as to his teaching. his disciples inherited from him the prominence which they gave to plato and the attempts to prove the harmony between the latter and aristotle. his most important disciples were; origen the christian, a second heathen origen, longinus, herennius, and, above all, plotinus. the latter was born in the year 205, at lycopolis in egypt, laboured from 224 in rome, and found numerous adherents and admirers, among others the emperor galienus and his consort, and died in lower italy about 270. his writings were arranged by his disciple, porphyry, and edited in six enneads. the enneads of plotinus are the fundamental documents of neoplatonism. the teaching of this philosopher is mystical, and, like all mysticism, it falls into two main portions. the first and theoretic part shews the high origin of the soul, and how it has departed from this its origin. the second and practical part points out the way by which the soul can again be raised to the eternal and the highest. as the soul with its longings aspires beyond all sensible things and even beyond the world of ideas, the highest must be something above reason. the system therefore has three parts. i. the original essence. ii. the world of ideas and the soul. iii. the world of phenomena. we may also, in conformity with the thought of plotinus, divide the system thus: a. the supersensible world (1. the original essence; 2. the world of ideas; 3. the soul). b. the world of phenomena. the original essence is the one in contrast to the many; it is the infinite and unlimited in contrast to the finite; it is the source of all being, therefore the absolute causality and the only truly existing; but it is also the good, in so far as everything finite is to find its aim in it and to flow back to it. yet moral attributes cannot be ascribed to this original essence, for these would limit it. it has no attributes at all; it is a being without magnitude, without life, without thought; nay, one should not, properly speaking, even call it an existence; it is something above existence, above goodness, and at the same time the operative force without any substratum. as operative force the original essence is continually begetting something else, without itself being changed or moved or diminished. this creation is not a physical process, but an emanation of force; and because that which is produced has any existence only in so far as the originally existent works in it, it may be said that neoplatonism is dynamical pantheism. everything that has being is directly or indirectly a production of the "one." in this "one" everything so far as it has being, is divine, and god is all in all. but that which is derived is not like the original essence itself. on the contrary, the law of decreasing perfection prevails in the derived. the latter is indeed an image and reflection of the original essence, but the wider the circle of creations extends the less their share in the original essence. hence the totality of being forms a gradation of concentric circles which finally lose themselves almost completely in non-being, in so far as in the last circle the force of the original essence is a vanishing one. each lower stage of being is connected with the original essence only by means of the higher stages; that which is inferior receives a share in the original essence only through the medium of these. but everything derived has one feature, viz., a longing for the higher; it turns itself to this so far as its nature allows it. the first emanation of the original essence is the [greek: nous]; it is a complete image of the original essence and archetype of all existing things; it is being and thought at the same time, world of ideas and idea. as image the [greek: nous] is equal to the original essence, as derived it is completely different from it. what plotinus understands by [greek: nous] is the highest sphere which the human spirit can reach ([greek: kosmos noêtos]) and at the same time pure thought itself. the soul which, according to plotinus, is an immaterial substance like the [greek: nous],[457] is an image and product of the immovable [greek: nous]. it is related to the [greek: nous] as the latter is to the original essence. it stands between the [greek: nous] and the world of phenomena. the [greek: nous] penetrates and enlightens it, but it itself already touches the world of phenomena. the [greek: nous] is undivided, the soul can also preserve its unity and abide in the [greek: nous]; but it has at the same time the power to unite itself with the material world and thereby to be divided. hence it occupies a middle position. in virtue of its nature and destiny it belongs, as the single soul (soul of the world), to the supersensible world; but it embraces at the same time the many individual souls; these may allow themselves to be ruled by the [greek: nous], or they may turn to the sensible and be lost in the finite. the soul, an active essence, begets the corporeal or the world of phenomena. this should allow itself to be so ruled by the soul that the manifold of which it consists may abide in fullest harmony. plotinus is not a dualist like the majority of christian gnostics. he praises the beauty and glory of the world. when in it the idea really has dominion over matter, the soul over the body, the world is beautiful and good. it is the image of the upper world, though a shadowy one, and the gradations of better or worse in it are necessary to the harmony of the whole. but, in point of fact, the unity and harmony in the world of phenomena disappear in strife and opposition. the result is a conflict, a growth and decay, a seeming existence. the original cause of this lies in the fact that a substratum, viz., matter, lies at the basis of bodies. matter is the foundation of each ([greek: to bathos hekastou hê hulê]); it is the obscure, the indefinite, that which is without qualities, the [greek: mê on]. as devoid of form and idea it is the evil, as capable of form the intermediate. the human souls that are sunk in the material have been ensnared by the sensuous, and have allowed themselves to be ruled by desire. they now seek to detach themselves entirely from true being, and striving after independence fall into an unreal existence. conversion therefore is needed, and this is possible, for freedom is not lost. now here begins the practical philosophy. the soul must rise again to the highest on the same path by which it descended: it must first of all return to itself. this takes place through virtue which aspires to assimilation with god and leads to him. in the ethics of plotinus all earlier philosophic systems of virtue are united and arranged in graduated order. civic virtues stand lowest, then follow the purifying, and finally the deifying virtues. civic virtues only adorn the life, but do not elevate the soul as the purifying virtues do; they free the soul from the sensuous and lead it back to itself and thereby to the [greek: nous]. man becomes again a spiritual and permanent being, and frees himself from every sin, through asceticism. but he is to reach still higher; he is not only to be without sin, but he is to be "god." that takes place through the contemplation of the original essence, the one, that is through ecstatic elevation to him. this is not mediated by thought, for thought reaches only to the [greek: nous], and is itself only a movement. thought is only a preliminary stage towards union with god. the soul can only see and touch the original essence in a condition of complete passivity and rest. hence, in order to attain to this highest, the soul must subject itself to a spiritual "exercise." it must begin with the contemplation of material things, their diversity and harmony, then retire into itself and sink itself in its own essence, and thence mount up to the [greek: nous], to the world of ideas; but, as it still does not find the one and highest essence there, as the call always comes to it from there: "we have not made ourselves" (augustine in the sublime description of christian, that is, neoplatonic exercises), it must, as it were, lose sight of itself in a state of intense concentration, in mute contemplation and complete forgetfulness of all things. it can then see god, the source of life, the principle of being, the first cause of all good, the root of the soul. in that moment it enjoys the highest and indescribable blessedness; it is itself, as it were, swallowed up by the deity and bathed in the light of eternity. plotinus, as porphyry relates, attained to this ecstatic union with god four times during the six years he was with him. to plotinus this religious philosophy was sufficient; he did not require the popular religion and worship. but yet he sought their support. the deity is indeed in the last resort only the original essence, but it manifests itself in a fulness of emanations and phenomena. the [greek: nous] is, as it were, the second god; the [greek: logoi], which are included in it, are gods; the stars are gods, etc. a strict monotheism appeared to plotinus a poor thing. the myths of the popular religion were interpreted by him in a particular sense, and he could justify even magic, soothsaying and prayer. he brought forward reasons for the worship of images, which the christian worshippers of images subsequently adopted. yet, in comparison with the later neoplatonists, he was free from gross superstition and wild fanaticism. he cannot, in the remotest sense, be reckoned among the "deceivers who were themselves deceived," and the restoration of the ancient worships of the gods was not his chief aim. among his disciples the most important were amelius and porphyry. amelius changed the doctrine of plotinus in some points, and even made use of the prologue of the gospel of john. porphyry has the merit of having systematized and spread the teaching of his master, plotinus. he was born at tyre, in the year 233; whether he was for some time a christian is uncertain; from 263-268 he was a pupil of plotinus at rome; before that he wrote the work [greek: peri tês ek logiôn philosophias], which shews that he wished to base philosophy on revelation; he lived a few years in sicily (about 270) where he wrote his "fifteen books against the christians"; he then returned to rome where he laboured as a teacher, edited the works of plotinus, wrote himself a series of treatises, married, in his old age, the roman lady marcella, and died about the year 303. porphyry was not an original, productive thinker, but a diligent and thorough investigator, characterized by great learning, by the gift of an acute faculty for philological and historical criticism, and by an earnest desire to spread the true philosophy of life, to refute false doctrines, especially those of the christians, to ennoble man and draw him to that which is good. that a mind so free and noble surrendered itself entirely to the philosophy of plotinus and to polytheistic mysticism, is a proof that the spirit of the age works almost irresistibly, and that religious mysticism was the highest possession of the time. the teaching of porphyry is distinguished from that of plotinus by the fact that it is still more practical and religious. the aim of philosophy, according to porphyry, is the salvation of the soul. the origin and the guilt of evil lie not in the body, but in the desires of the soul. the strictest asceticism (abstinence from cohabitation, flesh and wine) is therefore required in addition to the knowledge of god. during the course of his life porphyry warned men more and more decidedly against crude popular beliefs and immoral cults. "the ordinary notions of the deity are of such a kind that it is more godless to share them than to neglect the images of the gods." but freely as he criticised the popular religions, he did not wish to give them up. he contended for a pure worship of the many gods, and recognised the right of every old national religion, and the religious duties of their professors. his work against the christians is not directed against christ, or what he regarded as the teaching of christ, but against the christians of his day and against the sacred books which, according to porphyry, were written by impostors and ignorant people. in his acute criticism of the genesis or what was regarded as christianity in his day, he spoke bitter and earnest truths, and therefore acquired the name of the fiercest and most formidable of all the enemies of christians. his work was destroyed (condemned by an edict of theodosius ii. and valentinian, of the year 448), and even the writings in reply (by methodius, eusebius, apollinaris, philostorgius, etc.,) have not been preserved. yet we possess fragments in lactantius, augustine, macarius magnes and others, which attest how thoroughly porphyry studied the christian writings and how great his faculty was for true historical criticism. porphyry marks the transition to the neoplatonism which subordinated itself entirely to the polytheistic cults, and which strove, above all, to defend the old greek and oriental religions against the formidable assaults of christianity. iamblichus, the disciple of porphyry (died 330), transformed neoplatonism "from a philosophic theorem into a theological doctrine." the doctrines peculiar to iamblichus can no longer be deduced from scientific, but only from practical motives. in order to justify superstition and the ancient cults, philosophy in iamblichus becomes a theurgic, mysteriosophy, spiritualism. now appears that series of "philosophers", in whose case one is frequently unable to decide whether they are deceivers or deceived, "decepti deceptores," as augustine says. a mysterious mysticism of numbers plays a great rôle. that which is absurd and mechanical is surrounded with the halo of the sacramental; myths are proved by pious fancies and pietistic considerations with a spiritual sound; miracles, even the most foolish, are believed in and are performed. the philosopher becomes the priest of magic, and philosophy an instrument of magic. at the same time, the number of divine beings is infinitely increased by the further action of unlimited speculation. but this fantastic addition which iamblichus makes to the inhabitants of olympus, is the very fact which proves that greek philosophy has here returned to mythology, and that the religion of nature was still a power. and yet no one can deny that, in the fourth century, even the noblest and choicest minds were found among the neoplatonists. so great was the declension, that this neoplatonic philosophy was still the protecting roof for many influential and earnest thinkers, although swindlers and hypocrites also concealed themselves under this roof. in relation to some points of doctrine, at any rate, the dogmatic of iamblichus marks an advance. thus, the emphasis he lays on the idea that evil has its seat in the will, is an important fact; and in general the significance he assigns to the will is perhaps the most important advance in psychology, and one which could not fail to have great influence on dogmatic also (augustine). it likewise deserves to be noted that iamblichus disputed plotinus' doctrine of the divinity of the human soul. the numerous disciples of iamblichus (aedesius, chrysantius, eusebius, priscus, sopater, sallust and especially maximus, the most celebrated) did little to further speculation; they occupied themselves partly with commenting on the writings of the earlier philosophers (particularly themistius), partly as missionaries of their mysticism. the interests and aims of these philosophers are best shewn in the treatise "de mysteriis ægyptiorum." their hopes were strengthened when their disciple julian, a man enthusiastic and noble, but lacking in intellectual originality, ascended the imperial throne, 361 to 363. this emperor's romantic policy of restoration, as he himself must have seen, had, however, no result, and his early death destroyed ever hope of supplanting christianity. but the victory of the church, in the age of valentinian and theodosius, unquestionably purified neoplatonism. the struggle for dominion had led philosophers to grasp at and unite themselves with everything that was hostile to christianity. but now neoplatonism was driven out of the great arena of history. the church and its dogmatic, which inherited its estate, received along with the latter superstition, polytheism, magic, myths and the apparatus of religious magic. the more firmly all this established itself in the church and succeeded there, though not without finding resistance, the freer neoplatonism becomes. it does not by any means give up its religious attitude or its theory of knowledge, but it applies itself with fresh zeal to scientific investigations and especially to the study of the earlier philosophers. though plato remains the divine philosopher, yet it may be noticed how, from about 400, the writings of aristotle were increasingly read and prized. neoplatonic schools continue to flourish in the chief cities of the empire up to the beginning of the fifth century, and in this period they are at the same time the places where the theologians of the church are formed. the noble hypatia, to whom synesius, her enthusiastic disciple, who was afterwards a bishop, raised a splendid monument, taught in alexandria. but from the beginning of the fifth century ecclesiastical fanaticism ceased to tolerate heathenism. the murder of hypatia put an end to philosophy in alexandria, though the alexandrian school maintained itself in a feeble form till the middle of the sixth century. but in one city of the east, removed from the great highways of the world, which had become a provincial city and possessed memories which the church of the fifth century felt itself too weak to destroy, viz., in athens, a neoplatonic school continued to flourish. there, among the monuments of a past time, hellenism found its last asylum. the school of athens returned to a more strict philosophic method and to learned studies. but as it clung to religious philosophy and undertook to reduce the whole greek tradition, viewed in the light of plotinus' theory, to a comprehensive and strictly articulated system, a philosophy arose here which may be called scholastic. for every philosophy is scholastic which considers fantastic and mythological material as a _noli me tangere_, and treats it in logical categories and distinctions by means of a complete set of formulæ. but to these neoplatonists the writings of plato, certain divine oracles, the orphic poems, and much else which were dated back to the dim and distant past, were documents of standard authority, and inspired divine writings. they took from them the material of philosophy, which they then treated with all the instruments of dialectic. the most prominent teachers at athens were plutarch (died 433), his disciple syrian (who, as an exegete of plato and aristotle, is said to have done important work, and who deserves notice also, because he very vigorously emphasised the freedom of the will), but, above all, proclus (411-485). proclus is the great scholastic of neoplatonism. it was he "who fashioned the whole traditional material into a powerful system with religious warmth and formal clearness, filling up the gaps and reconciling the contradictions by distinctions and speculations," "proclus," says zeller, "was the first who, by the strict logic of his system, formally completed the neoplatonic philosophy and gave it, with due regard to all the changes it had undergone since the second century, that form in which it passed over to the christian and mohammedan middle ages." forty-four years after the death of proclus the school of athens was closed by justinian (in the year 529); but in the labours of proclus it had completed its work, and could now really retire from the scene. it had nothing new to say; it was ripe for death, and an honourable end was prepared for it. the words of proclus, the legacy of hellenism to the church and to the middle ages, attained an immeasurable importance in the thousand years which followed. they were not only one of the bridges by which the philosophy of the middle ages returned to plato and aristotle, but they determined the scientific method of the next thirty generations, and they partly produced, partly strengthened and brought to maturity the mediæval christian mysticism in east and west. the disciples of proclus, marinus, asclepiodotus, ammonius, zenodotus, isidorus, hegias, damascius, are not regarded as prominent. damascius was the last head of the school at athens. he, simplicius, the masterly commentator on aristotle, and five other neoplatonists, migrated to persia after justinian had issued the edict closing the school. they lived in the illusion that persia, the land of the east, was the seat of wisdom, righteousness and piety. after a few years they returned with blasted hopes to the byzantine kingdom. at the beginning of the sixth century neoplatonism died out as an independent philosophy in the east; but almost at the same time, and this is no accident, it conquered new regions in the dogmatic of the church through the spread of the writings of the pseudo-dionysius; it began to fertilize christian mysticism, and filled the worship with a new charm. in the west, where, from the second century, we meet with few attempts at philosophic speculation, and where the necessary conditions for mystical contemplation were wanting, neoplatonism only gained a few adherents here and there. we know that the rhetorician, marius victorinus, (about 350) translated the writings of plotinus. this translation exercised decisive influence on the mental history of augustine, who borrowed from neoplatonism the best it had, its psychology, introduced it into the dogmatic of the church, and developed it still further. it may be said that neoplatonism influenced the west at first only through the medium or under the cloak of ecclesiastical theology. even boethius--we can now regard this as certain--was a catholic christian. but in his mode of thought he was certainly a neoplatonist. his violent death in the year 525, marks the end of independent philosophic effort in the west. this last roman philosopher stood indeed almost completely alone in his century, and the philosophy for which he lived was neither original, nor firmly grounded and methodically carried out. _neoplatonism and ecclesiastical dogmatic._ the question as to the influence which neoplatonism had on the history of the development of christianity, is not easy to answer; it is hardly possible to get a clear view of the relation between them. above all, the answers will diverge according as we take a wider or a narrower view of so-called "neoplatonism." if we view neoplatonism as the highest and only appropriate expression for the religious hopes and moods which moved the nations of græco-roman empire from the second to the fifth centuries, the ecclesiastical dogmatic which was developed in the same period, may appear as a younger sister of neoplatonism which was fostered by the elder one, but which fought and finally conquered her. the neoplatonists themselves described the ecclesiastical theologians as intruders who appropriated greek philosophy, but mixed it with foreign fables. hence porphyry said of origen (in euseb., h. e. vi. 19): "the outer life of origen was that of a christian and opposed to the law; but, in regard to his views of things and of the deity, he thought like the greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples." this judgment of porphyry is at any rate more just and appropriate than that of the church theologians about greek philosophy, that it had stolen all its really valuable doctrines from the ancient sacred writings of the christians. it is, above all, important that the affinity of the two sides was noted. so far, then, as both ecclesiastical dogmatic and neoplatonism start from the feeling of the need of redemption, so far as both desire to free the soul from the sensuous, so far as they recognise the inability of man to attain to blessedness and a certain knowledge of the truth without divine help and without a revelation, they are fundamentally related. it must no doubt be admitted that christianity itself was already profoundly affected by the influence of hellenism when it began to outline a theology; but this influence must be traced back less to philosophy than to the collective culture, and to all the conditions under which the spiritual life was enacted. when neoplatonism arose ecclesiastical christianity already possessed the fundamental features of its theology, that is, it had developed these, not by accident, contemporaneously and independent of neoplatonism. only by identifying itself with the whole history of greek philosophy, or claiming to be the restoration of pure platonism, was neoplatonism able to maintain that it had been robbed by the church theology of alexandria. but that was an illusion. ecclesiastical theology appears, though our sources here are unfortunately very meagre, to have learned but little from neoplatonism even in the third century, partly because the latter itself had not yet developed into the form in which the dogmatic of the church could assume its doctrines, partly because ecclesiastical theology had first to succeed in its own region, to fight for its own position and to conquer older notions intolerable to it. origen was quite as independent a thinker as plotinus; but both drew from the same tradition. on the other hand, the influence of neoplatonism on the oriental theologians was very great from the fourth century. the more the church expressed its peculiar ideas in doctrines which, though worked out by means of philosophy, were yet unacceptable to neoplatonism (the christological doctrines), the more readily did theologians in all other questions resign themselves to the influence of the latter system. the doctrines of the incarnation, of the resurrection of the body, and of the creation of the word, in time formed the boundary lines between the dogmatic of the church and neoplatonism; in all else ecclesiastical theologians and neoplatonists approximated so closely that many among them were completely at one. nay, there were christian men, such as synesius, for example, who in certain circumstances were not found fault with for giving a speculative interpretation of the specifically christian doctrines. if in any writing the doctrines just named are not referred to, it is often doubtful whether it was composed by a christian or a neoplatonist. above all, the ethical rules, the precepts of the right life, that is, asceticism, were always similar. here neoplatonism in the end celebrated its greatest triumph. it introduced into the church its entire mysticism, its mystic exercises, and even the magical ceremonies, as expounded by iamblichus. the writings of the pseudo-dionysius contain a gnosis in which, by means of the doctrines of iamblichus and doctrines like those of proclus, the dogmatic of the church is changed into a scholastic mysticism with directions for practical life and worship. as the writings of this pseudo-dionysius were regarded as those of dionysius the disciple of the apostle, the scholastic mysticism which they taught was regarded as apostolic, almost as a divine science. the importance which these writings obtained first in the east, then from the ninth or the twelfth century also in the west, cannot be too highly estimated. it is impossible to explain them here. this much only may be said, that the mystical and pietistic devotion of to-day, even in the protestant church, draws its nourishment from writings whose connection with those of the pseudo-areopagitic can still be traced through its various intermediate stages. in antiquity itself neoplatonism influenced with special directness one western theologian, and that the most important, viz., augustine. by the aid of this system augustine was freed from manichæism, though not completely, as well as from scepticism. in the seventh book of his confessions he has acknowledged his indebtedness to the reading of neoplatonic writings. in the most essential doctrines, viz., those about god, matter, the relation of god to the world, freedom and evil, augustine always remained dependent on neoplatonism; but at the same time, of all theologians in antiquity he is the one who saw most clearly and shewed most plainly wherein christianity and neoplatonism are distinguished. the best that has been written by a father of the church on this subject, is contained in chapters 9-21 of the seventh book of his confessions. the question why neoplatonism was defeated in the conflict with christianity, has not as yet been satisfactorily answered by historians. usually the question is wrongly stated. the point here is not about a christianity arbitrarily fashioned, but only about catholic christianity and catholic theology. this conquered neoplatonism after it had assimilated nearly everything it possessed. further, we must note the place where the victory was gained. the battle-field was the empire of constantine, theodosius and justinian. only when we have considered these and all other conditions, are we entitled to enquire in what degree the specific doctrines of christianity contributed to the victory, and what share the organisation of the church had in it. undoubtedly, however, we must always give the chief prominence to the fact that the catholic dogmatic excluded polytheism in principle, and at the same time found a means by which it could represent the faith of the cultured mediated by science as identical with the faith of the multitude resting on authority. in the theology and philosophy of the middle ages, mysticism was the strong opponent of rationalistic dogmatism; and, in fact, platonism and neoplatonism were the sources from which in the age of the renaissance and in the following two centuries, empiric science developed itself in opposition to the rationalistic dogmatism which disregarded experience. magic, astrology, alchemy, all of which were closely connected with neoplatonism, gave an effective impulse to the observation of nature and, consequently, to natural science, and finally prevailed over formal and barren rationalism consequently, in the history of science, neoplatonism has attained a significance and performed services of which men like iamblichus and proclus never ventured to dream. in point of fact, actual history is often more wonderful and capricious than legends and fables. _literature_--the best and fullest account of neoplatonism, to which i have been much indebted in preparing this sketch, is zeller's, die philosophie der griechen, iii. theil, 2 abtheilung (3 auflage, 1881) pp. 419-865. cf. also hegel, gesch. d. philos. iii. 3 ff. ritter, iv. pp. 571-728: ritter et preller, hist. phil. græc. et rom. § 531 ff. the histories of philosophy by schwegler, brandis, brucker, thilo, strümpell, ueberweg (the most complete survey of the literature is found here), erdmann, cousin, prantl. lewes. further: vacherot, hist, de l'ecole d'alexandria, 1846, 1851. simon, hist, de l'école d'alexandria, 1845. steinhart, articles "neuplatonismus", "plotin", "porphyrius", "proklus" in pauly, realencyclop. des klass. alterthums. wagenmann, article "neuplatonismus" in herzog, realencyklopädie f. protest. theol. t. x. (2 aufl.) pp. 519-529. heinze, lehre vom logos, 1872, p. 298 f. richter, neuplatonische studien, 4 hefte. heigl, der bericht des porphyrios über ongenes, 1835. redepenning, origenes i. p. 421 f. dehaut, essai historique sur la vie et la doctrine d'ammonius saccas, 1836. kirchner, die philosophie des plotin, 1854. (for the biography of plotinus, cf. porphyry, eunapius, suidas; the latter also in particular for the later neoplatonists). steinhart, de dialectica plotini ratione, 1829, and meletemata plotiniana, 1840. neander, ueber die welthistorische bedeutung des 9'ten buchs in der 2'ten enneade des plotinos, in the abhandl. der berliner akademie, 1843. p. 299 f. valentiner, plotin u.s. enneaden, in the theol. stud. u. kritiken, 1864, h. 1. on porphyrius, see fabricius, bibl. gr. v. p. 725 f. wolff, porph. de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiæ, 1856. müller, fragmenta hist. gr. iii. 688 f. mai, ep. ad marcellam, 1816. bernays, theophrast. 1866. wagenmann, jahrbücher für deutsche theol. th. xxiii. (1878) p. 269 f. richter, zeitschr. f. philos. th. lii. (1867) p. 30 f. hebenstreit, de iamblichi doctrina, 1764. harless, das buch von den ägyptischen mysterien, 1858. meiners, comment. societ. gotting iv. p. 50 f. on julian, see the catalogue of the rich literature in the realencyklop. f. prot theol. th. vii. (2 aufl.) p. 287, and neumann, juliani libr. c. christ, quæ supersunt, 1880. hoche, hypatia, in "philologus" th. xv. (1860) p. 435 f. bach, de syriano philosopho, 1862. on proclus, see the biography of marinus and freudenthal in "hermes" th. xvi. p. 214 f. on boethius, cf. nitzsch, das system des boëthius, 1860. usener, anecdoton holderi, 1877. on the relation of neoplatonism to christianity and its significance in the history of the world, cf. the church histories of mosheim, gieseler, neander, baur; also the histories of dogma by baur and nitzsch. also löffler, der platonismus der kirchenväter, 1782. huber, die philosophic der kirchenväter, 1859. tzschirner, fall des heidenthums, 1829. burckhardt, die zeit constantin's des grossen, p. 155 f. chastel, hist. de la destruction du paganisme dans l'empire d'orient, 1850. beugnot, hist. de la destruction du paganisme en occident, 1835. e. v. lasaulx, der untergang des hellenismus, 1854. bigg, the christian platonists of alexandria 1886. réville, la réligion à rome sous les sévères, 1886. vogt, neuplatonismus und christenthum, 1836. ullmann, einfluss des christenthums auf porphyrius, in stud, und krit., 1832 on the relation of neoplatonism to monasticism, cf. keim, aus dem urchristenthum, 1178, p. 204 f. carl schmidt, gnostische schriften in koptischer sprache, 1892 (texte u. unters. viii. i. 2). see, further, the monographs on origen, the later alexandrians, the three cappadocians, theodoret, synesius, marius victorinus, augustine, pseudo-dionysius, maximus, scotus erigena and the mediæval mystics. special prominence is due to: jahn, basilius plotinizans, 1838. dorner, augustinus, 1875. bestmann, qua ratione augustinus notiones philos. græcæ adhibuerit, 1877. loesche, augustinus plotinizans, 1881. volkmann, synesios, 1869. on the after effects of neoplatonism on christian dogmatic, see ritschl, theologie und metaphysik. 2 aufl. 1887. [footnote 455: excellent remarks on the nature of neoplatonism may be found in eucken, gött. gel. anz., 1 märz, 1884 p. 176 ff.: this sketch was already written before i saw them. "we find the characteristic of the neoplatonic epoch in the effort to make the inward, which till then had had alongside of it an independent outer world as a contrast, the exclusive and all-determining element. the movement which makes itself felt here, outlasts antiquity and prepares the way for the modern period; it brings about the dissolution of that which marked the culminating point of ancient life, that which we are wont to call specifically classic. the life of the spirit, till then conceived as a member of an ordered world and subject to its laws, now freely passes beyond these bounds, and attempts to mould, and even to create, the universe from itself. no doubt the different attempts to realise this desire reveal, for the most part, a deep gulf between will and deed; usually ethical and religious requirements of the naive human consciousness must replace universally creative spiritual power, but all the insufficient and unsatisfactory elements of this period should not obscure the fact that, in one instance, it reached the height of a great philosophic achievement, in the case of plotinus."] [footnote 456: plotinus, even in his lifetime, was reproached with having borrowed most of his system from numenius. porphyry, in his "vita plotini", defended him against this reproach.] [footnote 457: on this sort of trinity, see bigg, "the christian platonists of alexandria," p. 248 f.] history of dogma by dr. adolph harnack ordinary prof. of church history in the university, and fellow of the royal academy of science, berlin _translated from the third german edition_ by neil buchanan vol. ii. boston little, brown, and company 1901 contents chapter i.--historical survey the old and new elements in the formation of the catholic church; the fixing of that which is apostolic (rule of faith, collection of writings, organization, cultus); the stages in the genesis of the catholic rule of faith, the apologists; irenæus, tertullian, hippolytus; clement and origen; obscurities in reference to the origin of the most important institutions; difficulties in determining the importance of individual personalities; differences of development in the churches of different countries. i. fixing and gradual secularising of christianity as a church chapter ii.--the setting up of the apostolic standards for ecclesiastical christianity. the catholic church a. the transformation of the baptismal confession into the apostolic rule of faith necessities for setting up the apostolic rule of faith; the rule of faith is the baptismal confession definitely interpreted; estimate of this transformation; irenæus; tertullian; results of the transformation; slower development in alexandria: clement and origen. b. the designation of selected writings read in the churches as new testament scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of apostolic writings plausible arguments against the statement that up to the year 150 there was no new testament in the church; sudden emergence of the new testament in the muratorian fragment, in (melito) irenæus and tertullian; conditions under which the new testament originated; relation of the new testament to the earlier writings that were read in the churches; causes and motives for the formation of the canon, manner of using and results of the new testament; the apostolic collection of writings can be proved at first only in those churches in which we find the apostolic rule of faith; probably there was no new testament in antioch about the year 200, nor in alexandria (clement); probable history of the genesis of the new testament in alexandria up to the time of origen; addendum. the results which the creation of the new testament produced in the following period. c. the transformation of the episcopal office in the church into an apostolic office. the history of the remodelling of the conception of the church the legitimising of the rule of faith by the communities which were founded by the apostles; by the "elders"; by the bishops of apostolic churches (disciples of apostles); by the bishops as such, who have received the apostolic _charisma veritatis_; excursus on the conceptions of the alexandrians; the bishops as successors of the apostles; original idea of the church as the holy community that comes from heaven and is destined for it; the church as the empiric catholic communion resting on the law of faith; obscurities in the idea of the church as held by irenæus and tertullian; by clement and origen; transition to the hierarchical idea of the church; the hierarchical idea of the church: calixtus and cyprian; appendix i. cyprian's idea of the church and the actual circumstances; appendix ii. church and heresy; appendix iii. uncertainties regarding the consequences of the new idea of the church. chapter iii.--continuation.--the old christianity and the new church introduction; the original montanism; the later montanism as the dregs of the movement and as the product of a compromise; the opposition to the demands of the montanists by the catholic bishops: importance of the victory for the church; history of penance: the old practice; the laxer practice in the days of tertullian and hippolytus; the abolition of the old practice in the days of cyprian; significance of the new kind of penance for the idea of the church; the church no longer a communion of salvation and of saints, but a condition of salvation and a holy institution and thereby a _corpus permixtum_; after effect of the old idea of the church in cyprian; origen's idea of the church; novatian's idea of the church and of penance, the church of the catharists; conclusion: the catholic church as capable of being a support to society and the state; addenda i. the priesthood; addenda ii. sacrifice; addenda iii. means of grace. baptism and the eucharist; excursus to chapters ii. and iii.--catholic and roman. ii. fixing and gradual hellenising of christianity as a system of doctrine chapter iv.--ecclesiastical christianity and philosophy; the apologists 1. introduction the historical position of the apologists; apologists and gnostics; nature and importance of the apologists' theology. 2. christianity as philosophy and as revelation aristides; justin; athenagoras; miltiades, melito; tatian; pseudo-justin, orat. ad gr.; theophilus; pseudo-justin, de resurr.; tertullian and minucius; pseudo-justin, de monarch.; results. 3. the doctrines of christianity as the revealed and rational religion arrangement; the monotheistic cosmology; theology; doctrine of the logos; doctrine of the world and of man; doctrine of freedom and morality; doctrine of revelation (proofs from prophecy); significance of the history of jesus; christology of justin; interpretation and criticism, especially of justin's doctrines. chapter v.--the beginnings of an ecclesiastico-theological interpretation and revision of the rule of faith in opposition to gnosticism, on the basis of the new testament and the christian philosophy of the apologists, melito, irenæus, tertullian, hippolytus, novatian 1. the theological position of irenæus and of the later contemporary church teachers characteristics of the theology of the old catholic fathers, their wavering between reason and tradition; loose structure of their dogmas; irenæus' attempt to construct a systematic theology and his fundamental theological convictions; gnostic and anti-gnostic features of his theology; christianity conceived as a real redemption by christ (recapitulatio); his conception of a history of salvation; his historical significance: conserving of tradition and gradual hellenising of the rule of faith. 2. the old catholic fathers' doctrine of the church the antithesis to gnosticism; the "scripture theology" as a sign of the dependence on "gnosticism" and as a means of conserving tradition; the doctrine of god; the logos doctrine of tertullian and hippolytus; (conceptions regarding the holy spirit); irenæus' doctrine of the logos; (conceptions regarding the holy spirit); the views of irenæus regarding the destination of man, the original state, the fall and the doom of death (the disparate series of ideas in irenæus; rudiments of the doctrine of original sin in tertullian); the doctrine of jesus christ as the incarnate son of god; assertion of the complete mixture and unity of the divine and human elements; significance of mary; tertullian's doctrine of the two natures and its origin; rudiments of this doctrine in irenæus; the gnostic character of this doctrine; christology of hippolytus; views as to christ's work; redemption, perfection; reconciliation; categories for the fruit of christ's work; things peculiar to tertullian; satisfacere deo; the soul as the bride of christ; the eschatology; its archaic nature, its incompatibility with speculation and the advantage of connection with that; conflict with chiliasm in the east; the doctrine of the two testaments; the influence of gnosticism on the estimate of the two testaments, the _complexus oppositorum_; the old testament a uniform christian book as in the apologists; the old testament a preliminary stage of the new testament and a compound book; the stages in the history of salvation; the law of freedom the climax of the revelation in christ. 3. results to ecclesiastical christianity, chiefly in the west, (cyprian, novation) chapter vi.--the transformation of the ecclesiastical tradition into a philosophy of religion, or the origin of the scientific theology and dogmatic of the church: clement and origen (1) the alexandrian catechetical school and clement of alexandria schools and teachers in the church at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century; scientific efforts (alogi in asia minor, cappadocian scholars, bardesanes of edessa, julius africanus, scholars in palestine, rome and carthage); the alexandrian catechetical school. clement; the temper of clement and his importance in the history of dogma; his relation to irenæus, to the gnostics and to primitive christianity; his philosophy of religion; clement and origen (2) the system of origen introductory: the personality and importance of origen; the elements of origen's theology; its gnostic features; the relative view of origen; his temper and final aim: relation to greek philosophy; theology as a philosophy of revelation, and a cosmological speculation; porphyry on origen; the neutralising of history, esoteric and exoteric christianity; fundamental ideas and arrangement of his system; sources of truth, doctrine of scripture. i. the doctrine of god and its unfolding doctrine of god; doctrine of the logos; clement's doctrine of the logos; doctrine of the holy spirit; doctrine of spirits. ii. doctrine of the fall and its consequences doctrine of man iii. doctrine of redemption and restoration the notions necessary to the psychical; the christology; the appropriation of salvation; the eschatology; concluding remarks: the importance of this system to the following period. division i book ii. the laying of the foundations. chapter i. historical survey. the second century of the existence of gentile-christian communities was characterised by the victorious conflict with gnosticism and the marcionite church, by the gradual development of an ecclesiastical doctrine, and by the decay of the early christian enthusiasm. the general result was the establishment of a great ecclesiastical association, which, forming at one and the same time a political commonwealth, school and union for worship, was based on the firm foundation of an "apostolic" law of faith, a collection of "apostolic" writings, and finally, an "apostolic" organisation. this institution was _the catholic church_.[1] in opposition to gnosticism and marcionitism, the main articles forming the estate and possession of orthodox christianity were raised to the rank of apostolic regulations and laws, and thereby placed beyond all discussion and assault. at first the innovations introduced by this were not of a material, but of a formal, character. hence they were not noticed by any of those who had never, or only in a vague fashion, been elevated to the feeling and idea of freedom and independence in religion. how great the innovations actually were, however, may be measured by the fact that they signified a scholastic tutelage of the faith of the individual christian, and restricted the immediateness of religious feelings and ideas to the narrowest limits. but the conflict with the so-called montanism showed that there were still a considerable number of christians who valued that immediateness and freedom; these were, however, defeated. the fixing of the tradition under the title of apostolic necessarily led to the assumption that whoever held the apostolic doctrine was also essentially a christian in the apostolic sense. this assumption, quite apart from the innovations which were legitimised by tracing them to the apostles, meant the separation of doctrine and conduct, the preference of the former to the latter, and the transformation of a fellowship of faith, hope, and discipline into a communion "eiusdem sacramenti," that is, into a union which, like the philosophical schools, rested on a doctrinal law, and which was subject to a legal code of divine institution.[2] the movement which resulted in the catholic church owes its right to a place in the history of christianity to the victory over gnosticism and to the preservation of an important part of early christian tradition. if gnosticism in all its phases was the violent attempt to drag christianity down to the level of the greek world, and to rob it of its dearest possession, belief in the almighty god of creation and redemption, then catholicism, inasmuch as it secured this belief for the greeks, preserved the old testament, and supplemented it with early christian writings, thereby saving--as far as documents, at least, were concerned--and proclaiming the authority of an important part of primitive christianity, must in one respect be acknowledged as a conservative force born from the vigour of christianity. if we put aside abstract considerations and merely look at the facts of the given situation, we cannot but admire a creation which first broke up the various outside forces assailing christianity, and in which the highest blessings of this faith have always continued to be accessible. if the founder of the christian religion had deemed belief in the gospel and a life in accordance with it to be compatible with membership of the synagogue and observance of the jewish law, there could at least be no impossibility of adhering to the gospel within the catholic church. still, that is only one side of the case. the older catholicism never clearly put the question, "what is christian?" instead of answering that question it rather laid down rules, the recognition of which was to be the guarantee of christianism. this solution of the problem seems to be on the one hand too narrow and on the other too broad. too narrow, because it bound christianity to rules under which it necessarily languished; too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the introduction of new and foreign conceptions. in throwing a protective covering round the gospel, catholicism also obscured it. it preserved christianity from being hellenised to the most extreme extent, but, as time went on, it was forced to admit into this religion an ever greater measure of secularisation. in the interests of its world-wide mission it did not indeed directly disguise the terrible seriousness of religion, but, by tolerating a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for those less in earnest to be considered christians, and to regard themselves as such. it permitted the genesis of a church, which was no longer a communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political commonwealth in which the gospel merely had a place beside other things.[3] in ever increasing measure it invested all the forms which this secular commonwealth required with apostolic, that is, indirectly, with divine authority. this course disfigured christianity and made a knowledge of what is christian an obscure and difficult matter. but, in catholicism, religion for the first time obtained a formal dogmatic system. catholic christianity discovered the formula which reconciled faith and knowledge. this formula satisfied humanity for centuries, and the blessed effects which it accomplished continued to operate even after it had itself already become a fetter. catholic christianity grew out of two converging series of developments. in the one were set up fixed outer standards for determining what is christian, and these standards were proclaimed to be apostolic institutions. the baptismal confession was exalted to an apostolic rule of faith, that is, to an apostolic law of faith. a collection of apostolic writings was formed from those read in the churches, and this compilation was placed on an equal footing with the old testament. the episcopal and monarchical constitution was declared to be apostolic, and the attribute of successor of the apostles was conferred on the bishop. finally, the religious ceremonial developed into a celebration of mysteries, which was in like manner traced back to the apostles. the result of these institutions was a strictly exclusive church in the form of a communion of doctrine, ceremonial, and law, a confederation which more and more gathered the various communities within its pale, and brought about the decline of all nonconforming sects. the confederation was primarily based on a common confession, which, however, was not only conceived as "law," but was also very soon supplemented by new standards. one of the most important problems to be investigated in the history of dogma, and one which unfortunately cannot be completely solved, is to show what necessities led to the setting up of a new canon of scripture, what circumstances required the appearance of living authorities in the communities, and what relation was established between the apostolic rule of faith, the apostolic canon of scripture, and the apostolic office. the development ended with the formation of a clerical class, at whose head stood the bishop, who united in himself all conceivable powers, as teacher, priest, and judge. he disposed of the powers of christianity, guaranteed its purity, and therefore in every respect held the christian laity in tutelage. but even apart from the content which christianity here received, this process in itself represents a progressive secularising of the church, this would be self-evident enough, even if it were not confirmed by noting the fact that the process had already been to some extent anticipated in the so-called gnosticism (see vol. i. p. 253 and tertullian, de præscr. 35). but the element which the latter lacked, namely, a firmly welded, suitably regulated constitution, must by no means be regarded as one originally belonging and essential to christianity. the depotentiation to which christianity was here subjected appears still more plainly in the facts, that the christian hopes were deadened, that the secularising of the christian life was tolerated and even legitimised, and that the manifestations of an unconditional devotion to the heavenly excited suspicion or were compelled to confine themselves to very narrow limits. but these considerations are scarcely needed as soon as we turn our attention to the second series of developments that make up the history of this period. the church did not merely set up dykes and walls against gnosticism in order to ward it off externally, nor was she satisfied with defending against it the facts which were the objects of her belief and hope; but, taking the creed for granted, she began to follow this heresy into its own special territory and to combat it with a scientific theology. that was a necessity which did not first spring from christianity's own internal struggles. it was already involved in the fact that the christian church had been joined by cultured greeks, who felt the need of justifying their christianity to themselves and the world, and of presenting it as the desired and certain answer to all the pressing questions which then occupied men's minds. the beginning of a development which a century later reached its provisional completion in the theology of origen, that is, in the transformation of the gospel into a scientific system of ecclesiastical doctrine, appears in the christian apologetic, as we already find it before the middle of the second century. as regards its content, this system of doctrine meant the legitimising of greek philosophy within the sphere of the rule of faith. the theology of origen bears the same relation to the new testament as that of philo does to the old. what is here presented as christianity is in fact the idealistic religious philosophy of the age, attested by divine revelation, made accessible to all by the incarnation of the logos, and purified from any connection with greek mythology and gross polytheism.[4] a motley multitude of primitive christian ideas and hopes, derived from both testaments, and too brittle to be completely recast, as yet enclosed the kernel. but the majority of these were successfully manipulated by theological art, and the traditional rule of faith was transformed into a system of doctrine, in which, to some extent, the old articles found only a nominal place.[5] this hellenising of ecclesiastical christianity, by which we do not mean the gospel, was not a gradual process; for the truth rather is that it was already accomplished the moment that the reflective greek confronted the new religion which he had accepted. the christianity of men like justin, athenagoras, and minucius is not a whit less hellenistic than that of origen. but yet an important distinction obtains here. it is twofold. in the first place, those apologists did not yet find themselves face to face with a fixed collection of writings having a title to be reverenced as christian; they have to do with the old testament and the "teachings of christ" ([greek: didagmata christou]). in the second place, they do not yet regard the scientific presentation of christianity as the main task and as one which this religion itself demands. as they really never enquired what was meant by "christian," or at least never put the question clearly to themselves, they never claimed that their scientific presentation of christianity was the first proper expression of it that had been given. justin and his contemporaries make it perfectly clear that they consider the traditional faith existing in the churches to be complete and pure and in itself requiring no scientific revision. in a word, the gulf which existed between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of christian tradition is still altogether unperceived, because that tradition was not yet fixed in rigid forms, because no religious utterance testifying to monotheism, virtue, and reward was as yet threatened by any control, and finally, because the speech of philosophy was only understood by a small minority in the church, though its interests and aims were not unknown to most. christian thinkers were therefore still free to divest of their direct religious value all realistic and historical elements of the tradition, while still retaining them as parts of a huge apparatus of proof, which accomplished what was really the only thing that many sought in christianity, viz., the assurance that the theory of the world obtained from other sources was the truth. the danger which here threatened christianity as a religion was scarcely less serious than that which had been caused to it by the gnostics. these remodelled tradition, the apologists made it to some extent inoperative without attacking it. the latter were not disowned, but rather laid the foundation of church theology, and determined the circle of interests within which it was to move in the future.[6] but the problem which the apologists solved almost offhand, namely, the task of showing that christianity was the perfect and certain philosophy, because it rested on revelation, and that it was the highest scientific knowledge of god and the world, was to be rendered more difficult. to these difficulties all that primitive christianity has up to the present transmitted to the church of succeeding times contributes its share. the conflict with gnosticism made it necessary to find some sort of solution to the question, "what is christian?" and to fix this answer. but indeed the fathers were not able to answer the question confidently and definitely. they therefore made a selection from tradition and contented themselves with making it binding on christians. whatever was to lay claim to authority in the church had henceforth to be in harmony with the rule of faith and the canon of new testament scriptures. that created an entirely new situation for christian thinkers, that is, for those trying to solve the problem of subordinating christianity to the hellenic spirit. that spirit never became quite master of the situation; it was obliged to accommodate itself to it.[7] the work first began with the scientific treatment of individual articles contained in the rule of faith, partly with the view of disproving gnostic conceptions, partly for the purpose of satisfying the church's own needs. the framework in which these articles were placed virtually continued to be the apologetic theology, for this maintained a doctrine of god and the world, which seemed to correspond to the earliest tradition as much as it ran counter to the gnostic theses. (melito), irenæus, tertullian and hippolytus, aided more or less by tradition on the one hand and by philosophy on the other, opposed to the gnostic dogmas about christianity the articles of the baptismal confession interpreted as a rule of faith, these articles being developed into doctrines. here they undoubtedly learned very much from the gnostics and marcion. if we define ecclesiastical dogmas as propositions handed down in the creed of the church, shown to exist in the holy scriptures of both testaments, and rationally reproduced and formulated, then the men we have just mentioned were the first to set up dogmas[8]--dogmas but no system of dogmatics. as yet the difficulty of the problem was by no means perceived by these men either. their peculiar capacity for sympathising with and understanding the traditional and the old still left them in a happy blindness. so far as they had a theology they supposed it to be nothing more than the explanation of the faith of the christian multitude (yet tertullian already noted the difference in one point, certainly a very characteristic one, viz., the logos doctrine). they still lived in the belief that the christianity which filled their minds required no scientific remodelling in order to be an expression of the highest knowledge, and that it was in all respects identical with the christianity which even the most uncultivated could grasp. that this was an illusion is proved by many considerations, but most convincingly by the fact that tertullian and hippolytus had the main share in introducing into the doctrine of faith a philosophically formulated dogma, viz., that the son of god is the logos, and in having it made the _articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ_. the effects of this undertaking can never be too highly estimated, for the logos doctrine is greek philosophy _in nuce_, though primitive christian views may have been subsequently incorporated with it. its introduction into the creed of christendom, which was, strictly speaking, the setting up _of the first dogma in the church_, meant the future conversion of the rule of faith into a philosophic system. but in yet another respect irenæus and hippolytus denote an immense advance beyond the apologists, which, paradoxically enough, results both from the progress of christian hellenism and from a deeper study of the pauline theology, that is, emanates from the controversy with gnosticism. in them a religious and realistic idea takes the place of the moralism of the apologists, namely, the deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the son of god. the apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in the ancient mysteries. it is here adopted as a christian one, supported by the pauline theology (especially as contained in the epistle to the ephesians), and brought into the closest connection with the historical christ, the son of god and son of man (filius dei et filius hominis). what the heathen faintly hoped for as a possibility was here announced as certain, and indeed as having already taken place. what a message! this conception was to become the central christian idea of the future. a long time, however, elapsed before it made its way into the dogmatic system of the church.[9] but meanwhile the huge gulf which existed between both testaments and the rule of faith on the one hand, and the current ideas of the time on the other, had been recognized in alexandria. it was not indeed felt as a gulf, for then either the one or the other would have had to be given up, but as a _problem_. if the church tradition contained the assurance, not to be obtained elsewhere, of all that greek culture knew, hoped for, and prized, and if for that very reason it was regarded as in every respect inviolable, then the absolutely indissoluble union of christian tradition with the greek philosophy of religion was placed beyond all doubt. but an immense number of problems were at the same time raised, especially when, as in the case of the alexandrians, heathen syncretism in the entire breadth of its development was united with the doctrine of the church. the task, which had been begun by philo and carried on by valentinus and his school, was now undertaken in the church. clement led the way in attempting a solution of the problem, but the huge task proved too much for him. origen took it up under more difficult circumstances, and in a certain fashion brought it to a conclusion. he, the rival of the neoplatonic philosophers, the christian philo, wrote the first christian dogmatic, which competed with the philosophic systems of the time, and which, founded on the scriptures of both testaments, presents a peculiar union of the apologetic theology of a justin and the gnostic theology of a valentinus, while keeping steadily in view a simple and highly practical aim. in this dogmatic the rule of faith is recast and that quite consciously. origen did not conceal his conviction that christianity finds its correct expression only in scientific knowledge, and that every form of christianity that lacks theology is but a meagre kind with no clear consciousness of its own content. this conviction plainly shows that origen was dealing with a different kind of christianity, though his view that a mere relative distinction existed here may have its justification in the fact, that the untheological christianity of the age with which he compared his own was already permeated by hellenic elements and in a very great measure secularised.[10] but origen, as well as clement before him, had really a right to the conviction that the true essence of christianity, or, in other words, the gospel, is only arrived at by the aid of critical speculation; for was not the gospel veiled and hidden in the canon of both testaments, was it not displaced by the rule of faith, was it not crushed down, depotentiated, and disfigured in the church which identified itself with the people of christ? clement and origen found freedom and independence in what they recognized to be the essence of the matter and what they contrived with masterly skill to determine as its proper aim, after an examination of the huge apparatus of tradition. but was not that the ideal of greek sages and philosophers? this question can by no means be flatly answered in the negative, and still less decidedly in the affirmative, for a new significance was here given to the ideal by representing it _as assured beyond all doubt, already realised_ in the person of christ and incompatible with polytheism. if, as is manifestly the case, they found joy and peace in their faith and in the theory of the universe connected with it, if they prepared themselves for an eternal life and expected it with certainty, if they felt themselves to be perfect only through dependence on god, then, in spite of their hellenism, they unquestionably came nearer to the gospel than irenæus with his slavish dependence on authority. the setting up of a scientific system of christian dogmatics, which was still something different from the rule of faith, interpreted in an antignostic sense, philosophically wrought out, and in some parts proved from the bible, was a private undertaking of origen, and at first only approved in limited circles. as yet, not only were certain bold changes of interpretation disputed in the church, but the undertaking itself, as a whole, was disapproved.[11] the circumstances of the several provincial churches in the first half of the third century were still very diverse. many communities had yet to adopt the basis that made them into catholic ones; and in most, if not in all, the education of the clergy--not to speak of the laity--was not high enough to enable them to appreciate systematic theology. but the schools in which origen taught carried on his work, similar ones were established, and these produced a number of the bishops and presbyters of the east in the last half of the third century. they had in their hands the means of culture afforded by the age, and this was all the more a guarantee of victory because the laity no longer took any part in deciding the form of religion. wherever the logos christology had been adopted the future of christian hellenism was certain. at the beginning of the fourth century there was no community in christendom which, apart from the logos doctrine, possessed a purely philosophical theory that was regarded as an ecclesiastical dogma, to say nothing of an official scientific theology. but the system of origen was a prophecy of the future. the logos doctrine started the crystallising process which resulted in further deposits. symbols of faith were already drawn up which contained a peculiar mixture of origen's theology with the inflexible antignostic _regula fidei_. one celebrated theologian, methodius, endeavoured to unite the theology of irenæus and origen, ecclesiastical realism and philosophic spiritualism, under the badge of monastic mysticism. the developments of the following period therefore no longer appear surprising in any respect. as catholicism, from every point of view, is the result of the blending of christianity with the ideas of antiquity,[12] so the catholic dogmatic, as it was developed after the second or third century on the basis of the logos doctrine, is christianity conceived and formulated from the standpoint of the greek philosophy of religion.[13] this christianity conquered the old world, and became the foundation of a new phase of history in the middle ages. the union of the christian religion with a definite historical phase of human knowledge and culture may be lamented in the interest of the christian religion, which was thereby secularised, and in the interest of the development of culture which was thereby retarded(?). but lamentations become here ill-founded assumptions, as absolutely everything that we have and value is due to the alliance that christianity and antiquity concluded in such a way that neither was able to prevail over the other. our inward and spiritual life, which owes the least part of its content to the empiric knowledge which we have acquired, is based up to the present moment on the discords resulting from that union. these hints are meant among other things to explain and justify[14] the arrangement chosen for the following presentation, which embraces the fundamental section of the history of christian dogma.[15] a few more remarks are, however, necessary. 1. one special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the catholic rules is that the churches, though on terms of close connection and mutual intercourse, had no real _forum publicum_, though indeed, in a certain sense, each bishop was _in foro publico_. as a rule, therefore, we can only see the advance in the establishment of fixed forms in the shape of results, without being able to state precisely the ways and means which led to them. we do indeed know the factors, and can therefore theoretically construct the development; but the real course of things is frequently hidden from us. the genesis of a harmonious church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can no more have been the natural unpremeditated product of the conditions of the time than were the genesis and adoption of the new testament canon of scripture. but we have no direct evidence as to what communities had a special share in the development, although we know that the roman church played a leading part. moreover, we can only conjecture that conferences, common measures, and synodical decisions were not wanting. it is certain that, beginning with the last quarter of the second century, there were held in the different provinces, mostly in the east, but later also in the west, synods in which an understanding was arrived at on all questions of importance to christianity, including, e.g., the extent of the canon.[16] 2. the degree of influence exercised by particular ecclesiastics on the development of the church and its doctrines is also obscure and difficult to determine. as they were compelled to claim the sanction of tradition for every innovation they introduced, and did in fact do so, and as every fresh step they took appeared to themselves necessary only as an explanation, it is in many cases quite impossible to distinguish between what they received from tradition and what they added to it of their own. yet an investigation from the point of view of the historian of literature shows that tertullian and hippolytus were to a great extent dependent on irenæus. what amount of innovation these men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. both are men of the second generation. tertullian is related to irenæus pretty much as calvin to luther. this parallel holds good in more than one respect. first, tertullian drew up a series of plain dogmatic formulæ which are not found in irenæus and which proved of the greatest importance in succeeding times. secondly, he did not attain the power, vividness, and unity of religious intuition which distinguish irenæus. the truth rather is that, just because of his forms, he partly destroyed the unity of the matter and partly led it into a false path of development. thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception of christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas in irenæus this idea is overshadowed by the conception of the gospel as real redemption. the main problem therefore resolves itself into the question as to the position of irenæus in the history of the church. to what extent were his expositions new, to what extent were the standards he formulated already employed in the churches, and in which of them? we cannot form to ourselves a sufficiently vivid picture of the interchange of christian writings in the church after the last quarter of the second century.[17] every important work speedily found its way into the churches of the chief cities in the empire. the diffusion was not merely from east to west, though this was the general rule. at the beginning of the fourth century there was in cæsarea a greek translation of tertullian's apology and a collection of cyprian's epistles.[18] the influence of the roman church extended over the greater part of christendom. up till about the year 260 the churches in east and west had still in some degree a common history. 3. the developments in the history of dogma within the period extending from about 150 to about 300 were by no means brought about in the different communities at the same time and in a completely analogous fashion. this fact is in great measure concealed from us, because our authorities are almost completely derived from those leading churches that were connected with each other by constant intercourse. yet the difference can still be clearly proved by the ratio of development in rome, lyons, and carthage on the one hand, and in alexandria on the other. besides, we have several valuable accounts showing that in more remote provinces and communities the development was slower, and a primitive and freer condition of things much longer preserved.[19] 4. from the time that the clergy acquired complete sway over the churches, that is, from the beginning of the second third of the third century, the development of the history of dogma practically took place within the ranks of that class, and was carried on by its learned men. every mystery they set up therefore became doubly mysterious to the laity, for these did not even understand the terms, and hence it formed another new fetter. footnotes: [footnote 1: aubé (histoire des persécutions de l'eglise, vol. ii. 1878, pp. 1-68) has given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. the disquisitions of renan in the last volumes of his great historical work are excellent, though not seldom exaggerated in particular points. see especially the concluding observations in vol. vii. cc. 28-34. since the appearance of ritschl's monograph on the genesis of the old catholic church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a conception of the problem, german science can point to no work of equal rank with the french. cf. sohm's kirchenrecht, vol. i. which, however, in a very one-sided manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional arrangements responsible for all the evil in the church.] [footnote 2: sohm (p. 160) declares: "the foundation of catholicism is the divine church law to which it lays claim." in many other passages he even seems to express the opinion that the church law of itself, even when not represented as divine, is the hereditary enemy of the true church and at the same time denotes the essence of catholicism. see, e.g., p. 2: "the whole essence of catholicism consists in its declaring legal institutions to be necessary to the church." page 700: "the essence of church law is incompatible with the essence of the church." this thesis really characterises catholicism well and contains a great truth, if expressed in more careful terms, somewhat as follows: "the assertion that there is a divine church law (emanating from christ, or, in other words, from the apostles), which is necessary to the spiritual character of the church and which in fact is a token of this very attribute, is incompatible with the essence of the gospel and is the mark of a pseudo-catholicism." but the thesis contains too narrow a view of the case. for the divine church law is only one feature of the essence of the catholic church, though a very important element, which sohm, as a jurist, was peculiarly capable of recognising. the whole essence of catholicism, however, consists in the deification of tradition generally. the declaration that the empirical institutions of the church, created for and necessary to this purpose, are apostolic, a declaration which amalgamates them with the essence and content of the gospel and places them beyond all criticism, is the peculiarly "catholic" feature. now, as a great part of these institutions cannot be inwardly appropriated and cannot really amalgamate with faith and piety, it is self-evident that such portions become continued: legal ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. for no other relation to these ordinances can be conceived. hence the legal regulations and the corresponding slavish devotion come to have such immense scope in catholicism, and well-nigh express its essence. but behind this is found the more general conviction that the empirical church, as it actually exists, is the authentic, pure, and infallible creation: its doctrine, its regulations, its religious ceremonial are apostolic. whoever doubts that renounces christ. now, if, as in the case of the reformers, this conception be recognised as erroneous and unevangelical, the result must certainly be a strong detestation of "the divine church law." indeed, the inclination to sweep away all church law is quite intelligible, for when you give the devil your little finger he takes the whole hand. but, on the other hand, it cannot be imagined how communities are to exist on earth, propagate themselves, and train men without regulations; and how regulations are to exist without resulting in the formation of a code of laws. in truth, such regulations have at no time been wanting in christian communities, and have always possessed the character of a legal code. sohm's distinction, that in the oldest period there was no "law," but only a "regulation," is artificial, though possessed of a certain degree of truth; for the regulation has one aspect in a circle of like-minded enthusiasts, and a different one in a community where all stages of moral and religious culture are represented, and which has therefore to train its members. or should it not do so? and, on the other hand, had the oldest churches not the old testament and the [greek: diataxeis] of the apostles? were these no code of laws? sohm's proposition: "the essence of church law is incompatible with the essence of the church," does not rise to evangelical clearness and freedom, but has been formed under the shadow and ban of catholicism. i am inclined to call it an anabaptist thesis. the anabaptists were also in the shadow and ban of catholicism; hence their only course was either the attempt to wreck the church and church history and found a new empire, or a return to catholicism. hermann bockelson or the pope! but the gospel is above the question of jew or greek, and therefore also above the question of a legal code. it is reconcilable with everything that is not sin, even with the philosophy of the greeks. why should it not be also compatible with the monarchical bishop, with the legal code of the romans, and even with the pope, provided these are not made part of the gospel.] [footnote 3: in the formation of the marcionite church we have, on the other hand, the attempt to create a rigid oecumenical community, held together solely by religion. the marcionite church therefore had a founder, the catholic has none.] [footnote 4: the historian who wishes to determine the advance made by græco-roman humanity in the third and fourth centuries, under the influence of catholicism and its theology, must above all keep in view the fact that gross polytheism and immoral mythology were swept away, spiritual monotheism brought near to all, and the ideal of a divine life and the hope of an eternal one made certain. philosophy also aimed at that, but it was not able to establish a community of men on these foundations.] [footnote 5: luther, as is well known, had a very profound impression of the distinction between biblical christianity and the theology of the fathers, who followed the theories of origen. see, for example, werke, vol. lxii. p. 49, quoting proles: "when the word of god comes to the fathers, me thinks it is as if milk were filtered through a coal sack, where the milk must become black and spoiled."] [footnote 6: they were not the first to determine this circle of interests. so far as we can demonstrate traces of independent religious knowledge among the so-called apostolic fathers of the post-apostolic age, they are in thorough harmony with the theories of the apologists, which are merely expressed with precision and divested of old testament language.] [footnote 7: it was only after the apostolic tradition, fixed in the form of a comprehensive collection, seemed to guarantee the admissibility of every form of christianity that reverenced that collection, that the hellenising of christianity within the church began in serious fashion. the fixing of tradition had had a twofold result. on the one hand, it opened the way more than ever before for a free and unhesitating introduction of foreign ideas into christianity, and, on the other hand, so far as it really also included the documents and convictions of primitive christianity, it preserved this religion to the future and led to a return to it, either from scientific or religious considerations. that we know anything at all of original christianity is entirely due to the fixing of the tradition, as found at the basis of catholicism. on the supposition--which is indeed an academic consideration--that this fixing had not taken place because of the non-appearance of the gnosticism which occasioned it, and on the further supposition that the original enthusiasm had continued, we would in all probability know next to nothing of original christianity today. how much we would have known may be seen from the shepherd of hermas.] [footnote 8: so far as the catholic church is concerned, the idea of dogmas, as individual theorems characteristic of christianity, and capable of being scholastically proved, originated with the apologists. even as early as justin we find tendencies to amalgamate historical material and natural theology.] [footnote 9: it is almost completely wanting in tertullian. that is explained by the fact that this remarkable man was in his inmost soul an old-fashioned christian, to whom the gospel was _conscientia religionis, disciplina vitæ_ and _spes fidei_, and who found no sort of edification in neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the ideas "command," "performance," "error," "forgiveness." in irenæus also, moreover, the ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the pauline theology, is united with the primitive christian eschatology.] [footnote 10: on the significance of clement and origen see overbeck, "über die anfänge der patristischen litteratur" in d. hist. ztschr, n. f., vol, xii. p. 417 ff.] [footnote 11: information on this point may be got not only from the writings of origen (see especially his work against celsus), but also and above all from his history. the controversy between dionysius of alexandria and the chiliasts is also instructive on the matter.] [footnote 12: the three or (reckoning methodius) four steps of the development of church doctrine (apologists, old catholic fathers, alexandrians) correspond to the progressive religious and philosophical development of heathendom at that period: philosophic moralism, ideas of salvation (theology and practice of mysteries), neoplatonic philosophy, and complete syncretism.] [footnote 13: "virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur" (tertull., de bapt. 2.)] [footnote 14: the plan of placing the apologetic theology before everything else would have much to recommend it, but i adhere to the arrangement here chosen, because the advantage of being able to represent and survey the outer ecclesiastical development and the inner theological one, each being viewed as a unity, seems to me to be very great. we must then of course understand the two developments as proceeding on parallel lines. but the placing of the former parallel before the latter in my presentation is justified by the fact that what was gained in the former passed over much more directly and swiftly into the general life of the church, than what was reached in the latter. decades elapsed, for instance, before the apologetic theology came to be generally known and accepted in the church, as is shown by the long continued conflict against monarchianism.] [footnote 15: the origin of catholicism can only be very imperfectly described within the framework of the history of dogma, for the political situation of the christian communities in the roman empire had quite as important an influence on the development of the catholic church as its internal conflicts. but inasmuch as that situation and these struggles are ultimately connected in the closest way, the history of dogma cannot even furnish a complete picture of this development within definite limits.] [footnote 16: see tertullian, de pudic. 10: "sed cederem tibi, si scriptura pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur;" de ieiun. 13: "aguntur præsterea per græcias illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius nominis christiani magna veneratione celebratur." we must also take into account here the intercourse by letter, in which connection i may specially remind the reader of the correspondence between dionysius, bishop of corinth, euseb., h. e. iv. 23, and journeys such as those of polycarp and abercius to rome. cf. generally zahn, weltverkehr und kirche währeud der drei ersten jahrhunderte, 1877.] [footnote 17: see my studies respecting the tradition of the greek apologists of the second century in the early church in the texte und unters. z. gesch. der alt christl. litteratur, vol. i. part i. 2.] [footnote 18: see euseb., h. e. ii. 2; vi. 43.] [footnote 19: see the accounts of christianity in edessa and the far east generally. the acta archelai and the homilies of aphraates should also be specially examined. cf. further euseb., h. e. vi. 12, and finally the remains of the latin-christian literature of the third century--apart from tertullian, cyprian and novatian--as found partly under the name of cyprian, partly under other titles. commodian, arnobius, and lactantius are also instructive here. this literature has been but little utilised with respect to the history of dogma and of the church.] i. fixing and gradual secularising of christianity as a church chapter ii the setting up of the apostolic standards for ecclesiastical christianity. the catholic church.[20] we may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated passages from tertullian's "de præscriptione hæreticorum." in chap. 21 we find: "it is plain that all teaching that agrees with those apostolic churches which are the wombs and origins of the faith must be set down as truth, it being certain that such doctrine contains that which the church received from the apostles, the apostles from christ, and christ from god." in chap. 36 we read: "let us see what it (the roman church) has learned, what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise had with the african churches. it acknowledges one god the lord, the creator of the universe, and jesus christ, the son of god the creator, born of the virgin mary, as well as the resurrection of the flesh. it unites the law and the prophets with the writings of the evangelists and apostles. from these it draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith with water, clothes it with the holy spirit, feeds it with the eucharist, and encourages martyrdom. hence it receives no one who rejects this institution." in chap. 32 the following challenge is addressed to the heretics: "let them unfold a series of their bishops proceeding by succession from the beginning in such a way that this first bishop of theirs had as his authority and predecessor some one of the apostles or one of the apostolic men, who, however, associated with the apostles."[21] from the consideration of these three passages it directly follows that three standards are to be kept in view, viz., the apostolic doctrine, the apostolic canon of scripture, and the guarantee of apostolic authority, afforded by the organisation of the church, that is, by the episcopate, and traced back to apostolic institution. it will be seen that the church always adopted these three standards together, that is simultaneously.[22] as a matter of fact they originated in rome and gradually made their way in the other churches. that asia minor had a share in this is probable, though the question is involved in obscurity. the three catholic standards had their preparatory stages, (1) in short kerygmatic creeds; (2) in the authority of the lord and the formless apostolic tradition as well as in the writings read in the churches; (3) in the veneration paid to apostles, prophets, and teachers, or the "elders" and leaders of the individual communities. a. _the transformation of the baptismal confession into the apostolic rule of faith._ it has been explained (vol. i. p. 157) that the idea of the complete identity of what the churches possessed as christian communities with the doctrine or regulations of the twelve apostles can already be shown in the earliest gentile-christian literature. in the widest sense the expression, [greek: kanôn tês paradoseôs] (canon of tradition), originally included all that was traced back to christ himself through the medium of the apostles and was of value for the faith and life of the church, together with everything that was or seemed her inalienable possession, as, for instance, the christian interpretation of the old testament. in the narrower sense that canon consisted of the history and words of jesus. in so far as they formed the content of faith they were the faith itself, that is, the christian truth; in so far as this faith was to determine the essence of everything christian, it might be termed [greek: kanôn tês pisteôs, kanôn tês alêtheias] (canon of the faith, canon of the truth).[23] but the very fact that the extent of what was regarded as tradition of the apostles was quite undetermined ensured the possibility of the highest degree of freedom; it was also still allowable to give expression to christian inspiration and to the intuition of enthusiasm without any regard to tradition. we now know that before the violent conflict with gnosticism short formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out of the missionary practice of the church (catechising). the shortest formula was that which defined the christian faith as belief in the father, son, and spirit.[24] it appears to have been universally current in christendom about the year 150. in the solemn transactions of the church, therefore especially in baptism, in the great prayer of the lord's supper, as well as in the exorcism of demons,[25] fixed formulæ were used. they embraced also such articles as contained the most important facts in the history of jesus.[26] we know definitely that not later than about the middle of the second century (about 140 a.d.) the roman church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism had to profess;[27] and something similar must also have existed in smyrna and other churches of asia minor about the year 150, in some cases, even rather earlier. we may suppose that formulæ of similar plan and extent were also found in other provincial churches about this time.[28] still it is neither probable that all the then existing communities possessed such creeds, nor that those who used them had formulated them in such a rigid way as the roman church had done. the proclamation of the history of christ predicted in the old testament, the [greek: kerygma tês alêtheias], also accompanied the short baptismal formula without being expressed in set terms.[29] words of jesus and, in general, directions for the christian life were not, as a rule, admitted into the short formulated creed. in the recently discovered "teaching of the apostles" ([greek: didachê tôn apostolôn]) we have no doubt a notable attempt to fix the rules of christian life as traced back to jesus through the medium of the apostles, and to elevate them into the foundation of the confederation of christian churches; but this undertaking, which could not but have led the development of christianity into other paths, did not succeed. that the formulated creeds did not express the principles of conduct, but the facts on which christians based their faith, was an unavoidable necessity. besides, the universal agreement of all earnest and thoughtful minds on the question of christian morals was practically assured.[30] objection was not taken to the principles of morality--at least this was not a primary consideration--for there were many greeks to whom they did not seem foolishness, but to the adoration of christ as he was represented in tradition and to the church's worship of a god, who, as creator of the world and as a speaking and visible being, appeared to the greeks, with their ideas of a purely spiritual deity, to be interwoven with the world, and who, as the god worshipped by the jews also, seemed clearly distinct from the supreme being. this gave rise to the mockery of the heathen, the theological art of the gnostics, and the radical reconstruction of tradition as attempted by marcion. with the freedom that still prevailed christianity was in danger of being resolved into a motley mass of philosophic speculations or of being completely detached from its original conditions. "it was admitted on all sides that christianity had its starting-point in certain facts and sayings; but if any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings was possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which the words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that there could be but little cohesion between the members of the christian communities. the problem arose and pressed for an answer: what should be the basis of christian union? but the problem was for a time insoluble. for there was no standard and no court of appeal." from the very beginning, when the differences in the various churches began to threaten their unity, appeal was probably made to the apostles' doctrine, the words of the lord, tradition, "sound doctrine", definite facts, such as the reality of the human nature (flesh) of christ, and the reality of his death and resurrection.[31] in instruction, in exhortations, and above all in opposing erroneous doctrines and moral aberrations, this precept was inculcated from the beginning: [greek: apolipômen tas kenas kai mataias phrontidas, kai elthômen epi ton eukleê kai semnon tês paradoseôs hêmôn kanona] ("let us leave off vain and foolish thoughts and betake ourselves to the glorious and august canon of our tradition"). but the very question was: what is sound doctrine? what is the content of tradition? was the flesh of christ a reality? etc. there is no doubt that justin, in opposition to those whom he viewed as pseudo-christians, insisted on the absolute necessity of acknowledging certain definite traditional facts and made this recognition the standard of orthodoxy. to all appearance it was he who began the great literary struggle for the expulsion of heterodoxy (see his [greek: syntagma kata pasôn tôn gegenêmenôn haireseôn]); but, judging from those writings of his that have been preserved to us, it seems very unlikely that he was already successful in finding a fixed standard for determining orthodox christianity.[32] the permanence of the communities, however, depended on the discovery of such a standard. they were no longer held together by the _conscientia religionis_, the _unitas disciplinæ_, and the _foedus spei_. the gnostics were not solely to blame for that. they rather show us merely the excess of a continuous transformation which no community could escape. the gnosis which subjected religion to a critical examination awoke in proportion as religious life from generation to generation lost its warmth and spontaneity. there was a time when the majority of christians knew themselves to be such, (1) because they had the "spirit" and found in that an indestructible guarantee of their christian position, (2) because they observed all the commandments of jesus ([greek: entolai iêsou]). but when these guarantees died away, and when at the same time the most diverse doctrines that were threatening to break up the church were preached in the name of christianity, the fixing of tradition necessarily became the supreme task. here, as in every other case, the tradition was not fixed till after it had been to some extent departed from. it was just the gnostics themselves who took the lead in a fixing process, a plain proof that the setting up of dogmatic formulæ has always been the support of new formations. but the example set by the gnostics was the very thing that rendered the problem difficult. where was a beginning to be made? "there is a kind of unconscious logic in the minds of masses of men when great questions are abroad, which some one thinker throws into suitable form."[33] there could be no doubt that the needful thing was to fix what was "apostolic," for the one certain thing was that christianity was based on a divine revelation which had been transmitted through the medium of the apostles to the churches of the whole earth. it certainly was not a single individual who hit on the expedient of affirming the fixed forms employed by the churches in their solemn transactions to be apostolic in the strict sense. it must have come about by a natural process. but the confession of the father, son, and spirit and the _kerygma_ of jesus christ had the most prominent place among these forms. the special emphasising of these articles, in opposition to the gnostic and marcionite undertakings, may also be viewed as the result of the "common sense" of all those who clung to the belief that the father of jesus christ was the creator of the world, and that the son of god really appeared in the flesh. but that was not everywhere sufficient, for, even admitting that about the period between 150 and 180 a.d. all the churches had a fixed creed which they regarded as apostolic in the strict sense--and this cannot be proved,--the most dangerous of all gnostic schools, viz., those of valentinus, could recognise this creed, since they already possessed the art of explaining a given text in whatever way they chose. what was needed was an apostolic creed _definitely interpreted_; for it was only by the aid of a definite interpretation that the creed could be used to repel the gnostic speculations and the marcionite conception of christianity. in this state of matters the church of rome, the proceedings of which are known to us through irenæus and tertullian, took, with regard to the fixed roman baptismal confession ascribed to the apostles, the following step: the antignostic interpretation required by the necessities of the times was proclaimed as its self-evident content; the confession, thus explained, was designated as the "catholic faith" ("fides catholica"), that is the rule of truth for the faith; and its acceptance was made the test of adherence to the roman church as well as to the general confederation of christendom. irenæus was not the author of this proceeding. how far rome acted with the coöperation or under the influence of the church of asia minor is a matter that is still obscure,[34] and will probably never be determined with certainty. what the roman community accomplished practically was theoretically established by irenæus[35] and tertullian. the former proclaimed the baptismal confession, definitely interpreted and expressed in an antignostic form, to be the apostolic rule of truth (regula veritatis), and tried to prove it so. he based his demonstration on the theory that this series of doctrines embodied the faith of the churches founded by the apostles, and that these communities had always preserved the apostolic teaching unchanged (see under c). viewed historically, this thesis, which preserved christianity from complete dissolution, is based on two unproved assumptions and on a confusion of ideas. it is not demonstrated that any creed emanated from the apostles, nor that the churches they founded always preserved their teaching in its original form; the creed itself, moreover, is confused with its interpretation. finally, the existence of a _fides catholica_, in the strict sense of the word, cannot be justly inferred from the essential agreement found in the doctrine of a series of communities.[36] but, on the other hand, the course taken by irenæus was the only one capable of saving what yet remained of primitive christianity, and that is its historical justification. a _fides apostolica_ had to be set up and declared identical with the already existing _fides catholica_. it had to be made the standard for judging all particular doctrinal opinions, that it might be determined whether they were admissible or not. the persuasive power with which irenæus set up the principle of the apostolic "rule of truth," or of "tradition" or simply of "faith," was undoubtedly, as far as he himself was concerned, based on the facts that he had already a rigidly formulated creed before him and that he had no doubt as to its interpretation.[37] the rule of truth (also [greek: hê hypo tês ekklêsias kêryssomenê alêtheia] "the truth proclaimed by the church;" and [greek: to tês alêtheias sômation], "the body of the truth") is the old baptismal confession well known to the communities for which he immediately writes. (see i. 9. 4; [greek: houtô de kai ho ton kanona tês alêtheias aklinê en heautô katechôn hon dia tou baptismatos eilêphe], "in like manner he also who retains immovably in his heart the rule of truth which he received through baptism"); because it is this, it is apostolic, firm and immovable.[38] by the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in the case of irenæus (i. 10. 1, 2) naturally follows the arrangement of the (roman) baptismal confession, the most important gnostic theses were at once set aside and their antitheses established as apostolic. in his apostolic rule of truth irenæus himself already gave prominence to the following doctrines:[39] the unity of god, the identity of the supreme god with the creator; the identity of the supreme god with the god of the old testament; the unity of jesus christ as the son of the god who created the world; the essential divinity of christ; the incarnation of the son of god; the prediction of the entire history of jesus through the holy spirit in the old testament; the reality of that history; the bodily reception ([greek: ensarkos analêpsis]) of christ into heaven; the visible return of christ; the resurrection of all flesh ([greek: anastasis pasês sarkos, pasês anthropôtêtos]), the universal judgment. these dogmas, the antitheses of the gnostic regulæ,[40] were consequently, as apostolic and therefore also as catholic, removed beyond all discussion. tertullian followed irenæus in every particular. he also interpreted the (romish) baptismal confession, represented it, thus explained, as the _regula fidei_,[41] and transferred to the latter the attributes of the confession, viz., its apostolic origin (or origin from christ), as well as its fixedness and completeness.[42] like irenæus, though still more stringently, he also endeavoured to prove that the formula had descended from christ, that is, from the apostles, and was incorrupt. he based his demonstration on the alleged incontestable facts that it contained the faith of those churches founded by the apostles, that in these communities a corruption of doctrine was inconceivable, because in them, as could be proved, the apostles had always had successors, and that the other churches were in communion with them (see under c). in a more definite way than irenæus, tertullian conceives the rule of faith as a rule for the faith,[43] as the law given to faith,[44] also as a "regula doctrinæ" or "doctrina regulæ" (here the creed itself is quite plainly the regula), and even simply as "doctrina" or "institutio."[45] as to the content of the _regula_, it was set forth by tertullian in three passages.[46] it is essentially the same as in irenæus. but tertullian already gives prominence within the _regula_ to the creation of the universe out of nothing,[47] the creative instrumentality of the logos,[48] his origin before all creatures,[49] a definite theory of the incarnation,[50] the preaching by christ of a _nova lex_ and a _nova promissio regni coelorum_,[51] and finally also the trinitarian economy of god.[52] materially, therefore, the advance beyond irenæus is already very significant. tertullian's _regula_ is in point of fact a _doctrina_. in attempting to bind the communities to this he represents them as schools.[53] the apostolic "lex et doctrina" is to be regarded as inviolable by every christian. assent to it decides the christian character of the individual. thus the christian _disposition and life_ come to be a matter which is separate from this and subject to particular conditions. in this way the essence of religion was split up--the most fatal turning-point in the history of christianity. but we are not of course to suppose that at the beginning of the third century the actual bond of union between all the churches was a fixed confession developed into a doctrine, that is, definitely interpreted. this much was gained, as is clear from the treatise _de præscriptione_ and from other evidence, that in the communities with which tertullian was acquainted, mutual recognition and brotherly intercourse were made to depend on assent to formulæ which virtually coincided with the roman baptismal confession. whoever assented to such a formula was regarded as a christian brother, and was entitled to the salutation of peace, the name of brother, and hospitality.[54] in so far as christians confined themselves to a doctrinal formula which they, however, strictly applied, the adoption of this practice betokened an advance. the scattered communities now possessed a "lex" to bind them together, quite as certainly as the philosophic schools possessed a bond of union of a real and practical character[55] in the shape of certain briefly formulated doctrines. in virtue of the common apostolic _lex_ of christians the catholic church became a reality, and was at the same time clearly marked off from the heretic sects. but more than this was gained, in so far as the antignostic interpretation of the formula, and consequently a "doctrine," was indeed in some measure involved in the _lex_. the extent to which this was the case depended, of course, on the individual community or its leaders. all gnostics could not be excluded by the wording of the confession; and, on the other hand, every formulated faith leads to a formulated doctrine, as soon as it is set up as a critical canon. what we observe in irenæus and tertullian must have everywhere taken place in a greater or less degree; that is to say, the authority of the confessional formula must have been extended to statements not found in the formula itself. we can still prove from the works of clement of alexandria that a confession claiming to be an apostolic law of faith,[56] ostensibly comprehending the whole essence of christianity, was not set up in the different provincial churches at one and the same time. from this it is clearly manifest that at this period the alexandrian church neither possessed a baptismal confession similar to that of rome,[57] nor understood by "regula fidei" and synonymous expressions a collection of beliefs fixed in some fashion and derived from the apostles.[58] clement of alexandria in his stromateis appeals to the holy (divine) scriptures, to the teaching of the lord,[59] and to the standard tradition which he designates by a great variety of names, though he never gives its content, because he regards the whole of christianity in its present condition as needing to be reconstructed by gnosis, and therefore as coming under the head of tradition.[60] in one respect therefore, as compared with irenæus and tertullian, he to some extent represents an earlier standpoint; he stands midway between them and justin. from this author he is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he employs sacred christian writings as well as the old testament, makes the true gnostic quite as dependent on the former as on the latter and has lost that naive view of tradition, that is, the complete content of christianity, which irenæus and tertullian still had. as is to be expected, clement too assigns the ultimate authorship of the tradition to the apostles; but it is characteristic that he neither does this of such set purpose as irenæus and tertullian, nor thinks it necessary to prove that the church had presented the apostolic tradition intact. but as he did not extract from the tradition a fixed complex of fundamental propositions, so also he failed to recognise the importance of its publicity and catholicity, and rather placed an esoteric alongside of an exoteric tradition. although, like irenæus and tertullian, his attitude is throughout determined by opposition to the gnostics and marcion, he supposes it possible to refute them by giving to the holy scriptures a scientific exposition which must not oppose the [greek: kanôn tês ekklêsias], that is, the christian common sense, but receives from it only certain guiding rules. but this attitude of clement would be simply inconceivable if the alexandrian church of his time had already employed the fixed standard applied in those of rome, carthage and lyons.[61] such a standard did not exist; but clement made no distinction in the yet unsystematised tradition, even between faith and discipline, because as a theologian he was not able to identify himself with any single article of it without hesitation, and because he ascribed to the true gnostic the ability to fix and guarantee the truth of christian doctrine. origen, although he also attempted to refute the heretics chiefly by a scientific exegesis of the holy scriptures, exhibits an attitude which is already more akin to that of irenæus and tertullian than to that of clement. in the preface to his great work, "de principiis," he prefixed the church doctrine as a detailed apostolic rule of faith, and in other instances also he appealed to the apostolic teaching.[62] it may be assumed that in the time of caracalla and heliogabalus the alexandrian christians had also begun to adopt the principles acted upon in rome and other communities.[63] the syrian churches, or at least a part of them, followed still later.[64] there can be no doubt that, from the last decades of the third century onward, one and the same confession, identical not in its wording, but in its main features, prevailed in the great confederation of churches extending from spain to the euphrates and from egypt to beyond the alps.[65] it was the basis of the confederation, and therefore also a passport, mark of recognition, etc., for the orthodox christians. the interpretation of this confession was fixed in certain ground features, that is, in an antignostic sense. but a definite theological interpretation was also more and more enforced. by the end of the third century there can no longer have been any considerable number of outlying communities where the doctrines of the pre-existence of christ and the identity of this pre-existent one with the divine logos were not recognised as the orthodox belief.[66] they may have first become an "apostolic confession of faith" through the nicene creed. but even this creed was not adopted all at once. b. _the designation of selected writings read in the churches as new testament scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of apostolic writings_.[67] every word and every writing which testified of the [greek: kurios] (lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is, from his spirit: [greek: hothen hê kuriotês laleitai ekei kurios estin]. (didache iv. 1; see also 1 cor. xii. 3). hence the contents were holy.[68] in this sense the new testament is a "residuary product," just as the idea of its inspiration is a remnant of a much broader view. but on the other hand, the new testament is a new creation of the church,[69] inasmuch as it takes its place alongside of the old--which through it has become a complicated book for christendom,--as a catholic and apostolic collection of scriptures containing and attesting the truth. marcion had founded his conception of christianity on a new canon of scripture,[70] which seems to have enjoyed the same authority among his followers as was ascribed to the old testament in orthodox christendom. in the gnostic schools, which likewise rejected the old testament altogether or in part, evangelic and pauline writings were, by the middle of the second century, treated as sacred texts and made use of to confirm their theological speculations.[71] on the other hand, about the year 150 the main body of christendom had still no collection of gospels and epistles possessing equal authority with the old testament, and, apart from apocalypses, no new writings at all, which as such, that is, as sacred texts, were regarded as inspired and authoritative.[72] here we leave out of consideration that their content is a testimony of the spirit. from the works of justin it is to be inferred that the ultimate authorities were the old testament, the words of the lord, and the communications of christian prophets.[73] the memoirs of the apostles ([greek: apomnêmoneumata ton apostolôn] = [greek: ta euangelia]) owed their significance solely to the fact that they recorded the words and history of the lord and bore witness to the fulfilment of old testament predictions. there is no mention whatever of apostolic epistles as holy writings of standard authority.[74] but we learn further from justin that the gospels as well as the old testament were read in public worship (apol. i. 67) and that our first three gospels were already in use. we can, moreover, gather from other sources that other christian writings, early and late, were more or less regularly read in christian meetings.[75] such writings naturally possessed a high degree of authority. as the holy spirit and the church are inseparable, everything that edifies the church originates with the holy spirit,[76] which in this, as well as every other respect, is inexhaustibly rich. here, however, two interests were predominant from the beginning, that of immediate spiritual edification and that of attesting and certifying the christian _kerygma_ ([greek: hê asphaleia tôn logôn]). _the ecclesiastical canon was the result of the latter interest_, not indeed in consequence of a process of collection, for individual communities had already made a far larger compilation,[77] but, in the first instance, through selection, and afterwards, but not till then, through addition. we must not think that the four gospels now found in the canon had attained full canonical authority by the middle of the second century, for the fact--easily demonstrable--that the texts were still very freely dealt with about this period is in itself a proof of this.[78] our first three gospels contain passages and corrections that could hardly have been fixed before about the year 150. moreover, tatian's attempt to create a new gospel from the four shews that the text of these was not yet fixed.[79] we may remark that he was the first in whom we find the gospel of john[80] alongside of the synoptists, and these four the only ones recognised. from the assault of the "alogi" on the johannine gospel we learn that about 160 the whole of our four gospels had not been definitely recognised even in asia minor. finally, we must refer to the gospel of the egyptians, the use of which was not confined to circles outside the church.[81] from the middle of the second century the encratites stood midway between the larger christendom and the marcionite church as well as the gnostic schools. we hear of some of these using the gospels as canonical writings side by side with the old testament, though they would have nothing to do with the epistles of paul and the acts of the apostles.[82] but tatian, the prominent apologist, who joined them, gave this sect a more complete canon, an important fact about which was its inclusion of epistles of paul. even this period, however, still supplies us with no testimony as to the existence of a new testament canon in orthodox christendom, in fact the rise of the so-called "montanism" and its extreme antithesis, the "alogi," in asia minor soon after the middle of the second century proves that there was still no new testament canon there; for, if such an authoritative compilation had existed, these movements could not have arisen. if we gather together all the indications and evidence bearing on the subject, we shall indeed be ready to expect the speedy appearance in the church of a kind of gospel canon comprising the four gospels;[83] but we are prepared neither for this being formally placed on an equality with the old testament, nor for its containing apostolic writings, which as yet are only found in marcion and the gnostics. the canon emerges quite suddenly in an allusion of melito of sardis preserved by eusebius,[84] the meaning of which is, however, still dubious; in the works of irenæus and tertullian; and in the so-called muratorian fragment. there is no direct account of its origin and scarcely any indirect; yet it already appears as something to all intents and purposes finished and complete.[85] moreover, it emerges in the same ecclesiastical district where we were first able to show the existence of the apostolic _regula fidei_. we hear nothing of any authority belonging to the compilers, because we learn nothing at all of such persons.[86] and yet the collection is regarded by irenæus and tertullian as completed. a refusal on the part of the heretics to recognise this or that book is already made a severe reproach against them. their bibles are tested by the church compilation as the older one, and the latter itself is already used exactly like the old testament. the assumption of the inspiration of the books; the harmonistic interpretation of them; the idea of their absolute sufficiency with regard to every question which can arise and every event which they record; the right of unlimited combination of passages; the assumption that nothing in the scriptures is without importance; and, finally, the allegorical interpretation: are the immediately observable result of the creation of the canon.[87] the probable conditions which brought about the formation of the new testament canon in the church, for in this case we are only dealing with probabilities, and the interests which led to and remained associated with it can only be briefly indicated here.[88] the compilation and formation of a canon of christian writings by a process of selection[89] was, so to speak, a kind of involuntary undertaking of the church in her conflict with marcion and the gnostics, as is most plainly proved by the warnings of the fathers not to dispute with the heretics about the holy scriptures,[90] although the new testament was already in existence. that conflict necessitated the formation of a new bible. the exclusion of particular persons on the strength of some apostolic standards, and by reference to the old testament, could not be justified by the church in her own eyes and those of her opponents, so long as she herself recognised that there were apostolic writings, and so long as these heretics appealed to such. she was compelled to claim exclusive possession of _everything_ that had a right to the name "apostolic," to deny it to the heretics, and to shew that she held it in the highest honour. hitherto she had "contented" herself with proving her legal title from the old testament, and, passing over her actual origin, had dated herself back to the beginning of all things. marcion and the gnostics were the first who energetically pointed out that christianity began with christ, and that all christianity was really to be _tested_ by the apostolic preaching, that the assumed identity of christian common sense with apostolic christianity did not exist, and (so marcion said) that the apostles contradicted themselves. this opposition made it necessary to enter into the questions raised by their opponents. but, in point of content, the problem of proving the contested identity was simply insoluble, because it was endless and subject to question on every particular point. the "unconscious logic," that is the logic of self-preservation, could only prescribe an expedient. the church had to collect everything apostolic and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. she was obliged, moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon of the old testament in such a way as to fix the exposition from the very first. but what writings were apostolic? from the middle of the second century great numbers of writings named after the apostles had already been in circulation, and there were often different recensions of one and the same writing.[91] versions which contained docetic elements and exhortations to the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way into the public worship of the church. above all, therefore, it was necessary to determine (1) what writings were really apostolic, (2) what form or recension should be regarded as apostolic. the selection was made by the church, that is, primarily, by the churches of rome and asia minor, which had still an unbroken history up to the days of marcus aurelius and commodus. in making this choice, the church limited herself to the writings that were used in public worship, and only admitted what the tradition of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely apostolic. the principle on which she proceeded was to reject as spurious all writings, bearing the names of apostles, that contained anything contradictory to christian common sense, that is, to the rule of faith--hence admission was refused to all books in which the god of the old testament, his creation, etc., appeared to be depreciated,--and to exclude all recensions of apostolic writings that seemed to endanger the old testament and the monarchy of god. she retained, therefore, only those writings which bore the names of apostles, or anonymous writings to which she considered herself justified in attaching such names,[92] and whose contents were not at variance with the orthodox creed or attested it. this selection resulted in the awkward fact that besides the four gospels there was almost nothing but pauline epistles to dispose of, and therefore no writings or almost none which, as emanating from the twelve apostles, could immediately confirm the truth of the ecclesiastical _kerygma_. _this perplexity was removed by the introduction of the acts of the apostles_[93] _and in some cases also the epistles of peter and john_, though that of peter was not recognised at rome at first. as a collection this group is the most interesting in the new compilation. it gives it the stamp of catholicity, unites the gospels with the apostle (paul), and, by subordinating his epistles to the "acta omnium apostolorum," makes them witnesses to the particular tradition that was required and divests them of every thing suspicious and insufficient.[94] the church, however, found the selection facilitated by the fact that the content of the early christian writings was for the most part unintelligible to the christendom of the time, whereas the late and spurious additions were betrayed not only by heretical theologoumena, but also and above all by their profane lucidity. thus arose a collection of apostolic writings, which in extent may not have been strikingly distinguished from the list of writings that for more than a generation had formed the chief and favourite reading in the communities.[95] the new collection was already exalted to a high place by the use of other writings being prohibited either for purposes of general edification or for theological ends.[96] but the causes and motives which led to its being formed into a canon, that is, being placed on a footing of complete equality with the old testament, may be gathered partly from the earlier history, partly from the mode of using the new bible and partly from the results attending its compilation. first, words of the lord and prophetic utterances, including the written records of these, had always possessed standard authority in the church; there were therefore parts of the collection the absolute authority of which was undoubted from the first.[97] secondly, what was called "preaching of the apostles," "teaching of the apostles," etc., was likewise regarded from the earliest times as completely harmonious as well as authoritative. there had, however, been absolutely no motive for fixing this in documents, because christians supposed they possessed it in a state of purity and reproduced it freely. the moment the church was called upon to fix this teaching authentically, and this denotes a decisive revolution, she was forced to have recourse to _writings_, whether she would or not. the attributes formerly applied to the testimony of the apostles, so long as it was not collected and committed to writing, had now to be transferred to the written records they had left. thirdly, marcion had already taken the lead in forming christian writings into a canon in the strict sense of the word. fourthly, the interpretation was at once fixed by forming the apostolic writings into a canon, and placing them on an equality with the old testament, as well as by subordinating troublesome writings to the acts of the apostles. considered by themselves these writings, especially the pauline epistles, presented the greatest difficulties. we can see even yet from irenæus and tertullian that the duty of accommodating herself to these epistles was _forced_ upon the church by marcion and the heretics, and that, but for this constraint, her method of satisfying herself as to her relationship to them would hardly have taken the shape of incorporating them with the canon.[98] this shows most clearly that the collection of writings must not be traced to the church's effort to create for herself a powerful controversial weapon. but the difficulties which the compilation presented so long as it was a mere collection vanished as soon as it was viewed as a _sacred_ collection. for now the principle: "as the teaching of the apostles was one, so also is the tradition" ([greek: mia hê pantôn gegone tôn apostolôn hôsper didaskalia houtôs de kai hê paradosis]) was to be applied to all contradictory and objectionable details.[99] it was now imperative to explain one writing by another; the pauline epistles, for example, were to be interpreted by the pastoral epistles and the acts of the apostles.[100] now was required what tertullian calls the "mixture" of the old and new testaments,[101] in consequence of which the full recognition of the knowledge got from the old bible was regarded as the first law for the interpretation of the new. the formation of the new collection into a canon was therefore an immediate and unavoidable necessity if doubts of all kinds were to be averted. these were abundantly excited by the exegesis of the heretics; they were got rid of by making the writings into a canon. fifthly, the early christian enthusiasm more and more decreased in the course of the second century; not only did apostles, prophets, and teachers die out, but the religious mood of the majority of christians was changed. a reflective piety took the place of the instinctive religious enthusiasm which made those who felt it believe that they themselves possessed the spirit.[102] such a piety requires rules; at the same time, however, it is characterised by the perception that it has not the active and spontaneous character which it ought to have, but has to prove its legitimacy in an indirect and "objective" way. the breach with tradition, the deviation from the original state of things is felt and recognised. men, however, conceal from themselves their own defects, by placing the representatives of the past on an unattainable height, and forming such an estimate of their qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible for those of the present generation, in the interests of their own comfort, to compare themselves with them. when matters reach this point, great suspicion attaches to those who hold fast their religious independence and wish to apply the old standards. not only do they seem arrogant and proud, but they also appear disturbers of the necessary new arrangement which has its justification in the fact of its being unavoidable. this development of the matter was, moreover, of the greatest significance for the history of the canon. its creation very speedily resulted in the opinion that the time of divine revelation had gone past and was exhausted in the apostles, that is, in the records left by them. we cannot prove with certainty that the canon was formed to confirm this opinion, but we can show that it was very soon used to oppose those christians who professed to be prophets or appealed to the continuance of prophecy. the influence which the canon exercised in this respect is the most decisive and important. that which tertullian, as a montanist, asserts of one of his opponents: "prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit" ("he expelled prophecy, he drove away the paraclete"), can be far more truly said of the new testament which the same tertullian as a catholic recognised. the new testament, though not all at once, put an end to a situation where it was possible for any christian under the inspiration of the spirit to give authoritative disclosures and instructions. it likewise prevented belief in the fanciful creations with which such men enriched the history of the past, and destroyed their pretensions to read the future. as the creation of the canon, though not in a hard and fast way, fixed the period of the production of sacred facts, so it put down all claims of christian prophecy to public credence. through the canon it came to be acknowledged that all post-apostolic christianity is only of a mediate and particular kind, and can therefore never be itself a standard. the apostles alone possessed the spirit of god completely and without measure. they only, therefore, are the media of revelation, and by their word alone, which, as emanating from the spirit, is of equal authority with the word of christ, all that is christian must be tested.[103] the holy spirit and the apostles became correlative conceptions (tertull., de pudic. 21). the apostles, however, were more and more overshadowed by the new testament scriptures; and this was in fact an advance beyond the earlier state of things, for what was known of the apostles? accordingly, _as authors of these writings_, they and the holy spirit became correlative conceptions. this led to the assumption that the apostolic writings were inspired, that is, in the full and only intelligible sense attached to the word by the ancients.[104] by this assumption the apostles, viewed as _prophets_, received a significance quite equal to that of old testament writers.[105] but, though irenæus and tertullian placed both parties on a level, they preserved a distinction between them by basing the whole authority of the new testament on its apostolic origin, the concept "apostolic" being much more comprehensive than that of "prophet." these men, being apostles, that is men chosen by christ himself and entrusted with the proclamation of the gospel, have for that reason received the spirit, and their writings are filled with the spirit. to the minds of western christians the primary feature in the collection is its apostolic authorship.[106] this implies inspiration also, because the apostles cannot be inferior to the writers of the old testament. for that very reason they could, in a much more radical way, rid the new collection of everything that was not apostolic. they even rejected writings which, in their form, plainly claimed the character of inspiration; and this was evidently done because they did not attribute to them the degree of authority which, in their view, only belonged to that which was apostolic.[107] the new canon of scripture set up by irenæus and tertullian primarily professes to be nothing else than a collection of _apostolic_ writings, which, as such, claim absolute authority.[108] it takes its place beside the apostolic rule of faith; and by this faithfully preserved possession, the church scattered over the world proves herself to be that of the apostles. but we are very far from being able to show that such a rigidly fixed collection of apostolic writings existed everywhere in the church about the year 200. it is indeed continually asserted that the antiochian and alexandrian churches had at that date a new testament which, in extent and authority, essentially coincided with that of the roman church; but this opinion is not well founded. as far as the church of antioch is immediately concerned, the letter of bishop serapion (whose episcopate lasted from about 190 to about 209), given in eusebius (vi. 12), clearly shows that cilicia and probably also antioch itself as yet possessed no such thing as a completed new testament. it is evident that serapion already holds the catholic principle that all words of apostles possess the same value to the church as words of the lord; but a completed collection of apostolic writings was not yet at his disposal.[109] hence it is very improbable that theophilus, bishop of antioch, who died as early as the reign of commodus, presupposed such a collection. nor, in point of fact, do the statements in the treatise "ad autolycum" point to a completed new testament.[110] theophilus makes diligent use of the epistles of paul and mentions the evangelist john (c. i. 1.) as one of the bearers of the spirit. but with him the one canonical court of appeal is the scriptures of the old testament, that is, the writings of the prophets (bearers of the spirit). these old testament prophets, however, are continued in a further group of "bearers of the spirit," which we cannot definitely determine, but which at any rate included the authors of the four gospels and the writer of the apocalypse. it is remarkable that theophilus has never mentioned the apostles. though he perhaps regards them all, including paul, as "bearers of the spirit," yet we have no indication that he looked on their _epistles_ as canonical. the different way he uses the old testament and the gospels on the one hand and the pauline epistles on the other is rather evidence of the contrary. theophilus was acquainted with the four gospels (but we have no reference to mark), the thirteen epistles of paul (though he does not mention thessalonians), most probably also with the epistle to the hebrews, as well as 1st peter and the revelation of john. it is significant that no single passage of his betrays an acquaintance with the acts of the apostles.[111] it might certainly seem venturesome, on the basis of the material found in theophilus and the original document of the first six books of the apostolic constitutions, to conclude that the formation of a new testament canon was not everywhere determined by the same interest and therefore did not everywhere take a similar course. it might seem hazardous to assume that the churches of asia minor and rome began by creating a fixed canon of _apostolic_ writings, which was thus necessarily declared to be inspired, whereas other communities applied or did not deny the notion of inspiration to a great number of venerable and ancient writings not rigidly defined, and did not make a selection from a stricter historical point of view, till a later date. but the latter development not only corresponds to the indication found in justin, but in my opinion may be verified from the copious accounts of clement of alexandria.[112] in the entire literature of greeks and barbarians clement distinguishes between profane and sacred, i.e., inspired writings. as he is conscious that all knowledge of truth is based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs, or sentences of writings which contain moral and religious truth are in his view inspired.[113] this opinion, however, does not exclude a distinction between these writings, but rather requires it. (2) the old testament, a fixed collection of books, is regarded by clement, as a whole and in all its parts, as the divine, that is, inspired book _par excellence_. (3) as clement in theory distinguishes a new covenant from the old, so also he distinguishes the books of the new covenant from those of the old. (4) these books to which he applies the formula "gospel" ([greek: to euangelion]) and "apostles" ([greek: hoi apostoloi]) are likewise viewed by him as inspired, but he does not consider them as forming a fixed collection. (5) unless all appearances are deceptive, it was, strictly speaking, only the four gospels that he considered and treated as completely on a level with the old testament. the formula: [greek: ho nomos kai hoi prophêtai kai to euangelion] ("the law and the prophets and the gospel") is frequently found, and everything else, even the apostolic writings, is judged by this group.[114] he does not consider even the pauline epistles to be a court of appeal of equal value with the gospels, though he occasionally describes them as [greek: graphai].[115] a further class of writings stands a stage lower than the pauline epistles, viz., the epistles of clement and barnabas, the shepherd of hermas, etc. it would be wrong to say that clement views this group as an appendix to the new testament, or as in any sense antilegomena. this would imply that he assumed the existence of a fixed collection whose parts he considered of equal value, an assumption which cannot be proved.[116] (6) as to certain books, such as the "teaching of the apostles," the "kerygma of peter," etc., it remains quite doubtful what authority clement attributed to them.[117] he quotes the [greek: didachê] as [greek: graphê]. (7) in determining and estimating the sacred books of the new testament clement is manifestly influenced by an ecclesiastical tradition, for he recognises four gospels and no more because that was the exact number handed down. this tradition had already applied the name "apostolic" to most christian writings which were to be considered as [greek: graphai], but it had given the concept "apostolic" a far wider content than irenæus and tertullian,[118] although it had not been able to include all the new writings which were regarded as sacred under this idea. (hermas). at the time clement wrote, the alexandrian _church_ can neither have held the principle that all writings of the apostles must be read in the church and form a decisive court of appeal like the old testament, nor have believed that nothing but the apostolic--using this word also in its wider sense--has any claim to authority among christians. we willingly admit the great degree of freedom and peculiarity characteristic of clement, and freely acknowledge the serious difficulties inseparable from the attempt to ascertain from his writings what was regarded as possessing standard authority in the _church_. nevertheless it may be assumed with certainty that, at the time this author wrote, the content of the new testament canon, or, to speak more correctly, its reception in the church and exact attributes had not yet been finally settled in alexandria. the condition of the alexandrian church of the time may perhaps be described as follows: ecclesiastical custom had attributed an authority to a great number of early christian writings without strictly defining the nature of this authority or making it equal to that of the old testament. whatever professed to be inspired, or apostolic, or ancient, or edifying was regarded as the work of the spirit and therefore as the word of god. the prestige of these writings increased in proportion as christians became more incapable of producing the like themselves. not long before clement wrote, however, a systematic arrangement of writings embodying the early christian tradition had been made in alexandria also. but, while in the regions represented by irenæus and tertullian the canon must have arisen and been adopted all at once, so to speak, it was a slow process that led to this result in alexandria. here also the principle of apostolicity seems to have been of great importance for the collectors and editors, but it was otherwise applied than at rome. a conservative proceeding was adopted, as they wished to insure as far as possible the permanence of ancient christian writings regarded as inspired. in other words, they sought, wherever practicable, to proclaim all these writings to be apostolic by giving a wider meaning to the designation and ascribing an imaginary apostolic origin to many of them. this explains their judgment as to the epistle to the hebrews, and how barnabas and clement were described by them as apostles.[119] had this undertaking succeeded in the church, a much more extensive canon would have resulted than in the west. but it is more than questionable whether it was really the intention of those first alexandrian collectors to place the great compilation thus produced, as a new testament, side by side with the old, or, whether their undertaking was immediately approved in this sense by the church. in view of the difference of clement's attitude to the various groups within this collection of [greek: graphai], we may assert that in the alexandrian _church_ of that time gospels and apostles were indeed ranked with the law and the prophets, but that this position of equality with the old testament was not assigned to all the writings that were prized either on the score of inspiration or of apostolic authority. the reason of this was that the great collection of early christian literature that was inspired and declared to be apostolic could hardly have been used so much in public worship as the old testament and the gospels. be this as it may, if we understand by the new testament a fixed collection, equally authoritative throughout, of all the writings that were regarded as genuinely apostolic, that is, those of the original apostles and paul, then the alexandrian church at the time of clement did not yet possess such a book; but the process which led to it had begun. she had come much nearer this goal by the time of origen. at that period the writings included in the new testament of the west were all regarded in alexandria as equally authoritative, and also stood in every respect on a level with the old testament. the principle of apostolicity was more strictly conceived and more surely applied. accordingly the extent of "holy scripture" was already limited in the days of origen. yet we have to thank the alexandrian church for giving us the seven catholic epistles. but, measured by the canon of the western church, which must have had a share in the matter, this sifting process was by no means complete. the inventive minds of scholars designated a group of writings in the alexandrian canon as "antilegomena." the historian of dogma can take no great interest in the succeeding development, which first led to the canon being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can say that this was ever the case. for the still unsettled dispute as to the extent of the canon did not essentially affect its use and authority, and in the following period the continuous efforts to establish a harmonious and strictly fixed canon were solely determined by a regard to tradition. the results are no doubt of great importance to church history, because they show us the varying influence exerted on christendom at different periods by the great churches of the east and west and by their learned men. _addendum._--the results arising from the formation of a part of early christian writings into a canon, which was a great and meritorious act of the church[120], notwithstanding the fact that it was forced on her by a combination of circumstances, may be summed up in a series of antitheses. (1) the new testament, or group of "apostolic" writings formed by selection, preserved from destruction one part, and undoubtedly the most valuable one, of primitive church literature; but it caused all the rest of these writings, as being intrusive, or spurious, or superfluous, to be more and more neglected, so that they ultimately perished.[121] (2) the new testament, though not all at once, put an end to the composition of works which claimed an authority binding on christendom (inspiration); but it first made possible the production of secular church literature and neutralised the extreme dangers attendant on writings of this kind. by making room for all kinds of writings that did not oppose it, it enabled the church to utilise all the elements of greek culture. at the same time, however, it required an ecclesiastical stamp to be placed on all the new christian productions due to this cause.[122] (3) the new testament obscured the historical meaning and the historical origin of the writing contained in it, especially the pauline epistles, though at the same time it created the conditions for a thorough study of all those documents. although primarily the new science of theological exegesis in the church did more than anything else to neutralise the historical value of the new testament writings, yet, on the other hand, it immediately commenced a critical restoration of their original sense. but, even apart from theological science, the new testament enabled original christianity to exercise here and there a quiet and gradual effect on the doctrinal development of the church, without indeed being able to exert a dominant influence on the natural development of the traditional system. as the standard of interpretation for the holy scriptures was the apostolic _regula fidei_, always more and more precisely explained, and as that _regula_, in its antignostic and philosophico-theological interpretation, was regarded as apostolic, the new testament was explained in accordance with the conception of christianity that had become prevalent in the church. at first therefore the spirit of the new testament could only assert itself in certain undercurrents and in the recognition of particular truths. but the book did not in the least ward off the danger of a total secularising of christianity. (4) the new testament opposed a barrier to the enthusiastic manufacture of "facts." but at the same time its claim to be a collection of _inspired_ writings[123] naturally resulted in principles of interpretation (such as the principle of unanimity, of unlimited combination, of absolute clearness and sufficiency, and of allegorism) which were necessarily followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of theological experts. (5) the new testament fixed a time within which divine revelation ceased, and prevented any christian from putting himself into comparison with the disciples of jesus. by doing so it directly promoted the lowering of christian ideals and requirements, and in a certain fashion legitimised this weakening of religious power. at the same time, however, it maintained the knowledge of these ideals and requirements, became a spur to the conscience of believers, and averted the danger of christianity being corrupted by the excesses of enthusiasm. (6) the fact of the new testament being placed on a level with the old proved the most effective means of preserving to the latter its canonical authority, which had been so often assailed in the second century. but at the same time it brought about an examination of the relation between the old and new testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry into the connection between christianity and pre-christian revelation. the immediate result of this investigation was not only a theological exposition of the old testament, but also a theory which ceased to view the two testaments as of equal authority and _subordinated_ the old to the new. this result, which can be plainly seen in irenæus, tertullian, and origen, led to exceedingly important consequences.[124] it gave some degree of insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible, in certain new testament writings, and it caused the church to reflect upon a question that had as yet been raised only by heretics, viz., what are the marks which distinguish christianity from the old testament religion? an historical examination imperceptibly arose; but the old notion of the inspiration of the old testament confined it to the narrowest limits, and in fact always continued to forbid it; for, as before, appeal was constantly made to the old testament as a christian book which contained all the truths of religion in a perfect form. nevertheless the conception of the old testament was here and there full of contradictions.[125] (7) the fatal identification of words of the lord and words of the apostles (apostolical tradition) had existed before the creation of the new testament, though this proceeding gave it a new range and content and a new significance. but, with the epistles of paul included, the new testament elevated the highest expression of the consciousness of redemption into a guiding principle, and by admitting paulinism into the canon it introduced a wholesome ferment into the history of the church. (8) by creating the new testament and claiming exclusive possession of it the church deprived the non-catholic communions of every apostolic foundation, just as she had divested judaism of every legal title by taking possession of the old testament; but, by raising the new testament to standard authority, she created the armoury which supplied the succeeding period with the keenest weapons against herself.[126] the place of the gospel was taken by a book with exceedingly varied contents, which theoretically acquired the same authority as the gospel. still, the catholic church never became a religion "of the book," because every inconvenient text could be explained away by the allegoric method, and because the book was not made use of as the immediate authority for the guidance of christians, this latter function being directly discharged by the rule of faith.[127] in practice it continued to be the rule for the new testament to take a secondary place in apologetic writings and disputes with heretics.[128] on the other hand it was regarded (1) as the directly authoritative document for the direction of the christian life,[129] and (2) as the final court of appeal in all the conflicts that arose within the sphere of the rule of faith. it was freely applied in the second stage of the montanist struggle, but still more in the controversies about christology, that is, in the conflict with the monarchians. the apostolic writings belong solely to the church, because she alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine (regula). this was declared to the heretics and therewith all controversy about scripture, or the sense of scripture passages, was in principle declined. but within the church herself the holy scripture was regarded as the supreme and completely independent tribunal against which not even an old tradition could be appealed to; and the rule [greek: politeuesthai kata to euangelion] ("live according to the gospel") held good in every respect. moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other one, viz., [greek: kata tên kainên diathêkên] ("according to the new testament"), shows that the words of the lord, as in the earlier period, continued to be the chief standard of _life and conduct_. c. _the transformation of the episcopal office in the church into an apostolic office. the history of the remodelling of the conception of the church._[130] 1. it was not sufficient to prove that the rule of faith was of apostolic origin, i.e., that the apostles had set up a rule of faith. it had further to be shown that, up to the present, the church had always maintained it unchanged. this demonstration was all the more necessary because the heretics also claimed an apostolic origin for their _regulæ_, and in different ways tried to adduce proof that they alone possessed a guarantee of inheriting the apostles' doctrine in all its purity.[131] an historical demonstration was first attempted by the earliest of the old catholic fathers. they pointed to communities of whose apostolic origin there could be no doubt, and thought it could not reasonably be denied that those churches must have preserved apostolic christianity in a pure and incorrupt form. the proof that the church had always held fast by apostolic christianity depended on the agreement in doctrine between the other communities and these.[132] but irenæus as well as tertullian felt that a special demonstration was needed to show that the churches founded by the apostles had really at all times faithfully preserved their genuine teaching. general considerations, as, for instance, the notion that christianity would otherwise have temporarily perished, or "that one event among many is as good as none; but when one and the same feature is found among many, it is not an aberration but a tradition" ("nullus inter multos eventus unus est ... quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum") and similar ones which tertullian does not fail to mention, were not sufficient. but the dogmatic conception that the _ecclesiæ_ (or _ecclesia_) are the abode of the holy spirit,[133] was incapable of making any impression on the heretics, as the correct application of this theory was the very point in question. to make their proof more precise tertullian and irenæus therefore asserted that the churches guaranteed the incorruptness of the apostolic inheritance, inasmuch as they could point to a chain of "elders," or, in other words, an "ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens," which was a pledge that nothing false had been mixed up with it.[134] this thesis has quite as many aspects as the conception of the "elders," e.g., disciples of the apostles, disciples of the disciples of the apostles, bishops. it partly preserves a historic and partly assumes a dogmatic character. the former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation of churches by apostles, and in the argument that each series of successors were faithful disciples of those before them and therefore ultimately of the apostles themselves. but no historical consideration, no appeal to the "elders" was capable of affording the assurance sought for. hence even in irenæus the historical view of the case had clearly changed into a dogmatic one. this, however, by no means resulted merely from the controversy with the heretics, but was quite as much produced by the altered constitution of the church and the authoritative position that the bishops had actually attained. the idea was that the elders, i.e., the bishops, had received "cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma," that is, their office conferred on them the apostolic heritage of truth, which was therefore objectively attached to this dignity as a _charism_. this notion of the transmissibility of the charism of truth became associated with the episcopal office after it had become a monarchical one, exercising authority over the church in all its relations;[135] and after the bishops had proved themselves the strongest supports of the communities against the attacks of the secular power and of heresy.[136] in irenæus and tertullian, however, we only find the first traces of this new theory. the old notion, which regarded the _churches_ as possessing the heritage of the apostles in so far as they possess the holy spirit, continued to exercise a powerful influence on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic view with a historical one, at least in controversies with the heretics. neither irenæus, nor tertullian in his earlier writings,[137] asserted that the transmission of the _charisma veritatis_ to the bishops had really invested them with the apostolic office in its full sense. they had indeed, according to irenæus, received the "locum magisterii apostolorum" ("place of government of the apostles"), but nothing more. it is only the later writings of tertullian, dating from the reigns of caracalla and heliogabalus, which show that the bishop of rome, who must have had imitators in this respect, claimed for his office the full authority of the apostolic office. both calixtus and his rival hippolytus described themselves as successors of the apostles in the full sense of the word, and claimed for themselves in that capacity much more than a mere guaranteeing of the purity of christianity. even tertullian did not question this last mentioned attribute of the bishops.[138] cyprian found the theory already in existence, but was the first to develop it definitely and to eradicate every remnant of the historical argument in its favour. the conception of the church was thereby subjected to a further transformation. 2. the transformation of the idea of the church by cyprian completed the radical changes that had been gradually taking place from the last half of the second century.[139] in order to understand them it is necessary to go back. it was only with slowness and hesitation that the theories of the church followed the actual changes in her history. it may be said that the idea of the church always remained a stage behind the condition reached in practice. that may be seen in the whole course of the history of dogma up to the present day. the essential character of christendom in its first period was a new holy life and a sure hope, both based on repentance towards god and faith in jesus christ and brought about by the holy spirit. christ and the church, that is, the holy spirit and the holy church, were inseparably connected. the church, or, in other words, the community of all believers, attains her unity through the holy spirit. this unity manifested itself in brotherly love and in the common relation to a common ideal and a common hope.[140] the assembly of all christians is realised in the kingdom of god, viz., in heaven; on earth christians and the church are dispersed and in a foreign land. hence, properly speaking, the church herself is a heavenly community inseparable from the heavenly christ. christians believe that they belong to a real super-terrestrial commonwealth, which, from its very nature, cannot be realised on earth. the heavenly goal is not yet separated from the idea of the church; there is a holy church on earth in so far as heaven is her destination.[141] every individual congregation is to be an image of the heavenly church.[142] reflections were no doubt made on the contrast between the empirical community and the heavenly church whose earthly likeness it was to be (hermas); but these did not affect the theory of the subject. only the saints of god, whose salvation is certain, belong to her, for the essential thing is not to be called, but to be, a christian. there was as yet no empirical universal church possessing an outward legal title that could, so to speak, be detached from the personal christianity of the individual christian.[143] all the lofty designations which paul, the so-called apostolic fathers, and justin gathered from the old testament and applied to the church, relate to the holy community which originates in heaven and returns thither.[144] but, in consequence of the naturalising of christianity in the world and the repelling of heresy, a formulated creed was made the basis of the church. this confession was also recognised as a foundation of her unity and guarantee of her truth, and in certain respects as the main one. christendom protected itself by this conception, though no doubt at a heavy price. to irenæus and tertullian the church rests entirely on the apostolic, traditional faith which legitimises her.[145] but this faith itself appeared as a _law_ and aggregate of doctrines, all of which are of equally fundamental importance, so that their practical aim became uncertain and threatened to vanish ("fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis"). the church herself, however, became a union based on the true doctrine and visible in it; and this confederation was at the same time enabled to realise an actual outward unity by means of the apostolic inheritance, the doctrinal confession, and the apostolic writings. the narrower and more external character assumed by the idea of the church was concealed by the fact that, since the latter half of the second century, christians in all parts of the world had really united in opposition to the state and "heresy," and had found compensation for the incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical obligations in the consciousness of forming an ecumenical and international alliance. the designation "catholic church" gave expression to the claim of this world-wide union of the same faith to represent the true church.[146] this expression corresponds to the powerful position which the "great church" (celsus), or the "old" church (clemens alex.) had attained by the end of the second century, as compared with the marcionite church, the school sects, the christian associations of all kinds, and the independent christians. this church, however, was declared to be apostolic, i.e., founded in its present form by christ through the apostles. through this idea, which was supported by the old enthusiastic notion that the apostles had already proclaimed the gospel to all the world, it came to be completely forgotten how christ and his apostles had exercised their ministry, and an empirical conception of the church was created in which the idea of a holy life in the spirit could no longer be the ruling one. it was taught that christ received from god a law of faith, which, as a new lawgiver, he imparted to the apostles, and that they, by transmitting the truth of which they were the depositaries, founded the one catholic church (iren. iii. 4. i). the latter, being guardian of the apostolic heritage, has the assurance of possessing the spirit; whereas all communities other than herself, inasmuch as they have not received that deposit, necessarily lack the spirit and are therefore separated from christ and salvation.[147] hence one must be a member of this church in order to be a partaker of salvation, because in her alone one can find the creed which must be recognised as the condition of redemption.[148] consequently, in proportion as the faith became a doctrine of faith, the catholic church interposed herself as an empiric power between the individual and salvation. she became a condition of salvation; but the result was that she ceased to be a sure communion of the saved and of saints (see on this point the following chapter). it was quite a logical proceeding when about the year 220 calixtus, a roman bishop, started the theory that there _must_ be wheat and tares in the catholic church and that the ark of noah with its clean and unclean beasts was her type.[149] the departure from the old idea of the church appears completed in this statement. but the following facts must not be overlooked:--first, the new conception of the church was not yet a hierarchical one. secondly, the idea of the union and unity of all believers found here magnificent expression. thirdly, the development of the communities into one solid church also represents the creative power of the christian spirit. fourthly, through the consolidation effected in the church by the rule of faith the christian religion was in some measure preserved from enthusiastic extravagancies and arbitrary misinterpretation. fifthly, in consequence of the regard for a church founded on the doctrine of faith the specific significance of redemption by christ, as distinguished from natural religion and that of the old testament, could no longer be lost to believers. sixthly, the independence of each individual community had a wide scope not only at the end of the second but also in the third century.[150] consequently, though the revolution which led to the catholic church was a result of the situation of the communities in the world in general and of the struggle with the gnostics and marcion in particular, and though it was a fatal error to identify the catholic and apostolic churches, this change did not take place without an exalting of the christian spirit and an awakening of its self-consciousness. but there was never a time in history when the conception of the church, as nothing else than the visible communion of those holding the correct apostolic doctrine, was clearly grasped or exclusively emphasised. in irenæus and tertullian we rather find, on the one hand, that the old theory of the church was still to a great extent preserved and, on the other, that the hierarchical notion was already making its appearance. as to the first point, irenæus frequently asserts that the spirit and the church, that is, the christian people, are inseparable; that the spirit in divers ways continually effects whatever she needs; that she is the totality of all true believers, that all the faithful have the rank of priests; that outside the holy church there is no salvation, etc.; in fact these doctrines form the very essence of his teaching. but, since she was also regarded as the visible institution for objectively preserving and communicating the truth, and since the idea of the church in contradistinction to heresy was necessarily exhausted in this as far as irenæus was concerned, the old theories of the matter could not operate correctively, but in the end only served to glorify the earthly catholic church.[151] the proposition that truth is only to be found in the church and that she and the holy spirit are inseparable must be understood in irenæus as already referring to the catholic church in contradistinction to every other calling itself christian.[152] as to the second point, it cannot be denied that, though irenæus desires to maintain that the only essential part of the idea of the church is the fact of her being the depository of the truth, he was no longer able to confine himself to this (see above). the episcopal succession and the transmission to the bishops of the _magisterium_ of the apostles were not indeed of any direct importance to his idea of the church, but they were of consequence for the preservation of truth and therefore indirectly for the idea of the church also. to irenæus, however, that theory was still nothing more than an artificial line; but artificial lines are really supports and must therefore soon attain the value of foundations.[153] tertullian's conception of the church was essentially the same as that of irenæus; but with the former the idea that she is the outward manifestation of the spirit, and therefore a communion of those who are spiritual, at all times continued to operate more powerfully than with the latter. in the last period of his life tertullian emphasised this theory so vigorously that the antignostic idea of the church being based on the "traditio unius sacramenti" fell into the background. consequently we find nothing more than traces of the hierarchical conception of the church in tertullian. but towards the end of his life he found himself face to face with a _fully developed_ theory of this kind. this he most decidedly rejected, and, in doing so, advanced to such a conception of ecclesiastical orders, and therefore also of the episcopate, as clearly involved him in a contradiction of the other theory--which he also never gave up--viz., that the bishops, as the class which transmits the rule of faith, are an apostolic institution and therefore necessary to the church[154]. from the disquisitions of clement of alexandria we see how vigorous the old conception of the church, as the heavenly communion of the elect and believing, still continued to be about the year 200. this will not appear strange after what we have already said as to clement's views about the rule of faith, the new testament, and the episcopate. it is evident that his philosophy of religion led him to give a new interpretation to the original ideas. yet the old form of these notions can be more easily made out from his works than from those of irenæus.[155] up to the 15th chapter of the 7th book of his great work, the stromateis, and in the pædagogus, clement simply speaks of the church in the sense of the epistle to the ephesians and the shepherd of hermas. she is a heavenly formation, continued in that which appears on earth as her image. instead of distinguishing two churches clement sees one, the product of god's will aiming at the salvation of man--a church which is to be on earth as it is in heaven, and of which faith forms the subjective and the logos the objective bond of union. but, beginning with strom. vii. 15 (see especially 17), where he is influenced by opposition to the heretics, he suddenly identifies this church with the single old catholic one, that is, with the visible "church" in opposition to the heretic sects. thus the empirical interpretation of the church, which makes her the institution in possession of the true doctrine, was also completely adopted by clement; but as yet he employed it simply in polemics and not in positive teachings. he neither reconciled nor seemingly felt the contradiction in the statement that the church is to be at one and the same time the assembly of the elect and the empiric universal church. at any rate he made as yet no unconditional acknowledgment of the catholic church, because he was still able to attribute independent value to gnosis, that is, to independent piety as he understood it.[156] consequently, as regards the conception of the church, the mystic gnosis exercised the same effect as the old religious enthusiasm from which in other respects it differs so much.[157] the hierarchy has still no significance as far as clement's idea of the church is concerned.[158] at first origen entirely agrees with clement in regard to this conception. he also starts with the theory that the church is essentially a heavenly communion and a holy communion of believers, and keeps this idea constantly before him.[159] when opposing heretics, he also, like clement, cannot help identifying her with the catholic church, because the latter contains the true doctrine, though he likewise refrains from acknowledging any hierarchy.[160] but origen is influenced by two further considerations, which are scarcely hinted at in clement, but which were called forth by the actual course of events and signified a further development in the idea of the church. for, in the first place, origen saw himself already compelled to examine closely the distinction between the essence and the outward appearance of the church, and, in this process, reached results which again called in question the identification of the holy church with the empiric catholic one (see on this point the following chapter). secondly, in consequence of the extraordinary extension and powerful position attained by the catholic church by the time of philip the arabian, origen, giving a new interpretation to a very old christian notion and making use of a platonic conception,[161] arrived at the idea that she was the earthly kingdom of god, destined to enter the world, to absorb the roman empire and indeed all mankind, and to unite and take the place of the various secular states.[162] this magnificent idea, which regards the church as [greek: kosmos tou kosmou][163], denoted indeed a complete departure from the original theory of the subject, determined by eschatological considerations; though we must not forget that origen still demanded a really holy church and a new polity. hence, as he also distinguishes the various degrees of connection with the church,[164] we already find in his theory a combination of all the features that became essential parts of the conception of the church in subsequent times, with the exception of the clerical element.[165] 3. the contradictory notions of the church, for so they appear to us, in irenæus and clement and still more in tertullian and origen, need not astonish any one who bears in mind that none of these fathers made the church the subject of a theological theory.[166] hence no one as yet thought of questioning the old article: "i believe in a holy church." but, at the same time, actual circumstances, though they did not at first succeed in altering the church's belief, forced her to _realise_ her changed position, for she had in point of fact become an association which was founded on a definite law of doctrine and rejected everything that did not conform to it. the identifying of this association with the ideal church was a matter of course,[167] but it was quite as natural to take no immediate _theoretical_ notice of the identification except in cases where it was absolutely necessary, that is, in polemics. in the latter case the unity of faith and hope became the unity of the doctrine of faith, and the church was, in this instance, legitimised by the possession of the apostolic tradition instead of by the realising of that tradition in heart and life. from the principle that had been set up it necessarily followed that the apostolic inheritance on which the truth and legitimacy of the church was based, could not but remain an imperfect court of appeal until _living_ authorities could be pointed to in this court, and until _every_ possible cause of strife and separation was settled by reference to it. an empirical community cannot be ruled by a traditional written word, but only by persons; for the written law will always separate and split. if it has such persons, however, it can tolerate within it a great amount of individual differences, provided that the leaders subordinate the interests of the whole to their own ambition. we have seen how irenæus and tertullian, though they in all earnestness represented the _fides catholica_ and _ecclesia catholica_ as inseparably connected,[168] were already compelled to have recourse to bishops in order to ensure the apostolic doctrine. the conflicts within the sphere of the rule of faith, the struggles with the so-called montanism, but finally and above all, the existing situation of the church in the third century with regard to the world within her pale, made the question of organisation the vital one for her. tertullian and origen already found themselves face to face with episcopal claims of which they highly disapproved and which, in their own way, they endeavoured to oppose. it was again the roman bishop[169] who first converted the proposition that the bishops are direct successors of the apostles and have the same "locus magisterii" ("place of government") into a theory which declares that _all_ apostolic powers have devolved on the bishops and that these have therefore peculiar rights and duties in virtue of their office.[170] cyprian added to this the corresponding theory of the church. in one decisive point, however, he did not assist the secularising process which had been completed by the roman bishop, in the interest of catholicity as well as in that of the church's existence (see the following chapter). in the second half of the third century there were no longer any churches, except remote communities, where the only requirement was to preserve the catholic faith; the bishops had to be obeyed. the idea of the one episcopally organised church became the main one and overshadowed the significance of the doctrine of faith as a bond of unity. _the church based on the bishops, the successors of the apostles, the vicegerents of god, is herself the legacy of the apostles in virtue of this her foundation._ this idea was never converted into a rigid theory in the east, though the reality to which it corresponded was not the less certain on that account. the fancy that the earthly hierarchy was the image of the heavenly was the only part that began to be taken in real earnest. in the west, on the other hand, circumstances compelled the carthaginian bishop to set up a finished theory.[171] according to cyprian, the catholic church, to which all the lofty predictions and predicates in the bible apply (see hartel's index under "ecclesia"), is the one institution of salvation outside of which there is no redemption (ep. 73. 21). she is this, moreover, not only as the community possessing the true apostolic faith, for this definition does not exhaust her conception, but as a harmoniously organised federation.[172] this church therefore rests entirely on the episcopate, which sustains her,[173] because it is the continuance of the apostolic office and is equipped with all the power of the apostles.[174] accordingly, the union of individuals with the church, and therefore with christ, is effected only by obedient dependence on the bishop, i.e., such a connection alone makes one a member of the church. but the unity of the church, which is an attribute of equal importance with her truth, because this union is only brought about by love,[175] primarily appears in the unity of the episcopate. for, according to cyprian, the episcopate has been from its beginning undivided and has continued to be so in the church, in so far as the bishops are appointed and guided by god, are on terms of brotherly intercourse and exchange, and each bishop represents the whole significance of the episcopate.[176] hence the individual bishops are no longer to be considered primarily as leaders of their special communities, but as the foundation of the one church. each of these prelates, however, provided he keeps within the association of the bishops, preserves the independent right of regulating the circumstances of his own diocese.[177] but it also follows that the bishops of those communities founded by the apostles themselves can raise no claim to any special dignity, since the unity of the episcopate as a continuation of the apostolic office involves the equality of all bishops.[178] however, a special importance attaches to the roman see, because it is the seat of the apostle to whom christ first granted apostolic authority in order to show with unmistakable plainness the unity of these powers and the corresponding unity of the church that rests on them; and further because, from her historical origin, the church of this see had become the mother and root of the catholic church spread over the earth. in a severe crisis which cyprian had to pass through in his own diocese he appealed to the roman church (the roman bishop) in a manner which made it appear as if communion with that church was in itself the guarantee of truth. but in the controversy about heretical baptism with the roman bishop stephen, he emphatically denied the latter's pretensions to exercise special rights over the church in consequence of the petrine succession.[179] finally, although cyprian exalted the unity of the organisation of the church above the unity of the doctrine of faith, he preserved the christian element so far as to assume in all his statements that the bishops display a moral and christian conduct in keeping with their office, and that otherwise they have _ipso facto_ forfeited it.[180] thus, according to cyprian, the episcopal office does not confer any indelible character, though calixtus and other bishops of rome after him presupposed this attribute. (for more details on this point, as well as with regard to the contradictions that remain unreconciled in cyprian's conception of the church, see the following chapter, in which will be shown the ultimate interests that lie at the basis of the new idea of the church). _addendum i._--the great confederation of churches which cyprian presupposes and which he terms _the_ church was in truth not complete, for it cannot be proved that it extended to any regions beyond the confines of the roman empire or that it even embraced all orthodox and episcopally organised communities within those bounds.[181] but, further, the conditions of the confederation, which only began to be realised in the full sense in the days of constantine, were never definitely formulated--before the fourth century at least.[182] accordingly, the idea of the one exclusive church, embracing all christians and founded on the bishops, was always a mere theory. but, in so far as it is not the idea, but its realisation to which cyprian here attaches sole importance, his dogmatic conception appears to be refuted by actual circumstances.[183] _addendum ii._--the idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the church. the designation [greek: hairesis] implies an adherence to something self-chosen in opposition to the acknowledgment of something objectively handed down, and assumes that this is the particular thing in which the apostasy consists. hence all those who call themselves christians and yet do not adhere to the traditional apostolic creed, but give themselves up to vain and empty doctrines, are regarded as heretics by hegesippus, irenæus, tertullian, clement, and origen. these doctrines are as a rule traced to the devil, that is, to the non-christian religions and speculations, or to wilful wickedness. any other interpretation of their origin would at once have been an acknowledgment that the opponents of the church had a right to their opinions,[184] and such an explanation is not quite foreign to origen in one of his lines of argument.[185] hence the orthodox party were perfectly consistent in attaching no value to any sacrament[186] or acts esteemed in their own communion, when these were performed by heretics;[187] and this was a practical application of the saying that the devil could transform himself into an angel of light.[188] but the fathers we have named did not yet completely identify the church with a harmoniously organised institution. for that very reason they do not absolutely deny the christianity of such as take their stand on the rule of faith, even when these for various reasons occupy a position peculiar to themselves. though we are by no means entitled to say that they acknowledged orthodox schismatics, they did not yet venture to reckon them simply as heretics.[189] if it was desired to get rid of these, an effort was made to impute to them some deviation from the rule of faith; and under this pretext the church freed herself from the montanists and the monarchians.[190] cyprian was the first to proclaim the identity of heretics and schismatics, by making a man's christianity depend on his belonging to the great episcopal church confederation.[191] but, both in east and west, this theory of his became established only by very imperceptible degrees, and indeed, strictly speaking, the process was never completed at all. the distinction between heretics and schismatics was preserved, because it prevented a public denial of the old principles, because it was advisable on political grounds to treat certain schismatic communities with indulgence, and because it was always possible in case of need to prove heresy against the schismatics.[192] _addendum iii._--as soon as the empiric church ruled by the bishops was proclaimed to be the foundation of the christian religion, we have the fundamental premises for the conception that everything progressively adopted by the church, all her functions, institutions, and liturgy, in short, all her continuously changing arrangements were holy and apostolic. but the courage to draw all the conclusions here was restrained by the fact that certain portions of tradition, such as the new testament canon of scripture and the apostolic doctrine, had been once for all exalted to an unapproachable height. hence it was only with slowness and hesitation that christians accepted the inferences from the idea of the church in the remaining directions, and these conclusions always continued to be hampered with some degree of uncertainty. the idea of the [greek: paradosis agraphos]; (unwritten tradition); i.e., that every custom, however recent, within the sphere of outward regulations, of public worship, discipline, etc., is as holy and apostolic as the bible and the "faith", never succeeded in gaining complete acceptance. in this case, complicated, uncertain, and indistinct assumptions were the result. footnotes: [footnote 20: in itself the predicate "catholic" contains no element that signifies a secularising of the church. "catholic" originally means christianity in its totality as contrasted with single congregations. hence the concepts "all communities" and the "universal church" are identical. but from the beginning there was a dogmatic element in the concept of the universal church, in so far as the latter was conceived to have been spread over the whole earth by the apostles; an idea which involved the conviction that only that could be true which was found _everywhere_ in christendom. consequently, "entire or universal christendom," "the church spread over the whole earth," and "the true church" were regarded as identical conceptions. in this way the concept "catholic" became a pregnant one, and finally received a dogmatic and political content. as this result actually took place, it is not inappropriate to speak of pre-catholic and catholic christianity.] [footnote 21: _translator's note._ the following is tertullian's latin as given by professor harnack: cap. 21: "constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a christo, christus a deo accepit." cap. 36: "videamus quid (ecclesia romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et christum iesum ex virgine maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit." chap. 32: "evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem."] [footnote 22: none of the three standards, for instance, were in the original of the first six books of the apostolic constitutions, which belong to the third century and are of syrian origin; but instead of them the old testament and gospel on the one hand, and the bishop, as the god of the community, on the other, are taken as authorities.] [footnote 23: see zahn, glaubensregel und taufbekenntniss in der alten kirche in the zeitschrift f. kirchl. wissensch. u. kirchl. leben, 1881, part 6, p. 302 ff., especially p. 314 ff. in the epistle of jude, v. 3, mention is made of the [greek: hapax paradotheisa tois hagiois pistis], and in v. 20 of "building yourselves up in your most holy faith." see polycarp, ep. iii. 2 (also vii. 2; ii. 1). in either case the expressions [greek: kanôn tês pisteôs, kanôn tês alêtheias], or the like, might stand for [greek: pistis], for the faith itself is primarily the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehensible and plainly defined. here lies the transition to a new interpretation of the conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. voigt has published an excellent investigation of the concept [greek: ho kanôn tês alêtheias] cum synonymis (eine verschollene urkunde des antimont. kampfes, 1891, pp. 184-205).] [footnote 24: in hermas, mand. i., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the confession of the monarchy of god, who created the world, that is the formula [greek: pisteôu eis hena theon pantakratora], which did not originate with the baptismal ceremony. but though at first the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the strict sense, the mission of jesus christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside of it from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without this.] [footnote 25: see on this point justin, index to otto's edition. it is not surprising that formulæ similar to those used at baptism were employed in the exorcism of demons. however, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the wording of the baptismal confession. though, for example, it is an established fact that in justin's time demons were exorcised with the words: "in the name of jesus christ who was crucified under pontius pilate," it does not necessarily follow from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. the sign of the cross was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more natural than that these words should be spoken. hence they are not necessarily borrowed from a baptismal confession.] [footnote 26: these facts were known to every christian. they are probably also alluded to in luke i. 4.] [footnote 27: the most important result of caspari's extensive and exact studies is the establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the romish confession. (ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete quellen z. gesch. des taufsymbols u d. glaubensregels. 3 vols. 1866-1875. alte u. neue quellen zur gesch. des taufsymbols u. d. glaubensregel, 1879). after this hahn, bibliothek d. symbole u. glaubensregeln der alten kirche. 2 aufl. 1877; see also my article "apostol. symbol" in herzog's r.e.. 2nd. ed., as well as book i. of the present work, chap. iii. § 2.] [footnote 28: this supposition is based on observation of the fact that particular statements of the roman symbol, in exactly the same form or nearly so, are found in many early christian writings. see patr. app. opp. i. 2, ed. 2, pp. 115-42.] [footnote 29: the investigations which lead to this result are of a very complicated nature and cannot therefore be given here. we must content ourselves with remarking that all western baptismal formulæ (creeds) may be traced back to the roman, and that there was no universal eastern creed on parallel lines with the latter. there is no mistaking the importance which, in these circumstances, is to be attributed to the roman symbol and church as regards the development of catholicism.] [footnote 30: this caused the pronounced tendency of the church to the formation of dogma, a movement for which paul had already paved the way. the development of christianity, as attested, for example, by the [greek: didachê], received an additional factor in the dogmatic tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. the great reaction is then found in monasticism. here again the rules of morality become the prevailing feature, and therefore the old christian gnomic literature attains in this movement a second period of vigour. in it again dogmatics only form the background for the strict regulation of life. in the instruction given as a preparation for baptism the christian moral commandments were of course always inculcated, and the obligation to observe these was expressed in the renunciation of satan and all his works. in consequence of this, there were also fixed formulæ in these cases.] [footnote 31: see the pastoral epistles, those of john and of ignatius; also the epistle of jude, 1 clem. vii., polycarp, ad philipp. vii., ii. 1, vi. 3, justin.] [footnote 32: in the apologetic writings of justin the courts of appeal invariably continue to be the old testament, the words of the lord, and the communications of prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any other in his anti-heretical work. on the other hand we cannot appeal to the observed fact that tertullian also, in his apologetic writings, did not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent of heresy; for, with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at all. on the contrary justin discussed their position even in his apologetic writings; but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything similar to theophilus' remarks in "ad autol.," ii. 14. justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formulæ and perhaps a baptismal symbol related to the roman, if not essentially identical with it. (see bornemann. das taufsymbol justins in the ztschr. f. k. g. vol. iii. p. 1 ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulæ in the sense of irenæus and tertullian. we find him using the expression [greek: orthognômones] in dial. 80. the resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years' kingdom (at jerusalem) are there reckoned among the beliefs held by the [greek: orthognômones kata panta christianoi]. but it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by justin that he places between the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a class of christians to whom he gives the general testimony that they are [greek: tês katharas kai eusebous gnômês], though they are not fully orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine. such an estimate would have been impossible to irenæus and tertullian. they have advanced to the principle that he who violates the law of faith in one point is guilty of breaking it all.] [footnote 33: hatch, "organisation of the church," p. 96.] [footnote 34: we can only conjecture that some teachers in asia minor contemporary with irenæus, or even of older date, and especially melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering to polycarp's exclusive attitude. dionysius of corinth (eusebius, h. e. iv. 23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also mentioned.] [footnote 35: irenæus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hæres., especially in the third book. unfortunately his treatise, "[greek: logos eis epideixin tou apostolikou kêrygmatos]", probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved (euseb., h. e. v. 26.)] [footnote 36: irenæus indeed asserts in several passages that all churches--those in germany, iberia, among the celts, in the east, in egypt, in lybia and italy; see i. 10. 2; iii. 3. 1; iii. 4. 1 sq.--possess the same apostolic _kerygma_; but "qui nimis probat nihil probat." the extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic theory is here at work. nevertheless this is based on the correct view that the gnostic speculations are foreign to christianity and of later date.] [footnote 37: we must further point out here that irenæus not only knew the tradition of the churches of asia minor and rome, but that he had sat at the feet of polycarp and associated in his youth with many of the "elders" in asia. of these he knew for certain that they in part did not approve of the gnostic doctrines and in part would not have done so. the confidence with which he represented his antignostic interpretation of the creed as that of the church of the apostles was no doubt owing to this sure historical recollection. see his epistle to florinus in euseb., h. e. v. 20 and his numerous references to the "elders" in his great work. (a collection of these may be found in patr. app. opp. i. 3, p. 105 sq.)] [footnote 38: caspari's investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the rule of faith to the baptismal confession. the baptismal confession was not a deposit resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith; but the latter were the explanations of the baptismal confession. the full authority of the confession itself was transferred to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful explanation was regarded as given with authority. each momentary formula employed to defend the church against heresy has therefore the full value of the creed. this explains the fact that, beginning with irenæus' time, we meet with differently formulated rules of faith, partly in the same writer, and yet each is declared to be _the_ rule of faith. zahn is virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted above, that the rule of faith is the baptismal confession. but, so far as i can judge, he has not discerned the dilemma in which the old catholic fathers were placed, and which they were not able to conceal. this dilemma arose from the fact that the church needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed formulæ and at the same time definitely interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in all churches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulæ but not interpreted, along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated, although it no doubt excluded the most offensive gnostic doctrines. it was not yet possible for the old catholic fathers to frame and formulate that doctrinal confession, and they did not attempt it. the only course therefore was to assert that an elastic collection of doctrines which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard in so far as it was based on a fixed creed. but this dilemma--we do not know how it was viewed by opponents--proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at the same time continuing to assert its identity with the baptismal confession. we must make the reservation, however, that not only the baptismal confession, but other fixed propositions as well, formed the basis on which particular rules of faith were formulated.] [footnote 39: besides irenæus i. 10. 1, 2, cf. 9. 1-5; 22. 1; ii. 1. 1; 9. 1; 28. 1; 32. 3, 4; iii. 1-4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 1; 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. 1; iv. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6; 33. 7 sq.; v. præf. 12. 5; 20. 1.] [footnote 40: see iren. i. 31. 3; ii. præf. 19. 8.] [footnote 41: this expression is not found in irenæus, but is very common in tertullian.] [footnote 42: see de præscr. 13: "hæc regula a christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones."] [footnote 43: see i. c. 14: "ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras et tractes." see de virg. vol. 1.] [footnote 44: see 1. c. 14: "fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis," and de vir. vol. 1.] [footnote 45: see de præscr. 21: "si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum ... superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur ... communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa." de præscr. 32: "ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ." that tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical with the _regula fidei_, just as irenæus does, is shown by the fact that in de spectac. 4 ("cum aquam ingressi christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.") the baptismal confession is the _lex_. he also calls it "sacramentum" (military oath) in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; scorp. 4. but he likewise gives the same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de præscr. 20, 32; adv. marc. iv. 5); for we must regard the passages cited as referring to this. adv. marc. i. 21: "regula sacramenti;" likewise v. 20, a passage specially instructive as to the fact that there can be only one regula. the baptismal confession itself had a fixed and short form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: "amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit;" de bapt. 2: "homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus;" de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2 etc.). we can still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it was the roman confession that was used in carthage in the days of tertullian. in de præscr. 26 tertullian admits that the apostles may have spoken some things "inter domesticos," but declares that they could not be communications "quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent."] [footnote 46: de præscr. 13; de virg. vol. 1; adv. prax. 2. the latter passage is thus worded: "unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam [greek: oikonomian] dicimus, ut unici del sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quern omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et cognominatum iesum christum, hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in coelo resumptum sedere ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos; qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum s. hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse."] [footnote 47: de præscr. 13.] [footnote 48: l.c.] [footnote 49: l.c.] [footnote 50: l.c.: "id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem mariam, carnem factum," etc.] [footnote 51: l.c.] [footnote 52: adv. prax. 2: "unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam [greek: oikonomian] dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius," etc.] [footnote 53: but tertullian also knows of a "regula disciplinæ" (according to the new testament) on which he puts great value, and thereby shows that he has by no means forgotten that christianity is a matter of conduct. we cannot enter more particularly into this rule here.] [footnote 54: note here the use of "contesserare" in tertullian. see de præscr. 20: "itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est illa ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et _contesseratio_ hospitalitatis, quæ iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio." de præscr. 36: "videamus, quid ecclesia romanensis cum africanis ecclesiis contesserarit."] [footnote 55: we need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the philosophic schools was taken as a standard. but we may refer to the fact that from the middle of the second century the apologists, that is the christian philosophers, had exercised a very great influence on the old catholic fathers. but we cannot say that 2. john 7-11 and didache xi. 1 f. attest the practice to be a very old one. these passages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element, namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in vain.] [footnote 56: herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of faith had coincided completely with the earliest tradition. a man like tertullian knew how to protect himself in his own way from this defect, but his attitude is not typical.] [footnote 57: hegesippus, who wrote about the time of eleutherus, and was in rome about the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than irenæus), already set up the apostolic rule of faith as a standard. this is clear from the description of his work in euseb., h. e. iv. 8. 2 ([greek: en pente sungrammasin tên aplanê paradosin tou apostolikou kêrygmatos hypomnêmatisamenos]) as well as from the fragments of this work (l.c. iv. 22. 2, 3: [greek: ho orthos logos] and § 5 [greek: emerisan tên henôsin tês ekklêsias phthorimaiois logois kata tou theou]; see also § 4). hegesippus already regarded the unity of the church as dependent on the correct doctrine. polycrates (euseb., h. e. v. 24. 6) used the expression [greek: ho kanôn tês pisteôs] in a very wide sense. but we may beyond doubt attribute to him the same conception with regard to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his opponent victor. the antimontanist (in euseb. h. e. v. 16. 22.) will only allow that the martyrs who went to death for the [greek: kata alêtheian pistis] were those belonging to the church. the _regula fidei_ is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of dispute. on the other hand, the anonymous writer in eusebius, h. e. v. 28. 6, 13 understood by [greek: to ekklêsiastikon phronêma] or [greek: ho kanôn tês archaias pisteôs] the interpreted baptismal confession, just as irenæus and tertullian did. hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see philosoph. præf., p. 4. v. 50 sq. and x. 32-34). whether we are to ascribe the theory of irenæus to theophilus is uncertain. his idea of the church is that of irenæus (ad autol. ii. 14): [greek: dedôken ho theos tô kosmô kumainomenô kai cheimazomenô hypo tôn hamartêmatôn tas synagôgas, legomenas de ekklêsias hagias, en ais kathaper limesin euormois en nêsois hai didaskaliai tês alêtheias eisin ... kai hôsper au nêsoi eisin heterai petrôdeis kai anudroi kai akarpoi kai thêriôdeis kai aoikêtoi epi blabê tôn pleontôn ... houtôs eisin hai didaskaliai tês planês, legô de tôn haireseôn, hai exapolluousin tous prosiontas autais.]] [footnote 58: this has been contested by caspari (ztschr. f. kirchl. wissensch. 1886, part. 7, p. 352 ff.: "did the alexandrian church in clement's time possess a baptismal confession or not?"); but his arguments have not convinced me. caspari correctly shows that in clement the expression "ecclesiastical canon" denotes the summary of the catholic faith and of the catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression [greek: hê peri tôn megistôn homologia], strom. vii. 15. 90 (see remarks on this passage below), and is supported in this view by voigt, l.c. p. 196 ff. i also regard this as a baptismal confession; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage is not conclusive on the point. but, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in hermas, mand. i. with the addition of a mere mention of the son and holy spirit. that a free _kerygma_ of christ and some other matter were added to hermas, mand. i. may still be proved by a reference to orig. comm. in joh. xxxii. 9 (see the passage in vol. i. p. 155.).] [footnote 59: [greek: hê kyriakê didaskalia], e.g., vi. 15. 124; vi. 18. 165; vii. 10. 57; vii. 15. 90; vii. 18. 165, etc.] [footnote 60: we do not find in clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession related to the roman, unless we reckon the [greek: theos pantokratôr] or [greek: eis th. p.] as such. but this designation of god is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal confession. in the lost treatise on the passover clement expounded the "[greek: paradoseis tôn archaiôn presbyterôn]" which had been transmitted to him.] [footnote 61: considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. in strom. iv. 15. 98, we find the expression [greek: ho kanôn teê pisteôs]; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. with regard to the statement of paul: "whatever you do, do it to the glory of god," clement remarks [greek: hosa hypo ton kanona tês pisteôs poiein epitetraptai]. in strom. i. 19. 96; vi. 15. 125; vi. 18. 165; vii. 7. 41; vii. 15. 90; vii. 16. 105 we find [greek: ho kanôn tês ekklêsias (ekklêsiastikos)]. in the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the lord's supper. in the other passages it describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox gnostic has to be guided in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the [greek: didaskalia tou kyriou]); but clement feels absolutely no need to mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. in strom iv. 1. 3; vi. 15. 124; vi 15. 131; vii. 16. 94, we find the expression [greek: ho kanôn tês alêtheias]. in the first passage it is said: [greek: hê goun kata ton tês alêtheias kanona gnôstikês paradoseôs physiologia, mallon de epopteia, ek tou peri kosmogonias êrtêtai logou, enthende anabainousa epi to theologikon eidos]. here no one can understand by the rule of truth what tertullian understood by it. very instructive is the second passage in which clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition of scripture. he says first: [greek: parakatathêke apodidomenê theô hê kata tên tou kyriou didaskalian dia tôn apostolôn autou tês theosebous paradoseôs synesis te kai synaskêsis]; then he demands that the scriptures be interpreted [greek: kata ton tês alêtheias kanona], or [greek: t. ekklês. kan.]; and continues (125): [greek: kanôn de ekklêsiastikos hê synôdia kai hê symphônia nomou te kai prophêtôn tê kata tên tou kyriou parousian paradidomenê diathêkê]. here then the agreement of the old testament with the testament of christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. apart from the question as to whether clement is here already referring to a new testament canon of scripture, his rule agrees with tertullian's testimony about the roman church: "legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet." but at any rate the passage shows the broad sense in which clement used the term "ecclesiastical canon." the following expressions are also found in clement: [greek: hê alêthes tês makarias didaskalias paradosis] (i. 1. 11), [greek: hai hagiai paradoseis] (vii. 18. 110), [greek: hê eukleês kai semnos tês paradoseôs kanôn] (all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also [greek: hê kata tên theian paradosin philosophia], i, 1. 15. i: 11. 52., also the expression [greek: hê theia paradosis] (vii. 16. 103), [greek: hê ekklêsiastike paradosis] (vii. 16. 95), [greek: hai tou christou paradoseis] (vii. 16. 99), [greek: hê tou kyriou paradosis] (vii. 17. 106: vii. 16. 104), [greek: hê theosebês paradosis] (vi. 15. 124)). its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing more can be gathered from the context than what clement once calls [greek: to koinon tês pisteôs] (vii. 16. 97). where clement wishes to determine the content more accurately he makes use of supplementary terms. he speaks, e.g., in iii. 10. 66 of the [greek: kata alêtheian euangelikos kanôn], and means by that the tradition contained in the gospels recognised by the church in contradistinction to that found in other gospels (iv. 4. 15: [greek: kata ton kanona tou euangeliou] = [greek: kata t. euang.]). in none of these formulæ is any notice taken of the apostles. that clement (like justin) traced back the public tradition to the apostles is a matter of course and manifest from i. 1. 11, where he gives an account of his early teachers ([greek: hoi men tên alêthê tês makarias sôzontes didaskalias paradosin euthus apo petrou te kai iakôbou, iôannou te kai paulou tôn hagiôn apostolôn, tais para patros ekdechomenos hêkon dê syn theô kai eis hêmas ta progonika ekeina kai apostolika katathêsomenoi spermata]). clement does not yet appeal to a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the natural one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition alongside of it. on one occasion he also says that the true gnostic keeps the [greek: apostolikê kai ekklêsiastikê orthotomia tôn dogmatôn] (vii. 16. 104). he has no doubt that: [greek: mia hê pantôn gegone tôn apostolôn hôsper didaskalia houtôs de kai hê paradosis] (vii. 17. 108). but all that might just as well have been written in the first half of the second century. on the tracing back of the gnosis, the esoteric tradition, to the apostles see hypotyp. in euseb., h. e. ii. 1. 4, strom. vi. 15. 131: [greek: autika didaxantos tou sôtêros tous apostolous hê tês engraphou agraphos êdê kai eis hêmas diadidotai paradosis]. vi. 7. 61: [greek: hê gnôsis de autê hê kata diadochas] (this is the only place where i find this expression) [greek: eis oligous ek tôn apostolôn agraphôs paradotheisa katelêluthen], ibid [greek: hê gnôstikê paradosis]; vii. 10. 55: [greek: hê gnôsis ek paradoseôs diadidomenê tois axious sphas autous tês didaskalias parechomenois oion parakatathêkê egcheirizetai]. in vii. 17. 106 clement has briefly recorded the theories of the gnostic heretics with regard to the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. that the tradition of the "old church," for so clement designates the orthodox church as distinguished from the "human congregation" of the heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the apostles, he regards as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic. but the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed confession might seem to be disproved by one passage. it is said in strom. vii. 15. 90: [greek: mê ti oun, ei kai parabaiê tis synthêkas kai tên homologian parelthoi tên pros hêmas, dia ton pseusamenon tên homologian aphexometha tês alêtheias kai hêmeis, all' hôs apseudein chrê ton epieikê kai mêden hôn hupeschêtai akuroun kan alloi tines parabainôsi synthêkas, outôs kai hêmas kata mêdena tropon ton ekklêsiastikon parabainein prosekei kanona kai malista tên peri tôn megistôn homologian hêmeis men phylattomen, oi de parabainousi]. but in the other passages in clement where [greek: homologia] appears it nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its content according to the situation (see strom. iv. 4. 15; iv. 9. 71; iii. 1. 4: [greek: egkrateia sômatos hyperopsia kata tên pros theon homologian]). in the passage quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine. it is possible or probable that clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. at any rate this one passage cannot prove that clement identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in his works.] [footnote 62: de princip. l. i. præf. § 4-10., iv. 2. 2. yet we must consider the passage already twice quoted, namely, com. in john. xxxii. 9, in order to determine the practice of the alexandrian church at that time. was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from herm., mand. i., and christological and theological teachings, so that the later confessions of the east with their dogmatic details are already to be found here?] [footnote 63: that may be also shown with regard to the new testament canon. very important is the declaration of eusebius (h. e. vi. 14) that origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to rome in the time of zephyrinus, "because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient church of the romans." we learn from jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that origen there became acquainted with hippolytus, who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. that origen kept up a connection with rome still later and followed the conflicts there with keen interest may be gathered from his works. (see döllinger, "hippolytus und calixtus" p. 254 ff.) on the other hand, clement was quite unacquainted with that city. bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks: "the west is as unknown to clement as it was to his favourite homer." that there was a formulated [greek: pistis kai homologia] in alexandria about 250 a.d. is shown by the epistle of dionysius (euseb., h. e. vii. 8). he says of novatian, [greek: anatrepei tên pro loutrou pistin kai homologian]. dionysius would hardly have reproduced this roman reproach in that way, if the alexandrian church had not possessed a similar [greek: pistis].] [footnote 64: the original of the apostolic constitutions has as yet no knowledge of the apostolic rule of faith in the western sense.] [footnote 65: the close of the first homily of aphraates shows how simple, antique, and original this confession still was in outlying districts at the beginning of the fourth century. on the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already heavily weighted with theology.] [footnote 66: cf. the epistles of cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. when cyprian speaks (69. 7) of one and the same law which is held by the whole catholic church, and of one _symbol_ with which she administers baptism (this is the first time we meet with this expression), his words mean far more than the assertion of irenæus that the confession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all churches; for in cyprian's time the intercourse of most catholic communities with each other was so regulated that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. cf. also novatian, "de trinitate seu de regula fidei," as well as the circular letter of the synod of antioch referring to the metropolitan paul (euseb., h. e. vii. 30. 6 ... [greek: apostas tou kanonos epi kibdêla kai notha didagmata metelêluthen]), and the homilies of aphraates. the closer examination of the last phase in the development of the confession of faith during this epoch, when the apostolic confessions received an interpretation in accordance with the theology of origen, will be more conveniently left over till the close of our description (see chap. 7 fin).] [footnote 67: see the histories of the canon by credner, reuss, westcott, hilgenfeld, schmiedel, holtzmann, and weiss; the latter two, which to some extent supplement each other, are specially instructive. to weiss belongs the merit of having kept gospels and apostles clearly apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see th. l. z. 1886. nr. 24); zahn, gesch. des n. tlichen kanons, 2 vols, 1888 ff.; harnack, das neue test. um d. j. 200, 1889; voigt, eine verschollene urkunde des antimontan. kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; weizsäcker, rede bei der akad. preisvertheilung, 1892. nov.; köppel, stud. u. krit. 1891, p. 102 ff; barth, neue jahrbb. f. deutsche theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. the following account gives only a few aspects of the case, not a history of the genesis of the canon.] [footnote 68: "holy" is not always equivalent to "possessing absolute authority." there are also various stages and degrees of "holy."] [footnote 69: i beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the new testament. (1) it is not individual writings, but the whole book that has been immediately handed down to us. hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we must first of all enquire, not whether the title and historical setting of a book are genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the work when it became a component part of the collection. this also gives us the right to assume interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was included in the canon, though this right must be used with caution. (2) baur's "tendency-criticism" has fallen into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting which were its after effects. in consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the tübingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was justifiable and obligatory on their part. (3) individual difficulties about the date of a document ought not to have the result of casting suspicion on it, when other good grounds speak in its favour; for, in dealing with writings which have no, or almost no accompanying literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) the condition of the oldest christianity up to the beginning of the second century did not favour literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency. (5) we must remember that, from the death of nero till the time of trajan, very little is known of the history of the church except the fact that, by the end of this time, christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become vigorously consolidated.] [footnote 70: the novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was worked out, inasmuch as marcion would only admit the authority of one gospel to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the pauline epistles which had originally little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the church.] [footnote 71: it is easy to understand that, wherever there was criticism of the old testament, the pauline epistles circulating in the church would be thrust into the foreground. the same thing was done by the manichæans in the byzantine age.] [footnote 72: four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz., 2 peter iii. 16; polycarp ep. 12. 1; barn. iv. 14; 2 clem. ii. 4. but the first is put out of court, as the second epistle of peter is quite a late writing. the second is only known from an unreliable latin translation (see zahn on the passage: "verba 'his scripturis' suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. ii. 3 ex suis inseruerit quod dictum est"), and even if the latter were faithful here, the quotation from the psalms prefixed to the quotation from the epistle to the ephesians prevents us from treating the passage as certain evidence. as to the third passage ([greek: mêpote, hôs gegraptai, polloi klêtoi, oligoi de eklektoi heurethômen]), it should be noted that the author of the epistle of barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as [greek: graphê], and must have drawn from more sources than the canonic gospels. here, therefore, we have an enigma which may be solved in a variety of ways. it seems worth noting that it is a saying of the lord which is here in question. but from the very beginning words of the lord were equally reverenced with the old testament (see the pauline epistles). this may perhaps explain how the author--like 2 clem. ii. 4: [greek: hetera de graphê legei hoti ouk êlthon kalesai dikaious alla hamartôlous]--has introduced a saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing old testament quotations. passages, such as clem. xiii. 4: [greek: legei ho theos: ou charis humin ei agapate k.t.l.] would mark the transition to this mode of expression. the correctness of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula as was employed in the case of the old testament was used in making quotations from early christian apocalypses, or utterances of early christian prophets in the earliest period. thus we already read in ephesians v. 14: [greek: dio legei: egeire ho katheudôn kai anasta ek tôn nekrôn kai epiphausei soi ho christos]. that, certainly, is a saying of a christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the usual "[greek: legei]". we also find a saying of a christian prophet in clem. xxiii. (the saying is more complete in 2 clem. xi.) introduced with the words: [greek: hê graphê hautê, hopou legei]. these examples may be multiplied still further. from all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formulæ of quotation "[greek: graphê], [greek: gegraptai]," etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings of the lord and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the documents in question had not yet as a whole obtained canonical authority. finally, we must also draw attention to the following:--the epistle of barnabas belongs to egypt; and there probably, contrary to my former opinion, we must also look for the author of the second epistle of clement. there is much to favour the view that in egypt _christian_ writings were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a collection of equal rank with the old testament. (see below on this point.)] [footnote 73: see on justin bousset. die evv.-citate justins. gott., 1891. we may also infer from the expression of hegesippus (euseb., h. e. iv. 22. 3; stephanus gobarus in photius, bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was not christian writings, but the lord himself, who was placed on an equality with law and prophets. very instructive is the formula: "libri et epistolæ pauli viri iusti" ([greek: hai kath' hêmas bibloi kai hai prosepitoutois epistolai paulou tou hosiou andros]), which is found in the acta mart. scillit. anno 180 (ed. robinson, texts and studies, 1891, i. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts us to make certain conclusions. in the later recensions of the acta the passage, characteristically enough, is worded: "libri evangeliorum et epistolæ pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli" or "quattuor evv. dom. nostri j. chr. et epp. s. pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura."] [footnote 74: it is worthy of note that the gnostics also, though they quote the words of the apostles (john and paul) as authoritative, place the utterances of the lord on an unattainable height. see in support of this the epistle of ptolemy to flora.] [footnote 75: rev. i. 3; herm. vis. ii. 4; dionys. cor. in euseb., iv. 23. 11.] [footnote 76: tertullian, this christian of the primitive type, still reveals the old conception of things in one passage where, reversing 2 tim. iii. 16, he says (de cultu fem. i. 3) "legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari."] [footnote 77: the history of the collection of the pauline epistles may be traced back to the first century (1 clem. xlvii. and like passages). it follows from the epistle of polycarp that this native of asia minor had in his hands all the pauline epistles (quotations are made from nine of the latter; these nine imply the four that are wanting, yet it must remain an open question whether he did not yet possess the pastoral epistles in their present form), also 1 peter, 1 john (though he has not named the authors of these), the first epistle of clement and the gospels. the extent of the writings read in churches which polycarp is thus seen to have had approaches pretty nearly that of the later recognised canon. compare, however, the way in which he assumes sayings from those writings to be well known by introducing them with "[greek: eidotes]" (i. 3; iv. 1; v. 1). ignatius likewise shows himself to be familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the new testament. we see from the works of clement, that, at the end of the second century, a great mass of christian writings were collected in alexandria and were used and honoured.] [footnote 78: it should also be pointed out that justin most probably used the gospel of peter among the [greek: apomnêmoneumata]; see texte u. unters. ix. 2.] [footnote 79: see my article in the zeitschr. f. k. gesch. vol. iv. p. 471 ff. zahn (tatian's diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view.] [footnote 80: justin also used the gospel of john, but it is a disputed matter whether he regarded and used it like the other gospels.] [footnote 81: the sabellians still used it in the third century, which is a proof of the great authority possessed by this gospel in christian antiquity. (epiph., h. 62. 2.)] [footnote 82: euseb. h. e. iv. 29. 5.] [footnote 83: in many regions the gospel canon alone appeared at first, and in very many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the other canonical writings. alexander of alexandria, for instance, still calls god the giver of the law, the prophets, and the gospels (theodoret, i. 4).] [footnote 84: euseb., h. e. ii. 26. 13. as melito speaks here of the [greek: akribeia tôn palaiôn bibliôn], and of [greek: ta biblia tês palaias diathêkês], we may assume that he knows [greek: ta biblia tês kainês diathêkês].] [footnote 85: we may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to the admissibility of particular books. that the pastoral epistles had a fixed place in the canon almost from the very first is of itself a proof that the date of its origin cannot be long before 180. in connection with this, however, it is an important circumstance that clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the epistles to timothy (strom. ii. 12. 52: [greek: hoi apo tôn haireseôn tas pros timotheon athetousin epistolas]). they did not happen to be at the disposal of the church at all till the middle of the second century.] [footnote 86: yet see the passage from tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1; see also the "receptior," de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of hermas in the muratorian fragment and tertull. de bapt. 17: "quodsi quæ pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore pauli fecisse, loco decessisse." the hypothesis that the apostles themselves (or the apostle john) compiled the new testament was definitely set up by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed. augustine (c. faustum xxii. 79) speaks frankly of "sancti et docti homines" who produced the new testament. we can prove by a series of testimonies that the idea of the church having compiled the new testament writings was in no way offensive to the old catholic fathers. as a rule, indeed, they are silent on the matter. irenæus and tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent.] [footnote 87: numerous examples may be found in proof of all these points, especially in the writings of tertullian, though such are already to be met with in irenæus also. he is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the gospels as ptolemæus whom he finds fault with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesis of the books of the new testament not essentially different from that of the valentinians. one should above all read the treatise of tertullian "de idololatria" to perceive how the authority of the new testament was even by that time used for solving all questions.] [footnote 88: i cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the position that should be assigned to the muratorian fragment in the history of the formation of the canon, nor into its interpretation, etc. see my article "das muratorische fragment und die entstehung einer sammlung apostolisch-katholischer schriften" in the ztschr. f. k. gesch. iii. p. 358 ff. see also overbeck, zur geschichte des kanons, 1880; hilgenfeld, in the zeitschrift f. wissensch. theol. 1881, part 2; schmiedel, art. "kanon" in ersch. u. gruber's encykl., 2 section, vol. xxxii. p. 309 ff.; zahn, kanongeschichte, vol. ii. p. 1 ff. i leave the fragment and the conclusions i have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. the following sketch will show that the objections of overbeck have not been without influence on me.] [footnote 89: the use of the word "canon" as a designation of the collection is first plainly demonstrable in athanasius (ep. fest. of the year 365) and in the 59th canon of the synod of laodicea. it is doubtful whether the term was already used by origen. besides, the word "canon" was not applied even to the old testament before the fourth century. the name "new testament" (books of the new testament) is first found in melito and tertullian. for other designations of the latter see ronsch, das n. t. tertullian's p. 47 f. the most common name is "holy scriptures." in accordance with its main components the collection is designated as [greek: to euangelion kai ho apostolos] (evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ); see tertullian, de bapt. 15: "tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris." the name "writings of the lord" is also found very early. it was already used for the gospels at a time when there was no such thing as a canon. it was then occasionally transferred to all writings of the collection. conversely, the entire collection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just as the old testament scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets. prophets and apostles (= old and new testament) were now conceived as the media of god's revelation fixed in writing (see the muratorian fragment in its account of hermas, and the designation of the gospels as "apostolic memoirs" already found in justin.) this grouping became exceedingly important. it occasioned new speculations about the unique dignity of the apostles and did away with the old collocation of apostles and prophets (that is christian prophets). by this alteration we may measure the revolution of the times. finally, the new collection was also called "the writings of the church" as distinguished from the old testament and the writings of the heretics. this expression and its amplifications shew that it was the church which selected these writings.] [footnote 90: here there is a distinction between irenæus and tertullian. the former disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the scriptures, the latter, although he has read irenæus, forbids such dispute. he cannot therefore have considered irenæus' efforts as successful.] [footnote 91: the reader should remember the different recensions of the gospels and the complaints made by dionysius of corinth (in euseb., h. e. iv. 23. 12).] [footnote 92: that the text of these writings was at the same time revised is more than probable, especially in view of the beginnings and endings of many new testament writings, as well as, in the case of the gospels, from a comparison of the canon text with the quotations dating from the time when there was no canon. but much more important still is the perception of the fact that, in the course of the second century, a series of writings which had originally been circulated anonymously or under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an apostle and were also slightly altered in accordance with this. in what circumstances or at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the beginning of the second century or only immediately before the formation of the canon, is in almost every individual case involved in obscurity, but the fact itself, of which unfortunately the introductions to the new testament still know so little, is, in my opinion, incontestable. i refer the reader to the following examples, without indeed being able to enter on the proof here (see my edition of the "teaching of the apostles" p. 106 ff). (1) the gospel of luke seems not to have been known to marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a later date. (2) the canonical gospels of matthew and mark do not claim, through their content, to originate with these men; they were regarded as apostolic at a later period. (3) the so-called epistle of barnabas was first attributed to the apostle barnabas by tradition. (4) the apocalypse of hermas was first connected with an apostolic hermas by tradition (rom. xvi. 14). (5) the same thing took place with regard to the first epistle of clement (philipp, iv. 3). (6) the epistle to the hebrews, originally the writing of an unknown author or of barnabas, was transformed into a writing of the apostle paul (overbeck zur gesch. des kanons, 1880), or given out to be such. (7) the epistle of james, originally the communication of an early christian prophet, or a collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems to have received the name of james in tradition. (8) the first epistle of peter, which originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of paul, first received its present name from tradition. the same thing perhaps holds good of the epistle of jude. tradition was similarly at work, even at a later period, as may for example be recognised by the transformation of the epistle "de virginitate" into two writings by clement. the critics of early christian literature have created for themselves insoluble problems by misunderstanding the work of tradition. instead of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle with the dilemma "genuine or spurious", and can prove neither.] [footnote 93: as regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest removed from the claim to be a portion of a collection of holy scriptures. accordingly, so far as we know, its reception into the canon has no preliminary history.] [footnote 94: people were compelled by internal and external evidence (recognition of their apostolicity; example of the gnostics) to accept the epistles of paul. but, from the catholic point of view, a canon which comprised only the four gospels and the pauline epistles, would have been at best an edifice of two wings without the central structure, and therefore incomplete and uninhabitable. the actual novelty was the bold insertion into its midst of a book, which, if everything is not deceptive, had formerly been only in private use, namely, the acts of the apostles, which some associated with an epistle of peter and an epistle of john, others with an epistle of jude, two epistles of john, and the like. there were now (1) writings of the lord which were at the same time regarded as [greek: apomnêmoneumata] of definite apostles; (2) a book which contained the acts and preaching of all the apostles, which historically legitimised paul, and at the same time gave hints for the explanation of "difficult" passages in his epistle; (3) the pauline epistles increased by the compilation of the pastoral ones, documents which "in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant." the acts of the apostles is thus the key to the understanding of the catholic canon and at the same time shows its novelty. in this book the new collection had its bond of cohesion, its catholic element (apostolic tradition), and the guide for its exposition. that the acts of the apostles found its place in the canon _faute de mieux_ is clear from the extravagant terms, not at all suited to the book, in which its appearance there is immediately hailed. it is inserted in place of a book which should have contained the teaching and missionary acts of all the 12 apostles; but, as it happened, such a record was not in existence. the first evidence regarding it is found in the muratorian fragment and in irenæus and tertullian. there it is called "acta omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc." irenæus says (iii. 14. 1): "lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit _apostolorum_, maxime autem pauli," and makes use of the book to prove the subordination of paul to the twelve. in the celebrated passages, de præscr. 22, 23: adv. marc. i. 20; iv. 2-5; v. 1-3, tertullian made a still more extensive use of the acts of the apostles, as the antimarcionite book in the canon. one can see here why it was admitted into that collection and used against paul as the apostle of the heretics. the fundamental thought of tertullian is that no one who fails to recognise the acts of the apostles has any right to recognise paul, and that to elevate him by himself into a position of authority is unhistorical and absolutely unfounded fanaticism. if the [greek: didachê tôn dôdeka apostolôn] was needed as an authority in the earlier time, a _book_ which contained that authority was required in the later period; and nothing else could be found than the work of the so-called luke. "qui acta apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent." but the greater part of the heretics remained obstinate. neither marcionites, severians, nor the later manicheans recognised the acts of the apostles. to some extent they replied by setting up other histories of apostles in opposition to it, as was done later by a fraction of the ebionites and even by the marcionites. but the church also was firm. it is perhaps the most striking phenomenon in the history of the formation of the canon that this late book, from the very moment of its appearance, asserts its right to a place in the collection, just as certainly as the four gospels, though its position varied. in clement of alexandria indeed the book is still pretty much in the background, perhaps on a level with the [greek: kêrugma petrou], but clement has no new testament at all in the strict sense of the word; see below. but at the very beginning the book stood where it is to-day, i.e., immediately after the gospels (see muratorian fragment, irenæus, etc.). the parallel creation, the group of catholic epistles, acquired a much more dubious position than the acts of the apostles, and its place was never really settled. its germ is probably to be found in two epistles of john (viz., 1st and 3rd) which acquired dignity along with the gospel, as well as in the epistle of jude. these may have given the impulse to create a group of narratives about the twelve apostles from anonymous writings of old apostles, prophets, and teachers. but the epistle of peter is still wanting in the muratorian fragment, nor do we yet find the group there associated with the acts of the apostles. the epistle of jude, two epistles of john, the wisdom of solomon, the apocalypse of john and that of peter form the unsymmetrical conclusion of this oldest catalogue of the canon. but, all the same writings, by jude, john, and peter are here found side by side; thus we have a preparation for the future arrangement made in different though similar fashion by irenæus and again altered by tertullian. the genuine pauline epistles appear enclosed on the one hand by the acts of the apostles and the catholic epistles, and on the other by the pastoral ones, which in their way are also "catholic." that is the character of the "catholic" new testament which is confirmed by the earliest use of it (in irenæus and tertullian). in speaking above of the acts of the apostles as a late book, we meant that it was so relatively to the canon. in itself the book is old and for the most part reliable.] [footnote 95: there is no doubt that this was the reason why to all appearance the innovation was scarcely felt. similar causes were at work here as in the case of the apostolic rule of faith. in the one case the writings that had long been read in the church formed the basis, in the other the baptismal confession. but a great distinction is found in the fact that the baptismal confession, as already settled, afforded an elastic standard which was treated as a fixed one and was therefore extremely practical; whilst, conversely, the undefined group of writings hitherto read in the church was reduced to a collection which could neither be increased nor diminished.] [footnote 96: at the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in practice, and not in theory, that the gospels and the pauline epistles possessed equal authority. moreover, the name new testament is not yet found in irenæus, nor do we yet find him giving an exact idea of its content. see werner in the text. u. unters. z. altchristl. lit. gesch. bd. vi. 2.] [footnote 97: see above, p. 40, note 2.] [footnote 98: we have ample evidence in the great work of irenæus as to the difficulties he found in many passages of the pauline epistles, which as yet were almost solely utilised as sources of doctrine by such men as marcion, tatian, and theologians of the school of valentinus. the difficulties of course still continued to be felt in the period which followed. (see, e.g., method, conviv. orat. iii. 1, 2.)] [footnote 99: apollinaris of hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (4) gospels as impossible. (see routh, reliq. sacr. i. p. 150.)] [footnote 100: see overbeck, "ueber die auffassung des streites des paulus mit petrus in antiochien bei den kirchenvätern," 1877, p. 8.] [footnote 101: see also clement strom. iv. 21. 124; vi. 15. 125. the expression is also frequent in origen, e.g., de princip. præf. 4.] [footnote 102: the roman church in her letter to that of corinth designates her own words as the words of god (1 clem. lix. 1) and therefore requires obedience "[greek: tois huph' hêmôn gegrammenois dia tou hagiou pneumatos]" (lxiii. 2).] [footnote 103: tertull. de exhort. 4: "spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli ... proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri." clem. alex. strom. iv. 21. 135: [greek: hekastos idion echei charisma apo theou, ho men houtôs, ho de houtôs, hoi apostoloi de en pasi peplêromenoi]; serapion in euseb., h. e. vi. 12. 3: [greek: hêmeis kai ton petron kai tous allous apostolous apodechometha hôs christon]. the success of the canon here referred to was an undoubted blessing, for, as the result of enthusiasm, christianity was menaced with complete corruption, and things and ideas, no matter how alien to its spirit, were able to obtain a lodgment under its protection. the removal of this danger, which was in some measure averted by the canon, was indeed coupled with great disadvantages, inasmuch as believers were referred in legal fashion to a new book, and the writings contained in it were at first completely obscured by the assumption that they were inspired and by the requirement of an "expositio legitima."] [footnote 104: see tertull., de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24, de ieiun. 15, de pudic. 12. sufficiency is above all included in the concept "inspiration" (see for ex. tertull., de monog. 4: "negat scriptura quod non notat"), and the same measure of authority belongs to all parts (see iren., iv. 28. 3. "nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum").] [footnote 105: the direct designation "prophets" was, however, as a rule, avoided. the conflict with montanism made it expedient to refrain from this name; but see tertullian, adv. marc. iv. 24: "tam apostolus moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ."] [footnote 106: compare also what the author of the muratorian fragment says in the passage about the shepherd of hermas.] [footnote 107: this caused the most decisive breach with tradition, and the estimate to be formed of the apocalypses must at first have remained an open question. their fate was long undecided in the west; but it was very soon settled that they could have no claim to public recognition in the church, because their authors had not that fulness of the spirit which belongs to the apostles alone.] [footnote 108: the disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged apostolic writings were regarded as canonical must be answered in the affirmative in reference to irenæus and tertullian, who conversely regarded no book as canonical unless written by the apostles. on the other hand, it appears to me that no certain opinion on this point can be got from the muratorian fragment. in the end the gospel, acts, kerygma, and apocalypse of peter as well as the acts of paul were rejected, a proceeding which was at the same time a declaration that they were spurious. but these three witnesses agree (see also app. constit. vi. 16) that the apostolic _regula fidei_ is practically the final court of appeal, inasmuch as it decides whether a writing is really apostolic or not, and inasmuch as, according to tertullian, the apostolic writings belong to the church alone, because she alone possesses the apostolic _regula_ (de præscr. 37 ff.). the _regula_ of course does not legitimise those writings, but only proves that they are authentic and do not belong to the heretics. these witnesses also agree that a christian writing has no claim to be received into the canon merely on account of its prophetic form. on looking at the matter more closely, we see that the view of the early church, as opposed to montanism, led to the paradox that the apostles were prophets in the sense of being inspired by the spirit, but that they were not so in the strict sense of the word.] [footnote 109: the fragment of serapion's letter given in eusebius owes its interest to the fact that it not only shows the progress made at this time with the formation of the canon at antioch, but also what still remained to be done.] [footnote 110: see my essay "theophilus v. antiochien und das n. t." in the ztschr. f. k. gesch. xi. p. 1 ff.] [footnote 111: the most important passages are autol. ii. 9. 22: [greek: hothen didaskousin hêmas hai hagiai graphai kai pantes hoi pneumatophoroi, ex hôn iôannaes legei k.t.l.] (follows john i. 1) iii. 12: [greek: kai peri dikaiosunês, hês ho nomos eirêken, akoloutha heurisketai kai ta tôn prophêtôn kai tôn euangeliôn echein, dia to tous pantas pneumatophorous heni pneumati theou lelalêkenai]; iii. 13: [greek: ho hagios logos--hê euangelios phônê].; iii. 14: [greek: êsaias--to de euangelion--ho theios logos]. the latter formula is not a quotation of epistles of paul viewed as canonical, but of a divine command found in the old testament and given in pauline form. it is specially worthy of note that the original of the six books of the apostolic constitutions, written in syria and belonging to the second half of the third century, knows yet of no new testament. in addition to the old testament it has no authority but the "gospel."] [footnote 112: there has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the new testament of clement. the information given by volkmar in credner's gesch. d. n. tlichen kanon, p. 382 ff., is not sufficient. the space at the disposal of this manual prevents me from establishing the results of my studies on this point. let me at least refer to some important passages which i have collected. strom. i. §§ 28, 100; ii. §§ 22, 28, 29; iii.,§§ 11, 66, 70, 71, 76, 93, 108; iv. §§ 2, 91, 97, 105, 130, 133, 134, 138, 159; v. §§ 3, 17, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 80, 85, 86; vi. §§ 42,44, 54, 59, 61, 66--68, 88, 91, 106, 107, 119, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133, 161, 164; vii. §§ 1, 14, 34, 76, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107. as to the estimate of the epistles of barnabas and clement of rome as well as of the shepherd, in clement, see the prolegg. to my edition of the opp. patr. apost.] [footnote 113: according to strom. v. 14. 138 even the epicurean metrodorus uttered certain words [greek: entheôs]; but on the other hand homer was a prophet against his will. see pæd. i. 6. 36, also § 51.] [footnote 114: in the pæd. the gospels are regularly called [greek: hê graphê] but this is seldom the case with the epistles. the word "apostle" is used in quoting these.] [footnote 115: it is also very interesting to note that clement almost nowhere illustrates the parabolic character of the holy scriptures by quoting the epistles, but in this connection employs the old testament and the gospels, just as he almost never allegorises passages from other writings. 1 cor. iii. 2 is once quoted thus in pæd. i. 6. 49: [greek: to en tô apostolô hagion pneuma tê tou kuriou apochrômenon phônê legei]. we can hardly conclude from pæd. i. 7. 61 that clement called paul a "prophet."] [footnote 116: it is worthy of special note that clem., pæd. ii. 10.3; strom. ii. 15. 67 has criticised an interpretation given by the author of the epistle of barnabas, although he calls barnabas an apostle.] [footnote 117: in this category we may also include the acts of the apostles, which is perhaps used like the [greek: kêrugma]. it is quoted in pæd. ii. 16. 56; strom. i. 50, 89, 91, 92, 153, 154; iii. 49; iv. 97; v. 75, 82; vi. 63, 101, 124, 165.] [footnote 118: the "seventy disciples" were also regarded as apostles, and the authors of writings the names of which did not otherwise offer a guarantee of authority were likewise included in this category. that is to say, writings which were regarded as valuable and which for some reason or other could not be characterised as apostolic in the narrower sense were attributed to authors whom there was no reason for denying to be apostles in the wider sense. this wider use of the concept "apostolic" is moreover no innovation. see my edition of the didache, pp. 111-118.] [footnote 119: the formation of the canon in alexandria must have had some connection with the same process in asia minor and in rome. this is shown not only by each church recognising four gospels, but still more by the admission of thirteen pauline epistles. we would see our way more clearly here, if anything certain could be ascertained from the works of clement, including the hypotyposes, as to the arrangement of the holy scriptures; but the attempt to fix this arrangement is necessarily a dubious one, because clement's "canon of the new testament" was not yet finally fixed. it may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust is already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still embedded in the stone.] [footnote 120: no greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole history of the church than the formation of the apostolic collection and the assigning to it of a position of equal rank with the old testament.] [footnote 121: the history of early christian writings in the church which were not definitely admitted into the new testament is instructive on this point. the fate of some of these may be described as tragical. even when they were not branded as downright forgeries, the writings of the fathers from the fourth century downwards were far preferred to them.] [footnote 122: see on this point overbeck "abhandlung über die anfange der patristischen litteratur," l.c., p. 469. nevertheless, even after the creation of the new testament canon, theological authorship was an undertaking which was at first regarded as highly dangerous. see the antimontanist in euseb., h. e. v. 16. 3: [greek: dediôs kai exeulaboumenos, mê pê doxô prin episungraphein ê epidiatassesthai tô tês tou euangeliou kainês diathêkês logô]. we find similar remarks in other old catholic fathers (see clemen. alex.).] [footnote 123: but how diverse were the expositions; compare the exegesis of origen and tertullian, scorp. ii.] [footnote 124: on the extent to which the old testament had become subordinated to the new and the prophets to the apostles, since the end of the second century, see the following passage from novatian, de trinit. 29: "unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus."] [footnote 125: that may be shown in all the old catholic fathers, but most plainly perhaps in the theology of origen. moreover, the subordination of the old testament revelation to the christian one is not simply a result of the creation of the new testament, but may be explained by other causes; see chap. 5. if the new testament had not been formed, the church would perhaps have obtained a christian old testament with numerous interpolations--tendencies in this direction were not wanting: see vol. i, p. 114 f.--and increased in extent by the admission of apocalypses. the creation of the new testament preserved the purity of the old, for it removed the need of doing violence to the latter in the interests of christianity.] [footnote 126: the catholic church had from the beginning a very clear consciousness of the dangerousness of many new testament writings, in fact she made a virtue of necessity in so far as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this danger. see tertullian, de præscr. passim, and de resurr. 63.] [footnote 127: to a certain extent the new testament disturbs and prevents the tendency to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most essential content. for it not only puts itself in the place of the unity of a system, but frequently also in the place of a harmonious and complete creed. hence the rule of faith is necessary as a guiding principle, and even an imperfect one is better than a mere haphazard reliance upon the bible.] [footnote 128: we must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust, for irenæus and tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an idea, but to the acknowledgment that it was impossible to make any effective use of the new testament scriptures in arguments with educated non-christians and heretics. for these writings could carry no weight with the former, and the latter either did not recognise them or else interpreted them by different rules. even the offer of several of the fathers to refute the marcionites from their own canon must by no means be attributed to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the authority of the ecclesiastical canon of scripture. we need merely add that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt by christians in conceiving the pauline epistles, for instance, to be analogous and equal in value to genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the terminology even in the third century, in so far as the term "divine writings" continues to be more frequently applied to the old testament than to certain parts of the new.] [footnote 129: tertullian, in de corona 3, makes his catholic opponent say: "etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta."] [footnote 130: hatch, organisation of the early christian church, 1883. harnack, die lehre der zwölf apostel, 1884. sohm, kirchenrecht, vol. i. 1892.] [footnote 131: marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his christianity from traditions inasmuch as he rather put it in opposition to tradition. this disclaimer of marcion is in keeping with his renunciation of apologetic proof, whilst, conversely, in the church the apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against the heretics, were closely related. in the one case the truth of christianity was proved by showing that it is the oldest religion, and in the other the truth of ecclesiastical christianity was established from the thesis that it is the oldest christianity, viz., that of the apostles.] [footnote 132: see tertullian, de præscr. 20, 21, 32.] [footnote 133: this theory is maintained by irenæus and tertullian, and is as old as the association of the [greek: hagia ekklêsia] and the [greek: pneuma hagion]. just for that reason the distinction they make between churches founded by the apostles and those of later origin is of chief value to themselves in their arguments against heretics. this distinction, it may be remarked, is clearly expressed in tertullian alone. here, for example, it is of importance that the church of carthage derives its "authority" from that of rome (de præscr. 36).] [footnote 134: tertull., de præscr. 32 (see p. 19). iren., iii. 2. 2: "cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc." iii. 3. 1: "traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos ... valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes ... traditio romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominibus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos." iii. 3. 4, 4. 1: "si de aliqua modica qusestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt ... quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias?" iv. 33. 8: "character corporis christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc." v. 20.1: "omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias." iv. 26. 2: "quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt." iv. 26. 5: "ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio." the declaration in luke x. 16 was already applied by irenæus (iii. præf.) to the successors of the apostles.] [footnote 135: for details on this point see my edition of the didache, proleg., p. 140. as the _regula fidei_ has its preparatory stages in the baptismal confession, and the new testament in the collection of writings read in the churches, so the theory that the bishops receive and guarantee the apostolic heritage of truth has its preparatory stage in the old idea that god has bestowed on the church apostles, prophets, and teachers, who always communicate his word in its full purity. the functions of these persons devolved by historical development upon the bishop; but at the same time it became more and more a settled conviction that no one in this latter period could be compared with the apostles. the only true christianity, however, was that which was apostolic and which could prove itself to be so. the natural result of the problem which thus arose was the theory of an objective transference of the _charisma veritatis_ from the apostles to the bishops. this notion preserved the unique personal importance of the apostles, guaranteed the apostolicity, that is, the truth of the church's faith, and formed a dogmatic justification for the authority already attained by the bishops. the old idea that god bestows his spirit on the church, which is therefore the holy church, was ever more and more transformed into the new notion that the bishops receive this spirit, and that it appears in their official authority. the theory of a succession of prophets, which can be proved to have existed in asia minor, never got beyond a rudimentary form and speedily disappeared.] [footnote 136: this theory must have been current in the roman church before the time when irenæus wrote; for the list of roman bishops, which we find in irenæus and which he obtained from rome, must itself be considered as a result of that dogmatic theory. the first half of the list must have been concocted, as there were no monarchical bishops in the strict sense in the first century (see my treatise: "die ältesten christlichen datirungen und die anfänge einer bischoflichen chronographie in rom." in the report of the proceedings of the royal prussian academy of science, 1892, p. 617 ff). we do not know whether such lists were drawn up so early in the other churches of apostolic origin (jerusalem?). not till the beginning of the 3rd century have we proofs of that being done, whereas the roman community, as early as soter's time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each episcopate. nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an attempt to invent such a list for churches possessing no claim to have been founded by apostles.] [footnote 137: we do not yet find this assertion in tertullian's treatise "de præscr."] [footnote 138: special importance attaches to tertullian's treatise "de pudicitia," which has not been sufficiently utilised to explain the development of the episcopate and the pretensions at that time set up by the roman bishop. it shows clearly that calixtus claimed for himself as bishop the powers and rights of the apostles in their full extent, and that tertullian did not deny that the "doctrina apostolorum" was inherent in his office, but merely questioned the "potestas apostolorum." it is very significant that tertullian (c. 21) sneeringly addressed him as "apostolice" and reminded him that "ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum." what rights calixtus had already claimed as belonging to the apostolic office may be ascertained from hippol. philos. ix. 11. 12. but the introduction to the philosophoumena proves that hippolytus himself was at one with his opponent in supposing that the bishops, as successors of the apostles, had received the attributes of the latter: [greek: tas haireseis heteros ouk elegxei, ê to en ekklêsia paradothen hagion pneuma, ou tuchontes proteroi hoi apostoloi metedosan tois orthôs pepisteukosin hôn hêmeis diadochoi tugchanontes tês te autês charitos metechontes archierateias te kai didaskalias kai phrouroi tês ekklêsias lelogismenoi ouk ophthalmô nustazomen, oude logon orthon siôpômen, k.t.l.] in these words we have an immense advance beyond the conception of irenæus. this advance, of course, was first made in practice, and the corresponding theory followed. how greatly the prestige and power of the bishops had increased in the first 3rd part of the 3rd century may be seen by comparing the edict of maximinus thrax with the earlier ones (euseb., h. e. vi. 28; see also the genuine martyr. jacobi, mariani, etc., in numidia c. 10 [ruinart, acta mart. p. 272 edit. ratisb.]): "nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros" (that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy formed the bond of union in the churches). but the theory that the bishops were successors of the apostles, that is, possessed the apostolic office, must be considered a western one which was very slowly and gradually adopted in the east. even in the original of the first six books of the apostolic constitutions, composed about the end of the 3rd century, which represents the bishop as mediator, king, and teacher of the community, the episcopal office is not yet regarded as the apostolic one. it is rather presbyters, as in ignatius, who are classed with the apostles. it is very important to note that the whole theory of the significance of the bishop in determining the truth of ecclesiastical christianity is completely unknown to clement of alexandria. as we have not the slightest evidence that his conception of the church was of a hierarchical and anti-heretical type, so he very rarely mentions the ecclesiastical officials in his works and rarest of all the bishops. these do not at all belong to his conception of the church, or at least only in so far as they resemble the english orders (cf. pæd. iii. 12. 97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; strom. vii. 1. 3; iii. 12. 90, presbyters, deacons, laity; vi. 13. 106, presbyters, deacons: vi. 13. 107, bishops, presbyters, deacons: quis dives 42, bishops and presbyters). on the other hand, according to clement, the true gnostic has an office like that of the apostles. see strom. vi. 13. 106, 107: [greek: exestin oun kai nun tais kyriakais enaskêsantas entolais kata to euangelion teleiôs biôsantas kai gnôstikôs eis tên eklogên tôn apostolôn engraphênai houtos presbuteros esti tô onti tês ekklêsias kai diakonos alêthês tês tou theou boulêseôs]. here we see plainly that the servants of the earthly church, as such, have nothing to do with the true church and the heavenly hierarchy. strom vii. 9, 52 says: the true gnostic is the mediator with god. in strom. vi. 14. 108; vii. 12. 77 we find the words: [greek: ho gnôstikos houtos sunelonti eipein tên apostolikên apousian antanaplêroi, k.t.l.] clement could not have expressed himself in this way if the office of bishop had at that time been as much esteemed in the alexandrian church, of which he was a presbyter, as it was at rome and in other churches of the west (see bigg l.c. 101). according to clement the gnostic as a teacher has the same significance as is possessed by the bishop in the west; and according to him we may speak of a natural succession of teachers. origen in the main still held the same view as his predecessor. but numerous passages in his works and above all his own history shew that in his day the episcopate had become stronger in alexandria also, and had begun to claim the same attributes and rights as in the west (see besides de princip. præf. 2: "servetur ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad præsens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione"--so in rufinus, and in iv. 2. 2: [greek: tou kanonos tês iêsou christou kata diadochên t. apostolôn ouraniou ekklêsias]). the state of things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the apostolic _regula fidei_ and the apostolic canon of scripture. clement still represents an earlier stage, whereas by origen's time the revolution has been completed. wherever this was so, the theory that the monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic institution was the natural result. this idea led to the assumption--which, however, was not an immediate consequence in all cases--that the apostolic office, and therefore the authority of jesus christ himself, was continued in the episcopate: "manifesta est sententia iesu christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes" (hartel, opp. cypr. i. 459).] [footnote 139: see rothe, die anfänge der christlichen kirche und ihrer verfassung, 1837. köstlin, die katholische auffassung von der kirche in ihrer ersten ausbildung in the deutsche zeitschrift für christliche wissenschaft und christliches leben, 1855. ritschl, entstehung der altkatholischen kirche, 2nd ed., 1857. ziegler, des irenäus lehre von der autorität der schrift, der tradition und der kirche, 1868. hackenschmidt, die anfänge des katholischen kirchenbegriffs, 1874. hatch-harnack, die gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen kirche im alterthum, 1883. seeberg, zur geschichte des begriffs der kirche, dorpat, 1884. söder, der begriff der katholicität der kirche und des glaubens, 1881. o. ritschl, cyprian von karthago und die verfassung der kirche, 1885. (this contains the special literature treating of cyprian's conception of the church). sohm, l.c.] [footnote 140: see hatch, l.c. pp. 191, 253.] [footnote 141: see vol. i. p. 150 f. special note should be given to the teachings in the shepherd, in the 2nd epistle of clement and in the [greek: didachê].] [footnote 142: this notion lies at the basis of the exhortations of ignatius. he knows nothing of an empirical union of the different communities into one church guaranteed by any law or office. the bishop is of importance only for the individual community, and has nothing to do with the essence of the church; nor does ignatius view the separate communities as united in any other way than by faith, charity, and hope. christ, the invisible bishop, and the church are inseparably connected (ad ephes. v. 1; as well as 2nd clem. xiv.), and that is ultimately the same idea, as is expressed in the associating of [greek: pneuma] and [greek: ekklêsia]. but every individual community is an image of the heavenly church, or at least ought to be.] [footnote 143: the expression "catholic church" appears first in ignatius (ad smyrn. viii. 2): [greek: hopou an phanêi ho episkopos, ekei to plêthos esto; hôsper hopou an ê christos iêsous, ekei hê katholikê ekklêsia]. but in this passage these words do not yet express a new conception of the church, which represents her as an empirical commonwealth. only the individual earthly communities exist empirically, and the universal, i.e., the whole church, occupies the same position towards these as the bishops of the individual communities do towards the lord. the epithet "[greek: katholikos]" does not of itself imply any secularisation of the idea of the church.] [footnote 144: the expression "invisible church" is liable to be misunderstood here, because it is apt to impress us as a mere idea, which is certainly not the meaning attached to it in the earliest period.] [footnote 145: it was thus regarded by hegesippus in whom the expression "[greek: hê henôsis tês ekklêsias]" is first found. in his view the [greek: ekklêsia] is founded on the [greek: orthos logos] transmitted by the apostles. the innovation does not consist in the emphasis laid upon faith, for the unity of faith was always supposed to be guaranteed by the possession of the one spirit and the same hope, but in the setting up of a formulated creed, which resulted in a loosening of the connection between faith and conduct. the transition to the new conception of the church was therefore a gradual one. the way is very plainly prepared for it in 1 tim. iii. 15: [greek: oikos theou ekklêsia, stulos kai hedraiôma tês alêtheias].] [footnote 146: the oldest predicate which was given to the church and which was always associated with it, was that of _holiness_. see the new testament; barn. xiv. 6; hermas, vis. i. 3, 4; i. 6; the roman symbol; dial. 119; ignat. ad trail, inscr.; theophil. ad autol., ii. 14 (here we have even the plural, "holy churches"); apollon. in euseb, h. e. v. 18. 5; tertull., adv. marc. iv. 13; v. 4; de pudicit. 1; mart. polyc inscr.; alexander hieros. in euseb., h. e. vi. 11. 5; clemens alex.; cornelius in euseb., vi. 43. 6; cyprian. but the holiness (purity) of the church was already referred by hegesippus (euseb., h. e. iv. 22. 4) to its pure doctrine: [greek: ekaloun tên ekklêsian parthenon; oupô gar ephtharto akoais mataiais]. the unity of the church according to hegesippus is specially emphasised in the muratorian fragment (line 55): see also hermas; justin; irenæus; tertullian, de præscr. 20; clem. alex., strom. vii. 17. 107. even before irenæus and tertullian the _universality_ of the church was emphasised for apologetic purposes. in so far as universality is a proof of truth, "universal" is equivalent to "orthodox." this signification is specially clear in expressions like: [greek: hê en smurnê katholikê ekklêsia] (mart. polyc. xvi. 2). from irenæus, iii. 15, 2, we must conclude that the valentinians called their ecclesiastical opponents "catholics." the word itself is not yet found in irenæus, but the idea is there (see i. 10. 2; ii. 9. 1, etc., serapion in euseb., h.e. v. 19: [greek: pasa hê en kosmô adelphotês]). [greek: katholikos] is found as a designation of the orthodox, visible church in mart. polyc. inscr.: [greek: hai kata panta topon tês hagias katholikês ekklêsias paroikiai]; 19. 2; 16. 2 (in all these passages, however, it is probably an interpolation, as i have shown in the "expositor" for dec. 1885, p. 410 f); in the muratorian fragment 61, 66, 69; in the anonymous writer in euseb., h. e. v. 16. 9. in tertull. frequently, e.g., de præscr. 26, 30; adv. marc. iii. 22: iv. 4; in clem. alex., strom. vii. 17. 106, 107; in hippol. philos. ix. 12; in mart. pionii 2, 9, 13, 19; in cornelius in cypr., epp. 49. 2; and in cyprian. the expression "catholica traditio" occurs in tertull., de monog. 2, "fides catholica" in cyprian ep. 25, "[greek: kanôn katholikos]" in the mart. polyc. rec. mosq. fin. and cypr. ep. 70. 1, "catholica fides et religio" in the mart. pionii 18. in the earlier christian literature the word [greek: katholikos] occurs in various connections in the following passages: in fragments of the peratae (philos. v. 16), and in herakleon, e.g. in clement, strom. iv. 9. 71; in justin, dial., 81, 102; athenag., 27; theophil. i. 13; pseudojustin, de monarch. 1, ([greek: kathol. doxa]); iren., iii. 11, 8; apollon. in euseb., h. e. iv. 18 5, tertull., de fuga 3; adv. marc. ii. 17; iv. 9; clement, strom, iv. 15. 97; vi. 6. 47; 7. 57; 8. 67. the addition "catholicam" found its way into the symbols of the west only at a comparatively late period. the earlier expressions for the whole of christendom are [greek: pasai hai ekklêsiai, ekklêsiai kata pasan polin, ekklêsiai en kosmô, hai huph' ouranou], etc.] [footnote 147: very significant is tertullian's expression in adv. val. 4: "valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit," (but probably this still refers specially to the roman church).] [footnote 148: tertullian called the church _mother_ (in gal. iv. 26 the heavenly jerusalem is called "mother"); see de oral. 2: "ne mater quidem ecclesia pixeterhur," de monog. 7; adv. marc. v. 4 (the author of the letter in euseb., h. e. v. 2. 7, 1. 45, had already done this before him). in the african church the symbol was thus worded soon after tertullian's time: "credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æsternam per sanctam ecclesiam" (see hahn, bibliothek der symbole, 2nd ed. p. 29 ff.) on the other hand clement of alexandria (strom. vi. 16. 146) rejected the designation of the church, as "mother": [greek: mêtêr de ouch, hôs tines ekdedôkasin, hê ekklêsia, all' hê theia gnôsis kai hê sophia] (there is a different idea in pæd. i. 5. 21. and 6. 42: [greek: mêtêr parthenos; ekklêsian emoi philon autên kalein]). in the acta justini c. 4 the faith is named "mother."] [footnote 149: hippol. philos. ix. 12 p. 460.] [footnote 150: the phraseology of irenæus is very instructive here. as a rule he still speaks of churches (in the plural) when he means the empirical church. it is already otherwise with tertullian, though even with him the old custom still lingers.] [footnote 151: the most important passages bearing on this are ii. 31. 3: iii. 24. 1 (see the whole section, but especially: "in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; cuius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam ... ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia"); iii.11. 8: [greek: stulos kai stêrigma ekklêsias to euangelion kai pneuma zôês]: iv. 8. 1: "semen abrahæ ecclesia", iv. 8. 3: "omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem;" iv. 36. 2: "ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum;" iv. 33. 7: [greek: ekklêsia mega kai endoxon sôma tou christou]; iv. 26. 1 sq.: v. 20. 1.: v. 32.: v. 34. 3., "levitae et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini."] [footnote 152: hence the repudiation of all those who separate themselves from the catholic church (iii. 11. 9; 24. 1: iv. 26. 2; 33. 7).] [footnote 153: on iv. 33. 7 see seeberg, l.c., p. 20, who has correctly punctuated the passage, but has weakened its force. the fact that irenæus was here able to cite the "antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis christi secundum successiones episcoporum," etc., as a second and independent item alongside of the apostolic doctrine is, however, a proof that the transition from the idea of the church, as a community united by a common faith, to that of a hierarchical institution was already revealing itself in his writings.] [footnote 154: the church as a communion of the same faith, that is of the same doctrine, is spoken of in de præscr. 20; de virg. vol. 2. on the other hand we find the ideal spiritual conception in de bapt. 6: "ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est;" 8: "columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de coelis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata;" 15: "unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in coelis;" de pænit. 10: "in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecclesia vero christus;" de orat. 28: "nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus;" apolog. 39; de exhort. 7: "differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici" (the same idea, only not so definitely expressed, is already found in de bapt. 17); de monog. 7: "nos autem iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit ... vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, ... certe sacerdotes sumus a christo vocati;" 12; de pudic. 21: "nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum;" de anima 11, 21. contradictions in detail need not surprise us in tertullian, since his whole position as a catholic and as a montanist is contradictory.] [footnote 155: the notion that the true gnostic can attain the same position as the apostles also preserved clement from thrusting the ideal conception of the church into the background.] [footnote 156: some very significant remarks are found in clement about the church which is the object of faith. see pæd. i. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27: [greek: hôs gar thelêma tou theou ergon esti kai touto kosmos onomazetai, houtô kai to boulêma autou anthrôpôn esti sôtêria, kai touto ekklêsia keklêtai]--here an idea which hermas had in his mind (see vol. i., p. 180. note 4) is pregnantly and excellently expressed. strom. ii. 12. 55; iv. 8. 66: [greek: eikôn tês ouraniou ekklêsias hê epigeios, dioper euchometha kai epi gês genesthai to thelêma tou theou hôs en ouranô]; iv. 26. 172: [greek: hê ekklêsia hupo logou apoliorkêtos aturannêtos polis epi gês, thelêma theion epi gês, hôs en ouranô]; vi. 13. 106, 107; vi. 14. 108: [greek: hê anôtatô ekklêsia, kath' hên hoi philosophoi sunagontai tou theou]; vii. 5. 29: [greek: pôs ou kurios tên eis timên tou theou kat' epignôsin hagian genomenên ekklêsian hieron an eipoimen theou to pollou axion ... ou gar nun ton topon, alla to athroisma tôn eklektôn ekklêsian kalô]; vii. 6. 32; vii. 11. 68: [greek: hê pneumatikê ekklêsia]. the empirical conception of the church is most clearly formulated in vii. 17. 107; we may draw special attention to the following sentences: [greek: phaneron oimai gegenêsthai mian einai tên alêthê ekklêsian tên tôi onti archaian, eis hên hoi kata prothesin dikaioi egkatalegontai, henos gar ontos tou theou kai henos tou kuriou ... tê goun tou henos phusei sunklêrountai ekklêsia hê mia, hên eis pollas katatemnein biazontai haireseis].] [footnote 157: it may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim has fallen into the background in clement's conception of the church.] [footnote 158: a significance of this kind is suggested by the notion that the orders in the earthly church correspond to those in the heavenly one; but this idea, which afterwards became so important in the east, was turned to no further account by clement. in his view the "gnostics" are the highest stage in the church. see bigg, l.c., p. 100.] [footnote 159: de princip. iv. 2, 2: [greek: hê ouranios ekklêsia]; hom. ix. in exod. c. 3: "ecclesia credentium plebs;" hom. xi. in lev. c. 5; hom. vi. in lev. c. 5; ibid. hom. ix.: "omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum.": t. xiv. in mt. c. 17: c. cels. vi. 48: vi. 79; hom. vii. in lk.; and de orat. 31 a twofold church is distinguished ([greek: hôste einai epi tôn hagiôn sunathroizomenôn diplên ekklêsian tên men anthrôpôn, tên de angelôn]). nevertheless origen does not assume two churches, but, like clement, holds that there is only one, part of which is already in a state of perfection and part still on earth. but it is worthy of note that the ideas of the heavenly hierarchy are already more developed in origen (de princip. i. 7). he adopted the old speculation about the origin of the church (see papias, fragm. 6; 2 clem. xiv.). socrates (h. e. iii. 7) reports that origen, in the 9th vol. of his commentary on genesis, compared christ with adam and eve with the church, and remarks that pamphilus' apology for origen stated that this allegory was not new: [greek: ou prôton ôrigenên epi tautên tên pragmateian elthein phasin, alla tên tês ekklêsias mustikên hermêneusai paradosin]. a great many more of these speculations are to be found in the 3rd century. see, e.g., _the acts of peter and paul_ 29.] [footnote 160: de princip. iv. 2. 2; hom. iii. in jesu n. 5: "nemo tibi persuadeat, nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur." the reference is to the catholic church which origen also calls [greek: to holon sôma tôn sunagôgôn tês ekklêsias.]] [footnote 161: hermas (sim. i.) has spoken of the "city of god" (see also pseudo-cyprian's tractate "de pascha computus"); but for him it lies in heaven and is the complete contrast of the world. the idea of plato here referred to is to be found in his _republic_.] [footnote 162: see c. cels. viii. 68-75.] [footnote 163: comment. in joh. vi. 38.] [footnote 164: accordingly he often speaks in a depreciatory way of the [greek: ochlos tês ekklêsias] (the ignorant) without accusing them of being unchristian (this is very frequent in the books c. cels., but is also found elsewhere).] [footnote 165: origen, who is augustine's equal in other respects also, and who anticipated many of the problems considered by the latter, anticipated prophetically this father's view of the city of god--of course as a hope (c. cels. viii. 68 f). the church is also viewed as [greek: to kata theon politeuma] in euseb., h. e. v. præf. § 4, and at an earlier period in clement.] [footnote 166: this was not done even by origen, for in his great work "de principiis" we find no section devoted to the church.] [footnote 167: it is frequently represented in protestant writers that the mistake consisted in this identification, whereas, if we once admit this criticism, the defect is rather to be found in the development itself which took place in the church, that is, in its secularisation. no one thought of the desperate idea of an invisible church; this notion would probably have brought about a lapse from pure christianity far more rapidly than the idea of the holy catholic church.] [footnote 168: both repeatedly and very decidedly declared that the unity of faith (the rule of faith) is sufficient for the unity of the church, and that in other things there must be freedom (see above all tertull., de orat., de bapt., and the montanist writings). it is all the more worthy of note that, in the case of a question in which indeed the customs of the different countries were exceedingly productive of confusion, but which was certainly not a matter of faith, it was again a bishop of rome, and that as far back as the 2nd century, who first made the observance of the roman practice a condition of the unity of the church and treated nonconformists as heterodox (victor; see euseb., h. e. v. 24). on the other hand irenæus says: [greek: hê diaphônia tês nêsteias tên homonoian tês pisteôs sunistêsi].] [footnote 169: on calixtus see hippolyt., philos. ix. i2; and tertull., de pudic.] [footnote 170: see on the other hand tertull., de monog., but also hippol., l.c.] [footnote 171: cyprian's idea of the church, an imitation of the conception of a political empire, viz., one great aristocratically governed state with an ideal head, is the result of the conflicts through which he passed. it is therefore first found in a complete form in the treatise "de unitate ecclesiæ" and, above all, in his later epistles (epp. 43 sq. ed. hartel). the passages in which cyprian defines the church as "constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus" date from an earlier period, when he himself essentially retained the old idea of the subject. moreover, he never regarded those elements as similar and of equal value. the limitation of the church to the community ruled by bishops was the result of the novatian crisis. the unavoidable necessity of excluding orthodox christians from the ecclesiastical communion, or, in other words, the fact that such orthodox christians had separated themselves from the majority guided by the bishops, led to the setting up of a new theory of the church, which therefore resulted from stress of circumstances just as much as the antignostic conception of the matter held by irenæus. cyprian's notion of the relation between the whole body of the church and the episcopate may, however, be also understood as a generalisation of the old theory about the connection between the individual community and the bishop. this already contained an oecumenical element, for, in fact, every separate community was regarded as a copy of the one church, and its bishop therefore as the representative of god (christ).] [footnote 172: we need only quote one passage here--but see also epp. 69. 3, 7 sq.: 70. 2: 73. 8--ep. 55. 24: "quod vero ad novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris doceat; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in christi ecclesia non est." in the famous sentence (ep. 74. 7; de unit. 6): "habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem," we must understand the church held together by the _sacramentum unitatis_, i.e., by her constitution. cyprian is fond of referring to korah's faction, who nevertheless held the same faith as moses.] [footnote 173: epp. 4. 4: 33. 1: "ecclesia super episcopos constituta;" 43. 5: 45. 3: "unitatem a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam;" 46. 1: 66. 8: "scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse;" de unit. 4.] [footnote 174: according to cyprian the bishops are the _sacerdotes_ [greek: kat' eksochên] and the _iudices vice christi_. see epp. 59. 5: 66. 3 as well as c. 4: "christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit." ep. 3. 3: "dominus apostolos, i.e., episcopos elegit"; ep. 75. 16.] [footnote 175: that is a fundamental idea and in fact the outstanding feature of the treatise "de unitate." the heretics and schismatics lack love, whereas the unity of the church is the product of love, this being the main christian virtue. that is the _ideal_ thought on which cyprian builds his theory (see also epp. 45. 1: 55. 24: 69. 1 and elsewhere), and not quite wrongly, in so far as his purpose was to gather and preserve, and not scatter. the reader may also recall the early christian notion that christendom should be a band of brethren ruled by love. but this love ceases to have any application to the case of those who are disobedient to the authority of the bishop and to christians of the sterner sort. the appeal which catholicism makes to love, even at the present day, in order to justify its secularised and tyrannical church, turns in the mouth of hierarchical politicians into hypocrisy, of which one would like to acquit a man of cyprian's stamp.] [footnote 176: ep. 43. 5: 55. 24: "episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus;" de unit. 5: "episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." strictly speaking cyprian did not set up a theory that the bishops were directed by the holy spirit, but in identifying apostles and bishops and asserting the divine appointment of the latter he took for granted their special endowment with the holy spirit. moreover, he himself frequently appealed to special communications he had received from the spirit as aids in discharging his official duties.] [footnote 177: cyprian did not yet regard uniformity of church practice as a matter of moment--or rather he knew that diversities must be tolerated. in so far as the _concordia episcoporum_ was consistent with this diversity, he did not interfere with the differences, provided the _regula fidei_ was adhered to. every bishop who adheres to the confederation has the greatest freedom even in questions of church discipline and practice (as for instance in the baptismal ceremonial); see ep. 59. 14: "singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus;" 55. 21: "et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis moechis non putaverunt et in totum pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur." according to ep. 57. 5 catholic bishops, who insist on the strict practice of penance, but do not separate themselves from the unity of the church, are left to the judgment of god. it is different in the case referred to in ep. 68, for marcion had formally joined novatian. even in the disputed question of heretical baptism (ep. 72. 3) cyprian declares to stephen (see 69. 17: 73. 26; _sententiæ episc._, præfat.): "qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus." it is therefore plain wherein the unity of the episcopate and the church actually consists; we may say that it is found in the _regula_, in the fixed purpose not to give up the unity in spite of all differences, and in the principle of regulating all the affairs of the church "ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem" (ep. 74. 10). this refers to the new testament, which cyprian emphatically insisted on making the standard for the church. it must be taken as the guide, "si in aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas;" by it, moreover, all false customs are to be corrected. in the controversy about heretical baptism, the alteration of church practice in carthage and africa, which was the point in question--for whilst in asia heretical baptism had for a very long time been declared invalid (see ep. 75. 19) this had only been the case in carthage for a few years--was justified by cyprian through an appeal to _veritas_ in contrast to _consuetudo sine veritate_. see epp. 71. 2, 3: 73. 13, 23: 74. 2 sq.: 9 (the formula originates with tertullian; see de virg. vel. 1-3). the _veritas_, however, is to be learned from the gospel and words of the apostles: "lex evangelii," "præcepta dominica," and synonymous expressions are very frequent in cyprian, more frequent than reference to the _regula_ or to the symbol. in fact there was still no church dogmatic, there being only principles of christian faith and life, which, however, were taken from the holy scriptures and the _regula_.] [footnote 178: cyprian no longer makes any distinction between churches founded by apostles, and those which arose later (that is, between their bishops).] [footnote 179: the statement that the church is "super petrum fundata" is very frequently made by cyprian (we find it already in tertullian, de monog.); see de habitu virg. 10; epp. 59. 7: 66. 8: 71. 3: 74. 11: 73. 7. but on the strength of matth. xvi. he went still farther; see ep. 43. 5: "deus unus est et christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super petrum domini voce fundata;" ep. 48. 3 (ad cornel.): "communicatio tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas;" de unit. 4: "superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit;" ep. 70. 3: "una ecclesia a christo domino nostro super petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata" ("with regard to the origin and constitution of the unity" is the translation of this last passage in the "stimmen aus maria laach," 1877, part 8, p. 355; but "ratio" cannot mean that); ep. 73. 7; "petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit." the most emphatic passages are ep. 48. 3, where the roman church is called "matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ" (the expression "radix et mater" in ep. 45. i no doubt also refers to her), and ep. 59. 14: "navigare audent et ad petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse romanes, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum." we can see most clearly from epp. 67. 5 and 68 what rights were in point of fact exercised by the bishop of rome. but the same cyprian says quite naively, even at the time when he exalted the roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), "quoniam _pro magnitudine sua_ debeat carthaginem roma præcedere." in the controversy about heretical baptism stephen like calixtus (tertull., de pudic. 1) designated himself, on the ground of the _successio petri_ and by reference to matth. xvi., in such a way that one might suppose he wished to be regarded as "episcopus episcoporum" (sentent. episc. in hartel i., p. 436). he expressly claimed a primacy and demanded obedience from the "ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ" (ep. 71. 3). like victor he endeavoured to enforce the roman practice "tyrannico terrore" and insisted that the _unitas ecclesiæ_ required the observance of this church's practice in all communities. but cyprian opposed him in the most decided fashion, and maintained the principle that every bishop, as a member of the episcopal confederation based on the _regula_ and the holy scriptures, is responsible for his practice to god alone. this he did in a way which left no room for any special and actual authority of the roman see alongside of the others. besides, he expressly rejected the conclusions drawn by stephen from the admittedly historical position of the roman see (ep. 71. 3): "petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere." firmilian, ep. 75, went much farther still, for he indirectly declares the _successio petri_ claimed by stephen to be of no importance (c. 17), and flatly denies that the roman church has preserved the apostolic tradition in a specially faithful way. see otto ritschl, l.c., pp. 92 ff., 110-141. in his conflict with stephen cyprian unmistakably took up a position inconsistent with his former views as to the significance of the roman see for the church, though no doubt these were ideas he had expressed at a critical time when he stood shoulder to shoulder with the roman bishop cornelius.] [footnote 180: see specially epp. 65, 67, 68.] [footnote 181: hatch l.c., p. 189 f.] [footnote 182: the gradual union of the provincial communities into one church may be studied in a very interesting way in the ecclesiastical fasti (records, martyrologies, calendars, etc.), though these studies are as yet only in an incipient stage. see de rossi, roma sotter, the bollandists in the 12th vol. for october; stevenson, studi in italia (1879), pp. 439, 458; the works of nilles; egli, altchristl. studien 1887 (theol. lit. ztg. 1887, no. 13): duchesne, les sources du martyrol. hieron. rome 1885, but above all the latter's study: mémoire sur l'origine des diocèses épiscopaux dans l'ancienne gaule, 1890. the history of the unification of liturgies from the 4th century should also be studied.] [footnote 183: there were communities in the latter half of the 3rd century, which can be proved to have been outside the confederation, although in perfect harmony with it in point of belief (see the interesting case in euseb., h. e. vii. 24. 6). conversely, there were churches in the confederation whose faith did not in all respects correspond with the catholic _regula_ as already expounded. but the fact that it was not the dogmatic system, but the practical constitution and principles of the church, as based on a still elastic creed, which formed the ultimate determining factor, was undoubtedly a great gain; for a system of dogmatics developed beyond the limits of the christian _kerygma_ can only separate. here, however, all differences of faith had of couise to be glossed over, for the demand of apelles: [greek: mê dein holôs exetazein ton logon, all' ekaston. hôs pepisteuke, diamenein sôthêsesthai gar tous epi ton hestaurômenon êlpikotas, k.t.l.], was naturally regarded as inadmissible.] [footnote 184: hence we need not be surprised to find that the notion of heresy which arose in the church was immediately coupled with an estimate of it, which for injustice and harshness could not possibly be surpassed in succeeding times. the best definition is in tertull., de præscr. 6: "nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt."] [footnote 185: see vol. i., p. 224, note 1.] [footnote 186: we already find this idea in tertullian; see de bapt. 15: "hæretici nullum habent consortium nostra discipline, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent." cyprian passed the same judgment on all schismatics, even on the novatians, and like tertullian maintained the invalidity of heretical baptism. this question agitated the church as early as the end of the 2nd century, when tertullian already wrote against it in greek.] [footnote 187: as far as possible the christian virtues of the heretics were described as hypocrisy and love of ostentation (see e.g., rhodon in euseb., h. e. v. 13. 2 and others in the second century). if this view was untenable, then all morality and heroism among heretics were simply declared to be of no value. see the anonymous writer in eusebius, h. e. v. 16. 21, 22; clem, strom. vii. 16. 95; orig., comm. ad rom. i. x., c. 5; cypr., de unit. 14, 15; cp. 73. 21 etc.] [footnote 188: tertull., de præscr. 3-6.] [footnote 189: irenæus definitely distinguishes between heretics and schismatics (iii. 11. 9: iv. 26. 2; 33. 7), but also blames the latter very severely, "qui gloriosum corpus christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ." note the parallel with cyprian. yet he does not class them with those "qui sunt extra veritatem," i.e., "extra ecclesiam," although he declares the severest penalties await them. tertullian was completely preserved by his montanism from identifying heretics and schismatics, though in the last years of his life he also appears to have denied the christianity of the catholics (?).] [footnote 190: read, on the one hand, the antimontanists in eusebius and the later opponents of montanism; and on the other, tertull., adv. prax.; hippol., c. noët; novatian, de trinitate. even in the case of the novatians heresies were sought and found (see dionys. alex., in euseb., h. e. vii. 8, where we find distortions and wicked misinterpretations of novatian doctrines, and many later opponents). nay, even cyprian himself did not disdain to join in this proceeding (see epp. 69. 7: 70. 2). the montanists at rome were placed by hippolylus in the catalogue of heretics (see the syntagma and philosoph.). origen was uncertain whether to reckon them among schismatics or heretics (see in tit. opp. iv., p. 696).] [footnote 191: cyprian plainly asserts (ep. 3. 3): "hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant" (as to the early history of this conception, which undoubtedly has a basis of truth, see clem., ep. ad cor. 1. 44; ignat.; hegesippus in euseb., h. e. iv. 22. 5; tertull., adv. valent. 4; de bapt. 17; anonymus in euseb; h. e. v. 16. 7; hippolyt. ad. epiphan. h. 42. 1; anonymus in eusebius, h. e. v. 28. 12; according to cyprian it is quite the common one); see further ep. 59. 3: "neque enim aliunde hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur;" epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: "item b. apostolus johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit"; 52. 1: 73. 2: 74. 11. schism and heresy are always identical.] [footnote 192: neither optatus nor augustine take cyprian's theory as the starting-point of their disquisitions, but they adhere in principle to the distinction between heretic and schismatic. cyprian was compelled by his special circumstances to identify them, but he united this identification with the greatest liberality of view as to the conditions of ecclesiastical unity (as regards individual bishops). cyprian did not make a single new article an "articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ." in fact he ultimately declared--and this may have cost him struggle enough--that even the question of the validity of heretical baptism was not a question of faith.] chapter iii. continuation. the old christianity and the new church. 1. the legal and political forms by which the church secured herself against the secular power and heresy, and still more the lower moral standard exacted from her members in consequence of the naturalisation of christianity in the world, called forth a reaction soon after the middle of the second century. this movement, which first began in asia minor and then spread into other regions of christendom, aimed at preserving or restoring the old feelings and conditions, and preventing christendom from being secularised. this crisis (the so called montanist struggle) and the kindred one which succeeded produced the following results: the church merely regarded herself all the more strictly as a legal community basing the truth of its title on its historic and objective foundations, and gave a correspondingly new interpretation to the attribute of holiness she claimed. she expressly recognised two distinct classes in her midst, a spiritual and a secular, as well as a double standard of morality. moreover, she renounced her character as the communion of those who were sure of salvation, and substituted the claim to be an educational institution and a necessary condition of redemption. after a keen struggle, in which the new testament did excellent service to the bishops, the church expelled the cataphrygian fanatics and the adherents of the new prophecy (between 180 and 220); and in the same way, during the course of the third century, she caused the secession of all those christians who made the truth of the church depend on a stricter administration of moral discipline. hence, apart from the heretic and montanist sects, there existed in the empire, after the middle of the second century, two great but numerically unequal church confederations, both based on the same rule of faith and claiming the title "ecclesia catholica," viz., the confederation which constantine afterwards chose for his support, and the novatian catharist one. in rome, however, the beginning of the great disruption goes back to the time of hippolytus and calixtus; yet the schism of novatian must not be considered as an immediate continuation of that of hippolytus. 2. the so-called montanist reaction[193] was itself subjected to a similar change, in accordance with the advancing ecclesiastical development of christendom. it was originally the violent undertaking of a christian prophet, montanus, who, supported by prophetesses, felt called upon to realise the promises held forth in the fourth gospel. he explained these by the apocalypse, and declared that he himself was the paraclete whom christ had promised--that paraclete in whom jesus christ himself, nay, even god the father almighty, comes to his own to guide them to all truth, to gather those that are dispersed, and to bring them into one flock. his main effort therefore was to make christians give up the local and civil relations in which they lived, to collect them, and create a new undivided christian commonwealth, which, separated from the world, should prepare itself for the descent of the jerusalem from above.[194] the natural resistance offered to the new prophets with this extravagant message--especially by the leaders of communities, and the persecutions to which the church was soon after subjected under marcus aurelius, led to an intensifying of the eschatological expectations that beyond doubt had been specially keen in montanist circles from the beginning. for the new jerusalem was soon to come down from heaven in visible form, and establish itself in the spot which, by direction of the spirit, had been chosen for christendom in phrygia.[195] whatever amount of peculiarity the movement lost, in so far as the ideal of an assembly of all christians proved incapable of being realised or at least only possible within narrow limits, was abundantly restored in the last decades of the second century by the strength and courage that the news of its spread in christendom gave to the earnest minded to unite and offer resistance to the ever increasing tendency of the church to assume a secular and political character. many entire communities in phrygia and asia recognised the divine mission of the prophets. in the churches of other provinces religious societies were formed in which the predictions of these prophets were circulated and viewed as a gospel, though at the same time they lost their effect by being so treated. the confessors at lyons openly expressed their full sympathy with the movement in asia. the bishop of rome was on the verge of acknowledging the montanists to be in full communion with the church. but among themselves there was no longer, as at the beginning, any question of a new organisation in the strict sense of the word, and of a radical remodelling of christian society.[196] whenever montanism comes before us in the clear light of history it rather appears as a religious movement already deadened, though still very powerful. montanus and his prophetesses had set no limits to their enthusiasm; nor were there as yet any fixed barriers in christendom that could have restrained them.[197] the spirit, the son, nay, the father himself had appeared in them and spoke through them.[198] imagination pictured christ bodily in female form to the eyes of prisca.[199] the most extravagant promises were given.[200] these prophets spoke in a loftier tone than any apostle ever did, and they were even bold enough to overturn apostolic regulations.[201] they set up new commandments for the christian life, regardless of any tradition,[202] and they inveighed against the main body of christendom.[203] they not only proclaimed themselves as prophets, but as the last prophets, as notable prophets in whom was first fulfilled the promise of the sending of the paraclete.[204] these christians as yet knew nothing of the "absoluteness of a historically complete revelation of christ as the fundamental condition of christian consciousness;" they only felt a spirit to which they yielded unconditionally and without reserve. but, after they had quitted the scene, their followers sought and found a kind of compromise. the montanist congregations that sought for recognition in rome, whose part was taken by the gallic confessors, and whose principles gained a footing in north africa, may have stood in the same relation to the original adherents of the new prophets and to these prophets themselves, as the mennonite communities did to the primitive anabaptists and their empire in münster. the "montanists" outside of asia minor acknowledged to the fullest extent the legal position of the great church. they declared their adherence to the apostolic "regula" and the new testament canon.[205] the organisation of the churches, and, above all, the position of the bishops as successors of the apostles and guardians of doctrine were no longer disputed. the distinction between them and the main body of christendom, from which they were unwilling to secede, was their belief in the new prophecy of montanus, prisca, and maximilla, which was contained, in its final form, in written records and in this shape may have produced the same impression as is excited by the fragments of an exploded bomb.[206] in this new prophecy they recognised a _subsequent revelation_ of god, which for that very reason assumed the existence of a previous one. this after-revelation professed to decide the practical questions which, at the end of the second century, were burning topics throughout all christendom, and for which no direct divine law could hitherto be adduced, in the form of a strict injunction. herein lay the importance of the new prophecy for its adherents in the empire, and for this reason they believed in it.[207] the belief in the efficacy of the paraclete, who, in order to establish a relatively stricter standard of conduct in christendom during the latter days, had, a few decades before, for several years given his revelations in a remote corner of the empire, was the dregs of the original enthusiasm, the real aspect of which had been known only to the fewest. but the diluted form in which this force remained was still a mighty power, because it was just in the generation between 190 and 220 that the secularising of the church had made the greatest strides. though the followers of the new prophecy merely insisted on abstinence from second marriage, on stricter regulations with regard to fasts, on a stronger manifestation of the christian spirit in daily life, in morals and customs, and finally on the full resolve not to avoid suffering and martyrdom for christ's name's sake, but to bear them willingly and joyfully,[208] yet, under the given circumstances, these requirements, in spite of the express repudiation of everything "encratite,"[209] implied a demand that directly endangered the conquests already made by the church and impeded the progress of the new propaganda.[210] the people who put forth these demands, expressly based them on the injunctions of the paraclete, and really lived in accordance with them, were not permanently capable of maintaining their position in the church. in fact, the endeavour to found these demands on the legislation of the paraclete was an undertaking quite as strange, in form and content, as the possible attempt to represent the wild utterances of determined anarchists as the programme of a constitutional government. it was of no avail that they appealed to the confirmation of the rule of faith by the paraclete; that they demonstrated the harmlessness of the new prophecy, thereby involving themselves in contradictions;[211] that they showed all honour to the new testament; and that they did not insist on the oracles of the paraclete being inserted in it.[212] as soon as they proved the earnestness of their temperate but far-reaching demands, a deep gulf that neither side could ignore opened up between them and their opponents. though here and there an earnest effort was made to avoid a schism, yet in a short time this became unavoidable; for variations in rules of conduct make fellowship impossible. the lax christians, who, on the strength of their objective possession, viz., the apostolic doctrine and writings, sought to live comfortably by conforming to the ways of the world, necessarily sought to rid themselves of inconvenient societies and inconvenient monitors;[213] and they could only do so by reproaching the latter with heresy and unchristian assumptions. moreover, the followers of the new prophets could not permanently recognise the churches of the "psychical,"[214] which rejected the "spirit" and extended their toleration so far as to retain even whoremongers and adulterers within their pale. in the east, that is, in asia minor, the breach between the montanists and the church had in all probability broken out before the question of church discipline and the right of the bishops had yet been clearly raised. in rome and carthage this question completed the rupture that had already taken place between the conventicles and the church (de pudic. 1. 21). here, by a peremptory edict, the bishop of rome claimed the right of forgiving sins as successor of the apostles; and declared that he would henceforth exercise this right in favour of repentant adulterers. among the montanists this claim was violently contested both in an abstract sense and in this application of it. the spirit the apostles had received, they said, could not be transmitted; the spirit is given to the church; he works in the prophets, but lastly and in the highest measure in the new prophets. the latter, however, expressly refused to readmit gross sinners, though recommending them to the grace of god (see the saying of the paraclete, de pud. 21; "potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam"). thus agreement was no longer possible. the bishops were determined to assert the existing claims of the church, even at the cost of her christian character, or to represent the constitution of the catholic church as the guarantee of that character. at the risk of their own claim to be catholic, the montanist sects resisted in order to preserve the minimum legal requirements for a christian life. thus the opposition culminated in an attack on the new powers claimed by the bishops, and in consequence awakened old memories as to the original state of things, when the clergy had possessed no importance.[215] but the ultimate motive was the effort to stop the continuous secularising of the christian life and to preserve the virginity of the church as a holy community.[216] in his latest writings tertullian vigorously defended a position already lost, and carried with him to the grave the old strictness of conduct insisted on by the church. had victory remained with the stricter party, which, though not invariably, appealed to the injunctions of the paraclete,[217] the church would have been rent asunder and decimated. the great opportunist party, however, was in a very difficult position, since their opponents merely seemed to be acting up to a conception that, in many respects, could not be theoretically disputed. the problem was how to carry on with caution the work of naturalising christianity in the world, and at the same time avoid all appearance of innovation which, as such, was opposed to the principle of catholicism. the bishops therefore assailed the form of the new prophecy on the ground of innovation;[218] they sought to throw suspicion on its content; in some cases even chiliasm, as represented by the montanists, was declared to have a jewish and fleshly character.[219] they tried to show that the moral demands of their opponents were extravagant, that they savoured of the ceremonial law (of the jews), were opposed to scripture, and were derived from the worship of apis, isis, and the mother of the gods.[220] to the claim of furnishing the church with authentic oracles of god, set up by their antagonists, the bishops opposed the newly formed canon; and declared that everything binding on christians was contained in the utterances of the old testament prophets and the apostles. finally, they began to distinguish between the standard of morality incumbent on the clergy and a different one applying to the laity,[221] as, for instance, in the question of a single marriage; and they dwelt with increased emphasis on the glory of the heroic christians, _belonging to the great church_, who had distinguished themselves by asceticism and joyful submission to martyrdom. by these methods they brought into disrepute that which had once been dear to the whole church, but was now of no further service. in repudiating supposed abuses they more and more weakened the regard felt for the thing itself, as, for example, in the case of the so-called chiliasm,[222] congregational prophecy and the spiritual independence of the laity. but none of these things could be absolutely rejected; hence, for example, chiliasm remained virtually unweakened (though subject to limitations[223]) in the west and certain districts of the east; whereas prophecy lost its force so much that it appeared harmless and therefore died away.[224] however, the most effective means of legitimising the present state of things in the church was a circumstance closely connected with the formation of a canon of early christian writings, viz., the distinction of an _epoch of revelation_, along with a corresponding classical period of christianity unattainable by later generations. this period was connected with the present by means of the new testament and the apostolic office of the bishops. this later time was to regard the older period as an ideal, but might not dream of really attaining the same perfection, except at least through the medium of the holy scriptures and the apostolic office, that is, the church. the place of the holy christendom that had the spirit in its midst was taken by the ecclesiastic institution possessing the "instrument of divine literature" ("instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ") and the spiritual office. finally, we must mention another factor that hastened the various changes; this was the theology of the christian philosophers, which attained importance in the church as soon as she based her claim on and satisfied her conscience with an objective possession. 3. but there was one rule which specially impeded the naturalisation of the church in the world and the transformation of a communion of the saved into an institution for obtaining salvation, viz., the regulation that excluded gross sinners from christian membership. down to the beginning of the third century, in so far as the backslider did not atone for his guilt[225] by public confession before the authorities (see ep. lugd. in euseb., h. e. v. 1 ff.), final exclusion from the church was still the penalty of relapse into idolatry, adultery, whoredom, and murder; though at the same time the forgiveness of god in the next world was reserved for the fallen provided they remained penitent to the end. in _theory_ indeed this rule was not very old. for the oldest period possessed no theories; and in those days christians frequently broke through what might have been counted as one by appealing to the spirit, who, by special announcements--particularly by the mouth of martyrs and prophets--commanded or sanctioned the readmission of lapsed members of the community (see hermas).[226] still, the rule corresponded to the ancient notions that christendom is a communion of saints, that there is no ceremony _invariably_ capable of replacing baptism, that is, possessing the same value, and that god alone can forgive sins. the practice must on the whole have agreed with this rule; but in the course of the latter half of the second century it became an established custom, in the case of a first relapse, to allow atonement to be made once for most sins and perhaps indeed for all, on condition of public confession.[227] for this, appeal was probably made to hermas, who very likely owed his prestige to the service he here unwittingly rendered. we say "unwittingly," for he could scarcely have intended such an application of his precepts, though at bottom it was not directly opposed to his attitude. in point of fact, however, this practice introduced something closely approximating to a second baptism. tertullian indeed (de pænit. 12) speaks unhesitatingly of _two_ planks of salvation.[228] moreover, if we consider that in any particular case the decision as to the deadly nature of the sin in question was frequently attended with great difficulty, and certainly, as a rule, was not arrived at with rigorous exactness, we cannot fail to see that, in conceding a second expiation, the church was beginning to abandon the old idea that christendom was a community of saints. nevertheless the fixed practice of refusing whoremongers, adulterers, murderers, and idolaters readmission to the church, in ordinary cases, prevented men from forgetting that there was a boundary line dividing her from the world. this state of matters continued till about 220.[229] in reality the rule was first infringed by the peremptory edict of bishop calixtus, who, in order to avoid breaking up his community, granted readmission to those who had fallen into sins of the flesh. moreover, he claimed this power of readmission as a right appertaining to the bishops as successors of the apostles, that is, as possessors of the spirit and the power of the keys.[230] at rome this rescript led to the secession headed by hippolytus. but, between 220 and 250, the milder practice with regard to the sins of the flesh became prevalent, though it was not yet universally accepted. this, however, resulted in no further schism (cyp., ep. 55. 21). but up to the year 250 no concessions were allowed in the case of relapse into idolatry.[231] these were first occasioned by the decian persecution, since in many towns those who had abjured christianity were more numerous than those who adhered to it.[232] the majority of the bishops, part of them with hesitation, agreed on new principles.[233] to begin with, permission was given to absolve repentant apostates on their deathbed. next, a distinction was made between _sacrificati_ and _libellatici_, the latter being more mildly treated. finally, the possibility of readmission was conceded under certain severe conditions to all the lapsed, a casuistic proceeding was adopted in regard to the laity, and strict measures--though this was not the universal rule--were only adopted towards the clergy. in consequence of this innovation, which logically resulted in the gradual cessation of the belief that there can be only one repentance after baptism--an assumption that was untenable in principle--novatian's schism took place and speedily rent the church in twain. but, even in cases where unity was maintained, many communities observed the stricter practice down to the fifth century.[234] what made it difficult to introduce this change by regular legislation was the authority to forgive sins in god's stead, ascribed in primitive times to the inspired, and at a later period to the confessors in virtue of their special relation to christ or the spirit (see ep. lugd. in euseb., h. e. v. 1 ff.; cypr. epp.; tertull. de pudic. 22). the confusion occasioned by the confessors after the decian persecution led to the non-recognition of any rights of "spiritual" persons other than the bishops. these confessors had frequently abetted laxity of conduct, whereas, if we consider the measure of secularisation found among the great mass of christians, the penitential discipline insisted on by the bishops is remarkable for its comparative severity. the complete adoption of the episcopal constitution coincided with the introduction of the unlimited right to forgive sins.[235] 4. the original conception of the relation of the church to salvation or eternal bliss was altered by this development. according to the older notion the church was the sure communion of salvation and of saints, which rested on the forgiveness of sins mediated by baptism, and excluded everything unholy. it is not the church, but god alone, that forgives sins, and, as a rule, indeed, this is only done through baptism, though, in virtue of his unfathomable grace, also now and then by special proclamations, the pardon coming into effect for repentant sinners, after death, in heaven. if christendom readmitted gross sinners, it would anticipate the judgment of god, as it would thereby assure them of salvation. hence it can only take back those who have been excluded in cases where their offences have not been committed against god himself, but have consisted in transgressing the commandments of the church, that is, in venial sins.[236] but in course of time it was just in lay circles that faith in god's grace became weaker and trust in the church stronger. he whom the church abandoned was lost to the world; therefore she must not abandon him. this state of things was expressed in the new interpretation of the proposition, "no salvation outside the church" ("extra ecclesiam nulla salus"), viz., _the church alone saves from damnation which is otherwise certain_. in this conception the nature of the church is depotentiated, but her powers are extended. if she is the institution which, according to cyprian, is the indispensable preliminary condition of salvation, she can no longer be a sure communion of the saved; in other words, she becomes an institution from which proceeds the communion of saints; she includes both saved and unsaved. thus her religious character consists in her being the indispensable medium, in so far as she alone guarantees to the individual the _possibility_ of redemption. from this, however, it immediately follows that the church would anticipate the judgment of god if she finally excluded anyone from her membership who did not give her up of his own accord; whereas she could never prejudge the ultimate destiny of a man by readmission.[237] but it also follows that the church must possess a means of repairing any injury upon earth, a means of equal value with baptism, namely, a sacrament of the forgiveness of sins. with this she acts in god's name and stead, but--and herein lies the inconsistency--she cannot by this means establish any final condition of salvation. in bestowing forgiveness on the sinner she in reality only reconciles him with herself, and thereby, in fact, merely removes the certainty of damnation. in accordance with this theory the holiness of the church can merely consist in her possession of the means of salvation: _the church is a holy institution in virtue of the gifts with which she is endowed_. she is the moral seminary that trains for salvation and the institution that exercises divine powers in christ's room. both of these conceptions presuppose political forms; both necessarily require priests and more especially an episcopate. (in de pudic. 21 tertullian already defines the position of his adversary by the saying, "ecclesia est numerus episcoporum.") this episcopate by its unity guarantees the unity of the church and has received the power to forgive sins (cyp., ep. 69. 11). the new conception of the church, which was a necessary outcome of existing circumstances and which, we may remark, was not formulated in contradictory terms by cyprian, but by roman bishops,[238] was the first thing that gave a fundamental _religious_ significance to the separation of clergy and laity. the powers exercised by bishops and priests were thereby fixed and hallowed. no doubt the old order of things, which gave laymen a share in the administration of moral discipline, still continued in the third century, but it became more and more a mere form. the bishop became the practical vicegerent of christ; he disposed of the power to bind and to loose. but the recollection of the older form of christianity continued to exert an influence on the catholic church of the third century. it is true that, if we can trust hippolytus' account, calixtus had by this time firmly set his face against the older idea, inasmuch as he not only defined the church as _essentially a mixed body_ (_corpus permixtum_), but also asserted the unlawfulness of deposing the bishop even in case of mortal sin.[239] but we do not find that definition in cyprian, and, what is of more importance, he still required a definite degree of active christianity as a _sine quâ non_ in the case of bishops; and assumed it as a self-evident necessity. he who does not give evidence of this forfeits his episcopal office _ipso facto_.[240] now if we consider that cyprian makes the church, as the body of believers (_plebs credentium_), so dependent on the bishops, that the latter are the only christians not under tutelage, the demand in question denotes a great deal. it carries out the old idea of the church in a certain fashion, as far as the bishops are concerned. but for this very reason it endangers the new conception in a point of capital importance; for the spiritual acts of a sinful bishop are invalid;[241] and if the latter, as a notorious sinner, is no longer bishop, the whole certainty of the ecclesiastical system ceases. moreover, an appeal to the certainty of god's installing the bishops and always appointing the right ones[242] is of no avail, if false ones manifestly find their way in. hence cyprian's idea of the church--and this is no dishonour to him--still involved an inconsistency which, in the fourth century, was destined to produce a very serious crisis in the donatist struggle.[243] the view, however--which cyprian never openly expressed, and which was merely the natural inference from his theory--that the catholic church, though the "one dove" ("una columba"), is in truth not coincident with the number of the elect, was clearly recognised and frankly expressed by origen before him. origen plainly distinguished between spiritual and fleshly members of the church; and spoke of such as only belong to her outwardly, but are not christians. as these are finally overpowered by the gates of hell, origen does not hesitate to class them as merely seeming members of the church. conversely, he contemplates the possibility of a person being expelled from her fellowship and yet remaining a member in the eyes of god.[244] nevertheless he by no means attained to clearness on the point, in which case, moreover, he would have been the first to do so; nor did he give an impulse to further reflection on the problem. besides, speculations were of no use here. the church with her priests, her holy books, and gifts of grace, that is, the moderate secularisation of christendom corrected by the means of grace, was absolutely needed in order to prevent a complete lapse into immorality.[245] but a minority struggled against this church, not with speculations, but by demanding adherence to the old practice with regard to lapsed members. under the leadership of the roman presbyter, novatian, this section formed a coalition in the empire that opposed the catholic confederation.[246] their adherence to the old system of church discipline involved a reaction against the secularising process, which did not seem to be tempered by the spiritual powers of the bishops. novatian's conception of the church, of ecclesiastical absolution and the rights of the priests, and in short, his notion of the power of the keys is different from that of his opponents. this is clear from a variety of considerations. for he (with his followers) assigned to the church the right and duty of expelling gross sinners once for all;[247] he denied her the authority to absolve idolaters, but left these to the forgiveness of god who alone has the power of pardoning sins committed against himself; and he asserted: "non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem,"--"the absolution of the bishop is not needed by him who will receive the peace of his glory (i.e., martyrdom) and will obtain a greater reward from the approbation of the lord" (cypr. ep. 57. 4), and on the other hand taught: "peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire,"--"the one is defiled by the sin of the other and the idolatry of the transgressor passes over to him who does not transgress." his proposition that none but god can forgive sins does not depotentiate the idea of the church; but secures both her proper religious significance and the full sense of her dispensations of grace: it limits her powers and _extent_ in favour of her _content_. refusal of her forgiveness under certain circumstances--though this does not exclude the confident hope of god's mercy--can only mean that in novatian's view this forgiveness is the foundation of salvation and does not merely avert the certainty of perdition. to the novatians, then, membership of the church is not the _sine quâ non_ of salvation, but it really secures it in some measure. in certain cases nevertheless the church may not anticipate the judgment of god. now it is never by exclusion, but by readmission, that she does so. as the assembly of the baptised, who have received god's forgiveness, the church must be a real communion of salvation and of saints; hence she cannot endure unholy persons in her midst without losing her essence. each gross sinner that is tolerated within her calls her legitimacy in question. but, from this point of view, the constitution of the church, i.e., the distinction of lay and spiritual and the authority of the bishops, likewise retained nothing but the secondary importance it had in earlier times. for, according to those principles, the primary question as regards church membership is not connection with the clergy (the bishop). it is rather connection with the community, fellowship with which secures the salvation that may indeed be found outside its pale, but not with certainty. but other causes contributed to lessen the importance of the bishops: the art of casuistry, so far-reaching in its results, was unable to find a fruitful soil here, and the laity were treated in exactly the same way as the clergy. the ultimate difference between novatian and cyprian as to the idea of the church and the power to bind and loose did not become clear to the latter himself. this was because, in regard to the idea of the church, he partly overlooked the inferences from his own view and to some extent even directly repudiated them. an attempt to lay down a principle for judging the case is found in ep. 69. 7: "we and the schismatics have neither the same law of the creed nor the same interrogation, for when they say: 'you believe in the remission of sins and eternal life through the holy church,' they speak falsely" ("non est una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur"). nor did dionysius of alexandria, who endeavoured to accumulate reproaches against novatian, succeed in forming any effective accusation (euseb., h. e. vii. 8). pseudo-cyprian had just as little success (ad novatianum). it was not till the subsequent period, when the catholic church had resolutely pursued the path she had entered, that the difference in principle manifested itself with unmistakable plainness. the historical estimate of the contrast must vary in proportion as one contemplates the demands of primitive christianity or the requirements of the time. the novatian confederation undoubtedly preserved a valuable remnant of the old tradition. the idea that the church, as a fellowship of salvation, must also be the fellowship of saints ([greek: katharoi]) corresponds to the ideas of the earliest period. the followers of novatian did not entirely identify the political and religious attributes of the church; they neither transformed the gifts of salvation into means of education, nor confused the reality with the possibility of redemption; and they did not completely lower the requirements for a holy life. but on the other hand, in view of the minimum insisted upon, the claim _that they were the really evangelical party and that they fulfilled the law of christ_[248] was a presumption. the one step taken to avert the secularising of the church, exclusion of the lapsed, was certainly, considering the actual circumstances immediately following a great apostasy, a measure of radical importance; but, estimated by the gospel and in fact simply by the demands of the montanists fifty years before, it was remarkably insignificant. these catharists did indeed go the length of expelling _all_ so-called mortal sinners, because it was too crying an injustice to treat _libellatici_ more severely than unabashed transgressors;[249] but, even then, it was still a gross self-deception to style themselves the "pure ones," since the novatian churches speedily ceased to be any stricter than the catholic in their renunciation of the world. at least we do not hear that asceticism and devotion to religious faith were very much more prominent in the catharist church than in the catholic. on the contrary, judging from the sources that have come down to us, we may confidently say that the picture presented by the two churches in the subsequent period was practically identical.[250] as novatian's adherents did not differ from the opposite party in doctrine and constitution, their discipline of penance appears an archaic fragment which it was a doubtful advantage to preserve; and their rejection of the catholic dispensations of grace (practice of rebaptism) a revolutionary measure, because it had insufficient justification. but the distinction between venial and mortal sins, a theory they held in common with the catholic church, could not but prove especially fatal to them; whereas their opponents, through their new regulations as to penance, softened this distinction, and that not to the detriment of morality. for an entirely different treatment of so-called gross and venial transgressions must in every case deaden the conscience towards the latter. 5. if we glance at the catholic church and leave the melancholy recriminations out of account, we cannot fail to see the wisdom, foresight, and comparative strictness[251] with which the bishops carried out the great revolution that so depotentiated the church as to make her capable of becoming a prop of civic society and of the state, without forcing any great changes upon them.[252] in learning to look upon the church as a training school for salvation, provided with penalties and gifts of grace, and in giving up its religious independence in deference to her authority, christendom as it existed in the latter half of the third century,[253] submitted to an arrangement that was really best adapted to its own interests. in the great church every distinction between her political and religious conditions necessarily led to fatal disintegrations, to laxities, such as arose in carthage owing to the enthusiastic behaviour of the confessors; or to the breaking up of communities. the last was a danger incurred in all cases where the attempt was made to exercise unsparing severity. a casuistic proceeding was necessary as well as a firm union of the bishops as pillars of the church. not the least important result of the crises produced by the great persecutions was the fact that the bishops in west and east were thereby forced into closer connection and at the same time acquired full jurisdiction ("per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti"). if we consider that the archiepiscopal constitution had not only been simultaneously adopted, but had also attained the chief significance in the ecclesiastical organisation,[254] we may say that the empire church was completed the moment that diocletian undertook the great reorganisation of his dominions.[255] no doubt the old christianity had found its place in the new church, but it was covered over and concealed. in spite of all that, little alteration had been made in the expression of faith, in religious language; people spoke of the universal holy church, just as they did a hundred years before. here the development in the history of dogma was in a very special sense a development in the history of the church. catholicism was now complete; the church had suppressed all utterances of individual piety, in the sense of their being binding on christians, and freed herself from every feature of exclusiveness. in order to be a christian a man no longer required in any sense to be a saint. "what made the christian a christian was no longer the possession of charisms, but obedience to ecclesiastical authority," share in the gifts of the church, and the performance of penance and good works. the church by her edicts legitimised average morality, after average morality had created the authority of the church. ("la médiocrité fonda l'autorité".) the dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and the lord's supper, abolished the charismatic gifts. the holy scriptures, the apostolic episcopate, the priests, the sacraments, average morality in accordance with which the whole world could live, were mutually conditioned. the consoling words: "jesus receives sinners," were subjected to an interpretation that threatened to make them detrimental to morality.[256] and with all that the self-righteousness of proud ascetics was not excluded--quite the contrary. alongside of a code of morals, to which any one in case of need could adapt himself, the church began to legitimise a morality of self-chosen, refined sanctity, which really required no redeemer. it was as in possession of this constitution that the great statesman found and admired her, and recognised in her the strongest support of the empire.[257] a comparison of the aims of primitive christendom with those of ecclesiastical society at the end of the third century--a comparison of the actual state of things at the different periods is hardly possible--will always lead to a disheartening result; but the parallel is in itself unjust. the truth rather is that the correct standpoint from which to judge the matter was already indicated by origen in the comparison he drew (c. cels. iii. 29. 30) between the christian society of the third century and the non-christian, between the church and the empire, the clergy and the magistrates.[258] amidst the general disorganisation of all relationships, and from amongst the ruins of a shattered fabric, a new structure, founded on the belief in one god, in a sure revelation, and in eternal life, was being laboriously raised. it gathered within it more and more all the elements still capable of continued existence; it readmitted the old world, cleansed of its grossest impurities, and raised holy barriers to secure its conquests against all attacks. within this edifice justice and civic virtue shone with no greater brightness than they did upon the earth generally, but within it burned two mighty flames--the assurance of eternal life, guaranteed by christ, and the practice of mercy. he who knows history is aware that the influence of epoch-making personages is not to be sought in its direct consequences alone, as these speedily disappear: that structure which prolonged the life of a dying world, and brought strength from the holy one to another struggling into existence, was also partly founded on the gospel, and but for this would neither have arisen nor attained solidity. moreover, a church had been created within which the pious layman could find a holy place of peace and edification. with priestly strife he had nothing to do, nor had he any concern in the profound and subtle dogmatic system whose foundation was now being laid. we may say that the religion of the laity attained freedom in proportion as it became impossible for them to take part in the establishment and guardianship of the official church system. it is the professional guardians of this ecclesiastical edifice who are the real martyrs of religion, and it is they who have to bear the consequences of the worldliness and lack of genuineness pertaining to the system. but to the layman who seeks from the church nothing more than aid in raising himself to god, this worldliness and unveracity do not exist. during the greek period, however, laymen were only able to recognise this advantage to a limited extent. the church dogmatic and the ecclesiastical system were still too closely connected with their own interests. it was in the middle ages, that the church first became a holy mother and her house a house of prayer--for the germanic peoples; for these races were really the children of the church, and they themselves had not helped to rear the house in which they worshipped. addenda. i. the priesthood. the completion of the old catholic conception of the church, as this idea was developed in the latter half of the third century, is perhaps most clearly shown in the attribute of priesthood, with which the clergy were invested and which conferred on them the greatest importance.[259] the development of this conception, whose adoption is a proof that the church had assumed a heathen complexion, cannot be more particularly treated of here.[260] what meaning it has is shown by its application in cyprian and the original of the first six books of the apostolic constitutions (see book ii.). the bishops (and also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as they alone are empowered to present the sacrifice as representatives of the congregation before god[261] and in so far as they dispense or refuse the divine grace as representatives of god in relation to the congregation. in this sense they are also judges in god's stead.[262] the position here conceded to the higher clergy corresponds to that of the mystagogue in heathen religions, and is acknowledged to be borrowed from the latter.[263] divine grace already appears as a sacramental consecration of an objective nature, the bestowal of which is confined to spiritual personages chosen by god. this fact is no way affected by the perception that an ever increasing reference is made to the old testament priests as well as to the whole jewish ceremonial and ecclesiastical regulations.[264] it is true that there is no other respect in which old testament commandments were incorporated with christianity to such an extent as they were in this.[265] but it can be proved that this formal adoption everywhere took place at a subsequent date, that is, it had practically no influence on the development itself, which was not legitimised by the commandments till a later period, and that often in a somewhat lame fashion. we may perhaps say that the development which made the bishops and elders priests altered the inward form of the church in a more radical fashion than any other. "gnosticism," which the church had repudiated in the second century, became part of her own system in the third. as her integrity had been made dependent on inalienable objective standards, the adoption even of this greatest innovation, which indeed was in complete harmony with the secular element within her, was an elementary necessity. in regard to every sphere of church life, and hence also in respect to the development of dogma[266] and the interpretation of the holy scriptures, the priesthood proved of the highest significance. the clerical exposition of the sacred books, with its frightful ideas, found its earliest advocate in cyprian and had thus a most skilful champion at the very first.[267] ii. sacrifice. in book i., chap. iii., § 7, we have already shown what a wide field the idea of sacrifice occupied in primitive christendom, and how it was specially connected with the celebration of the lord's supper. the latter was regarded as the pure (i.e., to be presented with a pure heart), bloodless thank offering of which malachi had prophesied in i. 11. priesthood and sacrifice, however, are mutually conditioned. the alteration of the concept "priest" necessarily led to a simultaneous and corresponding change in the idea of sacrifice, just as, conversely, the latter reacted on the former.[268] in irenæus and tertullian the old conception of sacrifice, viz., that prayers are the christian sacrifice and that the disposition of the believer hallows his whole life even as it does his offering, and forms a well-pleasing sacrifice to god, remains essentially unchanged. in particular, there is no evidence of any alteration in the notion of sacrifice connected with the lord's supper.[269] but nevertheless we can already trace a certain degree of modification in tertullian. not only does he give fasting, voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc., special prominence among the sacrificial acts of a christian life, and extol their religious value--as had already been done before; but he also attributes a god-propitiating significance to these performances, and plainly designates them as "merita" ("promereri deum"). to the best of my belief tertullian was the first who definitely regarded ascetic performances as propitiatory offerings and ascribed to them the "potestas reconciliandi iratum deum."[270] but he himself was far from using this fatal theory, so often found in his works, to support a lax church practice that made christianity consist in outward forms. this result did not come about till the eventful decades, prolific in new developments, that elapsed between the persecutions of septimius and decius; and in the west it is again cyprian who is our earliest witness as to the new view and practice.[271] in the first place, cyprian was quite familiar with the idea of ascetic propitiations and utilised it in the interest of the catholicity of the church; secondly, he propounded a new theory of the offering in the cultus. as far as the first point is concerned, cyprian's injunctions with regard to it are everywhere based on the understanding that even after baptism no one can be without sin (de op. et cleemos. 3); and also on the firm conviction that this sacrament can only have a retrospective virtue. hence he concludes that we must appease god, whose wrath has been aroused by sin, through performances of our own, that is, through offerings that bear the character of "satisfactions." in other words we must blot out transgressions by specially meritorious deeds in order thus to escape eternal punishment. these deeds cyprian terms "merita," which either possess the character of atonements, or, in case there are no sins to be expiated, entitle the christian to a special reward (merces).[272] but, along with _lamentationes_ and acts of penance, it is principally alms-giving that forms such means of atonement (see de lapsis, 35, 36). in cyprian's eyes this is already the proper satisfaction; mere prayer, that is, devotional exercises unaccompanied by fasting and alms, being regarded as "bare and unfruitful." in the work "de opere et eleemosynis" which, after a fashion highly characteristic of cyprian, is made dependent on sirach and tobias, he has set forth a detailed theory of what we may call alms-giving as a _means of grace_ in its relation to baptism and salvation.[273] however, this practice can only be viewed as a means of grace in cyprian's sense in so far as god has accepted it, that is, pointed it out. in itself it is a free human act. after the decian persecution and the rearrangement of ecclesiastical affairs necessitated by it, works and alms (opera et eleemosynæ) made their way into the absolution system of the church, and were assigned a permanent place in it. even the christian who has forfeited his church membership by abjuration may ultimately recover it by deeds of sacrifice, of course under the guidance and intercessory coöperation of the church. the dogmatic dilemma we find here cannot be more clearly characterised than by simply placing the two doctrines professed by cyprian side by side. these are:--(1) that the sinfulness common to each individual can only be once extirpated by the power of baptism derived from the work of christ, and (2) that transgressions committed after baptism, inclusive of mortal sins, can and must be expiated solely by spontaneous acts of sacrifice under the guidance of kind mother church.[274] a church capable of being permanently satisfied with such doctrines would very soon have lost the last remains of her christian character. what was wanted was a means of grace, similar to baptism and granted by god through christ, to which the _opera et eleemosynæ_ are merely to bear the relation of _accompanying_ acts. but cyprian was no dogmatist and was not able to form a doctrine of the means of grace. he never got beyond his "propitiate god the judge by sacrifices after baptism" ("promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis"), and merely hinted, in an obscure way, that the absolution of him who has committed a deadly sin after baptism emanates from the same readiness of god to forgive as is expressed in that rite, and that membership in the church is a condition of absolution. his whole theory as to the legal nature of man's (the christian's) relationship to god, and the practice, inaugurated by tertullian, of designating this connection by terms derived from roman law continued to prevail in the west down to augustine's time.[275] but, during this whole interval, no book was written by a western churchman which made the salvation of the sinful christian dependent on ascetic offerings of atonement, with so little regard to christ's grace and the divine factor in the case, as cyprian's work _de opere et eleemosynis_. no less significant is cyprian's advance as regards the idea of the sacrifice in public worship, and that in three respects. to begin with, cyprian was the first to associate the specific offering, i.e., the lord's supper[276] with the specific priesthood. secondly, he was the first to designate the _passio dominis_, nay, the _sanguis christi_ and the _dominica hostia_ as the object of the eucharistic offering.[277] thirdly, he expressly represented the celebration of the lord's supper as an incorporation of the congregation and its individual members with christ, and was the first to bear clear testimony as to the special importance attributed to commemoration of the celebrators ("vivi et defuncti"), though no other can be ascertained than a specially strong intercession.[278] but this is really the essential effect of the sacrifice of the supper as regards the celebrators; for however much the conceptions about this ceremony might be heightened, and whatever additions might be made to its ritual, forgiveness of sins in the strict sense could not be associated with it. cyprian's statement that every celebration of the lord's supper is a repetition or imitation of christ's sacrifice of himself, and that the ceremony has therefore an expiatory value remains a mere assertion, though the romish church still continues to repeat this doctrine to the present day. for the idea that partaking of the lord's supper cleansed from sin like the mysteries of the great mother (magna mater) and mithras, though naturally suggested by the ceremonial practice, was counteracted by the church principles of penance and by the doctrine of baptism. as a sacrificial rite the supper never became a ceremony equivalent in effect to baptism. but no doubt, as far as the popular conception was concerned, the solemn ritual copied from the ancient mysteries could not but attain an indescribably important significance. it is not possible, within the framework of the history of dogma, to describe the development of religious ceremonial in the third century, and to show what a radical alteration took place in men's conceptions with regard to it (cf. for example, justin with cyprian). but, in dealing with the history of dogma within this period, we must clearly keep in view the development of the cultus, the new conceptions of the value of ritual, and the reference of ceremonial usages to apostolic tradition; for there was plainly a remodelling of the ritual in imitation of the ancient mysteries and of the heathen sacrificial system, and this fact is admitted by protestant scholars of all parties. ceremonial and doctrine may indeed be at variance, for the latter may lag behind the former and vice versa, but they are never subject to entirely different conditions. iii. means of grace, baptism, and eucharist. that which the western church of post-augustinian times calls sacrament in the specific sense of the word (means of grace) was only possessed by the church of the third century in the form of baptism.[279] in strict theory she still held that the grace once bestowed in this rite could be conferred by no holy ceremony of equal virtue, that is, by no fresh sacrament. the baptised christian has no means of grace, conferred by christ, at his disposal, but has his law to fulfil (see, e.g., iren. iv. 27. 2). but, as soon as the church began to absolve mortal sinners, she practically possessed in absolution a real means of grace that was equally effective with baptism from the moment that this remission became unlimited in its application.[280] the notions as to this means of grace, however, continued quite uncertain in so far as the thought of god's absolving the sinner through the priest was qualified by the other theory (see above) which asserted that forgiveness was obtained through the penitential acts of transgressors (especially baptism with blood, and next in importance _lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ_). in the third century there were manifold holy dispensations of grace by the hands of priests; but there was still no theory which traced the means of grace to the historical work of christ in the same way that the grace bestowed in baptism was derived from it. from cyprian's epistles and the anti-novatian sections in the first six books of the apostolic constitutions we indeed see that appeal was not unfrequently made to the power of forgiving sins bestowed on the apostles and to christ's declaration that he received sinners; but, as the church had not made up her mind to repeat baptism, so also she had yet no theory that expressly and clearly supplemented this rite by a _sacramentum absolutionis_. in this respect, as well as in regard to the _sacramentum ordinis_, first instituted by augustine, theory remained far behind practice. this was by no means an advantage, for, as a matter of fact, the whole religious ceremonial was already regarded as a system of means of grace. the consciousness of a personal, living connection of the individual with god through christ had already disappeared, and the hesitation in setting up new means of grace had only the doubtful result of increasing the significance of human acts, such as offerings and satisfactions, to a dangerous extent. since the middle of the second century the notions of baptism[281] in the church have not essentially altered (see vol. i. p. 206 ff.). the result of baptism was universally considered to be forgiveness of sins, and this pardon was supposed to effect an actual sinlessness which now required to be maintained.[282] we frequently find "deliverance from death," "regeneration of man," "restoration to the image of god," and "obtaining of the holy spirit." ("absolutio mortes," "regeneratio hominis," "restitutio ad similitudinem dei" and "consecutio spiritus sancti") named along with the "remission of sins" and "obtaining of eternal life" ("remissio delictorum" and "consecutio æternitatis"). examples are to be found in tertullian[283] adv. marc. i. 28 and elsewhere; and cyprian speaks of the "bath of regeneration and sanctification" ("lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis"). moreover, we pretty frequently find rhetorical passages where, on the strength of new testament texts, all possible blessings are associated with baptism.[284] the constant additions to the baptismal ritual, a process which had begun at a very early period, are partly due to the intention of symbolising these supposedly manifold virtues of baptism,[285] and partly owe their origin to the endeavour to provide the great mystery with fit accompaniments.[286] as yet the separate acts can hardly be proved to have an independent signification.[287] the water was regarded both as the symbol of the purification of the soul and as an efficacious, holy medium of the spirit (in accordance with gen. i. 2; water and spirit are associated with each other, especially in cyprian's epistles on baptism). he who asserted the latter did not thereby repudiate the former (see orig. in joann. tom. vi. 17, opp. iv. p. 133).[288] complete obscurity prevails as to the church's adoption of the practice of child baptism, which, though it owes its origin to the idea of this ceremony being indispensable to salvation, is nevertheless a proof that the superstitious view of baptism had increased.[289] in the time of irenæus (ii. 22. 4) and tertullian (de bapt. 18) child baptism had already become very general and was founded on matt. xix. 14. we have no testimony regarding it from earlier times; clement of alexandria does not yet assume it. tertullian argued against it not only because he regarded conscious faith as a needful preliminary condition, but also because he thought it advisable to delay baptism (cunctatio baptismi) on account of the responsibility involved in it (pondus baptismi). he says: "it is more advantageous to delay baptism, especially in the case of little children. for why is it necessary for the sponsors" (this is the first mention of "godparents") "also to be thrust into danger?... let the little ones therefore come when they are growing up; let them come when they are learning, when they are taught where they are coming to; let them become christians when they are able to know christ. why does an age of innocence hasten to the remission of sins? people will act more cautiously in worldly affairs, so that one who is not trusted with earthly things is trusted with divine. whoever understands the responsibility of baptism will fear its attainment more than its delay."[290] to all appearance the practice of immediately baptising the children of christian families was universally adopted in the church in the course of the third century. (origen, comment, in ep. ad rom. v. 9, opp. iv. p. 565, declared child baptism to be a custom handed down by the apostles.) grown up people, on the other hand, frequently postponed baptism, but this habit was disapproved.[291] the lord's supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but also as a divine gift.[292] the effects of this gift were not theoretically fixed, because these were excluded by the strict scheme[293] of baptismal grace and baptismal obligation. but in practice christians more and more assumed a real bestowal of heavenly gifts in the holy food, and gave themselves over to superstitious theories. this bestowal was sometimes regarded as a spiritual and sometimes as a bodily self-communication of christ, that is, as a miraculous implanting of divine life. here ethical and physical, and again ethical and theoretical features were intermixed with each other. the utterances of the fathers to which we have access do not allow us to classify these elements here; for to all appearance not a single one clearly distinguished between spiritual and bodily, or ethical and intellectual effects unless he was in principle a spiritualist. but even a writer of this kind had quite as superstitious an idea of the holy elements as the rest. thus the holy meal was extolled as the communication of incorruption, as a pledge of resurrection, as a medium of the union of the flesh with the holy spirit; and again as food of the soul, as the bearer of the spirit of christ (the logos), as the means of strengthening faith and knowledge, as a sanctifying of the whole personality. the thought of the forgiveness of sins fell quite into the background. this ever changing conception, as it seems to us, of the effects of partaking of the lord's supper had also a parallel in the notions as to the relation between the visible elements and the body of christ. so far as we are able to judge no one felt that there was a _problem_ here, no one enquired whether this relation was realistic or symbolical. the symbol is the mystery and the mystery was not conceivable without a symbol. what we now-a-days understand by "symbol" is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time "symbol" denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies; but, on the other hand, according to the ideas of that period, the really heavenly element lay either in or behind the visible form without being identical with it. accordingly the distinction of a symbolic and realistic conception of the supper is altogether to be rejected; we could more rightly distinguish between materialistic, dyophysite, and docetic conceptions which, however, are not to be regarded as severally exclusive in the strict sense. in the popular idea the consecrated elements were heavenly fragments of magical virtue (see cypr., de laps. 25; euseb., h. e. vi. 44). with these the rank and file of third-century christians already connected many superstitious notions which the priests tolerated or shared.[294] the antignostic fathers acknowledged that the consecrated food consisted of two things, an earthly (the elements) and a heavenly (the real body of christ). they thus saw in the sacrament a guarantee of the union between spirit and flesh, which the gnostics denied; and a pledge of the resurrection of the flesh nourished by the blood of the lord (justin; iren. iv. 18. 4, 5; v. 2. 2, 3; likewise tertullian who is erroneously credited with a "symbolical" doctrine[295]). clement and origen "spiritualise," because, like ignatius, they assign a spiritual significance to the flesh and blood of christ himself (summary of wisdom). to judge from the exceedingly confused passage in pæd. ii. 2, clement distinguishes a spiritual and a material blood of christ. finally, however, he sees in the eucharist the union of the divine logos with the human spirit, recognises, like cyprian at a later period, that the mixture of wine with water in the symbol represents the spiritual process, and lastly does not fail to attribute to the holy food a relationship to the body.[296] it is true that origen, the great mysteriosophist and theologian of sacrifice, expressed himself in plainly "spiritualistic" fashion; but in his eyes religious mysteries and the whole person of christ lay in the province of the spirit, and therefore his theory of the supper is not "symbolical," but conformable to his doctrine of christ. besides, origen was only able to recognise spiritual aids in the sphere of the intellect and the disposition, and in the assistance given to these by man's own free and spontaneous efforts. eating and drinking and, in general, participation in a ceremonial are from origen's standpoint completely indifferent matters. the intelligent christian feeds at all times on the body of christ, that is, on the word of god, and thus celebrates a never ending supper (c. cels. viii. 22). origen, however, was not blind to the fact that his doctrine of the lord's supper was just as far removed from the faith of the simple christian as his doctrinal system generally. here also, therefore, he accommodated himself to that faith in points where it seemed necessary. this, however, he did not find difficult; for, though with him everything is at bottom "spiritual," he was unwilling to dispense with symbols and mysteries, because he knew that one must be _initiated_ into the spiritual, since one cannot learn it as one learns the lower sciences.[297] but, whether we consider simple believers, the antignostic fathers or origen, and, moreover, whether we view the supper as offering or sacrament, we everywhere observe that the holy ordinance had been entirely diverted from its original purpose and pressed into the service of the spirit of antiquity. in no other point perhaps is the hellenisation of the gospel so evident as in this. to mention only one other example, this is also shown in the practice of child communion, which, though we first hear of it in cyprian (testim. iii. 25; de laps. 25), can hardly be of later origin than child baptism. partaking of the supper seemed quite as indispensable as baptism, and the child had no less claim than the adult to a magical food from heaven.[298] * * * * * in the course of the third century a crass superstition became developed in respect to the conceptions of the church and the mysteries connected with her. according to this notion we must subject ourselves to the church and must have ourselves filled with holy consecrations as we are filled with food. but the following chapters will show that this superstition and mystery magic were counterbalanced by a most lively conception of the freedom and responsibility of the individual. fettered by the bonds of authority and superstition in the sphere of religion, free and self-dependent in the province of morality, this christianity is characterised by passive submission in the first respect and by complete activity in the second. it may be that exegetical theology can never advance beyond an alternation between these two aspects of the case, and a recognition of their equal claim to consideration; for the religious phenomenon in which they are combined defies any explanation. but religion is in danger of being destroyed when the insufficiency of the understanding is elevated into a convenient principle of theory and life, and when the real mystery of the faith, viz., how one becomes a new man, must accordingly give place to the injunction that we must obediently accept the religious as a consecration, and add to this the zealous endeavour after ascetic virtue. such, however, has been the character of catholicism since the third century, and even after augustine's time it has still remained the same in its practice. _excursus to chapters ii. and iii._ catholic and roman.[299] in investigating the development of christianity up till about the year 270 the following facts must be specially kept in mind: in the regions subject to rome, apart from the judæo-christian districts and passing disturbances, christianity had yet an undivided history in vital questions;[300] the independence of individual congregations and of the provincial groups of churches was very great; and every advance in the development of the communities at the same time denoted a forward step in their adaptation to the existing conditions of the empire. the first two facts we have mentioned have their limitations. the further apart the different churches lay, the more various were the conditions under which they arose and flourished; the looser the relations between the towns in which they had their home the looser also was the connection between them. still, it is evident that towards the end of the third century the development in the church had well-nigh attained the same point everywhere--except in outlying communities. catholicism, essentially as we conceive it now, was what most of the churches had arrived at. now it is an _a priori_ probability that this transformation of christianity, which was simply the adaptation of the gospel to the then existing empire, came about under the guidance of the metropolitan church,[301] the church of rome; and that "roman" and "catholic" had therefore a special relation from the beginning. it might _a limine_ be objected to this proposition that there is no direct testimony in support of it, and that, apart from this consideration, it is also improbable, in so far as, in view of the then existing condition of society, catholicism appears as the _natural and only possible_ form in which christianity could be adapted to the world. but this is not the case; for in the first place very strong proofs can be adduced, and besides, as is shown by the development in the second century, very different kinds of secularisation were possible. in fact, if all appearances are not deceptive, the alexandrian church, for example, was up to the time of septimius severus pursuing a path of development which, left to itself, would _not_ have led to catholicism, but, in the most favourable circumstances, to a parallel form.[302] it can, however, be proved that it was in the roman church, which up to about the year 190 was closely connected with that of asia minor, that all the elements on which catholicism is based first assumed a definite form.[303] (1) we know that the roman church possessed a precisely formulated baptismal confession, and that as early as the year 180 she declared this to be the apostolic rule by which everything is to be measured. it is only in her case that we are really certain of this, for we can merely guess at it as regards the church of smyrna, that is, of asia minor. it was accordingly admitted that the roman church was able to distinguish true from false with special exactness;[304] and irenæus and tertullian appealed to her to decide the practice in gaul and africa. this practice, in its precisely developed form, cannot be shown to have existed in alexandria till a later period; but origen, who testifies to it, also bears witness to the special reverence for and connection with the roman church. (2) the new testament canon, with its claim to be accounted catholic and apostolic and to possess exclusive authority is first traceable in her; in the other communities it can only be proved to exist at a later period. in the great antiochian diocese there was, for instance, a church some of whose members wished the gospel of peter read; in the pentapolis group of congregations the gospel of the egyptians was still used in the 3rd century; syrian churches of the same epoch used tatian's diatessaron; and the original of the first six books of the apostolic constitutions still makes no mention of a new testament canon. though clement of alexandria no doubt testifies that, in consequence of the common history of christianity, the group of scriptures read in the roman congregations was also the same as that employed in public worship at alexandria, he had as yet no new testament canon before him in the sense of irenæus and tertullian. it was not till origen's time that alexandria reached the stage already attained in rome about forty years earlier. it must, however, be pointed out that a series of new testament books, in the form now found in the canon and universally recognised, show marks of revision that can be traced back to the roman church.[305] finally, the later investigations, which show that after the third century the western readings, that is, the roman text, of the new testament were adopted in the oriental mss. of the bible,[306] are of the utmost value here; for the most natural explanation of these facts is that the eastern churches then received their new testament from rome and used it to correct their copies of books read in public worship.[307] (3) rome is the first place which we can prove to have constructed a list of bishops reaching back to the apostles (see irenæus).[308] we know that in the time of heliogabalus such lists also existed in other communities; but it cannot be proved that these had already been drawn up by the time of marcus aurelius or commodus, as was certainly the case at rome. (4) the notion of the apostolic succession of the episcopate[309] was first turned to account by the roman bishops, and they were the first who definitely formulated the political idea of the church in connection with this. the utterances and corresponding practical measures of victor,[310] calixtus (hippolytus), and stephen are the earliest of their kind; whilst the precision and assurance with which they substituted the political and clerical for the ideal conception of the church, or amalgamated the two notions, as well as the decided way in which they proclaimed the sovereignty of the bishops, were not surpassed in the third century by cyprian himself. (5) rome was the first place, and that at a very early period, to date occurrences according to her bishops; and, even outside that city, churches reckoned, not according to their own, but according to the roman episcopate.[311] (6) the oriental churches say that two bishops of rome compiled the chief apostolic regulations for the organisation of the church; and this is only partially wrong.[312] (7) the three great theologians of the age, tertullian, hippolytus, and origen, opposed the pretensions of the roman bishop calixtus; and this very attitude of theirs testified that the advance in the political organisation of the church, denoted by the measures of calixtus, was still an unheard-of novelty, but immediately exercised a very important influence on the attitude of other churches. we know that the other communities imitated this advance in the succeeding decades. (8) the institution of lower orders of clergy with the corresponding distinction of _clerici maiores_ and _minores_ first took place in rome; but we know that this momentous arrangement gradually spread from that city to the rest of christendom.[313] (9) the different churches communicated with one another through the medium of rome.[314] from these considerations we can scarcely doubt that the fundamental apostolic institutions and laws of catholicism were framed in the same city that in other respects imposed its authority on the whole earth; and that it was the centre from which they spread, because the world had become accustomed to receive law and justice from rome.[315] but it may be objected that the parallel development in other provinces and towns was spontaneous, though it everywhere came about at a somewhat later date. nor do we intend to contest the assumption in this general sense; but, as i think, it can be proved that the roman community had a direct and important share in the process and that, even in the second century, she was reckoned the first and most influential church.[316] we shall give a bird's-eye view of the most important facts bearing on the question, in order to prove this. no other community made a more brilliant entrance into church history than did that of rome by the so called first epistle of clement--paul having already testified (rom. i. 8) that the faith of this church was spoken of throughout the whole world. that letter to the corinthians proves that, by the end of the first century, the roman church had already drawn up fixed rules for her own guidance, that she watched with motherly care over outlying communities, and that she then knew how to use language that was at once an expression of duty, love, and authority.[317] as yet she pretends to no legal title of any kind, but she knows the "commandments and ordinances" ([greek: prostagmata] and [greek: dokaiômata]) of god, whereas the conduct of the sister church evinces her uncertainty on the matter; she is in an orderly condition, whereas the sister community is threatened with dissolution; she adheres to the [greek: kanôn tês paradoseôs], whilst the other body stands in need of exhortation;[318] and in these facts her claim to authority consists. the shepherd of hermas also proves that even in the circles of the laity the roman church is impressed with the consciousness that she must care for the whole of christendom. the first testimony of an outsider as to this community is afforded us by ignatius. soften as we may all the extravagant expressions in his epistle to the romans, it is at least clear that ignatius conceded to them a precedence in the circle of sister churches; and that he was well acquainted with the energy and activity displayed by them in aiding and instructing other communities.[319] dionysius of corinth, in his letter to bishop soter, affords us a glimpse of the vast activity manifested by the christian church of the world's metropolis on behalf of all christendom and of all brethren far and near; and reveals to us the feelings of filial affection and veneration with which she was regarded in all greece as well as in antioch. this author has specially emphasised the fact that the roman christians are _romans_, that is, are conscious of the particular duties incumbent on them as members of the metropolitan church.[320] after this evidence we cannot wonder that irenæus expressly assigned to the church of rome the highest rank among those founded by the apostles.[321] his famous testimony has been quite as often under as over-estimated. doubtless his reference to the roman church is introduced in such a way that she is merely mentioned by way of example, just as he also adds the allusion to smyrna and ephesus; but there is quite as little doubt that this example was no arbitrary selection. the truth rather is that the roman community _must_ have been named, because its decision was already the most authoritative and impressive in christendom.[322] whilst giving a formal scheme of proof that assigned the same theoretical value to each church founded by the apostles, irenæus added a reference to particular circumstance, viz., that in his time many communities turned to rome in order to testify their orthodoxy.[323] as soon as we cease to obscure our vision with theories and keep in view the actual circumstances, we have no cause for astonishment. considering the active intercourse between the various churches and the metropolis, it was of the utmost importance to all, especially so long as they required financial aid, to be in connection with that of rome, to receive support from her, to know she would entertain travelling brethren, and to have the power of recommending prisoners and those pining in the mines to her influential intervention. the evidence of ignatius and dionysius as well as the marcia-victor episode place this beyond doubt (see above). the efforts of marcion and valentinus in rome have also a bearing on this question, and the venerable bishop, polycarp, did not shrink from the toil of a long journey to secure the valuable fellowship of the roman church;[324] it was not anicetus who came to polycarp, but polycarp to anicetus. at the time when the controversy with gnosticism ensued, the roman church showed all the rest an example of resolution; it was naturally to be expected that, as a necessary condition of mutual fellowship, she should require other communities to recognise the law by which she had regulated her own circumstances. no community in the empire could regard with indifference its relationship to the great roman church; almost everyone had connections with her; she contained believers from all the rest. as early as 180 this church could point to a series of bishops reaching in uninterrupted succession from the glorious apostles paul and peter[325] down to the present time; and she alone maintained a brief but definitely formulated _lex_, which she entitled the summary of apostolic tradition, and by reference to which she decided all questions of faith with admirable certainty. theories were incapable of overcoming the elementary differences that could not but appear as soon as christianity became naturalised in the various provinces and towns of the empire. nor was it theories that created the empiric unity of the churches, but the unity which the empire possessed in rome; the extent and composition of the græco-latin community there; the security--and this was not the least powerful element--that accompanied the development of this great society, well provided as it was with wealth and possessed of an influence in high quarters already dating from the first century;[326] as well as the care which it displayed on behalf of all christendom. _all these causes combined to convert the christian communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the roman church (and subsequently under the leadership of her bishops)._ this primacy cannot of course be further defined, for it was merely a _de facto_ one. but, from the nature of the case, it was immediately shaken, when it was claimed as a _legal_ right associated with the person of the roman bishop. that this theory is more than a hypothesis is shown by several facts which prove the unique authority as well as the interference of the roman church (that is, of her bishop). first, in the montanist controversy--and that too at the stage when it was still almost exclusively confined to asia minor--the already sobered adherents of the new prophecy petitioned rome (bishop eleutherus) to recognise their church, and it was at rome that the gallic confessors cautiously interfered in their behalf; after which a native of asia minor induced the roman bishop to withdraw the letters of toleration already issued.[327] in view of the facts that it was not roman montanists who were concerned, that rome was the place where the asiatic members of this sect sought for recognition, and that it was in rome that the gauls interfered in their behalf, the significance of this proceeding cannot be readily minimised. we cannot of course dogmatise on the matter; but the fact can be proved that the decision of the roman church must have settled the position of that sect of enthusiasts in christendom. secondly, what is reported to us of victor, the successor of eleutherus, is still plainer testimony. he ventured to issue an edict, which we may already style a peremptory one, proclaiming the roman practice with regard to the regulation of ecclesiastical festivals to be the universal rule in the church, and declaring that every congregation, that failed to adopt the roman arrangement,[328] was excluded from the union of the one church on the ground of heresy. how would victor have ventured on such an edict--though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case--unless the special prerogative of rome to determine the conditions of the "common unity" ([greek: koinê henôsis]) in the vital questions of the faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact? how could victor have addressed such a demand to the independent churches, if he had not been recognised, in his capacity of bishop of rome, as the special guardian of the [greek: koinê henôsis]?[329] thirdly, it was victor who formally excluded theodotus from church fellowship. this is the first really well-attested case of a christian _taking his stand on the rule of faith_ being excommunicated because a definite interpretation of it was already insisted on. in this instance the expression [greek: huios monogenês] (only begotten son) was required to be understood in the sense of [greek: phusei theos] (god by nature). it was in rome that this first took place. fourthly, under zephyrinus, victor's successor, the roman ecclesiastics interfered in the carthaginian veil dispute, making common cause with the local clergy against tertullian; and both appealed to the authority of predecessors, that is, above all, of the roman bishops.[330] tertullian, hippolytus, origen, and cyprian were obliged to resist the pretensions of these ecclesiastics to authority outside their own church, the first having to contend with calixtus, and the three others with stephen.[331] it was the roman _church_ that first displayed this activity and care; the roman bishop sprang from the community in exactly the same way as the corresponding official did in other places.[332] in irenæus' proof from prescription, however, it is already the roman _bishops_ that are specially mentioned.[333] praxeas reminded the bishop of rome of the authority of his predecessors ("auctoritates præcessorum eius") and it was in the character of _bishop_ that victor acted. the assumption that paul and peter laboured in rome, that is, founded the church of that city (dionysius, irenæus, tertullian, caius), must have conferred a high degree of prestige on her bishops, as soon as the latter officials were elevated to the position of more or less sovereign lords of the communities and were regarded as successors of the apostles. the first who acted up to this idea was calixtus. the sarcastic titles of "pontifex maximus," "episcopus episcoporum," "benedictus papa" and "apostolicus," applied to him by tertullian in "de pudicitia" i. 13, are so many references to the fact that calixtus already claimed for himself a position of primacy, in other words, that he associated with his own personal position as bishop the primacy possessed by the roman church, which pre-eminence, however, must have been gradually vanishing in proportion to the progress of the catholic form of organisation among the other communities. moreover, that is evident from the form of the edict he issued (tert. i. c., i: "i hear that an edict has been issued and that a decisive one," "audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium"), from the grounds it assigned and from the opposition to it on the part of tertullian. from the form, in so far as calixtus acted here quite independently and, without previous consultation, issued a _peremptory_ edict, that is, one settling the matter and immediately taking effect; from the grounds it assigned, in so far as he appealed in justification of his action to matt. xvi. 18 ff.[334]--the first instance of the kind recorded in history; from tertullian's opposition to it, because the latter treats it not as local, roman, but as pregnant in consequences for all christendom. but, as soon as the question took the form of enquiring whether the roman _bishop_ was elevated above the rest, a totally new situation arose. even in the third century, as already shown, the roman community, led by its bishops, still showed the rest an example in the process of giving a political constitution to the church. it can also be proved that even far distant congregations were still being bound to the roman church through financial support,[335] and that she was appealed to in questions of faith, just as the law of the city of rome was invoked as the standard in civil questions.[336] it is further manifest from cyprian's epistles that the roman church was regarded as the _ecclesia principalis_, as the guardian _par excellence_ of the _unity_ of the church. we may explain from cyprian's own particular situation all else that he said in praise of the roman church (see above p. 88, note 2) and specially of the _cathedra petri_; but the general view that she is the "matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ" is not peculiar to him, and the statement that the "unitas sacerdotalis" originated in rome is merely the modified expression, necessitated by the altered circumstances of the church, for the acknowledged fact that the roman community was the most distinguished among the sister groups, and as such had had and still possessed the right and duty of watching over the unity of the whole. cyprian himself no doubt took a further step at the time of his correspondence with cornelius, and proclaimed the special reference of matt. xvi. to the _cathedra petri_; but he confined his theory to the abstractions "ecclesia," "cathedra." in him the importance of this _cathedra_ oscillates between the significance of a once existent fact that continues to live on as a symbol, and that of a real and permanent court of appeal. moreover, he did not go the length of declaring that any special authority within the collective church attached to the temporary occupant of the _cathedra petri_. if we remove from cyprian's abstractions everything to which he himself thinks there is nothing concrete corresponding, then we must above all eliminate every prerogative of the roman bishop for the time being. what remains behind is the special position of the roman church, which indeed is represented by her bishop. cyprian can say quite frankly: "owing to her magnitude rome ought to have precedence over carthage" ("pro magnitudine sua debet carthaginem roma præcedere") and his theory: "the episcopate is one, and a part of it is held by each bishop for the whole" ("episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur"), virtually excludes any special prerogative belonging to a particular bishop (see also "de unit." 4). here we have reached the point that has already been briefly referred to above, viz., that the consolidation of the churches in the empire after the roman pattern could not but endanger the prestige and peculiar position of rome, and did in fact do so. if we consider that each bishop was the acknowledged sovereign of his own diocese--now catholic, that all bishops, as such, were recognised to be successors of the apostles, that, moreover, the attribute of priesthood occupied a prominent position in the conception of the episcopal office, and that, the metropolitan unions with their presidents and synods had become completely naturalised--in short, that the rigid episcopal and provincial constitution of the church had become an accomplished fact, so that, ultimately, it was no longer communities, but merely bishops that had dealings with each other, then we shall see that a new situation was thereby created for rome, that is, for her bishop. in the west it was perhaps chiefly through the coöperation of cyprian that rome found herself face to face with a completely organised church system. his behaviour in the controversy about heretical baptism proves that in cases of dispute he was resolved to elevate his theory of the sovereign authority of each bishop above his theory of the necessary connection with the _cathedra petri_. but, when that levelling of the episcopate came about, rome had already acquired rights that could no longer be cancelled.[337] besides, there was one thing that could not be taken from the roman church, nor therefore from her bishop, even if she were denied the special right to matt. xvi., viz., the possession of rome. the site of the world's metropolis might be shifted, but rome could not be removed. in the long run, however, the shifting of the capital proved advantageous to ecclesiastical rome. at the beginning of the great epoch when the alienation of east from west became pronounced and permanent, an emperor, from political grounds, decided in favour of that party in antioch "with whom the bishops in italy and the city of the romans held intercourse" ([greek: hois an hoi kata tên italian kai tên rhômaiôn polin episkopoi tou dogmatos epistelloien][338]). in this instance the interest of the roman church and the interest of the emperor coincided. but the churches in the various provinces, being now completely organised and therefore seldom in need of any more help from outside, were henceforth in a position to pursue their own interest. so the bishop of rome had step by step to fight for the new authority, which, being now based on a purely dogmatic theory and being forced to repudiate any empirical foundation, was inconsistent with the church system that the roman community more than any other had helped to build up. the proposition "the roman church always had the primacy" ("ecclesia romana semper habuit primatum") and the statement that "catholic" virtually means "roman catholic" are gross fictions, when devised in honour of the temporary occupant of the roman see and detached from the significance of the eternal city in profane history; but, applied to the _church_ of the imperial capital, they contain a truth the denial of which is equivalent to renouncing the attempt to explain the process by which the church was unified and catholicised.[339] footnotes: [footnote 193: see ritschl, l.c.; schwegler. der montanismus, 1841; gottwald, de montanismo tertulliani, 1862; réville, tertull. et le montanisme, in the revue des deux mondes of 1st novr. 1864; stroehlin, essai sur le montanisme, 1870; de soyres, montanism and the primitive church, 1878; cunningham, the churches of asia, 1880; renan, les crises du catholicisme naissant in the revue des deux mondes of 15th febr. 1881; renan, marc aurèle, 1882, p. 208 ff.; bonwetsch, geschichte des montanismus, 1881; harnack, das monchthum, seine ideale und seine geschichte, 3rd. ed., 1886; belck, geschichte des montanismus, 1883; voigt, eine verschollene urkunde des antimontanistischen kampfes, 1891. further the articles on montanism by moller (herzog's real-encyklopädie), salmon (dictionary of christian biography), and harnack (encyclopedia britannica). weizsäcker in the theologische litteraturzeitung, 1882, no. 4; bonwetsch, die prophetie im apostolischen und nachapostolischen zeitalter in the zeitschrift fur kirchliche wissenschaft und kirchliches leben, 1884, parts 8, 9; m. von engelhardt, die ersten versuche zur aufrichtung des wahren christenthums in einer gemeinde von heiligen, riga, 1881.] [footnote 194: in certain vital points the conception of the original nature and history of montanism, as sketched in the following account, does not correspond with that traditionally current. to establish it in detail would lead us too far. it may be noted that the mistakes in estimating the original character of this movement arise from a superficial examination of the oracles preserved to us and from the unjustifiable practice of interpreting them in accordance with their later application in the circles of western montanists. a completely new organisation of christendom, beginning with the church in asia, to be brought about by its being detached from the bonds of the communities and collected into one region, was the main effort of montanus. in this way he expected to restore to the church a spiritual character and fulfil the promises contained in john. that is clear from euseb., v. 16 ff. as well as from the later history of montanism in its native land (see jerome, ep. 41; epiphan., h. 49. 2 etc.). in itself, however, apart from its particular explanation in the case of montanus, the endeavour to detach christians from the local church unions has so little that is striking about it, that one rather wonders at being unable to point to any parallel in the earliest history of the church. wherever religious enthusiasm has been strong, it has at all times felt that nothing hinders its effect more than family ties and home connections. but it is just from the absence of similar undertakings in the earliest christianity that we are justified in concluding that the strength of enthusiastic exaltation is no standard for the strength of _christian_ faith. (since these words were written, we have read in hippolytus' commentary on daniel [see georgiades in the journal [greek: ekkl. alêtheia] 1885, p. 52 sq.] very interesting accounts of such undertakings in the time of septimius severus. a syrian bishop persuaded many brethren with wives and children to go to meet christ in the wilderness; and another in pontus induced his people to sell all their possessions, to cease tilling their lands, to conclude no more marriages etc., because the coming of the lord was nigh at hand.)] [footnote 195: oracle of prisca in epiph. h. 49. 1.] [footnote 196: even in its original home montanism must have accommodated itself to circumstances at a comparatively early date--which is not in the least extraordinary. no doubt the montanist churches in asia and phrygia, to which the bishop of rome had already issued _literæ pacis_, were now very different from the original followers of the prophets (tertull., adv. prax. 1). when tertullian further reports that praxeas at the last moment prevented them from being recognised by the bishop of rome, "falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando," the "falsehood about the churches" may simply have consisted in an account of the original tendencies of the montanist sect. the whole unique history which, in spite of this, montanism undoubtedly passed through in its original home is, however explained by the circumstance that there were districts there, where all christians belonged to that sect (epiph., h. 51. 33; cf. also the later history of novatianism). in their peculiar church organisation (patriarchs, stewards, bishops), these sects preserved a record of their origin.] [footnote 197: special weight must be laid on this. the fact that whole communities became followers of the new prophets, who nevertheless adhered to no old regulation, must above all be taken into account.] [footnote 198: see oracles 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21 in bonwetsch, l.c., p. 197 f. it can hardly have been customary for christian prophets to speak like montanus (nos. 3-5): [greek: egô kyrios ho theos ho pantokratôr kataginomenos en anthropô], or [greek: egô kyrios ho theos patêr êlthon,] or [greek: egô eimi ho patêr kai ho uios kai ho paraklêtos], though old testament prophecy takes an analogous form. maximilla says on one occasion (no. 11); [greek: apesteile me kyrios toutou tou ponou kai tês epangelias airetistên]; and a second time (no. 12): [greek: diôkomai hôs lycos ek probatôn ouk eimi lycos; rhêma eimi kai pneuma kai dynamis.] the two utterances do not exclude, but include, one another (cf. also no. 10: [greek: emou mê akousête alla christou akousate]). from james iv. v. and hermas, and from the didache, on the other hand, we can see how the prophets of christian communities may have usually spoken.] [footnote 199: l.c., no. 9: [greek: christos hen idea gynaikos eschêmatismenos.] how variable must the misbirths of the christian imagination have been in this respect also! unfortunately almost everything of that kind has been lost to us because it has been suppressed. the fragments of the once highly esteemed apocalypse of peter are instructive, for they still attest that the existing remains of early christian literature are not able to give a correct picture of the strength of religious imagination in the first and second centuries. the passages where christophanies are spoken of in the earliest literature would require to be collected. it would be shown what naive enthusiasm existed. jesus appears to believers as a child, as a boy, as a youth, as paul etc. conversely, glorified men appear in visions with the features of christ.] [footnote 200: see euseb., h. e. v. 16. 9. in oracle no. 2 an evangelical promise is repeated in a heightened form; but see papias in iren., v. 33. 3 f.] [footnote 201: we may unhesitatingly act on the principle that the montanist elements, as they appear in tertullian, are, in all cases, found not in a strengthened, but a weakened, form. so, when even tertullian still asserts that the paraclete in the new prophets could overturn or change, and actually did change, regulations of the apostles, there is no doubt that the new prophets themselves did not adhere to apostolic dicta and had no hesitation in deviating from them. cf., moreover, the direct declarations on this point in hippolytus (syntagma and philos. viii. 19) and in didymus (de trin. iii. 41. 2).] [footnote 202: the precepts for a christian life, if we may so speak, given by the new prophets, cannot be determined from the compromises on which the discipline of the later montanist societies of the empire were based. here they sought for a narrow line between the marcionite and encratite mode of life and the common church practice, and had no longer the courage and the candour to proclaim the "e sæculo excedere." sexual purity and the renunciation of the enjoyments of life were the demands of the new prophets. but it is hardly likely that they prescribed precise "laws," for the primary matter was not asceticism, but the realising of a promise. in later days it was therefore possible to conceive the most extreme demands as regulations referring to none but the prophets themselves, and to tone down the oracles in their application to believers. it is said of montanus himself (euseb., h. e. v. 18. 2): [greek: ho didaxas lyseis gamôn, ho nêsteias nomothetêsas]; prisca was a [greek: parthenos] (l.c. § 3); proculus, the chief of the roman montanists, "virginis senectæ" (tert., adv. val. 5). the oracle of prisca (no. 8) declares that sexual purity is the preliminary condition for the oracles and visions of god; it is presupposed in the case of every "sanctus minister." finally, origen tells us (in titum, opp. iv. 696) that the (older) cataphrygians said: "ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur menin, sed sum nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi." but an express legal direction to abolish marriage cannot have existed in the collection of oracles possessed by tertullian. but who can guarantee that they were not already corrected? such an assumption, however, is not necessary.] [footnote 203: euseb., v. 16. 9: v. 18. 5.] [footnote 204: it will not do simply to place montanus and his two female associates in the same category as the prophets of primitive christian churches. the claim that the spirit had descended upon them in unique fashion must have been put forth by themselves with unmistakable clearness. if we apply the principle laid down on p. 98, note 3, we will find that--apart from the prophets' own utterances--this is still clearly manifest from the works of tertullian. a consideration of the following facts will remove all doubt as to the claim of the new prophets to the possession of an unique mission, (1) from the beginning both opponents and followers constantly applied the title "new prophecy" to the phenomenon in question (euseb., v. 16. 4: v. 19. 2; clem., strom. iv. 13. 93; tertull., monog. 14, ieiun. i, resurr. 63, marc. iii. 24.: iv. 22, prax. 30; firmil. ep. 75. 7; alii). (2) similarly, the divine afflatus was, from the first, constantly designated as the "paraclete" (orac. no. 5; tertull. passim; hippol. passim; didymus etc.). (3) even in the third century the montanist congregations of the empire must still have doubted whether the apostles had possessed this paraclete or not, or at least whether this had been the case in the full sense. tertullian identifies the spirit and the paraclete and declares that the apostles possessed the latter in full measure--in fact as a catholic he could not do otherwise. nevertheless he calls montanus etc. "prophetæ proprii" of the spirit (pudic. 12; see acta perpet. 21). on the contrary we find in philos. viii. 19: [greek: huper de apostolous kai pan charisma tauta ta gunaia doxazouin, hôs tolman pleion ti christou en toutois legein tinas autôn gegoneai]. pseudo-tertullian says: "in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et paracletum plura in montano dixisse quam christum in evangelio protulisse." in didymus, l.c., we read: [greek: tou apostolou grapsantos k.t.l., ekeinoi legousin ton montanon elêluthenai kai eschêkenai to teleion to tou paraklêton, tout' estin to tou agion pneumatos]. (4) lastly, the montanists asserted that the prediction contained in john xiv. ff. had been fulfilled in the new prophecy, and that from the beginning, as is denoted by the very expression "paraclete." what sort of mission they ascribed to themselves is seen from the last quoted passage, for the promises contained in it must be regarded as the enthusiastic carrying out of montanus' programme. if we read attentively john xiv. 16-21, 23, 26: xv. 20-26: xvi. 7-15, 25 as well as xvii. and x.; if we compare the oracles of the prophets still preserved to us; if we consider the attempt of montanus to gather the scattered christians and really form them into a flock, and also his claim to be the bearer of the greatest and last revelations that lead to all truth; and, finally, if we call to mind that in those johannine discourses christ designated the coming of the paraclete as his own coming in the paraclete and spoke of an immanence and unity of father, son, and paraclete, which one finds re-echoed in montanus' oracle no. v., we cannot avoid concluding that the latter's undertaking is based on the impression made on excited and impatient prophets by the promises contained in the gospel of john, understood in an apocalyptic and realistic sense, and also by matt. xxiii. 34 (see euseb., v. 16. 12 sq.). the correctness of this interpretation is proved by the fact that the first decided opponents of the montanists in asia--the so-called "alogi" (epiph., h. 51)--rejected both the gospel and revelation of john, that is, regarded them as written by some one else. montanism therefore shows us the first and--up till about 180--really the only impression made by the gospel of john on non-gnostic gentile christians; and what a remarkable one it was! it has a parallel in marcion's conception of paulinism. here we obtain glimpses of a state of matters which probably explains why these writings were made innocuous in the canon. to the view advanced here it cannot be objected that the later adherents of the new prophets founded their claims on the recognised gift of prophecy in the church, or on a prophetic succession (euseb, h. e. v. 17. 4; proculus in the same author, ii. 25. 7: iii. 31. 4), nor that tertullian, when it suits him, simply regards the new prophecy as a _restitutio_ (e.g., in monog. 4); for these assumptions merely represent the unsuccessful attempt to legitimise this phenomenon within the catholic church. in proof of the fact that montanus appealed to the gospel of john see jerome, ep. 41 (migne i. p. 474), which begins with the words: "testimonia de johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam montani sectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc." in opposition to this jerome argues that the promises about the paraclete are fulfilled in acts ii., as peter said in his speech, and then continues as follows: "quodsi voluerint respondere et philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et prophetam agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos. etc."] [footnote 205: we are assured of this not only by tertullian, but also by the roman montanist proculus, who, like the former, argued against heretics, and by the testimony of the church fathers (see, e.g., philos. viii. 19). it was chiefly on the ground of their orthodoxy that tertullian urged the claim of the new prophets to a hearing; and it was, above all, as a montanist that he felt himself capable of combating the gnostics, since the paraclete not only confirmed the _regula_, but also by unequivocal utterances cleared up ambiguous and obscure passages in the holy scriptures, and (as was asserted) completely rejected doctrines like the monarchian (see fuga 1, 14; corona 4; virg. vel. 1: prax. 2, 13, 30; resurr. 63; pud. 1; monog. 2; ieiun. 10, ii). besides, we see from tertullian's writings that the secession of the montanist conventicles from the church was forced upon them.] [footnote 206: the question as to whether the new prophecy had or had not to be recognised as such became the decisive one (fuga 1, 14; coron. 1; virg. vel. 1; prax. 1: pudic. 11; monog. 1). this prophecy was recorded in writing (euseb., v. 18. 1; epiph., h. 48. 10; euseb., vi. 20). the putting of this question, however, denoted a fundamental weakening of conviction, which was accompanied by a corresponding falling off in the application of the prophetic utterances.] [footnote 207: the situation that preceded the acceptance of the new prophecy in a portion of christendom may be studied in tertullian's writings "de idolol." and "de spectac." christianity had already been conceived as a _nova lex_ throughout the whole church, and this _lex_ had, moreover, been clearly defined in its bearing on the faith. but, as regards outward conduct, there was no definite _lex_, and arguments in favour both of strictness and of laxity were brought forward from the holy scriptures. no divine ordinances about morality could be adduced against the progressive secularising of christianity; but there was need of statutory commandments by which all the limits were clearly defined. in this state of perplexity the oracles of the new prophets were gladly welcomed; they were utilised in order to justify and invest with divine authority a reaction of a moderate kind. more than that--as may be inferred from tertullian's unwilling confession--could not be attained; but it is well known that even this result was not reached. thus the phrygian movement was employed in support of undertakings, that had no real connection with it. but this was the form in which montanism first became a factor in the history of the church. to what extent it had been so before, particularly as regards the creation of a new testament canon (in asia minor and rome), cannot be made out with certainty.] [footnote 208: see bonwetsch, l.c., p. 82-108.] [footnote 209: this is the point about which tertullian's difficulties are greatest. tatian is expressly repudiated in de ieiun. 15.] [footnote 210: tertullian (de monog.) is not deterred by such a limitation: "qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat."] [footnote 211: it is very instructive, but at the same time very painful, to trace tertullian's endeavours to reconcile the irreconcilable, in other words, to show that the prophecy is new and yet not so; that it does not impair the full authority of the new testament and yet supersedes it. he is forced to maintain the theory that the paraclete stands in the same relation to the apostles as christ does to moses, and that he abrogates the concessions made by the apostles and even by christ himself; whilst he is at the same time obliged to reassert the sufficiency of both testaments. in connection with this he hit upon the peculiar theory of stages in revelation--a theory which, were it not a mere expedient in his case, one might regard as the first faint trace of a historical view of the question. still, this is another case of a dilemma, furnishing theology with a conception that she has cautiously employed in succeeding times, when brought face to face with certain difficulties; see virg. vel. i; exhort. 6; monog. 2, 3, 14; resurr. 63. for the rest, tertullian is at bottom a christian of the old stamp; the theory of any sort of finality in revelation is of no use to him except in its bearing on heresy; for the spirit continually guides to all truth and works wherever he will. similarly, his only reason for not being an encratite is that this mode of life had already been adopted by heretics, and become associated with dualism. but the conviction that all religion must have the character of a fixed _law_ and presupposes definite regulations--a belief not emanating from primitive christianity, but from rome--bound him to the catholic church. besides, the contradictions with which he struggled were by no means peculiar to him; in so far as the montanist societies accepted the catholic regulations, they weighed on them all, and in all probability crushed them out of existence. in asia minor, where the breach took place earlier, the sect held its ground longer. in north africa the residuum was a remarkable propensity to visions, holy dreams, and the like. the feature which forms the peculiar characteristic of the acts of perpetua and felicitas is still found in a similar shape in cyprian himself, who makes powerful use of visions and dreams; and in the genuine african acts of the martyrs, dating from valerian's time, which are unfortunately little studied. see, above all, the acta jacobi, mariani etc., and the acta montani, lucii etc. (ruinart, acta mart. edit ratisb. 1859, p. 268 sq., p. 275 sq.)] [footnote 212: nothing is known of attempts at a formal incorporation of the oracles with the new testament. besides, the montanists could dispense with this because they distinguished the commandments of the paraclete as "novissima lex" from the "novum testamentum." the preface to the montanist acts of perpetua and felicitas (was tertullian the author?) showed indeed the high value attached to the visions of martyrs. in so far as these were to be read in the churches they were meant to be reckoned as an "instrumentum ecclesiæ" in the wider sense.] [footnote 213: here the bishops themselves occupy the foreground (there are complaints about their cowardice and serving of two masters in the treatise _de fugo_). but it would be very unjust simply to find fault with them as tertullian does. two interests combined to influence their conduct; for if they drew the reins tight they gave over their flock to heresy or heathenism. this situation is already evident in hermas and dominates the resolutions of the church leaders in succeeding generations (see below).] [footnote 214: the distinction of "spiritales" and "psychici" on the part of the montanists is not confined to the west (see clem., strom. iv. 13. 93); we find it very frequently in tertullian. in itself it did not yet lead to the formal breach with the catholic church.] [footnote 215: a contrast to the bishops and the regular congregational offices existed in primitive montanism. this was transmitted in a weakened form to the later adherents of the new prophecy (cf. the gallic confessors' strange letter of recommendation on behalf of irenæus in euseb., h. e. v. 4), and finally broke forth with renewed vigour in opposition to the measures of the lax bishops (de pudic. 21; de exhort. 7; hippolytus against calixtus). the _ecclesia_, represented as _numerus episcoporum_, no longer preserved its prestige in the eyes of tertullian.] [footnote 216: see here particularly, de pudicitia 1, where tertullian sees the virginity of the church not in pure doctrine, but in strict precepts for a holy life. as will have been seen in this account, the oft debated question as to whether montanism was an innovation or merely a reaction does not admit of a simple answer. in its original shape it was undoubtedly an innovation; but it existed at the end of a period when one cannot very well speak of innovations, because no bounds had yet been set to subjective religiosity. montanus decidedly went further than any christian prophets known to us; hermas, too, no doubt gave injunctions, as a prophet, which gave rise to innovations in christendom; but these fell short of montanus' proceedings. in its later shape, however, montanism was to all intents and purposes a reaction, which aimed at maintaining or reviving an older state of things. so far, however, as this was to be done by legislation, by a _novissima lex_, we have an evident innovation analogous to the catholic development. whereas in former times exalted enthusiasm had of itself, as it were, given rise to strict principles of conduct among its other results, these principles, formulated with exactness and detail, were now meant to preserve or produce that original mode of life. moreover, as soon as the new testament was recognised, the conception of a subsequent revelation through the paraclete was a highly questionable and strange innovation. but for those who acknowledged the new prophecy all this was ultimately nothing but a means. its practical tendency, based as it was on the conviction that the church abandons her character if she does not resist gross secularisation at least, was no innovation, but a defence of the most elementary requirements of primitive christianity in opposition to a church that was always more and more becoming a new thing.] [footnote 217: there were of course a great many intermediate stages between the extremes of laxity and rigour, and the new prophecy was by no means recognised by all those who had strict views as to the principles of christian polity; see the letters of dionysius of corinth in euseb., h. e. iv. 23. melito, the prophet, eunuch, and bishop, must also be reckoned as one of the stricter party, but not as a montanist. we must judge similarly of irenæus.] [footnote 218: euseb., h. e. v. 16. 17. the life of the prophets themselves was subsequently subjected to sharp criticism.] [footnote 219: this was first done by the so-called alogi who, however, had to be repudiated.] [footnote 220: de ieiun. 12, 16.] [footnote 221: tertullian protested against this in the most energetic manner.] [footnote 222: it is well known that in the 3rd century the revelation of john itself was viewed with suspicion and removed from the canon in wide circles in the east.] [footnote 223: in the west the chiliastic hopes were little or not at all affected by the montanist struggle. chiliasm prevailed there in unimpaired strength as late as the 4th century. in the east, on the contrary, the apocalyptic expectations were immediately weakened by the montanist crisis. but it was philosophical theology that first proved their mortal enemy. in the rural churches of egypt chiliasm was still widely prevalent after the middle of the 3rd century; see the instructive 24th chapter of eusebius' ecclesiastical history, book vii. "some of their teachers," says dionysius, "look on the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to obey the gospel, esteem the epistles of the apostles as little worth, but, on the contrary, declare the doctrine contained in the revelation of john to be a great and a hidden mystery." there were even temporary disruptions in the egyptian church on account of chiliasm (see chap. 24. 6).] [footnote 224: "lex et prophetæ usque ad johannem" now became the motto. churchmen spoke of a "completus numerus prophetarum" (muratorian fragment), and formulated the proposition that the prophets corresponded to the pre-christian stage of revelation, but the apostles to the christian; and that in addition to this the apostolic age was also particularly distinguished by gifts of the spirit. "prophets and apostles" now replaced "apostles, prophets, and teachers," as the court of appeal. under such circumstances prophecy might still indeed exist; but it could no longer be of a kind capable of ranking, in the remotest degree, with the authority of the apostles in point of importance. hence it was driven into a corner, became extinct, or at most served only to support the measures of the bishops. in order to estimate the great revolution in the spirit of the times let us compare the utterances of irenæus and origen about gifts of the spirit and prophecy. irenæus still expressed himself exactly like justin (dial. 39, 81, 82, 88); he says (ii. 32. 4: v. 6. 1): [greek: kathôs kai pollôn akouomen adelphôn hen tê ekklêsia prophêtika charismata echontôn k.t.l.] origen on the contrary (see numerous passages, especially in the treatise c. cels.), looks back to a period after which the spirit's gifts in the church ceased. it is also a very characteristic circumstance that along with the naturalisation of christianity in the world, the disappearance of charisms, and the struggle against gnosticism, a strictly ascetic mode of life came to be viewed with suspicion. euseb., h. e. v. 3 is especially instructive on this point. here it is revealed to the confessor attalus that the confessor alcibiades, who even in captivity continued his ascetic practice of living on nothing but bread and water, was wrong in refraining from that which god had created and thus become a "[greek: typos skandalou]" to others. alcibiades changed his mode of life. in africa, however, (see above, p. 103) dreams and visions still retained their authority in the church as important means of solving perplexities.] [footnote 225: tertullian, adv. marc. iv. 9, enumerates "septem maculas capitalium delictorum," namely, "idololatria," "blasphemia," "homicidium," "adulterium," "stuprum," "falsum testimonium," "fraus." the stricter treatment probably applied to all these seven offences. so far as i know, the lapse into heresy was not placed in the same category in the first centuries; see iren. iii. 4. 2: tertull., de præscr. 30 and, above all, de pudic. 19 init.; the anonymous writer in euseb., h. e. v. 28. 12, from which passages it is evident that repentant heretics were readmitted.] [footnote 226: hermas based the admissibility of a second atonement on a definite divine revelation to this effect, and did not expressly discuss the admission of gross sinners into the church generally, but treated of their reception into that of the last days, which he believed had already arrived. see particulars on this point in my article "lapsi," in herzog's real-encyklopädie, 2 ed. cf. preuschen, tertullian's schriften de pænit. et de pudic. mit rücksicht auf die bussdisciplin, 1890; rolffs, indulgenz-edict des kallistus, 1893.] [footnote 227: in the work de pænit. (7 ff.) tertullian treats this as a fixed church regulation. k. müller, kirchengeschichte i. 1892, p. 114, rightly remarks: "he who desired this expiation continued in the wider circle of the church, in her 'antechamber' indeed, but as her member in the wider sense. this, however, did not exclude the possibility of his being received again, even in this world, into the ranks of those possessing full christian privileges,--after the performance of penance or _exhomologesis_. but there was no kind of certainty as to that taking place. meanwhile this _exhomologesis_ itself underwent a transformation which in tertullian includes a whole series of basal religious ideas. it is no longer a mere expression of inward feeling, confession to god and the brethren, but is essentially performance. it is the actual attestation of heartfelt sorrow, the undertaking to satisfy god by works of self-humiliation and abnegation, which he can accept as a voluntarily endured punishment and therefore as a substitute for the penalty that naturally awaits the sinner. it is thus the means of pacifying god, appeasing his anger, and gaining his favour again--with the consequent possibility of readmission into the church. i say the _possibility_, for readmission does not always follow. participation in the future kingdom may be hoped for even by him who in this world is shut out from full citizenship and merely remains in the ranks of the penitent. in all probability then it still continued the rule for a person to remain till death in a state of penance or _exhomologesis_. for readmission continued to involve the assumption that the church had in some way or other become _certain_ that god had forgiven the sinner, or in other words that she had power to grant this forgiveness in virtue of the spirit dwelling in her, and that this readmission therefore involved no violation of her holiness." in such instances it is first prophets and then martyrs that appear as organs of the spirit, till at last it is no longer the inspired christian, but the professional medium of the spirit, viz., the priest, who decides everything.] [footnote 228: in the 2nd century even endeavours at a formal repetition of baptism were not wholly lacking. in marcionite congregations repetition of baptism is said to have taken place (on the elkesaites see vol. i. p. 308). one can only wonder that there is not more frequent mention of such attempts. the assertion of hippolytus (philos. ix. 12 fin.) is enigmatical: [greek: epi kallistou protô tetolmêtai deuteron autois baptisma].] [footnote 229: see tertull., de pudic. 12: "hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur." orig., de orat. 28 fin; c. cels. iii. 50.] [footnote 230: it is only of whoremongers and idolaters that tertullian expressly speaks in de pudic. c. i. we must interpret in accordance with this the following statement by hippolytus in philos. ix. 12: [greek: kallistos prôtos ta pros tas hêdonas tois anthrôpois synchôrein epenoêse, legôn pasin hup' autou aphiesthai hamartias]. the aim of this measure is still clear from the account of it given by hippolytus, though this indeed is written in a hostile spirit. roman christians were then split into at least five different sects, and calixtus left nothing undone to break up the unfriendly parties and enlarge his own. in all probability, too, the energetic bishop met with a certain measure of success. from euseb., h. e. iv. 23. 6, one might be inclined to conclude that, even in marcus aurelius' time, dionysius of corinth had issued lax injunctions similar to those of calixtus. but it must not be forgotten that we have nothing but eusebius' report; and it is just in questions of this kind that his accounts are not reliable.] [footnote 231: no doubt persecutions were practically unknown in the period between 220 and 260.] [footnote 232: see cypr., de lapsis.] [footnote 233: what scruples were caused by this innovation is shown by the first 40 letters in cyprian's collection. he himself had to struggle with painful doubts.] [footnote 234: apart from some epistles of cyprian, socrates, h. e. v. 22, is our chief source of information on this point. see also conc. illib. can. 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 17, 18-47, 70-73, 75.] [footnote 235: see my article "novatian" in herzog's real-encyklopädie, 2nd ed. one might be tempted to assume that the introduction of the practice of unlimited forgiveness of sins was an "evangelical reaction" against the merciless legalism which, in the case of the gentile church indeed, had established itself from the beginning. as a matter of fact the bishops and the laxer party appealed to the new testament in justification of their practice. this had already been done by the followers of calixtus and by himself. see philos. ix. 12: [greek: phaskontes christon aphienai tois eudokousi]; rom. xiv. 4 and matt. xiii. 29 were also quoted. before this tertullian's opponents who favoured laxity had appealed exactly in the same way to numerous bible texts, e.g., matt. x. 23: xi. 19 etc., see de monog, de pudic., de ieiun. cyprian is also able to quote many passages from the gospels. however, as the bishops and their party did not modify their conception of baptism, but rather maintained in principle, as before, that baptism imposes only obligations for the future, the "evangelical reaction" must not be estimated very highly; (see below, p. 117, and my essay in the zeitschrift fur theologie und kirche, vol. i., "die ehre von der seligkeit allein durch den glauben in der alten kirche.")] [footnote 236: the distinction of sins committed against god himself, as we find it in tertullian, cyprian, and other fathers, remains involved in an obscurity that i cannot clear up.] [footnote 237: cyprian never expelled any one from the church, unless he had attacked the authority of the bishops, and thus in the opinion of this father placed himself outside her pale by his own act.] [footnote 238: hippol., philos. ix. 12: [greek: kai parabolên tôn zizaniôn pros touto ephê ho kallistos legesthai. aphete ta zizania sunauxein tô sitô, toutestin en tê ekklêsia tous hamartanontas. alla kai tên kibôton tou nôe eis homoiôma ekklêsias ephê gegonenai, en hê kai kunes kai lykoi kai korakes kai panta ta kathara kai akatharta; houtô phaskôn dein einai en ekklêsia homoiôs, kai hosa pros touto dynatos ên synagein houtôs hêrmêneusen.] from tertull., de idolol. 24, one cannot help assuming that even before the year 200 the laxer sort in carthage had already appealed to the ark. ("viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit"). but we do not know what form this took and what inferences they drew. moreover, we have here a very instructive example of the multitudinous difficulties in which the fathers were involved by typology: the ark is the church, hence the dogs and snakes are men. to solve these problems it required an abnormal degree of acuteness and wit, especially as each solution always started fresh questions. orig. (hom. ii. in genes. iii.) also viewed the ark as the type of the church (the working out of the image in hom. i. in ezech., lomm. xiv. p. 24 sq., is instructive); but apparently in the wild animals he rather sees the simple christians who are not yet sufficiently trained--at any rate he does not refer to the whoremongers and adulterers who must be tolerated in the church. the roman bishop stephen again, positively insisted on calixtus' conception of the church, whereas cornelius followed cyprian (see euseb., h. e. vi. 43. 10), who never declared sinners to be a necessary part of the church in the same fashion as calixtus did. (see the following note and cyp., epp. 67. 6; 68. 5).] [footnote 239: philos., l.c.: [greek: kallistos edogmatisen hopôs ei episkopos hamartoi ti, ei kai pros thanaton, mê dein katatithesthai]. that hippolytus is not exaggerating here is evident from cyp., epp. 67, 68; for these passages make it very probable that stephen also assumed the irremovability of a bishop on account of gross sins or other failings.] [footnote 240: see cypr., epp. 65, 66, 68; also 55. 11.] [footnote 241: this is asserted by cyprian in epp. 65. 4 and 67. 3; but he even goes on to declare that everyone is polluted that has fellowship with an impure priest, and takes part in the offering celebrated by him.] [footnote 242: on this point the greatest uncertainty prevails in cyprian. sometimes he says that god himself installs the bishops, and it is therefore a deadly sin against god to criticise them (e.g., in ep. 66. 1); on other occasions he remembers that the bishops have been ordained by bishops; and again, as in ep. 67. 3, 4, he appears to acknowledge the community's right to choose and control them. cf. the sections referring to cyprian in reuter's "augustinische studien" (zeitschrift für kirchengeschichte, vol. vii., p. 199 ff.).] [footnote 243: the donatists were quite justified in appealing to cyprian, that is, in one of his two aspects.] [footnote 244: origen not only distinguishes between different groups within the church as judged by their spiritual understanding and moral development (comm. in matt. tom. xi. at chap. xv. 29; hom. ii. in genes. chap. 3; hom. in cantic. tom. i. at chap. i. 4: "ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt"; hom. iii. in levit. chap. iii.), but also between spiritual and carnal members (hom. xxvi. in num. chap. vii.) i.e., between true christians and those who only bear that name without heartfelt faith--who outwardly take part in everything, but bring forth fruits neither in belief nor conduct. such christians he as little views as belonging to the church as does clement of alexandria (see strom. vii. 14. 87, 88). to him they are like the jebusites who were left in jerusalem: they have no part in the promises of christ, but are lost (comm. in matt. t. xii. c. xii.). it is the church's task to remove such members, whence we see that origen was far from sharing calixtus' view of the church as a _corpus permixtum_; but to carry out this process so perfectly that only the holy and the saved remain is a work beyond the powers of human sagacity. one must therefore content oneself with expelling notorious sinners; see hom. xxi. in jos., c. i.: "sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super iis dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt.... eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus." in this way indeed very many wicked people remain in the church (comm. in matt. t. x. at c. xiii. 47 f.: [greek: mê xenizometha, ean horômen hêmôn ta athroismata peplêrômena kai ponêrôn]); _but in his work against celsus origen already propounded that empiric and relative theory of the christian churches which views them as simply "better" than the societies and civic communities existing alongside of them_. the 29th and 30th chapters of the 3rd book against celsus, in which he compares the christians with the other population of athens, corinth, and alexandria, and the heads of congregations with the councillors and mayors of these cities, are exceedingly instructive and attest the revolution of the times. in conclusion, however, we must point out that origen expressly asserts that a person unjustly excommunicated remains a member of the church in god's eyes; see hom. xiv. in levit. c. iii.: "ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur intussit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri." döllinger (hippolytus and calixtus, page 254 ff.) has correctly concluded that origen followed the disputes between hippolytus and calixtus in rome, and took the side of the former. origen's trenchant remarks about the pride and arrogance of the bishops of large towns (in matth. xi. 9. 15; xii. 9-14; xvi. 8. 22 and elsewhere, e.g., de orat. 28, hom. vi. in isai c. i., in joh. x. 16), and his denunciation of such of them as, in order to glorify god, assume a mere distinction of names between father and son, are also correctly regarded by langen as specially referring to the roman ecclesiastics (geschichte der römischen kirche i. p. 242). thus calixtus was opposed by the three greatest theologians of the age--tertullian, hippolytus, and origen.] [footnote 245: if, in assuming the irremovability of a bishop even in case of mortal sin, the roman bishops went beyond cyprian, cyprian drew from his conception of the church a conclusion which the former rejected, viz., the invalidity of baptism administered by non-catholics. here, in all likelihood, the roman bishops were only determined by their interest in smoothing the way to a return or admission to the church in the case of non-catholics. in this instance they were again induced to adhere to their old practice from a consideration of the catholicity of the church. it redounds to cyprian's credit that he drew and firmly maintained the undeniable inferences from his own theory in spite of tradition. the matter never led to a great _dogmatic_ controversy.] [footnote 246: as to the events during the vacancy in the roman see immediately before novatian's schism, and the part then played by the latter, who was still a member of the church, see my essay: "die briefe des römischen klerus aus der zeit. der sedisvacanz im jahre 250" (abhandl. f. weizsäcker, 1892).] [footnote 247: so far as we are able to judge, novatian himself did not extend the severer treatment to all gross sinners (see ep. 55. 26, 27); but only decreed it in the case of the lapsed. it is, however, very probable that in the later novatian churches no mortal sinner was absolved (see, e.g., socrates, h. e. i. 10). the statement of ambrosius (de pænit. iii. 3) that novatian made no difference between gross and lesser sins and equally refused forgiveness to transgressors of every kind distorts the truth as much as did the old reproach laid to his charge, viz., that he as "a stoic" made no distinction between sins. moreover, in excluding gross sinners, novatian's followers did not mean to abandon them, but to leave them under the discipline and intercession of the church.] [footnote 248: the title of the evangelical life (evangelical perfection, imitation of christ) in contrast to that of ordinary catholic christians, a designation which we first find among the encratites (see vol. i. p. 237, note 3) and marcionites (see tertull., adv. marc. iv. 14: "venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, christi, beati mendici etc."), and then in tertullian (in his pre-montanist period, see ad mart., de patient., de pænit., de idolol.; in his later career, see de coron. 8, 9, 13, 14; de fuga 8, 13; de ieiun. 6, 8, 15; de monog. 3, 5, 11; see aubé, les chrétiens dans l'empire romain de la fin des antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff.: "chrétiens intransigeants et chrétiens opportunistes") was expressly claimed by novatian (cypr., ep. 44. 3: "si novatiani se adsertores evangelii et christi esse confitentur"; 46. 2: "nec putetis, sic vos evangelium christi adserere"). cornelius in eusebius, h. e. vi. 43. ii calls novatian: [greek: ho ekdikêtês tou euangeliou]. this is exceedingly instructive, and all the more so when we note that, even as far back as the end of the second century, it was not the "evangelical," but the lax, who declared the claims of the gospel to be satisfied if they kept god in their hearts, but otherwise lived in entire conformity with the world. see tertullian, de spec. 1; de pænit. 5: "sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc.": de ieiun. 2: "et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile dicatur: opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. in his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate." the valentinian heracleon was similarly understood, see above vol. i. p. 262.] [footnote 249: tertullian (de pud. 22) had already protested vigorously against such injustice.] [footnote 250: from socrates' ecclesiastical history we can form a good idea of the state of the novatian communities in constantinople and asia minor. on the later history of the catharist church see my article "novatian," l.c., 667 ff. the most remarkable feature of this history is the amalgamation of novatian's adherents in asia minor with the montanists and the absence of distinction between their manner of life and that of the catholics. in the 4th century of course the novatians were nevertheless very bitterly attacked.] [footnote 251: this indeed was disputed by hippolytus and origen.] [footnote 252: this last conclusion was come to after painful scruples, particularly in the east--as we may learn from the 6th and 7th books of eusebius' ecclesiastical history. for a time the majority of the oriental bishops adopted an attitude favourable to novatian and unfavourable to cornelius and cyprian. then they espoused the cause of the latter, though without adopting the milder discipline in all cases (see the canons of ancyra and neocæsarea iv. sæc. init.). throughout the east the whole question became involved in confusion, and was not decided in accordance with clear principles. in giving up the last remnant of her exclusiveness (the canons of elvira are still very strict while those of arles are lax), the church became "catholic" in quite a special sense, in other words, she became a community where everyone could find his place, provided he submitted to certain regulations and rules. then, and not till then, was the church's pre-eminent importance for society and the state assured. it was no longer variance, and no longer the sword (matt. x. 34, 35), but peace and safety that she brought; she was now capable of becoming an educative or, since there was little more to educate in the older society, a conservative power. at an earlier date the apologists (justin, melito, tertullian himself) had already extolled her as such, but it was not till now that she really possessed this capacity. among christians, first the encratites and marcionites, next the adherents of the new prophecy, and lastly the novatians had by turns opposed the naturalisation of their religion in the world and the transformation of the church into a political commonwealth. their demands had progressively become less exacting, whence also their internal vigour had grown ever weaker. but, in view of the continuous secularising of christendom, the montanist demands at the beginning of the 3rd century already denoted no less than those of the encratites about the middle of the second, and no more than those of the novatians about the middle of the third. the church resolutely declared war on all these attempts to elevate evangelical perfection to an inflexible law for all, and overthrew her opponents. she pressed on in her world-wide mission and appeased her conscience by allowing a twofold morality within her bounds. thus she created the conditions which enabled the ideal of evangelical perfection to be realised in her own midst, in the form of monasticism, without threatening her existence. "what is monasticism but an ecclesiastical institution that makes it possible to separate oneself from the world and to remain in the church, to separate oneself from the outward church without renouncing her, to set oneself apart for purposes of sanctification and yet to claim the highest rank among her members, to form a brotherhood and yet to further the interests of the church?" in succeeding times great church movements, such as the montanist and novatian, only succeeded in attaining local or provincial importance. see the movement at rome at the beginning of the 4th century, of which we unfortunately know so little (lipsius, chronologie der römischen bischofe, pp. 250-255), the donatist revolution, and the audiani in the east.] [footnote 253: it is a characteristic circumstance that tertullian's de ieiun. does _not_ assume that the great mass of christians possess an actual knowledge of the bible.] [footnote 254: the condition of the constitution of the church about the middle of the 3rd century (in accordance with cyprian's epistles) is described by otto ritschl, l.c., pp. 142-237. parallels to the provincial and communal constitution of secular society are to be found throughout.] [footnote 255: to how great an extent the church in decius' time was already a state within the state is shown by a piece of information given in cyprian's 55th epistle (c. 9.): "cornelius sedit intrepidus romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam constitui romæ dei sacerdotem." on the other hand the legislation with regard to christian flamens adopted by the council of elvira, which, as duchesne (mélanges renier: le concile d'elvire et les flamines chrétiens, 1886) has demonstrated, most probably dates from before the diocletian persecution of 300, shows how closely the discipline of the church had already been adapted to the heathen regulations in the empire. in addition to this there was no lack of syncretist systems within christianity as early as the 3rd century (see the [greek: kestoi] of julius africanus, and other examples). much information on this point is to be derived from origen's works and also, in many respects, from the attitude of this author himself. we may also refer to relicand hero-worship, the foundation of which was already laid in the 3rd century, though the "religion of the second order" did not become a recognised power in the church or force itself into the official religion till the 4th.] [footnote 256: see tertullian's frightful accusations in de pudic. (10) and de ieiun. (fin) against the "psychici", i.e., the catholic christians. he says that with them the saying had really come to signify "peccando promeremur," by which, however, he does not mean the augustinian: "o felix culpa."] [footnote 257: the relation of this church to theology, what theology she required and what she rejected, and, moreover, to what extent she rejected the kind that she accepted may be seen by reference to chap. 5 ff. we may here also direct attention to the peculiar position of origen in the church as well as to that of lucian the martyr, concerning whom alexander of alexandria (theoderet, h. e. i. 3) remarks that he was a [greek: aposunagôgos] in antioch for a long time, namely, during the rule of three successive bishops.] [footnote 258: we have already referred to the passage above. on account of its importance we may quote it here: "according to celsus apollo required the metapontines to regard aristeas as a god; but in their eyes the latter was but a man and perhaps not a virtuous one ... they would therefore not obey apollo, and thus it happened that no one believed in the divinity of aristeas. but with regard to jesus we may say that it proved a blessing to the human race to acknowledge him as the son of god, as god who appeared on earth united with body and soul." origen then says that the demons counterworked this belief, and continues: "but god who had sent jesus on earth brought to nought all the snares and plots of the demons and aided in the victory of the gospel of jesus throughout the whole earth in order to promote the conversion and amelioration of men; and everywhere brought about the establishment of churches which are ruled by other laws than those that regulate the churches of the superstitious, the dissolute and the unbelieving. for of such people the civil population ([greek: politeuomena en tais ekklêsiais tôn poleôn plêthê]) of the towns almost everywhere consists." [greek: hai de tou theou christô mathêteuthesai ekklêsiai, sunezetazomenai tais ôn paroikousi dêmôn ekklêsiais, hôs phôtêres eisin en kosmô. tis gar ouk an homologêsai, kai tous cheirous tôn apo tês ekklêsias kai sugkrisei beltionôn elattous pollô kreittous tugxhanein tôn en tois demois ekklêsiôn; ekklêsia men gar tou theou, pher' eipein, hê athênaesi praeia tis kai eustathês, hate theô areskein tô epi pasi boulomenê; hê d' athênaiôn ekklêsia stasiôdês kai oudamôs paraballomenê tê ekei ekklêsia tou theou; to d' auto ereis, peri ekklêsias tou theou tês en korinthô kai tês ekklêsias tou dêmon korinthiôn; kai, pher' eipein, peri ekklêsias tou theou tês en alexandreia, kai ekklêsias tou alexandreôn dêmou, kai ean eugnômôn hê ho toutou akouôn kai philalêthôs exetazê ta pragmata, thaumasetai ton kai bouleusamenon kai anousai dunêthenta pantachou sustêsasthai ekklêsias tou theou, paroikousas ekklêsias tôn kath' 'ekastên polin dêmôn houtô de kai boulên ekklêsias theou boulê tê kath' hekastên polin sunexetazôn heurois an hoti tines men tês ekklêsias bouleutai exioi eisi]--[greek: ei tis estin en tô panti polis tou theou]--[greek: en ekeinê politeuesthai hoi de pantachou bouleutai ouden exion tês ek katataxeôs huperochês, hên huperechein dokousi tôn politôn, pherousin en tois heautôn êthesin; houtô de kai archonta ekklêsias hekastês poleôs archonti tôn en tê polei sugkroteon; hina katanoêsus, hoti kai epi tôn sphodra apotugchanomenoô bouletôn kai archontôn ekklêsias theou, kai rhathumoteron para tous eutonôterôs biountas ouden êtton estin heurein hôs epipan huperochên tên en tê epi tas aretas prokopê para ta êthê tôn en tais polesi bouleutôn kai archontôn.]] [footnote 259: ritschl, entstehung der altkatholischen kirche pp. 362, 368, 394, 461, 555, 560, 576. otto ritschl, l.c., pp. 208, 218, 231. hatch "organisation of the early christian church," lectures 5 and 6; id., art. "ordination," "priest," in the dictionary of christian antiquities. hauck, art. "priester" in herzog's real-encyklopädie, 2nd ed. voigt, l.c., p. 175 ff. sohm, kirchenrecht i. p. 205 ff. louw, het ontstaan van het priesterschap in de christ. kerk, utrecht, 1892.] [footnote 260: clement of rome was the first to compare the conductors of public worship in christian churches with the priests and levites, and the author of the [greek: didachê] was the first to liken the christian prophets to the high priests. it cannot, however, be shown that there were any christian circles where the leaders were directly styled "priests" before the last quarter of the 2nd century. we can by no means fall back on ignatius, philad. 9, nor on iren., iv. 8. 3, which passage is rather to be compared with [greek: did.] 13. 3. it is again different in gnostic circles, which in this case, too, anticipated the secularising process: read for example the description of marcus in iren., i. 13. here, _mutatis mutandis_, we have the later catholic bishop, who alone is able to perform a mysterious sacrifice to whose person powers of grace are attached--the formula of bestowal was: [greek: metadounai soi thelô tês emês charitos ... lambane ap' emou kai di' emou charin], and through whose instrumentality union with god can alone be attained: the [greek: apolutrôsis] (i. 21.) is only conferred through the mystagogue. much of a similar nature is to be found, and we can expressly say that the distinction between priestly mystagogues and laymen was of fundamental importance in many gnostic societies (see also the writings of the coptic gnostics); it was different in the marcionite church. tertullian (de bapt. 17) was the first to call the bishop "summus sacerdos," and the older opinion that he merely "played" with the idea is untenable, and refuted by pseudo-cyprian, de aleat. 2 ("sacerdotalis dignitas"). in his antimontanist writings the former has repeatedly repudiated any distinction in principle of a particular priestly class among christians, as well as the application of certain injunctions to this order (de exhort. 7: "nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? ... adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offeis et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici."; de monog. 7). we may perhaps infer from his works that before about the year 200, the name "priest" was not yet universally applied to bishop and presbyters in carthage (but see after this de præscr. 29, 41: sacerdotalia munera; de pud. 1, 21; de monog. 12: disciplina sacerd.; de exhort. 7: sacerdotalis ordo, ibid. 11 "et offeres pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum;" de virg. vel. 9: sacerdotale officium; scorp. 7: sacerdos). the latest writings of tertullian show us indeed that the name and the conception which it represents were already prevalent. hippolytus (philos. præf.: [greek: hôn hêmeis diadochoi tugchanontes tês te autês charitos metechontes archierateias kai didaskalias], see also the arabian canons) expressly claimed high priesthood for the bishops, and origen thought he was justified in giving the name of "priests and levites" to those who conducted public worship among christians. this he indeed did with reserve (see many passages, e.g., hom. ii. in num., vol. ii. p. 278; hom. vi. in lev., vol. ii. p. 211; comment, in joh., vol. i. 3), but yet to a far greater extent than clement (see bigg, l.c., p. 214 f.). in cyprian and the literature of the greek church in the immediately following period we find the designation "priest" as the regular and most customary name for the bishop and presbyters. novatian (jerome, de vir. inl. 70) wrote a treatise _de sacerdote_ and another _de ordinatione_. the notable and momentous change of conception expressed in the idea can be traced by us through its preparatory stages almost as little as the theory of the apostolic succession of the bishops. irenæus (iv. 8. 3, 17. 5, 18. 1) and tertullian, when compared with cyprian, appear here as representatives of primitive christianity. they firmly assert the priesthood of the whole congregation. that the laity had as great a share as the leaders of the churches in the transformation of the latter into priests is moreover shown by the bitter saying of tertullian (de monog. 12): "sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia 'sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit'. cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas."] [footnote 261: see sohm, i. p. 207.] [footnote 262: the "deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare" (cypr. ep. 67. 1) is the distinctive function of the _sacerdos dei_. it may further be said, however, that _all_ ceremonies of public worship properly belong to him, and cyprian has moreover contrived to show that this function of the bishop as leader of the church follows from his priestly attributes; for as priest the bishop is _antistes christi_ (dei); see epp. 59. 18: 61. 2: 63. 14: 66. 5, and this is the basis of his right and duty to preserve the _lex evangelica_ and the _traditio dominica_ in every respect. as _antistes dei_ however, an attribute bestowed on the bishop by the apostolic succession and the laying on of hands, he has also received the power of the keys, which confers the right to judge in christ's stead and to grant or refuse the divine grace. in cyprian's conception of the episcopal office the _successio apostolica_ and the position of vicegerent of christ (of god) counterbalance each other; he also tried to amalgamate both elements (ep. 55. 8: "cathedra sacerdotalis"). it is evident that as far as the inner life of each church was concerned, the latter and newer necessarily proved the more important feature. in the east, where the thought of the apostolical succession of the bishops never received such pronounced expression as in rome it was just this latter element that was almost exclusively emphasised from the end of the 3rd century. ignatius led the way when he compared the bishop, in his position towards the individual community, with god and christ. he, however, is dealing in images, but at a later period the question is about realities based on a mysterious transference.] [footnote 263: soon after the creation of a professional priesthood, there also arose a class of inferior clergy. this was first the case in rome. this development was not uninfluenced by the heathen priesthood, and the temple service (see my article in texte und untersuchungen ii. 5). yet sohm, l.c., p. 128 ff., has disputed this, and proposed modifications, worth considering, in my view of the origin of the _ordines minores_.] [footnote 264: along with the sacerdotal laws, strictly so called, which cyprian already understood to apply in a frightful manner (see his appeal to deut. xvii. 12; 1 sam. viii. 7; luke x. 16; john xviii. 22 f.; acts xxiii. 4-5 in epp. 3. 43, 59. 66), other old testament commandments could not fail to be introduced. thus the commandment of tithes, which irenæus had still asserted to be abolished, was now for the first time established (see origen; constit. apost. and _my_ remarks on [greek: did]. c. 13); and hence mosaic regulations as to ceremonial cleanness were adopted (see hippol. canones arab. 17; dionys. alex., ep. canon.). constantine was the first to base the observance of sunday on the commandment as to the sabbath. besides, the west was always more hesitating in this respect than the east. in cyprian's time, however, the classification and dignity of the clergy were everywhere upheld by an appeal to old testament commandments, though reservations still continued to be made here and there.] [footnote 265: tertullian (de pud. i) sneeringly named the bishop of rome "pontifex maximus," thereby proving that he clearly recognised the heathen colouring given to the episcopal office. with the picture of the bishop drawn by the apostolic constitutions may be compared the ill-natured descriptions of paul of samosata in euseb., vii. 30.] [footnote 266: yet this influence, in a direct form at least, can only be made out at a comparatively late period. but nevertheless, from the middle of the 3rd century the priests alone are possessed of knowledge. as [greek: mathêsis] and [greek: mystagôgia] are inseparably connected in the mysteries and gnostic societies, and the mystagogue was at once knowing one and priest, so also in the catholic church the priest is accounted the knowing one. doctrine itself became a mystery to an increasing extent.] [footnote 267: examples are found in epp. 1, 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 57, 59, 65, 66. but see iren., iv. 26. 2, who is little behind cyprian here, especially when he threatens offenders with the fate of dathan and abiram. one of the immediate results of the formation of a priestly and spiritual class was that the independent "teachers" now shared the fate of the old "prophets" and became extinct (see my edition of the [greek: didachê], prolegg. pp. 131-137). it is an instructive fact that theoktistus of cæsarea and alexander of jerusalem in order to prove in opposition to demetrius that independent teachers were still tolerated, i.e., allowed to speak in public meetings of the church, could only appeal to the practice of phrygia and lycaonia, that is, to the habit of outlying provinces where, besides, montanism had its original seat. euelpis in laranda, paulinus in iconium, and theodorus in synnada, who flourished about 216, are in addition to origen the last independent teachers (i.e., outside the ranks of the clergy) known to us in christendom (euseb., h. e. vi. 19 fin.).] [footnote 268: see döllinger, die lehre von der eucharistie in den ersten drei jahrhunderten, 1826. höfling, die lehre der ältesten kirche vom opfer, p. 71 ff. th. harnack, der christliche gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen zeitalter, p. 342 ff. steitz, art. "messe" in herzog's real-encyklopädie, 2nd ed. it is idle to enquire whether the conception of the "sacerdotium" or that of the "sacrificium" was first altered, because they are correlative ideas.] [footnote 269: see the proof passages in höfling, l.c., who has also treated in detail clement and origen's idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful saying of irenæus iv. 18. 3: "non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico" (on the offering in the lord's supper see iren. iv. 17. 5, 18. 1); tertull., apolog. 30; de orat. 28; adv. marc. iii. 22; iv. 1, 35: adv. jud. 5; de virg. vel. 13.] [footnote 270: cf. specially the montanist writings; the treatise _de ieiunio_ is the most important among them in this case; see cc. 7, 16; de resurr. 8. on the use of the word "satisfacere" and the new ideas on the point which arose in the west (cf. also the word "meritum") see below chap. 5. 2 and the 2nd chap. of the 5th vol. note that the 2nd ep. of clement already contains the sayings: [greek: kalon eleêmounê hôs metanoia hamartias kreissôn nêsteia proseuchês, eleêmosunê de amphoterôn ... eleêmosunê gar kouphisma hamartias ginetai] (16. 4; similar expressions occur in the "shepherd"). but they only show how far back we find the origin of these injunctions borrowed from jewish proverbial wisdom. one cannot say that they had no effect at all on christian life in the 2nd century; but we do not yet find the idea that ascetic performances are a sacrifice offered to a wrathful god. martyrdom seems to have been earliest viewed as a performance which expiated sins. in tertullian's time the theory, that it was on a level with baptism (see melito, 12. fragment in otto, corp. apol. ix. p. 418: [greek: duo sunestê ta aphesin amartêmata parechomena, pathos dia christon kai baptisma]), had long been universally diffused and was also exegetically grounded. in fact, men went a step further and asserted that the merits of martyrs could also benefit others. this view had likewise become established long before tertullian's day, but was opposed by him (de pudic 22), when martyrs abused the powers universally conceded to them. origen went furthest here; see exhort. ad mart. 50: [greek: hôsper timiô haimati tou iêsou êgorasthêmen ... houtôs tô timiô haimati tôn marturôn agorasthêsontai tines]; hom. x. in num. c. ii.: "ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur." the origin of this thought is, on the one hand, to be sought for in the wide-spread notion that the sufferings of an innocent man benefit others, and, on the other, in the belief that christ himself suffered in the martyrs (see, e.g., ep. lugd. in euseb., h. e. v. 1. 23, 41).] [footnote 271: in the east it was origen who introduced into christianity the rich treasure of ancient ideas that had become associated with sacrifices. see bigg's beautiful account in "the christian platonists of alexandria," lect. iv.-vi.] [footnote 272: moreover, tertullian (scorp. 6) had already said: "quomodo multæ mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum."] [footnote 273: see c. 1: "nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, quæ adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret: coartati eramus et in augustum innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustitiæ et misericordiæ operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus." c. 2: "sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatic baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur." 5, 6, 9. in c. 18 cyprian already established an arithmetical relation between the number of alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins, and in c. 21, in accordance with an ancient idea which tertullian and minucius felix, however, only applied to martyrdom, he describes the giving of alms as a spectacle for god and christ. in cyprian's epistles "satisfacere deo" is exceedingly frequent. it is almost still more important to note the frequent use of the expression "promereri deum (iudicem)" in cyprian. see de unitate 15: "iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem." 18; de lapsis 31; de orat. 8, 32, 36; de mortal. 10; de op. 11, 14, 15, 26; de bono pat. 18; ep. 62. 2: 73. 10. here it is everywhere assumed that christians acquire god's favour by their works.] [footnote 274: baptism with blood is not referred to here.] [footnote 275: with modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond augustine's time down to the catholicism of the present day. cyprian is the father of the romish doctrine of good works and sacrifice. yet is it remarkable that he was not yet familiar with the theory according to which man _must_ acquire _merita_. in his mind "merits" and "blessedness" are not yet rigidly correlated ideas; but the rudiments of this view are also found in him; cf. de unit. 15 (see p. 134, note 3).] [footnote 276: "sacrificare," "sacrificium celebrare," in all passages where they are unaccompanied by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate the lord's supper. cyprian has never called prayer a "sacrifice" without qualifying terms; on the contrary he collocates "preces" and "sacrificium," and sometimes also "oblatio" and "sacrificium." the former is then the offering of the laity and the latter of the priests.] [footnote 277: cf. the whole 63rd epistle and above all c. 7: "et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus;" c. 9.: "unde apparet sanguinem christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici." 13; de unit. 17: "dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare;" ep. 63. 4: "sacramentum sacrificii dominici." the transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements, which, in all probability, cyprian already found in existence, is ultimately based on the effort to include the element of mystery and magic in the specifically sacerdotal ceremony of sacrifice, and to make the christian offering assume, though not visibly, the form of a bloody sacrifice, such as secularised christianity desired. this transference, however, was the result of two causes. the first has been already rightly stated by ernesti (antimur. p. 94) in the words: "quia eucharistia habet [greek: anamnêsin] christi mortui et sacrificii eius in cruce peracti, propter ea paullatim coepta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici." in cyprian's 63rd epistle it is still observable how the "calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre" passes over into the "sanguinem christi offerre," see also euseb. demonstr. i. 13: [greek: mnêmên tês thysias christou prospherein] and [greek: tên ensarkon tou christou parousian kai to katartisthen autou sôma prospherein]. the other cause has been specially pointed out by theodore harnack (l.c., p. 409 f.). in ep. 63. 2 and in many other passages cyprian expresses the thought "that in the lord's supper nothing else is done _by_ us but what the lord has first done _for_ us." but he says that at the institution of the supper the lord first offered himself as a sacrifice to god the father. consequently the priest officiating in christ's stead only presents a true and perfect offering when he imitates what christ has done (c. 14: "si christus jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificiam patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice christi vere fungitur, qui id quod christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum christum videat obtulisse"). this brings us to the conception of the repetition of christ's sacrifice by the priest. but in cyprian's case it was still, so to speak, only a notion verging on that idea, that is, he only leads up to it, abstains from formulating it with precision, or drawing any further conclusions from it, and even threatens the idea itself inasmuch as he still appears to conceive the "calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre" as identical with it. as far as the east is concerned we find in origen no trace of the assumption of a repeated sacrifice of christ. but in the original of the first 6 books of the apostolic constitutions this conception is also wanting, although the supper ceremonial has assumed an exclusively sacerdotal character (see ii. 25: [greek: hai tote] (in the old covenant) [greek: thusiai, nun euchai kai deêseis kai eucharistiai]. ii. 53). the passage vi. 23: [greek: anti thusias tês di' haimatôn tên logikên kai anaimakton kai tên mustikên, hêtis eis ton thanaton tou kuriou symbolôn charin epiteleitai tou sômatos autou kai tou haimatos] does not belong to the original document, but to the interpolator. with the exception therefore of one passage in the apostolic church order (printed in my edition of the didache prolegg. p. 236) viz.: [greek: hê prosphora tou sômatos kai tou haimatos], we possess no proofs that there was any mention in the east before eusebius' time of a sacrifice of christ's body in the lord's supper. from this, however, we must by no means conclude that the mystic feature in the celebration of the sacrifice had been less emphasised there.] [footnote 278: in ep. 63. 13 cyprian has illustrated the incorporation of the community with christ by the mixture of wine and water in the supper, because the special aim of the epistle required this: "videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc." the special mention of the offerers (see already tertullian's works: de corona 3, de exhort. cast. ii, and de monog. 10) therefore means that the latter commend themselves to christ as his own people, or are recommended to him as such. on the praxis see cyprian ep. i. 2 "... si quis hoc fecisset. non offerretur pro eo nee sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur;" 62. 5: "ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum."] [footnote 279: much as the use of the word "sacramentum" in the western church from tertullian to augustine (hahn, die lehre von den sacramenten, 1864, p. 5 ff.) differs from that in the classic romish use it is of small interest in the history of dogma to trace its various details. in the old latin bible [greek: mystêrion] was translated "sacramentum" and thus the new signification "mysterious, holy ordinance or thing" was added to the meaning "oath," "sacred obligation." accordingly tertullian already used the word to denote sacred facts, mysterious and salutary signs and vehicles, and also holy acts. everything in any way connected with the deity and his revelation, and therefore, for example, the content of revelation as doctrine, is designated "sacrament;" and the word is also applied to the symbolical which is always something mysterious and holy. alongside of this the old meaning "sacred obligation" still remains in force. if, because of this comprehensive use, further discussion of the word is unnecessary, the fact that revelation itself as well as everything connected with it was expressly designated as a "mystery" is nevertheless of importance in the history of dogma. this usage of the word is indeed not removed from the original one so long as it was merely meant to denote the supernatural origin and supernatural nature of the objects in question; but more than this was now intended; "sacramentum" ([greek: mystêrion]) was rather intended to represent the holy thing that was revealed as something relatively concealed. this conception, however, is opposed to the judæo-christian idea of revelation, and is thus to be regarded as an introduction of the greek notion. probst (sacramente und sacramentalia, 1872) thinks differently. that which is mysterious and dark appears to be such an essential attribute of the divine, that even the obscurities of the new testament scriptures were now justified because these writings were regarded as altogether "spiritual." see iren. ii. 28. 1-3. tert. de bapt. 2: "deus in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit."] [footnote 280: we have explained above that the church already possessed this means of grace, in so far as she had occasionally absolved mortal sinners, even at an earlier period; but this possession was quite uncertain and, strictly speaking, was not a possession at all, for in such cases the early church merely followed extraordinary directions of the spirit.] [footnote 281: höfling, das sacrament der taufe, 2 vols., 1846. steitz, art. "taufe" in herzog's real-encyklopädie. walch, hist. pædobaptismi quattuor priorum sæculorum, 1739.] [footnote 282: in de bono pudic. 2: "renati ex aqua et pudicitia," pseudo-cyprian expresses an idea, which, though remarkable, is not confined to himself.] [footnote 283: but tertullian says (de bapt. 6): "non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur."] [footnote 284: the disquisitions of clement of alexandria in pædag. i, 6 (baptism and sonship) are very important, but he did not follow them up. it is deserving of note that the positive effects of baptism were more strongly emphasised in the east than in the west. but, on the other hand, the conception is more uncertain in the former region.] [footnote 285: see tertullian, de bapt. 7 ff.; cypr., ep. 70. 2 ("ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e., unctione esse unctus dei et habere in se gratiam christi possit"), 74. 5 etc. "chrism" is already found in tertullian as well as the laying on of hands. the roman catholic bishop cornelius in the notorious epistle to fabius (euseb., h. e. vi. 43. 15), already traces the rites which accompany baptism to an ecclesiastical canon (perhaps one from hippolytus' collection: see can. arab. 19). after relating that novatian in his illness had only received clinical baptism he writes: [greek: ou mên oude tôn loipôn etuche, diaphugôn tên noson, hôn chrê metalambanein kata ton tês ekklêsias kanona, tou te sphragisthênai hupo tou episkopou.] it is also remarkable that one of the bishops who voted about heretic baptism (sentent. episcop., cypr., opp. ed. hartel i. p. 439) calls the laying on of hands a sacrament like baptism: "neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus impositionem spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit _utroque sacramento_ debere eos renasci in ecclesia catholica." among other particulars found in tertullian's work on baptism (cc. i. 12 seq.) it may moreover be seen that there were christians about the year 200, who questioned the indispensability of baptism to salvation (baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est). the assumption that martyrdom replaces baptism (tertull., de bapt. 16; origen), is in itself a sufficient proof that the ideas of the "sacrament" were still uncertain. as to the objection that jesus himself had not baptised and that the apostles had not received christian baptism see tert., de bapt. 11, 12.] [footnote 286: in itself the performance of this rite seemed too simple to those who sought eagerly for mysteries. see tertull., de bapt. 2: "nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio æternitatis. mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt."] [footnote 287: but see euseb., h. e. vi. 43. 15, who says that only the laying on of hands on the part of the bishop communicates the holy spirit, and this ceremony _must_ therefore follow baptism. it is probable that confirmation as a specific act did not become detached from baptism in the west till shortly before the middle of the third century. perhaps we may assume that the mithras cult had an influence here.] [footnote 288: see tertullian's superstitious remarks in de bap. 3-9 to the effect that water is the element of the holy spirit and of unclean spirits etc. melito also makes a similar statement in the fragment of his treatise on baptism in pitra, anal, sacra ii., p. 3 sq. cyprian, ep. 70. i, uses the remarkable words: "oportet veio mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a _sacer dote_ (tertull. still knows nothing of this: c. 17: etiam laicis ius est), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere." ep. 74. 5: "peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum." clem. alex. protrept. 10.99: [greek: labete hudôr logikos].] [footnote 289: it was easy for origen to justify child baptism, as he recognised something sinful in corporeal birth itself, and believed in sin which had been committed in a former life. the earliest justification of child baptism may therefore be traced back to a philosophical doctrine.] [footnote 290: _translator's note._ the following is the original latin, as quoted by prof. harnack: "cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri ... veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant christiani, cum christum nosse potuerint. quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? cautius agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur ... si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem."] [footnote 291: under such circumstances the recollection of the significance of baptism in the establishment of the church fell more and more into the background (see hermas: "the church rests like the world upon water;" irenæus iii. 17. 2: "sicut de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unus panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in christo iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de coelo est. et sicut aricla terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum"). the unbaptised (catechumens) also belong to the church, when they commit themselves to her guidance and prayers. accordingly baptism ceased more and more to be regarded as an act of initiation, and only recovered this character in the course of the succeeding centuries. in this connection the 7th (spurious) canon of constantinople (381) is instructive: [greek: kai tên prôtên hêmeran poioumen autous christianous, tên de deuteran katêchoumenous, eita tên tritên exorkizomen autous k.t.l.]] [footnote 292: döllinger, die lehre von der eucharistie in dem ersten 3 jahrhunderten, 1826. engelhardt in the zeitschrift fur die hist. theologie, 1842, i. kahnis, lehre vom abendmahl, 1851. ruckert, das abendmahl, sein wesen und seine geschichte, 1856. leimbach, beitrage zur abendmahlslehre tertullian's, 1874. steitz, die abendmahlslehre der griechischen kirche, in the jahrbucher fur deutsche theologie, 1864-1868; cf. also the works of probst. whilst eucharist and love feast had already been separated from the middle of the 2nd century in the west, they were still united in alexandria in clement's time; see bigg, l.c., p. 103.] [footnote 293: the collocation of baptism and the lord's supper, which, as the early christian monuments prove, was a very familiar practice (tert. adv. marc. iv. 34: "sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiæ;" hippol., can. arab. 38: "baptizatus et corpore christi pastus"), was, so far as i know, justified by no church father on internal grounds. considering their conception of the holy ordinances this is not surprising. they were classed together because they were instituted by the lord, and because the elements (water, wine, bread) afforded much common ground for allegorical interpretation.] [footnote 294: the story related by dionysius (in euseb., l.c.) is especially characteristic, as the narrator was an extreme spiritualist. how did it stand therefore with the dry tree? besides, tertull. (de corona 3) says: "calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur". superstitious reverence for the sacrament _ante et extra usum_ is a very old habit of mind in the gentile church.] [footnote 295: leimbach's investigations of tertullian's use of words have placed this beyond doubt; see de orat. 6; adv. marc. i. 14: iv. 40: iii. 19; de resuri. 8.] [footnote 296: the chief passages referring to the supper in clement are protrept. 12. 120; pæd. i. 6. 43: ii. 2. 19 sq.: i. 5. 15: i. 6. 38, 40; quis div. 23; strom. v. 10. 66: i. 10. 46: i. 19. 96: vi. 14. 113: v. ii. 70. clement thinks as little of forgiveness of sins in connection with the supper as does the author of the didache or the other fathers; this feast is rather meant to bestow an initiation into knowledge and immortality. ignatius had already said, "the body is faith, the blood is hope." this is also clement's opinion; he also knows of a transubstantiation, not, however, into the real body of christ, but into heavenly powers. his teaching was therefore that of valentinus (see the exc. ex. theod. § 82, already given on vol. i. p. 263) strom. v. 11. 70: [greek: logikon hêmin brôma hê gnôsis]; i. 20. 46: [greek: hina dê phagômen logikôs]; v. 10. 66: [greek: brôsis gar kai posis tou theiou logou hê gnôsis esti tês theias ousias]. adumbrat. in epp. joh.: "sanguis quod est cognitio"; see bigg, l.c., p. 106 ff.] [footnote 297: orig. in matth. comment. ser. 85: "panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane coe'esti... non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus;" see in matt. xi. 14; c. cels. viii. 33. hom. xvi. 9 in num. on origen's doctrine of the lord's supper see bigg, p. 219 ff.] [footnote 298: the conception of the supper as _viaticum mortis_ (fixed by the 13th canon of nicæa: [greek: peri de tôn exodeuontôn ho palaios kai kanonikos nomos phulachthêsetai kai nun, hôste eitis exodeuoi, tou teleutaiou kai anagkaiotatou ephodiou mê apostereisthai]), a conception which is genuinely hellenic and which was strengthened by the idea that the supper was [greek: pharmakon athanasias], the practice of benediction, and much else in theory and practice connected with the eucharist reveal the influence of antiquity. see the relative articles in smith and cheetham's dictionary of christian antiquities.] [footnote 299: the fullest account of the "history of the romish church down to the pontificate of leo i." has been given by langen, 1881; but i can in no respect agree (see theol. lit. ztg. 1891, no. 6) with the hypotheses about the primacy as propounded by him in his treatise on the clementine romances (1890, see especially p. 163 ff). the collection of passages given by caspari, "quellen zur geschichte des taufsymbols," vol. iii., deserves special recognition. see also the sections bearing on this subject in renan's "origines du christianisme," vols. v.-vii. especially vii., chaps. 5, 12, 23. sohm in his "kirchenrecht" i. (see especially pp. 164 ff., 350 ff., 377 ff.) has adopted my conception of "catholic" and "roman," and made it the basis of further investigations. he estimates the importance of the roman church still more highly, in so far as, according to him, she was the exclusive originator of church law as well as of the catholic form of church constitution; and on page 381 he flatly says: "the whole church constitution with its claim to be founded on divine arrangement was first developed in rome and then transferred from her to the other communities." i think this is an exaggeration. tschirn (zeitschrift für kirchengeschichte, xii. p. 215 ff.) has discussed the origin of the roman church in the 2nd century. much that was the common property of christendom, or is found in every religion as it becomes older, is regarded by this author as specifically roman.] [footnote 300: no doubt we must distinguish two halves in christendom. the first, the ecclesiastical west, includes the west coast of asia minor, greece, and rome together with their daughter churches, that is, above all, gaul and north africa. the second or eastern portion embraces palestine, egypt, syria, and the east part of asia minor. a displacement gradually arose in the course of the 3rd century. in the west the most important centres are ephesus, smyrna, corinth, and rome, cities with a greek and oriental population. even in carthage the original speech of the christian community was probably greek.] [footnote 301: rome was the first city in the empire, alexandria the second. they were the metropolitan cities of the world (see the inscription in kaibel, no. 1561, p. 407: [greek: threpse m' alexandreia, metoikon ethapse de rhomê, hai kosmou kai gês, ô xene, mêtropoleis]). this is reflected in the history of the church; first rome appears, then alexandria. the significance of the great towns for the history of dogma and of the church will be treated of in a future volume. abercius of hieropolis, according to the common interpretation (inscription v. 7 f.) designates rome as "queen." this was a customary appellation; see eunap., vita prohaer. p. 90: [greek: hê basileuousa rhômê].] [footnote 302: in this connection we need only keep in mind the following summary of facts. up to the end of the second century the alexandrian church had none of the catholic and apostolic standards, and none of the corresponding institutions as found in the roman church; but her writer, clement, was also "as little acquainted with the west as homer." in the course of the first half of the 3rd century she received those standards and institutions; but her writer, origen, also travelled to rome himself in order to see "the very old" church and formed a connection with hippolytus; and her bishop dionysius carried on a correspondence with his roman colleague, who also made common cause with him. similar particulars may also be ascertained with regard to the syrian church.] [footnote 303: see the proofs in the two preceding chapters. note also that these elements have an inward connection. so long as one was lacking, all were, and whenever one was present, all the others immediately made their appearance.] [footnote 304: ignatius already says that the roman christians are [greek: apodiulismenoi apo pantos allotrion chrômatos] (rom. inscr.); he uses this expression of no others. similar remarks are not quite rare at a later period; see, for instance, the oft-repeated eulogy that no heresy ever arose in rome. at a time when this city had long employed the standard of the apostolic rule of faith with complete confidence, namely, at the beginning of the 3rd century, we hear that a lady of rank in alexandria, who was at any rate a christian, lodged and entertained in her house origen, then a young man, and a famous heretic. (see euseb., h. e. vi. 2. 13, 14). the lectures on doctrine delivered by this heretic and the conventicles over which he presided were attended by a [greek: murion plêthos ou monon hairetikôn, alla kai hêmetephôn]. that is a very valuable piece of information which shows us a state of things in alexandria that would have been impossible in rome at the same period. see, besides, dionys. alex, in euseb., h. e. vii. 7.] [footnote 305: i must here refrain from proving the last assertion. the possibility of asia minor having had a considerable share, or having led the way, in the formation of the canon must be left an open question (cf. what melito says, and the use made of new testament writings in the epistle of polycarp). we will, however, be constrained to lay the chief emphasis on rome, for it must not be forgotten that irenæus had the closest connection with the church of that city, as is proved by his great work, and that he lived there before he came to gaul. moreover, it is a fact deserving of the greatest attention that the montanists and their decided opponents in asia, the so-called alogi, had no ecclesiastical _canon_ before them, though they may all have possessed the universally acknowledged books of the romish canon, and none other, in the shape of _books read in the churches_.] [footnote 306: see the prolegg. of westcott and hort (these indeed give an opposite judgment), and cf. harris, _codex bezae. a study of the so-called western text of the new testament_ 1891. an exhaustive study of the oldest martyrologies has already led to important cases of agreement between rome and the east, and promises still further revelations. see duchesne, "les sources du martyrologe hieron." 1885. egli, "altchristliche studien, martyrien und martyrologieen ältester zeit." 1887; the same writer in the "zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche theologie", 1891, p. 273 ff.] [footnote 307: on the relations between edessa and rome see the end of the excursus.] [footnote 308: see my treatise "die ältesten christlichen datirungen und die anfánge einer bischòflichen chronographie in rom." in the report of the proceedings of the royal prussian academy of science, 1892, pp. 617-658. i think i have there proved that, in the time of soter, rome already possessed a figured list of bishops, in which important events were also entered.] [footnote 309: that the idea of the apostolic succession of the bishops was first turned to account or appeared in rome is all the more remarkable, because it was not in that city, but rather in the east, that the monarchical episcopate was first consolidated. (cf. the shepherd of hermas and ignatius' epistles to the romans with his other epistles). there must therefore have been a very rapid development of the constitution in the time between hyginus and victor. sohm, l.c., tries to show that the monarchical episcopate arose in rome immediately after the composition of the first epistle of clement, and as a result of it; and that this city was the centre from which it spread throughout christendom.] [footnote 310: see pseudo-cyprian's work "de aleat" which, in spite of remarks to the contrary, i am inclined to regard as written by victor; cf. "texte und untersuchungen" v. i; see c. i of this writing: "et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus."] [footnote 311: see report of the proceedings of the royal prussian academy of science, 1892, p. 622 ff. to the material found there must be added a remarkable passage given by nestle (zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche theologie, 1893, p. 437), where the dates are reckoned after sixtus i.] [footnote 312: cf. the 8th book of the apostolic constitutions with the articles referring to the regulation of the church, which in greek mss. bear the name of hippolytus. compare also the arabian canones hippolyti, edited by haneberg (1870) and commented on by achelis (texte und untersuchungen vi. 4). apart from the additions and alterations, which are no doubt very extensive, it is hardly likely that the name of the roman bishop is wrongly assigned to them. we must further remember the importance assigned by the tradition of the eastern and western churches to one of the earliest roman "bishops," clement, as the confidant and secretary of the apostles and as the composer and arranger of their laws.] [footnote 313: see my proofs in "texte und untersuchungen," vol. ii., part 5. the canons of the council of nicæa presuppose the distinction of higher and lower clergy for the whole church.] [footnote 314: we see this from the easter controversy, but there are proofs of it elsewhere, e.g., in the collection of cyprian's epistles. the roman bishop cornelius informs fabius, bishop of antioch, of the resolutions of the italian, african, and other churches (euseb., h. e. vi. 43. 3: [greek: êlthon eis hêmas epistolai kornêliou rhômaiôn episkopou pros ... phabion, dêlousai ta peri tês rhômaiôn sunodou, kai ta doxanta pasi tois kata tên italian kai aphrikên kai tas autophi chôras]). we must not forget, however, that there were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called oecumenical correspondence and enjoyed great influence, as, e.g., dionysius of corinth and dionysius of alexandria. in matters relating to penance the latter wrote to a great many churches, even as far as armenia, and sent many letters to rome (euseb., h. e. vi. 46). the catholic theologian, dittrich--before the vatican decree, no doubt--has spoken of him in the following terms (dionysius von alexandrien, 1867, p. 26): "as dionysius participated in the power, so also he shared in the task of the primateship." "along with the roman bishop he was, above all, called upon to guard the interests of the whole church."] [footnote 315: this conception, as well as the ideas contained in this excursus generally, is now entirely shared by weingarten (zeittafeln, 3rd. ed., 1888, pp. 12, 21): "the catholic church is essentially the work of those of rome and asia minor. the alexandrian church and theology do not completely adapt themselves to it till the 3rd century. the metropolitan community becomes the ideal centre of the great church" ... "the primacy of the roman church is essentially the transference to her of rome's central position in the religion of the heathen world during the empire: _urbs æterna urbs sacra_."] [footnote 316: this is also admitted by langen (l.c., 184 f.), who even declares that this precedence existed from the beginning.] [footnote 317: cf. chaps. 59 and 62, but more especially 63.] [footnote 318: at that time the roman church did not confine herself to a letter; she sent ambassadors to corinth, [greek: hoitines martures esontai metaxu humôn kai hêmôn]. note carefully also the position of the corinthian community with which the roman one interfered (see on this point wrede, untersuchungen zum i clemensbrief, 1891.)] [footnote 319: in ignatius, rom. inscr., the verb [greek: prokathêmai] is twice used about the roman church ([greek: prokathêtai en] [to be understood in a local sense] [greek: topôi khôrion rhômaiôn]--[greek: prokathêmenê tês agapês] = presiding in, or having the guardianship of, love). ignatius (magn. 6), uses the same verb to denote the dignity of the bishop or presbyters in relation to the community. see, besides, the important testimony in rom. ii.: [greek: allous edidaxate]. finally, it must be also noted that ignatius presupposes an extensive influence on the part of individual members of the church in the higher spheres of government. fifty years later we have a memorable proof of this in the marcia-victor episode. lastly, ignatius is convinced that the church will interfeie quite as energetically on behalf of a foreign brother as on behalf of one of her own number. in the epistle of clement to james, c. 2, the roman bishop is called [greek: ho alêtheias prokathezomenos].] [footnote 320: euseb., h. e. iv. 23. 9-12; cf., above all, the words: [greek: ex archês humin ethos esti touto, pantas men adelphous poikiôs euergetein, ekklêsiais te pollais tais kata pasan polin ephodia pempein ... patroparadoton ethos rhômaiôn rômaioi diaphulattontes.] note here the emphasis laid on [greek: rômaioi].] [footnote 321: according to irenæus a peculiar significance belongs to the old jerusalem church, in so far as all the christian congregations sprang from her (iii. 12. 5: [greek: autai phônai tês ekklêsias, ex hês pasa eschêken ekklêsia tês archên autai phônai tês mêtropoleôs tôn tês kainês diathêkês politôn]). for obvious reasons irenæus did not speak of the jerusalem church of his own time. hence that passage cannot be utilised.] [footnote 322: iren. iii. 3. i: "sed quomiam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis paulo et petro romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuutiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio." on this we may remark as follows: (1) the special importance which irenæus claims for the roman church--for he is only referring to her--is not merely based by him on her assumed foundation by peter and paul, but on a combination of the four attributes "maxima," "antiquissima" etc. dionysius of corinth also made this assumption (euseb., ii. 25. 8), but applied it quite as much to the corinthian church. as regards capability of proving the truth of the church's faith, all the communities founded by the apostles possess _principalitas_ in relation to the others; but the roman church has the _potentior principalitas_, in so far as she excels all the rest in her qualities of _ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita_ etc. principalitas = "sovereign authority," [greek: authentia], for this was probably the word in the original text (see proceedings of the royal prussian academy of science, 9th nov., 1893). in common with most scholars i used to think that the "in qua" refers to "roman church;" but i have now convinced myself (see the treatise just cited) that it relates to "omnem ecclesiam," and that the clause introduced by "in qua" merely asserts that every church, _in so far as she is faithful to tradition, i.e., orthodox_, must as a matter of course agree with that of rome. (2) irenæus asserts that every church, i.e., believers in all parts of the world, must agree with this church ("convenire" is to be understood in a figurative sense; the literal acceptation "every church must come to that of rome" is not admissible). however, this "must" is not meant as an imperative, but == [greek: anagkê] == "it cannot be otherwise." in reference to _principalitas_ == [greek: authentia] (see i. 31. 1: i. 26. 1) it must be remembered that victor of rome (l.c.) speaks of the "origo _authentici_ apostolatus," and tertullian remarks of valentinus when he apostatised at rome, "ab ecclesia _authenticæ_ regulæ abrupit" (adv. valent. 4).] [footnote 323: beyond doubt his "convenire necesse est" is founded on actual circumstances.] [footnote 324: on other important journeys of christian men and bishops to rome in the 2nd and 3rd centuries see caspari, l.c. above all we may call attention to the journey of abercius of hierapolis (not hierapolis on the meander) about 200 or even earlier. its historical reality is not to be questioned. see his words in the epitaph composed by himself (v. 7 f.): [greek: eis rhômên hos epempsen emen basilêan athrêsai kai basilissan idein chrusostolon chrusopedilon]. however, ficker raises very serious objections to the christian origin of the inscription.] [footnote 325: we cannot here discuss how this tradition arose; in all likelihood it already expresses the position which the roman church very speedily attained in christendom. see renan, orig., vol. vii., p. 70: "pierre el paul (léconciliés), voilà le chef-d'oeuvre qui fondait la suprématie ecclésiastique de rome dans làvenir. une nouvelle qualité mythique lemplagait celle de romulus et remus." but it is highly probable that peter was really in rome like paul (see 1 clem. v., ignatius ad rom. iv.); both really performed important services to the church there, and died as martyrs in that city.] [footnote 326: the wealth of the roman church is also illustrated by the present of 200,000 sesterces brought her by marcion (tertull., de præse. 30). the "shepherd" also contains instructive particulars with regard to this. as far as her influence is concerned, we possess various testimonies from philipp. iv. 22 down to the famous account by hippolytus of the relations of victor to marcia. we may call special attention to ignatius' epistle to the romans.] [footnote 327: see tertullian, adv. prax. i; euseb., h. e. v. 3, 4. dictionary of christian biography iii., p. 937.] [footnote 328: euseb, h.e. v. 24. 9: [greek: epi toutois ho men tês rhômaiôn proestôs biktôr athroôs tês asias pasês hama tais homorois ekklêsiais tas paroikias apotemnein hôsan heterodoxousas, tês koinês henôseôs peiratai, kai stêliteuei ge dia grammatôn, akoinônêtous pantas ardên tous ekeise anakêruttôn adelphous]. stress should be laid on two points here: (1) victor proclaimed that the people of asia minor were to be excluded from the [greek: koinê henôsis], and not merely from the fellowship of the roman church; (2) he based the excommunication on the alleged heterodoxy of those churches. see heinichen, melet. viii, on euseb., l.c. victor's action is parallelled by that of stephen. firmilian says to the latter: "dum enim putas, omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti." it is a very instructive fact that in the 4th century rome also made the attempt to have sabbath fasting established as an _apostolic_ custom. see the interesting work confuted by augustine (ep. 36), a writing which emanates from a roman author who is unfortunately unknown to us. cf. also augustine's 54th and 55th epistles.] [footnote 329: irenæus also (l.c. § 11) does not appear to have questioned victor's proceeding as such, but as applied to this particular case.] [footnote 330: see tertull., de orat. 22: "sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam." de virg. vel. i: "paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus post christum;" 2: "eas ego ecclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam;" 3: "sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores." this is also the question referred to in the important remark in jerome, de vir. inl. 53: "tertullianus ad mediam ætatem presbyter fuit ecclesiæ africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum romanæ ecclesiæ ad montani dogma delapsus."] [footnote 331: stephen acted like victor and excluded almost all the east from the fellowship of the church; see in addition to cyprian's epistles that of dionysius of alexandria in euseb., h. e. vii. 5. in reference to hippolytus, see philosoph. l. ix. in regard to origen, see the allusions in de orat. 28 fin.; in matth. xi. 9, 15: xii. 9-14: xvi. 8, 22: xvii. 14; in joh. x. 16; rom. vi in isai. c. 1. with regard to philosoph. ix. 12, sohm rightly remarks (p. 389): "it is clear that the responsibility was laid on the roman bishop not merely in several cases where married men were made presbyters and deacons, but also when they were appointed bishops; and it is also evident that he appears just as responsible when bishops are not deposed in consequence of their marrying." one cannot help concluding that the roman bishop has the power of appointing and deposing not merely presbyters and deacons, but also bishops. moreover, the impression is conveyed that this appointment and deposition of bishops takes place in rome, for the passage contains a description of existent conditions in the roman church. other communities may be deprived of their bishops by an order from rome, and a bishop (chosen in rome) may be sent them. the words of the passage are: [greek: epi kallistou êrxanto episkopoi kai presbuteroi kai diakonoi digamoi kai trigamoi kathistasthai eis klêrous ei de kai tis en klêrô ôn gamoiê, menein ton toiouton en tô klêrô hôs mê hêmartêkota.]] [footnote 332: in the treatise "die briefe des romischen klerus aus der zeit der sedisvacanz im jahre 250" (abhandlungen fur weizsäcker, 1892), i have shown how the roman clergy kept the revenue of the church and of the churches in their hands, though they had no bishop. what language the romans used in epistles 8, 30, 36 of the cyprian collection, and how they interfered in the affairs of the carthaginian church! beyond doubt the roman _church_ possessed an acknowledged primacy in the year 250; it was the primacy of active participation and fulfilled duty. as yet there was no recognised dogmatic or historic foundation assigned for it; in fact it is highly probable that this theory was still shaky and uncertain in rome herself. the college of presbyters and deacons feels and speaks as if it were the bishop. for it was not on the bishop that the incomparable prestige of rome was based--at least this claim was not yet made with any confidence,--but on the _city itself_, on the origin and history, the faith and love, the earnestness and zeal _of the whole roman church and her clergy_.] [footnote 333: in tertullian, de præsc. 36, the bishops are not mentioned. he also, like irenæus, cites the roman church as one amongst others. we have already remarked that in the scheme of proof from prescription no higher rank could be assigned to the roman church than to any other of the group founded by the apostles. tertullian continues to maintain this position, but expressly remarks that the roman church has special authority for the carthaginian, because carthage had received its christianity from rome. he expresses the special relationship between rome and carthage in the following terms: "si autem italiæ adiaces habes romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est." with tertullian, then, the _de facto_ position of the roman church in christendom did not lead to the same conclusion in the scheme of proof from prescription as we found in irenæus. but in his case also that position is indicated by the rhetorical ardour with which he speaks of the roman church, whereas he does nothing more than mention corinth, philippi, thessalonica, and ephesus. even at that time, moreover, he had ground enough for a more reserved attitude towards rome, though in the antignostic struggle he could not dispense with the tradition of the roman community. in the veil dispute (de virg. vel. 2) he opposed the authority of the greek apostolic churches to that of rome. polycarp had done the same against anicetus, polycrates against victor, proculus against his roman opponents. conversely, praxeas in his appeal to eleutherus (c. 1.: "præcessorum auctoritates"), caius when contending with proculus, the carthaginian clergy when opposing tertullian (in the veil dispute), and victor when contending with polycrates set the authority of rome against that of the greek apostolic churches. these struggles at the transition from the and to the 3rd century are of the utmost importance. rome was here seeking to overthrow the authority of the only group of churches able to enter into rivalry with her those of asia minor, and succeeded in the attempt.] [footnote 334: de pudic. 21: "de tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. si quia dixerit petro dominus: super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in coelis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem?" stephen did the same; see firmilian in cyprian ep. 75. with this should be compared the description clement of rome gives in his epistles to james of his own installation by peter (c. 2). the following words are put in peter's mouth: [greek: klêmenta touton episkopon humin cheirontonô, hô tên emên tôn logôn pisteuô kathedran ... dia autô metadidômi tên exousian tou desmeuein kai luein, hina peri pantos ou an cheirotonêsê epi gês estai dedogmatismenon en ouranois. dêsei gar ho dei dethênai kai lusei ho dei luthênai, hôs ton tês ekklêsias eidôs kanona.]] [footnote 335: see dionysius of alexandria's letter to the roman bishop stephen (euseb., h. e. vii. 5. 2): [greek: hai mentoi suriai holai kai hê arabia, ois eparkeite hekastote kai ois nun epesteilate.]] [footnote 336: in the case of origen's condemnation the decision of rome seems to have been of special importance. origen sought to defend his orthodoxy in a letter written by his own hand to the roman bishop fabian (see euseb., h. e. vi. 36; jerome, ep. 84. 10). the roman bishop pontian had previously condemned him after summoning a "senate;" see jerome, ep. 33 (döllinger, hippolytus and calixtus, p. 259 f.). further, it is an important fact that a deputation of alexandrian christians, who did not agree with the christology of their bishop dionysius, repaired to rome to the _roman_ bishop dionysius and formally accused the first named prelate. it is also significant that dionysius received this complaint and brought the matter up at a roman synod. no objection was taken to this proceeding (athanas., de synod.). this information is very instructive, for it proves that the roman church was ever regarded as specially charged with watching over the observance of the conditions of the general ecclesiastical federation, the [greek: koinê henôsis]. as to the fact that in circular letters, not excepting eastern ones, the roman church was put at the head of the address, see euseb., h. e. vii. 30. how frequently foreign bishops came to rome is shown by the 19th canon of arles (a.d. 314): "de episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant." the first canon is also important in deciding the special position of rome.] [footnote 337: peculiar circumstances, which unfortunately we cannot quite explain, are connected with the cases discussed by cyprian in epp. 67 and 68. the roman bishop must have had the acknowledged power of dealing with the bishop of arles, whereas the gallic prelates had not this right. sohm, p. 391 ff., assumes that the roman bishop alone--not cyprian or the bishops of gaul--had authority to exclude the bishop of arles from the general fellowship of the church, but that, as far as the gallic churches were concerned, such an excommunication possessed no legal effect, but only a moral one, because in their case the bishop of rome had only a spiritual authority and no legal power. further, two spanish bishops publicly appealed to the roman see against their deposition, and cyprian regarded this appeal as in itself correct. finally, cornelius says of himself in a letter (in euseb., h. e. vi. 43. 10): [greek: tôn loipôn episkopôn diadochous eis tous topous, en hois êsan, cheirotonêsantes apestalkamen]. this quotation refers to italy, and the passage, which must be read connectedly, makes it plain (see, besides, the quotation in reference to calixtus given above on p. 162), that, before the middle of the 3rd century, the roman church already possessed a legal right of excommunication and the recognised power of making ecclesiastical appointments as far as the communities and bishops in italy were concerned (see sohm, p. 389 ff.).] [footnote 338: euseb., h. e. vii. 30. 19. the church of antioch sought to enter upon an independent line of development under paul of samosata. paul's fall was the victory of rome. we may suppose it to be highly probable, though to the best of my belief there is for the present no sure proof, that it was not till then that the roman standards and sacraments, catholic and apostolic collection of scriptures (see, on the contrary, the use of scripture in the didaskalia), apostolic rule of faith, and apostolic episcopacy attained supremacy in antioch; but that they began to be introduced into that city about the time of serapion's bishopric (that is, during the easter controversy). the old records of the church of edessa have an important bearing on this point; and from these it is evident that her constitution did not begin to assume a catholic form till the beginning of the 3rd century, and that as the result of connection with rome. see _the doctrine of addai_ by phillips, p. 50: "palut himself went to antioch and received the hand of the priesthood from serapion, bishop of antioch. serapion, bishop of antioch, himself also received the hand from zephyrinus, bishop of the city of rome, from the succession of the hand of the priesthood of simon cephas, which he received from our lord, who was there bishop of rome 25 years, (sic) in the days of the cæsar, who reigned there 13 years." (see also tixeront, _edesse_, pp. 149, 152.) cf. with this the prominence given in the acts of scharbil and barsamya to the fact that they were contemporaries of fabian, bishop of rome. we read there (see rubens duval, les actes de scharbil et les actes de barsamya, paris, 1889, and histoire d'eclesse, p. 130): "barsamya (he was bishop of edessa at the time of decius) lived at the time of fabian, bishop of rome. he had received the laying on of hands from abschelama, who had received it from palut. palut had been consecrated by serapion, bishop of antioch, and the latter had been consecrated by zephyrinus, bishop of rome." as regards the relation of the state of rome to the roman church, that is, to the roman bishop, who by the year 250 had already become a sort of _præfectus urbis_, with his district superintendents, the deacons, and in fact a sort of _princeps æmulus_, cf. (1) the recorded comments of alexander severus on the christians, and especially those on their organisation; (2) the edict of maximinus thrax and the banishment of the bishops pontian and hippolytus; (3) the attitude of philip the arabian; (4) the remarks of decius in cyp. ep. 55 (see above p. 124) and his proceedings against the roman bishops, and (5) the attitude of aurelian in antioch. on the extent and organisation of the roman church about 250 see euseb., h. e. vi. 43.] [footnote 339: the memorable words in the lately discovered appeal by eusebius of dorylæum to leo i. (neues archiv., vol. xi., part 2, p. 364 f.) are no mere flattery, and the fifth century is not the first to which they are applicable: "curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam servatis erga dominum nostrum iesum christum fidem, nec non etiam indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine christi vocatis tribuitis caritatem, etc." see also theodoret's letters addressed to rome.] ii. fixing and gradual hellenising of christianity as a system of doctrine chapter iv. ecclesiastical christianity and philosophy. the apologists. 1. _introduction._[340] the object of the christian apologists, some of whom filled ecclesiastical offices and in various ways promoted spiritual progress,[341] was, as they themselves explained, to uphold the christianity professed by the christian churches and publicly preached. they were convinced that the christian faith was founded on revelation and that only a mind enlightened by god could grasp and maintain the faith. they acknowledged the old testament to be the authoritative source of god's revelation, maintained that the whole human race was meant to be reached by christianity, and adhered to the early christian eschatology. these views as well as the strong emphasis they laid upon human freedom and responsibility, enabled them to attain a firm standpoint in opposition to "gnosticism," and to preserve their position within the christian communities, whose moral purity and strength they regarded as a strong proof of the truth of this faith. in the endeavours of the apologists to explain christianity to the cultured world, we have before us the attempts of greek churchmen to represent the christian religion as a philosophy, and to convince outsiders that it was the highest wisdom and the absolute truth. these efforts were not rejected by the churches like those of the so-called gnostics, but rather became in subsequent times the foundation of the ecclesiastical dogmatic. the gnostic speculations were repudiated, whereas those of the apologists were accepted. the manner in which the latter set forth christianity as a philosophy met with approval. what were the conditions under which ecclesiastical christianity and greek philosophy concluded the alliance which has found a place in the history of the world? how did this union attain acceptance and permanence, whilst "gnosticism" was at first rejected? these are the two great questions the correct answers to which are of fundamental importance for the understanding of the history of christian dogma. the answers to these questions appear paradoxical. the theses of the apologists finally overcame all scruples in ecclesiastical circles and were accepted by the græco-roman world, because they made christianity _rational_ without taking from, or adding to, its traditional historic material. the secret of the epoch-making success of the apologetic theology is thus explained: these christian philosophers formulated the content of the gospel in a manner which appealed to the common sense of all the serious thinkers and intelligent men of the age. moreover, they contrived to use the positive material of tradition, including the life and worship of christ, in such a way as to furnish this reasonable religion with a confirmation and proof that had hitherto been eagerly sought, but sought in vain. in the theology of the apologists, christianity, as the religious enlightenment directly emanating from god himself, is most sharply contrasted with all polytheism, natural religion, and ceremonial. they proclaimed it in the most emphatic manner as the religion of the spirit, of freedom, and of absolute morality. almost the whole positive material of christianity is embodied in the story which relates its entrance into the world, its spread, and the proof of its truth. the religion itself, on the other hand, appears as the truth that is surely attested and accords with reason--a truth the content of which is not primarily dependent on historical facts and finally overthrows all polytheism. now this was the very thing required. in the second century of our era a great many needs and aspirations were undoubtedly making themselves felt in the sphere of religion and morals. "gnosticism" and marcionite christianity prove the variety and depth of the needs then asserting themselves within the space that the ecclesiastical historian is able to survey. mightier than all others, however, was the longing men felt to free themselves from the burden of the past, to cast away the rubbish of cults and of unmeaning religious ceremonies, and to be assured that the results of religious philosophy, those great and simple doctrines of virtue and immortality and of the god who is a spirit, were certain truths. he who brought the message that these ideas were realities, and who, on the strength of these realities, declared polytheism and the worship of idols to be obsolete, had the mightiest forces on his side; for the times were now ripe for this preaching. what formed the strength of the apologetic philosophy was the proclamation that christianity both contained the highest truth, as men already supposed it to be and as they had discovered it in their own minds, and the absolutely reliable guarantee that was desired for this truth. to the quality which makes it appear meagre to us it owed its impressiveness. the fact of its falling in with the general spiritual current of the time and making no attempt to satisfy special and deeper needs enabled it to plead the cause of spiritual monotheism and to oppose the worship of idols in the manner most easily understood. as it did not require historic and positive material to describe the nature of religion and morality, this philosophy enabled the apologists to demonstrate the worthlessness of the traditional religion and worship of the different nations.[342] the same cause, however, made them take up the conservative position with regard to the historical traditions of christianity. these were not ultimately tested as to their content, for this was taken for granted, no matter how they might be worded; but they were used to give an assurance of the truth, and to prove that the religion of the spirit was not founded on human opinion, but on divine revelation. the only really important consideration in christianity is that it is _revelation, real revelation_. the apologists had no doubt as to what it reveals, and therefore any investigation was unnecessary. the result of greek philosophy, the philosophy of plato and zeno, as it had further developed in the empires of alexander the great and the romans, was to attain victory and permanence by the aid of christianity. thus we view the progress of this development to-day,[343] and christianity really proved to be the force from which that religious philosophy, viewed as a theory of the world and system of morality, first received the courage to free itself from the polytheistic past and descend from the circles of the learned to the common people. this constitutes the deepest distinction between christian philosophers like justin and those of the type of valentinus. the latter sought for a _religion_; the former, though indeed they were not very clear about their own purpose, sought _assurance_ as to a theistic and moral conception of the world which they already possessed. at first the complexus of christian tradition, which must have possessed many features of attraction for them, was something foreign to both. the latter, however, sought to make this tradition intelligible. for the former it was enough that they had here a revelation before them; that this revelation also bore unmistakable testimony to the one god, who was a spirit, to virtue, and to immortality; and that it was capable of convincing men and of leading them to a virtuous life. viewed superficially, the apologists were no doubt the conservatives; but they were so, because they scarcely in any respect meddled with the contents of tradition. the "gnostics," on the contrary, sought to understand what they read and to investigate the truth of the message of which they heard. the most characteristic feature is the attitude of each to the old testament. the apologists were content to have found in it an ancient source of revelation, and viewed the book as a testimony to the truth, i.e., to philosophy and virtue; the gnostics investigated this document and examined to what extent it agreed with the new impressions they had received from the gospel. we may sum up as follows: the gnostics sought to determine what christianity is as a religion, and, as they were convinced of the absoluteness of christianity, this process led them to incorporate with it all that they looked on as sublime and holy and to remove everything they recognised to be inferior. the apologists, again, strove to discover an authority for religious enlightenment and morality and to find the confirmation of a theory of the universe, which, if true, contained for them the certainty of eternal life; and this they found in the christian tradition. at bottom this contrast is a picture of the great discord existing in the religious philosophy of the age itself (see p. 129, vol. i.). no one denied the fact that all truth was divine, that is, was founded on revelation. the great question, however, was whether every man possessed this truth as a slumbering capacity that only required to be awakened; whether it was rational, i.e., merely moral truth, or must be above that which is moral, that is, of a religious nature; whether it must carry man beyond himself; and whether a real redemption was necessary. it is ultimately the dispute between morality and religion, which appears as an unsettled problem in the theses of the idealistic philosophers and in the whole spiritual conceptions then current among the educated, and which recurs in the contrast between the apologetic and the gnostic theology. and, as in the former case we meet with the most varied shades and transitions, for no one writer has developed a consistent theory, so also we find a similar state of things in the latter;[344] for no apologist quite left out of sight the idea of redemption (deliverance from the dominion of demons can only be effected by the logos, i.e., god). wherever the idea of freedom is strongly emphasised, the religious element, in the strict sense of the word, appears in jeopardy. this is the case with the apologists throughout. conversely, wherever redemption forms the central thought, need is felt of a suprarational truth, which no longer views morality as the only aim, and which, again, requires particular media, a sacred history and sacred symbols. stoic rationalism, in its logical development, is menaced wherever we meet the perception that the course of the world must in some way be helped, and wherever the contrast between reason and sensuousness, that the old stoa had confused, is clearly felt to be an unendurable state of antagonism that man cannot remove by his own unaided efforts. the need of a revelation had its starting-point in philosophy here. the judgment of oneself and of the world to which platonism led, the self-consciousness which it awakened by the detachment of man from nature, and the contrasts which it revealed led of necessity to that frame of mind which manifested itself in the craving for a revelation. the apologists felt this. but their rationalism gave a strange turn to the satisfaction of that need. it was not their christian ideas which first involved them in contradictions. at the time when christianity appeared on the scene, the platonic and stoic systems themselves were already so complicated that philosophers did not find their difficulties seriously increased by a consideration of the christian doctrines. as _apologists_, however, they decidedly took the part of christianity because, according to them, it was the doctrine of reason and freedom. the gospel was hellenised in the second century in so far as the gnostics in various ways transformed it into a hellenic religion for the educated. the apologists used it--we may almost say inadvertently--to overthrow polytheism by maintaining that christianity was the realisation of an absolutely moral theism. the christian religion was not the first to experience this twofold destiny on græco-roman soil. a glance at the history of the jewish religion shows us a parallel development; in fact, both the speculations of the gnostics and the theories of the apologists were foreshadowed in the theology of the jewish alexandrians, and particularly in that of philo. here also the gospel merely entered upon the heritage of judaism.[345] three centuries before the appearance of christian apologists, jews, who had received a hellenic training, had already set forth the religion of jehovah to the greeks in that remarkably summary and spiritualised form which represents it as the absolute and highest philosophy, i.e., the knowledge of god, of virtue, and of recompense in the next world. here these jewish philosophers had already transformed all the positive and historic elements of the national religion into parts of a huge system for proving the truth of that theism. the christian apologists adopted this method, for they can hardly be said to have invented it anew.[346] we see from the jewish sibylline oracles how wide-spread it was. philo, however, was not only a stoic rationalist, but a hyper-platonic religious philosopher. in like manner, the christian apologists did not altogether lack this element, though in some isolated cases among them there are hardly any traces of it. this feature is most fully represented among the gnostics. this transformation of religion into a philosophic system would not have been possible had not greek philosophy itself happened to be in process of development into a religion. such a transformation was certainly very foreign to the really classical time of greece and rome. the pious belief in the efficacy and power of the gods and in their appearances and manifestations, as well as the traditional worship, could have no bond of union with speculations concerning the essence and ultimate cause of things. the idea of a religious dogma which was at once to furnish a correct theory of the world and a principle of conduct was from this standpoint completely unintelligible. but philosophy, particularly in the stoa, set out in search of this idea, and, after further developments, sought for one special religion with which it could agree or through which it could at least attain certainty. the meagre cults of the greeks and romans were unsuited for this. so men turned their eyes towards the barbarians. nothing more clearly characterises the position of things in the second century than the agreement between two men so radically different as tatian and celsus. tatian emphatically declares that salvation comes from the barbarians, and to celsus it is also a "truism" that the barbarians have more capacity than the greeks for discovering valuable doctrines.[347] everything was in fact prepared, and nothing was wanting. about the middle of the second century, however, the moral and rationalistic element in the philosophy and spiritual culture of the time was still more powerful than the religious and mystic; for neoplatonism, which under its outward coverings concealed the aspiration after religion and the living god, was only in its first beginnings. it was not otherwise in christian circles. the "gnostics" were in the minority. what the great majority of the church felt to be intelligible and edifying above everything else was an earnest moralism.[348] new and strange as the undertaking to represent christianity as a philosophy might seem at first, the apologists, so far as they were understood, appeared to advance nothing inconsistent with christian common sense. besides, they did not question authorities, but rather supported them, and introduced no foreign positive materials. for all these reasons, and also because their writings were not at first addressed to the communities, but only to outsiders, the marvellous attempt to present christianity to the world as the religion which is the true philosophy, and as the philosophy which is the true religion, remained unopposed in the church. but in what sense was the christian religion set forth as a philosophy? an exact answer to this question is of the highest interest as regards the history of christian dogma. 2. _christianity as philosophy and as revelation_. it was a new undertaking and one of permanent importance to a tradition hitherto so little concerned for its own vindication, when quadratus and the athenian philosopher, aristides, presented treatises in defence of christianity to the emperor.[349] about a century had elapsed since the gospel of christ had begun to be preached. it may be said that the apology of aristides was a most significant opening to the second century, whilst we find origen at its close. marcianus aristides expressly designates himself in his pamphlet as a _philosopher of the athenians_. since the days when the words were written: "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit" (col. ii. 8), it had constantly been repeated (see, as evidence, celsus, passim) that christian preaching and philosophy were things entirely different, that god had chosen the fools, and that man's duty was not to investigate and seek, but to believe and hope. now a philosopher, as such, pleaded the cause of christianity. in the summary he gave of the content of christianity at the beginning of his address, he really spoke as a philosopher and represented this faith as a philosophy. by expounding pure monotheism and giving it the main place in his argument, aristides gave supreme prominence to the very doctrine which simple christians also prized as the most important.[350] moreover, in emphasing not only the supernatural character of the christian doctrine revealed by the son of the most high god, but also the continuous inspiration of believers--the new _race_ (not a new _school_)--he confessed in the most express way the peculiar nature of this philosophy as a divine truth. according to him christianity is philosophy because its content is in accordance with reason, and because it gives a satisfactory and universally intelligible answer to the questions with which all real philosophers have concerned themselves. but it is no philosophy, in fact it is really the complete opposite of this, in so far as it proceeds from revelation and is propagated by the agency of god, i.e., has a supernatural and divine origin, on which alone the truth and certainty of its doctrines finally depend. this contrast to philosophy is chiefly shown in the unphilosophical form in which christianity was first preached to the world. that is the thesis maintained by all the apologists from justin to tertullian,[351] and which jewish philosophers before them propounded and defended. this proposition may certainly be expressed in a great variety of ways. in the first place, it is important whether the first or second half is emphasised, and secondly, whether that which is "universally intelligible" is to be reckoned as philosophy at all, or is to be separated from it as that which comes by "nature." finally, the attitude to be taken up towards the greek philosophers is left an open question, so that the thesis, taking up this attitude as a starting-point, may again assume various forms. but was the contradiction which it contains not felt? the content of revelation is to be rational; but does that which is rational require a revelation? how the proposition was understood by the different apologists requires examination. _aristides._ he first gives an exposition of monotheism and the monotheistic cosmology (god as creator and mover of the universe, as the spiritual, perfect, almighty being, whom all things need, and who requires nothing). in the second chapter he distinguishes, according to the greek text, three, and, according to the syriac, four classes of men (in the greek text polytheists, jews, christians, the polytheists being divided into chaldeans, greeks, and egyptians; in the syriac barbarians, greeks, jews, christians), and gives their origin. he derives the christians from jesus christ and reproduces the christian _kerygma_ (son of the most high god, birth from the virgin, 12 disciples, death on the cross, burial, resurrection, ascension, missionary labours of the 12 disciples). after this, beginning with the third chapter, follows a criticism of polytheism, that is, the false theology of the barbarians, greeks, and egyptians (down to chapter 12). in the 13th chapter the greek authors and philosophers are criticised, and the greek myths, as such, are shown to be false. in the 14th chapter the jews are introduced (they are monotheists and their ethical system is praised; but they are then reproached with worshipping of angels and a false ceremonial). in the 15th chapter follows a description of the christians, _i.e._, above all, of their pure, holy life. it is they who have found the truth, because they know the creator of heaven and earth. this description is continued in chapters 16 and 17: "this people is new and there is a divine admixture in it." the christian writings are recommended to the emperor. _justin._[352] in his treatise addressed to the emperor justin did not call himself a philosopher as aristides had done. in espousing the cause of the hated and despised christians he represented himself as a simple member of that sect. but in the very first sentence of his apology he takes up the ground of piety and philosophy, the very ground taken up by the pious and philosophical emperors themselves, according to the judgment of the time and their own intention. in addressing them he appeals to the [greek: logos sôphrôn] in a purely stoic fashion. he opposes the truth--also in the stoic manner--to the [greek: doxais palaiôn].[353] it was not to be a mere _captatio benevolentiæ_. in that case justin would not have added: "that ye are pious and wise and guardians of righteousness and friends of culture, ye hear everywhere. whether ye are so, however, will be shown."[354] his whole exordium is calculated to prove to the emperors that they are in danger of repeating a hundredfold the crime which the judges of socrates had committed.[355] like a second socrates justin speaks to the emperors in the name of all christians. they are to hear the convictions of the wisest of the greeks from the mouth of the christians. justin wishes to enlighten the emperor with regard to the life and doctrines ([greek: bios kai mathêmata]) of the latter. nothing is to be concealed, for there is nothing to conceal. justin kept this promise better than any of his successors. for that very reason also he did not depict the christian churches as schools of philosophers (cc. 61-67). moreover, in the first passage where he speaks of greek philosophers,[356] he is merely drawing a parallel. according to him there are bad christians and seeming christians, just as there are philosophers who are only so in name and outward show. such men, too, were in early times called "philosophers" even when they preached atheism. to all appearance, therefore, justin does _not_ desire christians to be reckoned as philosophers. but it is nevertheless significant that, in the case of the christians, a phenomenon is being repeated which otherwise is only observed in the case of philosophers; and how were those whom he was addressing to understand him? in the same passage he speaks for the first time of christ. he introduces him with the plain and intelligible formula: [greek: ho didaskalos christos] ("the teacher christ").[357] immediately thereafter he praises socrates because he had exposed the worthlessness and deceit of the evil demons, and traces his death to the same causes which are now he says bringing about the condemnation of the christians. now he can make his final assertion. in virtue of "reason" socrates exposed superstition; in virtue of the same reason, this was done by the teacher whom the christians follow. _but this teacher was reason itself; it was visible in him, and indeed it appeared bodily in him._[358] is this philosophy or is it myth? the greatest paradox the apologist has to assert is connected by him with the most impressive remembrance possessed by his readers as philosophers. in the same sentence where he represents christ as the socrates of the barbarians,[359] and consequently makes christianity out to be a socratic doctrine, he propounds the unheard of theory _that the teacher christ is the incarnate reason of god_. justin nowhere tried to soften the effect of this conviction or explain it in a way adapted to his readers. nor did he conceal from them that his assertion admits of no speculative demonstration. that philosophy can only deal with things which ever are, because they ever were, since this world began, is a fact about which he himself is perfectly clear. no stoic could have felt more strongly than justin how paradoxical is the assertion that a thing is of value which has happened only once. certain as he is that the "reasonable" emperors will regard it as a rational assumption that "reason" is the son of god,[360] he knows equally well that no philosophy will bear him out in that other assertion, and that such a statement is seemingly akin to the contemptible myths of the evil demons. but there is certainly a proof which, if not speculative, is nevertheless sure. the same ancient documents, which contain the socratic and super-socratic wisdom of the christians, bear witness through prophecies, which, just because they are predictions, admit of no doubt, that the teacher christ is the incarnate reason; for history confirms the word of prophecy even in the minutest details. moreover, in so far as these writings are in the lawful possession of the christians, and announced at the very beginning of things that this community would appear on the earth, they testify that the christians may in a certain fashion date themselves back to the beginning of the world, because their doctrine is as old as the earth itself (this thought is still wanting in aristides). the new socrates who appeared among the barbarians is therefore quite different from the socrates of the greeks, and for that reason also his followers are not to be compared with the disciples of the philosophers.[361] from the very beginning of things a world-historical dispensation of god announced this reasonable doctrine through prophets, and prepared the visible appearance of reason itself. the same reason which created and arranged the world took human form in order to draw the whole of humanity to itself. every precaution has been taken to make it easy for any one, be he greek or barbarian, educated or uneducated, to grasp all the doctrines of this reason, to verify their truth, and test their power in life. what further importance can philosophy have side by side with this, how can one think of calling this a philosophy? and yet the doctrine of the christians can only be compared with philosophy. for, so far as the latter is genuine, it is also guided by the logos; and, conversely, what the christians teach concerning the father of the world, the destiny of man, the nobility of his nature, freedom and virtue, justice and recompense, has also been attested by the wisest of the greeks. they indeed only stammered, whereas the christians speak. these, however, use no unintelligible and unheard-of language, but speak with the words and through the power of reason. the wonderful arrangement, carried out by the logos himself, through which he ennobled the human race by restoring its consciousness of its own nobility, compels no one henceforth to regard the reasonable as the unreasonable or wisdom as folly. but is the christian wisdom not of divine origin? how can it in that case be natural, and what connection can exist between it and the wisdom of the greeks? justin bestowed the closest attention on this question, but he never for a moment doubted what the answer must be. wherever the reasonable has revealed itself, it has always been through the operation of the _divine_ reason. for man's lofty endowment consists in his having had a portion of the divine reason implanted within him, and in his consequent capacity of attaining a knowledge of divine things, though not a perfect and clear one, by dint of persistent efforts after truth and virtue. when man remembers his real nature and destination, that is, when he comes to himself, the divine reason is already revealing itself in him and through him. as man's possession conferred on him at the creation, it is at once his most peculiar property, and the power which dominates and determines his nature.[362] all that is reasonable is based on revelation. in order to accomplish his true destiny man requires from the beginning the inward working of that divine reason which has created the world for the sake of man, and therefore wishes to raise man beyond the world to god.[363] apparently no one could speak in a more stoical fashion. but this train of thought is supplemented by something which limits it. revelation does retain its peculiar and unique significance. for no one who merely possessed the "seed of the logos" ([greek: sperma tou logou]), though it may have been his exclusive guide to knowledge and conduct, was ever able to grasp the whole truth and impart it in a convincing manner. though socrates and heraclitus may in a way be called christians, they cannot be so designated in any real sense. reason is clogged with unreasonableness, and the certainty of truth is doubtful wherever the whole logos has not been acting; for man's natural endowment with reason is too weak to oppose the powers of evil and of sense that work in the world, namely, the demons. we must therefore believe in the prophets in whom the whole logos spoke. he who does that must also of necessity believe in christ; for the prophets clearly pointed to him as the perfect embodiment of the logos. measured by the fulness, clearness, and certainty of the knowledge imparted by the logos christ, all knowledge independent of him appears as merely human wisdom, even when it emanates from the seed of the logos. the stoic argument is consequently untenable. men blind and kept in bondage by the demons require to be aided by a special revelation. it is true that this revelation is nothing new, and in so far as it has always existed, and never varied in character, from the beginning of the world, it is in this sense nothing extraordinary. _it is the divine help granted to man, who has fallen under the power of the demons, and enabling him to follow his reason and freedom to do what is good. by the appearance of christ this help became accessible to all men._ the dominion of demons and revelation are the two correlated ideas. if the former did not exist, the latter would not be necessary. according as we form a lower or higher estimate of the pernicious results of that sovereignty, the value of revelation rises or sinks. this revelation cannot do less than give the necessary assurance of the truth, and it cannot do more than impart the power that develops and matures the inalienable natural endowment of man and frees him from the dominion of the demons. accordingly the teaching of the prophets and christ is related even to the very highest human philosophy as the whole is to the part,[364] or as the certain is to the uncertain; and hence also as the permanent is to the transient. for the final stage has now arrived and christianity is destined to put an end to natural human philosophy. when the perfect work is there, the fragmentary must cease. justin gave the clearest expression to this conviction. christianity, i.e., the prophetic teaching attested by christ and accessible to all, puts an end to the human systems of philosophy that from their close affinity to it may be called christian, inasmuch as it effects all and more than all that these systems have done, and inasmuch as the speculations of the philosophers, which are uncertain and mingled with error, are transformed by it into dogmas of indubitable certainty.[365] the practical conclusion drawn in justin's treatise from this exposition is that the christians are at least entitled to ask the authorities to treat them as philosophers (apol. i. 7, 20: ii. 15). this demand, he says, is the more justifiable because the freedom of philosophers is enjoyed even by such people as merely bear the name, whereas in reality they set forth immoral and pernicious doctrines.[366] in the dialogue with the jew trypho, which is likewise meant for heathen readers, justin ceased to employ the idea of the existence of a "seed of the logos implanted by nature" ([greek: sperma logou emphuton]) in every man. from this fact we recognise that he did not consider the notion of fundamental importance. he indeed calls the christian religion a philosophy;[367] but, in so far as this is the case, it is "the only sure and saving philosophy." no doubt the so-called philosophies put the right questions, but they are incapable of giving correct answers. for the deity, who embraces all true being, and a knowledge of whom alone makes salvation possible, is only known in proportion as he reveals himself. true wisdom is therefore exclusively based on revelation. hence it is opposed to every human philosophy, because revelation was only given in the prophets and in christ.[368] the christian is _the_ philosopher,[369] because the followers of plato and the stoics are virtually no philosophers. in applying the title "philosophy" to christianity he therefore does not mean to bring christians and philosophers more closely together. no doubt, however, he asserts that the christian doctrine, which is founded on the knowledge of christ and leads to blessedness,[370] is in accordance with reason. _athenagoras._ the petition on behalf of christians, which athenagoras, "the christian philosopher of athens," presented, to the emperors marcus aurelius and commodus, nowhere expressly designates christianity as a philosophy, and still less does it style the christians philosophers.[371] but, at the very beginning of his writing athenagoras also claims for the christian doctrines the toleration granted by the state to all philosophic tenets.[372] in support of his claim he argues that the state punishes nothing but practical atheism,[373] and that the "atheism" of the christians is a doctrine about god such as had been propounded by the most distinguished philosophers--pythagoreans, platonists, peripatetics, and stoics--who, moreover, were permitted to write whatsoever they pleased on the subject of the "deity."[374] the apologist concedes even more: "if philosophers did not also acknowledge the existence of one god, if they did not also conceive the gods in question to be partly demons, partly matter, partly of human birth, then certainly we would be justly expelled as aliens."[375] he therefore takes up the standpoint that the state is justified in refusing to tolerate people with completely new doctrines. when we add that he everywhere assumes that the wisdom and piety of the emperors are sufficient to test and approve[376] the truth of the christian teaching, that he merely represents this faith itself as the _reasonable_ doctrine,[377] and that, with the exception of the resurrection of the body, he leaves all the positive and objectionable tenets of christianity out of account,[378] there is ground for thinking that this apologist differs essentially from justin in his conception of the relation of christianity to secular philosophy. moreover, it is not to be denied that athenagoras views the revelation in the prophets and in christ as completely identical. but in one very essential point he agrees with justin; and he has even expressed himself still more plainly than the latter, inasmuch as he does not introduce the assumption of a "seed of the logos implanted by nature" [greek: sperma logou emphuton]. the philosophers, he says, were incapable of knowing the full truth, since it was not from god, but rather from themselves, that they wished to learn about god. true wisdom, however, can only be learned from god, that is, from his prophets; it depends solely on revelation.[379] here also then we have a repetition of the thought that the truly reasonable is of supernatural origin. such is the importance attached by athenagoras to this proposition, that he declares any demonstration of the "reasonable" to be insufficient, no matter how luminous it may appear. even that which is most evidently true--e.g., monotheism--is not raised from the domain of mere human opinion into the sphere of undoubted certainty till it can be confirmed by revelation.[380] this can be done by christians alone. hence they are very different from the philosophers, just as they are also distinguished from these by their manner of life.[381] all the praises which athenagoras from time to time bestows on philosophers, particularly plato,[382] are consequently to be understood in a merely relative sense. their ultimate object is only to establish the claim made by the apologist with regard to the treatment of christians by the state; but they are not really meant to bring the former into closer relationship to philosophers. athenagoras also holds the theory that christians are philosophers, in so far as the "philosophers" are not such in any true sense. it is only the problems they set that connect the two. he exhibits less clearness than justin in tracing the necessity of revelation to the fact that the demon sovereignty, which, above all, reveals itself in polytheism,[383] can only be overthrown by revelation; he rather emphasises the other thought (cc. 7, 9) that the necessary attestation of the truth can only be given in this way.[384] _tatian's_[385] chief aim was not to bring about a juster treatment of the christians.[386] he wished to represent their cause as the good contrasted with the bad, wisdom as opposed to error, truth in contradistinction to outward seeming, hypocrisy, and pretentious emptiness. his "address to the greeks" begins with a violent polemic against all greek philosophers. tatian merely acted up to a judgment of philosophers and philosophy which in justin's case is still concealed.[387] hence it was not possible for him to think of demonstrating analogies between christians and philosophers. he also no doubt views christianity as "reasonable;" he who lives virtuously and follows wisdom receives it;[388] but yet it is too sublime to be grasped by earthly perception.[389] it is a heavenly thing which depends on the communication of the "spirit," and hence can only be known by revelation.[390] but yet it is a "philosophy" with definite doctrines ([greek: dogmata]);[391] it brings nothing new, but only such blessings as we have already received, but could not retain[392] owing to the power of error, i.e., the dominion of the demons.[393] christianity is therefore the philosophy in which, by virtue of the logos revelation through the prophets,[394] the rational knowledge that leads to life[395] is restored. this knowledge was no less obscured among the greek philosophers than among the greeks generally. in so far as revelation took place among the barbarians from the remotest antiquity, christianity may also be called the barbarian philosophy.[396] its truth is proved by its ancient date[397] as well as by its intelligible form, which enables even the most uneducated person that is initiated in it[398] to understand it perfectly.[399] finally, tatian also states (c. 40) that the greek sophists have read the writings of moses and the prophets, and reproduced them in a distorted form. he therefore maintains the very opposite of what celsus took upon him to demonstrate when venturing to derive certain sayings and doctrines of christ and the christians from the philosophers. both credit the plagiarists with intentional misrepresentation or gross misunderstanding. justin judged more charitably. to tatian, on the contrary, the mythology of the greeks did not appear worse than their philosophy; in both cases he saw imitations and intentional corruption of the truth.[400] _theophilus_ agrees with tatian, in so far as he everywhere appears to contrast christianity with philosophy. the religious and moral culture of the greeks is derived from their poets (historians) and philosophers (ad autol. ii. 3 fin. and elsewhere). however, not only do poets and philosophers contradict each other (ii. 5); but the latter also do not agree (ii. 4. 8: iii. 7), nay, many contradict themselves (iii. 3). not a single one of the so-called philosophers, however, is to be taken seriously;[401] they have devised myths and follies (ii. 8); everything they have set forth is useless and godless (iii. 2); vain and worthless fame was their aim (iii. 3). but god knew beforehand the "drivellings of these hollow philosophers" and made his preparations (ii. 15). he of old proclaimed the truth by the mouth of prophets, and these deposited it in holy writings. this truth refers to the knowledge of god, the origin and history of the world, as well as to a virtuous life. the prophetic testimony in regard to it was continued in the gospel.[402] revelation, however, is necessary because this wisdom of the philosophers and poets is really demon wisdom, for they were inspired by devils.[403] thus the most extreme contrasts appear to exist here. still, theophilus is constrained to confess that truth was not only announced by the sibyl, to whom his remarks do not apply, for she is (ii. 36): [greek: en ellêsin kai en tois loipois ethnetin genomenê prophêtis], but that poets and philosophers, "though against their will," also gave clear utterances regarding the justice, the judgment, and the punishments of god, as well as regarding his providence in respect to the living and the dead, or, in other words, about the most important points (ii. 37, 38, 8 fin.). theophilus gives a double explanation of this fact. on the one hand he ascribes it to the imitation of holy writings (ii. 12, 37: i. 14), and on the other he admits that those writers, when the demons abandoned them ([greek: tê psychê eknêpsantes ex autôn]), of themselves displayed a knowledge of the divine sovereignty, the judgment etc., which agrees with the teachings of the prophets (ii. 8). this admission need not cause astonishment; for the freedom and control of his own destiny with which man is endowed (ii. 27) must infallibly lead him to correct knowledge and obedience to god, as soon as he is no longer under the sway of the demons. theophilus did not apply the title of philosophy to christian truth, this title being in his view discredited; but christianity is to him the "wisdom of god," which by luminous proofs convinces the men who reflect on their own nature.[404] _tertullian and minucius felix._[405] whilst, in the case of the greek apologists, the acknowledgment of revelation appears conditioned by philosophical scepticism on the one hand, and by the strong impression of the dominion of the demons on the other, the sceptical element is not only wanting in the latin apologists, but the christian truth is even placed in direct opposition to the sceptical philosophy and on the side of philosophical dogmatism, i.e., stoicism.[406] nevertheless the observations of tertullian and minucius felix with regard to the essence of christianity, viewed as philosophy and as revelation, are at bottom completely identical with the conception of the greek apologists, although it is undeniable that in the former case the revealed character of christianity is placed in the background.[407] the recognition of this fact is exceedingly instructive, for it proves that the conception of christianity set forth by the apologists was not an individual one, but the necessary expression of the conviction that christian truth contains the completion and guarantee of philosophical knowledge. to minucius felix (and tertullian) christian truth chiefly presents itself as the wisdom implanted by nature in every man (oct. 16. 5). in so far as man possesses reason and speech and accomplishes the task of the "examination of the universe" ("inquisitio universitatis"), conditioned by this gift, he has the christian truth, that is, he finds christianity in his own constitution, and in the rational order of the world. accordingly, minucius is also able to demonstrate the christian doctrines by means of the stoic principle of knowledge, and arrives at the conclusion that christianity is a philosophy, i.e., the true philosophy, and that philosophers are to be considered christians in proportion as they have discovered the truth.[408] moreover, as he represented christian ethics to be the expression of the stoic, and depicted the christian bond of brotherhood as a cosmopolitan union of philosophers, who have become conscious of their natural similarity,[409] the revealed character of christianity appears to be entirely given up. this religion is natural enlightenment, the revelation of a truth contained in the world and in man, the discovery of the one god from the open book of creation. the difference between him and an apologist like tatian seems here to be a radical one. but, if we look more closely, we find that minucius--and not less tertullian--has abandoned stoic rationalism in vital points. we may regard his apologetic aim as his excuse for clearly drawing the logical conclusions from these inconsistencies himself. however, these deviations of his from the doctrines of the stoa are not merely prompted by christianity, but rather have already become an essential component of his philosophical theory of the world. in the first place, minucius developed a detailed theory of the pernicious activity of the demons (cc. 26, 27). this was a confession that human nature was not what it ought to be, because an evil element had penetrated it from without. secondly, he no doubt acknowledged (i. 4: 16. 5) the natural light of wisdom in humanity, but nevertheless remarked (32. 9) that our thoughts are darkness when measured by the clearness of god. finally, and this is the most essential point, after appealing to various philosophers when expounding his doctrine of the final conflagration of the world, he suddenly repudiated this tribunal, declaring that the christians follow the prophets, and that philosophers "have formed this shadowy picture of distorted truth in imitation of the divine predictions of the prophets." (34) here we have now a union of all the elements already found in the greek apologists; only they are, as it were, hid in the case of minucius. but the final proof that he agreed with them in the main is found in the exceedingly contemptuous judgment which he in conclusion passed on all philosophers and indeed on philosophy generally.[410] (34. 5: 38. 5) this judgment is not to be explained, as in tertullian's case, by the fact that his stoic opinions led him to oppose natural perception to all philosophical theory--for this, at most, cannot have been more than a secondary contributing cause,[411] but by the fact that he is conscious of following _revealed_ wisdom.[412] revelation is necessary because mankind must be aided from without, i.e., by god. in this idea man's need of redemption is acknowledged, though not to the same extent as by seneca and epictetus. but no sooner does minucius perceive the teachings of the prophets to be divine truth than man's natural endowment and the speculation of philosophers sink for him into darkness. christianity is the wisdom which philosophers sought, but were not able to find.[413] we may sum up the doctrines of the apologists as follows: (1) christianity is revelation, i.e., it is the divine wisdom, proclaimed of old by the prophets and, by reason of its origin, possessing an absolute certainty which can also be recognised in the fulfilment of their predictions. as divine wisdom christianity is contrasted with, and puts an end to, all natural and philosophical knowledge. (2) christianity is the enlightenment corresponding to the natural but impaired knowledge of man.[414] it embraces all the elements of truth in philosophy, whence it is _the_ philosophy; and helps man to realise the knowledge with which he is naturally endowed. (3) revelation of the rational was and is necessary, because man has fallen under the sway of the demons. (4) the efforts of philosophers to ascertain the right knowledge were in vain; and this is, above all, shown by the fact that they neither overthrew polytheism nor brought about a really moral life. moreover, so far as they discovered the truth, they owed it to the prophets from whom they borrowed it; at least it is uncertain whether they even attained a knowledge of fragments of the truth by their own independent efforts.[415] but it is certain that many seeming truths in the writings of the philosophers were imitations of the truth by evil demons. this is the origin of all polytheism, which is, moreover, to some extent an imitation of christian institutions. (5) the confession of christ is simply included in the acknowledgment of the wisdom of the prophets; the doctrine of the truth did not receive a new content through christ; he only made it accessible to the world and strengthened it (victory over the demons; special features acknowledged by justin and tertullian). (6) the practical test of christianity is first contained in the fact that all persons are able to grasp it, for women and uneducated men here become veritable sages; secondly in the fact that it has the power of producing a holy life, and of overthrowing the tyranny of the demons. in the apologists, therefore, christianity served itself heir to antiquity, i.e., to the result of the monotheistic knowledge and ethics of the greeks: "[greek: osa oun para pasikalôs eirêtai, hêmôn tôn christianôn esti]" (justin, apol. ii. 13). it traced its origin back to the beginning of the world. everything true and good which elevates mankind springs from divine revelation, and is at the same time genuinely human, because it is a clear expression of what man finds within him and of his destination (justin, apol. i. 46: [greek: hoi meta logou biôsantes christianoi eisi, kan atheoi enomisthêsan, oion en hellêsi men sôkratês kai êrakleitos kai oi omoioi autois, en barbarois de abraam k.t.l.], "those that have lived with reason are christians, even though they were accounted atheists, such as socrates and heraclitus and those similar to them among the greeks, and abraham etc. among the barbarians"). but everything true and good is christian, for christianity is nothing else than the teaching of revelation. no second formula can be imagined in which the claim of christianity to be the religion of the world is so powerfully expressed (hence also the endeavour of the apologists to reconcile christianity and the empire), nor, on the other hand, can we conceive of one where the specific content of traditional christianity is so thoroughly neutralised as it is here. but the really epoch-making feature is the fact that the intellectual culture of mankind now appears reconciled and united with religion. the "dogmas" are the expression of this. finally, these fundamental presuppositions also result in a quite definite idea of the essence of revelation and of the content of reason. the essence of revelation consists in its form: it is divine communication through a miraculous inward working. all the media of revelation are passive organs of the holy spirit (athenag. supplic. 7; pseudo-justin, cohort. 8; justin, dialogue 115. 7; apol. i. 31, 33, 36; etc.; see also hippolytus, de christo et antichr. 2). these were not necessarily at all times in a state of ecstasy, when they received the revelations; but they were no doubt in a condition of absolute receptivity. the apologists had no other idea of revelation. what they therefore viewed as the really decisive proof of the reality of revelation is the prediction of the future, for the human mind does not possess this power. it was only in connection with this proof that the apologists considered it important to show what moses, david, isaiah, etc., had proclaimed in the old testament, that is, these names have only a _chronological_ significance. this also explains their interest in a history of the world, in so far as this interest originated in the effort to trace the chain of prophets up to the beginning of history, and to prove the higher antiquity of revealed truth as compared with all human knowledge and errors, particularly as found among the greeks (clear traces in justin,[416] first detailed argument in tatian).[417] if, however, strictly speaking, it is only the form and not the content of revelation that is supernatural in so far as this content coincides with that of reason, it is evident that the apologists simply took the content of the latter for granted and stated it dogmatically. so, whether they expressed themselves in strictly stoic fashion or not, they all essentially agree in the assumption that true religion and morality are the natural content of reason. even tatian forms no exception, though he himself protests against the idea. 3. _the doctrines of christianity as the revealed and rational religion._ the apologists frequently spoke of the doctrines or "dogmas" of christianity; and the whole content of this religion as philosophy is included in these dogmas.[418] according to what we have already set forth there can be no doubt about the character of christian dogmas. _they are the rational truths, revealed by the prophets in the holy scriptures, and summarised in christ_ ([greek: christos logos kai nomos]), _which in their unity represent the divine wisdom, and the recognition of which leads to virtue and eternal life._ the apologists considered it their chief task to set forth these doctrines, and hence they can be reproduced with all desirable clearness. the dogmatic scheme of the apologists may therefore be divided into three component parts. these are: (a) christianity viewed as monotheistic cosmology (god as the father of the world); (b) christianity as the highest morality and righteousness (god as the judge who rewards goodness and punishes wickedness); (c) christianity regarded as redemption (god as the good one who assists man and rescues him from the power of the demons).[419] whilst the first two ideas are expressed in a clear and precise manner, it is equally true that the third is not worked out in a lucid fashion. this, as will afterwards be seen, is, on the one hand, the result of the apologists' doctrine of freedom, and, on the other, of their inability to discover a specific significance for the _person_ of christ within the sphere of revelation. both facts again are ultimately to be explained from their moralism. the essential content of revealed philosophy is viewed by the apologists (see a, b) as comprised in three doctrines.[420] first, there is one spiritual and inexpressibly exalted god, who is lord and father of the world. secondly, he requires a holy life. thirdly, he will at last sit in judgment, and will reward the good with immortality and punish the wicked with death. the teaching concerning god, virtue, and eternal reward is traced to the prophets and christ; but the bringing about of a virtuous life (of righteousness) has been necessarily left by god to men themselves; for god has created man free, and virtue can only be acquired by man's own efforts. the prophets and christ are therefore a source of righteousness in so far as they are teachers. but as god, that is, the divine word (which we need not here discuss) has spoken in them, christianity is to be defined as the knowledge of god, mediated by the deity himself, and as a virtuous walk in the longing after eternal and perfect life with god, as well as in the sure hope of this imperishable reward. by knowing what is true and doing what is good man becomes righteous and a partaker of the highest bliss. this knowledge, which has the character of divine instruction,[421] rests on faith in the divine revelation. this revelation has the nature and power of redemption in so far as the fact is undoubted that without it men cannot free themselves from the tyranny of the demons, whilst believers in revelation are enabled by the spirit of god to put them to flight. accordingly, the dogmas of christian philosophy theoretically contain the monotheistic cosmology, and practically the rules for a holy life, which appears as a renunciation of the world and as a new order of society.[422] the goal is immortal life, which consists in the full knowledge and contemplation of god. the dogmas of revelation lie between the cosmology and ethics; they are indefinitely expressed so far as they contain the idea of salvation; but they are very precisely worded in so far as they guarantee the truth of the cosmology and ethics. 1. the dogmas which express the knowledge of god and the world are dominated by the fundamental idea that the world as the created, conditioned, and transient is contrasted with something self-existing, unchangeable and eternal, which is the first cause of the world. this self-existing being has none of the attributes which belong to the world; hence he is exalted above every name and has in himself no distinctions. this implies, first, the unity and uniqueness of this eternal being; secondly, his spiritual nature, for everything bodily is subject to change; and, finally, his perfection, for the self-existent and eternal requires nothing. since, however, he is the cause of all being, himself being unconditioned, he is the fulness of all being or true being itself (tatian 5: [greek: katho pasa dunamis oratôn te kai aoratôn autos hupostasis ên, sun autô ta panta]). as the living and spiritual being he reveals himself in free creations, which make known his omnipotence and wisdom, i.e., his operative reason. these creations are, moreover, a proof of the goodness of the deity, for they can be no result of necessities, in so far as god is in himself perfect. just because he is perfect, the eternal essence is also the father of all virtues, in so far as he contains no admixture of what is defective. these virtues include both the goodness which manifests itself in his creations, and the righteousness which gives to the creature what belongs to him, in accordance with the position he has received. on the basis of this train of thought the apologists lay down the dogmas of the monarchy of god ([greek: tôn holôn to monarchikon]), his supramundaneness ([greek: to arrêton, to anekphraston, to achôrêton, to akatalêpton, to aperinoêton, to asugkriton, to asymbibaston, to anekdiêgêton]; see justin, apol. ii. 6; theoph. i. 3); his unity ([greek: eis theos]); his having no beginning ([greek: anarchos, hoti agenêtos]); his eternity and unchangeableness ([greek: analloiôtos kathoti athanatos]); his perfection ([greek: teleios]); his need of nothing ([greek: aprosdeês]); his spiritual nature ([greek: pneuma ho theos]); his absolute causality ([greek: autos hyparchôn tou pantos hê hypostasis], the motionless mover, see aristides c. 1); his creative activity ([greek: ktistês tôn pantôn]); his sovereignty ([greek: despotês tôn holôn]); his fatherhood ([greek: patêr dia to einai auton pro tôn holôn]) his reason-power (god as [greek: logos, nous, pneuma, sophia]); his omnipotence ([greek: pantokratôr hoti autos ta panta kratei kai emperiechei]); his righteousness and goodness ([greek: patêr tês dikaiosunês kai pasôn tôn aretôn chrêstotês]). these dogmas are set forth by one apologist in a more detailed, and by another in a more concise form, but three points are emphasised by all. first, god is primarily to be conceived as the first cause. secondly, the principle of moral good is also the principle of the world. thirdly, the principle of the world, that is, the deity, as being the immortal and eternal, forms the contrast to the world which is the transient. in the cosmology of the apologists the two fundamental ideas are that god is the father and creator of the world, but that, as uncreated and eternal, he is also the complete contrast to it.[423] these dogmas about god were not determined by the apologists from the standpoint of the christian church which is awaiting an introduction into the kingdom of god; but were deduced from a contemplation of the world on the one hand (see particularly tatian, 4; theophilus, i. 5, 6), and of the moral nature of man on the other. but, in so far as the latter itself belongs to the sphere of created things, the cosmos is the starting-point of their speculations. this is everywhere dominated by reason and order;[424] it bears the impress of the divine logos, and that in a double sense. on the one hand it appears as the copy of a higher, eternal world, for if we imagine transient and changeable matter removed, it is a wonderful complex of spiritual forces; on the other it presents itself as the finite product of a rational will. moreover, the matter which lies at its basis is nothing bad, but an indifferent substance created by god,[425] though indeed perishable. in its constitution the world is in every respect a structure worthy of god.[426] nevertheless, according to the apologists, the direct author of the world was not god, but the personified power of reason which they perceived in the cosmos and represented as the immediate source of the universe. the motive for this dogma and the interest in it would be wrongly determined by alleging that the apologists purposely introduced the logos in order to separate god from matter, because they regarded this as something bad. this idea of philo's cannot at least have been adopted by them as the result of conscious reflection, for it does not agree with their conception of matter; nor is it compatible with their idea of god and their belief in providence, which is everywhere firmly maintained. still less indeed can it be shown that they were all impelled to this dogma from their view of jesus christ, since in this connection, with the exception of justin and tertullian, they manifested no specific interest in the incarnation of the logos in jesus. the adoption of the dogma of the logos is rather to be explained thus: (1) the idea of god, derived by abstraction from the cosmos, did indeed, like that of the idealistic philosophy, involve the element of unity and spirituality, which implied a sort of personality; but the fulness of all spiritual forces, the essence of everything imperishable were quite as essential features of the conception; for in spite of the transcendence inseparable from the notion of god, this idea was nevertheless meant to explain the world.[427] accordingly, they required a formula capable of expressing the transcendent and unchangeable nature of god on the one hand, and his fulness of creative and spiritual powers on the other. but the latter attributes themselves had again to be comprehended in a unity, because the law of the cosmos bore the appearance of a harmonious one. from this arose the idea of the logos, and indeed the latter was necessarily distinguished from god as a separate existence, as soon as the realisation of the powers residing in god was represented as beginning. _the logos is the hypostasis of the operative power of reason, which at once preserves the unity and unchangeableness of god in spite of the exercise of the powers residing in him, and renders this very exercise possible._ (2) though the apologists believed in the divine origin of the revelation given to the prophets, on which all knowledge of truth is based, they could nevertheless not be induced by this idea to represent god himself as a direct actor. for that revelation presupposes a speaker and a spoken word; but it would be an impossible thought to make the fulness of all essence and the first cause of all things speak. the deity cannot be a speaking and still less a visible person, yet according to the testimony of the prophets, a divine person was seen by them. the divine being who makes himself known on earth in audible and visible fashion can only be the divine word. as, however, according to the fundamental view of the apologists the principle of religion, i.e., of the knowledge of the truth, is also the principle of the world, so that divine word, which imparts the right knowledge of the world, must be identical with the divine reason which produced the world itself. in other words, the logos is not only the creative reason of god, but also his revealing word. this explains the motive and aim of the dogma of the logos. we need not specially point out that nothing more than the precision and certainty of the apologists' manner of statement is peculiar here; the train of thought itself belongs to greek philosophy. but that very confidence is the most essential feature of the case; for in fact the firm belief that the principle of the world is also that of revelation represents an important early-christian idea, though indeed in the form of philosophical reflection. to the majority of the apologists the theoretical content of the christian faith is completely exhausted in this proposition. they required no particular christology, for in every revelation of god by his word they already recognised a proof of his existence not to be surpassed, and consequently regarded it as christianity _in nuce_.[428] but the fact that the apologists made a distinction _in thesi_ between the prophetic spirit of god and the logos, without being able to make any use of this distinction, is a very clear instance of their dependence on the formulæ of the church's faith. indeed their conception of the logos continually compelled them to identify the logos and the spirit, just as they not unfrequently define christianity as the belief in the true god and in his son, without mentioning the spirit.[429] further their dependence on the christian tradition is shown in the fact that the most of them expressly designated the logos as the _son_ of god.[430] the logos doctrine of the apologists is an essentially unanimous one. since god cannot be conceived as without reason, [greek: alogos], but as the fulness of all reason,[431] he has always logos in himself. this logos is on the one hand the divine consciousness itself, and on the other the power (idea and energy) to which the world is due; he is not separate from god, but is contained in his essence.[432] for the sake of the creation god produced (sent forth, projected) the logos from himself, that is, he engendered[433] him from his essence by a free and simple act of will ([greek: theos ek theou pephukôs ex heautou]. dial. 61). then for the first time the logos became a hypostasis separate from god, or, in other words, he first came into existence; and, in virtue of his origin, he possesses the following distinctive features:[434] (1) the inner essence of the logos is identical with the essence of god himself; for it is the product of self-separation in god, willed and brought about by himself. further, the logos is not cut off and separated from god, nor is he a mere modality in him. he is rather the independent product of the self-unfolding of god ([greek: oikonomia]), which product, though it is the epitome of divine reason, has nevertheless not stripped the father of this attribute. the logos is the revelation of god, and the visible god. consequently the logos is really god and lord, i.e., he possesses the divine nature in virtue of his essence. the apologists, however, only know of one kind of divine nature and this is that which belongs to the logos. (2) from the moment when he was begotten the logos is a being distinct from the father; he is [greek: arithmô eteron ti, theos heteros, theos deuteros] ("something different in number, another god, a second god.") but his personality only dates from that moment. "fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit," ("there was a time when the father had no son," so tertullian, adv. hermog. 3). the [greek: logos prophorikos] is for the first time a hypostasis distinct from the father, the [greek: logos endiathetos] is not.[435] (3) the logos has an origin, the father has not; hence it follows that in relation to god the logos is a creature; he is the begotten, that is, the created god, the god who has a beginning. wherefore in rank he is below god ([greek: en deutera chôra]--[greek: deuteros theos], "in the second place, and a second god"), the messenger and servant of god. the subordination of the logos is not founded on the content of his essence, but on his origin. in relation to the creatures, however, the logos is the [greek: archê], i.e., not only the beginning but the principle of the vitality and form of everything that is to receive being. as an emanation (the begotten) he is distinguished from all creatures, for he alone is the son;[436] but, as having a beginning, he again stands on a level with them. hence the paradoxical expression, [greek: ergon prôtotokon tou patros] ("first begotten work of the father"), is here the most appropriate designation. (4) in virtue of his finite origin, it is possible and proper for the logos to enter into the finite, to act, to speak, and to appear. as he arose for the sake of the creation of the world, he has the capacity of personal and direct revelation which does not belong to the infinite god; nay, his whole essence consists in the very fact that he is thought, word, and deed. behind this active substitute and vicegerent, the father stands in the darkness of the incomprehensible, and in the incomprehensible light of perfection as the hidden, unchangeable god.[437] with the issuing forth of the logos from god began the realisation of the idea of the world. the world as [greek: kosmos noêtos] is contained in the logos. but the world is material and manifold, the logos is spiritual and one. therefore the logos is not himself the world, but he is its creator and in a certain fashion its archetype. justin and tatian used the expression "beget" [greek: gennan] for the creation of the world, but in connections which do not admit of any importance being attached to this use. the world was created out of nothing after a host of spirits, as is assumed by most apologists, had been created along with heaven, which is a higher, glorious world. the purpose of the creation of the world was and is the production of men, i.e., beings possessed of soul and body, endowed with reason and freedom, and therefore made in the image of god; beings who are to partake of the blessedness and perfection of god. everything is created for man's sake, and his own creation is a proof of the goodness of god. as beings possessed of soul and body, men are neither mortal nor immortal, but capable either of death or immortality.[438] the condition on which men can attain the latter introduces us to ethics. the doctrines, that god is also the absolute lord of matter; that evil cannot be a quality of matter, but rather arose in time and from the free decision of the spirits or angels; and finally that the world will have an end, but god can call the destroyed material into existence, just as he once created it out of nothing, appear in principle to reconcile the dualism in the cosmology. we have the less occasion to give the details here, because they are known from the philosophical systems of the period, especially philo's, and vary in manifold ways. all the apologists, however, are imbued with the idea that this knowledge of god and the world, the genesis of the logos and cosmos, are the most essential part of christianity itself.[439] this conception is really not peculiar to the apologists: in the second century the great majority of christians, in so far as they reflected at all, regarded the monotheistic explanation of the world as a main part of the christian religion. the theoretical view of the world as a harmonious whole, of its order, regularity and beauty; the certainty that all this had been called into existence by an almighty spirit; the sure hope that heaven and earth will pass away, but will give place to a still more glorious structure, were always present, and put an end to the bright and gorgeously coloured, but phantastic and vague, cosmogonies and theogonies of antiquity. 2. their clear system of morality is in keeping with their relatively simple cosmology. in giving man reason and freedom as an inalienable possession god destined him for incorruptibility ([greek: athanasia, aphtharsia]), by the attainment of which he was to become a being similar to god.[440] to the gift of imperishability god, however, attached the condition of man's preserving [greek: ta tês athanasias] ("the things of immortality"), i.e., preserving the knowledge of god and maintaining a holy walk in imitation of the divine perfection. this demand is as natural as it is just; moreover, nobody can fulfil it in man's stead, for an essential feature of virtue is its being free, independent action. man must therefore determine himself to virtue by the knowledge that he is only in this way obedient to the father of the world and able to reckon on the gift of immortality. the conception of the content of virtue, however, contains an element which cannot be clearly apprehended from the cosmology; moral goodness consists in letting oneself be influenced in no way by the sensuous, but in living solely, after the spirit, and imitating the perfection and purity of god. moral badness is giving way to any affection resulting from the natural basis of man. the apologists undoubtedly believe that virtue consists negatively in man's renunciation of what his natural constitution of soul and body demands or impels him to. some express this thought in a more pregnant and unvarnished fashion, others in a milder way. tatian, for instance, says that we must divest ourselves of the human nature within us; but in truth the idea is the same in all. the moral law of nature of which the apologists speak, and which they find reproduced in the clearest and most beautiful way in the sayings of jesus,[441] calls upon man to raise himself above his nature and to enter into a corresponding union with his fellow-man which is something higher than natural connections. it is not so much the law of love that is to rule everything, for love itself is only a phase of a higher law; it is the law governing the perfect and sublime spirit, who, as being the most exalted existence on this earth, is too noble for the world. raised already in this knowledge beyond time and space, beyond the partial and the finite, the man of god, even while upon the earth, is to hasten to the father of light. by equanimity, absence of desires, purity, and goodness, which are the necessary results of clear knowledge, he is to show that he has already risen above the transient through gazing on the imperishable and through the enjoyment of knowledge, imperfect though the latter still be. if thus, a suffering hero, he has stood the test on earth, if he has become dead to the world,[442] he may be sure that in the life to come god will bestow on him the gift of immortality, which includes the direct contemplation of god together with the perfect knowledge that flows from it.[443] conversely, the vicious man is given over to eternal death, and in this punishment the righteousness of god is quite as plainly manifested, as in the reward of everlasting life. 3. while it is certain that virtue is a matter of freedom, it is just as sure that no soul is virtuous unless it follows the will of god, i.e., knows and judges of god and all things as they must be known and judged of; and fulfils the commandments of god. this presupposes a revelation of god through the logos. a revelation of god, complete in itself and mediated by the logos, is found in the cosmos and in the constitution of man, he being created in his maker's image.[444] but experience has shown that this revelation is insufficient to enable men to retain clear knowledge. they yielded to the seduction of evil demons, who, by god's sufferance, took possession of the world, and availed themselves of man's sensuous side to draw him away from the contemplation of the divine and lead him to the earthly.[445] the results of this temptation appeared in the facts that humanity as a whole fell a prey to error, was subjected to the bonds of the sensuous and of the demons, and therefore became doomed to death, which is at once a punishment and the natural consequence of want of knowledge of god.[446] hence it required fresh efforts of the logos to free men from a state which is indeed in no instance an unavoidable necessity, though a sad fact in the case of almost all. for very few are now able to recognise the one true god from the order of the universe and from the moral law implanted in themselves; nor can they withstand the power of the demons ruling in the world and use their freedom to imitate the virtues of god. therefore the almighty in his goodness employed new means through the logos to call men back from the error of their ways, to overthrow the sovereignty of the demons upon earth, and to correct the disturbed course of the world before the end has yet come. from the earliest times the logos (the spirit) has descended on such men as preserved their souls pure, and bestowed on them, through inspiration, knowledge of the truth (with reference to god, freedom, virtue, the demons, the origin of polytheism, the judgment) to be imparted by them to others. these are his "prophets." such men are rare among the greeks (and according to some not found at all), but numerous among the barbarians, i.e., among the jewish people. taught by god, they announced the truth about him, and under the promptings of the logos they also committed the revelations to writings, which therefore, as being inspired, are an authentic record of the whole truth.[447] to some of the most virtuous among them he himself even appeared in human form and gave directions. he then is a christian, who receives and follows these prophetic teachings, that have ever been proclaimed afresh from the beginning of the world down to the present time, and are summed up in the old testament. such a one is enabled even now to rescue his soul from the rule of the demons, and may confidently expect the gift of immortality. with the majority of the apologists "christianity" seems to be exhausted in these doctrines; in fact, they do not even consider it necessary to mention _ex professo_ the appearance of the logos in christ (see above, p. 189 ff.). but, while it is certain that they all recognised that the teachings of the prophets contained the full revelation of the truth, we would be quite wrong in assuming that they view the appearance and history of christ as of no significance. in their presentations some of them no doubt contented themselves with setting forth the most rational and simple elements, and therefore took almost no notice of the historical; but even in their case certain indications show that they regarded the manifestation of the logos in christ as of special moment.[448] for the prophetic utterances, as found from the beginning, require an attestation, the prophetic teaching requires a guarantee, so that misguided humanity may accept them and no longer take error for truth and truth for error. the strongest guarantee imaginable is found in the fulfilment of prophecy. since no man is able to foretell what is to come, the prediction of the future accompanying a doctrine proves its divine origin. god, in his extraordinary goodness, not only inspired the prophets, through the logos, with the doctrines of truth, but has from the beginning put numerous predictions in their mouth. these predictions were detailed and manifold; the great majority of them referred to a more prolonged appearance of the logos in human form at the end of history, and to a future judgment. now, so long as the predictions had not yet come to pass, the teachings of the prophets were not sufficiently impressive, for the only sure witness of the truth is its outward attestation. in the history of christ, however, the majority of these prophecies were fulfilled in the most striking fashion, and this not only guarantees the fulfilment of the relatively small remainder not yet come to pass (judgment, resurrection), but also settles beyond all doubt the truth of the prophetic teachings about god, freedom, virtue, immortality, etc. in the scheme of fulfilment and prophecy even the irrational becomes rational; for the fulfilment of a prediction is not a proof of its divine origin unless it refers to something extraordinary. any one can predict regular occurrences which always take place. accordingly, a part of what was predicted had to be irrational. every particular in the history of christ has therefore a significance, not as regards the future, but as regards the past. here everything happened "that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled." because the prophet had said so, it had to happen. christ's destiny attests the ancient teachings of the prophets. everything, however, depends on this attestation, for it was no longer the full truth that was wanting, but a convincing proof that the truth was a reality and not a fancy.[449] but prophecy testifies that christ is the ambassador of god, the logos that has appeared in human form, and the son of god. if the future destiny of jesus is recorded in the old testament down to the smallest particular, and the book at the same time declares that this predicted one is the son of god and will be crucified, then the paying of divine honours to this crucified man, to whom all the features of prophecy apply, is completely justified. the stage marked by christ in the history of god's revelation, the content of which is always the same, is therefore the highest and last, because in it the "truth along with the proof" has appeared. this circumstance explains why the truth is so much more impressive and convinces more men than formerly, especially since christ has also made special provision for the spread of the truth and is himself an unequalled exemplification of a virtuous life, the principles of which have now become known in the whole world through the spread of his precepts. these statements exhaust the arguments in most of the apologies; and they accordingly seem neither to have contemplated a redemption by christ in the stricter sense of the word, nor to have assumed the unique nature of the appearance of the logos in jesus. christ accomplished salvation as a divine _teacher_, that is to say, his teaching brings about the [greek: allagê] and [greek: epangôgê] of the human race, its restoration to its original destination. this also seems to suffice as regards demon rule. logically considered, the individual portions of the history of jesus (of the baptismal confession) have no direct significance in respect to salvation. hence the teachings of the christians seem to fall into two groups having no inward connection, i.e., the propositions treating of the rational knowledge of god, and the predicted and fulfilled historical facts which prove those doctrines and the believing hopes they include. but justin at least gave token of a manifest effort to combine the historical statements regarding christ with the philosophical and moral doctrines of salvation and to conceive jesus as the redeemer.[450] accordingly, if the christian dogmatic of succeeding times is found in the connection of philosophical theology with the baptismal confession, that is, in the "scientific theology of facts," justin is, in a certain fashion, the first framer of church dogma, though no doubt in a very tentative way. (1) he tried to distinguish between the appearance of the logos in pre-christian times and in christ; he emphasised the fact that the whole logos appeared only in christ, and that the manner of this appearance has no counterpart in the past. (2) justin showed in the dialogue that, independently of the theologoumenon of the logos, he was firmly convinced of the divinity of christ on the ground of predictions and of the impression made by his personality.[451] (3) in addition to the story of the exaltation of christ, justin also emphasised other portions of his history, especially the death on the cross (together with baptism and the lord's supper) and tried to give them a positive significance.[452] he adopted the common christian saying that the blood of christ cleanses believers and men are healed through his wounds; and he tried to give a mystic significance to the cross. (4) he accordingly spoke of the forgiveness of sins through christ and confessed that men are changed, through the new birth in baptism, from children of necessity and ignorance into children of purpose and understanding and forgiveness of sins.[453] von engelhardt has, however, quite rightly noticed that these are mere words which have nothing at all corresponding to them in the general system of thought, because justin remains convinced that the knowledge of the true god, of his will, and of his promises, or the certainty that god will always grant forgiveness to the repentant and eternal life to the righteous, is sufficient to convert the man who is master of himself. owing to the fundamental conviction which is expressed in the formulæ, "perfect philosophy," "divine teacher," "new law," "freedom," "repentance," "sinless life," "sure hope," "reward," "immortality," the ideas, "forgiveness of sins," "redemption," "reconciliation," "new birth," "faith" (in the pauline sense) must remain words,[454] or be relegated to the sphere of magic and mystery.[455] nevertheless we must not on that account overlook the intention. justin tried to see the divine revelation not only in the sayings of the prophets, but in unique fashion in the person of christ, and to conceive christ not only as the divine teacher, but also as the "lord and redeemer." in two points he actually succeeded in this. by the resurrection and exaltation of jesus justin proved that christ, the divine teacher, is also the future judge and bestower of reward. christ himself is able to give what he has promised--a life after death free from sufferings and sins, that is the first point. the other thing, however, which justin very strongly emphasised is that jesus is even now reigning in heaven, and shows his future visible sovereignty of the world by giving his own people the power to cast out and vanquish the demons in and by his name. even at the present time the latter are put to flight by believers in christ.[456] so the redemption is no mere future one; it is even now taking place, and the revelation of the logos in jesus christ is not merely intended to prove the doctrines of the rational religion, but denotes a real redemption, that is, a new beginning, in so far as the power of the demons on earth is overthrown through christ and in his strength. jesus christ, the teacher of the whole truth and of a new law, which is the rational, the oldest, and the divine, the only being who has understood how to call men from all the different nations and in all stages of culture into a union of holy life, the inspiring one, for whom his disciples go to death, the mighty one, through whose name the demons are cast out, the risen one, who will one day reward and punish as judge, must be identical with the son of god, who is the divine reason and the divine power. in this belief which accompanies the confession of the one god, creator of heaven and earth, justin finds the special content of christianity, which the later apologists, with the probable exception of melito, reproduced in a much more imperfect and meagre form. one thing, however, justin in all probability did not formulate with precision, viz., the proposition that the special result of salvation, i.e., immortality, was involved in the incarnation of the logos, in so far as that act brought about a real secret transformation of the whole mortal nature of man. with justin, indeed, as with the other apologists, the "salvation" ([greek: sôtêria]) consists essentially in the apportioning of eternal life to the world, which has been created mortal and in consequence of sin has fallen a prey to the natural destiny of "death;" and christ is regarded as the bestower of incorruptibility who thus brings the creation to its goal; but as a rule justin does not go beyond this thought. yet we certainly find hints pointing to the notion of a physical and magical redemption accomplished at the moment of the incarnation. see particularly the fragment in irenæus (already quoted on page 220), which may be thus interpreted, and apol. i. 66. this conception, in its most complete shape, would have to be attributed to justin if the fragment v. (otto, corp. apol. iii. p. 256) were genuine.[457] but the precise form of the presentation makes this very improbable. the question as to how, i.e., in what conceivable way, immortality can be imparted to the mortal nature as yet received little attention from justin and the apologists: it is the necessary result of knowledge and virtue. their great object was to assure the belief in immortality. "religion and morality depend on the belief in immortality or the resurrection from the dead. the fact that the christian religion, as faith in the incarnate son of god the creator, leads to the assurance that the maker of all things will reward piety and righteousness with the bestowal of eternal and immortal life, is the essential advantage possessed by the christian religion over all others. the righteousness of the heathen was imperfect in spite of all their knowledge of good and evil, because they lacked the certain knowledge that the creator makes the just immortal and will consign the unjust to eternal torment." the philosophical doctrines of god, virtue, and immortality became through the apologists the certain content of a world-wide religion, which is christian because christ guarantees its certainty. they made christianity a deistical religion for the whole world without abandoning in word at least the old "teachings and knowledge" ([greek: didagmata kai mathêmata]) of the christians. they thus marked out the task of "dogmatic" and, so to speak, wrote the prolegomena for every future theological system in the church (see von engelhardt's concluding observations in his "christenthum justin's" pp. 447-490, also overbeck in the historische zeitschrift, 1880, pp. 499-505.) at the same time, however, they adhered to the early-christian eschatology (see justin, melito, and, with reference to the resurrection of the flesh, the apologists generally), and thus did not belie their connection with early christianity.[458] _interpretation and criticism, especially of justin's doctrines._ 1. the fundamental assumption of all the apologists is that there can only be one and the same relation on earth between god and free man, and that it has been conditioned by the creation. this thought, which presupposes the idea of god's unchangeableness, at bottom neutralises every quasi-historical and mythological consideration. according to it grace can be nothing else than the stimulation of the powers of reason existent in man; revelation is supernatural only in respect of its form, and the redemption merely enables us to redeem ourselves, just as this possibility was given at the creation. sin, which arose through temptation, appears on the one hand as error which must almost of necessity have arisen so long as man only possessed the "germs of the logos" ([greek: spermata tou logou]) and on the other as the dominion of sensuousness, which was nearly unavoidable since earthly material clothes the soul and mighty demons have possession of the world. the mythological idea of the invading sway of the demons is really the only interruption of the rationalistic scheme. so far as christianity is something different from morality, it is the antithesis of the service and sovereignty of the demons. hence the idea that the course of the world and mankind require in some measure to be helped is the narrow foundation of the thought of revelation or redemption. the necessity of revelation and redemption was expressed in a much stronger and more decisive way by many heathen philosophers of the same period. accordingly, not only did these long for a revelation which would give a fresh attestation to old truth, but they yearned for a force, a real redemption, a _præsens numen_, and some new thing. still more powerful was this longing in the case of the gnostics and marcion; compare the latter's idea of revelation with that of the apologists. it is probable indeed that the thought of redemption would have found stronger expression among them also, had not the task of _proof_, which could be best discharged by the aid of the stoic philosophy, demanded religious rationalism. but, admitting this, the determination of the highest good itself involved rationalism and moralism. for immortality is the highest good, in so far as it is perfect knowledge--which is, moreover, conceived as being of a rational kind,--that necessarily leads to immortality. we can only find traces of the converse idea, according to which the change into the immortal condition is the _prius_ and the knowledge the _posterius_. but, where this conception is the prevailing one, moralistic intellectualism is broken through, and we can now point to a specific, supernatural blessing of salvation, produced by revelation and redemption. corresponding to the general development of religious philosophy from moralism into mysticism (transition from the second to the third century), a displacement in this direction can also be noticed in the history of greek apologetics (in the west it was different); but this displacement was never considerable and therefore cannot be clearly traced. even later on under altered circumstances, apologetic science adhered in every respect to its old method, as being the most suitable (monotheism, morality, proof from prophecy), a circumstance which is evident, for example, from the almost complete disregard of the new testament canon of scripture and from other considerations besides. 2. in so far as the possibility of virtue and righteousness has been implanted by god in men, and in so far as--apart from trifling exceptions--they can actually succeed in doing what is good only through prophetic, i.e., divine, revelations and exhortations, some apologists, following the early christian tradition, here and there designate the transformation of the sinner into a righteous man as a work of god, and speak of renewal and regeneration. the latter, however, as a real fact, is identical with the repentance which, as a turning from sin and turning to god, is a matter of free will. as in justin, so also in tatian, the idea of regeneration is exhausted in the divine call to repentance. the conception of the forgiveness of sins is also determined in accordance with this. only those sins can be forgiven, i.e., overlooked, which are really none, i.e., which were committed in a state of error and bondage to the demons, and were well-nigh unavoidable. the blotting out of these sins is effected in baptism, "which is the bath of regeneration in so far as it is the voluntary consecration of one's own person. the cleansing which takes place is god's work in so far as baptism was instituted by him, but it is effected by the man who in his change of mind lays aside his sins. the name of god is pronounced above him who repents of his transgressions, that he may receive freedom, knowledge, and forgiveness of his previous sins, but this effects a change only denoting the new knowledge to which the baptised person has attained." if, as all this seems to show, the thought of a specific grace of god in christ appears virtually neutralised, the adherence to the language of the cultus (justin and tatian) and justin's conception of the lord's supper show that the apologists strove to get beyond moralism, that is, they tried to supplement it through the mysteries. augustine's assertion (de predest. sanct. 27) that the faith of the old church in the efficacy of divine grace was not so much expressed in the _opuscula_ as in the _prayers_, shows correct insight. 3. all the demands, the fulfilment of which constitutes the virtue and righteousness of men, are summed up under the title of _the new law_. in virtue of its eternally valid content this new law is in reality the oldest; but it is new because christ and the prophets were preceded by moses, who inculcated on the jews in a transient form that which was eternally valid. it is also new because, being proclaimed by the logos that appeared in christ, it announced its presence with the utmost impressiveness and undoubted authority, and contains the promise of reward in terms guaranteed by the strongest proof--the proof from prophecy. the old law is consequently a new one because it appears now for the first time as purely spiritual, perfect, and final. the commandment of love to one's neighbour also belongs to the law; but it does not form its essence (still less love to god, the place of which is taken by faith, obedience, and imitation). the content of all moral demands is comprehended in the commandment of perfect, active holiness, which is fulfilled by the complete renunciation of all earthly blessings, even of life itself. tatian preached this renunciation in a specially powerful manner. there is no need to prove that no remains of judæo-christianity are to be recognised in these ideas about the new law. it is not judæo-christianity that lies behind the christianity and doctrines of the apologists, but greek philosophy (platonic metaphysics, logos doctrine of the stoics, platonic and stoic ethics), the alexandrine-jewish apologetics, the maxims of jesus, and the religious speech of the christian churches. justin is distinguished from philo by the sure conviction of the living power of god, the creator and lord of the world, and the steadfast confidence in the reality of all the ideals which is derived from the person of christ. we ought not, however, to blame the apologists because to them nearly everything historical was at bottom only a guarantee of thoughts and hopes. as a matter of fact, the assurance is not less important than the content. by dint of thinking one can conceive the highest truth, but one cannot in this way make out the certainty of its reality. no positive religion can do more for its followers than faith in the revelation through christ and the prophets did for the apologists. although it chiefly proved to them the truth of that which we call natural theology and which was the idealistic philosophy of the age, so that the church appears as the great insurance society for the ideas of plato and zeno, we ought not at the same time to forget that their idea of a divine spirit working upon earth was a far more lively and worthy one than in the case of the greek philosophers. 4. by their intellectualism and exclusive theories the apologists founded philosophic and dogmatic christianity (loofs: "they laid the foundation for the conversion of christianity into a revealed doctrine."[459]) if about the middle of the second century the short confession of the lord jesus christ was regarded as a watchword, passport, and _tessera hospitalitas (signum et vinculum)_, and if even in lay and uneducated circles it was conceived as "doctrine" in contradistinction to heresy, this transformation must have been accelerated through men, who essentially conceived christianity as the "divine doctrine," and by whom all its distinctive features were subordinated to this conception or neutralised. as the philosophic schools are held together by their "laws" ([greek: nomoi]) as the "dogmas" form the real bond between the "friends," and as, in addition to this, they are united by veneration for the founder, so also the christian church appeared to the apologists as a universal league established by a divine founder and resting _on the dogmas of the perfectly known truth_, a league the members of which possess definite laws, viz., the eternal laws of nature for everything moral, and unite in common veneration for the divine master. in the "dogmas" of the apologists, however, we find nothing more than traces of the fusion of the philosophical and historical elements; in the main both exist separately side by side. it was not till long after this that intellectualism gained the victory in a christianity represented by the clergy. what we here chiefly understand by "intellectualism" is the placing of the scientific conception of the world behind the commandments of christian morality and behind the hopes and faith of the christian religion, and the connecting of the two things in such a way that this conception appeared as the foundation of these commandments and hopes. thus was created the future dogmatic in the form which still prevails in the churches and which presupposes the platonic and stoic conception of the world long ago overthrown by science. the attempt made at the beginning of the reformation to free the christian faith from this amalgamation remained at first without success. footnotes: [footnote 340: edition by otto, 9 vols., 1876 f. new edition of the apologists (unfinished; only tatian and athenagoras by schwarz have yet appeared) in the texte und untersuchungen zur altchristlichen litteratur-geschichte, vol. iv. tzschirner, geschichte der apologetik, 1st part, 1805; id., der fall des heidenthums, 1829. ehlers, vis atque potestas, quam philosophia antiqua, imprimis platonica et stoica in doctrina apologetarum habuerit, 1859.] [footnote 341: it is intrinsically probable that their works directly addressed to the christian church gave a more full exposition of their christianity than we find in the apologies. this can moreover be proved with certainty from the fragments of justin's, tatian's and melito's esoteric writings. but, whilst recognising this fact, we must not make the erroneous assumption that the fundamental conceptions and interests of justin and the rest were in reality other than may be inferred from their apologies.] [footnote 342: that is, so far as these were clearly connected with polytheism. where this was not the case or seemed not to be so, national traditions, both the true and the spurious, were readily and joyfully admitted into the _catalogus testimoniorum_ of revealed truth.] [footnote 343: though these words were already found in the first edition, clemen (justin 1890, p. 56) has misunderstood me so far as to think that i spoke here of conscious intention on the part of the apologists. such nonsense of course never occurred to me.] [footnote 344: note here particularly the attitude of tatian, who has already introduced a certain amount of the "gnostic" element into his "oratio ad græcos," although, he adheres in the main to the ordinary apologetic doctrines.] [footnote 345: since the time of josephus greek philosophers had ever more and more acknowledged the "philosophical" character of judaism; see porphyr., de abstin. anim. ii. 26, [greek: hate philosophoi to genos ontes.]] [footnote 346: on the relation of christian literature to the writings of philo, of siegfried, philo von alexandrien, p. 303 f.] [footnote 347: it is very instructive to find celsus (origen, c. cels. i. 2) proceeding to say that the greeks understood better how to judge, to investigate, and to perfect the doctrines devised by the barbarians, and to apply them to the practice of virtue. this is quite in accordance with the idea of origen, who makes the following remarks on this point: "when a man trained in the schools and sciences of the greeks becomes acquainted with our faith, he will not only recognise and declare it to be true, but also by means of his scientific training and skill reduce it to a system and supplement what seems to him defective in it, when tested by the greek method of exposition and proof, thus at the same time demonstrating the truth of christianity."] [footnote 348: see the section "justin und die apostolischen váter" in engelhardt's "christenthum justin's des martyrers," p. 375 ff., and my article on the so-called 2nd epistle of clement to the corinthians (zeitschrift für kirchengeschichte i. p. 329 ff.). engelhardt, who on the whole emphasises the correspondences, has rather underthan over-estimated them. if the reader compares the exposition given in book i., chap. 3, with the theology of the apologists (see sub. 3), he will find proof of the intimate relationship that may be traced here.] [footnote 349: see euseb., h. e. iv. 3. only one sentence of quadratus' apology is preserved; we have now that of aristides in the syriac language; moreover, it is proved to have existed in the original language in the historia barlaam et joasaph; finally, a considerable fragment of it is found in armenian. see an english edition by harris and robinson in the texts and studies i. 1891. german translation and commentary by raabe in the texte und untersuchungen ix. 1892. eusebius says that the apology was handed in to the emperor hadrian; but the superscription in syriac is addressed to the emperor titus hadrianus antoninus.] [footnote 350: see hermas, mand i.] [footnote 351: with reservations this also holds good of the alexandrians. see particularly orig., c. cels. i. 62.] [footnote 352: semisch, justin der martyrer, 2 vols, 1840 f. aubé, s justin, philosophe et martyre, 2nd reprint, 1875. weizsäcker, die theologie des martyrers justin's in the jahrbuch fur deutsche theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. von engelhardt, christenthum justin's, 1878; id, "justin," in herzog's real-encyklopädie. stählin, justin der martyrer, 1880 clemen, die religionsphilosophische bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen eudamonismus in justin's apologie, 1890. flemming, zur beurtheilung des christenthums justin's des martyrers, 1893. duncker, logoslehre justin's, 1848. bosse, der prae istente christus des justinus, 1891.] [footnote 353: apol. i. 2, p. 6, ed. otto.] [footnote 354: apol. i. 2, p. 6, sq.] [footnote 355: see the numerous philosophical quotations and allusions in justin's apology pointed out by otto. above all, he made an extensive use of plato's apology of socrates.] [footnote 356: apol. i. 4. p. 16, also i. 7, p. 24 sq: i. 26.] [footnote 357: apol. i. 4, p. 14.] [footnote 358: apol. i. 5, p. 18 sq., see also i. 14 fin.: [greek: ou sophistês hupêrchen alla dunamis theou ho logos autou ên.]] [footnote 359: l.c.: [greek: ou gar monon en hellêsi dia sôkratous hupo logou êlegchthêtauta, alla kai en barbarois hup' autou tou logou morphôthentos kai anthrôpou kai iêsou christou klêthenos.]] [footnote 360: celsus also admits this, or rather makes his jew acknowledge it (orig., c. cels. ii. 31). in book vi. 47 he adopts the proposition of the "ancients" that the world is the son of god.] [footnote 361: see apol. ii. 10 fin.: [greek: sôkratei oudeis epeisthê huper toutou tou dogmatos apothnêskin christô de tô kai hupo sôkratous apo merous gnôsthenti ... ou philosophoi oude philologoi monon epeisthêsan.]] [footnote 362: the utterances of justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-christian portion of mankind has only a [greek: sperma tou logon] as a natural possession, or whether this [greek: sperma] has in some cases been enhanced by the inward workings of the whole logos (inspiration). this ambiguity, however, arises from the fact that he did not further discuss the relation between [greek: ho logos] and [greek: to sperma tou logou] and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. on the one hand, the excellent discoveries of poets and philosophers are simply traced to [greek: to emphuton panti genei anthrôpôn sperma tou logou] (apol. ii. 8), the [greek: meros spermatikou logou] (ibid) which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human [greek: heuresis kai theôria] depend (ii. 10). in this sense it may be said of them all that they "in human fashion attempted to understand and prove things by means of reason;" and socrates is merely viewed as the [greek: pantôn eutonôteros] (ibid.), his philosophy also, like all pre-christian systems, being a [greek: philosophia anthrôpeios] (ii. 15). but on the other hand christ was known by socrates though only [greek: apo merous]; for "christ was and is the logos who dwells in every man." further, according to the apologist, the [greek: meros tou spermatikou theiou logou] bestows the power of recognising whatever is related to the logos ([greek: to sungenes] ii. 13). consequently it may not only be said: [greek: hosa para pasi kalôs eirêtai hêmôn, tôn christianôn esti] (ibid.), but, on the strength of the "participation" in reason conferred on all, it may be asserted that all who have lived with the logos ([greek: meta logou])--an expression which must have been ambiguous--were christians. among the greeks this specially applies to socrates and heraclitus (i. 46). moreover, the logos implanted in man does not belong to his nature in such a sense as to prevent us saying [greek: upo logou dia sôkratous êlegchthê k.t.l.] (i. 5). nevertheless [greek: autos ho logos] did not act in socrates, for this only appeared in christ (ibid). hence the prevailing aspect of the case in justin was that to which he gave expression at the close of the 2nd apology (ii. 15: alongside of christianity there is only _human_ philosophy), and which, not without regard for the opposite view, he thus formulated in ii. 13 fin.: all non-christian authors were able to attain a knowledge of true being, though only darkly, by means of the seed of the logos naturally implanted within them. for the [greek: spora] and [greek: mimêma] of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to one's receptivity, are quite different from the thing itself, which divine grace bestows on us for our possession and imitation.] [footnote 363: "for the sake of man" (stoic) apol. i. 10: ii. 4, 5; dial. 41, p. 260, apol i. 8: "longing for the eternal and pure life, we strive to abide in the fellowship of god, the father and creator of all things, and we hasten to make confession, because we are convinced and firmly believe that that happiness is really attainable." it is frequently asserted that it is the logos which produces such conviction and awakens courage and strength.] [footnote 364: justin has destroyed the force of this argument in two passages (i. 44, 59) by tracing (like the alexandrian jews) all true knowledge of the poets and philosophers to borrowing from the books of the old testament (moses). of what further use then is the [greek: sperma logos emphuton]? did justin not really take it seriously? did he merely wish to suit himself to those whom he was addressing? we are not justified in asserting this. probably, however, the adoption of that jewish view of the history of the world is a proof that the results of the demon sovereignty were in justin's estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the [greek: sperma logos emphuton] when left to its own resources; and therefore regarded truth and prophetic revelation as inseparable. but this view is not the essential one in the apology. that assumption of justin's is evidently dependent on a tradition, whilst his real opinion was more "liberal."] [footnote 365: compare with this the following passages: in apol. i. 20 are enumerated a series of the most important doctrines common to philosophers and christians. then follow the words: "if we then in particular respects even teach something similar to the doctrines of the philosophers honoured among you, though in many cases in a divine and more sublime way; and we indeed alone do so in such a way that the matter is proved etc." in apol. i. 44: ii. 10. 13 uncertainty, error, and contradictions are shown to exist in the case of the greatest philosophers. the christian doctrines are more sublime than all human philosophy (ii. 15). "our doctrines are evidently more sublime than any human teaching, because the christ who appeared for our sakes was the whole fulness of reason" ([greek: to logikon to holon], ii. 10). "the principles of plato are not foreign ([greek: allotria]) to the teaching of christ, but they do not agree in every respect. the same holds good of the stoics" (ii. 13). "we must go forth from the school of plato" (ii. 12). "socrates convinced no one in such a way that he would have been willing to die for the doctrine proclaimed by him; whereas not only philosophers and philologers, but also artisans and quite common uneducated people have believed in christ" (ii. 10). these are the very people--and that is perhaps the strongest contrast found between logos and logos in justin--among whom it is universally said of christianity: [greek: dunamis esti tou arrêtou patros kai ouchi anthrôpeiou logou kataskeuê] (see also i. 14 and elsewhere.)] [footnote 366: in justin's estimate of the greek philosophers two other points deserve notice. in the first place, he draws a very sharp distinction between real and nominal philosophers. by the latter he specially means the epicureans. they are no doubt referred to in i. 4, 7, 26 (i. 14: atheists). epicurus and sardanapalus are classed together in ii. 7; epicurus and the immoral poets in ii. 12; and in the conclusion of ii, 15 the same philosopher is ranked with the worst society. but according to ii. 3 fin. ([greek: adunaton kunikô, adiaphoron to telos prothemenô, to agathon eidenai plên adikphorias]) the cynics also seem to be outside the circle of real philosophers. this is composed principally of socrates, plato, the platonists and stoics, together with heraclitus and others. some of these understood one set of doctrines more correctly, others another series. the stoics excelled in ethics (ii. 7); plato described the deity and the world more correctly. it is, however, worthy of note--and this is the second point--that justin in principle conceived the greek philosophers as a unity, and that he therefore saw in their very deviations from one another a proof of the imperfection of their teaching. in so far as they are all included under the collective idea "human philosophy," philosophy is characterised by the conflicting opinions found within it. this view was suggested to justin by the fact that the highest truth, which is at once allied and opposed to human philosophy, was found by him among an exclusive circle of fellow-believers. justin showed great skill in selecting from the gospels the passages (i. 15-17), that prove the "philosophical" life of the christians as described by him in c. 14. here he cannot be acquitted of colouring the facts (cf. aristides) nor of exaggeration (see, for instance, the unqualified statement: [greek: ha echomen eis koinon pherontes kai panti deomenô koinônountes]). the philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the "[greek: philois panta koina]." yet in i. 67 justin corrected exaggerations in his description. justin's reference to the invaluable benefits which christianity confers on the state deserves notice (see particularly i. 12, 17.) the later apologists make a similar remark.] [footnote 367: dialogue 8. the dialogue takes up a more positive attitude than the apology, both as a whole and in detail. if we consider that both works are also meant for christians, and that, on the other hand, the dialogue as well as the apology appeals to the cultured heathen public, we may perhaps assume that the two writings were meant to present a graduated system of christian instruction. (in one passage the dialogue expressly refers to the apology.) from justin's time onward the apologetic polemic of the early church appears to have adhered throughout to the same method. this consisted in giving the polemical writings directed against the greeks the form of an introduction to christian knowledge, and in continuing this instruction still further in those directed against the jews.] [footnote 368: dial. 2. sq. that justin's christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is clearly shown by the introduction to the dialogue.] [footnote 369: dial. 8: [greek: houtôs dê kai dia tauta philosophos egô].] [footnote 370: dial., l.c.: [greek: parestin soi ton christon tou theou epignonti kai teleiô genomenô eudaimonein].] [footnote 371: see particularly the closing chapter.] [footnote 372: suppl. 2,] [footnote 373: suppl. 4.] [footnote 374: suppl. 5-7.] [footnote 375: suppl. 24 (see also aristides c. 13).] [footnote 376: suppl, 7 fin. and many other places.] [footnote 377: _e.g._, suppl. 8. 35 fin.] [footnote 378: the crucified man, the incarnation of the logos etc. are wanting. nothing at all is said about christ.] [footnote 379: suppl. 7.] [footnote 380: cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init.] [footnote 381: suppl. 11.] [footnote 382: suppl. 23.] [footnote 383: suppl. 18, 23-27. he, however, as well as the others, sets forth the demon theory in detail.] [footnote 384: the apology which miltiades addressed to marcus aurelius and his fellow-emperor perhaps bore the title: [greek: huper tês kata christianous philosophias] (euseb., h. e. v. 17. 5). it is certain that melito in his apology designated christianity as [greek: hê kath' hêmas philosophia] (l.c., iv. 26. 7). but, while it is undeniable that this writer attempted, to a hitherto unexampled extent, to represent christianity as adapted to the empire, we must nevertheless beware of laying undue weight on the expression "philosophy." what melito means chiefly to emphasise is the fact that christianity, which in former times had developed into strength among the barbarians, began to flourish in the provinces of the empire simultaneously with the rise of the monarchy under augustus, that as foster-sister of the monarchy, it increased in strength with the latter, and that this mutual relation of the two institutions had given prosperity and splendour to the state. when in the fragments preserved to us he twice, in this connection, calls christianity "philosophy," we must note that this expression alternates with the other "[greek: ho kath' hêmas logos]", and that he uses the formula: "thy forefathers held this philosophy in honour along with the other cults" [greek: pros tais allais thrêskeichis]. this excludes the assumption that melito in his apology merely represented christian as philosophy (see also iv. 26. 5, where the christians are called "[greek: to tôn theosebôn genos]"). he also wrote a treatise [greek: peri ktiseôs kai geneseôs christou]. in it (fragment in the chron. pasch) he called christ [greek: theou logos pro aiônôn].] [footnote 385: see my treatise "tatian's rede an die griechen übers." 1884 (giessener programm). daniel, tatianus, 1837. steuer, die gottesund logoslehre des tatian, 1893.] [footnote 386: but see orat. 4 init., 24 fin., 25 fin., 27 init.] [footnote 387: he not only accentuated the disagreement of philosophers more strongly than justin, but insisted more energetically than that apologist on the necessity of viewing the practical fruits of philosophy in life as a criterion; see orat. 2, 3, 19, 25. nevertheless socrates still found grace in his eyes (c. 3). with regard to other philosophers he listened to foolish and slanderous gossip.] [footnote 388: orat. 13, 15 fin., 20. tatian also gave credence to it because it imparts such an intelligible picture of the creation of the world (c. 29).] [footnote 389: orat. 12: [greek: ta tês hêmeteras paideias estin anôterô tês kosmikês katalêpseôs]. tatian troubled himself very little with giving demonstrations. no other apologist made such bold assertions.] [footnote 390: see orat. 12 (p. 54 fin.), 20 (p. 90), 25 fin., 26 fin., 29, 30 (p. 116), 13 (p. 62), 15 (p. 70), 36 (p. 142), 40 (p. 152 sq.). the section cc. 12-15 of the oratio is very important (see also c. 7 ff); for it shows that tatian denied the natural immortality of the soul, declared the soul (the material spirit) to be something inherent in all matter, and accordingly looked on the distinction between men and animals in respect of their inalienable natural constitution as only one of degree. according to this apologist the dignity of man does not consist in his natural endowments: but in the union of the human soul with the divine spirit, for which union indeed he was planned. but, in tatian's opinion, man lost this union by falling under the sovereignty of the demons. the spirit of god has left him, and consequently he has fallen back to the level of the beasts. so it is man's task to unite the spirit again with himself, and thereby recover that religious principle on which all wisdom and knowledge rest. this anthropology is opposed to that of the stoics and related to the "gnostic" theory. it follows from it that man, in order to reach his destination, must raise himself above his natural endowment; see c. 15: [greek: anthrôpon legô ton porrô men anthrôptêtos pros auton de ton theon kechôrêkota]. but with tatian this conception is burdened with radical inconsistency; for he assumes that the spirit reunites itself with every man who rightly uses his freedom, and he thinks it still possible for every person to use his freedom aright (11 fin., 13 fin., 15 fin.) so it is after all a mere assertion that the natural man is only distinguished from the beast by speech. he is also distinguished from it by freedom. and further it is only in appearance that the blessing bestowed in the "spirit" is a _donum superadditum et supernaturale_. for if a proper spontaneous use of freedom infallibly leads to the return of the spirit, it is evident that the decision and consequently the realisation of man's destination depend on human freedom. that is, however, the proposition which all the apologists maintained. but indeed tatian himself in his latter days seems to have observed the inconsistency in which he had become involved and to have solved the problem in the gnostic, that is, the religious sense. in his eyes, of course, the ordinary philosophy is a useless and pernicious art; philosophers make their own opinions laws (c. 27); whereas of christians the following holds good (c. 32): [greek: logou tou dêmosiou kai epigeiou kechôrismenoi kai peithomenoi theou parangelmasi kai nomô patros aphtharsias hepomenoi, pan to en doxê keimenon anthrôpinê paraitoumetha].] [footnote 391: c. 31. init.: [greek: hê hêmetera philosophia]. 32 (p. 128): [greek: hoi boulomenoi philosophein par' hêmin anthrôpoi]. in c. 33 (p. 130) christian women are designated [greek: hai par hêmin philosophousai]. c. 35: [greek: hê kath' hêmas barbaros philosophia]. 40 (p. 152): [greek: hoi kata môusea kai homoiôs autô philosophountes]. 42: [greek: ho kata barbarous philosophôn tatianos]. the [greek: dogmata] of the christians: c. 1 (p. 2), 12 (p. 58), 19 (p. 86), 24 (p. 102), 27 (p. 108), 35 (p. 138), 40, 42. but tatian pretty frequently calls christianity "[greek: hê hêmetera paideia]", once also "[greek: nomothesia]" (12; cf. 40: [greek: hoi hêmeteroi nomoi]), and often [greek: politeia].] [footnote 392: see, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the christian doctrine gives us [greek: ouch hoper mê elabomen, all' hoper labontes hupo tês planês echein ekoluthêmen].] [footnote 393: tatian gave still stronger expression than justin to the opinion that it is the demons who have misled men and rule the world, and that revelation through the prophets is opposed to this demon rule; see c. 7 ff. the demons have fixed the laws of death; see c. 15 fin. and elsewhere.] [footnote 394: tatian also cannot at bottom distinguish between revelation through the prophets and through christ. see the description of his conversion in c. 29. where only the old testament writings are named, and c. 13 fin., 20 fin.. 12 (p. 54) etc.] [footnote 395: knowledge and life appear in tatian most closely connected. see, e.g., c. 13 init.: "in itself the soul is not immortal, but mortal; it is also possible, however, that it may not die. if it has not attained a knowledge of that truth it dies and is dissolved with the body; but later, at the end of the world, it will rise again with the body in order to receive death in endless duration as a punishment. on the contrary it does not die, though it is dissolved for a time, if it is equipped with the knowledge of god."] [footnote 396: barbarian: the christian doctrines are [greek: ta tôn barbarôn dogmata] (c. 1): [greek: kath' hêmas barbaros philosophia] (c. 35); [greek: hê barbarikê nomothesia] (c. 12); [greek: graphai barbarikai] (c. 29); [greek: kainotomein ta barbarôn dogmata] (c. 35); [greek: ho kata barbarous philosophôn tatianos] (c. 42); [greek: môusês pasês barbarou philosophias archêgos] (c. 31); see also c. 30, 32. in tatian's view barbarians and greeks are the decisive contrasts in history.] [footnote 397: see the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff.] [footnote 398: c. 30 (p. 114): [greek: toutôn oun tên katalêpsin memuêmenos].] [footnote 399: tatian's own confession is very important here (c. 26): "whilst i was reflecting on what was good it happened that there fell into my hands certain writings of the barbarians, too old to be compared with the doctrines of the greeks, too divine to be compared with their errors. and it chanced that they convinced me through the plainness of their expressions, through the unartificial nature of their language, through the intelligible representation of the creation of the world, through the prediction of the future, the excellence of their precepts, and the summing up of all kinds under one head. my soul was instructed by god and i recognised that those greek doctrines lead to perdition, whereas the others abolish the slavery to which we are subjected in the world, and rescue us from our many lords and tyrants, though they do not give us blessings we had not already received, but rather such as we had indeed obtained, but were not able to retain in consequence of error." here the whole theology of the apologists is contained _in nuce_; see justin, dial. 7-8. in chaps. 32, 33 tatian strongly emphasises the fact that the christian philosophy is accessible even to the most uneducated; see justin, apol. ii. 10; athenag. 11 etc.] [footnote 400: the unknown author of the [greek: logos pros ellênas] also formed the same judgment as tatian (corp. apolog., t. iii., p. 2 sq., ed. otto; a syrian translation, greatly amplified, is found in the cod. nitr. mus. britt. add. 14658. it was published by cureton, spic. syr., p. 38 sq. with an english translation). christianity is an incomparable heavenly wisdom, the teacher of which is the logos himself. "it produces neither poets, nor philosophers, nor rhetoricians; but it makes mortals immortal and men gods, and leads them away upwards from the earth into super-olympian regions." through christian knowledge the soul returns to its creator: [greek: dei gar apokatatathênai othen apestê].] [footnote 401: nor is plato "[greek: ho dokôn en autois semnoteron pephilosophêkenai]" any better than epicurus and the stoics (iii. 6). correct views which are found in him in a greater measure than in the others ([greek: ho dokôn hellênôn sophôteros gegenêsthai]), did not prevent him from giving way to the stupidest babbling (iii. 16). although he knew that the full truth can only be learned from god himself through the law (iii. 17), he indulged in the most foolish guesses concerning the beginning of history. but where guesses find a place, truth is not to be found (iii. 16: [greek: ei de eikasmô, ouk ara alêthê estin ta hup' autou eirêmena]).] [footnote 402: theophilus confesses (i. 14) exactly as tatian does: [greek: kai gar egô êpistoun touto esesthai, alla nun katanoêsas auta pisteuô, hama kai epituchôn hierais graphais tôn agiôn prophêtôn, hoi kai proeipon dia pneumatos theou ti progegonota ô tropô gegonen kai ta enestôta tini tropô ginetai, kai ta eperchomena poia taxei apartisthêsetai. apodeixin oun labôn tôn ginomenôn kai proanapephônêmenôn ouk apistô]; see also ii. 8-10, 22, 30, 33-35: iii. 10, 11, 17. theophilus merely looks on the gospel as a continuation of the prophetic revelations and injunctions. of christ, however, he did not speak at all, but only of the logos (pneuma), which has operated from the beginning. to theophilus the first chapters of genesis already contain the sum of all christian knowledge (ii. 10-32).] [footnote 403: see ii. 8: [greek: hupo daimonôn de empneusthentes kai hup' autôn phusiôthentes ha eipon di' autôn eipon].] [footnote 404: the unknown author of the work _de resurrectione_, which goes under the name of justin (corp. apol., vol. iii.) has given a surprising expression to the thought that it is simply impossible to give a demonstration of truth. ([greek: o men tês alêtheias logos estin eleutheroste kai autexousios, upo mêdemian basanon elegchou thelôn piptein mêde tên para tois akouousi di' apodeixeôs exetasin hupomenein. to gar eugenes autou kai pepoithos autô tô pempsanti pisteuesthai thelei]). he inveighs in the beginning of his treatise against all rationalism, and on the one hand professes a sort of materialistic theory of knowledge, whilst on the other, for that very reason, he believes in inspiration and the authority of revelation; for all truth originates with revelation, since god himself and god alone is the truth. christ revealed this truth and is for us [greek: tôn olôn pistis kai apodeixis]. but it is far from probable that the author would really have carried this proposition to its logical conclusion (justin, dial. 3 ff. made a similar start). he wishes to meet his adversaries "armed with the arguments of faith which are unconquered" (c. 1, p. 214), but the arguments of faith are still the arguments of reason. among these he regarded it as most important that even according to the theories about the world, that is, about god and matter, held by the "so-called sages," plato, epicurus, and the stoics, the assumption of a resurrection of the flesh is not irrational (c. 6, p. 228 f.). some of these, viz., pythagoras and plato, also acknowledged the immortality of the soul. but, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, "for if the redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul what new thing would he have proclaimed in addition to what had been made known by pythagoras, plato, and the band of their adherents?" (c. 10, p. 246.) this remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the apologists to adhere to the belief in the resurrection of the body. zahn, (zeitschrift fur kirchengeschichte, vol. viii., pp. 1 f., 20 f.) has lately reassigned to justin himself the fragment de resurr. his argument, though displaying great plausibility, has nevertheless not fully convinced me. the question is of great importance for fixing the relation of justin to paul. i shall not discuss hermias' "irrisio gentilium philosophorum," as the period when this christian disputant flourished is quite uncertain. we still possess an early-church apology in pseudo-melito's "oratio ad antoninum cæsarem" (otto, corp. apol. ix., p. 423 sq.). this book is preserved (written?) in the syrian language and was addressed to caracalla or heliogabalus (preserved in the cod. nitr. mus. britt. add. 14658). it is probably dependent on justin, but it is less polished and more violent than his apology.] [footnote 405: massebieau (revue de l'histoire des religions, 1887, vol. xv. no. 3) has convinced me that minucius wrote at a later period than tertullian and made use of his works.] [footnote 406: cf. the plan of the "octavius." the champion of heathenism here opposed to the christian is a philosopher representing the standpoint of the middle academy. this presupposes, as a matter of course, that the latter undertakes the defence of the stoical position. see, besides, the corresponding arguments in the apology of tertullian, e.g., c. 17, as well as his tractate: "de testimonio animæ naturaliter christianæ." we need merely mention that the work of minucius is throughout dependent on cicero's book, "de natura deorum." in this treatise he takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than tertullian.] [footnote 407: in r. kühn's investigation ("der octavius des min. felix," leipzig, 1882)--the best special work we possess on an early christian apology from the point of view of the history of dogma--based on a very careful analysis of the octavius, more emphasis is laid on the difference than on the agreement between minucius and the greek apologists. the author's exposition requires to be supplemented in the latter respect (see theologische litteratur-zeitung, 1883, no. 6).] [footnote 408: c. 20: "exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum.... ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc christianos."] [footnote 409: see minucius, 31 ff. a quite similar proceeding is already found in tertullian, who in his _apologeticum_ has everywhere given a stoic colouring to christian ethics and rules of life, and in c. 39 has drawn a complete veil over the peculiarity of the christian societies.] [footnote 410: tertullian has done exactly the same thing; see apolog. 46 (and de præscr. 7.)] [footnote 411: tertull., de testim. i.: "sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis formata, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. te simplicem et rudem et impoliitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent... imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit."] [footnote 412: tertull., apol. 46: "quid simile philosophus et christianas? græciæ discipulus et coeli?" de præscr. 7: "quid ergo athenis et hierosolymis? quid academiæ et ecclesiæ?" minuc. 38.5: "philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus... nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis ælate maturuit?"] [footnote 413: minucius did not enter closely into the significance of christ any more than tatian, athenagoras, and theophilus; he merely touched upon it (9. 4: 29. 2). he also viewed christianity as the teaching of the prophets; whoever acknowledges the latter must of necessity adore the crucified christ. tertullian was accordingly the first apologist after justin who again considered it necessary to give a detailed account of christ as the incarnation of the logos (see the 21st chapter of the apology in its relation to chaps. 17-20).] [footnote 414: among the greek apologists the unknown author of the work "de monarchia," which bears the name of justin, has given clearest expression to this conception. he is therefore most akin to minucius (see chap. i.). here monotheism is designated as the [greek: katholikê doxa] which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for [greek: tês anthrôpinês phuseôs to kat' archên suzugian suneseôs kai sôtêrias labousês eis epignôsin alêtheias thrêskeias te tês eis ton hena kai pantôn despotên.] according to this, then, only an awakening is required.] [footnote 415: but almost all the apologists acknowledged that heathendom possessed prophets. they recognise these in the sibyls and the old poets. the author of the work "de monarchia" expressed the most pronounced views in regard to this. hermas (vis. ii. 4), however, shows that the apologists owed this notion also to an idea that was widespread among christian people.] [footnote 416: see justin, apol. i. 31, dial. 7, p. 30 etc.] [footnote 417: see tatian, c. 31 ff.] [footnote 418: in the new testament the content of the christian faith is now here designated as dogma. in clement (i. 11.), hermas, and polycarp the word is not found at all; yet clement (i. 20. 4, 27. 5) called the divine order of nature [greek: ta dedogmatismena hupo theou]. in ignatius (ad magn. xiii. 1) we read: [greek: spoudazete oun bebaiôthênai en tois dogmasin tou kuriou kai tôn apostolôn], but [greek: dogmata] here exclusively mean the rules of life (see zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in [greek: didachê] xi. 3. in the epistle of barnabas we read in several passages (i. 6: ix. 7: x. 1, 9 f.) of "dogmas of the lord;" but by these he means partly particular mysteries, partly divine dispensations. hence the apologists are the first to apply the word to the christian faith, in accordance with the language of philosophy. they are also the first who employed the ideas [greek: theologein] and [greek: theologia]. the latter word is twice found in justin (dial. 56) in the sense of "aliquem nominare deum." in dial. 113, however, it has the more comprehensive sense of "to make religio-scientific investigations." tatian (10) also used the word in the first sense; on the contrary he entitled a book of which he was the author "[greek: pros tous apophênamenous ta peri theou]" and not "[greek: pros tous theologountas]". in athenagoras (suppl. 10) theology is the doctrine of god and of all beings to whom the predicate "deity" belongs (see also 20, 22). that is the old usage of the word. it was thus employed by tertullian in ad nat. ii. 1 (the threefold division of theology; in ii. 2, 3 the expression "theologia physica, mythica" refers to this); cohort, ad gr. 3, 22. the anonymous writer in eusebius (h. e. v. 28. 4, 5) is instructive on the point. brilliant demonstrations of the ancient use of the word "theology" are found in natorp, thema und disposition der aristotelischen metaphysik (philosophische monatshefte, 1887, parts i and 2, pp. 55-64). the title "theology," as applied to a philosophic discipline, was first used by the stoics; the old poets were previously called "theologians," and the "theological" stage was the prescientific one which is even earlier than the "childhood" of "physicists" (so aristotle speaks throughout). to the fathers of the church also the old poets are still [greek: hoi palaioi theologoi]. but side by side with this we have an adoption of the stoic view that there is also a philosophical theology, because the teaching of the old poets concerning the gods conceals under the veil of myth a treasure of philosophical truth. in the stoa arose the "impossible idea of a 'theology' which is to be philosophy, that is, knowledge based on reason, and yet to have positive religion as the foundation of its certainty." the apologists accepted this, but added to it the distinction of a [greek: kosmikê] and [greek: theologikê sophia.]] [footnote 419: christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as [greek: logos]; (2) as [greek: nomos, nomothetês], and [greek: kritês]; (3) as [greek: didaskalos] and [greek: sotêr].] [footnote 420: in the reproduction of the apologetical theology historians of dogma have preferred to follow justin; but here they have constantly overlooked the fact that justin was the most christian among the apologists, and that the features of his teaching to which particular value is rightly attached, are either not found in the others at all (with the exception of tertullian), or else in quite rudimentary form. it is therefore proper to put the doctrines common to all the apologists in the foreground, and to describe what is peculiar to justin as such, so far as it agree with new testament teachings or contains an anticipation of the future tenor of dogma.] [footnote 421: cicero's proposition (de nat. deor. ii. 66. 167): "nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit," which was the property of all the idealistic philosophers of the age, is found in the apologists reproduced in the most various forms (see, e.g., tatian 29). that all knowledge of the truth, both among the prophets and those who follow their teaching, is derived from inspiration was in their eyes a matter of certainty. but here they were only able to frame a theory in the case of the prophets; for such a theory strictly applied to all would have threatened the spontaneous character of the knowledge of the truth.] [footnote 422: justin, apol. i. 3: [greek: hêmeteron oun ergon kai biou kai mathêmatôn tên episkepsin pasi parechein].] [footnote 423: see the exposition of the doctrine of god in aristides with the conclusion found in all the apologists, that god requires no offerings and presents.] [footnote 424: even tatian says in c. 19: [greek: kosmou men gar ê kataskeuê kalê, to de en autô politeuma phaulon].] [footnote 425: tatian 5: [greek: oute anarchos ê hulê kathaper ho theos, oude dia to anarchon kai autê isodunamos tô theô gennêtê de kai ouch hupo tou allou gegonuia monon de hupo tou pantôn dêmiourgou probeblêmenê]. 12. even justin does not seem to have taught otherwise, though that is not quite certain; see apol. i. 10, 59, 64, 67: ii. 6. theophilus i. 4: ii. 4, 10, 13 says very plainly: [greek: ex ouk ontôn ta panta epoiêsen.... ti de mega, ei ho theos ex hupokeimenês hulês epoiei ton kosmon].] [footnote 426: hence the knowledge of god and the right knowledge of the world are most closely connected; see tatian 27: [greek: hê theou katalêpsis ên echô peri tôn holôn].] [footnote 427: the beginning of the fifth chapter of tatian's oration is specially instructive here.] [footnote 428: according to what has been set forth in the text it is incorrect to assert that the apologists adopted the logos doctrine in order to reconcile monotheism with the divine honours paid to the crucified christ. the truth rather is that the logos doctrine was already part of their creed before they gave any consideration to the person of the historical christ, and _vice versâ_ christ's right to divine honours was to them a matter of certainty independently of the logos doctrine.] [footnote 429: we find the distinction of logos (son) and spirit in justin, apol. i. 5, and in every case where he quotes formulæ (if we are not to assume the existence of interpolation in the text, which seems to me not improbable; see now also cramer in the theologische studien, 1893. pp. 17 ff., 138 ff.). in tatian 13 fin. the spirit is represented as [greek: ho diakonos tou peponthotos theou]. the conception in justin, dial. 116, is similar. father, word, and prophetic spirit are spoken of in athenag. 10. the express designation [greek: trias] is first found in theophilus (but see the excerpta ex theodoto); see ii. 15: [greek: hai treis hêmerai tupoi heisin tês triados, tou theou kai tou logou autou kai tês sophias autou]; see ii. 10, 18. but it is just in theophilus that the difficulty of deciding between logos and wisdom appears with special plainness (ii. 10). the interposition of the host of good angels between son and spirit found in justin, apol. i. 5 (see athenag.), is exceedingly striking. we have, however, to notice, provided the text is right, (1) that this interposition is only found in a single passage, (2) that justin wished to refute the reproach of [greek: atheotês], (3) that the placing of the spirit after the angels does not necessarily imply a position inferior to theirs, but merely a subordination to the son and the father common to the spirit and the angels, (4) that the good angels were also invoked by the christians, because they were conceived as mediators of prayer (see my remark on i. clem, ad corinth. lvi. 1); they might have found a place here just for this latter reason. on the significance of the holy spirit in the theology of justin, see zahn's marcellus of ancyra, p. 228: "if there be any one theologian of the early church who might be regarded as depriving the holy spirit of all scientific _raison d'etre_ at least on the ground of having no distinctive activity, and the father of all share in revelation, it is justin." we cannot at bottom say that the apologists possessed a doctrine of the trinity.] [footnote 430: to justin the name of the son is the most important; see also athenag. 10. the logos had indeed been already called the son of god by philo, and celsus expressly says (orig., c. cels. ii. 31); "if according to your doctrine the word is really the son of god then we agree with you;" but the apologists are the first to attach the name of son to the logos as a proper designation. if, however, the logos is intrinsically the son of god, then christ is the son of god, not because he is the begotten of god in the flesh (early christian), but because the spiritual being existing in him is the antemundane reproduction of god (see justin, apol. ii. 6: [greek: ho huios tou patros kai theou, ho monos legomenos kuriôs huios])--a momentous expression.] [footnote 431: athenag., 10; tatian, orat. 5.] [footnote 432: the clearest expression of this is in tatian 5, which passage is also to be compared with the following: [greek: theos ên en archê, tên de archên logou dunamin pareilêphamen. ho gar despotês tôn holôn, autos huparchôn tou pantos hê hupostasis, kata men tên mêdepô gegenêmenên poiêsin monos ên, katho de pasa dunamis, horatôn te kai aoratôn autos hupostasis ên, sun autô ta panta sun autô dia logikês dunameôs autos kai ho logos, hos ên auto, hupestêse. thelêmati de tês aplotêtos autou propêda logos, ho de logos, ou kata kenou chôrêsas, ergon prôtotokon tou patros ginetai. touton ismen tou kosmou tên archên. gegone de kata merismon, ou kata apokopên to gar apotmêthen tou prôtou kechôristai, to de meriothen oikonomas tên hairesin proslabon ouk endea ton hothen eilêptai pepoiêken. ôsper gar aro mias dados anaptetai men pura polla, tês de prôtês dados dia tên exapsin tôn pollôn dadôn ouk elattoutai to phôs, houtô kai ho logos proelthôn ek tês tou patros dunameôs ouk alogon pepoiêke ton gegennêkota]. in the identification of the divine consciousness, that is, the power of god, with the force to which the world is due the naturalistic basis of the apologetic speculations is most clearly shown. cf. justin, dial. 128, 129.] [footnote 433: the word "beget" ([greek: gennan]) is used by the apologists, especially justin, because the name "son" was the recognised expression for the logos. no doubt the words [greek: exereugesthai, proballesthai, proerchesthai, propêdan] and the like express the physical process more exactly in the sense of the apologists. on the other hand, however, [greek: gennan] appears the more appropriate word in so far as the relation of the essence of the logos to the essence of god is most clearly shown by the name "son."] [footnote 434: none of the apologists has precisely defined the logos idea. zahn, l.c., p. 233, correctly remarks: "whilst the distinction drawn between the hitherto unspoken and the spoken word of the creator makes christ appear as the thought of the world within the mind of god, yet he is also to be something real which only requires to enter into a new relation to god to become an active force. then again this word is not to be the thought that god thinks, but the thought that thinks in god. and again it is to be a something, or an ego, in god's thinking essence, which enters into reciprocal intercourse with something else in god; occasionally also the reason of god which is in a state of active exercise and without which he would not be rational." considering this evident uncertainty it appears to me a very dubious proceeding to differentiate the conceptions of the logos in justin, athenagoras, tatian, and theophilus, as is usually done. if we consider that no apologist wrote a special treatise on the logos, that tatian (c. 5) is really the only one from whom we have any precise statements, and that the elements of the conception are the same in all, it appears inadvisable to lay so great stress on the difference as zahn, for instance, has done in the book already referred to, p. 232 f. hardly any real difference can have existed between justin, tatian, and theophilus in the logos doctrine proper. on the other hand athenagoras certainly seems to have tried to eliminate the appearance of the logos in time, and to emphasise the eternal nature of the divine relationships, without, however, reaching the position which irenæus took up here.] [footnote 435: this distinction is only found in theophilus (ii. 10); but the idea exists in tatian and probably also in justin, though it is uncertain whether justin regarded the logos as having any sort of being before the moment of his begetting.] [footnote 436: justin, apol. ii. 6., dial. 61. the logos is not produced out of nothing, like the rest of the creatures. yet it is evident that the apologists did not yet sharply and precisely distinguish between begetting and creating, as the later theologians did; though some of them certainly felt the necessity for a distinction.] [footnote 437: all the apologists tacitly assume that the logos in virtue of his origin has the capacity of entering the finite. the distinction which here exists between father and son is very pregnantly expressed by tertullian (adv. marc. ii. 27): "igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. quæcumque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro." but we ought not to charge the apologists with the theologoumenon that it was an inward necessity for the logos to become man. their logos hovers, as it were, between god and the world, so that he appears as the highest creature, in so far as he is conceived as the production of god; and again seems to be merged in god, in so far as he is looked upon as the consciousness and spiritual force of god. to justin, however, the incarnation is irrational, and the rest of the greek apologists are silent about it.] [footnote 438: the most of the apologists argue against the conception of the natural immortality of the human soul; see tatian 13; justin, dial. 5; theoph. ii. 27.] [footnote 439: the first chapter of genesis represented to them the sum of all wisdom, and therefore of all christianity. perhaps justin had already written a commentary to the hexaëmeron (see my texte und untersuchungen i. 1, 2, p. 169 f.). it is certain that in the second century rhodon (euseb., h. e. v. 13. 8), theophilus (see his 2nd book ad autol.), candidus, and apion (euseb., h. e. v. 27) composed such. the gnostics also occupied themselves a great deal with gen. i.-iii.; see, e.g., marcus in iren. i. 18.] [footnote 440: see theophilus ad aut. ii. 27: [greek: ei gar ho theos athanaton ton anthrôpon ap' archês pepoiêkei, theon auton pepoiêkei; palin ei thnêton auton pepoiêkei edokei an ho theos aitios einai tou thanatou autou. oute oun athanaton auton epoiêsen oute mên thnêton, alla dektikon amphoterôn, hina, ei rhepsê epi ta tês athanasias têrêsas tên entolên tou theou, misthon komisêtai par' autou tên athanasian kai genêtai theos, ei d' au trapê epi ta tou thanatou pragmata parakousas tou theou, autos eautô aitios ê tou thanatou.]] [footnote 441: see justin, apol. i. 14 ff. and the parallel passages in the other apologists.] [footnote 442: see tatian, orat. ii. and many other passages.] [footnote 443: along with this the apologists emphasise the resurrection of the flesh in the strongest way as the specific article of christian anticipation, and prove the possibility of realising this irrational hope. yet to the apologists the ultimate ground of their trust in this early-christian idea is their reliance on the unlimited omnipotence of god and this confidence is a proof of the vividness of their idea of him. nevertheless this conception assumes that in the other world there will be a return of the flesh, which on this side the grave had to be overcome and regarded as non-existent. a clearly chiliastic element is found only in justin.] [footnote 444: no uniform conception of this is found in the apologists; see wendt, die christliche lehre von der menschlichen vollkommenheit 1882, pp. 8-20. justin speaks only of a heavenly destination for which man is naturally adapted. with tatian and theophilus it is different.] [footnote 445: the idea that the demon sovereignty has led to some change in the psychological condition and capacities of man is absolutely unknown to justin (see wendt, l.c., p. 11 f., who has successfully defended the correct view in engelhardt's "das christenthum justin's des märtyrers" pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against stählin, "justin der märtyrer und sein neuester beurtheiler" 1880, p. 16 f.). tatian expressed a different opinion, which, however, involved him in evident contradictions (see above, p. 191 ff.). the apologetic theology necessarily adhered to the two following propositions: (1) the freedom to do what is good is not lost and cannot be. this doctrine was opposed to philosophic determinism and popular fatalism. (2) the desires of the flesh resulting from the constitution of man only become evil when they destroy or endanger the sovereignty of reason. the formal _liberum arbitrium_ explains the possibility of sin, whilst its actual existence is accounted for by the desire that is excited by the demons. the apologists acknowledge the universality of sin and death, but refused to admit the necessity of the former in order not to call its guilty character in question. on the other hand they are deeply imbued with the idea that the sovereignty of death is the most powerful factor in the perpetuation of sin. their believing conviction of the omnipotence of god, as well as their moral conviction of the responsibility of man, protected them in theory from a strictly dualistic conception of the world. at the same time, like all who separate nature and morality in their ethical system, though in other respects they do not do so, the apologists were obliged in practice to be dualists.] [footnote 446: death is accounted the worst evil. when theophilus (ii. 26) represents it as a blessing, we must consider that he is arguing against marcion. polytheism is traced to the demons; they are accounted the authors of the fables about the gods; the shameful actions of the latter are partly the deeds of demons and partly lies.] [footnote 447: the old testament therefore is not primarily viewed as the book of prophecy or of preparation for christ, but as the book of the full revelation which cannot be surpassed. in point of content the teaching of the prophets and of christ is completely identical. the prophetical details in the old testament serve only to attest the _one_ truth. the apologists confess that they were converted to christianity by reading the old testament. cf. justin's and tatian's confessions. perhaps commodian (instruct. i. 1) is also be understood thus.] [footnote 448: the _oratio_ of tatian is very instructive in this respect. in this book he has nowhere spoken _ex professo_ of the incarnation of the logos in christ; but in c. 13 fin. he calls the holy spirit "the servant of god who has suffered," and in c. 21 init. he says: "we are not fools and do not adduce anything stupid, when we proclaim that god has appeared in human form." similar expressions are found in minucius felix. in no part of aristides' apology is there any mention of the pre-christian appearance of the logos. the writer merely speaks of the revelation of the son of god in jesus christ.] [footnote 449: we seldom receive an answer to the question as to why this or that particular occurrence should have been prophesied. according to the ideas of the apologists, however, we have hardly a right to put that question; for, since the value of the historical consists in its having been predicted, its content is of no importance. the fact that jesus finds the she-ass bound to a vine (justin, apol. i. 32) is virtually quite as important as his being born of a virgin. both occurrences attest the prophetic teachings of god, freedom, etc.] [footnote 450: in justin's polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking way. thus we find in a fragment of the treatise [greek: pros markiôna], quoted by irenæus (iv. 6. 2), the sentence "unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans." so the theologoumenon of the _recapitulatio per christum_ already appeared in justin. (vide also dial. c. tryph. 100.) if we compare tertullian's _apologeticum_ with his antignostic writings we easily see how impossible it is to determine from that work the extent of his christian faith and knowledge. the same is probably the case, though to a less extent, with justin's apologetic writings.] [footnote 451: christians do not place a man alongside of god, for christ is god, though indeed a second god. there is no question of two natures. it is not the divine nature that justin has insufficiently emphasised--or at least this is only the case in so far as it is a second godhead--but the human nature; see schultz, gottheit christi, p. 39 ff.] [footnote 452: we find allusions in justin where the various incidents in the history of the incarnate logos are conceived as a series of arrangements meant to form part of the history of salvation, to paralyse mankind's sinful history, and to regenerate humanity. he is thus a forerunner of irenæus and melito.] [footnote 453: even the theologoumenon of the definite number of the elect, which must be fulfilled, is found in justin (apol. i. 28, 45). for that reason the judgment is put off by god (ii. 7). the apology of aristides contains a short account of the history of jesus; his conception, birth, preaching, choice of the 12 apostles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, sending out of the 12 apostles are mentioned.] [footnote 454: "to justin faith is only an acknowledgment of the mission and sonship of christ and a conviction of the truth of his teaching. faith does not justify, but is merely a presupposition of the justification which is effected through repentance, change of mind, and sinless life. only in so far as faith itself is already a free decision to serve god has it the value of a saving act, which is indeed of such significance that one can say, 'abraham was justified by faith.' in reality, however, this took place through [greek: metanoia]." the idea of the new birth is exhausted in the thought: [greek: theos kalei eis metanoian], that of the forgiveness of sins in the idea: "god is so good that he overlooks sins committed in a state of ignorance, if man has changed his mind." accordingly, christ is the redeemer in so far as he has brought about all the conditions which make for repentance.] [footnote 455: this is in fact already the case in justin here and there, but in the main there are as yet mere traces of it: the apologists are no mystics.] [footnote 456: if we consider how largely the demons bulked in the ideas of the apologists, we must rate very highly their conviction of the redeeming power of christ and of his name, a power continuously shown in the victories over the demons. see justin apol. ii. 6, 8; dial. ii, 30, 35, 39, 76, 85, 111, 121; tertull., apol. 23, 27, 32, 37 etc. tatian also (16 fin.) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 ff. (ed. otto) does not contradict this.] [footnote 457: von engelhardt, christenthum justin's, p. 432 f., has pronounced against its genuineness; see also my texte und untersuchungen i. 1, 2, p. 158. in favour of its genuineness see hilgenfeld, zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche theologie, 1883, p. 26 f. the fragment is worded as follows: [greek: plasas ho theos kat' archas ton anthrôpon tês gnômês autou ta tês phuseôs apêôrêsen entolê mia poiêsamenos tên diapeiran. phulaxanta men gar tautên tês athantou lêxeôs pepoiêken esesthai, parabanta de tês enantias. outô gegonôs ho anthrôpos kai pros tên parabasin euthus elthôn tên phthoran phusikôs eisedexato. phusei de tês phthoras prosgenomenês anankaion ên hoti sôsai boulomenos ên tên phthoropoion ousian aphanisas. touto de ouk ên heteros genesthai, ei mêper hê kata phusin zôê proseplakê tô tên phthoran dexamenô, aphanizousa men tên phthoran, athanaton de tou loipou to dexamenon diatêrousa. dia touto ton logon edeêsen en sômati genesthai, hina (tou thanatou) tês kata phusin hêmas phthoras eleutherôsê. ei gar, hôs phate, neumati monon ton thanaton hêmôn apekôlusen, ou prosêi men dia tên boulêsin ho thanatos, ouden de êtton phthartoi palin êmen phuikên en heautois tên phthoran peripherontes].] [footnote 458: weizsäcker, jahrbücher fur deutsche theologie, 1867, p. 119, has with good reason strongly emphasised this element. see also stählin, justin der martyrer, 1880, p. 63 f., whose criticism of von engelhardt's book contains much that is worthy of note, though it appears to me inappropriate in the main.] [footnote 459: loofs continues: "the apologists, viewing the transference of the concept 'son' to the preëxistent christ as a matter of course, enabled the christological problem of the 4th century to be started. they removed the point of departure of the christological speculation from the historical christ back into the preëxistence and depreciated the importance of jesus' life as compared with the incarnation. they connected the christology with the cosmology, but were not able to combine it with the scheme of salvation. their logos doctrine is not a 'higher' christology than the prevailing form; it rather lags behind the genuine christian estimate of christ. it is not god who reveals himself in christ, but the logos, the depotentiated god, who _as god_ is subordinate to the supreme deity."] chapter v. the beginnings of an ecclesiastico-theological interpretation and revision of the rule of faith in opposition to gnosticism on the basis of the new testament and the christian philosophy of the apologists: melito, irenæus, tertullian, hippolytus, novatian.[460] 1. _the theological position of irenæus and the later contemporary church teachers_. gnosticism and the marcionite church had compelled orthodox christianity to make a selection from tradition and to make this binding on christians as an apostolical law. everything that laid claim to validity had henceforth to be legitimised by the faith, i.e., the baptismal confession and the new testament canon of scripture (see above, chap. 2, under a and b). however, mere "prescriptions" could no longer suffice here. but the baptismal confession was no "doctrine;" if it was to be transformed into such it required an interpretation. we have shown above that the _interpreted_ baptismal confession was instituted as the guide for the faith. this interpretation took its _matter_ from the sacred books of _both_ testaments. it owed its guiding lines, however, on the one hand to philosophical theology, as set forth by the apologists, and on the other to the earnest endeavour to maintain and defend against all attacks the traditional convictions and hopes of believers, as professed in the past generation by the enthusiastic forefathers of the church. in addition to this, certain interests, which had found expression in the speculations of the so-called gnostics, were adopted in an increasing degree among all thinking christians, and also could not but influence the ecclesiastical teachers.[461] the theological labours, thus initiated, accordingly bear the impress of great uniqueness and complexity. in the first place, the old catholic fathers, melito,[462] rhodon,[463] irenæus, hippolytus, and tertullian were in every case convinced that all their expositions contained the universal church faith itself and nothing else. though the faith is identical with the baptismal confession, yet every interpretation of it derived from the new testament is no less certain than the shortest formula.[464] the creation of the new testament furnished all at once a quite unlimited multitude of conceptions, the whole of which appeared as "doctrines" and offered themselves for incorporation with the "faith."[465] the limits of the latter therefore seem to be indefinitely extended, whilst on the other hand tradition, and polemics too in many cases, demanded an adherence to the shortest formula. the oscillation between this brief formula, the contents of which, as a rule, did not suffice, and that fulness, which admitted of no bounds at all, is characteristic of the old catholic fathers we have mentioned. in the second place, these fathers felt quite as much need of a rational proof in their arguments with their christian opponents, as they did while contending with the heathen;[466] and, being themselves children of their time, they required this proof for their own assurance and that of their fellow-believers. the epoch in which men appealed to charisms, and "knowledge" counted as much as prophecy and vision, because it was still of them same nature, was in the main a thing of the past.[467] tradition and reason had taken the place of charisms as courts of appeal. but this change had neither come to be clearly recognized,[468] nor was the right and scope of rational theology alongside of tradition felt to be a problem. we can indeed trace the consciousness of the danger in attempting to introduce new _termini_ and regulations not prescribed by the holy scriptures.[469] the bishops themselves in fact encouraged this apprehension in order to warn people against the gnostics,[470] and after the deluge of heresy, representatives of church orthodoxy looked with distrust on every philosophic-theological formula.[471] such propositions of rationalistic theology as were absolutely required, were, however, placed by irenæus and tertullian on the same level as the hallowed doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by them as something of a different nature. irenæus uttered most urgent warnings against subtle speculations;[472] but yet, in the naivest way, associated with the faithfully preserved traditional doctrines and fancies of the faith theories which he likewise regarded as tradition and which, in point of form, did not differ from those of the apologists or gnostics.[473] the holy scriptures of the new testament were the basis on which irenæus set forth the most important doctrines of christianity. some of these he stated as they had been conceived by the oldest tradition (see the eschatology), others he adapted to the new necessities. the qualitative distinction between the _fides credenda_ and theology was noticed neither by irenæus nor by hippolytus and tertullian. according to irenæus i. 10. 3 this distinction is merely quantitative. here faith and theological knowledge are still completely intermixed. whilst stating and establishing the doctrines of tradition with the help of the new testament, and revising and fixing them by means of intelligent deduction, the fathers think they are setting forth the faith itself and nothing else. anything more than this is only curiosity not unattended with danger to christians. theology is interpreted faith.[474] corresponding to the baptismal confession there thus arose at the first a loose system of dogmas which were necessarily devoid of strict style, definite principle, or fixed and harmonious aim. in this form we find them with special plainness in tertullian.[475] this writer was still completely incapable of inwardly connecting his rational (stoic) theology, as developed by him for apologetic purposes, with the christological doctrines of the _regula fidei_, which, after the example of irenæus, he constructed and defended from scripture and tradition in opposition to heresy. whenever he attempts in any place to prove the _intrinsic_ necessity of these dogmas, he seldom gets beyond rhetorical statements, holy paradoxes, or juristic forms. as a systematic thinker, a cosmologist, moralist, and jurist rather than a theosophist, as a churchman, a masterly defender of tradition, as a christian exclusively guided in practical life by the strict precepts and hopes of the gospel, his theology, if by that we understand his collective theological disquisitions, is completely devoid of unity, and can only be termed a mixture of dissimilar and, not unfrequently, contradictory propositions, which admit of no comparison with the older theology of valentinus or the later system of origen.[476] to tertullian everything lies side by side; problems which chance to turn up are just as quickly solved. the specific faith of christians is indeed no longer, as it sometimes seems to be in justin's case, a great apparatus of proof for the doctrines of the only true philosophy; it rather stands, in its own independent value, side by side with these, partly in a crude, partly in a developed form; but inner principles and aims are nearly everywhere sought for in vain.[477] in spite of this he possesses inestimable importance in the history of dogma; for he developed and created, in a disconnected form and partly in the shape of legal propositions, a series of the most important dogmatic formulæ, which cyprian, novatian, hosius, and the roman bishops of the fourth century, ambrosius and leo i., introduced into the general dogmatic system of the catholic church. he founded the terminology both of the trinitarian and of the christological dogma; and in addition to this was the first to give currency to a series of dogmatic concepts (_satisfacere_, _meritum_, _sacramentum_, _vitium originis_ etc., etc._). finally it was he who at the very outset imparted to the type of dogmatic that arose in the west its momentous bias in the direction of _auctoritas et ratio_, and its corresponding tendency to assume a legal character (_lex_, formal and material), peculiarities which were to become more and more clearly marked as time went on.[478] but, great as is his importance in this respect, it has no connection at all with the fundamental conception of christianity peculiar to himself, for, as a matter of fact, this was already out of date at the time when he lived. what influenced the history of dogma was not his christianity, but his masterly power of framing formulæ. it is different with irenæus. the christianity of this man proved a decisive factor in the history of dogma in respect of its content. if tertullian supplied the future catholic dogmatic with the most important part of its formulæ, irenæus clearly sketched for it its fundamental idea, by combining the ancient notion of salvation with new testament (pauline) thoughts.[479] accordingly, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, the great work of irenæus is far superior to the theological writings of tertullian. this appears already in the task, voluntarily undertaken by irenæus, of giving a relatively complete exposition of the doctrines of ecclesiastical christianity on the basis of the new testament, in opposition to heresy. tertullian nowhere betrayed a similar systematic necessity, which indeed, in the case of the gallic bishop too, only made its appearance as the result of polemical motives. but irenæus to a certain degree succeeded in amalgamating philosophic theology and the statements of ecclesiastical tradition viewed as doctrines. this result followed (1) because he never lost sight of a fundamental idea to which he tried to refer everything, and (2) because he was directed by a confident view of christianity as a religion, that is, a theory of its purpose. the first fundamental idea, in its all-dominating importance, was suggested to irenæus by his opposition to gnosticism. it is the conviction that the creator of the world and the supreme god are one and the same.[480] the other theory as to the aim of christianity, however, is shared by irenæus with paul, valentinus, and marcion. it is the conviction that christianity is real redemption, and that this redemption was only effected by the appearance of christ. the working out of these two ideas is the most important feature in irenæus' book. as yet, indeed, he by no means really succeeded in completely adapting to these two fundamental thoughts all the materials to be taken from holy scripture and found in the rule of faith; he only thought with systematic clearness within the scheme of the apologists. his archaic eschatological disquisitions are of a heterogeneous nature, and a great deal of his material, as, for instance, pauline formulæ and thoughts, he completely emptied of its content, inasmuch as he merely contrived to turn it into a testimony of the oneness and absolute causality of god the creator; but the repetition of the same main thoughts to an extent that is wearisome to us, and the attempt to refer everything to these, unmistakably constitute the success of his work.[481] god the creator and the one jesus christ are really the middle points of his theological system, and in this way he tried to assign an intrinsic significance to the several historical statements of the baptismal confession. looked at from this point of view, his speculations were almost of an identical nature with the gnostic.[482] but, while he conceives christianity as an explanation of the world and as redemption, his christocentric teaching was opposed to that of the gnostics. since the latter started with the conception of an original dualism they saw in the empiric world a faulty combination of opposing elements,[483] and therefore recognised in the redemption by christ the separation of what was unnaturally united. irenæus, on the contrary, who began with the idea of the absolute causality of god the creator, saw in the empiric world faulty estrangements and separations, and therefore viewed the redemption by christ as the reunion of things unnaturally separated--the "recapitulatio" ([greek: anakephalaiôsis]).[484] this speculative thought, which involved the highest imaginable optimism in contrast to gnostic pessimism, brought irenæus into touch with certain pauline trains of thought,[485] and enabled him to adhere to the theology of the apologists. at the same time it opened up a view of the person of christ, which supplemented the great defect of that theology,[486] surpassed the christology of the gnostics,[487] and made it possible to utilise the christological statements contained in certain books of the new testament.[488] so far as we know at least, irenæus is the first ecclesiastical theologian after the time of the apologists (see ignatius before that) who assigned a quite specific significance to the person of christ and in fact regarded it as the vital factor.[489] that was possible for him because of his realistic view of redemption. here, however, he did not fall into the abyss of gnosticism, because, as a disciple of the "elders", he adhered to the early-christian eschatology, and because, as a follower of the apologists, he held, along with the realistic conception of salvation, the other dissimilar theory that christ, as the teacher, imparts to men, who are free and naturally constituted for fellowship with god, the knowledge which enables them to imitate god, and thus by their own act to attain communion with him. nevertheless to irenæus the pith of the matter is already found in the idea that christianity is real redemption, i.e., that the highest blessing bestowed in christianity is the deification of human nature through the gift of immortality, and that this deification includes the full knowledge and enjoying of god (visio dei). this conception suggested to him the question as to the cause of the incarnation as well as the answer to the same. the question "cur deus--homo", which was by no means clearly formulated in the apologetic writings, in so far as in these "homo" only meant _appearance_ among men, and the "why" was answered by referring to prophecy and the necessity of divine teaching, was by irenæus made the central point. the reasons why the answer he gave was so highly satisfactory may be stated as follows: (1) it proved that the christian blessing of salvation was of a specific kind. (2) it was similar in point of form to the so-called gnostic conception of christianity, and even surpassed it as regards the promised extent of the sphere included in the deification. (3) it harmonised with the eschatological tendency of christendom, and at the same time was fitted to replace the material eschatological expectations that were fading away. (4) it was in keeping with the mystic and neoplatonic current of the time, and afforded it the highest imaginable satisfaction. (5) for the vanishing trust in the possibility of attaining the highest knowledge by the aid of reason it substituted the sure hope of a supernatural transformation of human nature which would even enable it to appropriate that which is above reason. (6) lastly, it provided the traditional historical utterances respecting christ, as well as the whole preceding course of history, with a firm foundation and a definite aim, and made it possible to conceive a history of salvation unfolding itself by degrees [greek: oikonomia theou]. according to this conception the central point of history was no longer the logos as such, but christ as the _incarnate god_, while at the same time the moralistic interest was balanced by a really religious one. an approach was thus made to the pauline theology, though indeed in a very peculiar way and to some extent only in appearance. a more exact representation of salvation through christ has, however, been given by irenæus as follows: incorruptibility is a _habitus_ which is the opposite of our present one and indeed of man's natural condition. for immortality is at once god's manner of existence and his attribute; as a created being man is only "capable of incorruption and immortality" ("_capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis_");[490] thanks to the divine goodness, however, he is intended for the same, and yet is empirically "subjected to the power of death" ("sub condicione mortis"). now the sole way in which immortality as a physical condition can be obtained is by its possessor uniting himself _realiter_ with human nature, in order to deify it "by adoption" ("_per adoptionem_"), such is the technical term of irenæus. the deity must become what we are in order that we may become what he is. accordingly, if christ is to be the redeemer, he must himself be god, and all the stress must fall upon his birth as man. "by his birth as man the eternal word of god guarantees the inheritance of life to those who in their natural birth have inherited death."[491] but this work of christ can be conceived as _recapitulatio_ because god the redeemer is identical with god the creator; and christ consequently brings about a final condition which existed from the beginning in god's plan, but could not be immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. it is perhaps irenæus' highest merit, from a historical and ecclesiastical point of view, to have worked out this thought in pregnant fashion and with the simplest means, i.e., without the apparatus of the gnostics, but rather by the aid of simple and essentially biblical ideas. moreover, a few decades later, he and melito, an author unfortunately so little known to us, were already credited with this merit. for the author of the so-called "little labyrinth" (euseb., h. e. v. 28. 5) can indeed boast with regard to the works of justin, miltiades, tatian, clement, etc., that they declared christ to be god, but then continues: [greek: ta eirênaiou te kai melitônos kai tôn loipôn tis agnoei biblia, theon kai anthrôpon katangellonta ton christon] ("who is ignorant of the books of irenæus, melito, and the rest, which proclaim christ to be god and man"). the progress in theological views is very precisely and appropriately expressed in these words. the apologists also professed their belief in the full revelation of god upon earth, that is, in revelation as the teaching which necessarily leads to immortality;[492] but irenæus is the first to whom jesus christ, god and man, is the centre of history and faith.[493] following the method of valentinus, he succeeded in sketching a history of salvation, the gradual realising of the [greek: oikonomia theou] culminating in the deification of believing humanity, but here he always managed to keep his language essentially within the limits of the biblical. the various acting æons of the gnostics became to him different stages in the saving work of the one creator and his logos. his system seemed to have absorbed the rationalism of the apologists and the intelligible simplicity of their moral theology, just as much as it did the gnostic dualism with its particoloured mythology. revelation had become history, the history of salvation; and dogmatics had in a certain fashion become a way of looking at history, the knowledge of god's ways of salvation that lead historically to an appointed goal.[494] but, as this realistic, quasi-historical view of the subject was by no means completely worked out by irenæus himself, since the theory of human freedom did not admit of its logical development, and since the new testament also pointed in other directions, it did not yet become the predominating one even in the third century, nor was it consistently carried out by any one teacher. the two conceptions opposed to it, that of the early christian eschatology and the rationalistic one, were still in vogue. the two latter were closely connected in the third century, especially in the west, whilst the mystic and realistic view was almost completely lacking there. in this respect tertullian adopted but little from irenæus. hippolytus also lagged behind him. teachers like commodian, arnobius, and lactantius, however, wrote as if there had been no gnostic movement at all, and as if no antignostic church theology existed. the immediate result of the work carried on by irenæus and the antignostic teachers in the church consisted in the fixing of tradition and in the intelligent treatment of individual doctrines, which gradually became established. the most important will be set forth in what follows. on the most vital point, the introduction of the philosophical christology into the church's rule of faith, see chapter 7. the manner in which irenæus undertook his great task of expounding and defending orthodox christianity in opposition to the gnostic form was already a prediction of the future. the oldest christian motives and hopes; the letter of both testaments, including even pauline thoughts; moralistic and philosophical elements, the result of the apologists' labours; and realistic and mystical features balance each other in his treatment. he glides over from the one to the other; limits the one by the other; plays off scripture against reason, tradition against the obscurity of the scriptures; and combats fantastic speculation by an appeal sometimes to reason, sometimes to the limits of human knowledge. behind all this and dominating everything, we find his firm belief in the bestowal of divine incorruptibility on believers through the work of the god-man. this eclectic method did not arise from shrewd calculation. it was equally the result of a rare capacity for appropriating the feelings and ideas of others, combined with the conservative instincts that guided the great teacher, and the consequence of a happy blindness to the gulf which lay between the christian tradition and the world of ideas prevailing at that time. still unconscious of the greatest problem, irenæus with inward sincerity sketched out that future dogmatic method according to which the theology compiled by an eclectic process is to be nothing else than the simple faith itself, this being merely illustrated and explained, developed and by that very process established, as far as "stands in the holy scripture," and--let us add--as far as reason requires. but irenæus was already obliged to decline answering the question as to how far unexplained faith can be sufficient for most christians, though nothing but this explanation can solve the great problems, "why more covenants than one were given to mankind, what was the character of each covenant, why god shut up every man unto unbelief, why the word became flesh and suffered, why the advent of the son of god only took place in the last times etc." (i. 10. 3). the relation of faith and theological gnosis was fixed by irenæus to the effect that the latter is simply a continuation of the former.[495] at the same time, however, he did not clearly show how the collection of historical statements found in the confession can of itself guarantee a sufficient and tenable knowledge of christianity. here the speculative theories are as a matter of fact quite imbedded in the historical propositions of tradition. will these obscurities remain when once the church is forced to compete in its theological system with the whole philosophical science of the greeks, or may it be expected that, instead of this system of eclecticism and compromise, a method will find acceptance which, distinguishing between faith and theology, will interpret in a new and speculative sense the whole complex of tradition? irenæus' process has at least this one advantage over the other method: according to it everything can be reckoned part of the faith, providing it bears the stamp of truth, without the faith seeming to alter its nature. it is incorporated in the theology of facts which the faith here appears to be.[496] the latter, however, imperceptibly becomes a revealed system of doctrine and history; and though irenæus himself always seeks to refer everything again to the "simple faith" ([greek: philê pistis]), and to believing simplicity, that is, to the belief in the creator and the son of god who became man, yet it was not in his power to stop the development destined to transform the faith into knowledge of a theological system. the pronounced hellenising of the gospel, brought about by the gnostic systems, was averted by irenæus and the later ecclesiastical teachers by preserving a great portion of the early christian tradition, partly as regards its letter, partly as regards its spirit, and thus rescuing it for the future. but the price of this preservation was the adoption of a series of "gnostic" formulæ. churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted the adversary's way of looking at things, and necessarily did so, because as they became ever further and further removed from the early-christian feelings and thoughts, they had always more and more lost every other point of view. the old catholic fathers permanently settled a great part of early tradition for christendom, but at the same time promoted the gradual hellenising of christianity. 2. _the doctrines of the church._ in the following section we do not intend to give a presentation of the theology of irenæus and the other antignostic church teachers, but merely to set forth those points of doctrine to which the teachings of these men gave currency in succeeding times. against the gnostic theses[497] irenæus and his successors, apart from the proof from prescription, adduced the following intrinsic considerations: (1) in the case of the gnostics and marcion the deity lacks absoluteness, because he does not embrace everything, that is, he is bounded by the _kenoma_ or by the sphere of a second god; and also because his omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence have a corresponding limitation.[498] (2) the assumption of divine emanations and of a differentiated divine _pleroma_ represents the deity as a composite, i.e.,[499] finite being; and, moreover, the personification of the divine qualities is a mythological freak, the folly of which is evident as soon as one also makes the attempt to personify the affections and qualities of man in a similar way.[500] (3) the attempt to make out conditions existing within the godhead is in itself absurd and audacious.[501] (4) the theory of the passion and ignorance of sophia introduces sin into the pleroma itself, i.e., into the godhead.[502] with this the weightiest argument against the gnostic cosmogony is already mentioned. a further argument against the system is that the world and mankind would have been incapable of improvement, if they had owed their origin to ignorance and sin.[503] irenæus and tertullian employ lengthy arguments to show that a god who has created nothing is inconceivable, and that a demiurge occupying a position alongside of or below the supreme being is self-contradictory, inasmuch as he sometimes appears higher than this supreme being, and sometimes so weak and limited that one can no longer look on him as a god.[504] the fathers everywhere argue on behalf of the gnostic demiurge and against the gnostic supreme god. it never occurs to them to proceed in the opposite way and prove that the supreme god may be the creator. all their efforts are rather directed to show that the creator of the world is the only and supreme god, and that there can be no other above this one. this attitude of the fathers is characteristic; for it proves that the apologetico-philosophical theology was their fundamental assumption. the gnostic (marcionite) supreme god is the god of religion, the god of redemption; the demiurge is the being required to explain the world. the intervention of the fathers on his behalf, that is, their assuming him as the basis of their arguments, reveals what was fundamental and what was accidental in their religious teaching. at the same time, however, it shows plainly that they did not understand or did not feel the fundamental problem that troubled and perplexed the gnostics and marcion, viz., the qualitative distinction between the spheres of creation and redemption. they think they have sufficiently explained this distinction by the doctrine of human freedom and its consequences. accordingly their whole mode of argument against the gnostics and marcion is, in point of content, of an abstract, philosophico-rational kind.[505] as a rule they do not here carry on their controversy with the aid of reasons taken from the deeper views of religion. as soon as the rational argument fails, however, there is really an entire end to the refutation from inner grounds, at least in the case of tertullian; and the contest is shifted into the sphere of the rule of faith and the holy scriptures. hence, for example, they have not succeeded in making much impression on the heretical christology from dogmatic considerations, though in this respect irenæus was still very much more successful than tertullian.[506] besides, in adv. marc. ii. 27, the latter betrayed what interest he took in the preëxistent christ as distinguished from god the father. it is not expedient to separate the arguments advanced by the fathers against the gnostics from their own positive teachings, for these are throughout dependent on their peculiar attitude within the sphere of scripture and tradition. irenæus and hippolytus have been rightly named scripture theologians; but it is a strange infatuation to think that this designation characterises them as evangelical. if indeed we here understand "evangelical" in the vulgar sense, the term may be correct, only in this case it means exactly the same as "catholic." but if "evangelical" signifies "early-christian," then it must be said that scripture theology was not the primary means of preserving the ideas of primitive christianity; for, as the new testament scriptures were also regarded as _inspired_ documents and were to be interpreted according to the _regula_, their content was just for that reason apt to be obscured. both marcion and the chiefs of the valentinian school had also been scripture theologians. irenæus and hippolytus merely followed them. now it is true that they very decidedly argued against the arbitrary method of interpreting the scriptures adopted by valentinus, and compared it to the process of forming the mosaic picture of a king into the mosaic picture of a fox, and the poems of homer into any others one might choose;[507] but they just as decidedly protested against the rejection by apelles and marcion of the allegorical method of interpretation,[508] and therefore were not able to set up a canon really capable of distinguishing their own interpretation from that of the gnostics.[509] the scripture theology of the old catholic fathers has a twofold aspect. the religion of the scripture is no longer the original form; it is the mediated, scientific one to be constructed by a learned process; it is, on its part, the strongest symptom of the secularisation that has begun. in a word, it is the religion of the school, first the gnostic then the ecclesiastical. but it may, on the other hand, be a wholesome reaction against enthusiastic excess and moralistic frigidity; and the correct sense of the letter will from the first obtain imperceptible recognition in opposition to the "spirit" arbitrarily read into it, and at length banish this "spirit" completely. irenæus certainly tried to mark off the church use of the scriptures as distinguished from the gnostic practice. he rejects the accommodation theory of which some gnostics availed themselves;[510] he emphasises more strongly than these the absolute sufficiency of the scriptures by repudiating all esoteric doctrines;[511] he rejects all distinction between different kinds of inspiration in the sacred books;[512] he lays down the maxim that the obscure passages are to be interpreted from the clear ones, not vice versa;[513] but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite unequivocal by the injunction to interpret everything according to the rule of faith[514] and, in the case of all objectionable passages, to seek the type.[515] not only did irenæus explain the old testament allegorically, in accordance with traditional usage;[516] but according to the principle: "with god there is nothing without purpose or due signification" ("nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum") (iv. 21. 3), he was also the first to apply the scientific and mystical explanation to the new testament, and was consequently obliged to adopt the gnostic exegesis, which was imperative as soon as the apostolic writings were viewed as a new testament. he regards the fact of jesus handing round food to those _lying_ at table as signifying that christ also bestows life on the long dead generations;[517] and, in the parable of the samaritan, he interprets the host as the spirit and the two denarii as the father and son.[518] to irenæus and also to tertullian and hippolytus all numbers, incidental circumstances, etc., in the holy scriptures are virtually as significant as they are to the gnostics, and hence the only question is what hidden meaning we are to give to them. "gnosticism" is therefore here adopted by the ecclesiastical teachers in its full extent, proving that this "gnosticism" is nothing else than the learned construction of religion with the scientific means of those days. as soon as churchmen were forced to bring forward their proofs and proceed to put the same questions as the "gnostics," they were obliged to work by their method. allegory, however, was required in order to establish the continuity of the tradition from adam down to the present time--not merely down to christ--against the attacks of the gnostics and marcion. by establishing this continuity a historical truth was really also preserved. for the rest, the disquisitions of irenæus, tertullian, and hippolytus were to such an extent borrowed from their opponents that there is scarcely a problem that they propounded and discussed as the result of their own thirst for knowledge. this fact not only preserved to their works an early-christian character as compared with those of the alexandrians, but also explains why they frequently stop in their positive teachings, when they believe they have confuted their adversaries. thus we find neither in irenæus nor tertullian a discussion of the relation of the scriptures to the rule of faith. from the way in which they appeal to both we can deduce a series of important problems, which, however, the fathers themselves did not formulate and consequently did not answer.[519] _the doctrine of god_ was fixed by the old catholic fathers for the christendom of succeeding centuries, and in fact both the methodic directions for forming the idea of god and their results remained unchanged. with respect to the former they occupy a middle position between the renunciation of all knowledge--for god is not abyss and silence--and the attempt to fathom the depths of the godhead.[520] tertullian, influenced by the stoics, strongly emphasised the possibility of attaining a knowledge of god. irenæus, following out an idea which seems to anticipate the mysticism of later theologians, made love a preliminary condition of knowledge and plainly acknowledged it as the principle of knowledge.[521] god can be known from revelation,[522] because he has really revealed himself, that is, both by the creation and the word of revelation. irenæus also taught that a sufficient knowledge of god, as the creator and guide, can be obtained from the creation, and indeed this knowledge always continues, so that all men are without excuse.[523] in this case the prophets, the lord himself, the apostles, and the church teach no more and nothing else than what must be already plain to the natural consciousness. irenæus certainly did not succeed in reconciling this proposition with his former assertion that the knowledge of god springs from love resting on revelation. irenæus also starts, as apologist and antignostic, with the god who is the first cause. every god who is not that is a phantom;[524] and every sublime religious state of mind which does not include the feeling of dependence upon god as the creator is a deception. it is the extremest blasphemy to degrade god the creator, and it is the most frightful machination of the devil that has produced the _blasphemia creatoris_.[525] like the apologists, the early catholic fathers confess that the doctrine of god the creator is the first and most important of the main articles of christian faith;[526] the belief in his oneness as well as his absoluteness is the main point.[527] god is all light, all understanding, all logos, all active spirit;[528] everything anthropopathic and anthropomorphic is to be conceived as incompatible with his nature.[529] the early-catholic doctrine of god shows an advance beyond that of the apologists, in so far as god's attributes of goodness and righteousness are expressly discussed, and it is proved in opposition to marcion that they are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily involve each other.[530] in the case of the _logos doctrine_ also, tertullian and hippolytus simply adopted and developed that of the apologists, whilst irenæus struck out a path of his own. in the _apologeticum_ (c. 21) tertullian set forth the logos doctrine as laid down by tatian, the only noteworthy difference between him and his predecessor consisting in the fact that the appearance of the logos in jesus christ was the uniform aim of his presentation.[531] he fully explained his logos doctrine in his work against the monarchian praxeas.[532] here he created the formulæ of succeeding orthodoxy by introducing the ideas "substance" and "person" and by framing, despite of the most pronounced subordinationism and a purely economical conception of the trinity, definitions of the relations between the persons which could be fully adopted in the nicene creed.[533] here also the philosophical and cosmological interest prevails; the history of salvation appears only to be the continuation of that of the cosmos. this system is distinguished from gnosticism by the history of redemption appearing as the natural continuation of the history of creation and not simply as its correction. the thought that the unity of the godhead is shown in the _una substantia_ and the _una dominatio_ was worked out by tertullian with admirable clearness. according to him the unfolding of this one substance into several heavenly embodiments, or the administration of the divine sovereignty by emanated _persons_ cannot endanger the unity; the "arrangement of the unity when the unity evolves the trinity from itself" ("dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat") does not abolish the unity, and, moreover, the son will some day subject himself to the father, so that god will be all in all.[534] here then the gnostic doctrine of æons is adopted in its complete form, and in fact hippolytus, who in this respect agrees with tertullian, has certified that the valentinians "acknowledge that the one is the originator of all" ("[greek: ton hena homologousin aition tôn pantôn]"), because with them also, "the whole goes back to one" ("[greek: to pan eis hena anatrechei]").[535] the only difference is that tertullian and hippolytus limit the "economy of god" ([greek: oikonomia tou theou]) to father, son, and holy ghost, while the gnostics exceed this number.[536] according to tertullian "a rational conception of the trinity constitutes truth, an irrational idea of the unity makes heresy" ("trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit") is already the watchword of the christian dogmatic. now what he considers a rational conception is keeping in view the different stages of god's economy, and distinguishing between _dispositio_, _distinctio_, _numerus_ on the one hand and _divisio_ on the other. at the beginning god was alone, but _ratio_ and _sermo_ existed within him. in a certain sense then, he was never alone, for he thought and spoke inwardly. if even men can carry on conversations with themselves and make themselves objects of reflection, how much more is this possible with god.[537] but as yet he was the only _person_.[538] the moment, however, that he chose to reveal himself and sent forth from himself the word of creation, the logos came into existence as a real being, before the world and for the sake of the world. for "that which proceeds from such a great substance and has created such substances cannot itself be devoid of substance." he is therefore to be conceived as permanently separate from god "secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma"; but as unity of substance is to be preserved ("_alius pater, alius filius, alius non aliud_"--"_ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est_"--"_tres unum sunt, non unus_"--"the father is one person and the son is another, different persons not different things", "_i and the father are one_ refers to unity of substance, not to singleness in number"--"the three are one thing not one person"), the logos must be related to the father as the ray to the sun, as the stream to the source, as the stem to the root (see also hippolytus, c. noëtum 10).[539] for that very reason "son" is the most suitable expression for the logos that has emanated in this way ([greek: kata merismon]). moreover, since he (as well as the spirit) has the same substance as the father ("unius substantia" = [greek: homoousios]) he has also the same _power_[540] as regards the world. he has all might in heaven and earth, and he has had it _ab initio_, from the very beginning of time.[541] on the other hand this same son is only a part and offshoot; the father is the whole; and in this the mystery of the economy consists. what the son possesses has been given him by the father; the father is therefore greater than the son; the son is subordinate to the father.[542] "pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio".[543] this paradox is ultimately based on a philosophical axiom of tertullian: the whole fulness of the godhead, i.e., the father, is incapable of entering into the finite, whence also he must always remain invisible, unapproachable, and incomprehensible. the divine being that appears and works on earth can never be anything but a part of the transcendent deity. this being must be a derived existence, which has already in some fashion a finite element in itself, because it is the hypostatised word of creation, which has an origin.[544] we would assert too much, were we to say that tertullian meant that the son was simply the world-thought itself; his insistance on the "unius substantiæ" disproves this. but no doubt he regards the son as the deity depotentiated for the sake of self-communication; the deity adapted to the world, whose sphere coincides with the world-thought, and whose power is identical with that necessary for the world. from the standpoint of humanity this deity is god himself, i.e., a god whom men can apprehend and who can apprehend them; but from god's standpoint, which speculation can fix but not fathom, this deity is a subordinate, nay, even a temporary one. tertullian and hippolytus know as little of an immanent trinity as the apologists; the trinity only _appears_ such, because the unity of the substance is very vigorously emphasised; but in truth the trinitarian process as in the case of the gnostics, is simply the background of the process that produces the history of the world and of salvation. this is first of all shown by the fact that in course of the process of the world and of salvation the son grows in his sonship, that is, goes through a finite process;[545] and secondly by the fact that the son himself will one day restore the monarchy to the father.[546] these words no doubt are again spoken not from the standpoint of man, but from that of god; for so long as history lasts "the son continues in his form." in its point of departure, its plan, and its details this whole exposition is not distinguished from the teachings of contemporaneous and subsequent greek philosophers,[547] but merely differs in its aim. in itself absolutely unfitted to preserve the primitive christian belief in god the father and the lord jesus christ, its importance consists in its identification of the historical jesus with this logos. by its aid tertullian united the scientific, idealistic cosmology with the utterances of early christian tradition about jesus in such a way as to make the two, as it were, appear the totally dissimilar wings of one and the same building,[548] with peculiar versatility he contrived to make himself at home in both wings. it is essentially otherwise with the logos doctrine of irenæus.[549] whereas tertullian and hippolytus developed their logos doctrine without reference to the historical jesus, the truth rather being that they simply add the incarnation to the already existing theory of the subject, there is no doubt that irenæus, as a rule, made jesus christ, whom he views as god and man, the _starting-point_ of his speculation. here he followed the fourth gospel and ignatius. it is of jesus that irenæus almost always thinks when he speaks of the logos or of the son of god; and therefore he does not identify the divine element in christ or christ himself with the world idea or the creating word or the reason of god.[550] that he nevertheless makes logos ([greek: monogenês, prôtotokos], "only begotten," "first born") the regular designation of christ as the preëxistent one can only be explained from the apologetic tradition which in his time was already recognised as authoritative by christian scholars, and moreover appeared justified and required by john i. 1. since both irenæus and valentinus consider redemption to be the special work of christ, the cosmological interest in the doctrine of the second god becomes subordinate to the soteriological. as, however, in irenæus' system (in opposition to valentinus) this real redemption is to be imagined as _recapitulatio_ of the creation, redemption and creation are not opposed to each other as antitheses; and therefore the redeemer has also his place in the history of creation. in a certain sense then the christology of irenæus occupies a middle position between the christology of the valentinians and marcion on the one hand and the logos doctrine of the apologists on the other. the apologists have a cosmological interest, marcion only a soteriological, whereas irenæus has both; the apologists base their speculations on the old testament, marcion on a new testament, irenæus on both old and new. irenæus expressly refused to investigate what the divine element in christ is, and why another deity stands alongside of the godhead of the father. he confesses that he here simply keeps to the rule of faith and the holy scriptures, and declines speculative disquisitions on principle. he does not admit the distinction of a word existing in god and one coming forth from him, and opposes not only ideas of emanation in general, but also the opinion that the logos issued forth at a definite point of time. nor will irenæus allow the designation "logos" to be interpreted in the sense of the logos being the inward reason or the spoken word of god. god is a simple essence and always remains in the same state; besides we ought not to hypostatise qualities.[551] nevertheless irenæus, too, calls the preëxistent christ the son of god, and strictly maintains the personal distinction between father and son. what makes the opposite appear to be the case is the fact that he does not utilise the distinction in the interest of cosmology.[552] in irenæus' sense we shall have to say: the logos is the revelation hypostasis of the father, "the self-revelation of the self-conscious god," and indeed the eternal self-revelation. for according to him the son _always_ existed with god, _always_ revealed the father, and it was always the _full_ godhead that he revealed in himself. in other words, he is god in his specific nature, _truly_ god, and there is no distinction of essence between him and god.[553] now we might conclude from the strong emphasis laid on "always" that irenæus conceived a relationship of father and son in the godhead, conditioned by the essence of god himself and existing independently of revelation. but the second hypostasis is viewed by him as existing from all eternity, just as much in the quality of logos as in that of son, and his very statement that the logos has revealed the father from the beginning shows that this relationship is always within the sphere of revelation. the son then exists because he gives a revelation. little interested as irenæus is in saying anything about the son, apart from his historical mission, naïvely as he extols the father as the direct creator of the universe, and anxious as he is to repress all speculations that lead beyond the holy scriptures, he could not altogether avoid reflecting on the problems: why there is a second deity alongside of god, and how the two are related to one another. his incidental answers are not essentially different from those of the apologists and tertullian; the only distinction is this incidental character. irenæus too looked on the son as "the hand of god," the mediator of creation; he also seems in one passage to distinguish father and son as the naturally invisible and visible elements of god; he too views the father as the one who dominates all, the head of christ, i.e., he who bears the creation and _his_ logos.[554] irenæus had no opportunity of writing against the monarchians, and unfortunately we possess no apologetic writings of his. it cannot therefore he determined how he would have written, if he had had less occasion to avoid the danger of being himself led into gnostic speculations about æons. it has been correctly remarked that with irenæus the godhead and the divine personality of christ merely exist beside each other. he did not want to weigh the different problems, because, influenced as he was by the lingering effects of an early-christian, anti-theological interest, he regarded the results of this reflection as dangerous; but, as a matter of fact, he did not really correct the premises of the problems by rejecting the conclusions. we may evidently assume (with zahn) that, according to irenæus, "god placed himself in the relationship of father to son, in order to create after his image and in his likeness the man who was to become his son;"[555] but we ought not to ask if irenæus understood the incarnation as a definite purpose necessarily involved in the sonship, as this question falls outside the sphere of patristic thinking. no doubt the incarnation constantly formed the preëminent interest of irenæus, and owing to this interest he was able to put aside or throw a veil over the mythological speculations of the apologists regarding the logos, and to proceed at once to the soteriological question.[556] nothing is more instructive than an examination of irenæus' views with regard to the _destination of man_, the _original state_, the _fall_, and _sin_; because the heterogeneous elements of his "theology," the apologetic and moralistic the realistic, and the biblical (pauline), are specially apparent here, and the inconsistencies into which he was led are very plain. but these very contradictions were never eliminated from the church doctrinal system of succeeding centuries and did not admit of being removed; hence his attitude on these points is typical.[557] the apologetic and moralistic train of thought is alone developed with systematic clearness. everything created is imperfect, just from the very fact of its having had a beginning; therefore man also. the deity is indeed capable of bestowing perfection on man from the beginning, but the latter was incapable of grasping or retaining it from the first. hence perfection, i.e., incorruptibility, which consists in the contemplation of god and is conditional on voluntary obedience, could only be the _destination_ of man, and he must accordingly have been made _capable_ of it.[558] that destination is realised through the guidance of god and the free decision of man, for goodness not arising from free choice has no value. the capacity in question is on the one hand involved in man's possession of the divine image, which, however, is only realised in the body and is therefore at bottom a matter of indifference; and, on the other, in his likeness to god, which consists in the union of the soul with god's spirit, but only comes about when man is obedient to him. along with this irenæus has also the idea that man's likeness consists in freedom. now, as man became disobedient immediately after the creation, this likeness to god did not become perfect.[559] through the fall he lost the fellowship with god to which he was destined, i.e., he is forfeit to death. this death was transmitted to adam's whole posterity.[560] here irenæus followed sayings of paul, but adopted the words rather than the sense; for, in the first place, like the apologists, he very strongly emphasises the elements that palliate man's fall[561] and, secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological significance. it is the fall itself and not, as in paul's case, the consequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that disobedience was conducive to man's development. man had to learn by experience that disobedience entails death, in order that he might acquire wisdom and choose freely to fulfil the commandments of god. further, man was obliged to learn through the fall that goodness and life do not belong to him by nature as they do to god.[562] here life and death are always the ultimate question to irenæus. it is only when he quotes sayings of paul that he remembers sin in connection with redemption; and ethical consequences of the fall are not mentioned in this connection. "the original destination of man was not abrogated by the fall, the truth rather being that the fall was intended as a means of leading men to attain this perfection to which they were destined."[563] moreover, the goodness of god immediately showed itself both in the removal of the tree of life and in the sentence of temporal death.[564] what significance belongs to jesus christ within this conception is clear: he is the man who first realised in his person the destination of humanity; the spirit of god became united with his soul and accustomed itself to dwell in men. but he is also the teacher who reforms mankind by his preaching, calls upon them to direct their still existing freedom to obedience to the divine commandments, thereby restoring, i.e., strengthening, freedom, so that humanity is thus rendered capable of receiving incorruptibility.[565] one can plainly see that this is the idea of tatian and theophilus, with which irenæus has incorporated utterances of paul. tertullian and hippolytus taught essentially the same doctrine;[566] only tertullian beheld the image and likeness of god expressly and exclusively in the fact that man's will and capacity are free, and based on this freedom an argument in justification of god's ways.[567] but, in addition to this, irenæus developed a second train of thought. this was the outcome of his gnostic and realistic doctrine of recapitulation, and evinces clear traces of the influence of pauline theology. it is, however, inconsistent with the moralistic teachings unfolded above, and could only be united with them at a few points. to the apologists the proposition: "it is impossible to learn to know god without the help of god" ("impossibile est sine deo discere deum") was a conviction which, with the exception of justin, they subordinated to their moralism and to which they did not give a specifically christological signification. irenæus understood this proposition in a christological sense,[568] and at the same time conceived the blessing of salvation imparted by christ not only as the incorruptibility consisting in the beholding of god bestowed on obedience iv. 20. 5-7: iv. 38, but also as the divine sonship which has been won for us by christ and which is realised in constant fellowship with god and dependence on him.[569] no doubt he also viewed this divine sonship as consisting in the transformation of human nature; but the point of immediate importance here is that it is no longer human freedom but christ that he contemplated in this connection. corresponding to this he has now also a different idea of the original destination of man, of adam, and of the results of the fall. here comes in the mystical adam-christ speculation, in accordance with the epistles to the ephesians and corinthians. everything, that is, the "longa hominum expositio," was recapitulated by christ in himself; in other words he restored humanity _to what it originally was_ and again included under one head what was divided.[570] if humanity is restored, then it must have lost something before and been originally in good condition. in complete contradiction to the other teachings quoted above, irenæus now says: "what we had lost in adam, namely, our possession of the image and likeness of god, we recover in christ."[571] adam, however, is humanity; in other words, as all humanity is united and renewed through christ so also it was already summarised in adam. accordingly "the sin of disobedience and the loss of salvation which adam consequently suffered may now be viewed as belonging to all mankind summed up in him, in like manner as christ's obedience and possession of salvation are the property of all mankind united under him as their head."[572] in the first adam we offended god by not fulfilling his commandments; in adam humanity became disobedient, wounded, sinful, bereft of life; through eve mankind became forfeit to death; through its victory over the first man death descended upon us all, and the devil carried us all away captive etc.[573] here irenæus always means that in adam, who represents all mankind as their head, the latter became doomed to death. in this instance he did not think of a hereditary transmission, but of a mystic unity[574] as in the case of christ, viewed as the second adam. the teachings in iii. 21. 10-23[575] show what an almost naturalistic shape the religious quasi-historical idea assumed in irenæus' mind. this is, however, more especially evident from the assertion, in opposition to tatian, that unless adam himself had been saved by christ, god would have been overcome by the devil.[576] it was merely his moralistic train of thought that saved him from the conclusion that there is a restoration of _all_ individual men. this conception of adam as the representative of humanity corresponds to irenæus' doctrine of the god-man. the historical importance of this author lies in the development of the christology. at the present day, ecclesiastical christianity, so far as it seriously believes in the unity of the divine and human in jesus christ and deduces the divine manhood from the work of christ as his deification, still occupies the same standpoint as irenæus did. tertullian by no means matched him here; he too has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like irenæus, account for its content. on the other hand we owe to him the idea of the "two natures," which remain in their integrity--that formula which owes its adoption to the influence of leo i. and at bottom contradicts irenæus' thought "the son of god became the son of man," ("filius dei factus filius hominis"). finally, the manner in which irenæus tried to interpret the historical utterances about jesus christ from the standpoint of the divine manhood idea, and to give them a significance in regard to salvation is also an epoch-making fact. "filius dei filius hominis factus," "it is one and the same jesus christ, not a jesus and a christ, nor a mere temporary union of an æon and a man, but one and the same person, who created the world, was born, suffered, and ascended"--this along with the dogma of god the creator is the cardinal doctrine of irenæus:[577] "jesus christ truly man and truly god" ("jesus christus, vere homo, vere deus").[578] it is only the church that adheres to this doctrine, for "none of the heretics hold the opinion that the word of god became flesh" ("secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est").[579] what therefore has to be shown is (1) that jesus christ is really the word of god, i.e., is god, (2) that this word really became man and (3) that the incarnate word is an inseparable unity. irenæus maintains the first statement as well against the "ebionites" as against the valentinians who thought that christ's advent was the descent of one of the many æons. in opposition to the ebionites he emphasises the distinction between natural and adopted sonship, appeals to the old testament testimony in favour of the divinity of christ,[580] and moreover argues that we would still be in the bondage of the old disobedience, if jesus christ had only been a man.[581] in this connection he also discussed the birth from the virgin.[582] he not only proved it from prophecy, but his recapitulation theory also suggested to him a parallel between adam and eve on the one hand and christ and mary on the other, which included the birth from the virgin.[583] he argues in opposition to the valentinians that it was really the eternal word of god himself, who was always with god and always present to the human race, that descended.[584] he who became man was not a being foreign to the world--this is said in opposition to marcion--but the lord of the world and humanity, the son of god, and none other. the reality of the body of christ, i.e., the essential identity of the humanity of christ with our own, was continually emphasised by irenæus, and he views the whole work of salvation as dependent on this identity.[585] in the latter he also includes the fact that jesus must have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions of a complete human life from birth to old age and death.[586] jesus christ is therefore the son of god who has really become the son of man; and these are not two christs but one, in whom the logos is permanently united with humanity.[587] irenæus called this union "union of the word of god with the creature" ("adunitio verbi dei ad plasma")[588] and "blending and communion of god and man" ("commixtio et communio dei et hominis")[589] without thereby describing it any more clearly.[590] he views it as perfect, for, _as a rule_, he will not listen to any separation of what was done by the man jesus and by god the word.[591] the explicit formula of two substances or natures in christ is not found in irenæus; but tertullian already used it. it never occurred to the former, just because he was not here speaking as a theologian, but expressing his belief.[592] in his utterances about the god-man tertullian closely imitates irenæus. like the latter he uses the expression "man united with god" ("homo deo mixtus")[593] and like him he applies the predicates of the man to the son of god.[594] but he goes further, or rather, in the interest of formal clearness, he expresses the mystery in a manner which shows that he did not fully realise the religious significance of the proposition, "the son of god made son of man" ("filius dei filius hominis factus"). he speaks of a "corporal and spiritual, i.e., divine, substance of the lord", ("corporalis et spiritalis (i.e., divina) substantia domini")[595] of "either substance of the flesh and spirit of christ" ("utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus christi"), of the "creation of two substances which christ himself also possesses," ("conditio duarum substantiarum, quas christus et ipse gestat")[596] and of the "twofold condition not blended but united in one person--god and man" ("duplex status _non confusus sed conjunctus_ in una persona--deus et homo".)[597] here we already have in a complete form the later chalcedonian formula of the two substances in one person.[598] at the same time, however, we can clearly see that tertullian went beyond irenæus in his exposition.[599] he was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic principle. irenæus had as yet no occasion to explain in detail that the proposition "the word became flesh" ("verbum caro factum") denoted no transformation. that he excludes the idea of change, and that he puts stress on the logos' assumption of flesh from the virgin is shown by many passages.[600] tertullian, on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (gnostic) opponents who understood john's statement in the sense of the word's transforming himself into flesh, and therefore argued against the "assumption of flesh from the virgin" ("assumptio carnis ex virgine");[601] and, in the second place, he had to do with catholic christians who indeed admitted the birth from the virgin, but likewise assumed a change of god into flesh, and declared the god thus invested with flesh to be the son.[602] in this connection the same tertullian, who in the church laid great weight on formulæ like "the crucified god," "god consented to be born" ("deus crucifixus," "nasci se voluit deus") and who, impelled by opposition to marcion and by his apologetic interest, distinguished the son as capable of suffering from god the father who is impassible, and imputed to him human weaknesses--which was already a further step,--sharply emphasised the "distinct function" ("distincte agere") of the two substances in christ and thus separated the persons. with tertullian the interest in the logos doctrine, on the one hand, and in the real humanity, on the other, laid the basis of that conception of christology in accordance with which the unity of the person is nothing more than an assertion. the "deus factus homo" ("verbum caro factus") presents quite insuperable difficulties, as soon as "theology" can no longer be banished. tertullian smoothed over these difficulties by juristic distinctions, for all his elucidations of "substance" and "person" are of this nature. a somewhat paradoxical result of the defence of the logos doctrine in the struggle against the "patripassians" was the increased emphasis that now began to be laid on the integrity and independence of the human nature in christ. if the only essential result of the struggle with gnosticism was to assert the substantial reality of christ's body, it was tertullian who distinguished what christ did as man from what he did as god in order to prove that he was not a _tertium quid_. the discriminating intellect which was forced to receive a doctrine as a problem could not proceed otherwise. but, even before the struggle with modalism, elements were present which repressed the naïve confidence of the utterances about the god-man. if i judge rightly, there were two features in irenæus both of which resulted in a splitting up of the conception of the perfect unity of christ's person. the first was the intellectual contemplation of the perfect humanity of jesus, the second was found in certain old and new testament texts and the tradition connected with these.[603] with regard to the first we may point out that irenæus indeed regarded the union of the human and divine as possible only because man, fashioned from the beginning by and after the pattern of the logos, was an image of the latter and destined for union with god. jesus christ is the realisation of our possession of god's image;[604] but this thought, if no further developed, may be still united with the logos doctrine in such a way that it does not interfere with it, but serves to confirm it. the case becomes different when it is not only shown that the logos was always at work in the human race, but that humanity was gradually more and more accustomed by him (in the patriarchs and prophets) to communion with god,[605] till at last the perfect man appeared in christ. for in this view it might appear as if the really essential element in jesus christ were not the logos, who has become the new adam, but the new adam, who possesses the logos. that irenæus, in explaining the life of jesus as that of adam according to the recapitulation theory, here and there expresses himself as if he were speaking of the perfect man, is undeniable: if the acts of christ are really to be what they seem, the man concerned in them must be placed in the foreground. but how little irenæus thought of simply identifying the logos with the perfect man is shown by the passage in iii. 19. 3 where he writes: "[greek: hôsper gar ên anthrôpos hina peirasthê, houtô kai logos hina doxasthê. êsychazontos men tou logou en tô peirazesthai kai staurousthai kai apothnêskein sugginomenou de tô anthrôpô en tô nikan kai hypomenein kai chrêsteuesthai kai anistasthai kai analambanesthai]" ("for as he was man that he might be tempted, so also he was the logos that he might be glorified. the logos remained quiescent during the process of temptation, crucifixion and death, but aided the human nature when it conquered, and endured, and performed deeds of kindness, and rose again from the dead, and was received up into heaven"). from these words it is plain that irenæus preferred to assume that the divine and human natures existed side by side, and consequently to split up the perfect unity, rather than teach a mere ideal manhood which would be at the same time a divine manhood. the "discrete agere" of the two natures proves that to irenæus the perfect manhood of the incarnate logos was merely an incidental quality he possessed. in reality the logos is the perfect man in so far as his incarnation creates the perfect man and renders him possible, or the logos always exists behind christ the perfect man. but nevertheless this very way of viewing the humanity in christ already compelled irenæus to limit the "deus crucifixus" and to lay the foundation for tertullian's formulæ. with regard to the second point we may remark that there were not a few passages in both testaments where christ appeared as the man chosen by god and anointed with the spirit. these as well as the corresponding language of the church were the greatest difficulties in the way of the logos christology. of what importance is an anointing with the spirit to him who is god? what is the meaning of christ being born by the power of the holy ghost? is this formula compatible with the other, that he as the logos himself assumed flesh from the virgin etc.? irenæus no doubt felt these difficulties. he avoided them (iii. 9. 3) by referring the bestowal of the spirit at baptism merely to the _man_ jesus, and thus gave his own approval to that separation which appeared to him so reprehensible in the gnostics.[606] this separation indeed rescued to future ages the minimum of humanity that was to be retained in the person of christ, but at the same time it laid the foundation of those differentiating speculations, which in succeeding times became the chief art and subject of dispute among theologians. the fact is that one cannot think in realistic fashion of the "deus homo factus" without thinking oneself out of it. it is exceedingly instructive to find that, in some passages, even a man like irenæus was obliged to advance from the creed of the one god-man to the assumption of two independent existences in christ, an assumption which in the earlier period has only "gnostic" testimony in its favour. before irenæus' day, in fact, none but these earliest theologians taught that jesus christ had two natures, and ascribed to them particular actions and experiences. the gnostic distinction of the jesus _patibilis_ ("capable of suffering") and the christ [greek: apathês] ("impassible") is essentially identical with the view set forth by tertullian adv. prax., and this proves that the doctrine of the two natures is simply nothing else than the gnostic, i.e., scientific, adaptation of the formula: "filius dei filius hominis factus." no doubt the old early-christian interest still makes itself felt in the _assertion_ of the one person. accordingly we can have no historical understanding of tertullian's christology or even of that of irenæus without taking into account, as has not yet been done, the gnostic distinction of jesus and christ, as well as those old traditional formulæ: "deus passus, deus crucifixus est" ("god suffered, god was crucified").[607] but beyond doubt the prevailing conception of christ in irenæus is the idea that there was the most complete unity between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary consequence of his doctrine of redemption, that "_jesus christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse_"[608] ("jesus christ became what we are in order that we might become what he himself is"). but, in accordance with the recapitulation theory, irenæus developed the "factus est quod sumus nos" in such a way that the individual portions of the life of christ, as corresponding to what we ought to have done but did not do, receive the value of saving acts culminating in the death on the cross. thus he not only regards jesus christ as "salvation and saviour and saving" ("salus et salvator et salutare"),[609] but he also views his whole life as a work of salvation. all that has taken place between the conception and the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. this is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of the apologists. whilst in their case the history of jesus seems to derive its importance almost solely from the fulfilment of prophecy, it acquires in irenæus an independent and fundamental significance. here also we recognise the influence of "gnosis," nay, in many places he uses the same expressions as the gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand, in the mere appearance of jesus christ as the second adam, and on the other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.[610] but he is distinguished from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the personal acts of jesus, and that he applies the benefits of christ's work not to the "pneumatic" _ipso facto_, but in principle to all men, though practically only to those who listen to the saviour's words and adorn themselves with works of righteousness.[611] irenæus presented this work of christ from various points of view. he regards it as the realisation of man's original destiny, that is, being in communion with god, contemplating god, being imperishable like god; he moreover views it as the abolition of the consequences of adam's disobedience, and therefore as the redemption of men from death and the dominion of the devil; and finally he looks upon it as reconciliation with god. in all these conceptions irenæus fell back upon the _person_ of christ. here, at the same time, he is everywhere determined by the content of biblical passages; in fact it is just the new testament that leads him to these considerations, as was first the case with the valentinians before him. how uncertain he still is as to their ecclesiastical importance is shown by the fact that he has no hesitation in reckoning the question, as to why the word of god became flesh and suffered, among the articles that are a matter of consideration for science, but not for the simple faith (i. 10. 3). here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint according to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal confession and wait for the second coming of christ along with the resurrection of the body. on the other hand, irenæus did not merely confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its content and its consequences; but he also attempted to explain the peculiar nature of this redemption from the essence of god and the incapacity of man, thus solving the question "cur deus homo" in the highest sense.[612] finally, he adopted from paul the thought that christ's real work of salvation consists in his death on the cross; and so he tried to amalgamate the two propositions, "_filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos_" ("the son of god became son of man for us") and "filius dei passus est propter nos" ("the son of god suffered for us") as the most vital ones. he did not, however, clearly show which of these doctrines is the more important. here the speculation of irenæus is already involved in the same ambiguity as was destined to be the permanent characteristic of church speculation as to christ's work in succeeding times. for on the one hand, paul led one to lay all the emphasis on the death on the cross, and on the other, the logical result of dogmatic thinking only pointed to the appearance of god in the flesh, but not to a particular work of christ that had not been already involved in the appearance of the divine teacher himself. still, irenæus contrived to reconcile the discrepancy better than his successors, because, being in earnest with his idea of christ as the second adam, he was able to contemplate the whole life of jesus as redemption in so far as he conceived it as a recapitulation. we see this at once not only from his conception of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also from his way of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil. for, as the birth of christ from the virgin mary is the recapitulating counterpart of adam's birth from the virgin earth, and as the obedience of the mother of jesus is the counterpart of eve's disobedience, so the story of jesus' temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of the story of adam's temptation. in the way that jesus overcame the temptation by the devil (matt. iv.) irenæus already sees the redemption of mankind from satan; even then jesus bound the strong one. but, whereas the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no injustice, untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by which jesus resisted satan's temptation.[613] as yet irenæus is quite as free from the thought that the devil has real rights upon man, as he is from the immoral idea that god accomplished his work of redemption by an act of deceit. but, on the strength of pauline passages, many of his teachings rather view redemption from the devil as accomplished by the _death_ of christ, and accordingly represent this death as a ransom paid to the "apostasy" for men who had fallen into captivity. he did not, however, develop this thought any further.[614] his idea of the _reconciliation_ of god is just as rudimentary, and merely suggested by biblical passages. he sometimes saw the means of reconciliation solely in obedience and in the "righteous flesh" as such, at other times in the "wood." here also the recapitulation theory again appears: through disobedience at the tree adam became a debtor to god, and through obedience at the tree god is reconciled.[615] but teachings as to vicarious suffering on the part of christ are not found in irenæus, and his death is seldom presented from the point of view of a sacrifice offered to god.[616] according to this author the reconciliation virtually consists in christ's restoring man to communion and friendship with god and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very seldom speaks of god being offended through adam's sin (v. 16. 3). but the incidental mention of the forgiveness of sins resulting from the redemption by christ has not the meaning of an _abolition_ of sin. he connects the redemption with this only in the form of biblical and rhetorical phrases; for the vital point with him is the abolition of the _consequences_ of sin, and particularly of the sentence of death.[617] here we have the transition to the conception of christ's work which makes this appear more as a completion than as a restoration. in this connection irenæus employed the following categories: _restoring of the likeness of god in humanity_; _abolition of death_; _connection and union of man with god_; _adoption of men as sons of god and as gods_; _imparting of the spirit who now becomes accustomed to abide with men_;[618] _imparting of a knowledge of god culminating in beholding him_; _bestowal of everlasting life_. all these are only the different aspects of one and the same blessing, which, being of a divine order, could only be brought to us and implanted in our nature by god himself. but inasmuch as this view represents christ not as performing a reconciling but a perfecting work, his _acts_ are thrust more into the background; his work is contained in his constitution as the god-man. hence this work has a universal significance for all men, not only as regards the present, but as regards the past from adam downwards, in so far as they "according to their virtue in their generation have not only feared but also loved god, and have behaved justly and piously towards their neighbours, and have longed to see christ and to hear his voice."[619] those redeemed by jesus are immediately joined by him into a unity, into the true humanity, the church, whose head he himself is.[620] this church is the communion of the sons of god, who have attained to a contemplation of him and have been gifted with everlasting life. in this the work of christ the god-man is fulfilled. in tertullian and hippolytus, as the result of new testament exegesis, we again find the same aspects of christ's work as in irenæus, only with them the mystical form of redemption recedes into the background.[621] nevertheless the _eschatology_ as set forth by irenæus in the fifth book by no means corresponds to this conception of the work of christ as a restoring and completing one; it rather appears as a remnant of antiquity directly opposed to the speculative interpretation of redemption, but protected by the _regula fidei_, the new testament, especially revelation, and the material hopes of the great majority of christians. but it would be a great mistake to assume that irenæus merely repeated the hopes of an earthly kingdom just because he still found them in tradition, and because they were completely rejected by the gnostics and guaranteed by the _regula_ and the new testament.[622] the truth rather is that he as well as melito, hippolytus, tertullian, lactantius, commodian, and victorinus lived in these hopes no less than did papias, the asia minor presbyters and justin.[623] but this is the clearest proof that all these theologians were but half-hearted in their theology, which was forced upon them, in defence of the traditional faith, by the historical situation in which they found themselves. the christ, who will shortly come to overcome antichrist, overthrow the roman empire, establish in jerusalem a kingdom of glory, and feed believers with the fat of a miraculously fruitful earth, is in fact a quite different being from the christ who, as the incarnate god, has already virtually accomplished his work of imparting perfect knowledge and filling mankind with divine life and incorruptibility. the fact that the old catholic fathers have both christs shows more clearly than any other the middle position that they occupy between the acutely hellenised christianity of the theologians, i.e., the gnostics, and the old tradition of the church. we have indeed seen that the twofold conception of christ and his work dates back to the time of the apostles, for there is a vast difference between the christ of paul and the christ of the supposedly inspired jewish apocalypses; and also that the agency in producing this conjunction may be traced back to the oldest time; but the union of a precise christological gnosis, such as we find in irenæus and tertullian, with the retention in their integrity of the imaginative series of thoughts about antichrist, christ as the warrior hero, the double resurrection, and the kingdom of glory in jerusalem, is really a historical novelty. there is, however, no doubt that the strength of the old catholic theology in opposition to the gnostics lies in the accomplishment of this union, which, on the basis of the new testament, appeared to the fathers possible and necessary. for it is not systematic consistency that secures the future of a religious conception within a church, but its elasticity, and its richness in dissimilar trains of thought. but no doubt this must be accompanied by a firm foundation, and this too the old catholic fathers possessed--the church system itself. as regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were fully set forth by irenæus himself in book v. apart from the belief that the returning nero would be the antichrist, an idea spread in the west during the third century by the sibylline verses and proved from revelation, the later teachers who preached chiliastic hopes did not seriously differ from the gallic bishop; hence the interpretation of revelation is in its main features the same. it is enough therefore to refer to the fifth book of irenæus.[624] there is no need to show in detail that chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as much opposed to that resulting from the gnostic theory of redemption, as this doctrine itself forbids the hope of a bliss to be realised in an earthly kingdom of glory. this is not the proper place to demonstrate to what extent the two have been blended, and how the chiliastic scheme of history has been emptied of its content and utilised in the service of theological apologetics. but the gnostics were not the only opponents of chiliasm. justin, even in his time, knew orthodox christians who refused to believe in an earthly kingdom of christ in jerusalem, and irenæus (v. 33 ff.), tertullian, and hippolytus[625] expressly argued against these. soon after the middle of the second century, we hear of an ecclesiastical party in asia minor, which not only repudiated chiliasm, but also rejected the revelation of john as an untrustworthy book, and subjected it to sharp criticism. these were the so-called alogi.[626] but in the second century such christians were still in the minority in the church. it was only in the course of the third century that chiliasm was almost completely ousted in the east. this was the result of the montanistic controversy and the alexandrian theology. in the west, however, it was only threatened. in this church the first literary opponent of chiliasm and of the apocalypse appears to have been the roman presbyter caius. but his polemic did not prevail. on the other hand the learned bishops of the east in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and extirpate chiliasm. the information given to us by eusebius (h. e. vii. 24), from the letters of dionysius of alexandria, about that father's struggles with whole communities in egypt, who would not give up chiliasm, is of the highest interest. this account shews that wherever philosophical theology had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes were not only cherished and defended against being explained away, but were emphatically regarded as christianity itself.[627] cultured theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and religious philosophy; but the "simplices et idiotæ" could only understand the former. as the chiliastic hopes were gradually obliged to recede in exactly the same proportion as philosophic theology became naturalised, so also their subsidence denotes the progressive tutelage of the laity. the religion they understood was taken from them, and they received in return a faith they could not understand; in other words, the old faith and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the _authority_ of a mysterious faith took their place. in this sense the extirpation or decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of christianity in the east. with chiliasm men also lost the living faith in the nearly impending return of christ, and the consciousness that the prophetic spirit with its gifts is a real possession of christendom. such of the old hopes as remained were at most particoloured harmless fancies which, when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to dogmatics. in the west, on the contrary, the millennial hopes retained their vigour during the whole third century; we know of no bishop there who would have opposed chiliasm. with this, however, was preserved a portion of the earliest christianity which was to exercise its effects far beyond the time of augustine. finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions regarding the old testament which the creation of the new produced among the early-catholic fathers. in the case of barnabas and the apologists we became acquainted with a theory of the old testament which represented it as the christian book of revelation and accordingly subjected it throughout to an allegorical process. here nothing specifically new could be pointed out as having been brought by christ. sharply opposed to this conception was that of marcion, according to which the whole old testament was regarded as the proclamation of a jewish god hostile to the god of redemption. the views of the majority of the gnostics occupied a middle position between the two notions. these distinguished different components of the old testament, some of which they traced to the supreme god himself and others to intermediate and malevolent beings. in this way they both established a connection between the old testament, and the christian revelation and contrived to show that the latter contained a specific novelty. this historico-critical conception, such as we specially see it in the epistle of ptolemy to flora, could not be accepted by the church because it abolished strict monotheism and endangered the proof from prophecy. no doubt, however, we already find in justin and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far as a distinction was made between the moral law of nature contained in the old testament--the decalogue--and the ceremonial law; and in so far as the literal interpretation of the latter, for which a pedagogic significance was claimed, was allowed in addition to its typical or christian sense. with this theory it was possible, on the one hand, to do some sort of justice to the historical position of the jewish people, and on the other, though indeed in a meagre fashion, to give expression to the novelty of christianity. the latter now appears as the _new_ law or the law of freedom, in so far as the moral law of nature had been restored in its full purity without the burden of ceremonies, and a particular historical relation to god was allowed to the jewish nation, though indeed more a wrathful than a covenant one. for the ceremonial regulations were conceived partly as tokens of the judgment on israel, partly as concessions to the stiffneckedness of the people in order to protect them from the worst evil, polytheism. now the struggle with the gnostics and marcion, and the creation of a new testament had necessarily a double consequence. on the one hand, the proposition that the "father of jesus christ is the creator of the world and the god of the old testament" required the strictest adherence to the unity of the two testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development; on the other hand, as soon as the new testament was created, it was impossible to avoid seeing that this book was superior to the earlier one, and thus the theory of the novelty of the christian doctrine worked out by the gnostics and marcion had in some way or other to be set forth and demonstrated. we now see the old catholic fathers engaged in the solution of this twofold problem; and their method of accomplishing it has continued to be the prevailing one in all churches up to the present time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic practice still continues to exhibit the inconsistencies of treating the old testament as a christian book in the strict sense of the word and yet elevating the new above it, of giving a typical interpretation to the ceremonial law and yet acknowledging that the jewish people had a covenant with god. with regard to the first point, viz., the maintenance of the unity of the two testaments, irenæus and tertullian gave a most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to marcion,[628] and primarily indeed with the same means as the older teachers had already used. it is christ that prophesied and appeared in the old testament; he is the householder who produced both old and new testaments.[629] moreover, as the two have the same origin, their meaning is also the same. like barnabas the early catholic fathers contrived to give all passages in the old testament a typical christian sense: it is the same truth which we can learn from the prophets and again from christ and the apostles. with regard to the old testament the watchword is: "seek the type" ("typum quæras").[630] but they went a step further still. in opposition to marcion's antitheses and his demonstration that the god of the old testament is a petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they seek to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the new. (see irenæus iv. 21-36). the effort of the older teachers to exclude everything outward and ceremonial is no longer met with to the same extent in irenæus and tertullian, at least when they are arguing and defending their position against the gnostics. this has to be explained by two causes. in the first place judaism (and jewish christianity) was at bottom no longer an enemy to be feared; they therefore ceased to make such efforts to avoid the "jewish" conception of the old testament. irenæus, for example, emphasised in the most naïve manner the observance of the old testament law by the early apostles and also by paul. this is to him a complete proof that they did not separate the old testament god from the christian deity.[631] in connection with this we observe that the radical antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. irenæus and tertullian admitted that the jewish nation had a covenant with god and that the literal interpretation of the old testament was justifiable. both repeatedly testified that the jews had the right doctrine and that they only lacked the knowledge of the son. these thoughts indeed do not attain clear expression with them because their works contain no systematic discussions involving these principles. in the second place the church itself had become an institution where sacred ceremonial injunctions were necessary; and, in order to find a basis for these, they had to fall back on old testament commandments (see vol. i., chap. 6, p. 291 ff.). in tertullian we find this only in its most rudimentary form;[632] but in the course of the third century these needs grew mightily[633] and were satisfied. in this way the old testament threatened to become an authentic book of revelation to the church, and that in a quite different and much more dangerous sense than was formerly the case with the apostolic fathers and the apologists. with reference to the second point, we may remark that just when the decay of antijudaism, the polemic against marcion, and the new needs of the ecclesiastical system threatened the church with an estimate of the old testament hitherto unheard of, the latter was nevertheless thrust back by the creation and authority of the new testament, and this consequently revived the uncertain position in which the sacred book was henceforth to remain. here also, as in every other case, the development in the church ends with the _complexus oppositorum_, which nowhere allows all the conclusions to be drawn, but offers the great advantage of removing every perplexity up to a certain point. the early-catholic fathers adopted from justin the distinction between the decalogue, as the moral law of nature, and the ceremonial law; whilst the oldest theologians (the gnostics) and the new testament suggested to them the thought of the (relative) novelty of christianity and therefore also of the new testament. like marcion they acknowledged the literal sense of the ceremonial law and god's covenant with the jews; and they sought to sum up and harmonise all these features in the thought of an economy of salvation and of a history of salvation. this economy and history of salvation which contained the conception of a divine _accommodation and pedagogy_, and which accordingly distinguished between constituent parts of different degrees of value (in the old testament also), is the great result presented in the main work of irenæus and accepted by tertullian. it is to exist beside the proof from prophecy without modifying it;[634] and thus appears as something intermediate between the valentinian conception that destroyed the unity of origin of the old testament and the old idea which neither acknowledged various constituents in the book nor recognised the peculiarities of christianity. we are therefore justified in regarding this history of salvation approved by the church, as well as the theological propositions of irenæus and tertullian generally, as a gnosis "toned down" and reconciled with monotheism. this is shown too in the faint gleam of a historical view that still shines forth from this "history of salvation" as a remnant of that bright light which may be recognised in the gnostic conception of the old testament.[635] still, it is a striking advance that irenæus has made beyond justin and especially beyond barnabas. no doubt it is mythological history that appears in this history of salvation and the recapitulating story of jesus with its saving facts that is associated with it; and it is a view that is not even logically worked out, but ever and anon crossed by the proof from prophecy; yet for all that it is development and history. the fundamental features of irenæus' conception are as follow: the mosaic law and the new testament dispensation of grace both emanated from one and the same god, _and were granted for the salvation of the human race in a form appropriate to the times_.[636] the two are in part different; but the difference must be conceived as due to causes[637] that do not affect the unity of the author and of the main points.[638] we must make the nature of god and the nature of man our point of departure. god is always the same, man is ever advancing towards god; god is always the giver, man always the receiver;[639] god leads us ever to the highest goal; man, however, is not god from the beginning, but is destined to incorruptibility, which he is to attain step by step, advancing from the childhood stage to perfection (see above, p. 267 f.). this progress, conditioned by the nature and destination of man, is, however, dependent on the revelation of god by his son, culminating in the incarnation of the latter and closing with the subsequent bestowal of the spirit on the human race. in irenæus therefore the place of the many different revelation-hypostases of the valentinians is occupied by the one god, who stoops to the level of developing humanity, accommodates himself to it, guides it, and bestows on it increasing revelations of grace.[640] the fundamental knowledge of god and the moral law of nature, i.e., natural morality, were already revealed to man and placed in his heart[641] by the creator. he who preserves these, as for example the patriarchs did, is justified. (in this case irenæus leaves adam's sin entirely out of sight). but it was god's will to bring men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his son descended to men from the beginning and accustomed himself to dwell among them. the patriarchs loved god and refrained from injustice towards their neighbours; hence it was not necessary that they should be exhorted with the strict letter of the law, since they had the righteousness of the law in themselves.[642] but, as far as the great majority of men are concerned, they wandered away from god and fell into the sorriest condition. from this moment irenæus, keeping strictly to the old testament, only concerns himself with the jewish people. these are to him the representatives of humanity. it is only at this period that the training of the human race is given to them; but it is really the jewish _nation_ that he keeps in view, and through this he differs very decidedly from such as barnabas.[643] when righteousness and love to god died out in egypt, god led his people forth so that man might again become a disciple and imitator of god. he gave him the written law (the decalogue), which contains nothing else than the moral law of nature that had fallen into oblivion.[644] but when they made to themselves a golden calf and chose to be slaves rather than free men, then the word, through the instrumentality of moses, gave to them, as a particular addition, the commandments of slavery (the ceremonial law) in a form suitable for their training. these were bodily commandments of bondage which did not separate them from god, but held them in the yoke. the ceremonial law was thus a pedagogic means of preserving the people from idolatry; but it was at the same time a type of the future. each constituent of the ceremonial law has this double signification, and both of these meanings originate with god, i.e., with christ; for "how is christ the end of the law, if he be not the beginning of it?" ("quomodo finis legis christus, si non et initium eius esset") iv. 12. 4. everything in the law is therefore holy, and moreover we are only entitled to blame such portions of the history of the jewish nation as holy scripture itself condemns. this nation was obliged to circumcise itself, keep sabbaths, offer up sacrifices, and do whatever is related of it, so far as its action is not censured. all this belonged to the state of bondage in which men had a _covenant_ with god and in which they also possessed the right faith in the one god and were taught before hand to follow his son (iv. 12, 5; "lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere christum"). in addition to this, christ continually manifested himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he indicated the future and prepared men for his appearance. in the prophets the son of god accustomed men to be instruments of the spirit of god and to have fellowship with the father in them; and in them he habituated himself to enter bodily into humanity.[645] hereupon began the last stage, in which men, being now sufficiently trained, were to receive the "testamentum libertatis" and be adopted as sons of god. by the union of the son of god with the flesh the _agnitio filii_ first became possible to all; that is the fundamental novelty. the next problem was to restore the law of freedom. here a threefold process was necessary. in the first place the law of moses, the decalogue, had been disfigured and blunted by the "traditio seniorum". first of all then the pure moral law had to be restored; secondly, it was now necessary to extend and fulfil it by expressly searching out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus unveiling the law in its whole severity; and lastly the _particularia legis_, i.e., the law of bondage, had to be abolished. but in the latter connection christ and the apostles themselves avoided every transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also had a divine origin. the non-observance of this law was first permitted to the gentile christians. thus, no doubt, christ himself is the end of the law, but only in so far as he has abolished the law of bondage and restored the moral law in its whole purity and severity, and given us himself. the question as to the difference between the new testament and the old is therefore answered by irenæus in the following manner. it consists (1) in the _agnitio filii_ and consequent transformation of the slaves into children of god; and (2) in the restoration of the law, which is a law of freedom just because it excludes bodily commandments, and with stricter interpretation lays the whole stress on the inclinations of the heart.[646] but in these two respects he finds a real addition, and hence, in his opinion, the apostles stand higher than the prophets. he proves this higher position of the apostles by a surprising interpretation of 1 cor. xii. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that passage to be those of the old testament.[647] he therefore views the two testaments as of the same nature, but "greater is the legislation which confers liberty than that which brings bondage" ("maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem"). through the two covenants the accomplishment of salvation was to be hastened "for there is one salvation and one god; but the precepts that form man are numerous, and the steps that lead man to god are not a few;" ("una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum"). a worldly king can increase his benefits to his subjects; and should it not also be lawful for god, though he is always the same, to honour continually with greater gifts those who are well pleasing to him? (iv. 9. 3). irenæus makes no direct statement as to the further importance which the jewish people have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence after the appearance of the covenant of freedom. nor does this nation appear any further even in the chiliastic train of thought. it furnishes the antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital of christ's earthly kingdom; but the nation itself, which, according to this theory, had represented all mankind from moses to christ, just as if all men had been jews, now entirely disappears.[648] this conception, in spite of its want of stringency, made an immense impression, and has continued to prevail down to the present time. it has, however, been modified by a combination with the augustinian doctrine of sin and grace. it was soon reckoned as paul's conception, to which in fact it has a distant relationship. tertullian had already adopted it in its essential features, amplified it in some points, and, in accordance with his montanist ideas, enriched it by adding a fourth stage (ab initio--moses--christ--paraclete). but this addition was not accepted by the church.[649] 3. _results to ecclesiastical christianity._ as we have shown, irenæus, tertullian, and hippolytus had no strictly systematised theology; they formulated theological propositions because their opponents were theologians. hence the result of their labours, so far as this was accepted by the western church of the third century, does not appear in the adoption of a systematic philosophical dogmatic, but in theological fragments, namely, the rule of faith fixed and interpreted in an antignostic sense[650]. as yet the rule of faith and theology nowhere came into collision in the western churches of the third century, because irenæus and his younger contemporaries did not themselves notice any such discrepancies, but rather imagined all their teachings to be expositions of the faith itself, and did not trouble their heads about inconsistencies. if we wish to form a notion as to what ideas had become universally prevalent in the church in the middle of the third century let us compare cyprian's work "testimonia", written for a layman, with novatian's work "de trinitate". in the "testimonia" the doctrine of the two testaments, as developed by irenæus, forms the framework in which the individual dogmas are set. the doctrine of god, which should have been placed at the beginning, has been left out in this little book probably because the person addressed required no instruction on the point. some of the dogmas already belong to philosophical theology in the strict sense of the word; in others we have merely a precise assertion of the truth of certain facts. all propositions are, however, supported by passages from the two testaments and thereby proved.[651] the theological counterpart to this is novatian's work "de trinitate". this first great latin work that appeared in rome is highly important. in regard to completeness, extent of biblical proofs, and perhaps also its influence on succeeding times, it may in many respects be compared with origen's work [greek: peri archôn]. otherwise indeed it differs as much from that work, as the sober, meagre theology of the west, devoid of philosophy and speculation, differs in general from that of the east. but it sums up in classic fashion the doctrines of western orthodoxy, the main features of which were sketched by tertullian in his antignostic writings and the work against praxeas. the old roman symbol forms the basis of the work. in accordance with this the author gives a comprehensive exposition of his doctrine of god in the first eight chapters. chapters 9-28 form the main portion; they establish the correct christology in opposition to the heretics who look on christ as a mere man or as the father himself; the holy scriptures furnish the material for the proofs. chapter 29 treats of the holy spirit. chapters 30 and 31 contain the recapitulation and conclusion. the whole is based on tertullian's treatise against praxeas. no important argument in that work has escaped novatian; but everything is extended, and made more systematic and polished. no trace of platonism is to be found in this dogmatic; on the contrary he employs the stoic and aristotelian syllogistic and dialectic method used also by his monarchian opponents. this plan together with its biblical attitude gives the work great outward completeness and certainty. we cannot help concluding that this work must have made a deep impression wherever it was read, although the real difficulties of the matter are not at all touched upon, but veiled by distinctions and formulæ. it probably contributed not least to make tertullian's type of christology the universal western one. this type, however, as will be set forth in greater detail hereafter, already approximates closely to the resolutions of nicæa and chalcedon.[652] novatian adopted tertullian's formulæ "one substance, three persons" ("una substantia, tres personæ"), "from the substance of god" ("ex substantia dei"), "always with the father" ("semper apud patrem"), "god and man" ("deus et homo"), "two substances" ("duæ substantiæ"), "one person" ("una persona"), as well as his expressions for the union and separation of the two natures adding to them similar ones and giving them a wider extension.[653] taking his book in all we may see that he thereby created for the west a dogmatic _vademecum_, which, from its copious and well-selected quotations from scripture, must have been of extraordinary service. the most important articles which were now fixed and transferred to the general creed along with the necessary proofs, especially in the west, were: (1) the unity of god, (2) the identity of the supreme god and the creator of the world, that is, the identity of the mediators of creation and redemption, (3) the identity of the supreme god with the god of the old testament, and the declaration that the old testament is god's book of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of nothing, (5) the unity of the human race, (6) the origin of evil from freedom, and the inalienable nature of freedom, (7) the two testaments, (8) christ as god and man, the unity of his personality, the truth of his divinity, the actuality of his humanity, the reality of his fate, (9) the redemption and conclusion of a covenant through christ as the new and crowning manifestation of god's grace to all men, (10) the resurrection of man in soul and body. but the transmission and interpretation of these propositions, by means of which the gnostic theses were overthrown, necessarily involved the transmission of the logos doctrine; for the doctrine of the revelation of god and of the two testaments could not have prevailed without this theory. how this hypothesis gained acceptance in the course of the third century, and how it was the means of establishing and legitimising philosophical theology as part of the faith, will be shown in the seventh chapter. we may remark in conclusion that the religious hope which looked forward to an earthly kingdom of christ was still the more widely diffused among the churches of the third century;[654] but that the other hope, viz., that of being deified, was gaining adherents more and more. the latter result was due to men's increasing indifference to daily life and growing aspiration after a higher one, a longing that was moreover nourished among the more cultured by the philosophy which was steadily gaining ground. the hope of deification is the expression of the idea that this world and human nature do not correspond to that exalted world which man has built up within his own mind and which he may reasonably demand to be realised, because it is only in it that he can come to himself. the fact that christian teachers like theophilus, irenæus, and hippolytus expressly declared this to be a legitimate christian hope and held out a sure prospect of its fulfilment through christ, must have given the greatest impulse to the spread and adoption of this ecclesiastical christianity. but, when the christian religion was represented as the belief in the incarnation of god and as the sure hope of the deification of man, a speculation that had originally never got beyond the fringe of religious knowledge was made the central point of the system and the simple content of the gospel was obscured.[655] footnotes: [footnote 460: authorities: the works of irenæus (stieren's and harvey's editions), melito (otto, corp. apol. ix.), tertullian (oehler's and reiflerscheid's editions), hippolytus (fabricius', lagarde's, duncker's and schneidewin's editions), cyprian (hartel's edition), novatian (jackson). biographies of bohringer, die kirche christi und ihre zeugen, 1873 ff. werner, der paulinismus des irenäus, 1889. nöldechen, tertullian, 1890. döllinger, "hippolytus und kallistus," 1853. many monographs on irenæus and tertullian.] [footnote 461: the following exposition will show how much irenæus and the later old catholic teachers learned from the gnostics. as a matter of fact the theology of irenæus remains a riddle so long as we try to explain it merely from the apologists and only consider its antithetical relations to gnosis. little as we can understand modern orthodox theology from a historical point of view--if the comparison be here allowed--without keeping in mind what it has adopted from schleiermacher and hegel, we can just as little understand the theology of irenæus without taking into account the schools of valentinus and marcion.] [footnote 462: that melito is to be named here follows both from eusebius, h. e. v. 28. 5, and still more plainly from what we know of the writings of this bishop; see texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der altchristlichen litteratur, i. 1, 2, p. 24 ff. the polemic writings of justin and the antignostic treatise of that "ancient" quoted by irenæus (see patr. app. opp. ed. gebhardt etc. i. 2, p. 105 sq.) may in a certain sense be viewed as the precursors of catholic literature. we have no material for judging of them with certainty. the new testament was not yet at the disposal of their authors, and consequently there is a gap between them and irenæus.] [footnote 463: see eusebius, h. e. v. 13.] [footnote 464: tertullian does indeed say in de præscr. 14: "ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et trades, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari"; but the preceding exposition of the _regula_ shows that scarcely any scope remained for the "curiositas," and the one that follows proves that tertullian did not mean that freedom seriously.] [footnote 465: the most important point was that the pauline theology, towards which gnostics, marcionites, and encratites had already taken up a definite attitude, could now no longer be ignored. see overbeck's basler univ.--programm, 1877. irenæus immediately shows the influence of paulinism very clearly.] [footnote 466: see what rhodon says about the issue of his conversation with appelles in euseb., h. e. v. 13. 7: [greek: egô de gelasas kategnôn autou, dioti dedaskalos einai legôn oun êdei to didaskomenon hup' autou kratunein].] [footnote 467: on the old "prophets and teachers" see my remarks on the [greek: didachê], c. 11 ff., and the section, pp. 93-137, of the prolegomena to my edition of this work. the [greek: didaskaloi apostolikoi kai prophêtikoi] (ep. smyrn. ap. euseb., h. e. iv. 15. 39) became lay-teachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred traditions.] [footnote 468: in the case of irenæus, as is well known, there was absolutely no consciousness of this, as is well remarked by eusebius in h. e. v. 7. in support of his own writings, however, irenæus appealed to no charisms.] [footnote 469: see the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1.] [footnote 470: irenæus and tertullian scoffed at the gnostic terminology in the most bitter way.] [footnote 471: tertullian, adv. prax. 3: "simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua [greek: oikonomia] esse credendum, expavescunt ad [greek: oikonomian]." similar remarks often occur in origen. see also hippol., c. noet 11.] [footnote 472: the danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was impressively emphasised by irenæus, ii. 25-28. as a pronounced ecclesiastical positivist and traditionalist, he seems in these chapters disposed to admit nothing but obedient and acquiescent faith in the words of holy scripture, and even to reject speculations like those of tatian, orat. 5. cf. the disquisitions ii. 25. 3: "si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. ii. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori"; ii. 26. 1: [greek: ameinon kai symphorôteron idiôtas kai oligomatheis huparchein, kai dia tês agapês plêsion genesthai tou theou ê polymatheis kai empeirous dokountas einai, blasphêmous eis ton heautôn heuriskesthai despotên], and in addition to this the close of the paragraph, ii. 27. 1: concerning the sphere within which we are to search (the holy scriptures and "quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt", much remains dark to us even in the holy scriptures ii. 28. 3); ii. 28. 1 f. on the canon which is to be observed in all investigations, namely, the confident faith in god the creator, as the supreme and only deity; ii. 28. 2-7: specification of the great problems whose solution is hid from us, viz., the elementary natural phenomena, the relation of the son to the father, that is, the manner in which the son was begotten, the way in which matter was created, the cause of evil. in opposition to the claim to absolute knowledge, i.e., to the complete discovery of all the processes of causation, which irenæus too alone regards as knowledge, he indeed pointed out the limits of our perception, supporting his statement by bible passages. but the ground of these limits, "ex parte accepimus gratiam," is not an early-christian one, and it shows at the same time that the bishop also viewed knowledge as the goal, though indeed he thought it could not be attained on earth.] [footnote 473: the same observation applies to tertullian, cf. his point blank repudiation of philosophy in de præse. 7, and the use he himself nevertheless made of it everywhere.] [footnote 474: in point of form this standpoint is distinguished from the ordinary gnostic position by its renunciation of absolute knowledge, and by its corresponding lack of systematic completeness. that, however, is an important distinction in favour of the catholic fathers. according to what has been set forth in the text i cannot agree with zahn's judgment (marcellus of ancyra, p. 235 f.): "irenæus is the first ecclesiastical teacher who has grasped the idea of an independent science of christianity, of a theology which, in spite of its width and magnitude, is a branch of knowledge distinguished from others; and was also the first to mark out the paths of this science."] [footnote 475: tertullian seems even to have had no great appreciation for the degree of systematic exactness displayed in the disquisitions of irenæus. he did not reproduce these arguments at least, but preferred after considering them to fall back on the proof from prescription.] [footnote 476: the more closely we study the writings of tertullian, the more frequently we meet with inconsistencies, and that in his treatment both of dogmatic and moral questions. such inconsistencies could not but make their appearance, because tertullian's dogmatising was only incidental. as far as he himself was concerned, he did not feel the slightest necessity for a systematic presentation of christianity.] [footnote 477: with reference to certain articles of doctrine, however, tertullian adopted from irenæus some guiding principles and some points of view arising from the nature of faith; but he almost everywhere changed them for the worse. the fact that he was capable of writing a treatise like the de præscr. hæret., in which all proof of the intrinsic necessity and of the connection of his dogmas is wanting, shows the limits of his interests and of his understanding.] [footnote 478: further references to tertullian in a future volume. tertullian is at the same time the first christian _individual_ after paul, of whose inward life and peculiarities we can form a picture to ourselves. his writings bring us near himself, but that cannot be said of irenæus.] [footnote 479: consequently the _spirit_ of irenæus, though indeed strongly modified by that of origen, prevails in the later church dogmatic, whilst that of tertullian is not to be traced there.] [footnote 480: the supreme god is the holy and redeeming one. hence the identity of the creator of the world and the supreme god also denotes the unity of nature, morality, and revelation.] [footnote 481: what success the early-christian writings of the second century had is almost completely unknown to us; but we are justified in saying that the five books "adv. hæreses" of irenæus were successful, for we can prove the favourable reception of this work and the effects it had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on hippolytus, tertullian, clement of alexandria, victorinus, marcellus of ancyra, epiphanius, and perhaps alexander of alexandria and athanasius). as is well known, we no longer possess a greek manuscript, although it can be proved that the work was preserved down to middle byzantine times, and was quoted with respect. the insufficient christological and especially the eschatological disquisitions spoiled the enjoyment of the work in later times (on the latin irenæus cf. the exhaustive examination of loof: "the manuscripts of the latin translation of irenæus", in the "studies of church history" dedicated to reuter, 1887). the old catholic works written against heretics by rhodon, melito, miltiades, proculus, modestus, musanus, theophilus, philip of gortyna, hippolytus, and others have all been just as little preserved to us as the oldest book of this kind, the syntagma of justin against heresies, and the memorabilia of hegesippus. if we consider the criticism to which tatian's christology was subjected by arethas in the 10th century (oratio 5; see my texte und untersuchungen i. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judgment passed on chiliasm from the 3rd century downwards, and if we moreover reflect that the older polemical works directed against heretics were supplanted by later detailed ones, we have a summary of the reasons for the loss of that oldest catholic literature. this loss indeed makes it impossible for us to form an exact estimate of the extent and intensity of the effect produced by any individual writing, even including the great work of irenæus.] [footnote 482: people are fond of speaking of the "asia minor" theology of irenæus, ascribe it already to his teachers, polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from these to the apostle john, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation: john--irenæus. by this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an "apostolic" circle, and gnosticism and antignosticism are thus eliminated. but the following arguments may be urged against this theory: (1) what we know of polycarp by no means gives countenance to the supposition that irenæus learned more from him and his fellows than a pious regard for the church tradition and a collection of historical traditions and principles. (2) the doctrine of irenæus cannot be separated from the received _canon_ of new testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as yet no such compilation. (3) the presbyter from whom irenæus adopted important lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the middle of the second century. (4) tertullian owes his christocentric theology, so far as he has such a thing, to irenæus (and melito?).] [footnote 483: marcion, as is well known, went still further in his depreciatory judgment of the world, and therefore recognised in the redemption through christ a pure act of grace.] [footnote 484: see molwitz, de [greek: anakephalaiôseôs] in irenæi theologia potestate, dresden, 1874.] [footnote 485: see, e.g., the epistle to the ephesians and also the epistles to the romans and galatians.] [footnote 486: but see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. we might without loss give up the half of the apologies in return for the preservation of justin's chief antignostic work.] [footnote 487: according to the gnostic christology christ merely restores the _status quo ante_, according to that of irenæus he first and alone realises the hitherto unaccomplished destination of humanity.] [footnote 488: according to the gnostic conception the incarnation of the divine, i.e., the fall of _sophia_, contains, paradoxically expressed, the element of sin; according to irenæus' idea the element of redemption. hence we must compare not only the gnostic christ, but the gnostic sophia, with the christ of the church. irenæus himself did so in ii. 20. 3.] [footnote 489: after tracing in ii. 14 the origin of the gnostic theologoumena to the greek philosophers irenæus continues § 7: "dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (scil. "ye gnostics with the philosophers"), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. ut (lege "ad") quid enim descendebat?" it is characteristic of irenæus not to ask what is new in the revelations of god (through the prophets and the logos), but quite definitely: "cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum?" see also lib. iii. præf.: "veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina", iii. 10. 3: "hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii del agnitio ... agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est." iii. 11. 3: iii. 12. 7: iv. 24.] [footnote 490: see ii. 24. 3, 4: "non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur." cf. what follows. irenæus has in various places argued that human nature inclusive of the flesh is _capax incorruptibilitatis_, and likewise that immortality is at once a free gift and the realisation of man's destiny.] [footnote 491: book v. pref.: "iesus christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse": iii. 6. i: "deus stetit in synagoga deorum ... de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. hæc enim est synagoga dei," etc.; see also what follows iii. 16. 3: "filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus portante homine et capiente et compleciente filium dei." iii. 16. 6: "dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est iesus christus dominus noster ... unus iesus christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. in omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans ... in semetipsum primatum assumens,.. universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore." iii. 18. 1: "quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in christo iesu reciperemus." cf. the whole 18th chapter where the deepest thoughts of the pauline gnosis of the death on the cross are amalgamated with the gnosis of the incarnation; see especially 18. 6, 7: "[greek: ênôsen oun ton anthrôpon tô theô. ei gar mê anthrôpos enikêsen tên antipalon tou anthrôpou, ouk an dikaiôs enikêthê ho echthros. palin te, ei mê ho theos edôrêsato tên sôtêrian, ouk an bebaiôs eschomen autên. kai ei mê sunênôthê ho anthrôpos tô theô, ouk an êdunêthê metaschein tês aphtharsias. edei gar ton mesitên theou te kai anthrôpôn dia tês idias pros hekaterous oikeiotêtos eis philian kai homonoian tous amphoterous sunagôgein; kai theô men parastêsai ton antrôpon anthrôpois de gnôrisai ton theon.] qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsura recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem." the pauline ideas about sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by irenæus in what follows. the disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea. in cap. 19 irenæus turns to those who hold jesus to be a mere man, "perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem ... privantur munere eius, quod est vita æsterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ? narrans: [greek: egô eipa, huioi hupsistou este pantes kai theoi; humeis de hôs anthrôpoi apothnêskete. tauta legei pros tous mê dexamenous tên dôrean tês huiothesias, all' atimazontas tên sarkôsin tês katharas gennêseôs tou logou tou theou ... eis touto gar ho logos anthrôpos] et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, [greek: hina ho anthrôpos ton logon chôrêsas kai tên huiothesian labôn huios genêtai theou]. non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorbet*etur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?" iii. 21. 10: [greek: ei toinun ho prôtos adam esche patera anthrôpon kai ek spermatos egennêthê, eikos ên kai deuteron adam legein ex iôsêph gegennêsthai. ei de ekeinos ek gês elêphthê, plastês de autou ho theos, edei kai ton anakephalaioumenon eis auton hupo tou theou peplasmenon anthrôpon tên autên ekeinô tês gennêseôs echein homoiotêta. eis ti oun palin ouk elabe choun ho theos, all' ek marias enêrgêse tên plasin genesthai. hina mê allê plasis genêtai mêde allo to sôzomenon ê, all' autos ekeinos anakephalaiôthê têroumenês tês homoiotêtos]; iii. 23. 1: iv. 38: v. 36: iv. 20: v. 16, 19-21, 22. in working out this thought irenæus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the disquisitions regarding the salvation of adam, opposed to tatian's views, in iii. 23). but he does not fall into this for two reasons. in the first place, as regards the history, of jesus, he has been taught by paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view the work of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of christ (see ii. 20. 3: "dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit"; iii. 16. 9: iii. 18. 1-7 and many other passages), that is, to regard christ as having performed a _work_. secondly, alongside of the deification of adam's children, viewed as a mechanical result of the incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that christ, as the teacher, imparts complete knowledge, that he has restored, i.e., strengthened the freedom of man, and that redemption (by which he means fellowship with god) therefore takes place only in the case of those children of adam that acknowledge the truth proclaimed by christ and imitate the redeemer in a holy life (v. 1. 1.: "non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. neque enim alias poterat enarrare nobis, quæ sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum ... neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso", and many other passages). we find a combined formula in iii. 5. 3: "christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem."] [footnote 492: theophilus also did not see further, see wendt, l.c., 17 ff.] [footnote 493: melito's teaching must have been similar. in a fragment attributed to him (see my texte und untersuchungen i. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.) we even find the expression "[greek: hai duo ousiai christou]". the genuineness of the fragment is indeed disputed, but, as i think, without grounds. it is certainly remarkable that the formula is not found in irenæus (see details below). the first syriac fragment (otto ix. p. 419) shows that melito also views redemption as reunion through christ.] [footnote 494: the conception of the stage by stage development of the economy of god and the corresponding idea of "several covenants" (i. 10. 3: iii. 11-15 and elsewhere) denote a very considerable advance, which the church teachers owe to the controversy with gnosticism, or to the example of the gnostics. in this case the origin of the idea is quite plain. for details see below.] [footnote 495: it would seem from some passages as if faith and theological knowledge were according to irenæus simply related as the "is" and the "why." as a matter of fact, he did express himself so without being really able to maintain the relationship thus fixed; for faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of the reason and aim of god's ways of salvation. faith and theological knowledge are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. irenæus merely sought for a clear distinction, but it was impossible for him to find it in his way. the truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to heresy, condemned an exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge, contributed a great deal to the transformation of that faith into a monistic speculation.] [footnote 496: see 1. 10. 2: [greek: kai oute ho panu dunatos en logô tôn en tais ekklêsiais proestôtôn toutôn] (scil. than the regula sidei) [greek: epei oudeis gar uper ton didaskalon oute ho asthenês en tô logô elattôsei tên paradosin. mias gar kai tês autês pisteôs ousês oute ho polu peri autês dunamenos eipein epleonasen, oute ho to oligon êlattonêse].] [footnote 497: see bohringer's careful reviews of the theology of irenæus and tertullian (kirchengeschichte in biographien, vol. i. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739).] [footnote 498: to the proof from prescription belong the arguments derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the gnostic doctrines as well as the proofs that greek philosophy is the original source of heresy. see iren. ii. 14. 1-6; tertull. de præscr. 7; apolog. 47 and other places; the philosophoumena of hippolytus. on irenæus' criticism of gnostic theology see kunze, gotteslehre des irenäus, leipzig, 1891. p. 8 ff.] [footnote 499: see irenæus ii. 1. 2-4: ii. 31. 1. tertull., adv. marc. i. 2-7. tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar, nor two morally dissimilar deities; see also i. 15.] [footnote 500: see irenæus ii. 13. tertullian (ad valent. 4) very appropriately defined the æons of ptolemy as "personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat."] [footnote 501: see irenæus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd book, tertull. adv. valent. in several passages. moreover, irenæus still treated the first 8 ptolemaic æons with more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a biblical foundation. in confuting the doctrine of æons he incidentally raised several questions (ii. 17. 2), which church theologians discussed in later times, with reference to the son and spirit. "quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo ... aut secundum germinationem, quemabmodum ab arbore rami? et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi?... et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes"? see also ii. 17. 4: "si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt... velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantive cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit." here we have already a statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the arian doctrine.] [footnote 502: see iren. ii. 17. 5 and ii. 18.] [footnote 503: see iren. ii. 4. 2.] [footnote 504: tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv. marc. i. 9-19) that every god must, above all, have revealed himself as a creator. in opposition to marcion's rejection of all natural theology, he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. in this connection he eulogised the created world (i. 13) and at the same time (see also the 2nd book) argued in favour of the demiurge, i.e., of the one true god. irenæus urged a series of acute and weighty objections to the cosmogony of the valentinians (see ii. 1-5), and showed how untenable was the idea of the demiurge as an intermediate being. the doctrines that the supreme being is unknown (ii. 6), that the demiurge is the blind instrument of higher æons, that the world was created against the will of the supreme god, and, lastly, that our world is the imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational arguments. his refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable (ii. 7). on the idea that god did not create the world from eternal matter see tertull., adv. hermog.] [footnote 505: but this very method of argument was without doubt specially impressive in the case of the educated, and it is these alone of whom we are here speaking. on the decay of gnosticism after the end of the 2nd century, see renan, origines, vol. vii., p. 113 ff.] [footnote 506: see his arguments that the gnostics merely _assert_ that they have only one christ, whereas they actually possess several, iii. 16. 1, 8 and elsewhere.] [footnote 507: see iren., i. 9 and elsewhere; tertull., de præscr. 39, adv. valent. passim.] [footnote 508: see tertull., adv. marc. ii. 19, 21, 22: iii. 5, 6, 14, 19: v. 1.; orig. comm. in matth., t. xv. 3, opp. iii., p. 655: comm. in ep. ad rom., t. ii. 12. opp. iv., p. 494 sq.; pseudo-orig. adamantius, de recta in deum fide; orig. i. pp. 808, 817.] [footnote 509: for this reason tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the gnostics, see de præscr. 16-19: "ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut milla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa."] [footnote 510: see iren., iii. 5. 1: iii. 12. 6.] [footnote 511: see iren., iii. 14. 2: iii. 15. 1; tertull., de præscr. 25: "scripturæ quidem perfectæ sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia niysteriorum eius indigenus."] [footnote 512: see iren. ii. 35. 2: iv. 34, 35 and elsewhere. irenæus also asserted that the translation of the septuagint (iii. 21. 4) was inspired. the repudiation of different kinds of inspiration in the scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the critical views of the gnostics that were concealed behind that assumption. the alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these critical principles.] [footnote 513: see iren. ii. 10. 1: ii. 27. 1, 2.] [footnote 514: see iren. ii. 25. i.] [footnote 515: irenæus appropriates the words of an asia minor presbyter when he says (iv. 31. 1): "de his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis ... de quibus autem scripturæ non inciepant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt positæ, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere."] [footnote 516: see, e.g., iv. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom rahab entertained to be father, son. and spirit.] [footnote 517: see iren. iv. 22. 1.] [footnote 518: see iren. iii. 17. 3.] [footnote 519: justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the holy scriptures as distinguished from profane writings. tertullian speaks of two _proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ_ in adv. marc. iii. 5. 6. but the alexandrians were the first to propound any kind of complete theories of inspiration.] [footnote 520: see above p. 233, note 2, kunze, l.c.] [footnote 521: see iren, ii. 26. 1, 13. 4: "sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem." irenæus expressly says that god cannot be known as regards his greatness, i.e. absolutely, but that he can be known as regards his love, iv. 20. 1: "igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius--hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum--obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc."; in iv. 20. 4 the knowledge of god "secundum dilectionem" is more closely defined by the words "per verbum eius iesum christum." the statements in §§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially important: they who are pure in heart will see god. god's omnipotence and goodness remove the impossibility of man knowing him. man comes to know him gradually, in proportion as he is revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state of perfection. he must be in god in order to know god: [greek: hôsper hoi blepontes to phôs entos eisi tou phôtos kai tês lamprotêtos autou metechousin, houtôs hoi blepontes ton theon entos eisi tou theou, metechontes autou tês lamprotêtos. kai dia touto ho achôrêtos kai akatalêptos kai aoratos horômenon heauton ... tois pistois pareschen, hina zôopoiêsê tous chôrountas kai blepontas auton dia pisteôs]. see also what follows down to the words: [greek: metochê theou esti to ginôskein theon kai apolauein tês chrêstotêtos autou], et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. sentences of this kind where rationalism is neutralised by mysticism we seek for in tertullian in vain.] [footnote 522: see iren., iv. 6. 4: [greek: edidaxen hêmas ho kurios, hoti theon eidenai oudeis dunatai, mê ouchi theou didaxantos, toutestin, aneu theou mê ginôskesthai ton theon; auto de to ginôskesthai ton theon thelêma einai tou patros, gnôsontai gar auton hois an apokalupsê ho huios].] [footnote 523: iren. ii. 6. 1, 9. 1, 27. 2: iii. 25. 1: "providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam habent. necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicererit fabricatorem huiuss universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum." tertull., de testim. animæ; apolog. 17.] [footnote 524: see iren., iv. 6. 2; tertull., adv. marc. i, ii.] [footnote 525: see iren., v. 26. 2.] [footnote 526: see iren., ii. 1. i and the hymn ii. 30. 9.] [footnote 527: see iren., iii. 8. 3. very pregnant are irenæus' utterances in ii. 34. 4 and ii. 30. 9: "principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita" ... "substantia omnium voluntas dei;" see also the fragment v. in harvey, iren., opp. ii. p. 477 sq. because everything originates with god and the existence of eternal metaphysical contrasts is therefore impossible the following proposition (iv. 2, 4), which is proved from the parable of the rich man and lazarus, holds, good: "ex una substantia esse omnia, id est abraham et moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum."] [footnote 528: see iren. ii. 28. 4, 5: iv. 11. 2.] [footnote 529: tertullian also makes the same demand (e.g. adv. marc. ii. 27); for his assertion "deum corpus esse" (adv. prax. 7: "quis enim negabil, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie") must be compared with his realistic doctrine of the soul (de anima 6) as well as with the proposition formulated in de carne 11: "omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est." tertullian here followed a principle of stoic philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to teach that the deity has a human form, since he recognised that man's likeness to god consists merely in his spiritual qualities. on the contrary _melito_ ascribed to god a corporeal existence of a higher type (eusebius mentions a work of this bishop under the title "[greek: ho peri ensômatou theou logos],") and origen reckoned him among the teachers who recognised that man had also a likeness to god in form (in body); see my texte und untersuchungen i. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. in the second century the realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that god had a form and a kind of corporeal existence. a middle position between these ideas and that of tertullian and the stoics seems to have been taken up by lactantius (_instit. div._ vii. 9, 21; de ira dei 2. 18.).] [footnote 530: see iren., iii. 25. 2; tertull., adv. marc. i. 23-28: ii. 11 sq. hippolytus briefly defined his doctrine of god in phil. x. 32. the advance beyond the apologists' idea of god consists not only in the thorough discussion of god's attributes of goodness and righteousness, but also in the view, which is now much more vigorously worked out, that the almighty creator has no other purpose in his world than the salvation of mankind. see the 10th greek fragment of irenæus (harvey, ii. p. 480); tertull., de orat. 4: "summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit"; de paenit. 2: "bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum"; adv. marc. ii. 27: "nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis." they had here undeniably learned from marcion; see adv. marc. i. 17. in the first chapters of the work de orat., however, in which tertullian expounds the lord's prayer, he succeeded in unfolding the meaning of the gospel in a way such as was never possible for him elsewhere. the like remark may be made of origen's work de orat., and, in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the lord's prayer in the succeeding period. this prayer kept alive the knowledge of the deepest meaning of the gospel.] [footnote 531: apol. 21: "necesse et igitur pauca de christo ut deo ... jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. apud vestros quoque sapientes [greek: logon], id est sermonem et rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis." (an appeal to zeno and cleanthes follows). "et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane logos is the son of god). et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separatur substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. prax. 8). ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non necessit sed excessit. iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et christus est." tertullian adds: "recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris." as a matter of fact the heathen must have viewed this statement as a philosophical speculation with a mythological conclusion. it is very instructive to ascertain that in hippolytus' book against noëtus "the setting forth of the truth" (c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition: [greek: theos eboulêthê kosmon ktisai]. the logos whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention.] [footnote 532: see hagemann, die römische kirche (1864), p. 172 ff.] [footnote 533: see my detailed exposition of the _orthodox_ side of tertullian's doctrine of the trinity ("orthodox" in the later sense of the word), in vol. iv. there it is also shown that these formulæ were due to tertullian's _juristic_ bias. the formulæ, "una _substantia_, tres _personæ_", never alternates in his case with the others, "una _natura_, tres _personæ_"; and so it remained for a long time in the west; they did not speak of "natures" but of "substances" ("nature" in this connection is very rare down to the 5th century). what makes this remarkable is the fact that tertullian always uses "substance" in the concrete sense "individual substance" and has even expressed himself precisely on the point. he says in de anima 32: "aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantiæ est. duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant ... et tune naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. men and animals are similar _natura_, but not _substantia_." we see that tertullian in so far as he designated father, son, and spirit as one substance expressed their _unity_ as strongly as possible. the only idea intelligible to the majority was a juristic and political notion, viz., that the father, who is the _tota substantia_, sends forth officials whom he entrusts with the administration of the monarchy. the legal fiction attached to the concept "person" aided in the matter here.] [footnote 534: see adv. prax. 3: "igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero?" (!!) c. 4: "videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio." l.c.: "monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit."] [footnote 535: see hippol., c. noetum ii. according to these doctrines the unity is sufficiently preserved (1) if the separate persons have one and the same substance, (2) if there is one possessor of the whole substance, _i.e._, if everything proceeds from him. that this is a remnant of polytheism ought not to be disputed.] [footnote 536: adv. prax. 8: "hoc si qui putaverit, me [greek: probolên] aliquam introducere id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit valentinus, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utatur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius, quia et hæresis utitur; immo hæresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret"; cf. also what follows. thus far then theologians had got already: "the economy is founded on as many names as god willed" (c. 4).] [footnote 537: see adv. prax. 5.] [footnote 538: tertull., adv. hermog. 3: "fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit."] [footnote 539: novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between "factum esse" and "procedere".] [footnote 540: adv. prax. 2: "custodiatur [greek: oikonomias] sacramentum, quæ unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantiæ et unius status et potestatis."] [footnote 541: see the discussions adv. prax. 16 ff.] [footnote 542: tertull., adv. marc. iii. 6: "filius portio plenitudinis." in another passage tertullian has ironically remarked in opposition to marcion (iv. 39): "nisi marcion christum non subiectum patri infert."] [footnote 543: adv. prax. 9.] [footnote 544: see the whole 14th chap. adv. prax. especially the words: "i am ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis." one cannot look at the sun itself, but, "toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur." the chapter also shows how the old testament theophanies must have given an impetus to the distinction between the deity as transcendent and the deity as making himself visible. adv. marc. ii. 27: "quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit." in adv. prax. 29 tertullian showed in very precise terms that the father is by nature impassible, but the son is capable of suffering. hippolytus does not share this opinion; to him the logos in himself is likewise [greek: apathês] (see c. noetum 15).] [footnote 545: according to tertullian it is certainly an _essential part of the son's nature_ to appear, teach, and thus come into connection with men; but he neither asserted the necessity of the incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor can this view be inferred from his premises.] [footnote 546: see adv. prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is derived from 1 cor. xv.] [footnote 547: cf. specially the attempts of plotinus to reconcile the abstract unity which is conceived as the principle of the universe with the manifoldness and fulness of the real and the particular (ennead. lib. iii.-v.). plotinus employs the subsidiary notion [greek: merismos] in the same way as tertullian; see hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. plotinus would have agreed with tertullian's proposition in adv. marc. iii. 15: "dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur." plotinus' idea of hypostasis is also important, and this notion requires exact examination.] [footnote 548: following the baptismal confession, tertullian merely treated the holy ghost according to the scheme of the logos doctrine without any trace of independent interest. in accordance with this, however, the spirit possesses his own "numerus"--"tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis",--and he is a person in the same sense as the son, to whom, however, he is subordinate, for the subordination is a necessary result of his later origin. see cc. 2, 8: "tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et [greek: oikonomias] statum protegit"; de pudic. 21. in de præscr. 13 the spirit in relation to the son is called "vicaria vis". the element of personality in the spirit is with tertullian merely a result arising from logical deduction; see his successor novatian de trin. 29. hippolytus did not attribute personality to the spirit, for he says (adv. noet. 14): [greek: hena theon erô, prosôpa de duo, oikonomia de tritên tên charin tou hagiou pneumatos; patêr men gar eis, prosôpa de duo, hoti kai ho huios, to de triton to hagion pneuma]. in his logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the logos (see philos. x. 33: [greek: ei gar theon se êthelêse poiêsai ho theos, edunato; echeis tou logou to paradeigma]) he quite agrees with tertullian. see ibid.; here the logos is called before his coming forth "[greek: endiathetos tou pantos logismos]"; he is produced [greek: ek tôn ontôn], i.e., from the father who then alone existed; his essence is "that he bears in himself the will of him who has begotten him" or "that he comprehends in himself the ideas previously conceived by and resting in the father." cyprian in no part of his writings took occasion to set forth the logos doctrine in a didactic way; he simply kept to the formula: "christus deus et homo", and to the biblical expressions which were understood in the sense of divinity and preëxistence; see testim. ii. 1-10. lactantius was still quite confused in his trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived the holy ghost not as a person but as "sanctificatio" proceeding from the father or from the son. on the contrary, novatian, in his work _de trinitate_ reproduced tertullian's views. for details see dorner entwickelungsgeschichte i. pp. 563-634, kahnis, lehre vom heiligen geiste; hagemann, l.c., p. 371 ff. it is noteworthy that tertullian still very frequently called the preëxistent christ _dei spiritus_; see de oral. i: "dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque iesus christus." apol. 21: adv. prax. 26; adv. marc. i. 10: iii. 6, 16: iv. 21.] [footnote 549: see zahn, marcellus of ancyra, pp. 235-244. duncker, des heiligen irenaus christologie, 1843.] [footnote 550: zahn, l.c., p. 238.] [footnote 551: see iren., ii. 13. 8: ii. 28. 4-9: ii. 12. 2: ii. 13. 2, and also the important passage ii. 29. 3 fin.] [footnote 552: a great many passages clearly show that irenæus decidedly distinguished the son from the father, so that it is absolutely incorrect to attribute modalistic ideas to him. see iii. 6. 1 and all the other passages where irenæus refers to the old testament theophanies. such are iii. 6. 2: iv. 5. 2 fin.: iv. 7. 4, where the distinction is particularly plain: iv. 17. 6: ii. 28. 6.] [footnote 553: the logos (son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine grace as regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see iv. 6 (§ 7: "agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata"): iv. 5: iv. 16. 7: iv. 20. 7. he has been the revealer of god from the beginning and always remains so, iii. 16. 6: iv. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel world, see ii. 30. 9: "semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus;" he has always existed with the father, see ii. 30. 9: iii. 18. 1: "non tunc coepit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem"; iv. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: ii. 25. 3: "non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum." the logos is god as god, nay, for us he is god himself, in so far as his work is the work of god. thus, and not in a modalistic sense, we must understand passages like ii. 30. 9: "fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam," or hymnlike statements such as iii. 16. 6: "et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo" (see something similar in ignatius and melito, otto, corp. apolog. ix, p. 419 sq.). irenæus also says in iii. 6. 2: "filius est in patre et habet in se patrem," iii. 6. 1.: "utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem." he not only says that the son has revealed the father, but that the father has revealed the son (iv. 6. 3: iv. 7. 7). he applies old testament passages sometimes to christ, sometimes to god, and hence in some cases calls the father the creator, and in others the son ("pater generis humani verbum dei", iv. 31. 2). irenæus (iv. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient "immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum." this expression is by no means intended to denote a diminution, but rather to signify the identity of father and son. in all this irenæus adhered to an ancient tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational system.] [footnote 554: logos and sophia are the hands of god (iii. 21. 10: iv. 20): also iv. 6. 6: "invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius." judging from this passage, it is always doubtful whether irenæus, like tertullian, assumed that transcendency belonged to the father in a still higher sense than to the son, and that the nature of the son was more adapted for entering the finite than that of the father (on the contrary see iv. 20. 7 and especially iv. 24. 2: "verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile"). but it ought not to have been denied that there are passages, in which irenæus hints at a subordination of the son, and deduces this from his origin. see ii. 28. 8 (the knowledge of the father reaches further than that of the son and the father is greater than the son); iii. 6. 1 (the son _receives_ from the father the sovereignty); iv. 17. 6 (a very important passage: the father owns the name of jesus christ as his, first, because it is the name of his son, and, secondly, because he gave it himself); v. 18. 21, 3 ("pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans"--"verbum portatum a patre"--"et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput christi"--"verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre"). "this is not a subordination founded on the nature of the second person, but an inequality that has arisen historically," says zahn (l.c., p. 241); but it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to irenæus. we have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which was not felt by irenæus because, in his religious belief, he places christ on a level with god, but, as a theologian, merely touched on the problem. so also he shows remarkable unconcern as to the proof of the unity of god in view of the distinction between father and son.] [footnote 555: irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of god refers to mankind, see, e.g., i. 10. 3: [greek: ekdiêgeisthai tên pragmateian kai oikonomian tou theou tên epi tê anthrôpotêti genomenên], iv, 20. 7: "verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones." god became a creator out of goodness and love; see the beautiful expression in iv. 20. 7: "gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei," or iii. 20. 2: "gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientias eius et virtutis receptaculum homo." v. 29. 1: "non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem."] [footnote 556: irenæus speaks about the holy spirit in numerous passages. no doubt he firmly believes in the distinction of the spirit (holy spirit, spirit of god, spirit of the father, spirit of the son, prophetic spirit, wisdom) from the father and son, and in a particular significance belonging to the spirit, as these doctrines are found in the _regula_. in general the same attributes as are assigned to the son are everywhere applicable to him; he was always with the father before there was any creation (iv. 20. 3; irenæus applies prov. iii. 19: viii. 22 to the spirit and not to the son); like the son he was the instrument and hand of the father (iv. pref. 4, 20. 1: v. 6. 1.). that logos and wisdom are to be distinguished is clear from iv. 20. 1-12 and particularly from § 12: iv. 7. 4: iii. 17. 3 (the host in the parable of the good samaritan is the spirit). irenæus also tried by reference to scripture to distinguish the work of the spirit from that of the logos. thus in the creation, the guidance of the world, the old testament history, the incarnation, the baptism of jesus, the logos is the energy, the spirit is wisdom. he also alluded to a specific ministry of the spirit in the sphere of the new covenant. the spirit is the principle of the new knowledge in iv. 33. 1, 7, spirit of fellowship with god in v. i. 1, pledge of immortality in v. 8. 1, spirit of life in v. 18. 2. but not only does the function of the spirit remain very obscure for all that, particularly in the incarnation, where irenæus was forced by the canon of the new testament to unite what could not be united (logos doctrine and descent of the spirit upon mary--where, moreover, the whole of the fathers after irenæus launched forth into the most wonderful speculations), but even the personality of the spirit vanishes with him, e.g., in iii. 18. 3: "unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus" (on isaiah lxi. 1); there is also no mention of the spirit in iv. pref. 4 fin., and iv. 1. 1, though he ought to have been named there. father, son, and spirit, or god, logos, and sophia are frequently conjoined by irenæus, but he never uses the formula [greek: trias], to say nothing of the abstract formulas of tertullian. in two passages (iv. 20. 5: v. 36. 2) irenæus unfolded a sublime speculation, which is inconsistent with his usual utterances. in the first passage he says that god has shown himself prophetically through the spirit (in the old testament), then adoptively through the son, and will finally show himself paternally in the kingdom of heaven; the spirit prepares man for the son of god, the son leads him to the father, but the father confers on him immortality. in the other passage he adopts the saying of an old presbyter (papias?) that we ascend gradually through the spirit to the son, and through the son to the father, and that in the end the son will deliver up everything to the father, and god will be all in all. it is remarkable that, as in the case of tertullian (see above), it is 1 cor. xv. 23-28 that has produced this speculation. this is another clear proof, that in irenæus the equality of father, son, and spirit is not unconditional and that the eternity of son and spirit is not absolute. here also we plainly perceive that the several disquisitions in irenæus were by no means part of a complete system. thus, in iv. 38. 2, he inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the son to the spirit: [greek: kai dia touto paulos korinthiois phêsi: gala humas epotisa, ou brôma, oude gar êdunasthe bastazein; toutesti, tên men kata anthrôpon parousian tou kuriou emathêteuthête, oudêpou de to tou patros pneuma epanapauetai eph' humas dia tên humôn astheneian]. here one of origen's thoughts appears.] [footnote 557: the opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about redemption. noldechen (zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche theologie, 1885, p. 462 ff): "die lehre vom ersten menschen bei den christlichen lehrern des 2 jahrhunderts."] [footnote 558: here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th book is to be examined. the following sentences are perhaps the most important: [greek: ei de legei tis ouk êdunato ho theos ap' archês teleion anadeixai ton anthrôpon, gnôtô, hoti tô men theô, aei kata ta auta onti kai agennêtô huparchonti, hôs pros heauton, panta dunata; ta de gegonta, katho metepeita geneseôs archên idian esche, kata touto kai hustereisthai dei auta tou pepoiêkotos; ou gar êdunanto agennêta einai ta neôsti gegennêmena. katho de mê estin agennêta, kata touto kai husterountai tou teleiou. katho de neôtera, kata touto kai nêpia, kata touto kai asunêthê kai agumnasta pros tên teleian agôgên]. the mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but the child cannot stand it: [greek: anthrôpos adunatos labein auto; nêpios gar ên], see also § 2-4: "non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem." "ego," inquit, "dixi, dii estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus" ... "oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem et similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta boni et mali." ibid.: [greek: hupotagê theou aptharsia, kai paramonê aptharsias doxa agennêtos ... horasis theou peripoiêtikê aptharsias; aptharsia de eggus einai poiei theou]. in this chapter irenæus contemplates the manner of appearance of the logos (as man) from the point of view of a [greek: sunnêpiazein]. his conception of the capacity and destination of man enabled him to develop his ideas about the progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants (see below). on this point cf. also iv. 20. 5-7. the fact that, according to this way of looking at things, the good and divine appeared only as the _destination_ of man--which was finally to be reached through divine guidance--but not as his _nature_, suggested both to irenæus and tertullian the distinction between "natura" and "gratia" or between "substantia" and "fides et iustitia." in other words, they were led to propound a problem which had occurred to the gnostics long before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. see irenæus ii. 29. 1: "si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ ... si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc." ii. 34. 3: "non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur," ii. 34. 4. tertullian adv. marc. iii. 15: "christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione." in tertullian these ideas are not unfrequently opposed to each other in this way; but the relationship between them has by no means been made clear.] [footnote 559: on the psychology of irenæus see bohringer, p. 466 f., wendt p. 22. the fact that in some passages he reckoned the [greek: pneuma] in man as the latter's inalienable nature (e.g. ii. 33-5), though as a rule (like tatian) he conceives it as the divine spirit, is an evident inconsistency on his part. the [greek: eikôn] is realised in the body, the [greek: homoiôsis] is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the spirit of god realised through obedience (v. 6. 1). the [greek: homoiôsis] is therefore subject to growth, and was not perfect at the beginning (see above, iv. 38. 4, where he opposes tatian's opinion). it is clear, especially from v. 12. 2, that it is only the [greek: pnoê], not the [greek: pneuma], that is to be conceived as an original possession. on this point irenæus appealed to 1 cor. xv. 45. it is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th book, that irenæus also views everything as ultimately dependent on man's inalienable freedom. alongside of this god's goodness has scope for displaying itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man's knowledge through counsel; see § 1. on matth. xxiii. 37 irenæus remarks: "veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo ... posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, _datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis_." an appeal to rome ii. 4-7 (!) follows. in § 2 irenæus inveighs violently against the gnostic doctrines of natural goodness and wickedness: [greek: pantes tês autês eisi physeôs]. in § 4 he interprets the pauline: "omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt," as referring to man's inalienable freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil(!): "liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est." § 5: "et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis _servavit_ (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi." § 4: "deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia." § 3: "[greek: to autexousion tou anthrôpou kai to symbouleutikon tou theou mê biazomenou]." iv. 4. 3: "homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat."] [footnote 560: as a matter of fact this view already belongs to the second train of thought; see particularly iii. 21-23. here in reality this merely applies to the particular individuals who chose disobedience, but irenæus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of adam. see, however, v. 27. 2: "quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum." v. 19. 1, 1. 3, 1. 1. the subjective moralism is very clearly defined in iv. 15. 2: "id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierunt, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate."] [footnote 561: man's sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray (iv. 40. 3). the fact that he let himself be seduced under the pretext of immortality is an excuse for him; man was _infans_, (see above; hence it is said, in opposition to the gnostics, in iv. 38. 4: "supergredieutes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc facti hominis." the same idea is once more very clearly expressed in iv. 39. 3; "quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo?" i.e., how could newly created man be already perfect as he was not even man, inasmuch as he did not yet know how to distinguish good and evil?). cf. iii. 23. 3, 5: "the fear of adam was the beginning of wisdom; the sense of transgression led to repentance; but god bestows his grace on the penitent" ... "eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est." the "pondus peccati" in the sense of augustine was by no means acknowledged by irenæus, and although he makes use of pauline sayings, and by preference such as have a quite different sense, he is very far from sharing paul's view.] [footnote 562: see iv. 37. 7: "alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. sic et coeleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum." the main passage is iii. 20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. the fall was necessary in order that man might not believe that he was "naturaliter similis deo." hence god permitted the great whale to swallow man for a time. in several passages irenæus has designated the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of god, see, e.g., iv. 39. 1, 37. 7.] [footnote 563: see wendt, l.c., p. 24.] [footnote 564: see iii. 23. 6.] [footnote 565: see v. i. 1: "non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset ... neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes," etc.; iii. 23. 2, 5. 3: "libertatem restauravit"; iv. 24. 1: "reformavit humamum genus"; iii. 17. 1: "spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano." iii. 19. 1: iv. 38. 3: 39. 1, 2. wendt's summary, l.c., p. 24: "by the logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance," formulates irenæus' meaning correctly and excludes the erroneous idea that he viewed the logos himself as the prototype of humanity. a real divine manhood is not necessary within this train of thought; only a _homo inspiratus_ is required.] [footnote 566: see hippol. philos. x. 33 (p. 538 sq.): [greek: epi toutois ton pantôn archonta dêmiourgôn ek pasôn synthetôn ousiôn eskeuasen, ou theôn thelôn poiein esphêlen, oude angelon, all' anthrôpon. ei gar theon se êthelêse poiêsai, edunato; echeis tou logou to paradeigma; anthrôpon thelôn, anthrôpon se epoiêsen; ei de theleis kai theos genesthai, hupakoue tô pepoiêkoti.] the famous concluding chapter of the philosophoumena with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (x. 34).] [footnote 567: see tertull. adv. marc. ii. 4-11; his undiluted moralism appears with particular clearness in chaps. 6 and 8. no weight is to be attached to the phrase in chapter 4 that god by placing man in paradise really even then put him from paradise into the church. this is contrary to wendt's opinion, l.c., p. 67. ff., where the exposition of tertullian is _speciosior quam verior_. in adv. marc. ii. 4 ff. wendt professes to see the first traces of the scholastic and romish theory, and in de anima 16, 41 the germ of the subsequent protestant view.] [footnote 568: see iv. 5. 1, 6. 4.] [footnote 569: see iv 14. 1: "in quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute." this statement, which, like the numerous others where irenæus speaks of the adoptio, is opposed to moralism, reminds us of augustine. in irenæus' great work, however, we can point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear the stamp of augustine; see iv. 38. 3: [greek: hupotagê theou aphtharsia].] [footnote 570: see the passages quoted above, p. 241 f.] [footnote 571: see iii. 18. 1. v. 16. 1 is very remarkable: [greek: en tois prosthen chronois elegeto men kat' eikona theou gegonenai ton anthrôpon, ouk edeiknuto de, eti gar aoratos ên ho logos, ou kat' eikona ho anthrôpos egegonei. dia touto dê kai tên homoiôsin iadiôs apebalen]; see also what follows. in v. i. 1 irenæus even says: "quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus." compare with this the contradictory passage iv. 38: "oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere" etc. (see above, p. 268), where _natura hominis_ is conceived as the opposite of the divine nature.] [footnote 572: see wendt, l.c., p. 29, who first pointed out the two dissimilar trains of thought in irenæus with regard to man's original state, duncker having already done so in regard to his christology. wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and not a seeming contradiction; but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned, the truth does not seem to me to have been arrived at. the circumstance that irenæus did not develop the mystic view in such a systematic way as the moralistic by no means justifies us in supposing that he merely adopted it superficially (from the scriptures): for its nature admits of no systematic treatment, but only of a rhetorical and contemplative one. no further explanation can be given of the contradiction, because, strictly speaking, irenæus has only given us fragments.] [footnote 573: see v. 16. 3: [greek: en tô prôtô adam prosekopsamen, mê poiêsantes autou tên entolên]. iv. 34. 2: "homo initio in adam inobediens per mortem percussus est;" iii. 18. 7-23: v. 19. 1: v. 21. 1: v. 17. 1 sq.] [footnote 574: here also irenæus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential ideas. bohringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: "we cannot say that irenæus, in making adam's conduct and suffering apply to the whole human race had started from an inward, immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling of the need of salvation founded on this." it is the thoughts of paul to which irenæus tried to accommodate himself without having had the same feeling about the flesh and sin as this apostle. in tertullian the mystic doctrine of salvation is rudimentary (but see, e.g. de anima 40: "ita omnis anima eo usque in adam censetur donec in christo recenseatur," and other passages); but he has speculations about adam (for the most part developments of hints given in irenæus; see the index in oehler's edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a physical taint of sin propagated through procreation. here we have the first beginning of the doctrine of original sin (de testim. 3: "per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit." compare his teachings in de anima 40, 41, 16 about the disease of sin that is propagated "ex originis vitio" and has become a real second nature). but how little he regards this original sin as guilt is shown by de bapt. 18: "quaie innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum." for the rest, tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness and intellect, much more thoroughly than irenæus; he showed that flesh is not the seat of sin (de anima 40). in the same book (but see bk. v. c. 1) he expressly declared that in this question also sure results are only to be obtained from revelation. this was an important step in the direction of secularising christianity through "philosophy" and of emasculating the understanding through "revelation." in regard to the conception of sin cyprian followed his teacher. de op. et eleem. 1 reads indeed like an utterance of irenæus ("dominus sanavit illa quæ adam portaverat vulnera"); but the statement in ep. 64. 5: "recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ prima nativitate contraxit" is quite in the manner of tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed with the continuation: "infanti remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata." tertullian's proposition that absolutely no one but the son of god could have remained without sin was repeated by cyprian (see, e.g., de op. et eleem. 3).] [footnote 575: iii. 22. 4 has quite a gnostic sound ... "eam quæ est a maria in evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos." irenæus expresses a gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly says (v. 12. 3): [greek: en tô adam pantes apothnêskomen, hoti psychikoi.] but paul, too, made an approach to this thought.] [footnote 576: see iii. 23. 1, 2, a highly characteristic statement.] [footnote 577: see, e.g., iii. 9. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6-9, 17. 4 and repeatedly 8. 2: "verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster jesus christus."] [footnote 578: see iv. 6. 7.] [footnote 579: see iii. 11. 3.] [footnote 580: see iii. 6.] [footnote 581: see iii. 19. 1, 2: iv. 33. 4: v. 1. 3; see also tertullian against "ebion" de carne 14, 18, 24; de præser. 10. 33.] [footnote 582: see iii. 21, 22: v. 19-21.] [footnote 583: see the arguments, l.c., v. 19. 1: "quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam," and other similar ones. we find the same in tertull., de carne 17, 20. in this connection we find in both very extravagant expressions with regard to mary (see, e.g. tertull., l.c. 20 fin.: "uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per christum." iren. iii. 21. 7: "maria cooperans dispositioni (dei);" iii. 22. 4 "maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis" ... "quod alligavit virgo eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo maria solvit per fidem"). these, however, have no doctrinal significance; in fact the same tertullian expressed himself in a depreciatory way about mary in _de carne_ 7. on the other hand it is undeniable that the later mariolatry has one of its roots in the parallel between eve and mary. the gnostic invention of the _virginitas mariæ in partu_ can hardly be traced in irenæus iii. 21. 4. tertullian (de carne 23) does not seem to know anything about it as yet, and very decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. the popular conception as to the reason of christ's birth from a virgin, in the form still current to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in tertullian _de carne_ 18: "non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius salomone, ut de hebionis opinione credendus erat ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis carne sumenda sine viri semine. vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen." the other theory existing side by side with this, viz., that christ would have been a sinner if he had been begotten from the semen, whereas he could assume sinless flesh from woman is so far as i know scarcely hinted at by irenæus and tertullian. the fact of christ's birth was frequently referred to by tertullian in order to prove christ's kinship to god the creator, e.g., adv. marc. iii. 11. hence this article of the _regula fidei_ received a significance from this point of view also. an encratite explanation of the birth from the virgin is found in the old treatise _de resurr._ bearing justin's name (otto, corp. apol. iii., p. 220.)] [footnote 584: see, e.g., iii. 18. 1 and many other places. see the passages named in note, p. 276.] [footnote 585: so also tertullian. see adv. marc. iii. 8: the whole work of salvation is destroyed by docetism; cf. the work _de carne christi_. tertullian exclaims to the docetist marcion in c. 5: "parce unicæ spei totius orbis." irenæus and tertullian mean that christ's assumption of humanity was complete, but not unfrequently express themselves in such a manner as to convey the impression that the logos only assumed flesh. this is particularly the case with tertullian, who, moreover, in his earlier time had probably quite naive docetic ideas and really looked upon the humanity of christ as only flesh. see apolog. 21: "spiritum christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnincis officio." yet irenæus in several passages spoke of christ's human soul (iii. 22. 1: v. 1. 1) as also did melito ([greek: to alêthes kai aphantaston tês psuchês christou kai tou sômatos, tês kath' hêmas anthrôpinês phuseôs] otto, l.c., ix., p. 415) and tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53). what we possess in virtue of the creation was _assumed_ by christ (iren., l.c., iii. 22. 2.) moreover, tertullian already examined how the case stands with sin in relation to the flesh of christ. in opposition to the opinion of the heretic alexander, that the catholics believe jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in himself, he shows that the saviour's flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible to teach the annihilation of christ's flesh (de carne 16; see also irenæus v. 14. 2, 3): "christ by taking to himself our flesh has made it his own, that is, he has made it sinless." it was again passages from paul (rom. viii. 3 and ephes. ii. 15) that gave occasion to this discussion. with respect to the opinion that it may be with the flesh of christ as it is with the flesh of angels who appear, tertullian remarks (de carne 6) that no angel came to die; that which dies must be born; the son of god came to die.] [footnote 586: this conception was peculiar to irenæus, and for good reasons was not repeated in succeeding times; see ii. 22: iii. 17. 4. from it also irenæus already inferred the necessity of the death of christ and his abode in the lower world, v. 31. 1, 2. here we trace the influence of the recapitulation idea. it has indeed been asserted (very energetically by schultz, gottheit christi, p. 73 f.) that the christ of irenæus was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. but that is decidedly incorrect, the truth merely being that irenæus did not draw all the inferences from the personal humanity of christ.] [footnote 587: see iren. v. 31. 2: "surgens in carne sic ascendit ad patrem." tertullian, de carne 24: "bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus ... et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nee ipse esse poterit et agnosci;" see also what follows.] [footnote 588: see iren. iv. 33. 11.] [footnote 589: see iren. iv. 20. 4; see also iii. 19. 1.] [footnote 590: he always posits the unity in the form of a confession without describing it. see iii. 16. 6, which passage may here stand for many. "verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est iesus christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos.... unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus christus iesus domiuns noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semelipsum recapitulans. in omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio del, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo." v. 18. 1: "ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum."] [footnote 591: here irenæus was able to adopt the old formula "god has suffered" and the like; so also melito, see otto l.c., ix. p. 416: [greek: ho theos peponuen hupo dexias israêlitidos] (p. 422): "quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, coelestis sepelitur et id fert." but let us note that these are not "doctrines," but testimonies to the faith, as they were always worded from the beginning and such as could, if need were, be adapted to any christology. though melito in a fragment whose genuineness is not universally admitted (otto, l.c., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to marcion, that christ proved his humanity to the world in the 30 years before his baptism; but showed the divine nature concealed in his human nature during the 3 years of his ministry, he did not for all that mean to imply that jesus' divinity and humanity are in any way separated. but, though irenæus inveighed so violently against the "gnostic" separation of jesus and christ (see particularly iii. 16. 2, where most weight is laid on the fact that we do not find in matth.: "iesu generatio sic erat" but "christi generatio sic erat"), there is no doubt that in some passages he himself could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates applying to the human nature of jesus do not also hold good of his divinity, in fact he actually betrayed a view of christ inconsistent with the conception of the saviour's person as a perfect unity. we can indeed only trace this view in his writings in the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. both he and melito, as a rule adhered to the simple "filius dei filius hominis factus" and did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this very divine manhood. how closely melito agreed with irenæus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419): "propterea misit pater filium suum e coelo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret," but also by the "propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?" (l.c.).] [footnote 592: the concepts employed by irenæus are _deus_, _verbum_, _filius dei_, _homo_, _filius hominis_, _plasma dei_. what perhaps hindered the development of that formula in his case was the circumstance of his viewing christ, though he had assumed the _plasma dei_, humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation theory) not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human life. the fragment attributed to irenæus (harvey ii., p. 493) in which occur the words, [greek: tou theou logou henôoei tê kath' hupostasin physikê henôthentos tê sakri], is by no means genuine. how we are to understand the words: [greek: hina ex amphoterôn to periphanes tôn physeôn paradeichthê] in fragment viii. (harvey ii., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs to irenæus, is uncertain. that melito (assuming the genuineness of the fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; for (1) melito was also a philosopher, which irenæus was not, and (2) it is found in tertullian, whose doctrines can be shown to be closely connected with those of melito (see my texte und untersuchungen i. 1, 2, p. 249 f.). if that fragment is genuine melito is the first church teacher who has spoken of two natures.] [footnote 593: see apol. 21: "verbum caro figuratus ... homo deo mixtus;" adv. marc. ii. 27: "filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;" de carne 15: "homo deo mixtus;" 18: "sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei." on the christology of tertullian cf. schulz, gottheit christi, p. 74 ff.] [footnote 594: de carne 5: "crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossible est;" but compare the whole book; c. 5 init.: "deus crucifixus," "nasci se voluit deus". de pat. 3: "nasci se deus in utero patitur." the formula: [greek: ho gennêtheis, ho megas theos] is also found in sibyll. vii. 24.] [footnote 595: de carne i, cf. ad nat. ii. 4: "ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ."] [footnote 596: de carne 18 fin.] [footnote 597: adv. prax. 27: "sed enim invenimus illum diiecto et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (ps. lxxxvii. 5) ... hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum ... videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem iesum. de christo autem differo. et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo ... denique et mortua est. quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utrinsque substantiæ." in what follows the _actus utriusque substantiæ_ are sharply demarcated: "ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt ... neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt." see also c. 29: "quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in christo iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam" etc.] [footnote 598: of this in a future volume. here also two _substances_ in christ are always spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to _de anima_ 35, men have already two substances in themselves) i know only one passage where tertullian speaks of _natures_ in reference to christ, and this passage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: "itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem" etc. then: "quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique _naturæ_ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est."] [footnote 599: in the west up to the time of leo i. the formula "deus et homo," or, after tertullian's time "duæ substantiæ," was always a simple expression of the facts acknowledged in the symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of redemption. this is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. with this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest on the part of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness after the appearance of that patripassianism, which professed to recognise the _filius dei_ in the _caro_, that is in the _deus_ so far as he is _incarnatus_ or has _changed_ himself into flesh. as to tertullian's opposition to this view see what follows. in contradistinction to this western formula the monophysite one was calculated to satisfy both the _salvation_ interest and the understanding. the chalcedonian creed, as is admitted by schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained from tertullian's view, not from that of the alexandrians. our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating.] [footnote 600: "quare," says irenæus iii. 21. 10--"igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaietur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?"] [footnote 601: see de carne 18. oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed it. it is as follows: "vox ista (joh. i. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum.... cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum" etc.] [footnote 602: adv. prax. 27 sq. in de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere tertullian indeed argues against marcion that god in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain god. hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an _adunitio_.] [footnote 603: so i think i ought to express myself. it does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into irenæus' christological utterances under the pretext that christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually associated with this thought (bohringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see thomasius in opposition to him).] [footnote 604: see, e.g., v. 1. 3. nitzch, dogmengeschichte i. p. 309. tertullian, in his own peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by irenæus. see adv. prax. 12: "quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? filio quidem, qui erat induturus hominem.... erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo." adv. marc. v. 8: "creator christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram"; the same in de resurr. 6. but with tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis of further speculation.] [footnote 605: iren. iv. 14. 2; for further particulars on the point see below, where irenæus' views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. the views of dorner, l.c., 492 f., that the union of the son of god with humanity was a gradual process, are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea.] [footnote 606: "secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice lesse et filius abrabæ, secunum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum ... secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat." all that irenæus said of the spirit in reference to the person of christ is to be understood merely as an _exegetical_ necessity and must not be regarded as a theoretical _principle_ (this is also the case with tertullian). dorner (l.c., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of irenæus' incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which represents the latter as meaning that the holy ghost was the medium which gradually united the logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person with the free and growing man in jesus christ. in iii. 12. 5-7 irenæus, in conformity with acts iv. 27: x. 38, used the following other formulæ about christ: [greek: ho theos, ho poiêsas ton ouranon k.t.l., kai ho toutou pais, on echrisen ho theos]--"petrus iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus spiritu sancto iesus dicitur." but irenæus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas hippolytus not unfrequently calls christ [greek: pais theos].] [footnote 607: on hippolytus' views of the incarnation see dorner, l.c., i. p. 609 ff.--an account to be used with caution--and overbeck, quæst. hippol. specimen (1864), p. 47 sq. unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the christology of hippolytus in detail. in the work quoted he has, however, shown how closely the latter in many respects has imitated irenæus in this case also. it is instructive to see what hippolytus has not adopted from irenæus or what has become rudimentary with him. as a professional and learned teacher he is at bottom nearer to the apologists as regards his christology than irenæus. as an exegete and theological author he has much in common with the alexandrians, just as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between catholic controversialists like irenæus and catholic scholars like origen. with the latter he moreover came into personal contact. see hieron., de vir. inl. 61: hieron., ep. ad damas. edit. venet. i., ep. 36 is also instructive. these brief remarks are, however, by no means intended to give countenance to kimmel's untenable hypothesis (de hippol. vita et scriptis, 1839) that hippolytus was an alexandrian. in hippolytus' treatise c. noët. we find positive teachings that remind us of tertullian. an important passage is de christo et antichristo 3 f.: [greek: eis gar kai ho tou theou] (iren.), [greek: di' ou kai hêmeis tuchontes tên dia tou hagiou pneumatos anagennesin eis ena teleion kai epouranion anthrôpon hoi pantes katantêsai epithumoumen] (see iren.) [greek: epeidê gar ho logos tou theou asarkos ôn] (see melito, iren., tertull.) [greek: enedusato tên hagian sarka ek tês hagias parthenou; hôs numphios himation exuphanas heautô ên tô staurikô pathei] (irenæus and tertullian also make the death on the cross the object of the assumption of the flesh), [greek: hopôs sygkerasas to thnêton hemôn sôma tê heautou dunamei kai mixas] (iren., tertull.) [greek: tô aphthartô to phtharton kai to asthenes tô ischurô sôse ton apollumenon anthrôpon] (iren.). the succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that hippolytus has also borrowed from irenæus the idea that the union of the logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. overbeck has rightly compared the [greek: anaplassein di' heutou ton adam] l.c., c. 26, with the [greek: anakephalaioun] of irenæus and l.c., c. 44, with iren. ii. 22, 4. for hippolytus' christology philosoph. x. 33, p. 542 and c. noet. 10 ff. are the chief passages of additional importance. in the latter passage it is specially noteworthy that hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from irenæus and tertullian, insists on applying the full name of son only to the incarnate logos. in this we have a remnant of the more ancient idea and at the same time a concession to his opponents who admitted an eternal logos in god, but not a pre-temporal hypostasis of the son. see c. 15: [greek: poion oun huion heautou ho theos dia tês sarkos katepempsen all' hê ton logon; hon huion prosêgoreue dia to mellein auton genesthai, kai to koinon onoma tês eis anthrôpous philostorgias analambanei ho huios (kaitoi teleios logos ôn monogenes). oud' hê sarx kath' heautên dicha tou logou hupostênai êdunato dia to en logô tên sustasin echein houtôs oun eis huios teleios theou ephanerôthê.] hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher irenæus of the tree of greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the latter of the "divine mysteries" of the faith. from the fragments and writings of this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various christologies can be shown; and this proves that the christology of his teacher irenæus had not by any means yet become predominant in the church, as we might suppose from the latter's confident tone. hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several passages. for example he recognised the woman of rev. xii. as the church and the logos as her child, and gave the following exegesis of the passage (de christo et antichristo 61): [greek: ou pausetai hê ekklêsia gennôsa ek kardias ton logon tou en kosmô hupo apistôn diôkomenon. "kai eteke", phêsin, "huion arrena, hos mellei poimainein panta ta ethnê", ton arrena kai teleios christon, paida theou, theon kai anthrôpon katangellomenon aei tiktousa hê ekklêsia didaskei panta ta ethnê.] if we consider how irenæus' pupil is led by the text of the holy scriptures to the most diverse "doctrines," we see how the "scripture" theologians were the very ones who threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. as the exegesis of the valentinian schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory christologies, so the same result was threatened here--"doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt gnosticorum." from this standpoint origen's undertaking to subject the whole material of biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and importance.] [footnote 608: see other passages on p. 241, note 2. this is also reëchoed in cyprian. see, for example, ep. 58. 6: "filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit."] [footnote 609: see iii. 10. 3.] [footnote 610: see the remarkable passage in iv. 36. 7: [greek: hê gnôsis tou huiou tou theou, hêtis ên aphtharsia.] another result of the gnostic struggle is irenæus' raising the question as to what new thing the lord has brought (iv. 34. 1): "si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus." the new thing is then defined thus: "cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius ... semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona."] [footnote 611: see iv. 36. 6: "adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e., [greek: meta tên klêsin]) et iustitiæ operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei"--we must provide _ourselves_ with the wedding garment.] [footnote 612: the incapacity of man is referred to in iii. 18. 1: iii. 21. 10; iii. 21-23 shows that the same man that had fallen had to be led to communion with god; v. 21. 3: v. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity of god's appearing as redeemer is treated of in iii. 23. 1: "si adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset deus et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc." that the accomplishment of salvation must be effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the righteousness as of the immeasurable love and mercy of god, is shown in v. 1. 1: v. 21.] [footnote 613: irenæus demonstrated the view in v. 21 in great detail. according to his ideas in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the _regula fidei_.] [footnote 614: see particularly v. 1. 1: "verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt ... del verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum ilia initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret." we see that the idea of the blood of christ as ransom does not possess with irenæus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of one. but even in this form it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a marcionite idea to a catholic teacher of the 3rd century. pseudo-origen (adamantius) opposed it by the following argument (de recta in deum fide, edit wetstein 1673, sectio i. p. 38 sq. see rufinus' translation in caspari's kirchenhistorische anecdota vol. i. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): [greek: ton priômenon ephês, einai ton christon, ho peprakôs tis estin; êlthen eis se ho aplous mythos; hoti ho pôlôn kai ho agorazôn adelphoi eisin; ei kakos ôn ho diabolos tô agathô pepraken, ouk esti kakos alla agathos; ho gar ap' archês phthonêsas tô anthrôpô, nun ouk eti hupo phthonou agetai, tô agathô tên nomên paradous. estai oun dikaios ho tou phthonou kai pantos kakou pausamenos. autos goun ho theos heurisketai pôlêsas; mallon de hoi hêmartêkotes heautous apêllotriôsan hoi anthrôpoi dia tas hamartias autôn; palin de elutrôthêsan dia tên eusplagchnian autou. touto gar phêsin ho prophêtês; tais hamartiais humôn eprathête kai tais anomiais exapesteila tên mêtera humôn. kai allos palin; dôrean eprathête, kai ou meta argyriou lutrôthêsesthe. to, oude meta argyriou; dêlonoti, tou haimatos tou christou. touto gar phaskei ho prophêtês] (isaiah, liii. 5 follows). [greek: eikos de hoti kata se epriato dous heautou to haima; pôs oun kai ek nekrôn êgeireto; ei gar ho labôn tên timên tôn anthrôpôn, to haima, apedôken, ouketi epôlêsen. ei de mê apedôke, pôs anestê christos, ouketi oun to, exousian echô theinai kai exousian echô labein, histatai; ho goun diabolos katechei to haima tou christou anti tês timês tôn anthrôpôn; pollê blasphêmios anoia! pheu tôn kakôn! apethanen, anestê hôs dunatos; ethêken ho elaben; autê poia prasis; tou prophêtou legontos; anastêtô ho theos kai diaskorpisthêtôsan hoi echthroi autou, opou anastasis, ekei thanatos!] that is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious.] [footnote 615: see iren. v. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. in iii. 16. 9 he says: "christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo." it is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which irenæus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy ("this happened that the scripture might be fulfilled"). here we certainly have an advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a modification of that proof.] [footnote 616: see, e.g., iv. 5. 4: [greek: prothumôs abraam ton idion monogenê kai agapêton parachôrêsas thusian tô theô, hina kai ho theos eudokêsê huper tou spermatos autou pantos ton idion monogenê kai agapêton huion thusian paraschein eis lutrôsin hêmeteran].] [footnote 617: there are not a few passages where irenæus said that christ has annihilated sin, abolished adam's disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his obedience (iii. 18. 6, 7: iii. 20. 2: v. 16-21); but he only once tried to explain how that is to be conceived (iii. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced paul's thoughts.] [footnote 618: irenæus has no hesitation in calling the christian who has received the spirit of god the perfect, the spiritual one, and in representing him, in contrast to the false gnostic, as he who in truth judges all men, jews, heathen, marcionites, and valentinians, but is himself judged by no one; see the great disquisition in iv. 33 and v. 9. 10. this true gnostic, however, is only to be found where we meet with right faith in god the creator, sure conviction with regard to the god-man jesus christ, true knowledge as regards the holy spirit and the economy of salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right church system in accordance with the episcopal succession, the intact holy scripture, and its uncorrupted text and interpretation (iv. 33. 7, 8). to him the true believer is the real gnostic.] [footnote 619: see iv. 22. in accordance with the recapitulation theory christ must also have descended to the lower world. there he announced forgiveness of sins to the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (iv. 27. 2). for this, however, irenæus was not able to appeal to scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. it is nevertheless expressly asserted, on the authority of rom. iii. 23, that these pre-christian just men also could only receive justification and the light of salvation through the arrival of christ among them.] [footnote 620: see iii. 16. 6: "in omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercaelestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore."] [footnote 621: there are innumerable passages where tertullian has urged that the whole work of christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death was the aim of christ's mission. see, e.g., de pat. 3: "taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat"; de bapt. ii: "mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nee vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius"; adv. marc. iii. 8: "si mendacium deprehenditur christi caro... nec passiones christi fidem merebuntur. eversum est igitur totum dei opus. totum christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors christi, negatur, quam iam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis suae," 1 cor. xv. 3, 4; he follows paul here. but on the other hand he has also adopted from irenæus the mystical conception of redemption--the constitution of christ is the redemption--though with a rationalistic explanation. see adv. marc. ii. 27: "filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset." here therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the redeemer virtually amounts to divine teaching. in de resurr. 63 christ is called "fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet." note the future tense. it is the same with hippolytus who in philos. x. 34 represents the deification of men as the aim of redemption, but at the same time merely requires christ as the lawgiver and teacher: "[greek: kai tauta men ekpheuxê theon ton onta didachtheis, exeis de athanaton to sôma kai aphtharton hama psychê, basileian ouranôn apolêpsê, ho en gê bious kai epouranion basilea epignous, esê de homilêtês theou kai sygklêronomos christou, ouk epithymiais ê pathesi kai nosois douloumenos. gegonas gar theos hosa gar hupemeinas pathê anthrôpos ôn, tauta edidou, hoti anthrôpos eis, hosa de parakolouthei theô, tauta parechein epêngeltai theos, hoti etheopoiêthês, athanatos gennêtheis. toutesti to gnôthi seauton, epignous tou pepoiêkota thoen. to gar epignônai heauton epignôsthênai symbebêke tô kaloumenô hup' autou. mê philechthrêsête toinun heautois, anthrôpoi, mêde to palindromein distasête. christos gar estin ho kata pantôn theos, os tên hamartian ex anthrôpôn apoplunein proetaxe, neon ton palaion anthrôpon apotelôn, eikona touton kalesas ap' archês, dia tupou tên eis se epideiknumenos storgên, ou prostagmasin hupakousas semnois, kai agathou agathos genomenos mimêtês, esê homoios hup' autou timêtheis. ou gar ptôcheuei theos kai se theon poiêsas eis doxan autou]." it is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd century, christ's death on the cross could have no proper significance; nothing but the holy scriptures preserved its importance. we may further remark that tertullian used the expression "satisfacere deo" about men (see, e.g., de bapt. 20; de pud. 9), but, so far as i know, not about the work of christ. this expression is very frequent in cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about christ. in both writers, moreover, we find "meritum" (_e.g._, scorp. 6) and "promereri deum". with them and with novatian the idea of "culpa" is also more strongly emphasised than it is by the eastern theologians. cf. novatian de trin. 10: "quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis _culpa_ merito reprehensa est." tertullian de bapt. 5 says: "exempto reatu eximitur et poena." on the other hand he speaks of fasting as "officia humiliationis", through which we can "inlicere" god. among these western writers the thought that god's anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more pronounced form than in irenæus. this is explained by their ideas as practical churchmen and by their actual experiences in communities that were already of a very secular character. we may, moreover, point out in a general way that the views of hippolytus are everywhere more strictly dependent on scripture texts than those of irenæus. that many of the latter's speculations are not found in hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear scriptural basis; see overbeck, quæst, hippol., specimen p. 75, note 29. on a superficial reading tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than irenæus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the substance. but one idea of tertullian, which is not found in irenæus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the east (after origen's day) and in the west (after the time of ambrosius), may be further referred to. we mean the notion that christ is the bridegroom and the human soul (and also the human body) the bride. this theologoumenon owes its origin to a combination of two older ones, and subsequently received its biblical basis from the song of solomon. the first of these older theologoumena is the greek philosophical notion that the divine spirit is the bridegroom and husband of the human soul. see the gnostics (e.g., the sublime description in the excerpta ex theodoto 27); clem. ep. ad jacob. 4. 6; as well as tatian, orat. 13; tertull., de anima 41 fin.: "sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium"; and the still earlier sap. sal. viii. 2 sq. an offensively realistic form of this image is found in clem. horn. iii. 27: [greek: numphê gar estin ho pas anthrôpos, hopotan tou alêthous prophêtou leukô logô alêtheias speiromenos phôtizêtai ton noun.] the second is the apostolic notion that the church is the bride and the body of christ. in the 2nd epistle of clement the latter theologoumenon is already applied in a modified form. here it is said that humanity as the church, that is human nature (the flesh), belongs to christ as his eve (c. 14; see also ignat. ad polyc. v. 2; tertull. de monog. ii, and my notes on [greek: didachê] xi. 11). the conclusion that could be drawn from this, and that seemed to have a basis in certain utterances of jesus, viz., that the individual human soul together with the flesh is to be designated as the bride of christ, was, so far as i know, first arrived at by tertullian de resurr. 63: "carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso christus foederavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum spousæ; comparavit. nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro ... caro est sponsa, quæ in christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est"; see also de virg. vel. 16. notice, however, that tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather than of the individual soul.] [footnote 622: by the _regula_ inasmuch as the words "from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead" had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in the _duplex adventus christi_ formed one of the most important articles of church belief in contradistinction to judaism and gnosticism (see the collection of passages in hesse, "das muratorische fragment", p. 112 f.). but the belief in the return of christ to this world necessarily involved the hope of a kingdom of glory under christ upon earth, and without this hope is merely a rhetorical flourish.] [footnote 623: cf. here the account already given in book i., chap. 3, vol. i., p. 167 ff., book i., chap. 4, vol. i, p. 261, book ii., chap. 3, vol. i, p. 105 f. on melito compare the testimony of polycrates in eusebius, h. e. v. 24. 5, and the title of his lost work "[greek: peri tou diabolou kai tês apokalupseôs iôannou]." chiliastic ideas are also found in the epistle from lyons in eusebius, h. e. v. 1 sq. on hippolytus see his work "de christo et antichristo" and overbeck's careful account (l.c., p. 70 sq.) of the agreement here existing between irenæus and hippolytus as well as of the latter's chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. overbeck has also, in my opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a later period both from hippolytus' book and the great work of irenæus. the extensive fragments of hippolytus' commentary on daniel are also to be compared (and especially the portions full of glowing hatred to rome lately discovered by georgiades). with reference to tertullian compare particularly the writings adv. marc. iii., adv. jud., de resurrectione carnis, de anima, and the titles of the subsequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. further see commodian, carmen apolog., lactantius, instit. div., i. vii., victorinus, commentary on the apocalypse. it is very remarkable that cyprian already set chiliasm aside; cf. the conclusion of the second book of the testimonia and the few passages in which he quoted the last chapters of revelation. the apologists were silent about chiliastic hopes, justin even denied them in apol. i. 11, but, as we have remarked, he gives expression to them in the dialogue and reckons them necessary to complete orthodoxy. the pauline eschatology, especially several passages in 1 cor. xv. (see particularly verse 50), caused great difficulties to the fathers from justin downwards. see fragm. justini iv. a methodic supped. in otto, corp. apol. iii., p. 254, iren. v. 9, tertull. de resurr. 48 sq. according to irenæus the heretics, who completely abandoned the early-christian eschatology, appealed to 1 cor. xv. 50. the idea of a kind of purgatory--a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology--is quite plainly found in tertullian, e.g., in de anima 57 and 58 ("modicum delictum illuc luendum"). he speaks in several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally diffused idea (e.g., scorp. 6).] [footnote 624: irenæus begins with the resurrection of the body and the proofs of it (in opposition to gnosticism). these proofs are taken from the omnipotence and goodness of god, the long life of the patriarchs, the translation of enoch and elijah, the preservation of jonah and of the three men in the fiery furnace, the essential nature of man as a temple of god to which the body also belongs, and the resurrection of christ (v. 3-7). but irenæus sees the chief proof in the incarnation of christ, in the dwelling of the spirit with its gifts in us (v. 8-16), and in the feeding of our body with the holy eucharist (v. 2. 3). then he discusses the defeat of satan by christ (v. 21-23), shows that the powers that be are set up by god, that the devil therefore manifestly lies in arrogating to himself the lordship of the world (v. 24), but that he acts as a rebel and robber in attempting to make himself master of it. this brings about the transition to antichrist. the latter is possessed of the whole power of the devil, sums up in himself therefore all sin and wickedness, and pretends to be lord and god. he is described in accordance with the apocalypses of daniel and john as well as according to matth. xxiv. and 2nd thessalonians. he is the product of the 4th kingdom, that is, the roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of dan (v. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in jerusalem etc. the returning christ will destroy him, and the christ will come back when 6000 years of the world's history have elapsed; for "in as many days as the world was made, in so many thousands of years will it be ended" (v. 28. 3). the seventh day is then the great world sabbath, during which christ will reign with the saints of the first resurrection after the destruction of antichrist. irenæus expressly argued against such "as pass for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility" (v. 31). by this he means such as assume that after death souls immediately pass to god. on the contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection which takes place on the return of christ, after which the souls receive back their bodies and men now restored participate in the saviour's kingdom (v. 31. 2). this kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; "for it is just that they should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they suffered tribulation"; moreover, the promise made to abraham that palestine would be given to him and to his seed, i.e., the christians, must be fulfilled (v. 32). there they will eat and drink with the lord in the restored body (v. 33. 1) sitting at a table covered with food (v. 33. 2) and consuming the produce of the land, which the earth affords in miraculous fruitfulness. here irenæus appeals to alleged utterances of the lord of which he had been informed by papias (v. 33. 3, 4). the wheat will be so fat that lions lying peacefully beside the cattle will be able to feed themselves even on the chaff (v. 33. 3, 4). such and similar promises are everywhere to be understood in a literal sense. irenæus here expressly argues against any figurative interpretation (ibid, and v. 35). he therefore adopted the whole jewish eschatology, the only difference being that he regards the church as the seed of abraham. the earthly kingdom is then followed by the second resurrection, the general judgment, and the final end.] [footnote 625: hippolytus in the lost book [greek: hyper tou kata iôannên euangeliou kai apokalupseôs]. perhaps we may also reckon melito among the literary defenders of chiliasm.] [footnote 626: see epiph., h. 51, who here falls back on hippolytus.] [footnote 627: in the christian village communities of the district of arsinoe the people would not part with chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an "apostasy" from the alexandrian church. a book by an egyptian bishop, nepos, entitled "refutation of the allegorists" attained the highest repute. "they esteem the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the gospels, think little of the epistles of the apostles, and on the contrary declare the doctrine set forth in this book to be a really great secret. they do not permit the simpler brethren among us to obtain a sublime and grand idea of the glorious and truly divine appearance of our lord, of our resurrection from the dead as well as of the union and assimilation with him; but they persuade us to hope for things petty, perishable, and similar to the present in the kingdom of god." so dionysius expressed himself, and these words are highly characteristic of his own position and that of his opponents; for in fact the whole new testament could not but be thrust into the background in cases where the chiliastic hopes were really adhered to. dionysius asserts that he convinced these churches by his lectures; but chiliasm and material religious ideas were still long preserved in the deserts of egypt. they were cherished by the monks; hence jewish apocalypses accepted by christians are preserved in the coptic and ethiopian languages.] [footnote 628: see irenæus lib. iv. and tertull. adv. marc. lib. ii. and iii.] [footnote 629: it would be superfluous to quote passages here; two may stand for all iren. iv. 9. 1: "utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster iesus christus, qui et abrahæ et moysi collocutus est." both testaments are "unius et emsdem substantiæ." iv. 2. 3: "moysis literæ sunt verba christi."] [footnote 630: see iren. iv. 31. 1.] [footnote 631: iren. iii. 12. 15 (on gal. ii. 11 f.): "sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, qnæ; est secundum moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo"; see overbeck "ueber die auffassung des streits des paulus mit petrus bei den kirchenvatern," 1877, p. 8 f. similar remarks are frequent in irenæus.] [footnote 632: cf., e.g., de monog. 7: "certe sacerdotes sumus a christo vocati, monogarniæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tune in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit." here also tertullian's montanism had an effect. though conceiving the directions of the paraclete as _new legislation_, the montanists would not renounce the view that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written documents of revelation.] [footnote 633: very much may be made out with regard to this from origen's works and the later literature, particularly from commodian and the apostolic constitutions, lib. i.-vi.] [footnote 634: where christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional application of the old testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every old testament passage was taken for a christian one, as has remained the case even to the present day.] [footnote 635: with the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing in common.] [footnote 636: iren. iii. 12. 11.] [footnote 637: see iii. 12. 12.] [footnote 638: no _commutatio agnitionis_ takes place, says irenæus, but only an increased gift (iv. 11. 3); for the knowledge of god the creator is "principium evangelli." (iii. 11. 7).] [footnote 639: see iv. 11. 2 and other passages, e.g., iv. 20 7: iv. 26. 1: iv. 37. 7: iv. 38. 1-4.] [footnote 640: several covenants i. 10. 3; four covenants (adam, noah, moses, christ) iii. ii. 8; the two testaments (law and new covenant) are very frequently mentioned.] [footnote 641: this is very frequently mentioned; see e.g., iv. 13. 1: "et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc." iv. 15, 1.] [footnote 642: irenæus, as a rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see iii. ii. 8: "verbum dei illis quidem qui ante moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur", and especially iv. 16. 3. as to the son's having descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also, see iv. 6. 7. not merely abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew both the father and the son. nevertheless christ was also obliged to descend to the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to bring them forgiveness of sins (iv. 27. 2).] [footnote 643: on the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he frequently quotes in the 4th book. to irenæus the heathen are simply idolaters who have even forgotten the law written in the heart; wherefore the jews stand much higher, for they only lacked the _agnitio filii_. see iii. 5. 3: iii. 10. 3: iii. 12. 7, iv. 23, 24. yet there is still a great want of clearness here. irenæus cannot get rid of the following contradictions. the pre-christian righteous know the son and do not know him; they require the appearance of the son and do not require it; and the _agnitio filii_ seems sometimes a new, and in fact the decisive, _veritas_, and sometimes that involved in the knowledge of god the creator.] [footnote 644: irenæus iv. 16. 3. see iv. 15. 1: "decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem".] [footnote 645: as the son has manifested the father from of old, so also the law, and indeed even the ceremonial law, is to be traced back to him. see iv. 6. 7: iv. 12. 4: iv. 14. 2: "his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem ... per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens". iv. 4. 2. the law is a law of bondage; it was just in that capacity that it was necessary; see iv. 4. 1: iv. 9. 1: iv. 13. 2, 4: iv. 14. 3: iv. 15: iv. 16: iv. 32: iv. 36. a part of the commandments are concessions on account of hardness of heart (iv. 15. 2). but irenæus still distinguishes very decidedly between the "people" and the prophets. this is a survival of the old view. the prophets he said knew very well of the coming of the son of god and the granting of a new covenant (iv. 9. 3: iv. 20. 4, 5: iv. 33. 10); they understood what was typified by the ceremonial law, and to them accordingly the law had only a typical signification. moreover, christ himself came to them ever and anon through the prophetic spirit. the preparation for the new covenant is therefore found in the prophets and in the typical character of the old. abraham has this peculiarity, that both testaments were prefigured in him: the testament of faith, because he was justified before his circumcision, and the testament of the law. the latter occupied "the middle times", and therefore come in between (iv. 25. 1). this is a pauline thought, though otherwise indeed there is not much in irenæus to remind us of paul, because he used the moral categories, _growth_ and _training_, instead of the religious ones, _sin_ and _grace_.] [footnote 646: the law, i.e., the ceremonial law, reaches down to john, iv. 4. 2. the new testament is a law of freedom, because through it we are adopted as sons of god, iii. 5. 3: iii. 10. 5: iii. 12. 5: iii. 12. 14: iii. 15. 3: iv. 9. 1, 2: iv. 11. 1: iv. 13. 2, 4: iv. 15. 1, 2: iv. 16. 5: iv. 18: iv. 32: iv. 34. 1: iv. 36. 2. christ did not abolish the _natus alia legis_, the decalogue, but extended and fulfilled them; here the old gentile-christian moral conception based on the sermon on the mount, prevails. accordingly irenæus now shows that in the case of the children of freedom the situation has become much more serious, and that the judgments are now much more threatening. finally, he proves that the fulfilling, extending, and sharpening of the law form a contrast to the blunting of the natural moral law by the pharisees and elders; see iv. 12. 1 ff.: "austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem". iv. 13. 1. f.: "christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit ... plenitudo et extensio ... necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis". that is proved in the next passage from the sermon on the mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire. iv. 16. 5: "hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum ... auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos". iv. 27. 2. the new situation is a more serious one; the old testament believers have the death of christ as an antidote for their sins, "propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, christus non iam morietur". iv. 28. 1 f.: under the old covenant god punished "typice et temporaliter et mediocrius", under the new, on the contrary, "vere et semper et austerius" ... as under the new covenant "fides aucta est", so also it is true that "diligentia conversationis adaucta est". the imperfections of the law, the "particularia legis", the law of bondage have been abolished by christ, see specially iv. 16, 17, for the types are now fulfilled; but christ and the apostles did not transgress the law; freedom was first granted to the gentile christians (iii. 12) and circumcision and foreskin united (iii. 5. 3). but irenæus also proved how little the old and new covenants contradict each other by showing that the latter also contains concessions that have been granted to the frailty of man; see iv. 15. 2 (1 cor. vii.).] [footnote 647: see iii. ii. 4. there too we find it argued that john the baptist was not merely a prophet, but also an apostle.] [footnote 648: from irenæus' statement in iv. 4 about the significance of the city of jerusalem we can infer what he thought of the jewish nation. jerusalem is to him the vine-branch on which the fruit has grown; the latter having reached maturity, the branch is cut off and has no further importance.] [footnote 649: no special treatment of tertullian is required here, as he only differs from irenæus in the additions he invented as a montanist. yet this is also prefigured in irenæus' view that the concessions of the apostles had rendered the execution of the stern new law more easy. a few passages may be quoted here. de orat. i: "quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis." (this differentiation strikingly reminds us of the letter of ptolemy to flora. ptolemy distinguishes those parts of the law that originate with god, moses, and the elders. as far as the divine law is concerned, he again distinguishes what christ had to complete, what he had to supersede and what he had to spiritualise, that is, perficere, solvere, demutare). in the _regula fidei_ (de præscr. 13): "christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni coelorum"; see the discussions in adv. marc. ii., iii., and adv. iud.; de pat. 6: "amplianda adimplendaque lex." scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2; de monog. 7: "et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sihi dicunt esse cum lege, quam christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata." that the new law of the new covenant is the moral law of nature in a stricter form, and that the concessions of the apostle paul cease in the age of the paraclete, is a view we find still more strongly emphasised in the montanist writings than in irenæus. in ad uxor. 3 tertullian had already said: "quod permittitur, bonum non est," and this proposition is the theme of many arguments in the montanist writings. but the intention of finding a basis for the laws of the paraclete, by showing that they existed in some fashion even in earlier times, involved tertullian in many contradictions. it is evident from his writings that montanists and catholics in carthage alternately reproached each other with judaising tendencies and an apostasy to heathen discipline and worship. tertullian, in his enthusiasm for christianity, came into conflict with all the authorities which he himself had set up. in the questions as to the relationship of the old testament to the new, of christ to the apostles, of the apostles to each other, of the paraclete to christ and the apostles, he was also of necessity involved in the greatest contradictions. this was the case not only because he went more into details than irenæus; but, above all, because the chains into which he had thrown his christianity were felt to be such by himself. this theologian had no greater opponent than himself, and nowhere perhaps is this so plain as in his attitude to the two testaments. here, in every question of detail, tertullian really repudiated the proposition from which he starts. in reference to one point, namely, that the law and the prophets extend down to john, see noldechen's article in the zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche theologie, 1885, p. 333 f. on the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, tertullian required the proposition that prophecy extended down to john (see also the muratorian fragment: "completus numerus prophetarum", sibyll. i. 386: [greek: kai tote dê pausis estai metepeita prophêtôu], scil. after christ), and on the other, as a montanist, he was obliged to assert the continued existence of prophecy. in like manner he sometimes ascribed to the apostles a unique possession of the holy spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive christian idea, he denied this thesis. cf. also baith "tertullian's auffassung des apostels paulus und seines verhaltnisses zu den uraposteln" (jahrbuch fur protestantische theologie, vol. iii. p. 706 ff.). tertullian strove to reconcile the principles of early christianity with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and philosophical apologetics. separated from the general body of the church, and making ever increasing sacrifices for the early-christian enthusiasm, as he understood it, he wasted himself in the solution of this insoluble problem.] [footnote 650: in addition to this, however, they definitely established within the church the idea that there is a "christian" view in all spheres of life and in all questions of knowledge. christianity appears expanded to an immense, immeasurable breadth. this is also gnosticism. thus tertullian, after expressing various opinions about dreams, opens the 45th chapter of his work "de anima" with the words: "tenemur hie de sommis quoque christianam sententiam expromere". alongside of the antignostic rule of faith as the "doctrine" we find the casuistic system of morality and penance (the church "disciplina") with its media of almsgiving, fasting, and prayer; see cypr, de op et eleemos., but before that hippol., comm. in daniel ([greek: ekkl alêth]. 1886, p. 242): [greek: hoi eis tu onoma ton theou pisteuontes kai di' agathoergias to prosôpon autou exilaskomenoi.]] [footnote 651: in the case of irenæus, hippolytus, and tertullian we already find that they observe a certain order and sequence of books when advancing a detailed proof from scripture.] [footnote 652: it is worthy of note that there was not a single arian ecclesiastic of note in the novatian churches of the 4th century, so far as we know. all novatian's adherents, even those in the west (see socrates' ecclesiastical history), were of the orthodox nicæan type. this furnishes material for reflection.] [footnote 653: owing to the importance of the matter we shall give several christological and trinitarian disquisitions from the work "de trinitate". the archaic attitude of this christology and trinitarian doctrine is evident from the following considerations. (1) like tertullian, novatian asserts that the logos was indeed always with the father, but that he only went forth from him at a definite period of time (for the purpose of creating the world). (2) like tertullian, he declares that father, son, and spirit have one substance (that is, are [greek: homoousioi], the _homoousia_ of itself never decides as to equality in dignity); but that the son is subordinate and obedient to the father and the spirit to the son (cc. 17, 22, 24), since they derive their origin, essence, and function from the father (the spirit from the son). (3) like tertullian, novatian teaches that the son, after accomplishing his work, will again become intermingled with the father, that is, will cease to have an independent existence (c. 31); whence we understand why the west continued so long to be favourable to marcellus of ancyra; see also the so-called symbol of sardika. apart from these points and a few others of less consequence, the work, in its formulæ, exhibits a type which remained pretty constant in the west down to the time of augustine, or, till the adoption of johannes damascenus' dogmatic. the sharp distinction between "deus" and "homo" and the use that is nevertheless made of "permixtio" and synonymous words are also specially characteristic. cap. 9: "christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius"; c. 11: "non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus"; c. 11 christ has _auctoritas divina_, "tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit iesum christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit christum dominum." in c. 12 the term "immanuel" is used to designate christ as god in a way that reminds one of athanasius; c. 13: "præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis christi foederasse concordiam"; c. 14: "christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus"; c. 16: "... ut neque homo christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur ... utrumque in christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est ... pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia ... qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur ... nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam ... lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione"; c. 17: "... nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit"; c. 18: "... ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit"; c. 19: "hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (luke i. 35) assumit, sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata præstat et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit (novatian's teaching is therefore like that of the spanish adoptionists of the 8th century), ut principalitas nominis istius 'filius dei' in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et venit, ut sequela nominis istius in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter his filius dei factus sit, dum non principaliter filius dei est, atque ideo dispositionem istam anhelus videns et ordinem istum sacramenti expediens non sic cuncta confundens, ut nullum vestigium distinctionis collocavit, distinctionem posuit dicendo. 'propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei'. ne si distributionem istam cum libramentis suis non dispensasset, sed in confuso permixtum reliquisset, vere occasionem hæreticis contulisset, ut hominis filium qua homo est, eundum et dei et hominis filium pronuntiare deberent.... filius dei, dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter illum filium dei fecit, quoniam illum filius sibi dei sociavit et iunxit, ut, dum filius hominis adhæret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem foeneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. ac si facta est angeli voce, quod nolunt hæretici, inter filium dei hominisque cum sua tamen sociatione distinctio, urgendo illos, uti christum hominis filium hominem intelligant quoque dei filium et hominem dei filium id est dei verbum deum accipiant, atque ideo christum iesum dominum ex utroque connexum, et utroque contextum atque concretum et in eadem utriusque substantiæ concordia mutui ad invicem foederis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturæ hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cognoscant". c. 21: "hæretici nolunt christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem;" c. 22: "cum christus 'ego' dicit (john x. 30), deinde patrem infert dicendo, 'ego et pater', proprietatem personæ suæ id est filii a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine dispositæ potestatis ... unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, non unitatem personæ sonat ... unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. et quoniam ex patre est, quicquid illud est, filius est, manente tamen distinctione ... denique novit hanc concordiæ unitatem est apostolus paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione." (comparison with the relationship between paul and apollos! "quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt"); c. 23: "constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo nou processit, sic dei verbum processit". in c. 24 it is argued that christ existed before the creation of the world and that not merely "predestinatione", for then he would be subsequent and therefore inferior to adam, abel, enoch etc. "sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit christus ante mundi institutionem"; c. 31: "est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), ... ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aeris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinas nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit ..., filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur ..., substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum ..., deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus.... cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur.... dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ; communionem ad patrem revolvitur."] [footnote 654: if i am not mistaken, the production or adaptation of apocalypses did indeed abate in the third century, but acquired fresh vigour in the 4th, though at the same time allowing greater scope to the influence of heathen literature (including romances as well as hagiographical literature).] [footnote 655: i did not care to appeal more frequently to the sibylline oracles either in this or the preceding chapter, because the literary and historical investigation of these writings has not yet made such progress as to justify one in using it for the history of dogma. it is well known that the oracles contain rich materials in regard to the doctrine of god, christology, conceptions of the history of jesus, and eschatology; but, apart from the old jewish oracles, this material belongs to several centuries and has not yet been reliably sifted.] chapter vi. the transformation of the ecclesiastical tradition into a philosophy of religion, or the origin of the scientific theology and dogmatic of the church. clement and origen. the alexandrian school of catechists was of inestimable importance for the transformation of the heathen empire into a christian one, and of greek philosophy into ecclesiastical philosophy. in the third century this school overthrew polytheism by scientific means whilst at the same time preserving everything of any value in greek science and culture. these alexandrians wrote for the educated people of the whole earth; they made christianity a part of the civilisation of the world. the saying that the christian missionary to the greeks must be a greek was first completely verified within the catholic church in the person of origen, who at the same time produced the only system of christian dogma possessed by the greek church before john damascenus. 1. _the alexandrian catechetical school. clement of alexandria._[656] "the work of irenæus still leaves it undecided whether the form of the world's literature, as found in the christian church, is destined only to remain a weapon to combat its enemies, or is to become an instrument of peaceful labour within its own territory." with these words overbeck has introduced his examination of clement of alexandria's great masterpiece from the standpoint of the historian of literature. they may be also applied to the history of theology. as we have shown, irenæus, tertullian (and hippolytus) made use of philosophical theology to expel heretical elements; but all the theological expositions that this interest suggested to them as necessary, were in their view part of the faith itself. at least we find in their works absolutely no clear expression of the fact that faith is one thing and theology another, though rudimentary indications of such distinctions are found. moreover, their adherence to the early-christian eschatology in its entirety, as well as their rejection of a qualitative distinction between simple believers and "gnostics," proved that they themselves were deceived as to the scope of their theological speculations, and that moreover their christian interest was virtually satisfied with subjection to the authority of tradition, with the early-christian hopes, and with the rules for a holy life. but since about the time of commodus, and in some cases even earlier, we can observe, even in ecclesiastical circles, the growing independence and might of the aspiration for a scientific knowledge and treatment of the christian religion, that is of christian tradition.[657] there is a wish to maintain this tradition in its entirety and hence the gnostic theses are rejected. the selection from tradition, made in opposition to gnosticism--though indeed in accordance with its methods--and declared to be apostolic, is accepted. but there is a desire to treat the given material in a strictly scientific manner, just as the gnostics had formerly done, that is, on the one hand to establish it by a critical and historical exegesis, and on the other to give it a philosophical form and bring it into harmony with the spirit of the times. along with this we also find the wish to incorporate the thoughts of paul which now possessed divine authority.[658] accordingly schools and scholastic unions now make their appearance afresh, the old schools having been expelled from the church.[659] in asia minor such efforts had already begun shortly before the time when the canon of holy apostolic tradition was fixed by the ecclesiastical authorities (alogi). from the history of clement of alexandria, the life of bishop alexander, afterwards bishop of jerusalem, and subsequently from the history of origen (we may also mention firmilian of cæsarea), we learn that there was in cappadocia about the year 200 a circle of ecclesiastics who zealously applied themselves to scientific pursuits. bardesanes, a man of high repute, laboured in the christian kingdom of edessa about the same time. he wrote treatises on philosophical theology, which indeed, judged by a western standard, could not be accounted orthodox, and directed a theological school which maintained its ground in the third century and attained great importance.[660] in palestine, during the time of heliogabalus and alexander (severus), julius africanus composed a series of books on scientific theology, which were specifically different from the writings of irenæus and tertullian; but which on the other hand show the closest relationship in point of form to the treatises of the so-called gnostics. his inquiries into the relationship of the genealogies of jesus and into certain parts of the greek apocalypse of daniel showed that the church's attention had been drawn to problems of historical criticism. in his chronography the apologetic interest is subordinate to the historical, and in his [greek: kestoi], dedicated to alexander severus (hippolytus had already dedicated a treatise on the resurrection to the wife of heliogabalus), we see fewer traces of the christian than of the greek scholar. alexander of ælia and theoktistus of cæsarea, the occupants of the two most important sees in palestine, were, contemporaneously with him, zealous patrons of an independent science of theology. even at that early time the former founded an important theological library; and the fragments of his letters preserved to us prove that he had caught not only the language, but also the scientific spirit of the age. in rome, at the beginning of the third century, there was a scientific school where textual criticism of the bible was pursued and where the works of aristotle, theophrastus, euclid, and galen were zealously read and utilised. finally, the works of tertullian show us that, even among the christians of carthage, there was no lack of such as wished to naturalise the pursuit of science within the church; and eusebius (h. e. v. 27) has transmitted to us the titles of a series of scientific works dating as far back as the year 200 and ascribed to ecclesiastics of that period. whilst all these phenomena, which collectively belong to the close of the second and beginning of the third century, show that it was indeed possible to suppress heresy in the church, but not the impulse from which it sprang, the most striking proof of this conclusion is the existence of the so-called school of catechists in alexandria. we cannot now trace the origin of this school, which first comes under our notice in the year 190,[661] but we know that the struggle of the church with heresy was concluded in alexandria at a later period than in the west. we know further that the school of catechists extended its labours to palestine and cappadocia as early as the year 200, and, to all appearance, originated or encouraged scientific pursuits there.[662] finally, we know that the existence of this school was threatened in the fourth decade of the third century; but heraclas was shrewd enough to reconcile the ecclesiastical and scientific interests.[663] in the alexandrian school of catechists the whole of greek science was taught and made to serve the purpose of christian apologetics. its first teacher, who is well known to us from the writings he has left, is _clement of alexandria_.[664] his main work is epoch-making. "clement's intention is nothing less than an introduction to christianity, or, speaking more correctly and in accordance with the spirit of his work, an initiation into it. the task that clement sets himself is an introduction to what is inmost and highest in christianity itself. he aims, so to speak, at first making christians perfect christians by means of a work of literature. by means of such a work he wished not merely to repeat to the christian what life has already done for him as it is, but to elevate him to something still higher than what has been revealed to him by the forms of initiation that the church has created for herself in the course of a history already dating back a century and a half." to clement therefore gnosis, that is, the (greek) philosophy of religion, is not only a means of refuting heathenism and heresy, but at the same time of ascertaining and setting forth what is highest and inmost in christianity. he views it as such, however, because, apart from evangelical sayings, the church tradition, both collectively and in its details, is something foreign to him; he has subjected himself to its authority, but he can only make it intellectually his own after subjecting it to a scientific and philosophical treatment.[665] his great work, which has rightly been called the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the church,[666] is consequently the first attempt to use holy scripture and the church tradition together with the assumption that christ as the reason of the world is the source of all truth, as the basis of a presentation of christianity which at once addresses itself to the cultured by satisfying the scientific demand for a philosophical ethic and theory of the world, and at the same time reveals to the believer the rich content of his faith. here then is found, in form and content, the scientific christian doctrine of religion which, while not contradicting the faith, does not merely support or explain it in a few places, but raises it to another and higher intellectual sphere, namely, out of the province of authority and obedience into that of clear knowledge and inward, intellectual assent emanating from love to god.[667] clement cannot imagine that the christian faith, as found in tradition, can of itself produce the union of intellectual independence and devotion to god which he regards as moral perfection. he is too much of a greek philosopher for that, and believes that this aim is only reached through knowledge. but in so far as this is only the deciphering of the secrets revealed in the holy scriptures through the logos, secrets which the believer also gains possession of by subjecting himself to them, all knowledge is a reflection of the divine revelation. the lofty ethical and religious ideal of the man made perfect in fellowship with god, which greek philosophy had developed since the time of plato and to which it had subordinated the whole scientific knowledge of the world, was adopted and heightened by clement, and associated not only with jesus christ but also with ecclesiastical christianity. but, whilst connecting it with the church tradition, he did not shrink from the boldest remodelling of the latter, because the preservation of its wording was to him a sufficient guarantee of the christian character of the speculation.[668] in clement, then, ecclesiastical christianity reached the stage that judaism had attained in philo, and no doubt the latter exercised great influence over him.[669] moreover, clement stands on the ground that justin had already trodden, but he has advanced far beyond this apologist. his superiority to justin not only consists in the fact that he changed the apologetic task that the latter had in his mind into a systematic and positive one; but above all in the circumstance that he transformed the tradition of the christian church, which in his days was far more extensive and more firmly established than in justin's time, into a real scientific dogmatic; whereas justin neutralised the greater part of this tradition by including it in the scheme of the proof from prophecy. by elevating the idea of the logos who is christ into the highest principle in the religious explanation of the world and in the exposition of christianity, clement gave to this idea a much more concrete and copious content than justin did. christianity is the doctrine of the creation, training, and redemption of mankind by the logos, whose work culminates in the perfect gnostics. the philosophy of the greeks, in so far as it possessed the logos, is declared to be a counterpart of the old testament law;[670] and the facts contained in the church tradition are either subordinated to the philosophical dogmatic or receive a new interpretation expressly suited to it. the idea of the logos has a content which is on the one hand so wide that he is found wherever man rises above the level of nature, and on the other so concrete that an authentic knowledge of him can only be obtained from historical revelation. the logos is essentially the rational law of the world and the teacher; but in christ he is at the same time officiating priest, and the blessings he bestows are a series of holy initiations which alone contain the possibility of man's raising himself to the divine life.[671] while this is already clear evidence of clement's affinity to gnostic teachers, especially the valentinians, the same similarity may also be traced in the whole conception of the task (christianity as theology), in the determination of the formal principle (inclusive of the recourse to esoteric tradition; see above, p. 35 f.),[672] and in the solution of the problems. but clement's great superiority to valentinus is shown not only in his contriving to preserve in all points his connection with the faith of the main body of christendom, but still more in his power of mastering so many problems by the aid of a single principle, that is, in the art of giving the most comprehensive presentation with the most insignificant means. both facts are indeed most closely connected. the rejection of all conceptions that could not be verified from holy scripture, or at least easily reconciled with it, as well as his optimism, opposed as this was to gnostic pessimism, proved perhaps the most effective means of persuading the church to recognise the christian character of a dogmatic that was at least half inimical to ecclesiastical christianity. through clement theology became the crowning stage of piety, the highest philosophy of the greeks was placed under the protection and guarantee of the church, and the whole hellenic civilisation was thus at the same time legitimised within christianity. the logos is christ, but the logos is at the same time the moral and rational in all stages of development. the logos is the teacher, not only in cases where an intelligent self-restraint, as understood by the ancients, bridles the passions and instincts and wards off excesses of all sorts; but also, and here of course the revelation is of a higher kind, wherever love to god alone determines the whole life and exalts man above everything sensuous and finite.[673] what gnostic moralists merely regarded as contrasts clement, the christian and greek, was able to view as stages; and thus he succeeded in conceiving the motley society that already represented the church of his time as a unity, as the humanity trained by one and the same logos, the pedagogue. his speculation did not drive him out of the church; it rather enabled him to understand the multiplicity of forms she contained and to estimate their relative justification; nay, it finally led him to include the history of pre-christian humanity in the system he regarded as a unity, and to form a theory of universal history satisfactory to his mind.[674] if we compare this theory with the rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in irenæus, we see clearly the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and narrowness, in the case of the latter. in the christian faith as he understood it and as amalgamated by him with greek culture, clement found intellectual freedom and independence, deliverance from all external authority. we need not here directly discuss what apparatus he used for this end. irenæus again remained entangled in his apparatus, and much as he speaks of the _novum testamentum libertatis_, his great work little conveys the impression that its author has really attained intellectual freedom. clement was the first to grasp the task of future theology. according to him this task consists in utilising the historical traditions, through which we have become what we are, and the christian communion, which is imperative upon us as being the only moral and religious one, in order to attain freedom and independence of our own life by the aid of the gospel; and in showing this gospel to be the highest revelation by the logos, who has given evidence of himself whenever man rises above the level of nature and who is consequently to be traced throughout the whole history of humanity. but does the christianity of clement correspond to the gospel? we can only give a qualified affirmation to this question. for the danger of secularisation is evident, since apostasy from the gospel would be completely accomplished as soon as the ideal of the self-sufficient greek sage came to supplant the feeling that man lives by the grace of god. but the danger of secularisation lies in the cramped conception of irenæus, who sets up authorities which have nothing to do with the gospel, and creates facts of salvation which have a no less deadening effect though in a different way. if the gospel is meant to give freedom and peace in god, and to accustom us to an eternal life in union with christ clement understood this meaning. he could justly say to his opponents: "if the things we say appear to some people diverse from the scriptures of the lord, let them know that they draw inspiration and life therefrom and, making these their starting-point give their meaning only, not their letter" ([greek: kan heteroia tisi tôn pollôn kataphainêtai ta hyph' hêmôn legomena tôn kyriakôn graphôn, isteon hoti ekeithen anapnei te kai zê kai tas aphormas ap' autôn echonta ton noun monon, ou tên lexin, paristan epangelletai]).[675] no doubt clement conceives the aim of the whole traditionary material to be that of greek philosophy, but we cannot fail to perceive that this aim is blended with the object which the gospel puts before us, namely, to be rich in god and to receive strength and life from him. the goodness of god and the responsibility of man are the central ideas of clement and the alexandrians; they also occupy the foremost place in the gospel of jesus christ. if this is certain we must avoid that searching of the heart which undertakes to fix how far he was influenced by the gospel and how far by philosophy. but, while so judging, we cannot deny that the church tradition was here completely transformed into a greek philosophy of religion on a historical basis, nor do we certify the christian character of clement's "dogmas" in acknowledging the evangelical spirit of his practical position. what would be left of christianity, if the practical aim, given by clement to this religious philosophy, were lost? a depotentiated system which could absolutely no longer be called christian. on the other hand there were many valuable features in the ecclesiastical _regula_ literally interpreted; and the attempts of irenæus to extract an authoritative religious meaning from the literal sense of church tradition and of new testament passages must be regarded as conservative efforts of the most valuable kind. no doubt irenæus and his theological _confrères_ did not themselves find in christianity that freedom which is its highest aim; but on the other hand they preserved and rescued valuable material for succeeding times. if some day trust in the methods of religious philosophy vanishes, men will revert to history, which will still be recognisable in the preserved tradition, as prized by irenæus and the rest, whereas it will have almost perished in the artificial interpretations due to the speculations of religious philosophers. the importance that the alexandrian school was to attain in the history of dogma is not associated with clement, but with his disciple origen.[676] this was not because clement was more heterodox than origen, for that is not the case, so far as the stromateis is concerned at least;[677] but because the latter exerted an incomparably greater influence than the former; and, with an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of the church, already mapped out all the provinces of theology by his own unaided efforts. another reason is that clement did not possess the church tradition in its fixed catholic forms as origen did (see above, chapter 2), and, as his stromateis shows, he was as yet incapable of forming a theological system. what he offers is portions of a theological christian dogmatic and speculative ethic. these indeed are no fragments in so far as they are all produced according to a definite method and have the same object in view, but they still want unity. on the other hand origen succeeded in forming a complete system inasmuch as he not only had a catholic tradition of fixed limits and definite type to fall back upon as a basis; but was also enabled by the previous efforts of clement to furnish a methodical treatment of this tradition.[678] now a sharp eye indeed perceives that origen personally no longer possessed such a complete and bold religious theory of the world as clement did, for he was already more tightly fettered by the church tradition, some details of which here and there led him into compromises that remind us of irenæus; but it was in connection with his work that the development of the following period took place. it is therefore sufficient, within the framework of the history of dogma, to refer to clement as the bold forerunner of origen, and, in setting forth the theology of the latter, to compare it in important points with the doctrines of clement. 2. _the system of origen._[679] among the theologians of ecclesiastical antiquity origen was the most important and influential alongside of augustine. he proved the father of ecclesiastical science in the widest sense of the word, and at the same time became the founder of that theology which reached its complete development in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth definitely denied its author, without, however, losing the form he had impressed on it. origen created the ecclesiastical dogmatic and made the sources of the jewish and christian religion the foundation of that science. the apologists, in their day, had found everything clear in christianity; the antignostic fathers had confused the church's faith and the science that treats of it. origen recognised the problem and the problems, and elevated the pursuit of christian theology to the rank of an independent task by freeing it from its polemical aim. he could not have become what he did, if two generations had not preceded him in paving the way to form a mental conception of christianity and give it a philosophical foundation. like all epoch-making personalities, he was also favoured by the conditions in which he lived, though he had to endure violent attacks. born of a christian family which was faithfully attached to the church, he lived at a time when the christian communities enjoyed almost uninterrupted peace and were being naturalised in the world; he was a member of a christian church where the right of scientific study was already recognised and where this had attained a fixed position in an organised school.[680] he proclaimed the reconciliation of science with the christian faith and the compatibility of the highest culture with the gospel within the bosom of the church, thus contributing more than any other to convert the ancient world to christianity. but he made no compromises from shrewd calculation: it was his inmost and holiest conviction that the sacred documents of christianity contained all the ideals of antiquity, and that the speculative conception of ecclesiastical christianity was the only true and right one. his character was pure, his life blameless; in his work he was not only unwearied, but also unselfish. there have been few fathers of the church whose life-story leaves such an impression of purity behind it as that of origen. the atmosphere which he breathed as a christian and as a philosopher was dangerous; but his mind remained sound, and even his feeling for truth scarcely ever forsook him.[681] to us his theory of the world, surveyed in its details, presents various changing hues, like that of philo, and at the present day we can scarcely any longer understand how he was able to unite the different materials; but, considering the solidity of his character and the confidence of his decisions, we cannot doubt that he himself felt the agreement of all essential parts of his system. no doubt he spoke in one way to the perfect and in another to the mass of christian people. the narrow-minded or the immature will at all times necessarily consider such proceedings hypocrisy, but the outcome of his religious and scientific conception of the world required the twofold language. orthodox theology of all creeds has never yet advanced beyond the circle first mapped out by his mind. she has suspected and corrected her founder, she has thought she could lop off his heterodox opinions as if they were accidental excrescences, she has incorporated with the simple faith itself the measure of speculation she was obliged to admit, and continued to give the rule of faith a more philosophic form, fragment by fragment, in order that she might thus be able to remove the gap between faith and gnosis and to banish free theology through the formula of ecclesiastical dogma. but it may reasonably be questioned whether all this is progress, and it is well worth investigating whether the gap between half theological, clerical christianity and a lay christianity held in tutelage is more endurable than that between gnosis and pistis, which origen preserved and bridged over. the christian system of origen[682] is worked out in opposition to the systems of the greek philosophers and of the christian gnostics. it is moreover opposed to the ecclesiastical enemies of science, the christian unitarians, and the jews.[683] but the science of the faith, as developed by origen, being built up with the appliances of philo's science, bears unmistakable marks of neoplatonism and gnosticism. origen speculated not only in the manner of justin, but also in that of valentinus and therefore likewise after the fashion of plotinus; in fact he is characterised by the adoption of the methods and, in a certain sense, of the axioms current in the schools of valentinus and traceable in neoplatonism. but, as this method implied the acknowledgment of a sacred literature, origen was an exegete who believed in the holy scriptures and indeed, at bottom, he viewed all theology as a methodical exegesis of holy writ. finally, however, since origen, as an ecclesiastical christian, was convinced that the church (by which he means only the perfect and pure church) is the sole possessor of god's holy revelations with whose authority the faith may be justly satisfied, nothing but the two testaments, as preserved by her, was regarded by him as the absolutely reliable divine revelation.[684] but, in addition to these, every possession of the church, and, above all, the rule of faith, was authoritative and holy.[685] by acknowledging not only the relative correctness of the beliefs held by the great mass of simple christians, as the valentinians did, but also the indispensableness of their faith as the foundation of speculation, origen like clement avoided the dilemma of becoming a heterodox gnostic or an ecclesiastical traditionalist. he was able to maintain this standpoint, because in the first place his gnosis required a guaranteed sacred literature which he only found in the church, and because in the second place this same gnosis had extended its horizon far enough to see that what the heretical gnosis had regarded as contrasts were different aspects of the same thing. the relative way of looking at things, an inheritance from the best time of antiquity, is familiar to origen, as it was to clement; and he contrived never to lose sight of it, in spite of the absolute attitude he had arrived at through the christian gnosis and the holy scriptures. this relative view taught him and clement toleration and discretion (strom. iv. 22. 139: [greek: hê gnôsis agapa kai tous agnoountas didaskei te kai paideuei tên pasan ktisin tou pantokratoros theou timan], "gnosis loves and instructs the ignorant and teaches us to honour the whole creation of god almighty"); and enabled them everywhere to discover, hold fast, and further the good in that which was meagre and narrow, in that which was undeveloped and as yet intrinsically obscure.[686] as an orthodox traditionalist and decided opponent of all heresy origen acknowledged that christianity embraces a salvation which is offered to all men and attained by faith, that it is the doctrine of historical facts to which we must adhere, that the content of christianity has been appropriately summarised by the church in her rule of faith,[687] and that belief is of itself sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man. but, as an idealistic philosopher, origen transformed the whole content of ecclesiastical faith into ideas. here he adhered to no fixed philosophical system, but, like philo, clement, and the neoplatonists, adopted and adapted all that had been effected by the labours of idealistic greek moralists since the time of socrates. these, however, had long before transformed the socratic saying "know thyself" into manifold rules for the right conduct of life, and associated with it a theosophy, in which man was first to attain to his true self.[688] these rules made the true "sage" abstain from occupying himself in the service of daily life and "from burdensome appearance in public". they asserted that the mind "can have no more peculiar duty than caring for itself." this is accomplished by its not looking without nor occupying itself with foreign things, but, turning inwardly to itself, restoring its own nature to itself and thus practising righteousness.[689] here it was taught that the wise man who no longer requires anything is nearest the deity, because he is a partaker of the highest good through possession of his rich ego and through his calm contemplation of the world; here moreover it was proclaimed that the mind that has freed itself from the sensuous[690] and lives in constant contemplation of the eternal is also in the end vouchsafed a view of the invisible and is itself deified. no one can deny that this sort of flight from the world and possession of god involves a specific secularisation of christianity, and that the isolated and self-sufficient sage is pretty much the opposite of the poor soul that hungers after righteousness.[691] nor, on the other hand, can any one deny that concrete examples of both types are found in infinite multiplicity and might shade off into each other in this multiplicity. this was the case with clement and origen. to them the ethical and religious ideal is the state without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order and peace--but peace in god. reconciled to the course of the world, trusting in the divine logos,[692] rich in disinterested love to god and the brethren, reproducing the divine thoughts, looking up with longing to heaven its native city,[693] the created spirit attains its likeness to god and eternal bliss. it reaches this by the victory over sensuousness, by constantly occupying itself with the divine--"go ye believing thoughts into the wide field of eternity"--by self-knowledge and contemplative isolation, which, however, does not exclude work in the kingdom of god, that is in the church. this is the divine wisdom: "the soul practises viewing herself as in a mirror: she displays the divine spirit in herself as in a mirror, if she is to be found worthy of this fellowship; and she thus discovers the traces of a mysterious way to deification."[694] origen employed the stoic and platonic systems of ethics as an instrument for the gradual realisation of this ideal.[695] with him the mystic and ecstatic as well as the magic and sacramental element is still in the background, though it is not wanting. to origen's mind, however, the inadequacy of philosophical injunctions was constantly made plain by the following considerations. (1) the philosophers, in spite of their noble thoughts of god, tolerated the existence of polytheism; and this was really the only fault he had to find with plato. (2) the truth did not become universally accessible through them.[696] (3) as the result of these facts they did not possess sufficient power.[697] in contrast to this the divine revelation had already mastered a whole people through moses--"would to god the jews had not transgressed the law, and had not slain the prophets and jesus; we would then have had a model of that heavenly commonwealth which plato has sought to describe"[698]--and the logos shows his universal power in the church (1) by putting an end to all polytheism, and (2) by improving everyone to the extent that his knowledge and capacity admit, and in proportion as his will is inclined to, and susceptible of, that which is good.[699] not only, however, did origen employ the greek ethic in its varied types, but the greek cosmological speculation also formed the complicated substructure of his religious system of morals. the gnosis is formally a philosophy of revelation, that is a scripture theology,[700] and materially a cosmological speculation. on the basis of a detailed theory of inspiration, which itself, moreover, originates with the philosophers, the holy scriptures are so treated that all facts appear as the vehicles of ideas and only attain their highest value in this aspect. systematic theology, in undertaking its task, always starts, as clement and origen also did, with the conscious or unconscious thought of emancipating itself from the outward revelation and community of cultus that are the characteristic marks of positive religion. the place of these is taken by the results of speculative cosmology, which, though themselves practically conditioned, do not seem to be of this character. this also applies to origen's christian gnosis or scientific dogmatic, which is simply the metaphysics of the age. however, as he was the equal of the foremost minds of his time, this dogmatic was no schoolboy imitation on his part, but was to some extent independently developed and was worked out both in opposition to pantheistic stoicism and to theoretical dualism. that we are not mistaken in this opinion is shown by a document ranking among the most valuable things preserved to us from the third century; we mean the judgment passed on origen by porphyry in euseb., h. e. vi. 19. every sentence is instructive,[701] but the culminating point is the judgment contained in § 7: [greek: kata men ton bion christianôs zôn kai paranomôs, kata de tas peri tôn pragmatôn kai tou theou doxas hellênizôn kai ta hellênôn tois othneiois hupoballomenos mythois.] ("his outward life was that of a christian and opposed to the law, but in regard to his views of things and of the deity, he thought like the greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.") we can everywhere verify this observation from origen's works and particularly from the books written against celsus, where he is continually obliged to mask his essential agreement in principles and method with the enemy of the christians.[702] the gnosis is in fact the hellenic one and results in that wonderful picture of the world which, though apparently a drama, is in reality immovable, and only assumes such a complicated form here from its relation to the holy scriptures and the history of christ.[703] the gnosis neutralises everything connected with empiric history; and if this does not everywhere hold good with regard to the actual occurrence of facts, it is at least invariably the case in respect to their significance. the clearest proof of this is (1) that origen raised the thought of the unchangeability of god to be the norm of his system and (2) that he denied the historical, incarnate logos any significance for "gnostics." to these christ merely appears as the logos who has been from eternity with the father and has always acted from the beginning. he alone is the object of the knowledge of the wise man, who merely requires a perfect or, in other words, a divine teacher.[704] the gospel too only teaches the "shadow of the secrets of christ;" but the eternal gospel, which is also the pneumatic one, "clearly places before men's minds all things concerning the son of god himself, both the mysteries shown by his words, and the things of which his acts were the riddles" ([greek: saphôs paristêsi tois noousi ta panta enôpion peri autou tou huiou tou theou, kai ta paristamena mustêria hupo tôn logôn autou, ta te pragmata, ôn ainigmata êsan hai praxeis autou]).[705] no doubt the true theology based on revelation makes pantheism appear overthrown as well as dualism, and here the influence of the two testaments cannot be mistaken; but a subtle form of the latter recurs in origen's system, whilst the manner in which he rejected both made the greek philosophy of the age feel that there was something akin to it here. in the final utterances of religious metaphysics ecclesiastical christianity, with the exception of a few compromises, is thrown off as a husk. the objects of religious knowledge have no history or rather, and this is a genuinely gnostic and neoplatonic idea, they have only a supramundane one. this necessarily gave rise to the assumption of an esoteric and exoteric form of the christian religion, for it is only behind the statutory, positive religion of the church that religion itself is found. origen gave the clearest expression to this assumption, which must have been already familiar in the alexandrian school of catechists, and convinced himself that it was correct, because he saw that the mass of christians were unable to grasp the deeper sense of scripture, and because he realised the difficulties of the exegesis. on the other hand, in solving the problem of adapting the different points of his heterodox system of thought to the _regula fidei_, he displayed the most masterly skill. he succeeded in finding an external connection, because, though the construction of his theory proceeded from the top downwards, he could find support for it on the steps of the _regula fidei_, already developed by irenæus into the history of salvation.[706] the system itself is to be, in principle and in every respect, monistic, but, as the material world, though created by god out of nothing, merely appears as a place of punishment and purification for souls, a strong element of dualism is inherent in the system, as far as its practical application is concerned.[707] the prevailing contrast is that between the one transcendent essence and the multiplicity of all created things. the pervading ambiguity lies in the twofold view of the spiritual in so far as, on the one hand, it belongs to god as the unfolding of his essence, and, on the other, as being created, is contrasted with god. this ambiguity, which recurs in all the neoplatonic systems and has continued to characterise all mysticism down to the present day, originates in the attempt to repel stoic pantheism and yet to preserve the transcendental nature of the human spirit, and to maintain the absolute causality of god without allowing his goodness to be called in question. the assumption that created spirits can freely determine their own course is therefore a necessity of the system; in fact this assumption is one of its main presuppositions[708] and is so boldly developed as to limit the omnipotence and omniscience of god. but, as from the empirical point of view the knot is tied for every man at the very moment he appears on earth, and since the problem is not created by each human being as the result of his own independent will, but lies in his organisation, speculation must retreat behind history. so the system, in accordance with certain hints of plato, is constructed on the same plan as that of valentinus, for example, to which it has an extraordinary affinity. it contains three parts: (1) the doctrine of god and his unfoldings or creations, (2) the doctrine of the fall and its consequences, (3) the doctrine of redemption and restoration.[709] like denis, however, we may also, in accordance with a premised theory of method, set forth the system in four sections, viz., theology, cosmology, anthropology, teleology. origen's fundamental idea is "the original indestructible unity of god and all spiritual essence." from this it necessarily follows that the created spirit after fall, error, and sin must ever return to its origin, to being in god. in this idea we have the key to the religious philosophy of origen. the only sources for obtaining a knowledge of the truth are the holy scriptures of both testaments. no doubt the speculations of greek philosophers also contain truths, but these have only a propædeutic value and, moreover, have no certainty to offer, as have the holy scriptures, which are a witness to themselves in the fulfilment of prophecy.[710] on the other hand origen assumes that there was an esoteric deeper knowledge in addition to the holy scriptures, and that jesus in particular imparted this deeper wisdom to a few;[711] but, as a correct church theologian, he scarcely made use of this assumption. the first methodical principle of his exegesis is that the faith, as professed in the church in contradistinction to heresy, must not be tampered with.[712] but it is the carrying out of this rule that really forms the task of the theologian. for the faith itself is fixed and requires no particular presentation; it never occurred to origen to assume that the fixing of the faith itself could present problems. it is complete, clear, easily teachable, and really leads to victory over sensuality and sin (see c. cels. vii. 48 and cf. other passages), as well as to fellowship with god, since it rests on the revelation of the logos. but, as it remains determined by fear and hope of reward so, as "uninformed and irrational faith" ([greek: pistis idiôtikê] and [greek: alogos]), it only leads to a "somatic christianity" ([greek: christianismos sômatikos]). it is the task of theology, however, to decipher "spiritual christianity" ([greek: christianismos pneumatikos]) from the holy scriptures, and to elevate faith to knowledge and clear vision. this is effected by the method of scripture exegesis which ascertains the highest revelations of god.[713] the scripture has a threefold sense because, like the cosmos, alongside of which it stands like a second revelation, as it were, it must contain a pneumatic, psychic, and somatic element. the somatic or historical sense is in every case the first that must be ascertained. it corresponds to the stage of mere faith and has consequently the same dignity as the latter. but there are instances where it is to be given up and designated as a jewish and fleshly sense. this is to be assumed in all cases where it leads to ideas opposed to the nature of god, morality, the law of nature, or reason.[714] here one must judge (see above) that such objectionable passages were meant to incite the searcher to a deeper investigation. the psychic sense is of a moral nature: in the old testament more especially most narratives have a moral content, which one can easily find by stripping off the history as a covering; and in certain passages one may content oneself with this meaning. the pneumatic sense, which is the only meaning borne by many passages, an assertion which neither philo nor clement ventured to make in plain terms, has with origen a negatively apologetic and a positively didactic aim. it leads to the ultimate ideas which, once attained, are self-evident, and, so to speak, pass completely over into the mind of the theologian, because they finally obtain for him clear vision and independent possession.[715] when the gnostic has attained this stage, he may throw away the ladders by which he has reached this height.[716] he is then inwardly united with god's logos, and from this union obtains all that he requires. in most passages origen presupposed the similarity and equal value of all parts of the holy scriptures; but in some he showed that even inspiration has its stages and grades, according to the receptivity and worthiness of each prophet, thus applying his relative view of all matters of fact in such cases also. in christ the full revelation of the logos was first expressed; his apostles did not possess the same inspiration as he,[717] and among the apostles and apostolic men differences in the degrees of inspiration are again to be assumed. here origen set the example of making a definite distinction between a heroic age of the apostles and the succeeding period. this laid the foundation for an assumption through which the later church down to our time has appeased her conscience and freed herself from demands that she could not satisfy.[718] the doctrine of god and his self-unfoldings or creations.[719] the world points back to an ultimate cause and the created spirit to an eternal, pure, absolutely simple, and unchangeable spirit, who is the original source of all existence and goodness, so that everything that exists only does so in virtue of being caused by that one, and is good in so far as it derives its essence from the one who is perfection and goodness. this fundamental idea is the source of all the conclusions drawn by origen as to the essence, attributes, and knowableness of god. as the one, god is contrasted with the manifold; but the order in the manifold points back to the one. as the real essence, god is opposed to the essences that appear and seem to vanish, and that therefore have no real existence, because they have not their principle in themselves, but testify: "we have not made ourselves." as the absolutely immaterial spirit, god is contrasted with the spirit that is clogged with matter, but which strives to get back to him from whom it received its origin. the one is something different from the manifold; but the order, the dependence, and the longing of that which is created point back to the one, who can therefore be known relatively from the manifold. in sharpest contrast to the heretical gnosis, origen maintained the absolute causality of god, and, in spite of all abstractions in determining the essence of god, he attributed self-consciousness and will to this superessential essence (in opposition to valentinus, basilides, and the later neoplatonists).[720] the created is one thing and the self-existent is another, but both are connected together; as the created can only be understood from something self-existent, so the self-existent is not without analogy to the created. the self-existent is in itself a living thing; it is beyond dispute that origen with all his abstractions represented the deity, whom he primarily conceived as a constant substance, in a more living, and, so to speak, in a more personal way than the greek philosophers. hence it was possible for him to produce a doctrine of the attributes of god. here he did not even shrink from applying his relative view to the deity, because, as will be seen, he never thinks of god without revelation, and because all revelation must be something limited. the omnipresence of god indeed suffers from no limitation. god is potentially everywhere; but he is everywhere only potentially; that is, he neither encompasses nor is encompassed. nor is he diffused through the universe, but, as he is removed from the limits of space, so also he is removed from space itself.[721] but the omniscience and omnipotence of god have a limit, which indeed, according to origen, lies in the nature of the case itself. in the first place his omnipotence is limited through his essence, for he can only do what he wills;[722] secondly by logic, for omnipotence cannot produce things containing an inward contradiction: god can do nothing contrary to nature, all miracles being natural in the highest sense[723]--thirdly, by the impossibility of that which is in itself unlimited being comprehended, whence it follows that the extent of everything created must be limited[724]--fourthly, by the impossibility of realising an aim completely and without disturbing elements.[725] omniscience has also its corresponding limits; this is specially proved from the freedom of spirits bestowed by god himself. god has indeed the capacity of foreknowledge, but he knows transactions beforehand because they happen; they do not happen because he knows them.[726] that the divine purpose should be realised in the end necessarily follows from the nature of the created spirit itself, apart from the supporting activity of god. like irenæus and tertullian origen very carefully discussed the attributes of goodness and justice in god in opposition to the marcionites.[727] but his exposition is different. in his eyes goodness and justice are not two opposite attributes, which can and must exist in god side by side; but as virtues they are to him identical. god rewards in justice and punishes in kindness. that it should go well with all, no matter how they conduct themselves, would be no kindness; but it is kindness when god punishes to improve, deter, and prevent. passions, anger, and the like do not exist in god, nor any plurality of virtues; but, as the perfect one, he is all kindness. in other places, however, origen did not content himself with this presentation. in opposition to the marcionites, who declared christ and the father of christ to be good, and the creator of the world to be just, he argued that, on the contrary, god (the foundation of the world) is good, but that the logos-christ, in so far as he is the pedagogus, is just.[728] from the perfect goodness of god origen infers that he reveals or communicates himself, from his immutability that he _always_ reveals himself. the eternal or never beginning communication of perfection to other beings is a postulate of the concept "god". but, along with the whole fraternity of those professing the same philosophy, origen assumed that the one, in becoming the manifold and acting in the interests of the manifold, can only effect his purpose by divesting himself of absolute apathy and once more assuming a form in which he can act, that is, procuring for himself an adequate organ--_the logos_. the content of origen's teaching about this logos was not essentially different from that of philo and was therefore quite as contradictory; only in his case everything is more sharply defined and the hypostasis of the logos (in opposition to the monarchians) more clearly and precisely stated.[729] nevertheless the personal independence of the logos is as yet by no means so sharply defined as in the case of the later arians. he is still the consciousness of god, the spiritual activity of god. hence he is on the one hand the idea of the world existing in god, and on the other the product of divine wisdom originating with the will of god. the following are the most important propositions.[730] the logos who appeared in christ, as is specially shown from joh. i. 1 and heb. i. 1, is the perfect image[731] of god. he is the wisdom of god, the reflection of his perfection and glory, the invisible image of god. for that very reason there is nothing corporeal in him[732] and he is therefore really god, not [greek: autotheos], nor [greek: ho theos], nor [greek: anarchos archê] ("beginningless beginning"), but the second god.[733] but, as such, immutability is one of his attributes, that is, he can never lose his divine essence, he can also in this respect neither increase nor decrease (this immutability, however, is not an independent attribute, but he is perfect as being an image of the father's perfection).[734] accordingly this deity is not a communicated one in the sense of his having another independent essence in addition to this divine nature; but deity rather constitutes his essence: [greek: ho sotêr ou kata metousian, alla kat' ousian esti theos][735] ("the saviour is not god by communication, but in his essence"). from this it follows that he shares in the essence of god, therefore of the father, and is accordingly [greek: homoousios] ("the same in substance with the father") or, seeing that, as son, he has come forth from the father, is engendered from the essence of the father.[736] but having proceeded, like the will, from the spirit, he was always with god; there was not a time when he was not,[737] nay, even this expression is still too weak. it would be an unworthy idea to think of god without his wisdom or to assume a beginning of his begetting. moreover, this begetting is not an act that has only once taken place, but a process lasting from all eternity; the son is always being begotten of the father.[738] it is the theology of origen which gregory thaumaturgus has thus summed up:[739] [greek: eis kurios, monos ek monou, theos ek theou, charaktêr kai eikôn tês theotêtos, logos energos, sophia tês tôn holôn sustaseôs periektikê kai dunamis tês holês ktiseôs poiêtikê, huios alêthinos alêthinou patros, aoratos aoratou kai aphthartos aphthartou kai athanatos athanatou kai aidios aidiou]. ("one lord, one from one, god from god, impress and image of godhead, energetic word, wisdom embracing the entire system of the universe and power producing all creation, true son of a true father, the invisible of the invisible and incorruptible of the incorruptible, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal"). the begetting is an indescribable act which can only be represented by inadequate images: it is no emanation--the expression [greek: probolê] is not found, so far as i know[740]--but is rather to be designated as an act of the will arising from an inner necessity, an act which for that very reason is an emanation of the essence. but the logos thus produced is really a personally existing being; he is not an impersonal force of the father, though this still appears to be the case in some passages of clement, but he is the "sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens"[741] ("the wisdom of god substantially existing") "figura expressa substantial patris" ("express image of the father's substance"), "virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens" ("a second force existing in its own characteristic fashion"). he is, and here origen appeals to the old acts of paul, an "animal vivens" with an independent existence.[742] he is another person,[743] namely, the second person in number.[744] but here already begins origen's second train of thought which limits the first that we have set forth. as a particular hypostasis, which has its "first cause" ([greek: prôton aition]) in god, the son is "that which is caused" ([greek: aitiaton]), moreover as the fulness of ideas, as he who comprehends in himself all the forms that are to have an active existence, the son is no longer an absolute _simplex_ like the father.[745] he is already the first stage of the transition from the one to the manifold, and, as the medium of the world-idea, his essence has an inward relation to the world, which is itself without beginning.[746] as soon therefore as the category of causality is applied--which moreover dominates the system--and the particular contemplation of the son in relation to the father gives way to the general contemplation of his task and destination, the son is not only called [greek: ktisma] and [greek: dêmiourgêma], but all the utterances about the quality of his essence receive a limitation. we nowhere find the express assertion that this quality is inferior or of a different kind when compared with that of god; but these utterances lose their force when it is asserted that complete similarity between father and son only exists in relation to the world. we have to acknowledge the divine being that appeared in christ to be the manifestation of the deity; but, from god's standpoint, the son is the hypostasis appointed by and _subordinated_ to him.[747] the son stands between the uncreated one and the created many; in so far as unchangeableness is an attribute of self-existence he does not possess it.[748] it is evident why origen was obliged to conceive the logos exactly as he did; it was only in this form that the idea answered the purpose for which it was intended. in the description of the essence of the logos much more heed continues to be given to his creative than to his redeeming significance. since it was only a teacher that origen ultimately required for the purpose of redemption, he could unfold the nature and task of the logos without thinking of christ, whose name indeed he frequently mentions in his disquisitions, but whose person is really not of the slightest importance there.[749] in order to comply with the rule of faith, and for this reason alone, for his speculation did not require a spirit in addition to the logos, origen also placed the spirit alongside of father and son. all that is predicated about him by the church is that he is equal to the other persons in honour and dignity, and it was he that inspired both prophets and apostles; but that it is still undecided whether he be created or uncreated, and whether he too is to be considered the son of god or not.[750] as the third hypostasis, origen reckoned him part of the constant divine essence and so treated him after the analogy of the son, without producing an impressive proof of the necessity of this hypostasis. he, however, became the holy spirit through the son, and is related to the latter as the latter is related to the father; in other words he is subordinate to the son; he is the first creation of the father through the son.[751] here origen was following an old tradition. considered quantitatively therefore, and this according to origen is the most important consideration, the spirit's sphere of action is the smallest. all being has its principle in the father, the son has his sphere in the rational, the holy spirit in the sanctified, that is in the church; this he has to rule over and perfect. father, son, and spirit form a [greek: trias] ("triad")[752] to which nothing may be compared; they are equal in dignity and honour, and the substance they possess is one. if the following is not one of rufinus' corrections, origen said[753]: "nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa"[754] ("nothing in the trinity is to be called greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his parts by word and reason"). but, as in origen's sense the union of these only exists because the father alone is the "source of deity" ([greek: pêgê tês theotêtos]) and principle of the other two hypostases, the trinity is in truth no homogeneous one, but one which, in accordance with a "subtle emanation idea", has degrees within it. this trinity, which in the strict sense remains a trinity of revelation, except that revelation belongs to the essence of god, is with origen the real secret of the faith, the mystery beyond all mysteries. to deny it shows a jewish, carnal feeling or at least the greatest narrowness of conception. the idea of createdness was already more closely associated with the holy ghost than with the logos. he is in a still clearer fashion than the son himself the transition to the series of ideas and spirits that having been created by the son, are in truth the unfolding of his fulness. they form the next stage after the holy spirit. in assuming the existence of such beings as were required by his philosophical system, origen appealed to the biblical doctrine of angels, which he says is expressly acknowledged in the church.[755] with clement even the association of the son and holy ghost with the great angelic spirits is as yet not altogether avoided, at least in his expressions.[756] origen was more cautious in this respect.[757] the world of spirits appears to him as a series of well-arranged, graded energies, as the representative of created reason. its characteristic is growth, that is, progress ([greek: prokopê]).[758] growth is conditioned by freedom: "_omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet_"[759] ("every rational creature is capable of meriting praise or blame--praise, if it advance to better things according to the reason it possesses in itself, blame, if it avoid the right course"). as unchangeableness and permanence are characteristic of the deity, so freedom is the mark of the created spirit.[760] in this thesis origen goes beyond the assumption of the heretical gnostics just as much as he does in his other proposition that the creaturely spirit is in no sense a portion of the divine (because it is changeable[761]); but in reality freedom, as he understands it, is only the capacity of created spirits to determine their own destiny _for a time_. in the end, however, they must turn to that which is good, because everything spiritual is indestructible. _sub specie æternitatis_, then, the mere communication of the divine element to the created spirit[762] is _not_ a mere communication, and freedom is no freedom; but the absolute necessity of the created spirit's developing itself merely appears as freedom. yet origen himself did not draw this conclusion, but rather based everything on his conception that the freedom of _naturæ rationabiles_ consisted in the _possibilitas utriusque_, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from this freedom. to the _naturæ rationabiles_, which have different _species_ and _ordines_, human souls also belong. the whole of them were created from all eternity; for god would not be almighty unless he had always produced everything[763]; in virtue of their origin they are equal, for their original community with the logos permits of no diversity[764]; but, on the other hand, they have received different tasks and their development is consequently different. in so far as they are spirits subject to change, they are burdened with a kind of bodily nature,[765] for it is only the deity that is without a body. the element of materiality is a necessary result of their finite nature, that is, of their being created; and this applies both to angels and human souls.[766] now origen did not speculate at all as to how the spirit world might have developed in ideal fashion, a fact which it is exceedingly important to recognise; he knows nothing at all about an ideal development for all, and does not even view it as a possibility. the truth rather is that as soon as he mentions the _naturæ rationabiles_, he immediately proceeds to speak of their fall, their growth, and their diversities. he merely contemplates them in the given circumstances in which they are placed (see the exposition in [greek: peri archôn] ii. 9. 2). the doctrine of the fall and its consequences. all created spirits must develop. when they have done so, they attain perfection and make way for new dispensations and worlds.[767] in the exercise of their freedom, however, disobedience, laxity, laziness, and failure make their appearance among them in an endless multiplicity of ways.[768] the disciplining and purifying of these spirits was the purpose for which the material world was created by god.[769] it is therefore a place of purification, ruled and harmoniously arranged by god's wisdom.[770] each member of the world of spirits has received a different kind of material nature in proportion to his degree of removal from the creator. the highest spirits, who have virtually held fast by that which is good, though they too stand in need of restitution, guide the world, are servants of god ([greek: angeloi]), and have bodies of an exceedingly subtle kind in the form of a globe (stars). the spirits that have fallen very deeply (the spirits of men) are banished into material bodies. those that have altogether turned against god have received very dark bodies, indescribably ugly, though not visible. men therefore are placed between the angels and demons, both of whom try to influence them. the moral struggle that man has to undergo within himself is made harder by the demons, but lightened by the angels,[771] for these spiritual powers are at all times and places acting both upon the physical and the spiritual world. but everything is subject to the permission of the divine goodness and finally also to the guidance of divine providence, though the latter has created for itself a limit in freedom.[772] evil, however, and it is in this idea that origen's great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the end. as it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing real; it is "nonexistent" ([greek: ouch on]) and "unreal" ([greek: anupostaton]).[773] for this very reason the estrangement of the spirits from god must finally cease; even the devil, who, as far as his _being_ is concerned, resulted from god's will, cannot always remain a devil. the spirits must return to god, and this moment is also the end of the material world, which is merely an intermediate phase.[774] according to this conception the doctrine of man, who in origen's view is no longer the sole aim of creation to the same extent as he is with the other fathers,[775] assumes the following form: the essence of man is formed by the reasonable soul, which has fallen from the world above. this is united with the body by means of the animal soul. origen thus believes in a threefold nature of man. he does so in the first place, because plato holds this theory, and origen always embraced the most complicated view in matters of tradition, and secondly, because the rational soul can never in itself be the principle of action opposed to god, and yet something relatively spiritual must be cited as the cause of this action. it is true that we also find in origen the view that the spirit in man has itself been cooled down into a soul, has been, as it were, transformed into a soul; but there is necessarily an ambiguity here, because on the one hand the spirit of man is said to have chosen a course opposed to god, and, on the other, that which is rational and free in man must be shown to be something remaining intact.[776] man's struggle consists in the endeavour of the two factors forming his constitution to gain control of his sphere of action. if man conquers in this struggle he attains _likeness_ to god; the image of god he bears beyond danger of loss in his indestructible, rational, and therefore immortal spirit.[777] victory, however, denotes nothing else than the subjugation of the instincts and passions.[778] no doubt god affords help in the struggle, for nothing good is without god,[779] but in such a way as not to interfere with freedom. according to this conception sin is a matter of necessity in the case of fallen spirits; all men are met with as sinners and are so, for they were already sinners.[780] sin is rooted in the whole earthly condition of men; it is the weakness and error of the spirit parted from its origin.[781] the idea of freedom, indeed, is supposed to be a feature which always preserves the guilty character of sin; but in truth it becomes a mere appearance,[782] it does not avail against the constitution of man and the sinful habit propagated in human society.[783] all must be sinners at first,[784] for that is as much their destiny as is the doom of death which is a necessary consequence of man's material nature.[785] _the doctrine of redemption and restoration._ in the view of clement and origen the proposition: "god wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves" ([greek: o theos hêmas ex hêmôn autôn bouletai sôzesthai]) is quite as true as the other statement that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellowship with the logos and submitting to his instruction.[786] they moreover hold that the logos, after passing through his various stages of revealing activity (law of nature, mosaic law), disclosed himself in the gospel in a manner complete and accessible to all, so that this revelation imparts redemption and eternal happiness to all men, however different their capacities may be. finally, it is assumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures, from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons, have the capacity and need of redemption; while for the highest stage, the "spiritual church", there is an _eternal gospel_ which is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. this eternal gospel is the first complete revelation of god's highest intentions, and lies hidden in the holy scriptures.[787] these elements compose origen's doctrine of revelation in general and of christ in particular.[788] they presuppose the sighing of the creature and the great struggle which is more especially carried on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and passion, that dispute the possession of man. man must conquer and yet he cannot do so without help. but help has never been wanting. the logos has been revealing himself from the beginning. origen's teaching concerning the preparatory history of redemption is founded on the doctrines of the apologists; but with him everything takes a more vivid form, and influences on the part of the heretical gnosis are also not lacking. pure spirits, whom no fault of their own had caused to be invested with bodies, namely, the prophets, were sent to men by the logos in order to support the struggling and to increase knowledge. to prepare the way of salvation the logos chose for himself a whole people, and he revealed himself among all men. but all these undertakings did not yet lead to the goal. the logos himself was obliged to appear and lead men back. but by reason of the diverse nature of the spirits, and especially of men, the redeeming work of the logos that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. in the case of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of valentinus. he had, as the "godman," to make a sacrifice which represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which put an end to the devil's sovereignty over men's souls, and in short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to all.[789] to the rest, however, as divine teacher and hierophant he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might now partake of his life and themselves become divine through being interwoven with the divine essence. here, as in the former case, restoration to fellowship with god is the goal; but, as in the lower stage, this restoration is effected through faith and sure conviction of the reality of a historical fact--namely, the redeeming death of christ,--so, in the higher stage, it is accomplished through knowledge and love, which, soaring upward beyond the crucified one, grasp the eternal essence of the logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal gospel.[790] what the gnostics merely represented as a more or less valuable appearance-namely, the historical work of christ--was to origen no appearance but truth. but he did not view it as _the_ truth, and in this he agrees with the gnostics, but as _a_ truth, beyond which lies a higher. that historical work of christ was a reality; it is also indispensable for men of more limited endowments, and not a matter of indifference to the perfect; but the latter no longer require it for their personal life. here also origen again contrived to reconcile contradictions and thus acknowledged, outdid, reconciled, and united both the theses of the gnostics and those of orthodox christians. the object and goal of redemption are the same for all, namely, the restoration of the created spirit to god and participation in the divine life. in so far as history is a struggle between spirits and demons, the death of christ on the cross is the turning-point of history, and its effects extend even into heaven and hell.[791] on the basis of this conception of redemption origen developed his idea of christ. inasmuch as he recognised christ as the redeemer, this christ, the god-man, could not but be as many-sided as redemption is. only through that masterly art of reconciling contradictions, and by the aid of that fantastic idea which conceives one real being as dwelling in another, could there be any apparent success in the attempt to depict a homogeneous person who in truth is no longer a person, but the symbol of the various redemptions. that such an acute thinker, however, did not shrink from the monstrosity his speculation produced is ultimately to be accounted for by the fact that this very speculation afforded him the means of nullifying all the utterances about christ and falling back on the idea of the divine teacher as being the highest one. the whole "humanity" of the redeemer together with its history finally disappears from the eyes of the perfect one. what remains is the principle, the divine reason, which became known and recognisable through christ. the perfect one, and this remark also applies to clement's perfect gnostic, thus knows no "christology", but only an indwelling of the logos in jesus christ, with which the indwellings of this same logos in men began. to the gnostic the question of the divinity of christ is of as little importance as that of the humanity. the former is no question, because speculation, starting above and proceeding downwards, is already acquainted with the logos and knows that he has become completely comprehensible in christ; the latter is no question, because the humanity is a matter of indifference, being the form in which the logos made himself recognisable. but to the christian who is not yet perfect the divinity as well as the humanity of christ is a problem, and it is the duty of the perfect one to solve and explain it, and to guard this solution against errors on all sides. to origen, however, the errors are already gnostic docetism on the one hand, and the "ebionite" view on the other.[792] his doctrine was accordingly as follows: as a pure unchangeable spirit, the logos could not unite with matter, because this as [greek: mê on] would have depotentiated him. a medium was required. the logos did not unite with the body, but with a soul, and only through the soul with the body. this soul was a pure one; it was a created spirit that had never fallen from god, but always remained in faithful obedience to him, and that had chosen to become a soul in order to serve the purposes of redemption. this soul then was always devoted to the logos from the first and had never renounced fellowship with him. it was selected by the logos for the purpose of incarnation and that because of its moral dignity. the logos became united with it in the closest way; but this connection, though it is to be viewed as a mysteriously real union, continues to remain perfect only because of the unceasing effort of will by which the soul clings to the logos. thus, then, no intermixture has taken place. on the contrary the logos preserves his impassibility, and it is only the soul that hungers and thirsts, struggles and suffers. in this, too, it appears as a real human soul, and in the same way the body is sinless and unpolluted, as being derived from a virgin; but yet it is a human one. this humanity of the body, however, does not exclude its capacity of assuming all possible qualities the logos wishes to give it; for matter of itself possesses no qualities. the logos was able at any moment to give his body the form it required, in order to make the proper impression on the various sorts of men. moreover, he was not enclosed in the soul and body of christ; on the contrary he acted everywhere as before and united himself, as formerly, with all the souls that opened themselves to him. but with none did the union become so close as with the soul, and consequently also with the body of jesus. during his earthly life the logos glorified and deified his soul by degrees and the latter acted in the same way on his body. origen contrived to arrange the different functions and predicates of the incarnate logos in such a way that they formed a series of stages which the believer becomes successively acquainted with as he advances in knowledge. but everything is most closely united together in christ. this union ([greek: koinônia enôsis, anakrasis]) was so intimate that holy writ has named the created man, jesus, the son of god; and on the other hand has called the son of god the son of man. after the resurrection and ascension the whole man jesus appears transformed into a spirit, is completely received into the godhead, and is thus identical with the logos.[793] in this conception one may be tempted to point out all possible "heresies":--the conception of jesus as a heavenly man--but all men are heavenly;--the adoptianist ("ebionite") christology--but the logos as a person stands behind it;--the conception of two logoi, a personal and an impersonal; the gnostic separation of jesus and christ; and docetism. as a matter of fact origen united all these ideas, but modified the whole of them in such a way that they no longer seem, and to some extent are not, what they turn out to be when subjected to the slightest logical analysis. this structure is so constituted that not a stone of it admits of being a hair's-breadth broader or narrower. there is only one conception that has been absolutely unemployed by origen, that is, the modalistic view. origen is the great opponent of sabellianism, a theory which in its simplicity frequently elicited from him words of pity; otherwise he made use of all the ideas about christ that had been formed in the course of two hundred years. this becomes more and more manifest the more we penetrate into the details of this christology. we cannot, however, attribute to origen a doctrine of two natures, but rather the notion of two subjects that become gradually amalgamated with each other, although the expression "two natures" is not quite foreign to origen.[794] the logos retains his human nature eternally,[795] but only in the same sense in which we preserve our nature after the resurrection. the significance which this christological attempt possessed for its time consists first in its complexity, secondly in the energetic endeavour to give an adequate conception of christ's _humanity_, that is, of the moral freedom pertaining to him as a creature. this effort was indeed obliged to content itself with a meagre result: but we are only justified in measuring origen's christology by that of the valentinians and basilidians, that is, by the scientific one that had preceded it. the most important advance lies in the fact that origen set forth a scientific christology in which he was able to find so much scope for the humanity of christ. whilst within the framework of the scientific christologies this humanity had hitherto been conceived as something indifferent or merely apparent, origen made the first attempt to incorporate it with the various speculations without prejudice to the logos, god in nature and person. no greek philosopher probably heeded what irenæus set forth respecting christ as the second adam, the _recapitulatur generis humani_; whereas origen's speculation could not be overlooked. in this case the gnosis really adopted the idea of the incarnation, and at the same time tried to demonstrate the conception of the god-man from the notions of unity of will and love. in the treatise against celsus, moreover, origen went the reverse way to work and undertook to show, and this not merely by help of the proof from prophecy, that the predicate deity applied to the historical christ.[796] but origen's conception of christ's person as a model (for the gnostic) and his repudiation of all magical theories of redemption ultimately explain why he did not, like tertullian, set forth a doctrine of two natures, but sought to show that in christ's case a human subject with his will and feelings became completely merged in the deity. no doubt he can say that the union of the divine and human natures had its beginning in christ, but here he virtually means that this beginning is continued in the sense of souls imitating the example of christ. what is called the real redemption supposed to be given in him is certainly mediated in the psychic through his _work_, but the _person_ of christ which cannot be known to any but the perfect man is by no means identified with that real redemption, but appears as a free moral personality, inwardly blended with the deity, a personality which cannot mechanically transfer the content of its essence, though it can indeed exercise the strongest impression on mind and heart. to origen the highest value of christ's person lies in the fact that the deity has here condescended to reveal to us the whole fulness of his essence, in the person of a man, as well as in the fact that a man is given to us who shows that the human spirit is capable of becoming entirely god's. at bottom there is nothing obscure and mystical here; the whole process takes place in the will and in the feelings through knowledge.[797] this is sufficient to settle the nature of what is called personal attainment of salvation. freedom precedes and supporting grace follows. as in christ's case his human soul gradually united itself with the logos in proportion as it voluntarily subjected its will to god, so also every man receives grace according to his progress. though clement and origen did not yet recommend actual exercises according to definite rules, their description of the gradations by which the soul rises to god already resembles that of the neoplatonists, except that they decidedly begin with faith as the first stage. faith is the first step and is our own work.[798] then follows the religious contemplation of visible things, and from this the soul advances, as on the steps of a ladder, to the contemplation of the _substantiæ rationabiles_, the logos, the knowable essence of god, and the whole fulness of the deity.[799] she retraces her steps upwards along the path she formerly passed over as a fallen spirit. but, when left to her own resources, she herself is everywhere weak and powerless; she requires at every stage the divine grace, that is, enlightenment.[800] thus a union of grace and freedom takes place within the sphere of the latter, till the "contemplative life" is reached, that joyous ascetic contemplativeness, in which the logos is the friend, associate, and bridegroom of the soul, which now, having become a pure spirit, and being herself deified, clings in love to the deity.[801] in this view the thought of regeneration in the sense of a fundamental renewal of the ego has no place;[802] still baptism is designated the bath of regeneration. moreover, in connection with the consideration of main biblical thoughts (god as love, god as the father, regeneration, adoption, etc.) we find in both clement and origen passages which, free from the trammels of the system, reproduce and set forth the preaching of the gospel in a surprisingly appropriate way.[803] it is evident that in origen's view there can be no visible means of grace; but it likewise follows from his whole way of thinking that the symbols attending the enlightening operation of grace are not a matter of indifference to the christian gnostic, whilst to the common man they are indispensable.[804] in the same way he brought into play the system of numerous mediators and intercessors with god, viz., angels and dead and living saints, and counselled an appeal to them. in this respect he preserved a heathen custom. moreover, origen regards christ as playing an important part in prayer, particularly as mediator and high priest. on prayer to christ he expressed himself with great reserve. origen's eschatology occupies a middle position between that of irenæus and the theory of the valentinian gnostics, but is more akin to the latter view. whilst, according to irenæus, christ reunites and glorifies all that had been severed, though in such a way that there is still a remnant eternally damned; and, according to valentinus, christ separates what is illegitimately united and saves the spirits alone, origen believes that all spirits will be finally rescued and glorified, each in the form of its individual life, in order to serve a new epoch of the world when sensuous matter disappears of itself. here he rejects all sensuous eschatological expectations.[805] he accepted the formula, "resurrection of the flesh", only because it was contained in the doctrine of the church; but, on the strength of 1 cor. xv. 44, he interpreted it as the rising of a "corpus spiritale", which will lack all material attributes and even all the members that have sensuous functions, and which will beam with radiant light like the angels and stars.[806] rejecting the doctrine that souls sleep,[807] origen assumed that the souls of the departed immediately enter paradise,[808] and that souls not yet purified pass into a state of punishment, a penal fire, which, however, like the whole world, is to be conceived as a place of purification.[809] in this way also origen contrived to reconcile his position with the church doctrines of the judgment and the punishments in hell; but, like clement, he viewed the purifying fire as a temporary and figurative one; it consists in the torments of conscience.[810] in the end all the spirits in heaven and earth, nay, even the demons, are purified and brought back to god by the logos-christ,[811] after they have ascended from stage to stage through seven heavens.[812] hence origen treated this doctrine as an esoteric one: "for the common man it is sufficient to know that the sinner is punished."[813] this system overthrew those of the gnostics, attracted greek philosophers, and justified ecclesiastical christianity. if one undertook to subject it to a new process of sublimation from the standpoint given in the "contemplative life", little else would be left than the unchangeable spirit, the created spirit, and the ethic. but no one is justified in subjecting it to this process.[814] the method according to which origen preserved whatever appeared valuable in the content of tradition is no less significant than his system of ethics and the great principle of viewing everything created in a relative sense. supposing minds of a radical cast, to have existed at the close of the history of ancient civilisation, what would have been left to us? the fact of a strong and undivided religious interest attaching itself to the traditions of the philosophers and of the two testaments was the condition--to use origen's own language--that enabled a new world of spirits to arise after the old one had finished its course. during the following century origen's theology at first acted in its entirety. but it likewise attained this position of influence, because some important propositions could be detached from their original connection and fitted into a new one. it is one of the peculiarities of this ecclesiastical philosophy of religion that the most of its formulæ could be interpreted and employed _in utramque partem_. the several propositions could be made to serve very different purposes not only by being halved, but also by being grouped. with this the relative unity that distinguishes the system no doubt vanished; but how many are there who strive after unity and completeness in their theory of the world? above all, however, there was something else that necessarily vanished, as soon as people meddled with the individual propositions, and enlarged or abridged them. we mean the frame of mind which produced them, that wonderful unity between the relative view of things and the absolute estimate of the highest good attainable by the free spirit that is certain of its god. but a time came, nay, had already come, when a sense of proportion and relation was no longer to be found. in the east the history of dogma and of the church during the succeeding centuries is the history of origen's philosophy. arians and orthodox, critics and mystics, priests who overcame the world and monks who shunned it but were eager for knowledge[815] could appeal to this system and did not fail to do so. but, in the main problem that origen set for the church in this religious philosophy of his, we find a recurrence of that propounded by the so-called gnosticism two generations earlier. he solved it by producing a system which reconciled the faith of the church with greek philosophy; and he dealt gnosticism its death-blow. this solution, however, was by no means intended as the doctrine of the church, since indeed it was rather based on the distinction between church belief and theology, and consequently on the distinction between the common man and the theologian. but such a distinction was not permanently tenable in a church that had to preserve its strength by the unity and finality of a revealed faith, and no longer tolerated fresh changes in the interpretation of its possession. hence a further compromise was necessary. the greek philosophy, or speculation, did not attain real and permanent recognition within the church till a new accommodation, capable of being accounted both pistis and gnosis, was found between what origen looked on as church belief and what he regarded as gnosis. in the endeavours of irenæus, tertullian, and hippolytus were already found hesitating, nay, we may almost say naïve, attempts at such an accommodation; but ecclesiastical traditionalism was unable to attain complete clearness as to its own position till it was confronted with a philosophy of religion that was no longer heathen or gnostic, but had an ecclesiastical colouring. but, with this prospect, we have already crossed the border of the third century. at its beginning there were but few theologians in christendom who were acquainted with speculation, even in its fragmentary form. in the course of the century it became a recognised part of the orthodox faith, in so far as the logos doctrine triumphed in the church. this development is the most important that took place in the third century; for it denoted the definite transformation of the rule of faith into the compendium of a greek philosophical system, and it is the parallel of a contemporaneous transformation of the church into a holy commonwealth (see above, chapter 3). footnotes: [footnote 656: guericke, de schola, quæ alex. floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. vacherot, hist. crit. de l'école d'alex., 1846-51. reinkens, de clemente alex., 1850. redepenning, origenes thl. i. p. 57 ff. læmmer, clem. al. de logo doctrina, 1855. reuter, clem. theolog. moralis, 1853. cognat, clement d'alex. paris, 1859. westcott, origen and the beginnings of christian philosophy (contemporary review, may 1879). winter, die ethik des clemens von alex., 1882. merk, cl. alex, in seiner abhängigkeit von der griech. philosophie, leipzig, 1879 (see besides overbeck, theol. lit. ztg., 1879. no. 20 and cf. above all his disquisitions in the treatise "ueber. die anfänge der patristischen litteratur,") hist. ztschr. n.f., vol. xii., pp. 455-472 zahn, forschungen, vol. iii. bigg, the christian platonists of alexandria, oxford, 1886. kremmer, de catal. heurematum, lips. 1890. wendland, quæst. musonianæ, berol. 1886. bratke, die stellung des clem. alex. z. antiken mysterienwesen (stud. u. krit. 1888, p. 647 ff). on alexander of jerusalem see routh, reliq. sacr. t. ii. p. 161 sq.; on julius africanus see gelzer, sextus jul. afr. i. thl., 1880, p. 1 ff., spitta, der brief des jul. afr. an aristides, halle 1877, and my article in the real-encykl. on bardesanes see hilgenfeld, b., der letzte gnostiker, 1864, and hort's article in the dictionary of christian biography. on the labours in scientific theology on the part of the so-called alogi in asia minor and of the roman theodotianists see epiph. hær. 51, euseb., h. e. v. 28 and my article "monarchianismus" in the r.-encykl. f. protest. theol. 2nd. ed., vol. x., pp. 183 ff., 188 ff. on the tendencies even of orthodox christians to scientific theology see tertull., de præscr. hær. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8: "venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. scriptum est, inquiunt, quærite et invenietis" etc.).] [footnote 657: this manner of expression is indeed liable to be misunderstood, because it suggests the idea that something new was taking place. as a matter of fact the scientific labours in the church were merely a continuation of the gnostic schools under altered circumstances, that is, under the sway of a tradition which was now more clearly defined and more firmly fenced round as a _noli me tangere_.] [footnote 658: this was begun in the church by irenæus and tertullian and continued by the alexandrians. they, however, not only adopted theologoumena from paulinism, but also acquired from paul a more ardent feeling of religious freedom as well as a deeper reverence for love and knowledge as contrasted with lower morality.] [footnote 659: we are not able to form a clear idea of the school of justin. in the year 180 the schools of the valentinians, carpocratians, tatian etc. were all outside the church.] [footnote 660: on the school of edessa see assemani, bibl. orient., t. iii., p. ii., p. 924; von lengerke, de ephraemi arte hermen., p. 86 sq.; kihn, die bedeutung der antiochenischen schule etc., pp. 32 f. 79 f., zahn, tatian's diatessaron, p. 54. about the middle of the 3rd century macarius, of whom lucian the martyr was a disciple, taught at this school. special attention was given to the exegesis of the holy scriptures.] [footnote 661: overbeck, l.c., p. 455, has very rightly remarked: "the origin of the alexandrian school of catechists is not a portion of the church history of the 2nd century, that has somehow been left in the dark by a mere accident; but a part of the well-defined dark region on the map of the ecclesiastical historian of this period, which contains the beginnings of all the fundamental institutions of the church as well as those of the alexandrian school of catechists, a school which was the first attempt to formulate the relationship of christianity to secular science." we are, moreover, still in a state of complete uncertainty as to the personality and teaching of pantænus (with regard to him see zahn, "forschungen" vol. iii., pp. 64 ff. 77 ff). we can form an idea of the school of catechists from the 6th book of eusebius' ecclesiastical history and from the works of clement and origen.] [footnote 662: on the connection of julius africanus with this school see eusebius, vi. 31. as to his relations with origen see the correspondence. julius africanus had, moreover, relations with edessa. he mentions clement in his chronicles. on the connection of alexander and the cappadocian circle with pantænus, clement, and origen, see the 6th book of eusebius' ecclesiastical history. alexander and origen were disciples of pantænus.] [footnote 663: see my article "heraklas" in the real-encyklopadie.] [footnote 664: we have the most complete materials in zahn, "forschungen" vol. iii. pp. 17-176. the best estimate of the great tripartite work (protrepticus, pædagogus, stromateis) is found in overbeck, l.c. the titles of clement's remaining works, which are lost to us or only preserved in fragments, show how comprehensive his scientific labours were.] [footnote 665: this applies quite as much to the old principles of christian morality as to the traditional faith. with respect to the first we may refer to the treatise: "quis dives salvetur", and to the 2nd and 3rd books of the pædagogus.] [footnote 666: clement was also conscious of the novelty of his undertaking; see overbeck, l.c., p. 464 f. the respect enjoyed by clement as a master is shown by the letters of alexander of jerusalem. see euseb., h. e. vi. 11 and specially vi. 14. here both pantænus and clement are called "father", but whilst the former receives the title, [greek: ho makarios hôs alêthôs kai kurios ], the latter is called: [greek: ho hieros klêmês, kurios mou genomenos kai ôphelêsas me].] [footnote 667: strom. vi. 14, 109: [greek: pleon estin tou pisteusai to gnônai], pistis is [greek: gnôsis suntomos tôn katepeigontôn] (vii. 10. 57, see the whole chapter), gnosis is [greek: apodeixis tôn dia pisteôs pareilêmmenôn tê pistei epoikodomoumenê] (l.c.), [greek: teleiôsis anthrôpou] (l.c.), [greek: pistis epistêmonikê] (ii. ii. 48).] [footnote 668: we have here more particularly to consider those paragraphs of the stromateis where clement describes the perfect gnostic: the latter elevates himself by dispassionate love to god, is raised above everything earthly, has rid himself of ignorance, the root of all evil, and already lives a life like that of the angels. see strom. vi. 9. 71, 72: [greek: oude gar endei ti autô pros exomôiosin tô kalô kai agathô einai oude ara philei tina tên koinên tautên philian, all' agapa ton ktistên dia tôn ktismatôn. out' oun epithumia kai orexei tini peripiptei oute endeês esti kata ge tên psuchên tôn allôn tinos sunôn êdê di' agapês tô erastô, ô dê ôkeiôtai kata tên hairesin kai tê ex askêseos hexei, toutô prosechesteron sunengizôn, makarios ôn dia tên tôn agathôn periousian, ôste heneka ge toutôn exomoiousthai biazetai tô didaskalô eis apatheian.] strom. vii. 69-83: vi. 14, 113: [greek: houtôs dunamin labousa kuriakên hê psuchê meleta einai theos, kakon men ouden allo plên agnoias einai nomizousa.] the whole 7th book should be read.] [footnote 669: philo is quoted by clement several times and still more frequently made use of without acknowledgment. see the copious citations in siegfried, philo von alexandrien, pp. 343-351. in addition to this clement made use of many greek philosophers or quoted them without acknowledgment, e.g., musonius.] [footnote 670: like philo and justin, clement also no doubt at times asserts that the greek philosophers pilfered from the old testament; but see strom. i. 5. 28 sq.: [greek: pantôn men aitios tôn kalôn ho theos, alla tôn men kata proêgoumenon hôs tês te diathêkês tês palaias kai tês neas, tôn de kat' epakolouthêma hôs tês philosophias. tacha de kai proêgoumenôs tois hellêsin edothê tote prin ê ton kyrion kalesai kai tous hellênas. epaidagôgei gar kai autê to hellênikon hôs ho nomos tous hebraious eis christon.]] [footnote 671: see bratke's instructive treatise cited above.] [footnote 672: the fact that clement appeals in support of the gnosis to an esoteric tradition (strom. vi. 7. 61: vi. 8. 68: vii. 10. 55) proves how much this writer, belonging as he did to a sceptical age, underestimated the efficacy of all human thought in determining the ultimate truth of things. the existence of sacred writings containing all truth was not even enough for him; the content of these writings had also to be guaranteed by divine communication. but no doubt the ultimate cause of this, as of all similar cases of scepticism, was the dim perception that ethics and religion do not at all come within the sphere of the intellectual, and that the intellect can produce nothing of religious value. as, however, in consequence of philosophical tradition, neither philo, nor the gnostics, nor clement, nor the neoplatonists were able to shake themselves free from the intellectual _scheme_, those things which--as they instinctively felt, but did not recognise--could really not be ascertained by knowledge at all received from them the name of _suprarational_ and were traced to divine revelation. we may say that the extinction or pernicious extravagancies to which greek philosophy was subjected in neoplatonism, and the absurdities into which the christian dogmatic was led, arose from the fact that the tradition of placing the ethical and religious feelings and the development of character within the sphere of knowledge, as had been the case for nearly a thousand years, could not be got rid of, though the incongruity was no doubt felt. contempt for empiricism, scepticism, the extravagancies of religious metaphysics which finally become mythology, have their origin here. knowledge still continues to be viewed as the highest possession; it is, however, no longer knowledge, but character and feeling; and it must be nourished by the fancy in order to be able to assert itself as knowledge.] [footnote 673: clement was not a neoplatonic mystic in the strict sense of the word. when he describes the highest ethical ideal, ecstasy is wanting; and the freshness with which he describes quietism shows that he himself was no quietist. see on this point bigg's third lecture, l.c., particularly p. 98 f. "... the silent prayer of the quietist is in fact ecstasy, of which there is not a trace in clement. for clement shrank from his own conclusions. though the father of all the mystics he is no mystic himself. he did not enter the 'enchanted garden,' which he opened for others. if he talks of 'flaying the sacrifice,' of leaving sense behind, of epopteia, this is but the parlance of his school. the instrument to which he looks for growth in knowledge is not trance, but disciplined reason. hence gnosis, when once obtained, is indefectible, not like the rapture which plotinus enjoyed but four times during his acquaintance with porphyry, which in the experience of theresa never lasted more than half an hour. the gnostic is no visionary, no theurgist, no antinomian."] [footnote 674: what a bold and joyous thinker clement was is shown by the almost audacious remark in strom. iv. 22. 136: [greek: ei goun tis kath' hypothesin protheiê tô gnôstikô poteron helesthai bouloito tên gnôsin tou theou ê tên sôtêrian tên aiônian, ein de tauta kechôrismena pantos mallon en tautotête onta, oude kath' otioun distasas heloit an tên gnôsin tou theou.]] [footnote 675: strom. vii. 1. 1. in several passages of his main work clement refers to those churchmen who viewed the practical and speculative concentration of church tradition as dangerous and questioned the use of philosophy at all. see strom. vi. 10. 80: [greek: polloi kathaper hoi paides ta mormolukeia, houtôs dediasi tên hellênikên philosophian, phoboumenoi mê apagagê autous]. vi. 11. 93.] [footnote 676: eusebius, h. e. vi. 14. 8, tells us that origen was a disciple of clement.] [footnote 677: clement's authority in the church continued much longer than that of origen. see zahn, "forschungen" iii. p. 140 f. the heterodox opinions advanced by clement in the hypotyposes are for the most part only known to us in an exaggerated form from the report of photius.] [footnote 678: in ecclesiastical antiquity all systematising was merely relative and limited, because the complex of sacred writings enjoyed a different authority from that which it possessed in the following period. here the reference of a theologoumenon to a passage of scripture was of itself sufficient, and the manifold and incongruous doctrines were felt as a unity in so far as they could all be verified from holy scriptures. thus the fact that the holy scriptures were regarded as a series of divine oracles guaranteed, as it were, a transcendental unity of the doctrines, and, in certain circumstances, relieved the framer of the system of a great part of his task. hitherto little justice has been done to this view of the history of dogma, though it is the only solution of a series of otherwise insoluble problems. we cannot for example understand the theology of augustine, and necessarily create for ourselves the most difficult problems by our own fault, if we make no use of that theory. in origen's dogmatic and that of subsequent church fathers--so far as we can speak of a dogmatic in their case--the unity lies partly in the canon of holy scripture and partly in the ultimate aim; but these two principles interfere with each other. as far as the stromateis of clement is concerned, overbeek (l.c.) has furnished the explanation of its striking plan. moreover, how would it have been conceivable that the riches of holy scripture, as presented to the philosophers who allegorised the books, could have been mastered, problems and all, at the first attempt.] [footnote 679: see the treatises of huetius (1668) reprinted by lommatzsch. thomasius, origenes 1837. redepenning, origenes, 2 vols. 1841-46. denis, de la philosophie d'origène, paris 1884. lang, die leiblichkeit der vernunftwesen bei origenes, leipzig, 1892. mehlhorn, die lehre von der menschlichen freiheit nach origenes (zeitschrift für kirchengeschichte, vol. ii., p. 234 ff.). westcott, origenes, in the dictionary of christian biography vol. iv. moller in herzog's real-encyklopädie, 2nd ed., vol. xi., pp. 92-109. the special literature is to be found there as well as in nitzsch, dogmengeschichte i., p. 151, and ueberweg, grundriss der geschichte der philosophie, 5th ed, p. 62 f.] [footnote 680: see his letter in eusebius, h. e. vi. 19. 11 ff.] [footnote 681: in the polemic against celsus it seems to us in not a few passages as if the feeling for truth had forsaken him. if we consider, however, that in origen's idea the premises of his speculation were unassailable, and if we further consider into what straits he was driven by celsus, we will conclude that no proof has been advanced of origen's having sinned against the current rules of truth. these, however, did not include the commandment to use in disputation only such arguments as could be employed in a positive doctrinal presentation. basilius (ep. 210 ad prim. neocæs) was quite ready to excuse an utterance of gregory thaumaturgus, that sounded suspiciously like sabellianism, by saying that the latter was not speaking [greek: dogmatikôs], but [greek: agônistikôs]. jerome also (ad pammach. ep 48, c. 13), after defending the right of writing [greek: gymnastikôs], expressly said that all greek philosophers "have used many words to conceal their thoughts, threaten in one place, and deal the blow in another." in the same way, according to him, origen, methodius, eusebius, and apollinaris had acted in the dispute with celsus and porphyry. "because they are sometimes compelled to say, not what they themselves think, but what is necessary for their purpose; they do this only in the struggle with the heathen."] [footnote 682: see, above all, the systematic main work "[greek: peri archôn]".] [footnote 683: many writings of origen are pervaded by arguments, evincing equal discretion and patience, against the christians who contest the right of science in the church. in the work against celsus, however, he was not unfrequently obliged to abandon the simple christians. c. celsus iii. 78: v. 14-24 are particularly instructive.] [footnote 684: in this point origen is already narrower than clement. free judgments, such as were passed by clement on greek philosophy, were not, so far as i know, repeated by origen. (see especially clement, strom. i. 5. 28-32: 13. 57, 58 etc.); yet he also acknowledges revelations of god in greek philosophy (see, _e.g._, c. cels. vi. 3), and the christian doctrine is to him the completion of greek philosophy (see the remains of origen's lost stromateis and hom. xiv. in genes. § 3; other passages in redepenning ii., p. 324 ff.).] [footnote 685: we must here content ourselves with merely pointing out that the method of scientific scriptural exegesis also led to historico-critical investigations, that accordingly origen and his disciples were also critics of the tradition, and that scientific theology, in addition to the task of remodelling christianity, thus began at its very origin the solution of another problem, namely, the critical restoration of christianity from the scriptures and tradition and the removal of its excrescences: for these efforts, strictly speaking, do not come up for consideration in the history of dogma.] [footnote 686: the theory that justified a twofold morality in the church is now completely legitimised, but the higher form no longer appears as encratite and eschatological, but as encratite and philosophical. see, for example, clement, strom. iii. 12. 82: vi. 13. 106 etc. gnosis is the principle of perfection. see strom. iv. 7. 54: [greek: prokeitai de tois eis teleiôsin speudousin hê gnôsis hê logikê hês themelios hê agia trias pistis, agapê, elpis].] [footnote 687: see the preface to the work [greek: peri archôn].] [footnote 688: from the conclusion of hippolytus' philosophoumena it is also evident how the socratic [greek: gnôthi seauton] was in that age based on a philosophy of religion and was regarded as a watchword in wide circles. see clem. pædag. iii. 11. 1.] [footnote 689: see gregory thaumaturgus' panegyric on origen, one of the most instructive writings of the 3rd century, especially cc. 11-18.] [footnote 690: yet all excesses are repudiated. see clem. strom. iv. 22. 138: [greek: ouk egkratês outos eti, all' en hexei gegonen apatheias schêma theion ependusasthai anamenôn]. similar remarks are found in origen.] [footnote 691: in many passages of clement the satisfaction in knowledge appears in a still more pronounced form than in origen. the boldest expression of it is strom. iv. 22. 136. this passage is quoted above on p. 328.] [footnote 692: see the beautiful prayer of the christian gnostic in strom. iv. 23. 148.] [footnote 693: see strom. iv. 26. 172: origen's commentaries are continually interrupted by similar outbursts of feeling.] [footnote 694: on deification as the ultimate aim see clem., strom. iv. 23. 149-155: vii. 10. 56, 13. 82, 16. 95: [greek: houtôs ho tô kuriô peithomenos kai tê dotheisê di' autou katakolouthêsas prophêteia teleôs ekteleitai kat' eikona tou didaskalou en sarki peripolôn theos]. but note what a distinction clement makes between [greek: ho theos] and the perfect man in vii. 15. 88 (in contradistinction to the stoic identification); origen does this also.] [footnote 695: gregory (l.c., c. 13) relates that all the works of the poets and philosophers were read in origen's school, and that every part of these works that would stand the test was admitted. only the works of atheists were excluded, "because these overpass the limits of human thought." however, origen did not judge philosophers in such an unprejudiced manner as clement, or, to speak more correctly, he no longer valued them so highly. see bigg, l.c., p. 133, denis l.c. introd.] [footnote 696: see, for example, c. cels. v. 43: vii. 47, 59 sq. he compared plato and other wise men to those doctors who give their attention only to cultured patients.] [footnote 697: see, for example, c. cels. vi. 2.] [footnote 698: c. cels. v. 43.] [footnote 699: one of origen's main ideas, which we everywhere meet with, particularly in the work against celsus (see, for example, vi. 2) is the thought that christ has come to improve all men according to their several capacities, and to lead some to the highest knowledge. this conception appears to fall short of the christian ideal and perhaps really does so; but as soon as we measure it not by the gospel but by the aims of greek philosophy, we see very clearly the progress that has been attained through this same gospel. what origen has in his eye is mankind, and he is anxious for the amendment not merely of a few, but of all. the actual state of things in the church no longer allowed him to repeat the exclamations of the apologists that all christians were philosophers and that all were filled with the same wisdom and virtue. these exclamations were naïve and inappropriate even for that time. but he could already estimate the relative progress made by mankind within the church as compared with those outside her pale, saw no gulf between the growing and the perfect, and traced the whole advance to christ. he expressly declared, c. cels. iii. 78, that the christianity which is fitted for the comprehension of the multitude is not the best doctrine in an absolute, but only in a relative, sense; that the "common man", as he expresses himself, must be reformed by the prospect of rewards and punishments; and that the truth can only be communicated to him in veiled forms and images, as to a child. the very fact, however, that the logos in jesus christ has condescended so to act is to origen a proof of the universality of christianity. moreover, many of the wonderful phenomena reported in the holy scriptures belong in his opinion to the veiled forms and images. he is very far from doing violence to his reason here; he rather appeals to mysterious powers of the soul, to powers of divination, visionary states etc. his standpoint in this case is wholly that of celsus (see particularly the instructive disquisition in i. 48), in so far as he is convinced that many unusual things take place between heaven and earth, and that individual names, symbols etc. possess a mysterious power (see, for example, c. cels. v. 45). the views as to the relationship between knowledge and holy initiation or _sacramentum_ are those of the philosophers of the age. he thinks, however, that each individual case requires to be examined, that there can be no miracles not in accordance with nature, but that on the contrary everything must fit into a higher order. as the letter of the precepts in both testaments frequently contains things contrary to reason (see [greek: peri archôn] iv. 2. 8-27) in order to lead men to the spiritual interpretation, and as many passages contain no literal sense at all (l.c. § 12), so also, in the historical narratives, we frequently discover a mythical element from which consequently nothing but the idea is to be evolved (l.c. § 16 sq.: "non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum christi scripta sunt, hæc spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed ... eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ suæ arte contexuit. unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolates, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen.") in all such cases origen makes uniform use of the two points of view, that god wished to present something even to the simple and to incite the more advanced to spiritual investigations. in some passages, however, the former point of view fails, because the content of the text is offensive; in that case it is only the second that applies. origen therefore was very far from finding the literal content of scripture edifying in every instance, indeed, in the highest sense, the letter is not edifying at all. he rather adopted, to its widest extent, the critical method employed by the gnostics particularly when dealing with the old testament; but the distinction he made between the different senses of scripture and between the various legitimate human needs enabled him to preserve both the unity of god and the harmony of revelation. herein, both in this case and everywhere else, lies the superiority of his theology. read especially c. celsum i. 9-12. after appealing to the twofold religion among the egyptians, persians, syrians, and indians--the mythical religion of the multitude and the mystery-religion of the initiated--he lays down exactly the same distinction within christianity, and thus repels the reproach of celsus that the christians were obliged to accept everything without examination. with regard to the mythical form of christianity he merely claims that it is the most suitable among religions of this type. since, as a matter of fact, the great majority of men have neither time nor talent for philosophy, [greek: poia an allê beltiôn methodos pros to tois pollois boêthêsai heuretheiê, tês apo tou iêsou tois ethnesi paradotheisês] (l.c., 9). this thought is quite in the spirit of antiquity, and neither celsus nor porphyry could have any fault to find with these arguments in point of form: all positive religions have a mythical element; the true religion therefore lies behind the religions. but the novelty which neither celsus nor porphyry could recognise lies in the acknowledgment that the one religion, even in its mythical form, is unique and divine, and in the demand that all men, so far as they cannot attain the highest knowledge, must subject themselves to this mythical religion and no other. in this claim origen rejected the ancient contrast between the multitude and the initiated just as he repudiated polytheism; and in this, if i see rightly, his historical greatness consists. he everywhere recognised gradations tending in the same direction and rejected polytheism.] [footnote 700: bigg (l.c., p. 154) has rightly remarked: "origen in point of method differs most from clement, who not unfrequently leaves us in doubt as to the precise scriptural basis of his ideas."] [footnote 701: note, for example, § 8, where it is said that origen adopted the allegorical method from the stoic philosophers and applied it to the jewish writings. on origen's hermeneutic principles in their relation to those of philo see siegfried, l.c., pp. 351-62. origen has developed them fully and clearly in the 4th book of [greek: peri archôn].] [footnote 702: see overbeck, theologische literatur-zeitung, 1878, col. 535.] [footnote 703: a full presentation of origen's theology would require many hundreds of pages, because he introduced everything worth knowing into the sphere of theology, and associated with the holy scriptures, verse by verse, philosophical maxims, ethical reflexions, and results of physical science, which would require to be drawn on the widest canvas, because the standpoint selected by origen allowed the most extensive view and the most varied judgments. the case was similar with clement before him, and also with tertullian. this is a necessary result of "scripture theology" when one takes it up in earnest. tertullian assumes, for example, that there must be a christian doctrine of dreams. why? because we read of dreams in the holy scriptures.] [footnote 704: in c. cels. iii. 61 it is said (lommatzsch xviii., p. 337): [greek: epemphthê oun theos logos katho men iatros tois hamartôlois, katho de didaskalos theiôn mustêrion tois êdê katharois kai mêketi hamartanousin.] see also what follows. in comment. in john i. 20 sq. the crucified christ, as the christ of faith, is distinguished from the christ who takes up his abode in us, as the christ of the perfect. see 22 (lomm. i. p. 43): [greek: kai makarioi ge hosoi deomenoi tou huiou tou theou toioutoi gegonasin, hôs mêketi autou chrazein iatrou tous kakôs hechontas therapeuontos, mêde poimenos, mêde apolutrôseôs, alla sophias kai logou kai dikaiosunês, hê ei ti allo tois dia teleiotêta chôrein autou ta kallista dunamenois.] read also c. cels. ii. 66, 69: iv. 15, 18: vi. 68. these passages show that the crucified christ is no longer of any account to the gnostic, and that he therefore allegorises all the incidents described in the gospels. clement, too, really regards christ as of no importance to gnostics except as a teacher.] [footnote 705: comment, in joh. i. 9, lomm. i. p, 20. the "mysteries" of christ is the technical term for this theology and, at bottom, for all theology. for, in respect of the form given to it, revelation always appears as a problem that theology has to solve. what is revealed is therefore either to be taken as immediate authority (by the believer) or as a soluble problem. one thing, accordingly, it is not, namely, something in itself evident and intelligible.] [footnote 706: see nitzsch, dogmengeschichte, p. 136.] [footnote 707: to origen the problem of evil was one of the most important; see book iii. of [greek: peri archôn] and c. cels. vi. 53-59. he is convinced (1) that the world is not the work of a second, hostile god; (2) that virtues and the works arising from them are alone good in the proper sense of the word, and that nothing but the opposite of these is bad; (3) that evil in the proper sense of the word is only evil will (see c. cels. iv. 66: vi. 54). accordingly he makes a very decided distinction between that which is bad and evils. as for the latter he admits that they partly originate from god, in which case they are designed as means of training and punishment. but he saw that this conception is insufficient, both in view of individual passages of holy scripture and of natural experience. there are evils in the world that can be understood neither as the result of sin nor as means of training. here then his relative, rational view of things comes in, even with respect to the power of god. there are evils which are a necessary consequence of carrying out even the best intentions (c. cels. vi. 53: [greek: ta kaka ek parakolouthêseôs gegenêtai tês pros ta proêgoumena]): "evils, in the strict sense, are not created by god; yet some, though but few in comparison with the great, well-ordered whole of the world, have of necessity adhered to the objects realised; as the carpenter who executes the plan of a building does not manage without chips and similar rubbish, or as architects cannot be made responsible for the dirty heaps of broken stones and filth one sees at the sites of buildings;" (l.c., c. 55). celsus also might have written in this strain. the religious, absolute view is here replaced by a rational, and the world is therefore not the best absolutely, but the best possible. see the theodicy in [greek: peri archôn] iii. 17-22. (here, and also in other parts, origen's theodicy reminds us of that of leibnitz; see denis, l.c., p. 626 sq. the two great thinkers have a very great deal in common, because their philosophy was not of a radical kind, but an attempt to give a rational interpretation to tradition.) but "for the great mass it is sufficient when they are told that evil has not its origin in god" (iv. 66). the case is similar with that which is really bad. it is sufficient for the multitude to know that that which is bad springs from the freedom of the creature, and that matter which is inseparable from things mortal is not the source and cause of sin (iv. 66, see also iii, 42: [greek: to kuriôs miaron apo kakias toiouton esti. phusis de sômatos ou miara ou gar hê phusis sômatos esti, to gennêtikon tês miarotêtos echei tên kakian]); but a closer examination shows that there can be no man without sin (iii. 6l) because error is inseparable from growth and because the constitution of man in the flesh makes evil unavoidable (vii. 50). sinfulness is therefore natural and it is the necessary _prius_. this thought, which is also not foreign to irenæus, is developed by origen with the utmost clearness. he was not content with proving it, however, but in order to justify god's ways proceeded to the assumption of a fall before time began (see below).] [footnote 708: see mehlhorn, die lehre von der menschlichen freiheit nach origenes (zeitschrift fur kirchengeschichte, vol. ii., p. 234 ff.)] [footnote 709: the distinction between valentinus and origen consists in the fact that the former makes an æon or, in other words, a part of the divine _pleroma_, itself fall, and that he does not utilise the idea of freedom. the outline of origen's system cannot be made out with complete clearness from the work [greek: peri archôn], because he endeavoured to treat each of the first three parts as a whole. origen's four principles are god, the world, freedom, revelation (holy scripture). each principle, however, is brought into relation with christ. the first part treats of god and the spirits, and follows the history of the latter down to their restoration. the second part treats of the world and humanity, and likewise closes with the prospect of the resurrection, punishment in hell, and eternal life. here origen makes a magnificent attempt to give a conception of bliss and yet to exclude all sensuous joys. the third book treats of sin and redemption, that is, of freedom of will, temptation, the struggle with the powers of evil, internal struggles, the moral aim of the world, and the restoration of all things. a special book on christ is wanting, for christ is no "principle"; but the incarnation is treated of in ii. 6. the teachers of valentinus' school accordingly appear more christian when contrasted with origen. if we read the great work [greek: peri archôn], or the treatise against celsus, or the commentaries connectedly, we never cease to wonder how a mind so clear, so sure of the ultimate aim of all knowledge, and occupying such a high standpoint, has admitted in details all possible views down to the most naive myths, and how he on the one hand believes in holy magic, sacramental vehicles and the like, and on the other, in spite of all his rational and even empirical views, betrays no doubt of his abstract creations. but the problem that confronts us in origen is that presented by his age. this we realise on reading celsus or porphyry (see denis l.c., p. 613: "toutes les théories d'origène, même les plus imaginaires, représent l'état intellectuel et moral du siècle où il a paru"). moreover, origen is not a teacher who, like augustine, was in advance of his time, though he no doubt anticipated the course of ecclesiastical development. this age, as represented by its greatest men, sought to gain a substructure for something new, not by a critical examination of the old ideas, but by incorporating them all into one whole. people were anxious to have assurance, and, in the endeavour to find this, they were nervous about giving up any article of tradition. the boldness of origen, judged as a greek philosopher, lies in his rejection of all polytheistic religions. this made him all the more conservative in his endeavours to protect and incorporate everything else. this conservatism welded together ecclesiastical christianity and greek culture into a system of theology which was indeed completely heterodox.] [footnote 710: the proof from prophecy was reckoned by origen among the articles belonging to faith, but not to gnosis (see for ex. c. cels. ii. 37); but, like the apologists, he found it of great value. as far as the philosophers are concerned, origen always bore in mind the principle expressed in c. cels. vii. 46: [greek: pros tauta d'êmeis phêsomen hoi meletêsantes mêdeni apechthanesthai tôn kalôs legomenôn; kan hoi hexô tês pisteôs legôusi kalôs.] in that same place it is asserted that god in his love has not only revealed himself to such as entirely consecrate themselves to his service, but also to such as do not know the true adoration and reverence which he requires. but as remarked above, p. 338, origen's attitude to the greek philosophers is much more reserved than that of clement.] [footnote 711: see, for ex., c. cels. vi. 6, comment in johann. xiii. 59, lomm. ii., p. 9 sq.] [footnote 712: [greek: peri archôn] preface.] [footnote 713: on origen's exegetical method see kihn, theodor v. mopsu. p. 20 ff., bigg, l.c. p. 131 ff. on the distinction between his application of the allegorical method and that of clement see specially p. 134 f. of the latter work.] [footnote 714: origen noted several such passages in the very first chapter of genesis. examples are given in bigg, p. 137 f.] [footnote 715: bigg, l.c., has very appropriately named origen's allegorism "biblical alchemy".] [footnote 716: to ascertain the pneumatic sense, origen frequently drew analogies between the domain of the cosmic and that of the spiritual. he is thus a forerunner of modern idealistic philosophers, for example, drummond: "to origen allegorism is only one manifestation of the sacramental mystery of nature" (bigg, p. 134).] [footnote 717: see hom in luc. xxix., lomm. v., p. 193 sq.] [footnote 718: since origen does not, as a rule, dispute the literal meaning of the scriptures, he has also a much more favourable opinion of the jewish people and of the observance of the law than the earlier christian authors (but see iren. and tertull.). at bottom he places the observance of the law quite on the same level as the faith of the simple christians. the apostles also kept the law for a time, and it was only by degrees that they came to understand its spiritual meaning. they were also right to continue its observance during their mission among the jews. on the other hand, he considers the new testament a higher stage than the old both in its literal and its spiritual sense. see c. cels. ii. 1-4, 7, 75: iv. 31 sq: v. 10, 30, 31, 42 sq., 66: vii. 26.] [footnote 719: in opposition to the method for obtaining a knowledge of god, recommended by alcinous (c. 12), maximus tyr. (xvii. 8), and celsus (by analysis [apophat.], synthesis [kataphat.], and analogy), origen, c. cels. vii. 42, 44, appeals to the fact that the christian knows god better, namely, in his incarnate son. but he himself, nevertheless, also follows the synthetic method.] [footnote 720: in defining the superessential nature of the one, origen did not go so far as the basilidians (philosoph. vii. 20, 21) or as plotinus. no doubt he also regards the deity as [greek: epekeina tês ousias] (c. cels. vii. 42-51; [greek: peri archôn] i. 1; clement made a closer approach to the heretical abstractions of the gnostics inasmuch as he still more expressly renounced any designation of god; see strom. v. 12, 13), but he is not [greek: buthos] and [greek: sigê], being rather a self-comprehending spirit, and therefore does not require a hypostasis (the [greek: nous]) before he can come to himself. accordingly the human intellect is not incapable of soaring up to god as the later neoplatonists assert; at least vision is by no means so decidedly opposed to thought, that is, elevated above it as something new, as is held by the neoplatonists and philo before them. origen is no mystic. in accordance with this conception origen and clement say that the perfect knowledge of god can indeed be derived from the logos alone (c. cels vii. 48, 49: vi. 65-73; strom. v. 12. 85: vi. 15. 122), but that a relative knowledge may be deduced from creation (c. cels. vii. 46). hence they also spoke of an innate knowledge of god (protrept. vi. 68; strom. v. 13. 78), and extended the teleological proof of god furnished by philo ([greek: peri archôn] i. 1. 6; c. cels i. 23). the relatively correct predicates of god to be determined from revelation are his unity (c. cels i. 23), his absolute spirituality ([greek: pneuma asômatos, aulos, aschêmatistos])--this is maintained both in opposition to stoicism and anthropomorphism; see orig. [greek: peri archôn] i. 1, origen's polemic against melito's conception of god, and clem., strom. v. 11. 68: v. 12. 82,--his unbegottenness, his immortality (this is eternity conceived as enjoyment; the eternity of god itself, however, is to be conceived, according to clement, as that which is above time; see strom. ii. 2. 6), and his absolute causality. all these concepts together constitute the conception of perfection. see fischer, de orig. theologia et cosmologia, 1840.] [footnote 721: orig. [greek: peri archôn] ii. 1. 3.] [footnote 722: c. cels v. 23.] [footnote 723: l.c.] [footnote 724: [greek: peri archôn] ii. 9. 1: "certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. quod si fuerit utique nee contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit." in matth., t. 13., c. 1 fin., lomm. iii., p. 209 sq.] [footnote 725: see above, p. 343, note 2.] [footnote 726: see c. cels. ii. 20.] [footnote 727: clement also did so; see with respect to origen [greek: peri archôn] ii. 5, especially § 3 sq.] [footnote 728: see comment. in johann. i. 40, lomm. i. p. 77 sq. i cannot agree that this view is a _rapprochement_ to the marcionites (contrary to nitzsch's opinion, l.c., p. 285). the confused accounts in epiph., h. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be taken into account.] [footnote 729: clement's doctrine of the logos, to judge from the hypotyposes, was perhaps different from that of origen. according to photius (biblioth. 109) clement assumed two logoi (origen indeed was also reproached with the same; see pamphili apol., routh, reliq. s., iv., p. 367), and did not even allow the second and weaker one to make a real appearance on earth; but this is a misunderstanding (see zahn, forschungen iii., p. 144). [greek: legetai men]--these are said to have been the words of a passage in the hypotyposes--[greek: kai ho huios logos homônumôs tô patrikô logô, all' ouch outos estin ho sarx genomenos, oude men ho patrôos logos, alla dynamis tis tou theou, oion apporoia tou logou autou nous genomenos tas tôn anthrôpôn kardias diapephoitêke]. the distinction between an impersonal logos-god and the logos-christ necessarily appeared as soon as the logos was definitely hypostatised. in the so-called monarchian struggles of the 3rd century the disputants made use of these two logoi, who formed excellent material for sophistical discussions. in the strom. clement did not reject the distinction between a [greek: logos endiathetos] and [greek: prophorikos] (on strom. v. 1. 6. see zahn, l.c., p. 145 against nitzsch), and in many passages expresses himself in such a way that one can scarcely fail to notice a distinction between the logos of the father and that of the son. "the son-logos is an emanation of the reason of god, which unalterably remains in god and is the logos proper." if the adumbrationes are to be regarded as parts of the hypotyposes, clement used the expression [greek: homoousios] for the logos, or at least an identical one (see zahn, forschungen iii., pp. 87-138 f.). this is the more probable because clement, strom. 16. 74, expressly remarked that men are not [greek: meros theou kai tô theô homoousioi], and because he says in strom. iv. 13. 91: [greek: ei epi to katalusai thanaton aphikneitai to diapheron genos, ouch ho christos ton thanaton katêrgêsen, ei mê kai autos autois homoousios lechtheiê]. one must assume from this that the word was really familiar to clement as a designation of the community of nature, possessed by the logos, both with god and with men. see protrept. 10. 110: [greek: ho theios logos, ho phanerôtatos ontôs theos, ho tô despotê tôn holôn exisôtheis]). in strom. v. i. 1 clement emphatically declared that the son was equally eternal with the father: [greek: ou mên oude ho patêr aneu huiou hama gar tô patêr huiou patêr] (see also strom. iv. 7. 58: [greek: hen mên to agennêton ho pantokratôr, en de kai to progennêthen di' ou ta panta egeneto], and adumbrat. in zahn, l.c., p. 87, where 1 john i. 1 is explained: "principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. cum enim dicit 'quod erat ab initio' generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis." see besides the remarkable passage, quis dives salv. 37: [greek: theô ta tês agapês mystêria, kai tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou patros, hon ho monogenês huios theos monos exêgêsato esti de kai autos ho theos agapê kai di' agapên hêmin anekrathê kai to men arrêton autou patêr, to de hêmin sympathes gegone mêtêr agapêsas ho patêr ethêlunthê, kai toutou mega sêmeion, hon autos egennêsen ex autou kai ho techtheis ex agapês karpos agapê]. but that does not exclude the fact that he, like origen, named the son [greek: ktisma] (phot., l.c.). in the adumbrat. (p. 88) son and spirit are called "primitivæ virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam". that is exactly origen's doctrine, and zahn (l.c., p. 99) has rightly compared strom. v. 14. 89: vi. 7. 58; and epit. ex theod. 20. the son stands at the head of the series of created beings (strom. vii. 2. 5; see also below), but he is nevertheless specifically different from them by reason of his origin. it may be said in general that the fine distinctions of the logos doctrine in clement and origen are to be traced to the still more abstract conception of god found in the former. a sentence like strom. iv. 25. 156 ([greek: ho men oun theos anapodeiktos ôn ouk estin epistêmonikos, ho de huios sophia te esti kai epistêmê]) will hardly be found in origen i think. cf. schultz, gottheit christi, p. 45 ff.] [footnote 730: see schultz, l.c., p. 51 ff. and jahrbuch fur protestantische theologie i. pp. 193 ff. 369 ff.] [footnote 731: it is very remarkable that origen [greek: peri archôn] i. 2. 1 in his presentation of the logos doctrine, started with the person of christ, though he immediately abandoned this starting-point "primo illud nos oportere scire", so this chapter begins, "quod aliud est in christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei."] [footnote 732: [greek: peri archôn] i. 2. 2, 6.] [footnote 733: the expression was familiar to origen as to justin (see dial. c. tryph). see c. cels. v. 39: [greek: kai deuteron oun legômen theon istôsan, hoti ton deuteron theon ouk allo ti legomen, hê tên periektikên pasôn aretôn aretên kai ton periektikon pantos houtinosoun logou tôn kata physin kai proêgoumenôs gegenêmenôn.]] [footnote 734: [greek: peri archôn] i. 2. 13 has been much corrupted by rufinus. the passage must have been to the effect that the son is indeed [greek: agathos], but not, like the father, [greek: aparallaktôs agathos].] [footnote 735: selecta in psalm., lomm. xiii., p. 134; see also fragm. comm. in ep. ad hebr., lomm. v., p. 299 sq.] [footnote 736: l.c.: "sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoeæ esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. aporrhoea enim [greek: homoousios] videtur, id est, unius substantiæ cum illo corpore, ex quo est vel aporrhoea vel vapor." in opposition to heracleon origen argues (in joh. xiii. 25., lomm. ii., p. 43 sq.) that _we_ are not homousios with god: [greek: epistêsômen de, ei me sphodra estin asebes homoousios tê agennêtô physei kai pammakaria einai legein tous proskunountas en pneumati tô theô.] on the meaning of [greek: homoousios] see zahn, marcell., pp. 11-32. the conception decidedly excludes the possibility of the two subjects connected by it having a different essence; but it says nothing about how they came to have one essence and in what measure they possess it. on the other hand it abolishes the distinction of persons the moment the essence itself is identified with the one person. here then is found the unitarian danger, which could only be averted by assertions. in some of origen's teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. see hom. viii. in jerem. no. 2: [greek: to men hupokeimenon hen esti, tais de epinoiais ta polla onomata epi diaphorôn]. conversely, it is also nothing but an appearance when origen (for ex. in c. cels. viii. 12) merely traces the unity of father and son to unity in feeling and in will. the charge of ebionitism made against him is quite unfounded (see pamphili apol., routh iv. p. 367).] [footnote 737: [greek: ouk estin ote ouk ên], de princip. i. 2. 9; in rom. i. 5.] [footnote 738: [greek: peri archôn] i. 2. 2-9. comm. in ep. ad. hebr. lomm. v., p. 296: "nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando noa erat." see the comprehensive disquisition in [greek: peri archôn] iv. 28, where we find the sentence: "hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est" etc. see further in jerem. ix. 4, lomm. xv., p. 212: [greek: to apaugasma tês doxês ouchi hapax gegennêtai, kai ouchi gennatai ... kai aei gennatai ho sôtêr hupo tou patros]; see also other passages.] [footnote 739: see caspari, quellen, vol. iv., p. 10.] [footnote 740: in [greek: peri archôn] iv. 28 the _prolatio_ is expressly rejected (see also i. 2, 4) as well as the "conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium" and the "procreatio ex nullis substantibus."] [footnote 741: l.c. i. 2. 2]. [footnote 742: l.c. i. 2. 3]. [footnote 743: de orat. 15: [greek: eteros kat' ousian kai hupokeimenon ho huios esti tou patros]. this, however, is not meant to designate a deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the parsonal distinction.] [footnote 744: c. cels. viii. 12.: [greek: duo tê hypostasei pragmata]. this was frequently urged against the monarchians in origen's commentaries; see in joh. x. 21: ii. 6 etc. the son exists [greek: kat' idian tês ousias perigraphên]. not that origen has not yet the later terminology [greek: ousia, hypostasis, hypokeimenon, prosôpon]. we find three hypostases in joh. ii. 6. lomm. i., p. 109, and this is repeatedly the case in c. cels.] [footnote 745: in joh. i. 22, lomm. i., p. 41 sq.: [greek: ho theos men oun pantê hen esti kai aploun ho de sôtêr hêmôn dia ta polla]. the son is [greek: idea ideôn, systêma theôrêmatôn en autô](lomm. i., p. 127).] [footnote 746: see the remarks on the saying: "the father is greater than i," in joh. xiii. 25, lomm. ii., p. 45 sq. and other passages. here origen shows that he considers the homoousia of the son and the father just as relative as the unchangeability of the son.] [footnote 747: [greek: peri archôn] ii. 2. 6 has been corrupted by rufinus; see jerome ep. ad avitum.] [footnote 748: see [greek: peri archôn] i. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354, note 3).] [footnote 749: athanasius supplemented this by determining the essence of the logos from the redeeming work of christ.] [footnote 750: see [greek: peri archôn] præf. and in addition to this hermas' view of the spirit.] [footnote 751: [greek: peri archôn] i. 3. the holy spirit is eternal, is ever being breathed out, but is to be termed a creature. see also in job. ii. 6, lomm. i., p. 109 sq.: [greek: to hagion pneuma dia tou logou egeneto, presbuterou] (logically) [greek: par' auto tou logou tugchanontos]. yet origen is not so confident here as in his logos doctrine.] [footnote 752: see [greek: peri archôn] i. 3, 5-8. hence origen says the heathen had known the father and son, but not the holy spirit (de princip. i. 3: ii. 7).] [footnote 753: l.c. § 7.] [footnote 754: see hom. in num. xii. i, lomm. x, p. 127: "est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. sed horum puteorum unum est fons. una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis."] [footnote 755: [greek: peri archôn] præf.] [footnote 756: from hermas, justin, and athenagoras we learn how, in the 2nd century, both in the belief of uneducated lay-christians and of the apologists, son, spirit, logos, and angels under certain circumstances shaded off into one another. to clement, no doubt, logos and spirit are the only unchangeable beings besides god. but, inasmuch as there is a series which descends from god to men living in the flesh, there cannot fail to be elements of affinity between logos and spirit on the one hand and the highest angels on the other, all of whom indeed have the capacity and need of development. hence they have certain names and predicates in common, and it frequently remains uncertain, especially as regards the theophanies in the old testament, whether it was a high angel that spoke, or the son through the angel. see the full discussion in zahn, forschungen, iii., p. 98 f.] [footnote 757: [greek: peri archôn] i. 5.] [footnote 758: so also clement, see zahn, l.c.] [footnote 759: [greek: peri archôn] i. 5. 2.] [footnote 760: it was of course created before the world, as it determines the course of the world. see comm. in matth. xv. 27, lomm. iii., p. 384 sq.] [footnote 761: see comm. in joh. xiii. 25, lomm. ii, p. 45: we must not look on the human spirit as [greek: homoousios] with the divine one. the same had already been expressly taught by clement. see strom., ii. 16. 74: [greek: ho theos oudemian echei pros hêmas physikên schesin hôs hoi tôn haireseôn ktistai thelousin]. adumbr., p. 91 (ed. zahn). this does not exclude god and souls having _quodammodo_ one substance.] [footnote 762: such is the teaching of clement and origen. they repudiated the possession of any natural, essential goodness in the case of created spirits. if such lay in their essence, these spirits would be unchangeable.] [footnote 763: [greek: peri archôn] i. 2. 10: "quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est." (so the hermogenes against whom tertullian wrote had already argued). "nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est." god would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a [greek: prokopê], and thus be proved to be a finite being. iii. 5. 3.] [footnote 764: [greek: peri archôn] i. 8.] [footnote 765: here, however, origen is already thinking of the temporary wrong development that is of growth. see [greek: peri archôn] i. 7. created spirits are also of themselves immaterial, though indeed not in the sense that this can be said of god who can never attach anything material to himself.] [footnote 766: angels, ideas (see phot. biblioth. 109), and human souls are most closely connected together, both according to the theory of clement and origen and also to that of pantænus before them (see clem. eclog. 56, 57); and so it was taught that men become angels (clem. strom. vi. 13. 107). but the stars also, which are treated in great detail in [greek: peri archôn] i. 7, belong to the number of the angels. this is a genuinely greek idea. the doctrine of the preëxistence of human souls was probably set forth by clement in the hypotyposes. the theory of the transmigration of souls was probably found there also (phot. biblioth. 109). in the adumbrat., which has been preserved to us, the former doctrine is, however, contested and is not found in the stromateis vi. 16. i. sq.] [footnote 767: phot. biblioth. 109: [greek: klêmês pollous pro tou adam kosmous terateuetai]. this cannot be verified from the strom. orig., [greek: peri archôn] ii. 3.] [footnote 768: [greek: peri archôn] i. 5 and the whole 3rd book. the fall is something that happened before time began.] [footnote 769: the assumption of uncreated matter was decidedly rejected by origen ([greek: peri archôn] ii. 1, 2). on the other hand clement is said to have taught it in the hypotyposes (phot., l.c.: [greek: hulên archronon doxazei]); this cannot be noticed in the strom.; in fact in vi. 16. 147 he vigorously contested the view of the uncreatedness of the world. he emphasised the agreement between plato and moses in the doctrine of creation (strom. ii. 16. 74 has nothing to do with this). according to origen, matter has no qualities and may assume the most diverse peculiarities (see, e.g., c. cels. iii. 41).] [footnote 770: this conception has given occasion to compare origen's system with buddhism. bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said: "creation, as the word is commonly understood, was in origen's views not the beginning, but an intermediate phase in human history. æons rolled away before this world was made; æons upon æons, days, weeks, months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of æons will run their course, before the end is attained. the one fixed point in this gigantic drama is the end, for this alone has been clearly revealed," "god shall be all in all." bigg also rightly points out that rom. viii. and 1 cor. xv. were for origen the key to the solution of the problems presented by creation.] [footnote 771: the popular idea of demons and angels was employed by origen in the most comprehensive way, and dominates his whole view of the present course of the world. see [greek: peri archôn] iii. 2. and numerous passages in the commentaries and homilies, in which he approves the kindred views of the greeks as well as of hermas and barnabas. the spirits ascend and descend; each man has his guardian spirit, and the superior spirits support the inferior ([greek: peri archôn] i. 6). accordingly they are also to be reverenced ([greek: therapeuesthai]); yet such reverence as belongs to a gabriel, a michael, etc., is far different from the adoration of god (c. cels. viii. 13).] [footnote 772: clement wrote a special work [greek: peri pronoias] (see zahn, forschungen iii., p. 39 ff.), and treated at length of [greek: pronoia] in the strom.; see orig. [greek: peri archôn] iii. 1; de orat. 6 etc. evil is also subject to divine guidance; see clem., strom. i. 17. 81-87: iv. 12. 86 sq. orig. hom. in num. xiv., lomm. x., p. 163: "nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria." here and there, however, origen has qualified the belief in providence, after the genuine fashion of antiquity (see c. gels. iv. 74).] [footnote 773: [greek: peri archôn] ii. 9. 2: "recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. ceterum namque est, malum esse bono canere. ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret." in the passage in johann. ii. 7, lomm. i., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned exposition of evil as [greek: anupostaton] and an argument to the effect that [greek: ta ponêra] are--[greek: mê onta].] [footnote 774: [greek: peri archôn] i. 5. 3: iii. 6. the devil is the chief of the apostate angels (c. cels. iv. 65). as a reasonable being he is a creature of god (l.c., and in joh. ii. 7, lomm., l.c.).] [footnote 775: origen defended the teleology culminating in man against celsus' attacks on it; but his assumption that the spirits of men are only a part of the universal spirit world is, as a matter of fact, quite akin to celsus' view. if we consider the plan of the work [greek: peri archôn] we easily see that to origen humanity was merely an element in the cosmos.] [footnote 776: the doctrine of man's threefold constitution is also found in clement. see pædag. iii. 1. 1; strom v. 14. 94: vi. 16. 134. (quite in the manner of plato). origen, who has given evidence of it in all his main writings, sometimes calls the rational part spirit, sometimes [greek: psychê logikê], and at other times distinguishes two parts in the one soul. of course he also professes to derive his psychology from the holy scriptures. the chief peculiarity of his speculation consists in his assumption that the human spirit, as a fallen one, became as it were a soul, and can develop from that condition partly into a spirit as before and partly into the flesh (see [greek: peri archôn] iii. 4. 1 sq.: ii. 8. 1-5). by his doctrine of the preëxistence of souls origen excluded both the creation and traducian hypotheses of the origin of the soul.] [footnote 777: clement (see strom. ii. 22. 131) gives the following as the opinion of some christian teachers: [greek: to men kat' eikona eutheôs kata tên genesin eilêphenai ton anthrôpon, to kath' homoiôsin de usteron kata tên peleiôsin mellein apolambanein]. orig. c. cels. iv. 30: [greek: epoiête d'o theos ton anthrôpon kat' eikona theos, all' ouchi kath' homoiôsin êdê].] [footnote 778: this follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently emphasised. one must attain the [greek: sôphorsynê].] [footnote 779: this is emphasised throughout. the goodness of god is shown first in his having given the creature reason and freedom, and secondly in acts of assistance, which, however, do not endanger freedom. clem.; strom. vi. 12, 96: [greek: hêmas ex hêmôn autôn bouletai sôzesthai].] [footnote 780: see above, p. 344, and p. 361, note 5. origen continually emphasised the universality of sin in the strongest expressions: c. cels. iii. 61-66: vii. 50; clem., pæd. iii. 12. 93: [greek: to examartanein pasin emphyton].] [footnote 781: see clem., strom. vii. 16. 101: [greek: myriôn goun ontôn kat' arithmon ha prassousin anthrôpoi schedon duo eisin archai pasês hamartias, agnoia kai astheneia, amphô de eph' hêmin, tôn mête ethelontôn manthanein mête au tês epithymias kratein]. two remedies correspond to this (102): [greek: hê gnôsis te kai hê tês ek tôn graphôn martyrias enargês apodeixis] and [greek: hê kata logon askêsis ek pisteôs te kai phobou paidagôgoumenê], or otherwise expressed: [greek: hê theôria hê epistêmonikê] and [greek: hê praxis] which lead to perfect love.] [footnote 782: freedom is not prejudiced by the idea of election that is found here and there, for this idea is not worked out. in clem., strom. vi. 9. 76, it is said of the friend of god, the true gnostic, that god has destined ([greek: proôrisen]) him to sonship before the foundation of the world. see vii. 17. 107.] [footnote 783: c. cels. iii. 69.] [footnote 784: it is both true that men have the same freedom as adam and that they have the same evil instincts. moreover, origen conceived the story of adam symbolically. see c. cels. iv. 40; [greek: peri archôn] iv. 16; in levit. hom. vi. 2. in his later writings, after he had met with the practice of child baptism in cæsarea and prevailed on himself to regard it as apostolic, he also assumed the existence of a sort of hereditary sin originating with adam, and added it to his idea of the preëxisting fall. like augustine after him, he also supposed that there was an inherent pollution in sexual union; see in rom. v. 9: vii. 4; in lev. hom. viii. 3; in num. hom. 2 (bigg, p. 202 f.).] [footnote 785: nevertheless origen assumes that some souls are invested with flesh, not for their own sins, but in order to be of use to others. see in joh. xiii. 43 ad fin; ii. 24, 25; in matth. xii. 30.] [footnote 786: origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace.] [footnote 787: see on this point bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. origen is the father of joachim and all spiritualists.] [footnote 788: see knittel, orig. lehre von der menschwerdung (tübinger theologische quartalschrift, 1872). ramers, orig. lehre von der auferstehung des fleisches, 1851. schultz, gottheit christi, pp. 51-62.] [footnote 789: with regard to this point we find the same explanation in origen as in irenæus and tertullian, and also among the valentinians, in so far as the latter describe the redemption necessary for the psychici. only, in this instance also, everything is more copious in his case, because he availed himself of the holy scriptures still more than these did, and because he left out no popular conception that seemed to have any moral value. accordingly he propounded views as to the value of salvation and as to the significance of christ's death on the cross, with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. he was, as bigg (p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first church theologian after paul's time that gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. we may mention here the most important of his views. (1) the death on the cross along with the resurrection is to be considered as a real, recognisable victory over the demons, inasmuch as christ (col. ii. 14) exposed the weakness of his enemies (a very frequent aspect of the matter). (2) the death on the cross is to be considered as an expiation offered to god. here origen argued that all sins require expiation, and, conversely, that all innocent blood has a greater or less importance according to the value of him who gives up his life. (3) in accordance with this the death of christ has also a vicarious signification (see with regard to both these conceptions the treatise exhort, ad martyr., as well as c. cels. vii. 17: i. 31; in rom. t. iii. 7, 8, lomm. vi., pp. 196-216 etc.). (4) the death of christ is to be considered as a ransom paid to the devil. this view must have been widely diffused in origen's time; it readily suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by marcionite theses. it was also accepted by origen who united it with the notion of a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the basilidians. by his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. this right cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. god offers the devil christ's soul in exchange for the souls of men. this proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, as god knew that the devil could not keep hold of christ's soul, because a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. the devil agreed to the bargain and was duped. christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but overcame both. this theory, which origen propounded in somewhat different fashion in different places (see exhort ad martyr. 12; in matth. t. xvi. 8, lomm. iv., p. 27; t. xii. 28, lomm. iii., p. 175; t. xiii. 8, 9, lomm. iii., pp. 224-229; in rom. ii. 13, lomm. vi., p. 139 sq. etc.), shows in a specially clear way the conservative method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea. no doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain origen was as to the applicability of popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the psychici. we must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity towards our enemies. (5) christ, the god who became flesh, is to be considered as high priest and mediator between god and man (see de orat. 10, 15). all the above-mentioned conceptions of christ's work were, moreover, worked out by origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences from them. in this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought as irenæus. finally, let us remember that origen adhered as strongly as ever to the proof from prophecy, and that he also, in not a few instances, regarded the phrase, "it is written", as a sufficient court of appeal (see, for example, c. cels. ii. 37). yet, on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing things which considerably weakens the significance of miracles and prophecies. in general it must be said that origen helped to drag into the church a great many ancient (heathen) ideas about expiation and redemption, inasmuch as he everywhere found some bible passage or other with which he associated them. while he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared: [greek: eusebesteroi esmen kai theon kai ta agalmata sebontes] (clemens rom., hom. xi. 12), he had for all that a principal share in introducing the apparatus of polytheism into the church (see also the way in which he strengthened angel and hero worship).] [footnote 790: see above, p. 342. note 1, on the idea that christ, the crucified one, is of no importance to the perfect. only the teacher is of account in this case. to clement and origen, however, teacher and mystagogue are as closely connected as they are to most gnostics. christianity is [greek: mathêsis] and [greek: mystagôgia] and it is the one because it is the other. but in all stages christianity has ultimately the same object, namely, to effect a reconciliation with god, and deify man. see c. cels. iii. 28: [greek: alla gar kai tên katabasan eis anthrôpinên physin kai eis anthrôpinas peristaseis dynamin, kai analabousan psychên kai sôma anthrôpinon, heôrôn ek tou pisteuesthai meta tôn theioterôn symballomenên eis sôtêrian tois pisteuousin orôsin, ap' ekeinou êrxato theia kai anthrôpinê sunuphainesthai physis en ê anthrôpinê tê pros to theioteron koinônia genêtai theia ouk en monô tô iêsou, alla kai pasi tois meta too pisteuein analambanousi bion, hon iêsous edidaxena].] [footnote 791: from this also we can very clearly understand origen's aversion to the early christian eschatology. in his view the demons are already overcome by the work of christ. we need only point out that this conception must have exercised a most important influence on his frame of mind and on politics.] [footnote 792: clement still advocated docetic views without reservation. photius (biblioth. 109) reproached him with these ([greek: mê sarkôthênai ton logon alla doxai]), and they may be proved from the adumbrat, p. 87 (ed zahn): "fertur in traditionibus--namely, in the acta of lucius--quoniam iohannes ipsum corpus (christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli," and likewise from strom. vi. 9. 71 and iii. 7. 59. clement's repudiation of the docetists in vii. 17. 108 does not affect the case, and the fact that he here and there plainly called jesus a man, and spoke of his flesh (pæd. ii. 2. 32: protrept. x. 110) matters just as little. this teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised docetism which only admitted the apparent reality of christ's body. clement expressly declared that jesus knew neither pain, nor sorrow, nor emotions, and only took food in order to refute the docetists (strom. vi. 9. 71). as compared with this, docetism in origen's case appears throughout in a weakened form; see bigg, p. 191.] [footnote 793: see the full exposition in thomasius, origenes, p. 203 ff. the principal passages referring to the soul of jesus are de princip. ii. 6: iv. 31; c. cels. ii. 9. 20-25. socrates (h. e. iii. 7) says that the conviction as to jesus having a human soul was founded on a [greek: mysticê paradosis] of the church, and was not first broached by origen. the special problem of conceiving christ as a real [greek: theanthrôpos] in contradistinction to all the men who only possess the presence of the logos within them in proportion to their merits, was precisely formulated by origen on many occasions. see [greek: peri archôn] iv. 29 sq. the full divine nature existed in christ and yet, as before, the logos operated wherever he wished (l.c., 30): "non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio." on the perfect ethical union of jesus' soul with the logos see [greek: peri archôn] ii. 6. 3: "anima iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus;" ii. 6. 5: "anima christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam." the sinlessness of this soul thus became transformed from a fact into a necessity, and the real god-man arose, in whom divinity and humanity are no longer separated. the latter lies in the former as iron in the fire ii. 6. 6. as the metal _capax est frigoris et caloris_ so the soul is capable of deification. "omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est," "nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest" (l.c.). "dilectionis merito anima christi cum verbo dei christus efficitur." (ii. 6. 4). [greek: tis mallon tês iêsou psychês ê kan paraplêsiôs kekollêtai tô kyriô; hoper ei houtôs echei ouk eisi duo hê psychê tou iêsou pros ton pasês ktiseôs prôtotokon theon logon] (c. cels. vi. 47). the metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in [greek: peri archôn] ii. 6. 2: "substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante--non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere--nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique contra naturam non erat corpus assumere. sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum." even during his historical life the body of christ was ever more and more glorified, acquired therefore wonderful powers, and appeared differently to men according to their several capacities (that is a valentinian idea, see exc. ex theod. 7); cf. c. cels. i. 32-38: ii. 23, 64: iv. 15 sq.: v. 8, 9, 23. all this is summarised in iii. 41: "[greek: on men nomizomen kai pepeismetha archêthen einai theon kai huion theou, outos ho autologos esti kai hê autosophia kai hê autoalêtheia to de thnêton autou sôma kai tên anthrôpinên en autô psychên tê pros ekeinon ou monon koinônia, alla kai henôsei kai anakrasei, ta megista phamen proseilêphenai kai tês ekeinou thetêtos kekoinônêkota eis theon metabebêkenai]." origen then continues and appeals to the philosophical doctrine that matter has no qualities and can assume all the qualities which the creator wishes to give it. then follows the conclusion: [greek: ei hugiê ta toiauta, ti thaumaston, tên poiotêta tou thnêtou kata ton iêsoun sômatos pronoia theou boulêthentos metabalein eis aitherion kai theian poiotêta]; the man is now the same as the logos. see in joh. xxxii. 17, lomm. ii., p. 461 sq.; hom. in jerem. xv. 6, lomm. xv., p. 288: [greek: ei kai ên anthrôpos, alla nun oudamôs estin anthrôpos].] [footnote 794: in c. cels. iii. 28, origen spoke of an intermingling of the divine and human natures, commencing in christ (see page 368, note 1). see i. 66 fin.; iv. 15, where any [greek: allattesthai kai metaplattesthai] of the logos is decidedly rejected; for the logos does not suffer at all. in origen's case we may speak of a _communicatio idiomatum_ (see bigg, p. 190 f.).] [footnote 795: in opposition to redepenning.] [footnote 796: this idea is found in many passages, especial in book iii, c. 22-43, where origen, in opposition to the fables about deification, sought to prove that christ is divine because he realised the aim of founding a holy community in humanity. see, besides, the remarkable statement in iii. 38 init.] [footnote 797: a very remarkable distinction between the divine and human element in christ is found in clement pæd. i. 3. 7: [greek: panta oninêsin ho kurios kai panta ôphelei kai hôs anthrôpos kai hôs theos, ta men hamartêmata hôs theos aphieis, eis de to mê examartanein paidagôgôn hôs anthrôpos].] [footnote 798: "fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum" is the fundamental idea of clement and origen (as of justin); "voluntas humana præcedit". in ezech. hom. i. c. ii: "in tua potestate positum est, ut sis palea vel frumentum". but all growth in faith must depend on divine help. see orig. in matth. series 69, lomm. iv., p. 372: "fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet"; in rom. iv. 5, lomm. vi., p. 258 sq.; in rom. ix. 3, lomm vii., p. 300 sq. the fundamental idea remains: [greek: ho theos hêmas ex hêmôn autôn bouletai sôzesthai.]] [footnote 799: this is frequent in clement; see orig. c. cels. vii. 46.] [footnote 800: see clem, strom. v. i. 7: [greek: chariti sôzometha, ouk aneu mentoi tôn kalôn ergôn.]. vii. 7. 48: v. 12. 82, 13. 83: [greek: eite to en hêmin autexousiou eis gnôsin aphikomenon tagathou skirta te kai pêda huper ta eskammena, plên ou charitos aneu tês exairetou pteroutai te kai anistatai kai anô tôn huperkeimenôn airetai hê psychê]; the amalgamation of freedom and grace. quis cliv. salv. 21. orig. [greek: peri archôn.] iii. 2. 2: in bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque peracitur. iii. 2. 5, i. 18; selecta in ps. 4, lomm. xi., p. 450: [greek: to tou logikou agathon mikton estin ek te tês proaireseôs autou kai tês sumpneousês theias dunameôs tô ta allista proelomenô]. the support of grace is invariably conceived as enlightenment; but this enlightenment enables it to act on the whole life. for a more detailed account see landerer in the jahrbucher fur deutsche theologie, vol. ii, part 3, p. 500 ff., and worter, _die christliche lehre von gnade und freiheit bis auf augustin_, 1860.] [footnote 801: this goal was much more clearly described by clement than by origen; but it was the latter who, in his commentary on the song of solomon, gave currency to the image of the soul as the bride of the logos. bigg (p. 188 f.): "origen, the first pioneer in so many fields of christian thought, the father in one of his many aspects of the english latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of bernard, the victorines, and the author of the 'de imitatione,' of tauler and molinos and madame de guyon."] [footnote 802: see thomasius, dogmengeschichte i., p. 467.] [footnote 803: see e.g., clem. quis dives salv. 37 and especially pædag. i. 6. 25-32; orig. de orat. 22 sq.--the interpretation of the lord's prayer. this exegesis begins with the words: "it would be worth while to examine more carefully whether the so-called old testament anywhere contains a prayer in which god is called father by anyone; for till now we have found none in spite of all our seeking ... constant and unchangeable sonship is first given in the new covenant."] [footnote 804: see above, p. 339 f.] [footnote 805: see [greek: peri archôn] ii. 11.] [footnote 806: see [greek: peri archôn] ii. 10. 1-3. origen wrote a treatise on the resurrection, which, however, has not come down to us, because it was very soon accounted heretical. we see from c. cels v. 14-24 the difficulties he felt about the church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh.] [footnote 807: see eusebius, h. e. vi. 37.] [footnote 808: orig., hom. ii. in reg. i., lomm. xi., p. 317 sq.] [footnote 809: c. cels. v. 15: vi. 26; in lc. hom. xiv., lomm. v., p. 136: "ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante". clem., strom. vii. 6. 34: [greek: phamen d' êmeis agiazein to pur, ou ta krea, alla tas amartôlous psychas, pur ou to pamphagon kai banauson, alla to phronimon legontes] (cf. heraclitus and the stoa), [greek: to duknoumenon dia psychêa tês dierchomenês to pur]. for origen cf. bigg, p. 229 ff. there is another and intermediate stage between the punishments in hell and _regnum dei_.] [footnote 810: see [greek: peri archôn] ii. 10. 4-7; c. cels. l.c.] [footnote 811: see [greek: peri archôn] i. 6. 1-4: iii. 6. 1-8; c. cels. vi. 26.] [footnote 812: on the seven heavens in clem. see strom. v. ii. 77 and other passages. origen does not mention them, so far as i know.] [footnote 813: c. cels. l.c.] [footnote 814: we would be more justified in trying this with clement.] [footnote 815: see bornemann, in investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio habenda sit origenis. gottingæ 1885.]